Comportamientos de protección solar y percepción de riesgo de cáncer de piel en la población española

Tesis descargada de TESEOntroducción: La exposición solar constituye un factor de riesgo modificable para los tumores de piel. El cambio en los hábitos de la población ha llevado a un aumento en la incidencia de tumores cutáneos y a su aumento en las últimas décadas. Los tumores cutáneos no melanoma, si bien se excluyen normalmente de los registros de cáncer, constituyen un problema de salud pública y el melanoma constituye un tumor con mortalidad elevada y tasas de supervivencia de solo 5% a los 5 años de seguimiento en el que la exposición solar es un factor de riesgo conocido. El uso de cremas con FPS, así como otros elementos de protección son reconocidos medios para evitar los daños de la exposición, y por tanto, actuar como factores preventivos del daño cutáneo. El conocimiento del factor de riesgo modificable para el desarrollo de tumores cutáneos hace insistir en su conocimiento, nivel de concienciación del peligro de la exposición y hábitos relacionados con el mismo, como posibles elementos modificadores del desarrollo de la enfermedad. Material y método: estudio transversal, descriptivo de corte poblacional realizado mediante encuesta estructurada a una muestra representativa de la población española en sexo, edad y distribución por localización urbana o rural y por área geográfica (n=1100). Objetivos: Primario: Conocer los hábitos de exposición al sol en la población española: obtener información sobre las diferentes situaciones, lugares y duración/intensidad de la exposición a la radiación solar, segmentada por edad, sexo, área geográfica y hábitat. Secundarios: Conocer las pautas de comportamiento de protección frente al sol: conocer los diferentes tipos de protección al sol utilizados por la población española, uso de cremas solares (factor de protección solar y frecuencia de aplicación) y cuidado de protección a los hijos. Conocer los niveles de percepción de riesgo de la radiación solar asociado a la exposición al sol en las diferentes etapas de la vida, así como sus consecuencias, y también el grado de concienciación respecto al melanoma. Obtener información respecto a la percepción de riesgo asociado a las cabinas/lámparas solares. Conclusiones: El conocimiento de los hábitos de exposición en la población española, así como de la conciencia del nivel de exposición y el uso adecuado de los factores conocidos de protección ante la exposición solar en diferentes situaciones (vida diaria, vacaciones, trabajo, cuidado de los hijos) y la conciencia del nivel de riesgo relacionada con estos hábitos, nos permitirá seleccionar una población susceptible de mejora en las campañas informativas al respecto que pueden influir en mejores resultados preventivos en este área

Safety and efficacy of colistin versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia as part of a macro-project funded by the Seventh Framework Program of the European Commission studying off-patent antibiotics. study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is one of the most common and severe hospital-adquired infections, and multidrugresistant gram-negative bacilli (MDR-GNB) constitute the main etiology in many countries. Inappropriate empiric antimicrobial treatment is associated with increased mortality. In this context, the empirical treatment of choice for VAP is unknown. Colistin, is now the antimicrobial with greatest in vitro activity against MDR-GNB. Methods/Design: The MagicBullet clinical trial is an investigator-driven clinical study, funded by the Seventh Framework Program of the European Commission. This is designed as a phase IV, randomized, controlled, open label, non-inferiority and international trial to assess the safety and efficacy of colistin versus meropenem in late onset VAP. The study is conducted in a total of 32 centers in three European countries (Spain, Italy and Greece) with specific high incidences of infections caused by MDR-GNB. Patients older than 18 years who develop VAP with both clinical and radiological signs, and are on mechanical ventilation for more than 96 hours, or less than 96 hours but with previous antibiotic treatment plus one week of hospitalization, are candidates for inclusion in the study. A total sample size of 496 patients will be randomized according to a severity clinical score (at the time of VAP diagnosis in a 1:1 ratio to receive either colistin 4.5 MU as a loading dose, followed by 3 MU every eight hours (experimental arm), or meropenem 2 g every eight hours (control arm), both combined with levofloxacin. Mortality from any cause at 28 days will be considered as the main outcome. Clinical and microbiological cure will be evaluated at 72 hours, eight days, the finalization of antibiotic treatment, and 28 days of follow-up. The efficacy evaluation will be performed in every patient who receives at least one study treatment drug, and with etiologic diagnosis of VAP, intention-to-treat population and per protocol analysis will be performed

Colistin versus meropenem in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (Magic Bullet study): an investigator-driven, open-label, randomized, noninferiority controlled trial.

Background: Colistin is recommended in the empirical treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) with a high prevalence of carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB). However, the efficacy and safety of colistin are not well defined. Methods: A multicenter prospective randomized trial conducted in 32 European centers compared the efficacy and safety of colistin (4.5 million unit loading dose followed by a maintenance dose of 3 million units every 8 h) versus meropenem (2 g every 8 h), both in combination with levofloxacin (500 mg every 12 h) for 7–14 days in patients with late VAP. Between May 2012 and October 2015, 232 patients were randomly assigned to the 2 treatment groups. The primary endpoint was mortality at 28 days after randomization in the microbiologically modified intention-to-treat (mMITT) population. Secondary outcomes included clinical and microbiological cure, renal function at the end of the treatment, and serious adverse events. The study was interrupted after the interim analysis due to excessive nephrotoxicity in the colistin group; therefore, the sample size was not achieved. Results: A total of 157 (67.7%) patients were included in the mMITT population, 36 of whom (22.9%) had VAP caused by CR-GNB. In the mMITT population, no significant difference in mortality between the colistin group (19/82, 23.2%) and the meropenem group (19/75, 25.3%) was observed, with a risk difference of − 2.16 (− 15.59 to 11.26, p = 0.377); the noninferiority of colistin was not demonstrated due to early termination and limited number of patients infected by carbapenem-resistant pathogens. Colistin plus levofloxacin increased the incidence of renal failure (40/120, 33.3%, versus 21/112, 18.8%; p = 0.012) and renal replacement therapy (11/120, 9.1%, versus 2/112, 1.8%; p = 0.015). Conclusions: This study did not demonstrate the noninferiority of colistin compared with meropenem, both combined with levofloxacin, in terms of efficacy in the empirical treatment of late VAP but demonstrated the greater nephrotoxicity of colistin. These findings do not support the empirical use of colistin for the treatment of late VAP due to early termination.Seventh Framework Program of the European Commission. Magic Bullet: 278232

Opportunities for antibiotic optimisation and outcome improvement in patients with negative blood cultures: study protocol for a cluster-­randomised crossover trial, the NO-­BACT study.

Introduction Patients with negative blood cultures (BCx) represent 85%–90% of all patients with BCx taken during hospital admission. This population usually includes a heterogeneous group of patients admitted with infectious diseases or febrile syndromes that require a blood culture. There is very little evidence of the clinical characteristics and antibiotic treatment given to these patients. Methods and analysis In a preliminary exploratory prospective cohort study of patients with BCx taken, the clinical/therapeutic characteristics and outcomes/ antimicrobial stewardship opportunities of a population of patients with negative BCx will be analysed. In the second phase, using a cluster randomised crossover design, the implementation of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention targeting patients with negative BCx will be evaluated in terms of quality of antimicrobial use (duration and de-escalation), length of hospital stay and mortality. Ethics and dissemination This study has been and registered with clinicaltrials.gov. The findings of our study may support the implementation in clinical practice of an antimicrobial stewardship intervention to optimise the use of antibiotics in patients with negative BCx. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences. Trial registration number NCT03535324.Instituto de Salud Carlos III PI17 / 01809Plataforma Española de Investigación Clínica y Ensayos Clínicos, SCReN (Red Española de Investigación Clínica), financiada por la Subdirección General de Evaluación y Promoción de la Investigación ISCIII: PT17 / 0017/0012. Cofinanciado por el Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER)

Fosfomycin versus meropenem in bacteraemic urinary tract infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (FOREST): study protocol for an investigator-driven randomised controlled trial

Introduction Finding therapeutic alternatives to carbapenems in infections caused by extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Escherichia coli (ESBL-EC) is imperative. Although fosfomycin was discovered more than 40 years ago, it was not investigated in accordance with current standards and so is not used in clinical practice except in desperate situations. It is one of the so-called neglected antibiotics of high potential interest for the future. Methods and analysis The main objective of this project is to demonstrate the clinical non-inferiority of intravenous fosfomycin with regard to meropenem for treating bacteraemic urinary tract infections (UTI) caused by ESBL-EC. This is a ‘real practice’ multicentre, open-label, phase III randomised controlled trial, designed to compare the clinical and microbiological efficacy, and safety of intravenous fosfomycin (4 g/6 h) and meropenem (1 g/8 h) as targeted therapy for this infection; a change to oral therapy is permitted after 5 days in both arms, in accordance with predetermined options. The study design follows the latest recommendations for designing trials investigating new options for multidrug-resistant bacteria. Secondary objectives include the study of fosfomycin concentrations in plasma and the impact of both drugs on intestinal colonisation by multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacilli. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Biomedical Research (Referral Ethics Committee), which obtained approval from the local ethics committees at all participating sites in Spain (22 sites). Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Discussion This project is proposed as an initial step in the investigation of an orphan antimicrobial of low cost with high potential as a therapeutic alternative in common infections such as UTI in selected patients. These results may have a major impact on the use of antibiotics and the development of new projects with this drug, whether as monotherapy or combination therapy

Targeted Simplification Versus Antipseudomonal Broad-Spectrum Beta-Lactams in Patients With Bloodstream Infections Due to Enterobacteriaceae (SIMPLIFY): A Study Protocol for a Multicentre, Open-Label, Phase III Randomised, Controlled, Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial.

