Differences in pharmaceutical consumption and expenses between immigrant and Spanish-born populations in Lleida, (Spain): A 6-months prospective observational study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are few studies comparing pharmaceutical costs and the use of medications between immigrants and the autochthonous population in Spain. The objective of this study is to evaluate whether there are differences in pharmaceutical consumption and expenses between immigrant and Spanish-born populations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Prospective observational study in 1,630 immigrants and 4,154 Spanish-born individuals visited by fifteen primary care physicians at five public Primary Care Clinics (PCC) during 2005 in the city of Lleida, Catalonia (Spain). Data on pharmaceutical consumption and expenses was obtained from a comprehensive computerized data-collection system. Multinomial regression models were used to estimate relative risks and confidence intervals of pharmaceutical expenditure, adjusting for age and sex.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The percentage of individuals that purchased medications during a six-month period was 53.7% in the immigrant group and 79.2% in the autochthonous group. Pharmaceutical expenses and consumption were lower in immigrants than in autochthonous patients in all age groups and both genders. The relative risks of being in the highest quartile of expenditure, for Spanish-born versus immigrants, were 6.9, 95% CI = (4.2, 11.5) in men and 5.3, 95% CI = (3.5, 8.0) in women, with the reference category being not having any pharmaceutical expenditure.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Pharmaceutical expenses are much lower for immigrants with respect to autochthonous patients, both in the percentage of prescriptions filled at pharmacies and the number of containers of medication obtained, as well as the prices of the medications used. Future studies should explore which factors explain the observed differences in pharmaceutical expenses and if these disparities produce health inequalities.</p

A phase 1/2, open-label, multicenter study of isatuximab in combination with cemiplimab in patients with lymphoma

Patients with relapsed or refractory lymphoma have limited treatment options, requiring newer regimens. In this Phase 1/2 study (NCT03769181), we assessed the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of isatuximab (Isa, anti-CD38 antibody) in combination with cemiplimab (Cemi, anti-programmed death-1 [PD-1] receptor antibody; Isa&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cemi) in patients with classic Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), and peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). In Phase 1, we characterized the safety and tolerability of Isa&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cemi with planned dose de-escalation to determine the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D). Six patients in each cohort were treated with a starting dose of Isa&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cemi to determine the RP2D. In Phase 2, the primary endpoints were complete response in Cohort A1 (cHL anti-PD-1/programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1] naïve), and objective response rate in Cohorts A2 (cHL anti-PD-1/PD-L1 progressors), B (DLBCL), and C (PTCL). An interim analysis was performed when the first 18 (Cohort A1), 12 (Cohort A2), 17 (Cohort B), and 11 (Cohort C) patients in Phase 2 had been treated and followed up for 24&nbsp;weeks. Isa&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cemi demonstrated a manageable safety profile with no new safety signals. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed at the starting dose; thus, the starting dose of each drug was confirmed as the RP2D. Based on the Lugano 2014 criteria, 55.6% (Cohort A1), 33.3% (Cohort A2), 5.9% (Cohort B), and 9.1% (Cohort C) of patients achieved a complete or partial response. Pharmacokinetic analyses suggested no effect of Cemi on Isa exposure. Modest clinical efficacy was observed in patients with cHL regardless of prior anti-PD-1/PD-L1 exposure. In DLBCL or PTCL cohorts, interim efficacy analysis results did not meet prespecified criteria to continue enrollment in Phase 2 Stage 2. Isa&nbsp;+&nbsp;Cemi did not have a synergistic effect in these patient populations

Sustained Progression-Free Survival Benefit of Rituximab Maintenance in Patients With Follicular Lymphoma : Long-Term Results of the PRIMA Study

PURPOSE The PRIMA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00140582) established that 2 years of rituximab maintenance after first-line immunochemotherapy significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with follicular lymphoma compared with observation. Here, we report the final PFS and overall survival (OS) results from the PRIMA study after 9 years of follow-up and provide a final overview of safety. METHODS Patients (> 18 years of age) with previously untreated high-tumor-burden follicular lymphoma were nonrandomly assigned to receive one of three immunochemotherapy induction regimens. Responding patients were randomly assigned (stratified by induction regimen, response to induction treatment, treatment center, and geographic region) 1:1 to receive 2 years of rituximab maintenance (375 mg/m(2), once every 8 weeks), starting 8 weeks after the last induction treatment, or observation (no additional treatment). All patients in the extended follow-up provided their written informed consent (data cutoff: December 31, 2016). RESULTS In total, 1,018 patients completed induction treatment and were randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance (n = 505) or observation (n = 513). Consent for the extended follow-up was provided by 607 patients (59.6%) of 1,018 (rituximab maintenance, n = 309; observation, n = 298). After data cutoff, median PFS was 10.5 years in the rituximab maintenance arm compared with 4.1 years in the observation arm (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.52 to 0.73; P <.001). No OS difference was seen in patients randomly assigned to rituximab maintenance or observation (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.40; P = .7948); 10-year OS estimates were approximately 80% in both study arms. No new safety signals were observed. CONCLUSION Rituximab maintenance after induction immunochemotherapy provides a significant long-term PFS, but not OS, benefit over observation.Peer reviewe

