9 research outputs found
A Randomized Comparison of Drug-Eluting Balloon Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Bare-Metal Stent–In-Stent Restenosis The RIBS V Clinical Trial (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs. Everolimus-eluting Stent)
ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR).BackgroundTreatment of patients with ISR remains a challenge.MethodsThis was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial comparing DEB with EES in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR). The primary endpoint was the minimal lumen diameter at 9 months' follow-up.ResultsA total of 189 patients with BMS-ISR from 25 Spanish sites were included (95 were allocated to DEB and 94 to EES). Procedural success was achieved in all patients. At late angiography (median 249 days; 92% of eligible patients), patients in the EES arm had a significantly larger minimal lumen diameter (2.36 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.01 ± 0.6 mm, p < 0.001; absolute mean difference: 0.35 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16 to 0.53) and a lower percent of diameter stenosis (13 ± 17% vs. 25 ± 20%, p < 0.001). However, late loss (0.04 ± 0.5 mm vs. 0.14 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.14) and binary restenosis rate (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.22) were very low and similar in both groups. Clinical follow-up (median 365 days) was obtained in all (100%) patients. Occurrences of the combined clinical outcome measure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization; 6% vs. 8%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.26 to 2.18, p = 0.6) and the need for target vessel revascularization (2% vs. 6%; HR: 0.32: 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.59, p = 0.17) were similar in the 2 groups.ConclusionsIn patients with BMS-ISR, both DEB and EES provided excellent clinical results with a very low rate of clinical and angiographic recurrences. However, compared with DEB, EES provide superior late angiographic findings. (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs. Everolimus-eluting Stent [RIBS V]; NCT01239953
A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial
Abstract
Background: Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the
people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden
by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and
profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized
intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care.
Methods: Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a
personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven
cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each
centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included
the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the
construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition,
GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing
depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health
care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire.
The time horizon was 18 months.This work was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Health, the
Institute of Health Carlos III (ISCIII) and the European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) ’A way to build Europe’(grant references PS09/02272, PS09/02147,
PS09/01095, PS09/00849 and PS09/00461); the Andalusian Council of Health
(grant reference PI-0569-2010); the Spanish Network of Primary Care Research
’redIAPP’ (RD06/0018, RD12/0005/0001); the ’Aragón group’ (RD06/0018/0020,
RD12/0005/0006); the ’Bizkaya group’ (RD06/0018/0018, RD12/0005/0010); the
Castilla-León Group (RD06/0018/0027); the Mental Health (SJD) Barcelona Group
(RD06/0018/0017, RD12/0005/0008); and the Mental-Health, Services and
Primary Care (SAMSERAP) MálagaGroup (RD06/0018/0039, RD12/0005/0005)
Treatment with tocilizumab or corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory state: a multicentre cohort study (SAM-COVID-19)
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
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
3-Year Clinical Follow-Up of the RIBS IV Clinical Trial: A Prospective Randomized Study of Drug-Eluting Balloons Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis in Coronary Arteries Previously Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents.
This study sought to compare the long-term safety and efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) of drug-eluting stents (DES). Treatment of patients with DES-ISR remains a challenge. The RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents) trial is a prospective multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing DEB and EES in patients with DES-ISR. The pre-specified comparison of the 3-year clinical outcomes obtained with these interventions is the main objective of the present study. A total of 309 patients with DES-ISR were randomized to DEB (n = 154) or EES (n = 155). At angiographic follow-up, the in-segment minimal lumen diameter was larger in the EES arm (2.03 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.80 ± 0.6 mm; p 1 year) target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4%) and target vessel revascularization (4% vs. 6.6%) was similar in the 2 arms. Rates of cardiac death (3.9% vs. 3.2%), myocardial infarction (2.6% vs. 4.5%), and stent thrombosis (1.3% vs. 2.6%) at 3 years were also similar in both arms. The 3-year clinical follow-up of this randomized clinical trial demonstrates that in patients with DES-ISR, EES reduce the need for repeat interventions compared with DEB. (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloons vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents [RIBS IV]; NCT01239940)
A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care: cost-effectiveness study nested into a clustered randomized trial.
Depression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care. Cost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months. With a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. Compared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010
Punto de fuga. Punto de encuentro : aproximación interdisciplinar a las Vanguardias Artísticas de la segunda mitad del siglo XX
Resumen basado en el del proyecto. Premiado en la convocatoria: Premios para proyectos de innovación concluidos durante el curso 2007-2008, en los centros educativos no universitarios sostenidos con fondos públicos de la Comunidad Autónoma de Castilla-La Mancha (Orden 12-12-2008, de la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia de la Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha. Resolución de 5-5-2009, de la Viceconsejería de Educación)El proyecto se desarrolla entre cinco centros: la Escuela de Arte de Guadalajarara, la Escuela de Hostelería y Turismo del IES Antonio Buero Vallejo de Guadalajara, el Conservatorio Provincial de Música de Guadalajara, el IES Profesor Domínguez Ortiz de Azuqueca de Henares y el Colegio Infantil y Primaria Castillo de Pioz. La idea central es la de abordar de forma interdisciplinar un tema común entre centros de distinta naturaleza armonizando el calendario de realización. Se buscan elementos integradores que permitan que el alumno se involucre activamente en un aprendizaje significativo con uno de los elementos clave en la educación, la motivación. Los objetivos son: fomentar la idea de que todas las áreas de conocimiento y creación humanas son producto de épocas y situaciones concretas englobadas en un todo; fomentar la participación activa en el proceso educativo; descubrir que el arte es algo vivo y que puede formar parte de la propia personalidad; fomentar el espíritu colectivo, la relevancia en el cumplimiento de los plazos y la valoración de la mirada del espectador sobre lo realizado; descubrir nuevos modos de comunicación y de relación; promover la reflexión anti-racista, anti-sexista, pacifista y solidaria. El tema elegido, la segunda mitad del siglo XX, especialmente las décadas de los 50, 60 y 70. Años de grandes transformaciones sociales y económicas en Europa. Su aproximación es multidisciplinar, desde la música, las artes plásticas, la literatura, la gastronomía, y el desarrollo del turismo como una industria potente que contribuirá además económicamente a sacar del ostracismo al pais.Castilla La ManchaConsejería de Educación, Ciencia y Cultura. Viceconsejería de Educación y Cultura. Servicio de Documentación; Bulevar del Río Alberche, s. n. - 1 Planta; 45071 Toledo; Tel. +34925286045; Fax +34925247410; [email protected]