Patient preferences and treatment safety for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis in primary health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vaginitis is a common complaint in primary care. In uncomplicated candidal vaginitis, there are no differences in effectiveness between oral or vaginal treatment. Some studies describe that the preferred treatment is the oral one, but a Cochrane's review points out inconsistencies associated with the report of the preferred way that limit the use of such data. Risk factors associated with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis still remain controversial.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This work describes a protocol of a multicentric prospective observational study with one year follow up, to describe the women's reasons and preferences to choose the way of administration (oral vs topical) in the treatment of not complicated candidal vaginitis. The number of women required is 765, they are chosen by consecutive sampling. All of whom are aged 16 and over with vaginal discharge and/or vaginal pruritus, diagnosed with not complicated vulvovaginitis in Primary Care in Madrid.</p> <p>The main outcome variable is the preferences of the patients in treatment choice; secondary outcome variables are time to symptoms relief and adverse reactions and the frequency of recurrent vulvovaginitis and the risk factors. In the statistical analysis, for the main objective will be descriptive for each of the variables, bivariant analysis and multivariate analysis (logistic regression).. The dependent variable being the type of treatment chosen (oral or topical) and the independent, the variables that after bivariant analysis, have been associated to the treatment preference.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Clinical decisions, recommendations, and practice guidelines must not only attend to the best available evidence, but also to the values and preferences of the informed patient.</p

Role of age and comorbidities in mortality of patients with infective endocarditis

[Purpose]: The aim of this study was to analyse the characteristics of patients with IE in three groups of age and to assess the ability of age and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to predict mortality. [Methods]: Prospective cohort study of all patients with IE included in the GAMES Spanish database between 2008 and 2015.Patients were stratified into three age groups:<65 years,65 to 80 years,and ≥ 80 years.The area under the receiver-operating characteristic (AUROC) curve was calculated to quantify the diagnostic accuracy of the CCI to predict mortality risk. [Results]: A total of 3120 patients with IE (1327 < 65 years;1291 65-80 years;502 ≥ 80 years) were enrolled.Fever and heart failure were the most common presentations of IE, with no differences among age groups.Patients ≥80 years who underwent surgery were significantly lower compared with other age groups (14.3%,65 years; 20.5%,65-79 years; 31.3%,≥80 years). In-hospital mortality was lower in the <65-year group (20.3%,<65 years;30.1%,65-79 years;34.7%,≥80 years;p < 0.001) as well as 1-year mortality (3.2%, <65 years; 5.5%, 65-80 years;7.6%,≥80 years; p = 0.003).Independent predictors of mortality were age ≥ 80 years (hazard ratio [HR]:2.78;95% confidence interval [CI]:2.32–3.34), CCI ≥ 3 (HR:1.62; 95% CI:1.39–1.88),and non-performed surgery (HR:1.64;95% CI:11.16–1.58).When the three age groups were compared,the AUROC curve for CCI was significantly larger for patients aged <65 years(p < 0.001) for both in-hospital and 1-year mortality. [Conclusion]: There were no differences in the clinical presentation of IE between the groups. Age ≥ 80 years, high comorbidity (measured by CCI),and non-performance of surgery were independent predictors of mortality in patients with IE.CCI could help to identify those patients with IE and surgical indication who present a lower risk of in-hospital and 1-year mortality after surgery, especially in the <65-year group

Impact of lower limb osteoarthritis on health-related quality of life: A cross-sectional study to estimate the expressed loss of utility in the Spanish population.

OBJECTIVE:Osteoarthritis of the lower limb (OALL) worsens health-related quality of life (HRQL), but this impact has not been quantified with standardized measures. We intend to evaluate the impact of OALL on HRQL through measures based on individual preferences in comparison to the general population. METHODS:A cross-sectional study was designed. A total of 6234 subjects aged 50 years or older without OALL were selected from the Spanish general population (National Health Survey 2011-12). An opportunistic sample of patients aged 50 years or older diagnosed with hip (n = 331) or knee osteoarthritis (n = 393), using the American Rheumatism Association criteria, was recruited from six hospitals and 21 primary care centers in Vizcaya, Madrid and Tenerife between January and December 2015. HRQL was measured with the EQ-5D-5L, and the results were transformed into utility scores. Sociodemographic variables (age, sex, social group, cohabitation), number of chronic diseases, and body mass index were considered. The clinical stage of OALL was collected using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the Oxford hip score and Oxford knee score. Generalized linear models were constructed using the utility index as the dependent variable. RESULTS:HRQL expressed by OALL patients was significantly worse than this of the general population. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, the mean utility loss was -0.347 (95% CI: -0.390, -0.303) for osteoarthritis of the hip and -0.295 (95% CI: -0.336, -0.255) for osteoarthritis of the knee. OALL patients who were treated at a hospital had an additional utility loss of -0.112 (95% CI: -0.158, -0.065). CONCLUSION:OALL has a great impact on HRQL. People with OALL perceive a utility loss of approximately 0.3 points compared to the general population without osteoarthritis, which is very high in relation to the utility loss reported for other chronic diseases and for arthritis in general

Additional file 1: of Validation of the Spanish version of the Oxford knee score and assessment of its utility to characterize quality of life of patients suffering from knee osteoarthritis: a multicentric study

Spanish-adapted version of the Oxford Knee Score - Spanish (Spain). (DOCX 23 kb

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective