Utilidad de una estrategia de cribado de hipertensión ocular y glaucoma en atención primaria

ObjetivosEvaluar la utilidad de una estrategia de cribado de glaucoma e hipertensión ocular (HTO) medida como número de casos detectados. Evaluar la aceptabilidad de la toma de presión intraocular (PIO) y la aparición de efectos secundarios.DiseñoEstudio descriptivo transversal.EmplazamientoCentro de salud urbano y consulta de oftalmología del hospital de referencia.ParticipantesEn total, 2.044 pacientes mayores de 40 años, seleccionados por muestreo consecutivo entre los que consultaron en el centro de salud durante 9 meses. Se excluyeron los sujetos diagnosticados de glaucoma, HTO, conjuntivitis o enfermedad corneal.IntervencionesToma de PIO con Tonopen XL en atención primaria. Se remitió a oftalmología a los sujetos con una PIO≥21 mmHg. En éstos se midió la PIO con la prueba de Goldmann y, en los que se confirmó la HTO, se realizaron una oftalmoscopia y una campimetría.Mediciones principalesPorcentaje de sujetos con glaucoma, sospecha de glaucoma e HTO confirmada en oftalmología. Valor predictivo positivo (VPP) para HTO.ResultadosSe detectaron 100 sujetos con HTO (4,89%; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%, 3,93-5,85%), de los que 21 fueron diagnosticados de glaucoma (1,04%; IC del 95%, 0,57-1,49%) y 10 de sospecha de glaucoma (0,49%; IC del 95%, 0,16-0,82). El VPP para HTO fue del 44,27%. La aceptabilidad de la prueba fue del 98,09%. Ningún paciente presentó efectos secundarios tras la toma de la PIO.ConclusionesLa estrategia evaluada es útil en cuanto al porcentaje de sujetos con glaucoma e HTO detectados. La aceptabilidad de la toma de la PIO con Tonopen XL es alta.ObjectivesTo evaluate the usefulness of a glaucoma and intraocular hypertension screening strategy for new cases detected. To evaluate the acceptability of taking intraocular pressure (IOP) and the appearance of side effects.DesignCross-sectional, descriptive study.SettingAn urban health centre and the ophthalmology clinic of its main hospital.ParticipantsA total of 2044 patients aged over 40, 63.5% women and 36.5% men, with a mean age of 61.23 (SD, 11.42). They were selected by consecutive sampling from patients who visited the health centre over a 9-month period. Subjects diagnosed with glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OH), conjunctivitis, or corneal pathology were excluded.InterventionsTaking of IOP with Tonopen XL in primary care. Subjects with IOP ≥21 mm Hg were referred to ophthalmology. In these patients, IOP was measured with Goldmann, and patients with confirmed OH received ophthalmoscopy and campimetry.Main measurementsPercentage of subjects with glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, and OH confirmed in ophthalmology. Positive predictive value (PPV) for OH.ResultsOne hundred subjects with OH were detected (4.89%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.85%), of whom 21 were diagnosed with glaucoma (1.04%; 95% CI, 0.57-1.49) and 10 with suspected glaucoma (0.49%; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82). The PPV for OH was 44.27%. The acceptability of the test was 98.09%. No patients presented with side-effects following the taking of their IOP.ConclusionsThe strategy evaluated is useful in terms of the number of subjects with glaucoma and OH detected. The acceptability of taking IOP with Tonopen XL was high

Oral versus intramuscular administration of vitamin B12 for vitamin B12 deficiency in primary care : a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority clinical trial (OB12)

