12 research outputs found

    Effectiveness and safety of sofosbuvir‐based regimens plus an NS5A inhibitor for patients with HCV genotype 3 infection and cirrhosis: results of a multicenter real‐life cohort

    Get PDF
    [Abstract] Patients with HCV genotype 3 (GT3) infection and cirrhosis are currently the most difficult to cure. We report our experience with sofosbuvir+daclatasvir (SOF+DCV) or sofosbuvir/ledipasvir (SOF/LDV), with or without ribavirin (RBV) in clinical practice in this population. This was a multicenter observational study including cirrhotic patients infected by HCV GT3, treated with sofosbuvir plus an NS5A inhibitor (May 2014‐October 2015). In total, 208 patients were included: 98 (47%) treatment‐experienced, 42 (20%) decompensated and 55 (27%) MELD score >10. In 131 (63%), treatment was SOF+DCV and in 77 (37%), SOF/LDV. Overall, 86% received RBV. RBV addition and extension to 24 weeks was higher in the SOF/LDV group (95% vs 80%, P=.002 and 83% vs 72%, P=.044, respectively). A higher percentage of decompensated patients were treated with DCV than LDV (25% vs 12%, P=.013). Overall, SVR12 was 93.8% (195/208): 94% with SOF+DCV and 93.5% with SOF/LDV. SVR12 was achieved in 90.5% of decompensated patients. Eleven treatment failures: 10 relapses and one breakthrough. RBV addition did not improve SVR (RR: 1.08; P=.919). The single factor associated with failure to achieve SVR was platelet count <75×10E9/mL (RR: 3.50, P=.019). In patients with MELD <10, type of NS5A inhibitor did not impact on SVR12 (94% vs 97%; adjusted RR: 0.49). Thirteen patients (6.3%) had serious adverse events, including three deaths (1.4%) and one therapy discontinuation (0.5%), higher in decompensated patients (16.7% vs 3.6%, P<.006). In patients with GT3 infection and cirrhosis, SVR12 rates were high with both SOF+DCV and SOF/LDV, with few serious adverse events

    Seguimiento de las guías españolas para el manejo del asma por el médico de atención primaria: un estudio observacional ambispectivo

    Get PDF
    Objetivo Evaluar el grado de seguimiento de las recomendaciones de las versiones de la Guía española para el manejo del asma (GEMA 2009 y 2015) y su repercusión en el control de la enfermedad. Material y métodos Estudio observacional y ambispectivo realizado entre septiembre del 2015 y abril del 2016, en el que participaron 314 médicos de atención primaria y 2.864 pacientes. Resultados Utilizando datos retrospectivos, 81 de los 314 médicos (25, 8% [IC del 95%, 21, 3 a 30, 9]) comunicaron seguir las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2009. Al inicio del estudio, 88 de los 314 médicos (28, 0% [IC del 95%, 23, 4 a 33, 2]) seguían las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015. El tener un asma mal controlada (OR 0, 19, IC del 95%, 0, 13 a 0, 28) y presentar un asma persistente grave al inicio del estudio (OR 0, 20, IC del 95%, 0, 12 a 0, 34) se asociaron negativamente con tener un asma bien controlada al final del seguimiento. Por el contrario, el seguimiento de las recomendaciones de la GEMA 2015 se asoció de manera positiva con una mayor posibilidad de que el paciente tuviera un asma bien controlada al final del periodo de seguimiento (OR 1, 70, IC del 95%, 1, 40 a 2, 06). Conclusiones El escaso seguimiento de las guías clínicas para el manejo del asma constituye un problema común entre los médicos de atención primaria. Un seguimiento de estas guías se asocia con un control mejor del asma. Existe la necesidad de actuaciones que puedan mejorar el seguimiento por parte de los médicos de atención primaria de las guías para el manejo del asma. Objective: To assess the degree of compliance with the recommendations of the 2009 and 2015 versions of the Spanish guidelines for managing asthma (Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma [GEMA]) and the effect of this compliance on controlling the disease. Material and methods: We conducted an observational ambispective study between September 2015 and April 2016 in which 314 primary care physicians and 2864 patients participated. Results: Using retrospective data, we found that 81 of the 314 physicians (25.8%; 95% CI 21.3–30.9) stated that they complied with the GEMA2009 recommendations. At the start of the study, 88 of the 314 physicians (28.0%; 95% CI 23.4–33.2) complied with the GEMA2015 recommendations. Poorly controlled asthma (OR, 0.19; 95% CI 0.13–0.28) and persistent severe asthma at the start of the study (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.12–0.34) were negatively associated with having well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up. In contrast, compliance with the GEMA2015 recommendations was positively associated with a greater likelihood that the patient would have well-controlled asthma by the end of the follow-up (OR, 1.70; 95% CI 1.40–2.06). Conclusions: Low compliance with the clinical guidelines for managing asthma is a common problem among primary care physicians. Compliance with these guidelines is associated with better asthma control. Actions need to be taken to improve primary care physician compliance with the asthma management guidelines

