20 research outputs found

    Informe del Comité de Bioética de España sobre los aspectos éticos y jurídicos de la maternidad subrogada

    Get PDF
    El Comité de Bioética de España en su reunión plenaria del pasado 8 de mayo de 2017 acordó por unanimidad de los vocales presentes aprobar un Informe sobre los aspectos éticos y jurídicos de la maternidad subrogada, elaborado a iniciativa del propio Comité, dada la preocupación que suscitaba a sus miembros el debate presente en la opinión pública y en algunas instituciones sobre la conveniencia de regular o, al menos, dotar de legalidad, a los contratos de maternidad subrogada. Como se pone de manifiesto al inicio del Informe, la maternidad subrogada es uno de los temas bioéticos más controvertidos del momento por su carácter disruptivo sobre el modo en que la procreación humana, y las consecuentes relaciones de maternidad y filiación, han sido entendidas y reguladas hasta la actualidad, planteándose por primera vez en la historia la posibilidad de disociar la gestación de la maternidad. Ciertamente, no es un fenómeno nuevo, los primeros casos tuvieron lugar hace más de cuarenta años. Sin embargo, durante mucho tiempo tuvo un alcance limitado, no siendo hasta los últimos quince años cuando la práctica se ha extendido y, sobre todo, se ha internacionalizado. Los medios de comunicación se han venido haciendo eco de informaciones que han atraído la atención de la opinión pública, generando gran repercusión mediática los casos de personajes famosos que han recurrido a este medio para ser padres. En líneas generales, como se expone detalladamente en el Informe, son dos los principales problemas jurídicos que se plantean en España. El primero tiene que ver con el hecho de que la maternidad subrogada sea contraria a la ley nacional y, sin embargo, muchos españoles consigan ser padres recurriendo a ella en otros países donde es legal. ¿Se puede pretender que las leyes aprobadas en España tengan verdadera eficacia y que no solo sean de aplicación para quienes, por carecer de recursos y de temeridad, no pueden sortearlas en el extranjero? Hay otros ámbitos en los que los hechos son perseguibles, incluso penalmente, aunque se realicen en el extranjero

    Anti-Spike antibodies 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine booster dose in patients on hemodialysis: the prospective SENCOVAC study

    Get PDF
    Background: Patients on hemodialysis are at high-risk for complications derived from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The present analysis evaluated the impact of a booster vaccine dose and breakthrough severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections on humoral immunity 3 months after the booster dose. Methods: This is a multicentric and prospective study assessing immunoglobulin G anti-Spike antibodies 6 and 9 months after initial SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients on hemodialysis that had also received a booster dose before the 6-month assessment (early booster) or between the 6- and 9-month assessments (late booster). The impact of breakthrough infections, type of vaccine, time from the booster and clinical variables were assessed. Results: A total of 711 patients [67% male, median age (range) 67 (20-89) years] were included. Of these, 545 (77%) received an early booster and the rest a late booster. At 6 months, 64 (9%) patients had negative anti-Spike antibody titers (3% of early booster and 29% of late booster patients, P =. 001). At 9 months, 91% of patients with 6-month negative response had seroconverted and there were no differences in residual prevalence of negative humoral response between early and late booster patients (0.9% vs 0.6%, P =. 693). During follow-up, 35 patients (5%) developed breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection. Antibody titers at 9 months were independently associated with mRNA-1273 booster (P =. 001), lower time from booster (P =. 043) and past breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infection (P <. 001). Conclusions: In hemodialysis patients, higher titers of anti-Spike antibodies at 9 months were associated with mRNA-1273 booster, lower time from booster and past breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infectionThe present project has been supported by Fresenius Medical Care, Diaverum, Vifor Pharma, Vircell, Fundación Renal Iñigo Álvarez de Toledo and ISCIII FEDER funds RICORS2040 (RD21/0005

    Effects of intubation timing in patients with COVID-19 throughout the four waves of the pandemic : a matched analysis