Introduction Within the context of antimicrobial stewardship programmes, de-escalation of antimicrobial therapy is one of the proposed strategies for reducing the unnecessary use of broad-spectrum antibiotics (BSA). The empirical treatment of nosocomial and some healthcare- associated bloodstream infections (BSI) frequently includes a beta-lactam with antipseudomonal activity as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs, so there is a great opportunity to optimise the empirical therapy based on microbiological data. De-escalation is assumed as standard of care for experts in infectious diseases. However, it is less frequent than it would desirable. Methods and analysis The SIMPLIFY trial is a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority phase III randomised controlled clinical trial, designed as a pragmatic ‘real-practice’ trial. The aim of this trial is to demonstrate the non-inferiority of de-escalation from an empirical beta-lactam with antipseudomonal activity to a targeted narrow-spectrum antimicrobial in patients with BSI due to Enterobacteriaceae. The primary outcome is clinical cure, which will be assessed at the test of cure visit. It will be conducted at 19 Spanish public and university hospitals. Ethics and dissemination Each participating centre has obtained the approval of the ethics review committee, the agreement of the directors of the institutions and authorisation from the Spanish Regulatory Agency (Agencia Española del Medicamento y Productos Sanitarios). Data will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. [Discussion] Strategies to reduce the use of BSA should be a priority. Most of the studies that support de-escalation are observational, retrospective and heterogeneous. A recent Cochrane review stated that well-designed clinical trials should be conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of de-escalation.Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII): PI15/00439, integrado en el Plan Nacional de I+D+i 2013-2016 y cofinanciado por la Unión Europea (ERDF/ESF, “Investing in your future”)

Temocillin versus meropenem for the targeted treatment of bacteraemia due to third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (ASTARTÉ): protocol for a randomised, pragmatic trial

Introduction: Alternatives to carbapenems are needed in the treatment of third-generation cephalosporin-resistant Enterobacterales (3GCR-E). Temocillin is a suitable candidate, but comparative randomised studies are lacking. The objective is to investigate if temocillin is non-inferior to carbapenems in the targeted treatment of bacteraemia due to 3GCR-E. Methods and analysis: Multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, pragmatic phase 3 trial. Patients with bacteraemia due to 3GCR-E will be randomised to receive intravenously temocillin (2 g three times a day) or carbapenem (meropenem 1 g three times a day or ertapenem 1 g once daily). The primary endpoint will be clinical success 7–10 days after end of treatment with no recurrence or death at day 28. Adverse events will be collected; serum levels of temocillin will be investigated in a subset of patients. For a 10% non-inferiority margin, 334 patients will be included (167 in each study arm). For the primary analysis, the absolute difference with one-sided 95% CI in the proportion of patients reaching the primary endpoint will be compared in the modified intention-to-treat population. Ethics and dissemination: The study started after approval of the Spanish Regulatory Agency and the reference institutional review board. Data will be published in peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration number: NCT04478721.Instituto de Salud Carlos III ICI19/00093Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad y Fondos FEDER RD16/0016/0001, 0002, 0004, 0008, 0009, 0010, 0011, 0013, 001

Effectiveness of Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli Bacteremic Urinary Tract Infections A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance The consumption of broad-spectrum drugs has increased as a consequence of the spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Escherichia coli. Finding alternatives for these infections is critical, for which some neglected drugs may be an option. Objective To determine whether fosfomycin is noninferior to ceftriaxone or meropenem in the targeted treatment of bacteremic urinary tract infections (bUTIs) due to MDR E coli. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open clinical trial was conducted at 22 Spanish hospitals from June 2014 to December 2018. Eligible participants were adult patients with bacteremic urinary tract infections due to MDR E coli; 161 of 1578 screened patients were randomized and followed up for 60 days. Data were analyzed in May 2021. Interventions Patients were randomized 1 to 1 to receive intravenous fosfomycin disodium at 4 g every 6 hours (70 participants) or a comparator (ceftriaxone or meropenem if resistant; 73 participants) with the option to switch to oral fosfomycin trometamol for the fosfomycin group or an active oral drug or parenteral ertapenem for the comparator group after 4 days. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was clinical and microbiological cure (CMC) 5 to 7 days after finalization of treatment; a noninferiority margin of 7% was considered. Results Among 143 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (median [IQR] age, 72 [62-81] years; 73 [51.0%] women), 48 of 70 patients (68.6%) treated with fosfomycin and 57 of 73 patients (78.1%) treated with comparators reached CMC (risk difference, −9.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, −21.5 to ∞ percentage points; P = .10). While clinical or microbiological failure occurred among 10 patients (14.3%) treated with fosfomycin and 14 patients (19.7%) treated with comparators (risk difference, −5.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, −∞ to 4.9; percentage points; P = .19), an increased rate of adverse event–related discontinuations occurred with fosfomycin vs comparators (6 discontinuations [8.5%] vs 0 discontinuations; P = .006). In an exploratory analysis among a subset of 38 patients who underwent rectal colonization studies, patients treated with fosfomycin acquired a new ceftriaxone-resistant or meropenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria at a decreased rate compared with patients treated with comparators (0 of 21 patients vs 4 of 17 patients [23.5%]; 1-sided P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance This study found that fosfomycin did not demonstrate noninferiority to comparators as targeted treatment of bUTI from MDR E coli; this was due to an increased rate of adverse event–related discontinuations. This finding suggests that fosfomycin may be considered for selected patients with these infections

