Comunicación estratégica con perspectiva de género para organizaciones de la sociedad civil y grupos minoritarios

Durante el curso de Primavera 2023, el trabajo estuvo orientado a la creación de materiales gráficos e informativos sobre diversas problemáticas sociales como discriminación por género, violencia sexual y migración. Así mismo, se realizó un taller para la reconstrucción del tejido social. Esto tuvo lugar en cinco escenarios: Comisión de Atención a Violencia de Género ITESO, Caminantas, FM4 Paso Libre, Colmena Miramar y Centro Comunitario Teresiano A.C. Las actividades propuestas fueron diseñadas en conjunto con las y los encargados de cada una de las organizaciones mencionadas anteriormente, partiendo de las necesidades planteadas en las entrevistas de diagnóstico y a las cuales se les dio seguimiento para su validación y realización durante el semestre.ITESO, A.C

Epidemiological trends of HIV/HCV coinfection in Spain, 2015-2019

Altres ajuts: Spanish AIDS Research Network; European Funding for Regional Development (FEDER).Objectives: We assessed the prevalence of anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies and active HCV infection (HCV-RNA-positive) in people living with HIV (PLWH) in Spain in 2019 and compared the results with those of four similar studies performed during 2015-2018. Methods: The study was performed in 41 centres. Sample size was estimated for an accuracy of 1%. Patients were selected by random sampling with proportional allocation. Results: The reference population comprised 41 973 PLWH, and the sample size was 1325. HCV serostatus was known in 1316 PLWH (99.3%), of whom 376 (28.6%) were HCV antibody (Ab)-positive (78.7% were prior injection drug users); 29 were HCV-RNA-positive (2.2%). Of the 29 HCV-RNA-positive PLWH, infection was chronic in 24, it was acute/recent in one, and it was of unknown duration in four. Cirrhosis was present in 71 (5.4%) PLWH overall, three (10.3%) HCV-RNA-positive patients and 68 (23.4%) of those who cleared HCV after anti-HCV therapy (p = 0.04). The prevalence of anti-HCV antibodies decreased steadily from 37.7% in 2015 to 28.6% in 2019 (p < 0.001); the prevalence of active HCV infection decreased from 22.1% in 2015 to 2.2% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Uptake of anti-HCV treatment increased from 53.9% in 2015 to 95.0% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In Spain, the prevalence of active HCV infection among PLWH at the end of 2019 was 2.2%, i.e. 90.0% lower than in 2015. Increased exposure to DAAs was probably the main reason for this sharp reduction. Despite the high coverage of treatment with direct-acting antiviral agents, HCV-related cirrhosis remains significant in this population

Human immunodeficiency virus/hepatitis C virus coinfection in Spain : Prevalence and patient characteristics

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibodies (Abs) and active HCV infection in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected (HIV+) patients in Spain in 2015. This was a cross-sectional study.Methods. The study was performed in 41 centers in 2015. Sample size was estimated for an accuracy of 2%, the number of patients from each hospital was determined by proportional allocation, and patients were selected using simple random sampling. The reference population was 35 791 patients, and the sample size was 1867 patients. Hepatitis C virus serostatus was known in 1843 patients (98.7%). Hepatitis C virus-Abs were detected in 695 patients (37.7%), in whom the main route of HIV acquisition was injection drug use (75.4%). Of these 695 patients, 402 had HCV RNA, 170 had had a sustained viral response (SVR) after anti-HCV therapy, and 102 cleared HCV spontaneously. Hepatitis C virus-ribonucleic acid results were unknown in 21 cases. Genotype distribution (known in 367 patients) was 1a in 143 patients (39.0%), 4 in 90 (24.5%) patients, 1b in 69 (18.8%) patients, 3 in 57 (15.5%) patients, 2 in 5 (1.4%) patients, and mixed in 3 (0.8%) patients. Liver cirrhosis was present in 93 patients (23.1%) with active HCV infection and in 39 (22.9%) patients with SVR after anti-HCV therapy. The prevalence of HCV-Abs and active HCV infection in HIV+ patients in Spain is 37.7% and 22.1%, respectively; these figures are significantly lower than those recorded in 2002 and 2009. The predominant genotypes in patients with active HCV infection were 1a and 4. A high percentage of patients had cirrhosis. Cirrhosis is also common in patients with SVR after anti-HCV therapy

Prediction of long-term outcomes of HIV-infected patients developing non-AIDS events using a multistate approach

Outcomes of people living with HIV (PLWH) developing non-AIDS events (NAEs) remain poorly defined. We aimed to classify NAEs according to severity, and to describe clinical outcomes and prognostic factors after NAE occurrence using data from CoRIS, a large Spanish HIV cohort from 2004 to 2013. Prospective multicenter cohort study. Using a multistate approach we estimated 3 transition probabilities: from alive and NAE-free to alive and NAE-experienced ("NAE development"); from alive and NAE-experienced to death ("Death after NAE"); and from alive and NAE-free to death ("Death without NAE"). We analyzed the effect of different covariates, including demographic, immunologic and virologic data, on death or NAE development, based on estimates of hazard ratios (HR). We focused on the transition "Death after NAE". 8,789 PLWH were followed-up until death, cohort censoring or loss to follow-up. 792 first incident NAEs occurred in 9.01% PLWH (incidence rate 28.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26.80-30.84, per 1000 patient-years). 112 (14.14%) NAE-experienced PLWH and 240 (2.73%) NAE-free PLWH died. Adjusted HR for the transition "Death after NAE" was 12.1 (95%CI, 4.90-29.89). There was a graded increase in the adjusted HRs for mortality according to NAE severity category: HR (95%CI), 4.02 (2.45-6.57) for intermediate-severity; and 9.85 (5.45-17.81) for serious NAEs compared to low-severity NAEs. Male sex (HR 2.04; 95% CI, 1.11-3.84), ag

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI) : a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial

Background: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor. Methods: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population). Findings: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8–3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74–0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, p interaction=0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78–1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75–1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48–2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36–3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74–1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75–0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, p interaction=0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI. Interpretation: In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk