Model de relació entre l’atenció primària i comunitària i l’atenció hospitalària ambulatòria

Atenció primària; Atenció hospitalària; PacientAtención primaria; Atención hospitalaria; PacientePrimary care; Hospital care; PatientL’objectiu del present document és definir un model de relació entre l’atenció primària i comunitària i l’atenció hospitalària ambulatòria que doni una resposta resolutiva, equitativa i de qualitat durant tot el procés assistencial. A tal fi es defineix el diagrama del procés assistencial pel qual els metgesa especialistes de medicina de família i comunitària (MFiC) sol·liciten l’atenció, mitjançant l’ordre clínica, dels seus homòlegs d’atenció hospitalària ambulatòria (MAH). A més, s’estableixen un seguit de recomanacions relatives a la relació que s’estableix entre l’MFiC i el MAH a l’hora de contribuir a la millora de la salut de la persona atesa

Model de relació en la derivació de pacients entre l’àmbit d’atenció primària i l’àmbit d'atenció hospitalària ambulatòria

Atenció primària; Atenció hospitalària; PacientAtención primaria; Atención hospitalaria; PacientePrimary care; Hospital care; PatientL’objectiu del present document és definir un model de relació entre l’atenció primària i comunitària i l’atenció hospitalària ambulatòria que doni una resposta resolutiva, equitativa i de qualitat durant tot el procés assistencial. A tal fi es defineix el diagrama del procés assistencial pel qual els metgesa especialistes de medicina de família i comunitària (MFiC) sol·liciten l’atenció, mitjançant l’ordre clínica, dels seus homòlegs d’atenció hospitalària ambulatòria (MAH). A més, s’estableixen un seguit de recomanacions relatives a la relació que s’estableix entre l’MFiC i el MAH a l’hora de contribuir a la millora de la salut de la persona atesa

Microrelatario

Basta/Prou es el resultado de El desafío por la erradicación de la violencia contra las mujeres que el Instituto Universitario de Estudios Feministas y de Género Purificación Escribano de la Universitat Jaume I lanzó en los Diez días contra la violencia de género 2012

Efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of a booster regimen of Ad26.COV2.S vaccine against COVID-19 (ENSEMBLE2) : results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Background Despite the availability of effective vaccines against COVID-19, booster vaccinations are needed to maintain vaccine-induced protection against variant strains and breakthrough infections. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of the Ad26.COV2.S vaccine (Janssen) as primary vaccination plus a booster dose. Methods ENSEMBLE2 is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial including crossover vaccination after emergency authorisation of COVID-19 vaccines. Adults aged at least 18 years without previous COVID-19 vaccination at public and private medical practices and hospitals in Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, France, Germany, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK, and the USA were randomly assigned 1:1 via a computer algorithm to receive intramuscularly administered Ad26.COV2.S as a primary dose plus a booster dose at 2 months or two placebo injections 2 months apart. The primary endpoint was vaccine efficacy against the first occurrence of molecularly confirmed moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 with onset at least 14 days after booster vaccination, which was assessed in participants who received two doses of vaccine or placebo, were negative for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR at baseline and on serology at baseline and day 71, had no major protocol deviations, and were at risk of COVID-19 (ie, had no PCR-positive result or discontinued the study before day 71). Safety was assessed in all participants; reactogenicity, in terms of solicited local and systemic adverse events, was assessed as a secondary endpoint in a safety subset (approximately 6000 randomly selected participants). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04614948, and is ongoing. Findings Enrolment began on Nov 16, 2020, and the primary analysis data cutoff was June 25, 2021. From 34 571 participants screened, the double-blind phase enrolled 31 300 participants, 14 492 of whom received two doses (7484 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 7008 in the placebo group) and 11 639 of whom were eligible for inclusion in the assessment of the primary endpoint (6024 in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 5615 in the placebo group). The median (IQR) follow-up post-booster vaccination was 36 center dot 0 (15 center dot 0-62 center dot 0) days. Vaccine efficacy was 75 center dot 2% (adjusted 95% CI 54 center dot 6-87 center dot 3) against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19 (14 cases in the Ad26.COV2.S group and 52 cases in the placebo group). Most cases were due to the variants alpha (B.1.1.7) and mu (B.1.621); endpoints for the primary analysis accrued from Nov 16, 2020, to June 25, 2021, before the global dominance of delta (B.1.617.2) or omicron (B.1.1.529). The booster vaccine exhibited an acceptable safety profile. The overall frequencies of solicited local and systemic adverse events (evaluated in the safety subset, n=6067) were higher among vaccine recipients than placebo recipients after the primary and booster doses. The frequency of solicited adverse events in the Ad26.COV2.S group were similar following the primary and booster vaccinations (local adverse events, 1676 [55 center dot 6%] of 3015 vs 896 [57 center dot 5%] of 1559, respectively; systemic adverse events, 1764 [58 center dot 5%] of 3015 vs 821 [52 center dot 7%] of 1559, respectively). Solicited adverse events were transient and mostly grade 1-2 in severity. Interpretation A homologous Ad26.COV2.S booster administered 2 months after primary single-dose vaccination in adults had an acceptable safety profile and was efficacious against moderate to severe-critical COVID-19. Studies assessing efficacy against newer variants and with longer follow-up are needed. Funding Janssen Research & Development. Copyright (c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd

The management of acute venous thromboembolism in clinical practice - study rationale and protocol of the European PREFER in VTE Registry

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major health problem, with over one million events every year in Europe. However, there is a paucity of data on the current management in real life, including factors influencing treatment pathways, patient satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), and utilization of health care resources and the corresponding costs. The PREFER in VTE registry has been designed to address this and to understand medical care and needs as well as potential gaps for improvement. Methods/design: The PREFER in VTE registry was a prospective, observational, multicenter study conducted in seven European countries including Austria, France Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK to assess the characteristics and the management of patients with VTE, the use of health care resources, and to provide data to estimate the costs for 12 months treatment following a first-time and/or recurrent VTE diagnosed in hospitals or specialized or primary care centers. In addition, existing anticoagulant treatment patterns, patient pathways, clinical outcomes, treatment satisfaction, and health related QoL were documented. The centers were chosen to reflect the care environment in which patients with VTE are managed in each of the participating countries. Patients were eligible to be enrolled into the registry if they were at least 18 years old, had a symptomatic, objectively confirmed first time or recurrent acute VTE defined as either distal or proximal deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism or both. After the baseline visit at the time of the acute VTE event, further follow-up documentations occurred at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Follow-up data was collected by either routinely scheduled visits or by telephone calls. Results: Overall, 381 centers participated, which enrolled 3,545 patients during an observational period of 1 year. Conclusion: The PREFER in VTE registry will provide valuable insights into the characteristics of patients with VTE and their acute and mid-term management, as well as into drug utilization and the use of health care resources in acute first-time and/or recurrent VTE across Europe in clinical practice. Trial registration: Registered in DRKS register, ID number: DRKS0000479

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

Effects of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery: an international prospective cohort study an international prospective cohort study

We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care. We aimed to determine the impact of pre-operative isolation on postoperative pulmonary complications after elective surgery during the global SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. We performed an international prospective cohort study including patients undergoing elective surgery in October 2020. Isolation was defined as the period before surgery during which patients did not leave their house or receive visitors from outside their household. The primary outcome was postoperative pulmonary complications, adjusted in multivariable models for measured confounders. Pre-defined sub-group analyses were performed for the primary outcome. A total of 96,454 patients from 114 countries were included and overall, 26,948 (27.9%) patients isolated before surgery. Postoperative pulmonary complications were recorded in 1947 (2.0%) patients of which 227 (11.7%) were associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients who isolated pre-operatively were older, had more respiratory comorbidities and were more commonly from areas of high SARS-CoV-2 incidence and high-income countries. Although the overall rates of postoperative pulmonary complications were similar in those that isolated and those that did not (2.1% vs 2.0%, respectively), isolation was associated with higher rates of postoperative pulmonary complications after adjustment (adjusted OR 1.20, 95%CI 1.05–1.36, p = 0.005). Sensitivity analyses revealed no further differences when patients were categorised by: pre-operative testing; use of COVID-19-free pathways; or community SARS-CoV-2 prevalence. The rate of postoperative pulmonary complications increased with periods of isolation longer than 3 days, with an OR (95%CI) at 4–7 days or ≥ 8 days of 1.25 (1.04–1.48), p = 0.015 and 1.31 (1.11–1.55), p = 0.001, respectively. Isolation before elective surgery might be associated with a small but clinically important increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Longer periods of isolation showed no reduction in the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. These findings have significant implications for global provision of elective surgical care