The trial was financed by Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo Español through their call for independent clinical research, Orden Ministerial SAS/2377, 2010 (EC10-115, EC10-116, EC10-117, EC10-119, EC10-122); CAIBER—Spanish Clinical Research Network, Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII) (CAI08/010044); and Gerencia Asistencial de Atención Primaria de Madrid. This study is also supported by the Spanish Clinical Research Network (SCReN), funded by ISCIII-Subdirección General de Evaluación y Fomento de la Investigación, project number PT13/0002/0007, within the National Research Program I+D+I 2013-2016 and co-funded with European Union ERDF funds (European Regional Development Fund). This project received a grant for the translation and publication of this article from the Foundation for Biomedical Research and Innovation in Primary Care (FIIBAP) Call 2017 for grants to promote research programs.Objectives To compare the effectiveness of oral versus intramuscular (IM) vitamin B12 (VB12) in patients aged ≥65 years with VB12 deficiency. Design Pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority, multicentre trial in 22 primary healthcare centres in Madrid (Spain). Participants 283 patients ≥65 years with VB12 deficiency were randomly assigned to oral (n=140) or IM (n=143) treatment arm. Interventions The IM arm received 1 mg VB12 on alternate days in weeks 1–2, 1 mg/week in weeks 3–8 and 1 mg/month in weeks 9–52. The oral arm received 1 mg/day in weeks 1–8 and 1 mg/week in weeks 9–52. Main outcomes Serum VB12 concentration normalisation (≥211 pg/mL) at 8, 26 and 52 weeks. Non-inferiority would be declared if the difference between arms is 10% or less. Secondary outcomes included symptoms, adverse events, adherence to treatment, quality of life, patient preferences and satisfaction. Results The follow-up period (52 weeks) was completed by 229 patients (80.9%). At week 8, the percentage of patients in each arm who achieved normal B12 levels was well above 90%; the differences in this percentage between the oral and IM arm were −0.7% (133 out of 135 vs 129 out of 130; 95% CI: −3.2 to 1.8; p>0.999) by per-protocol (PPT) analysis and 4.8% (133 out of 140 vs 129 out of 143; 95% CI: −1.3 to 10.9; p=0.124) by intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis. At week 52, the percentage of patients who achieved normal B12 levels was 73.6% in the oral arm and 80.4% in the IM arm; these differences were −6.3% (103 out of 112 vs 115 out of 117; 95% CI: −11.9 to −0.1; p=0.025) and −6.8% (103 out of 140 vs 115 out of 143; 95% CI: −16.6 to 2.9; p=0.171), respectively. Factors affecting the success rate at week 52 were age, OR=0.95 (95% CI: 0.91 to 0.99) and having reached VB12 levels ≥281 pg/mL at week 8, OR=8.1 (95% CI: 2.4 to 27.3). Under a Bayesian framework, non-inferiority probabilities (Δ>−10%) at week 52 were 0.036 (PPT) and 0.060 (ITT). Quality of life and adverse effects were comparable across groups. 83.4% of patients preferred the oral route. Conclusions Oral administration was no less effective than IM administration at 8 weeks. Although differences were found between administration routes at week 52, the probability that the differences were below the non-inferiority threshold was very low.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

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

Effectiveness of a cognitive behavioral intervention in patients with medically unexplained symptoms: cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Medically unexplained symptoms are an important mental health problem in primary care and generate a high cost in health services.Cognitive behavioral therapy and psychodynamic therapy have proven effective in these patients. However, there are few studies on the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions by primary health care. The project aims to determine whether a cognitive-behavioral group intervention in patients with medically unexplained symptoms, is more effective than routine clinical practice to improve the quality of life measured by the SF-12 questionary at 12 month. METHODS/DESIGN: This study involves a community based cluster randomized trial in primary healthcare centres in Madrid (Spain). The number of patients required is 242 (121 in each arm), all between 18 and 65 of age with medically unexplained symptoms that had seeked medical attention in primary care at least 10 times during the previous year. The main outcome variable is the quality of life measured by the SF-12 questionnaire on Mental Healthcare. Secondary outcome variables include number of consultations, number of drug (prescriptions) and number of days of sick leave together with other prognosis and descriptive variables. Main effectiveness will be analyzed by comparing the percentage of patients that improve at least 4 points on the SF-12 questionnaire between intervention and control groups at 12 months. All statistical tests will be performed with intention to treat. Logistic regression with random effects will be used to adjust for prognostic factors. Confounding factors or factors that might alter the effect recorded will be taken into account in this analysis. DISCUSSION: This study aims to provide more insight to address medically unexplained symptoms, highly prevalent in primary care, from a quantitative methodology. It involves intervention group conducted by previously trained nursing staff to diminish the progression to the chronicity of the symptoms, improve quality of life, and reduce frequency of medical consultations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01484223 [http://ClinicalTrials.gov].S

Effectiveness of an intervention for improving drug prescription in primary care patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy:Study protocol of a cluster randomized clinical trial (Multi-PAP project)

