Nuestros colaboradores

Incluye fotografía tamaño carné y breve reseña biográfica de los colaboradores de este número

COVID-19 symptoms at hospital admission vary with age and sex: results from the ISARIC prospective multinational observational study

Background: The ISARIC prospective multinational observational study is the largest cohort of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. We present relationships of age, sex, and nationality to presenting symptoms. Methods: International, prospective observational study of 60 109 hospitalized symptomatic patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 recruited from 43 countries between 30 January and 3 August 2020. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate relationships of age and sex to published COVID-19 case definitions and the most commonly reported symptoms. Results: ‘Typical’ symptoms of fever (69%), cough (68%) and shortness of breath (66%) were the most commonly reported. 92% of patients experienced at least one of these. Prevalence of typical symptoms was greatest in 30- to 60-year-olds (respectively 80, 79, 69%; at least one 95%). They were reported less frequently in children (≤ 18 years: 69, 48, 23; 85%), older adults (≥ 70 years: 61, 62, 65; 90%), and women (66, 66, 64; 90%; vs. men 71, 70, 67; 93%, each P < 0.001). The most common atypical presentations under 60 years of age were nausea and vomiting and abdominal pain, and over 60 years was confusion. Regression models showed significant differences in symptoms with sex, age and country. Interpretation: This international collaboration has allowed us to report reliable symptom data from the largest cohort of patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19. Adults over 60 and children admitted to hospital with COVID-19 are less likely to present with typical symptoms. Nausea and vomiting are common atypical presentations under 30 years. Confusion is a frequent atypical presentation of COVID-19 in adults over 60 years. Women are less likely to experience typical symptoms than men

Career satisfaction of medical residents in Portugal

Introdução: A satisfação com a profissão médica tem sido apontada como um fator essencial para a qualidade assistencial, o bemestar dos doentes e a estabilidade dos sistemas de saúde. Estudos recentes têm vindo a enfatizar um crescente descontentamento dos médicos, principalmente como consequência das alterações das relações laborais. Objetivos: Avaliar a perceção dos médicos de formação específica em Portugal, sobre as expectativas e grau de satisfação com a profissão, especialidade e local de formação; razões da insatisfação e intenção de emigrar. Material e Métodos: Estudo transversal. A colheita de dados foi efetuada entre Maio e Agosto de 2014 através de um Inquérito online sobre a “Satisfação com a Especialidade”. Resultados: De uma população total de 5788 médicos, foram obtidas 804 respostas (12,25% do total de médicos internos). Desta amostra, 77% das respostas correspondem a internos dos três primeiros anos de formação. Verificou-se que 90% dos médicos se encontram satisfeitos com a especialidade, tendo-se encontrado também níveis elevados de satisfação com a profissão (85%) e local de formação (86%). Por outro lado, constatou-se que estes diminuíam com a progressão ao longo dos anos de internato. A avaliação global sobre o panorama da prática médica foi negativa e 65% dos médicos responderam que consideram emigrar após conclusão do internato. Conclusão: Os médicos internos em Portugal apresentam níveis positivos de satisfação com a sua profissão. No entanto, a sua opinião sobre o panorama da Medicina e os resultados relativos à intenção de emigrar alertam para a necessidade de tomada de medidas para inverter este cenário.Introduction: The satisfaction with the medical profession has been identified as an essential factor for the quality of care, the wellbeing of patients and the healthcare systems’ stability. Recent studies have emphasized a growing discontent of physicians, mainly as a result of changes in labor relations. Objectives: To assess the perception of Portuguese medical residents about: correspondence of residency with previous expectations; degree of satisfaction with the specialty, profession and place of training; reasons for dissatisfaction; opinion regarding clinical practice in Portugal and emigration intents. Material and Methods: Cross-sectional study. Data collection was conducted through the “Satisfaction with Specialization Survey”, created in an online platform, designed for this purpose, between May and August 2014. Results: From a total population of 5788 medical residents, 804 (12.25 %) responses were obtained. From this sample, 77% of the responses were from residents in the first three years. Results showed that 90% of the residents are satisfied with their specialty, 85% with the medical profession and 86% with their place of training. Nevertheless, results showed a decrease in satisfaction over the final years of residency. The overall assessment of the clinical practice scenario in Portugal was negative and 65% of residents have plans to emigrate after completing their residency. Conclusion: Portuguese residents revealed high satisfaction levels regarding their profession. However, their views on Portuguese clinical practice and the results concerning the intent to emigrate highlight the need to take steps to reverse this scenario

Libro de Actas de las III Jornadas ScienCity 2020: Fomento de la Cultura Científica, Tecnológica y de Innovación en Ciudades Inteligentes

Editorial: Kindle Direct Publishing, Seattle, WS (USA)Actualmente, nuestras ciudades están experimentando una verdadera transformación digital que requiere una atención inmediata en energía, transporte, movilidad, comunicación, seguridad, educación, turismo y aspectos sociales, así como fomentar todas aquellas actuaciones que persigan mejorar la calidad de vida y el desarrollo económico-ambiental sostenible. ScienCity es un foro científico-tecnológico que pretende dar a conocer a la sociedad los conocimientos y tecnologías emergentes siendo investigados en las universidades, informar de experiencias, servicios e iniciativas puestas ya en marcha por instituciones y empresas, llegar hasta decisores políticos que podrían crear sinergias, incentivar la creación de ideas y posibilidades de desarrollo conjuntas, implicar y provocar la participación ciudadana.Junta de Andalucía, Universidad de Huelva y Consejo Social de la Universidad de Huelv