    Potato consumption does not increase blood pressure or incident hypertension in 2 cohorts of Spanish adults

    No full text
    5 TablasBackground: Potatoes have a high glycemic load but also antioxidants, vitamins, and minerals. It is unclear what mechanisms are involved in relation to their effect on blood pressure (BP) and hypertension. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the association between potato consumption, BP changes, and the risk of hypertension in 2 Spanish populations. Methods: Separate analyses were performed in PREDIMED (PREvención con DIeta MEDiterránea), a multicenter nutrition intervention trial of adults aged 55-80 y, and the SUN (Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra) project, a prospective cohort made up of university graduates and educated adults with ages (means±SDs) of 42.7±13.3 y for men and 35.1± 10.7 y for women. In PREDIMED, generalized estimating equations adjusted for lifestyle and dietary characteristics were used to assess changes in BP across quintiles of total potato consumption during a 4-y follow-up. Controlled BP values (systolic BP < 140 mm Hg and diastolic BP < 90 mm Hg) during follow-up were also assessed. For SUN, multivariateadjusted HRs for incident hypertension during a mean 6.7-y follow-up were calculated. Results: In PREDIMED, the total potato intake was 81.9 ± 40.6 g/d. No overall differences in systolic or diastolic BP changes were detected based on consumption of potatoes. For total potatoes, the mean difference in change between quintile 5 (highest intake) and quintile 1 (lowest intake) in systolic BP after multivariate adjustment was 20.90 mm Hg (95% CI: -2.56, 0.76 mm Hg; P-trend = 0.1) and for diastolic BP was 20.02 mm Hg (95% CI: -0.93, 0.89 mm Hg; P-trend = 0.8). In SUN, the total potato consumption was 52.7 ± 33.6 g/d, and no significant association between potato consumption and hypertension incidence was observed in the fully adjusted HR for total potato consumption (quintile 5 compared with quintile 1: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.19; P-trend = 0.8). Conclusions: Potato consumption is not associated with changes over 4 y in blood pressure among older adults in Spain or with the risk of hypertension among Spanish adults.Supported by the official funding agency for biomedical research of the Spanish Government, Instituto de Salud Carlos III through grants provided to research networks specifically developed for the trial (RTIC G03/140, to RE; RTIC RD 06/0045, to MAM-G) and through Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Fisiopatología de la Obesidad y Nutrición (CIBERobn), and by grants from Centro Nacional de Investigaciones Cardiovasculares (CNIC 06/2007), Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria–Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional [Proyecto de Investigación (PI) 04-2239, PI 05/2584, CP06/00100, PI07/0240, PI07/1138, PI07/0954, PI 07/0473, PI10/01407, PI10/02658, PI11/01647, P11/02505 and PI13/00462], Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación [Recursos y teconologia agroalimentarias (AGL)-2009-13906-C02 and AGL2010-22319-C03 and AGL2013-49083-C3-1-R], Fundación Mapfre 2010, the Consejería de Salud de la Junta de Andalucía (PI0105/2007), the Public Health Division of the Department of Health of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Generalitat Valenciana [Generalitat Valenciana Ayuda Complementaria (GVACOMP) 06109, GVACOMP2010-181, GVACOMP2011-151], Conselleria de Sanitat y AP; Atención Primaria (CS) 2010-AP-111 and CS2011-AP-042, and Regional Government of Navarra (P27/2011)
    corecore