Comparación de la calidad de vida de los pacientes con cáncer de recto tratados con cirugías conservadoras de esfínter y resección abdominoperineal en UMAE HEP CMN Manuel Ávila Camacho Puebla durante el 2015 al 2019

"El cáncer colorrectal es el tercer cáncer más frecuente en el mundo en ambos sexos con una incidencia de 19.5% mundial, se calcula que para 2022 la población con diagnóstico de Cáncer colorrectal en Estados Unidos ascienda a 1.5 millones. El tratamiento del cáncer de recto ha cambiado durante los últimos 25 años, siendo la terapia multimodal y la cirugía óptima, que representan las tasas de recidiva local más bajas reportadas, así como prolongar la supervivencia a largo plazo, con índices por encima de los logrados antiguamente. Así como la terapia multimodal ha ido evolucionando para formar parte del tratamiento actual del cáncer de recto, la cirugía que es la piedra angular del tratamiento, no siendo sustituible aún por ningún otro tratamiento, continua en evolución. La importancia de este estudio radicó en la comparación de la calidad de vida en pacientes con cáncer de recto operados en la unidad de los dos procedimientos más frecuentes realizados para tratamiento del cáncer de recto, para tomar en consideración la calidad de vida ofrecida al paciente durante el tiempo de sobrevida al momento de la elección de procedimiento quirúrgico de acuerdo a las características del paciente"

Recommendations for treatment with recombinant human growth hormone in pediatric patients in Colombia

En Colombia, actualmente no existen parámetros claros para el diagnóstico de pacientes con talla baja, ni sobre el tratamiento de esta población con hormona de crecimiento recombinante humana (somatropina), lo cual se ve favorecido por la diversidad de programas de formación de profesionales en endocrinología pediátrica. En respuesta a esta problemática se realizó el primer acuerdo colombiano de expertos en talla baja liderado por la Asociación Colegio Colombiana de Endocrinología Pediátrica (ACCEP); este trabajo contó con la participación y el aval de expertos clínicos de importantes instituciones de salud públicas y privadas del país, además de expertos metodológicos del instituto Keralty, quienes garantizaron la estandarización del uso de la somatropina. Después de realizar una minuciosa revisión de la literatura, se propone la unificación de definiciones, un algoritmo diagnóstico, los parámetros de referencia de las pruebas bioquímicas y dinámicas, una descripción de las consideraciones de uso de la somatropina para el tratamiento de las patologías con aprobación por la entidad regulatoria de medicamentos y alimentos en Colombia y, por último, un formato de consentimiento informado y de ficha técnica del medicamento.In Colombia there are no guidelines for diagnosis and management of patients with short stature and for the use of recombinanthuman growth hormone, mainly caused by the diversity of training centers in pediatric endocrinology. In response to this situation,the Asociación Colegio Colombiana de Endocrinología Pediátrica leds the first colombian short stature expert committee in order tostandardize the use of human recombinant growth hormone. This work had the participation and endorsement of a consortium ofclinical experts representing the Sociedad Colombiana de Pediatría, Secretaría Distrital de Salud de Bogotá- Subred Integrada deServicios de Salud Suroccidente, Fundación Universitaria Sanitas, Universidad de los Andes and some public and private healthinstitutions in the country, in addition to the participation of methodological experts from the Instituto Global de Excelencia ClínicaKeralty. By reviewing the literature and with the best available evidence, we proposed to unify definitions, a diagnostic algorithm,biochemical and dynamic tests with their reference parameters, a description of the considerations about growth hormone use amongthe indications approved by regulatory agency for medications and food in Colombia and finally a proposal for an informed consentand a medication fact sheet available for parents and patients.https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7856-7213https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2241-7854Revista Nacional - Indexad

Comparación de la calidad de vida en cirugía conservadora vs no conservadora de esfínteres por cáncer de recto: Comparison of quality of life in sphincter-conserving vs non-conservative surgery for rectal cancer