    Get PDF
    The primary aim of our study was to investigate the association between intubation timing and hospital mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure. We also analysed both the impact of such timing throughout the first four pandemic waves and the influence of prior non-invasive respiratory support on outcomes. This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre, observational and prospective cohort study that included all consecutive patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 from across 58 Spanish intensive care units (ICU) participating in the CIBERESUCICOVID project. The study period was between 29 February 2020 and 31 August 2021. Early intubation was defined as that occurring within the first 24 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Propensity score (PS) matching was used to achieve balance across baseline variables between the early intubation cohort and those patients who were intubated after the first 24 h of ICU admission. Differences in outcomes between early and delayed intubation were also assessed. We performed sensitivity analyses to consider a different timepoint (48 h from ICU admission) for early and delayed intubation. Of the 2725 patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation, a total of 614 matched patients were included in the analysis (307 for each group). In the unmatched population, there were no differences in mortality between the early and delayed groups. After PS matching, patients with delayed intubation presented higher hospital mortality (27.3% versus 37.1%, p =0.01), ICU mortality (25.7% versus 36.1%, p=0.007) and 90-day mortality (30.9% versus 40.2%, p=0.02) when compared to the early intubation group. Very similar findings were observed when we used a 48-hour timepoint for early or delayed intubation. The use of early intubation decreased after the first wave of the pandemic (72%, 49%, 46% and 45% in the first, second, third and fourth wave, respectively; first versus second, third and fourth waves p<0.001). In both the main and sensitivity analyses, hospital mortality was lower in patients receiving high-flow nasal cannula (n=294) who were intubated earlier. The subgroup of patients undergoing NIV (n=214) before intubation showed higher mortality when delayed intubation was set as that occurring after 48 h from ICU admission, but not when after 24 h. In patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, delayed intubation was associated with a higher risk of hospital mortality. The use of early intubation significantly decreased throughout the course of the pandemic. Benefits of such an approach occurred more notably in patients who had received high-flow nasal cannul

    Clustering COVID-19 ARDS patients through the first days of ICU admission. An analysis of the CIBERESUCICOVID Cohort

    Full text link
    Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) can be classified into sub-phenotypes according to different inflammatory/clinical status. Prognostic enrichment was achieved by grouping patients into hypoinflammatory or hyperinflammatory sub-phenotypes, even though the time of analysis may change the classification according to treatment response or disease evolution. We aimed to evaluate when patients can be clustered in more than 1 group, and how they may change the clustering of patients using data of baseline or day 3, and the prognosis of patients according to their evolution by changing or not the cluster.Methods Multicenter, observational prospective, and retrospective study of patients admitted due to ARDS related to COVID-19 infection in Spain. Patients were grouped according to a clustering mixed-type data algorithm (k-prototypes) using continuous and categorical readily available variables at baseline and day 3.Results Of 6205 patients, 3743 (60%) were included in the study. According to silhouette analysis, patients were grouped in two clusters. At baseline, 1402 (37%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2341(63%) in cluster 2. On day 3, 1557(42%) patients were included in cluster 1 and 2086 (57%) in cluster 2. The patients included in cluster 2 were older and more frequently hypertensive and had a higher prevalence of shock, organ dysfunction, inflammatory biomarkers, and worst respiratory indexes at both time points. The 90-day mortality was higher in cluster 2 at both clustering processes (43.8% [n = 1025] versus 27.3% [n = 383] at baseline, and 49% [n = 1023] versus 20.6% [n = 321] on day 3). Four hundred and fifty-eight (33%) patients clustered in the first group were clustered in the second group on day 3. In contrast, 638 (27%) patients clustered in the second group were clustered in the first group on day 3.Conclusions During the first days, patients can be clustered into two groups and the process of clustering patients may change as they continue to evolve. This means that despite a vast majority of patients remaining in the same cluster, a minority reaching 33% of patients analyzed may be re-categorized into different clusters based on their progress. Such changes can significantly impact their prognosis

    Treatment with tocilizumab or corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory state: a multicentre cohort study (SAM-COVID-19)

    Get PDF
    Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between tocilizumab or corticosteroids and the risk of intubation or death in patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) with a hyperinflammatory state according to clinical and laboratory parameters. Methods: A cohort study was performed in 60 Spanish hospitals including 778 patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory data indicative of a hyperinflammatory state. Treatment was mainly with tocilizumab, an intermediate-high dose of corticosteroids (IHDC), a pulse dose of corticosteroids (PDC), combination therapy, or no treatment. Primary outcome was intubation or death; follow-up was 21 days. Propensity score-adjusted estimations using Cox regression (logistic regression if needed) were calculated. Propensity scores were used as confounders, matching variables and for the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). Results: In all, 88, 117, 78 and 151 patients treated with tocilizumab, IHDC, PDC, and combination therapy, respectively, were compared with 344 untreated patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (11.4%), 27 (23.1%), 12 (15.4%), 40 (25.6%) and 69 (21.1%), respectively. The IPTW-based hazard ratios (odds ratio for combination therapy) for the primary endpoint were 0.32 (95%CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.001) for tocilizumab, 0.82 (0.71-1.30; p 0.82) for IHDC, 0.61 (0.43-0.86; p 0.006) for PDC, and 1.17 (0.86-1.58; p 0.30) for combination therapy. Other applications of the propensity score provided similar results, but were not significant for PDC. Tocilizumab was also associated with lower hazard of death alone in IPTW analysis (0.07; 0.02-0.17; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Tocilizumab might be useful in COVID-19 patients with a hyperinflammatory state and should be prioritized for randomized trials in this situatio
    corecore