Paediatric COVID-19 mortality: a database analysis of the impact of health resource disparity

Background The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on paediatric populations varied between high-income countries (HICs) versus low-income to middle-income countries (LMICs). We sought to investigate differences in paediatric clinical outcomes and identify factors contributing to disparity between countries.Methods The International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 database was queried to include children under 19 years of age admitted to hospital from January 2020 to April 2021 with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Univariate and multivariable analysis of contributing factors for mortality were assessed by country group (HICs vs LMICs) as defined by the World Bank criteria.Results A total of 12 860 children (3819 from 21 HICs and 9041 from 15 LMICs) participated in this study. Of these, 8961 were laboratory-confirmed and 3899 suspected COVID-19 cases. About 52% of LMICs children were black, and more than 40% were infants and adolescent. Overall in-hospital mortality rate (95% CI) was 3.3% [=(3.0% to 3.6%), higher in LMICs than HICs (4.0% (3.6% to 4.4%) and 1.7% (1.3% to 2.1%), respectively). There were significant differences between country income groups in intervention profile, with higher use of antibiotics, antivirals, corticosteroids, prone positioning, high flow nasal cannula, non-invasive and invasive mechanical ventilation in HICs. Out of the 439 mechanically ventilated children, mortality occurred in 106 (24.1%) subjects, which was higher in LMICs than HICs (89 (43.6%) vs 17 (7.2%) respectively). Pre-existing infectious comorbidities (tuberculosis and HIV) and some complications (bacterial pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome and myocarditis) were significantly higher in LMICs compared with HICs. On multivariable analysis, LMIC as country income group was associated with increased risk of mortality (adjusted HR 4.73 (3.16 to 7.10)).Conclusion Mortality and morbidities were higher in LMICs than HICs, and it may be attributable to differences in patient demographics, complications and access to supportive and treatment modalities

Characterisation of microbial attack on archaeological bone

As part of an EU funded project to investigate the factors influencing bone preservation in the archaeological record, more than 250 bones from 41 archaeological sites in five countries spanning four climatic regions were studied for diagenetic alteration. Sites were selected to cover a range of environmental conditions and archaeological contexts. Microscopic and physical (mercury intrusion porosimetry) analyses of these bones revealed that the majority (68%) had suffered microbial attack. Furthermore, significant differences were found between animal and human bone in both the state of preservation and the type of microbial attack present. These differences in preservation might result from differences in early taphonomy of the bones. © 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

Respiratory support in patients with severe COVID-19 in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection (ISARIC) COVID-19 study: a prospective, multinational, observational study

Background: Up to 30% of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 require advanced respiratory support, including high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC), non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIV), or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). We aimed to describe the clinical characteristics, outcomes and risk factors for failing non-invasive respiratory support in patients treated with severe COVID-19 during the first two years of the pandemic in high-income countries (HICs) and low middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: This is a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC-WHO COVID-19 Clinical Characterisation Protocol. Patients with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who required hospital admission were recruited prospectively. Patients treated with HFNC, NIV, or IMV within the first 24 h of hospital admission were included in this study. Descriptive statistics, random forest, and logistic regression analyses were used to describe clinical characteristics and compare clinical outcomes among patients treated with the different types of advanced respiratory support. Results: A total of 66,565 patients were included in this study. Overall, 82.6% of patients were treated in HIC, and 40.6% were admitted to the hospital during the first pandemic wave. During the first 24 h after hospital admission, patients in HICs were more frequently treated with HFNC (48.0%), followed by NIV (38.6%) and IMV (13.4%). In contrast, patients admitted in lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were less frequently treated with HFNC (16.1%) and the majority received IMV (59.1%). The failure rate of non-invasive respiratory support (i.e. HFNC or NIV) was 15.5%, of which 71.2% were from HIC and 28.8% from LMIC. The variables most strongly associated with non-invasive ventilation failure, defined as progression to IMV, were high leukocyte counts at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 5.86 [4.83-7.10]), treatment in an LMIC (OR [95%CI]; 2.04 [1.97-2.11]), and tachypnoea at hospital admission (OR [95%CI]; 1.16 [1.14-1.18]). Patients who failed HFNC/NIV had a higher 28-day fatality ratio (OR [95%CI]; 1.27 [1.25-1.30]). Conclusions: In the present international cohort, the most frequently used advanced respiratory support was the HFNC. However, IMV was used more often in LMIC. Higher leucocyte count, tachypnoea, and treatment in LMIC were risk factors for HFNC/NIV failure. HFNC/NIV failure was related to worse clinical outcomes, such as 28-day mortality. Trial registration This is a prospective observational study; therefore, no health care interventions were applied to participants, and trial registration is not applicable