El profesorado y "su lugar" para estudiantes de Bachillerato. Hallazgos de una investigación sobre trayectorias de éxito escolar

Distintos estudios sobre el éxito escolar confirman que una relación positiva con el profesorado puede favorecer el compromiso con la escuela. Subrayan que el profesorado favorece el éxito escolar cuando aporta una combinación de apoyo y de exigencia, que se sostiene en la valoración y la confianza en las capacidades de sus estudiantes. El presente texto recupera los significados que estudiantes de Bachillerato, con trayectoria de éxito escolar, le dan a su experiencia formativa e identifica algunos de los elementos del actuar docente que ayuda a estos jóvenes a establecer una relación positiva con la escuela

Uso de pulsos de metilprednisolona de repetición en adultos hospitalizados por neumonía y síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo por COVID-19: un estudio preliminar de tipo antes-después (estudio CortiCOVID)

[EN] Introduction: The use of systemic corticosteroids in severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid pulses in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods: A quasi-experimental study, before and after, was performed in a tertiary referral hospital, including admitted patients showing COVID-19-associated pneumonia. The standard treatment protocol included targeted COVID-19 antiviral therapy from 23rd March 2020, and additionally pulses of methylprednisolone from 30th March 2020. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint combining oro-tracheal intubation (OTI) and death within 7 days. Results: A total of 24 patients were included. Standard of care (SOC) (before intervention) was prescribed in 14 patients, while 10 received SOC plus pulses of methylprednisolone (after intervention). The median age of patients was 64.5 years and 83.3% of the patients were men. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 13 patients (92.9%) who received SOC vs. 2 patients (20%) that received pulses of methylprednisolone (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.001 to 0.25; p = 0.019). Length of hospitalization in survivors was shorter in the corticosteroids group (median, 14.5 [8.5–21.8] days vs. 29 [23–31] days, p = 0.003). There were no differences in the development of infections between both groups. There were 3 deaths, none of them in the corticosteroids group. Conclusions: In patients with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19, the administration of methylprednisolone pulses was associated with a lower rate of OTI and/or death and a shorter hospitalization episode.[ES] Introducción: El uso de corticosteroides sistémicos en pacientes gravemente enfermos por enfermedad coronavírica de 2019 (covid-19) es controvertido. Nuestro objetivo fue evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad de los pulsos de corticoesteroides en los pacientes con neumonía por covid-19. Métodos: Se realizó un ensayo cuasiexperimental, tipo antes y después, en un hospital terciario de referencia que incluyó a pacientes ingresados por neumonía asociada a covid-19. El protocolo de tratamiento estándar incluía un tratamiento antiviral dirigido contra el virus de la covid-19 desde el 23 de marzo de 2020 y añadió pulsos de metilprednisolona desde el 30 de marzo de 2020. El resultado primario fue un criterio combinado compuesto por la intubación orotraqueal y el fallecimiento durante los siguientes siete días. Resultados: Se incluyó un total de 24 pacientes. El protocolo de tratamiento (antes de la intervención) se prescribió en 14 pacientes, mientras que 10 recibieron el protocolo de tratamiento además de los pulsos de metilprednisolona (después de la intervención). La edad media de los pacientes fue de 64,5 años y el 83,3% de los pacientes eran hombres. El resultado combinado primario tuvo lugar en 13 pacientes (92,9%) que recibieron el protocolo de tratamiento frente a 2 pacientes (20%) que recibieron los pulsos de metilprednisolona (odds ratio = 0,02; intervalo de confianza del 95% = 0,001-0,25; p = 0,019). La duración de la hospitalización en los supervivientes fue más corta en el grupo que recibió corticoesteroides (media = 14,5 [8,5-21,8] días frente a 29 [23-31] días, p = 0,003). No hubo diferencias en el desarrollo de infecciones entre ambos grupos. Hubo tres fallecimientos, ninguno de ellos en el grupo que recibió corticoesteroides. Conclusiones: En los pacientes con neumonía grave por covid-19, la administración de pulsos de metilprednisolona se asoció a unas tasas menores de intubación orotraqueal y/o muerte y a episodios de hospitalización más cortos

PDGFR / and VEGFR2 polymorphisms in colorectal cancer: incidence and implications in clinical outcome