Emergency hospital services utilization in Lleida (Spain): A cross-sectional study of immigrant and Spanish-born populations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of emergency hospital services (EHS) has increased steadily in Spain in the last decade while the number of immigrants has increased dramatically. Studies show that immigrants use EHS differently than native-born individuals, and this work investigates demographics, diagnoses and utilization rates of EHS in Lleida (Spain).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional study of all the 96,916 EHS visits by patients 15 to 64 years old, attended during the years 2004 and 2005 in a public teaching hospital. Demographic data, diagnoses of the EHS visits, frequency of hospital admissions, mortality and diagnoses at hospital discharge were obtained. Utilization rates were estimated by group of origin. Poisson regression was used to estimate the rate ratios of being visited in the EHS with respect to the Spanish-born population.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Immigrants from low-income countries use EHS services more than the Spanish-born population. Differences in utilization patterns are particularly marked for Maghrebi men and women and sub-Saharan women. Immigrant males are at lower risk of being admitted to the hospital, as compared with Spanish-born males. On the other hand, immigrant women are at higher risk of being admitted. After excluding the visits with gynecologic and obstetric diagnoses, women from sub-Saharan Africa and the Maghreb are still at a higher risk of being admitted than their Spanish-born counterparts.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In Lleida (Spain), immigrants use more EHS than the Spanish born population. Future research should indicate whether the same pattern is found in other areas of Spain and whether EHS use is attributable to health needs, barriers to access to the primary care services or similarities in the way immigrants access health care in their countries of origin.</p

CIBERER : Spanish national network for research on rare diseases: A highly productive collaborative initiative

Altres ajuts: Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII); Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación.CIBER (Center for Biomedical Network Research; Centro de Investigación Biomédica En Red) is a public national consortium created in 2006 under the umbrella of the Spanish National Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII). This innovative research structure comprises 11 different specific areas dedicated to the main public health priorities in the National Health System. CIBERER, the thematic area of CIBER focused on rare diseases (RDs) currently consists of 75 research groups belonging to universities, research centers, and hospitals of the entire country. CIBERER's mission is to be a center prioritizing and favoring collaboration and cooperation between biomedical and clinical research groups, with special emphasis on the aspects of genetic, molecular, biochemical, and cellular research of RDs. This research is the basis for providing new tools for the diagnosis and therapy of low-prevalence diseases, in line with the International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC) objectives, thus favoring translational research between the scientific environment of the laboratory and the clinical setting of health centers. In this article, we intend to review CIBERER's 15-year journey and summarize the main results obtained in terms of internationalization, scientific production, contributions toward the discovery of new therapies and novel genes associated to diseases, cooperation with patients' associations and many other topics related to RD research

Autoantibodies against type I IFNs in patients with life-threatening COVID-19

Interindividual clinical variability in the course of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is vast. We report that at least 101 of 987 patients with life-threatening coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia had neutralizing immunoglobulin G (IgG) autoantibodies (auto-Abs) against interferon-w (IFN-w) (13 patients), against the 13 types of IFN-a (36), or against both (52) at the onset of critical disease; a few also had auto-Abs against the other three type I IFNs. The auto-Abs neutralize the ability of the corresponding type I IFNs to block SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro. These auto-Abs were not found in 663 individuals with asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection and were present in only 4 of 1227 healthy individuals. Patients with auto-Abs were aged 25 to 87 years and 95 of the 101 were men. A B cell autoimmune phenocopy of inborn errors of type I IFN immunity accounts for life-threatening COVID-19 pneumonia in at least 2.6% of women and 12.5% of men

Clonal chromosomal mosaicism and loss of chromosome Y in elderly men increase vulnerability for SARS-CoV-2

The pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19) had an estimated overall case fatality ratio of 1.38% (pre-vaccination), being 53% higher in males and increasing exponentially with age. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, we found 133 cases (1.42%) with detectable clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations (mCA) and 226 males (5.08%) with acquired loss of chromosome Y (LOY). Individuals with clonal mosaic events (mCA and/or LOY) showed a 54% increase in the risk of COVID-19 lethality. LOY is associated with transcriptomic biomarkers of immune dysfunction, pro-coagulation activity and cardiovascular risk. Interferon-induced genes involved in the initial immune response to SARS-CoV-2 are also down-regulated in LOY. Thus, mCA and LOY underlie at least part of the sex-biased severity and mortality of COVID-19 in aging patients. Given its potential therapeutic and prognostic relevance, evaluation of clonal mosaicism should be implemented as biomarker of COVID-19 severity in elderly people. Among 9578 individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the SCOURGE study, individuals with clonal mosaic events (clonal mosaicism for chromosome alterations and/or loss of chromosome Y) showed an increased risk of COVID-19 lethality