This study was funded by the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias ISCIII (Grant Numbers PI15/00276, PI15/00572, PI15/00996), REDISSEC (Project Numbers RD12/0001/0012, RD16/0001/0005), and the European Regional Development Fund ("A way to build Europe").Background: Multimorbidity is associated with negative effects both on people's health and on healthcare systems. A key problem linked to multimorbidity is polypharmacy, which in turn is associated with increased risk of partly preventable adverse effects, including mortality. The Ariadne principles describe a model of care based on a thorough assessment of diseases, treatments (and potential interactions), clinical status, context and preferences of patients with multimorbidity, with the aim of prioritizing and sharing realistic treatment goals that guide an individualized management. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention that implements the Ariadne principles in a population of young-old patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The intervention seeks to improve the appropriateness of prescribing in primary care (PC), as measured by the medication appropriateness index (MAI) score at 6 and 12months, as compared with usual care. Methods/Design: Design:pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial. Unit of randomization: family physician (FP). Unit of analysis: patient. Scope: PC health centres in three autonomous communities: Aragon, Madrid, and Andalusia (Spain). Population: patients aged 65-74years with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic diseases) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs prescribed in ≥3months). Sample size: n=400 (200 per study arm). Intervention: complex intervention based on the implementation of the Ariadne principles with two components: (1) FP training and (2) FP-patient interview. Outcomes: MAI score, health services use, quality of life (Euroqol 5D-5L), pharmacotherapy and adherence to treatment (Morisky-Green, Haynes-Sackett), and clinical and socio-demographic variables. Statistical analysis: primary outcome is the difference in MAI score between T0 and T1 and corresponding 95% confidence interval. Adjustment for confounding factors will be performed by multilevel analysis. All analyses will be carried out in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle. Discussion: It is essential to provide evidence concerning interventions on PC patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity, conducted in the context of routine clinical practice, and involving young-old patients with significant potential for preventing negative health outcomes. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02866799Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Effectiveness of a clinical practice guideline implementation strategy for patients with anxiety disorders in primary care: cluster randomized trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anxiety is a common mental health problem seen in primary care. However, its management in clinical practice varies greatly. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have the potential to reduce variations and improve the care received by patients by promoting interventions of proven benefit. However, uptake and adherence to their recommendations can be low.</p> <p>Method/design</p> <p>This study involves a community based on cluster randomized trial in primary healthcare centres in the Madrid Region (Spain). The project aims to determine whether the use of implementation strategy (including training session, information, opinion leader, reminders, audit, and feed-back) of CPG for patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is more effective than usual diffusion.</p> <p>The number of patients required is 296 (148 in each arm), all older than 18 years and diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and panic attacks by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV). They are chosen by consecutive sampling.</p> <p>The main outcome variable is the change in two or more points into Goldberg anxiety scale at six and twelve months. Secondary outcome variables include quality of life (EuroQol 5D), and degree of compliance with the CPG recommendations on treatment, information, and referrals to mental health services. Main effectiveness will be analyzed by comparing the patients percentage improvement on the Goldberg scale between the intervention group and the control group. Logistic regression with random effects will be used to adjust for prognostic factors. Confounding factors or factors that might alter the effect recorded will be taken into account in this analysis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>There is a need to identify effective implementation strategies for CPG for the management of anxiety disorders present in primary care. Ensuring the appropriate uptake of guideline recommendations can reduce clinical variation and improve the care patients receive.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN83365316">ISRCTN83365316</a></p

Healthcare workers hospitalized due to COVID-19 have no higher risk of death than general population. Data from the Spanish SEMI-COVID-19 Registry

Aim To determine whether healthcare workers (HCW) hospitalized in Spain due to COVID-19 have a worse prognosis than non-healthcare workers (NHCW). Methods Observational cohort study based on the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry, a nationwide registry that collects sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory, and treatment data on patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in Spain. Patients aged 20-65 years were selected. A multivariate logistic regression model was performed to identify factors associated with mortality. Results As of 22 May 2020, 4393 patients were included, of whom 419 (9.5%) were HCW. Median (interquartile range) age of HCW was 52 (15) years and 62.4% were women. Prevalence of comorbidities and severe radiological findings upon admission were less frequent in HCW. There were no difference in need of respiratory support and admission to intensive care unit, but occurrence of sepsis and in-hospital mortality was lower in HCW (1.7% vs. 3.9%; p = 0.024 and 0.7% vs. 4.8%; p<0.001 respectively). Age, male sex and comorbidity, were independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and healthcare working with lower mortality (OR 0.211, 95%CI 0.067-0.667, p = 0.008). 30-days survival was higher in HCW (0.968 vs. 0.851 p<0.001). Conclusions Hospitalized COVID-19 HCW had fewer comorbidities and a better prognosis than NHCW. Our results suggest that professional exposure to COVID-19 in HCW does not carry more clinical severity nor mortality

Análisis del alto techo de cristal en la sub-área Recursos Naturales (Área Global de Vida)

En el informe “Mujeres Investigadoras 2020”, que elabora la Comisión de Mujeres y Ciencia (CMyC) del CSIC (https://www.csic.es/sites/default/files/informe_ mujeres_investigadoras-2020.pdf), se puso en evidencia la situación preocupante de la sub-área de Recursos Naturales (RRNN), con un valor del Índice del Techo de Cristal (ITC)* de 2.28, siendo este valor el más elevado de todas las sub-áreas, y muy por encima de la media del CSIC (1.35). Esta situación no era nueva, ya que en todos los informes anuales (https://www.csic.es/es/el-csic/ciencia-en-igualdad/mujeres-y-ciencia/documentos), el ITC de esta sub-área era el más elevado, pero además, se veía un agravamiento del mismo en el tiempo (en el año 2017 el ITC de esta sub-área era de 1.98, en el 2018 de 1.90 y en el 2019 de 2.05). En dichos informes también se pone en evidencia que en los niveles predoctorales y postdoctorales la presencia de hombres y mujeres en esta sub-área de RRNN está en la paridad e incluso el porcentaje de mujeres es superior al de otras subáreas; y es en la escala de Científicos/as Titulares (CT) en la que ya se observa un menor porcentaje de mujeres. Es evidente que es necesario un estudio que abarque a todos los OPIs y las Universidades (públicas y privadas) de España para analizar el sesgo de género en la actividad científica en las áreas de medio ambiente (biología, geología, geografía, ciencias marinas, ciencias ambientales, etc.) previo a la integración en el sistema como personal permanente, para establecer si hay una especificidad en el CSIC o está asociado a la propia área. Este análisis no es el objeto del presente informe.Peer reviewe