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the second leading cause of death worldwide with an incidence of 10.2%. The treatment of CRC has changed over the past 25 years. Two surgical procedures are used: abdominoperineal resection (AR) and low anterior resection (LAR) and ultra-low (ULAR). The recurrence rate and quality of life are similar.  Objective: To compare quality of life for rectal cancer (CRC) patients treated with abdominoperineal resection vs conservative resections: low anterior (LAR) and ultra-low (ULAR) in UMAE Puebla.  Methods: A comparative, observational, cross-sectional study was conducted in CRC patients treated during 2015-2019 in a 3rd level hospital in Puebla. Two groups were formed: those managed with RA, and those managed with LAR/ULAR. The EORT QLQ CR-29 and EuroQol scale was applied. Descriptive statistics and Man-Whitney U were applied for comparisons.  Results: A total of 26 patients were recruited, 18with AR and 18 with LAR/ULAR. A mean QoL was recorded in the RAP group of 73.72 (SD 16.92, minimum 31.46, maximum 95.09) and in the RAB/RAUB group of 56.22 (SD 6.29, minimum 47.51, maximum 68.96), with a value of p=0.005.  Conclusions: There is no significant difference in the quality of life of patients of CRC patients operated by AR, LAR and ULAR (non-conservative and conservative approach).Introducción: El cáncer colorrectal (CCR) es el tercer cáncer más frecuente y la segunda causa principal de muerte a nivel mundial con una incidencia 10,2%. El tratamiento del CCR ha cambiado durante los últimos 25 años. Se utilizan dos manejos quirúrgicos: la resección abdominoperineal (RAP) y la resección anterior baja (RAB) y la ultra baja (RAUB). La tasa de recidiva y la calidad de vida son similares.  Objetivo: Comparar la calidad de vida de los pacientes con cáncer de recto tratados con resección abdominoperineal vs resecciones conservadoras de esfínteres: anterior baja y ultra baja en la UMAE Puebla.  Métodos: Se realizó un estudio comparativo, observacional, transversal en pacientes con CCR atendidos durante 2015-2019 en un hospital de 3er nivel en Puebla. Se formaron dos grupos: los manejados con RAP y los manejados con RAB/RAUB. Se aplicó la escala EORT QLQ CR-29 y EuroQol. Se aplicó estadística descriptiva y U de Man-Whitney para comparaciones.  Resultados: Se reclutaron 26 pacientes, 18 manejados con RAP y 8 con RAB/RAUB. Se registró una CV media en el grupo RAP de 73,72 (DE 16,92, mínimo 31,46, máximo 95,09) y en el grupo RAB/RAUB de 56,22 (DE 6,29, mínimo 47,51, máximo 68,96), con un valor de p=0,005.  Conclusiones: No hay diferencia significativa en la calidad de vida de los pacientes con CCR operados por RAP, RAB y RAUB (abordaje no conservador y conservador)

Extensive Wastewater-Based Epidemiology as a Resourceful Tool for SARS-CoV-2 Surveillance in a Low-to-Middle-Income Country through a Successful Collaborative Quest: WBE, Mobility, and Clinical Tests

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged healthcare systems worldwide. Efforts in low-to-middle-income countries (LMICs) cannot keep stride with infection rates, especially during peaks. A strong international collaboration between Arizona State University (ASU), Tec de Monterrey (TEC), and Servicios de Agua y Drenaje de Monterrey (Local Water Utilities) is acting to integrate wastewater-based epidemiology (WBE) of SARS-CoV-2 in the region as a complementary approach to aid the healthcare system. Wastewater was collected from four sewer catchments in the Monterrey Metropolitan area in Mexico (pop. 4,643,232) from mid-April 2020 to February 2021 (44 weeks, n = 644). Raw wastewater was filtered and filter-concentrated, the RNA was extracted using columns, and the Charité/Berlin protocol was used for the RT-qPCR. The viral loads obtained between the first (June 2020) and second waves (February 2021) of the pandemic were similar; in contrast, the clinical cases were fewer during the first wave, indicating poor coverage. During the second wave of the pandemic, the SARS-CoV-2 quantification in wastewater increased 14 days earlier than the COVID-19 clinical cases reported. This is the first long-term WBE study in Mexico and demonstrates its value in pandemic management

Gender differences and management of stroke risk of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in an upper middle-income country: Insights from the CARMEN-AF registry

Background: Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of stroke and systemic embolism. Several studies have suggested that female AF patients could have a greater risk for stroke. There is scarce information about clinical characteristics and use of antithrombotic therapies in Latin American patients with nonvalvular AF. Objective: To describe the gender differences in clinical characteristics, thromboembolic risk, and antithrombotic therapy of patients with nonvalvular AF recruited in Mexico, an upper middle-income country, into the prospective national CARMEN-AF Registry. Methods: A total of 1423 consecutive patients, with at least one thromboembolic risk factor were enrolled in CARMEN-AF Registry during a three-year period (2014–2017). They were categorized according to Gender. Results: Overall, 48.6% were women, mean age 70 ± 12 years. Diabetes, smoking, alcoholism, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, and obstructive sleep apnea were higher in men. Most women were found with paroxysmal AF (40.6%), and most men with permanent AF (44.0%). No gender differences were found in the use of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) (30.5% in women vs. 28.0% in men). No gender differences were found in the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) (33.8% women vs 35.4% men). Conclusions: CARMEN-AF Registry demonstrates that in Mexico, regardless of gender, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated. No gender differences were found in the use of VKA or DOAC. Keywords: Atrial fibrillation, Gender, Thromboembolic risk, Antithrombotic therapy, Stroke, Mexic

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