Efficacy and safety of a booster dose of influenza vaccination in solid organ transplant recipients, TRANSGRIPE 1-2: study protocol for a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Despite administration of annual influenza vaccination, influenza-associated complications in transplant recipients continue to be an important cause of hospitalization and death. Although influenza vaccination has been proven to be the most effective measure to reduce influenza infection after transplantation, transplant recipients are still vulnerable to influenza infections, with lower serological responses to vaccination compared to the general population. In order to assess the efficacy and safety of an alternative immunization scheme for solid organ transplant recipients, the TRANSGRIPE1-2 Study Group aimed to test a booster dose administration 5 weeks after the standard vaccination. The primary objective of this trial was to compare short-term and long-term neutralizing antibody immunogenicity of a booster dose of influenza vaccination to the standard single-dose immunization scheme. Secondary objectives included the evaluation of the efficacy and/or safety, cellular immune response, incidence of influenza infection, graft rejection, retransplant and mortality rates. METHODS/DESIGN: This phase III, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial was conducted between October 2012 and December 2013 in 12 Spanish public referral hospitals. Solid organ transplant recipients (liver, kidney, heart or lung), older than 16 years of age more than 30 days after transplantation were eligible to participate. Patients (N = 514) were stratified 1:1 by center, type of organ and time after transplantation and who either received the standard single dose (n = 257) or were treated according to a novel influenza vaccination schedule comprising the administration of a booster dose 5 weeks after standard vaccination (n = 254). Seroconversion rates were measured as a determinant of protection against influenza (main outcome). Efficacy and safety outcomes were followed until 1 year after influenza vaccination with assessment of short-term (0, 5, 10 and 15 weeks) and long-term (12 months) results. Intention-to-treat, per-protocol and safety analyses will be performed. DISCUSSION: This trial will increase knowledge about the safety and efficacy of a booster dose of influenza vaccine in solid organ transplant recipients. At the time the manuscript was submitted for publication, trial recruitment was closed with a total of 499 participants included during a 2-month period (within the seasonal influenza vaccination campaign). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01761435 (registered 13 December 2012). EudraCT Identifier: 2011-003243-21 (registered 4 July 2011)

Quasiexperimental intervention study protocol to optimise the use of new antibiotics in Spain: the NEW_SAFE project

Introduction Ceftaroline, tedizolid, dalbavancin, ceftazidime-avibactam and ceftolozane-tazobactam are novel antibiotics used to treat infections caused by multidrug-resistant pathogens (MDR). Their use should be supervised and monitored as part of an antimicrobial stewardship programme (ASP). Appropriate use of the new antibiotics will be improved by including consensual indications for their use in local antibiotic guidelines, together with educational interventions providing advice to prescribers to ensure that the recommendations are clearly understood. Methods and analysis This study will be implemented in two phases. First, a preliminary historical cohort (2017-2019) of patients from 13 Andalusian hospitals treated with novel antibiotics will be analysed. Second, a quasiexperimental intervention study will be developed with an interrupted time-series analysis (2020-2021). The intervention will consist of an educational interview between prescribers and ASP leaders at each hospital to reinforce the proper use of novel antibiotics. The educational intervention will be based on a consensus guideline designed and disseminated by leaders after the retrospective cohort data have been analysed. The outcomes will be acceptance of the intervention and appropriateness of prescription. Incidence of infection and colonisation with MDR organisms as well as incidence ofClostridioides difficileinfection will also be analysed. Changes in prescription quality between periods and the safety profile of the antibiotics in terms of mortality rate and readmissions will also be measured. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval will be obtained from the Andalusian Coordinating Institutional Review Board. The study is being conducted in compliance with the protocol and regulatory requirements consistent with International Council of Harmonisation E6 Good Clinical Practice and the ethical principles of the latest version of the Declaration of Helsinki. The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at national and international conferences