Abstract Background Angiogenesis plays an essential role in tumor growth and metastasis, and is a major target in cancer therapy. VEGFR and PDGFR are key players involved in this process. The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of genetic variants in these receptors and its potential clinical implications in colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods VEGFR2, PDGFRα and PDGFRβ mutations were evaluated by sequencing their tyrosine kinase domains in 8 CRC cell lines and in 92 samples of patients with CRC. Correlations with clinicopathological features and survival were analyzed. Results Four SNPs were identified, three in PDGFRα [exon 12 (A12): c.1701A>G; exon 13 (A13): c.1809G>A; and exon 17 (A17): c.2439+58C>A] and one in PDGFRβ [exon 19 (B19): c.2601A>G]. SNP B19, identified in 58% of tumor samples and in 4 cell lines (LS174T, LS180, SW48, COLO205), was associated with higher PDGFR and pPDGFR protein levels. Consistent with this observation, 5-year survival was greater for patients with PDGFR B19 wild type tumors (AA) than for those harboring the G-allele genotype (GA or GG) (51% vs 17%; p=0.073). Multivariate analysis confirmed SNP B19 (p=0.029) was a significant prognostic factor for survival, independent of age (p=0.060) or TNM stage (pG SNP is commonly encountered in CRC patients and is associated with increased pathway activation and poorer survival. Implications regarding its potential influence in response to PDGFR-targeted agents remain to be elucidated.This work was supported by a grant of the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia of Spain (FIT-010000-2006-45). PEG is funded by a Rio Hortega grant (09/00207) from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCiii), Ministerio de Sanidad, Spain. SMP is funded by the ISCiii (CD1100153), Fundación Científica de la Asociacion Española Contra el Cancer (AECC), Consejeria de Salud – Junta de Andalucia (PI-0224/2009) and Fundacion Mutua Madrileña (2009). MDP is funded by the ISCiii (CD0900148). LPA is funded by the ISCiii (PI081156 and PI1102688), Consejería de Innovacion, Ciencia y Empresa – Junta de Andalucia (P08-CVI-04090) and the 75th Anniversary Roche Spain Fellowship. RGC is funded by the ISCiii (PI 10.02164).Peer Reviewe

Guía metodológica para la evaluación de la eficacia y la seguridad de nuevos fármacos: implementación de las recomendaciones de EUnetHTA.

The European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) is the network of public health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and entities from across the EU. In this context, the HTA Core Model®, has been developed. The Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AETSA) is a member of the Spanish HTA Network and EUnetHTA collaboration In addition, AETSA participates in the new EUnetHTA Joint Action 3 (JA, 2016-2019). Furthermore, AETSA works on pharmaceutical assessments. Part of this work involves drafting therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) on drugs that have recently been granted marketing authorisation, which is overseen by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS). AETSA contributes by drafting "Evidence synthesis reports: pharmaceuticals" in which a rapid comparative efficacy and safety assessment is performed for drugs for which a TPR will be created. To create this type of report, AETSA follows its own methodological guideline based on EUnetHTA guidelines and the HTA Core Model®. In this paper, the methodology that AETSA has developed to create the guideline for "Evidence synthesis reports: pharmaceuticals" is described. The structure of the report itself is also presented

Guía de Terapéutica Antimicrobiana del Área Aljarafe, 3ª edición

Coordinadora: Rocío Fernández Urrusuno. Co-coordinadora: Carmen Serrano Martino.YesEstas guías son un recurso indispensable en los Programas de Optimización de Antibióticos (PROA). No sólo constituyen una herramienta de ayuda para la toma de decisiones en los principales síndromes infecciosos, proporcionando recomendaciones para el abordaje empírico de dichos procesos, sino que son el patrón/estándar de referencia que permitirá determinar la calidad o adecuación de los tratamientos realizados. Las guías pueden ser utilizadas, además, como herramienta de base para la formación y actualización en antibioterapia, ya que permiten mantener actualizados los conocimientos sobre las nuevas evidencias en el abordaje de las infecciones. Por último, deberían incorporar herramientas que faciliten el proceso de toma de decisiones compartidas con el paciente. El objetivo de esta guía es proporcionar recomendaciones para el abordaje de las enfermedades infecciosas más prevalentes en la comunidad, basadas en las últimas evidencias disponibles y los datos de resistencias de los principales patógenos que contribuyan a mejorar la calidad de la prescripción de antimicrobianos

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective

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