Cómo clasificar un texto híbrido: sobre la escritura silenciada en el siglo XVIII

El lenguaje es un devenir constante de transformación y en el intento de categorizar los discursos se han organizado los géneros literarios para establecer los diferentes usos del lenguaje. En el siglo XX en analogía al género literario se crea el concepto de género discursivo, Bajtín, Voloshinov, Vossler, los definen como “los conjuntos más o menos estables de enunciados que una comunidad puede identificar.”[1] El lenguaje representa diferentes escenarios culturales, no sólo en su contenido histórico que prevalece por la escritura, sino también su herencia verbal, que de acuerdo con Mijaíl Bajtín es posible gracias a la selección de recursos, léxicos, fraseológicos y gramaticales.[2] En el caso de los textos literarios «los diversos géneros ofrecen diferentes posibilidades para expresar lo individual del lenguaje y varios aspectos de la individualidad»[3] La escritura como la oralidad mantiene un vínculo que se corresponde con la historia y los continuos cambios de la actividad humana, el uso cotidiano del lenguaje como la aplicación del mismo en las creaciones literarias representan un sistema organizado acorde con las estructuras sociales. Por lo tanto los géneros discursivos pueden ser aplicados en la caracterización de textos de distinta naturaleza, ya que, apoyados de un conocimiento histórico social podemos contextualizar la escritura de acuerdo a su época y a las actividades humanas que le corresponden, lo que permite construir una proyección del pasado adecuado para su interpretación

Marco activo de recursos de innovación docente: Madrid

Una guía de espacios e instituciones para actividades educativas complementarias en enseñanza secundaria y Formación Profesional

Impact of Biological Agents on Postsurgical Complications in Inflammatory Bowel Disease : A Multicentre Study of Geteccu

Background: The impact of biologics on the risk of postoperative complications (PC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is still an ongoing debate. This lack of evidence is more relevant for ustekinumab and vedolizumab. Aims: To evaluate the impact of biologics on the risk of PC. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 37 centres. Patients treated with biologics within 12 weeks before surgery were considered "exposed". The impact of the exposure on the risk of 30-day PC and the risk of infections was assessed by logistic regression and propensity score-matched analysis. Results: A total of 1535 surgeries were performed on 1370 patients. Of them, 711 surgeries were conducted in the exposed cohort (584 anti-TNF, 58 vedolizumab and 69 ustekinumab). In the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2-2.0), urgent surgery (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2-2.2), laparotomy approach (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1-1.9) and severe anaemia (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3-2.6) had higher risk of PC, while academic hospitals had significantly lower risk. Exposure to biologics (either anti-TNF, vedolizumab or ustekinumab) did not increase the risk of PC (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.97-1.58), although it could be a risk factor for postoperative infections (OR 1.5; 95% CI: 1.03-2.27). Conclusions: Preoperative administration of biologics does not seem to be a risk factor for overall PC, although it may be so for postoperative infections

Effectiveness and Safety of the Sequential Use of a Second and Third Anti-TNF Agent in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Results From the Eneida Registry

Background: The effectiveness of the switch to another anti-tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) agent is not known. The aim of this study was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of treatment with a second and third anti-TNF drug after intolerance to or failure of a previous anti-TNF agent in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients. Methods: We included patients diagnosed with IBD from the ENEIDA registry who received another anti-TNF after intolerance to or failure of a prior anti-TNF agent. Results: A total of 1122 patients were included. In the short term, remission was achieved in 55% of the patients with the second anti-TNF. The incidence of loss of response was 19% per patient-year with the second anti-TNF. Combination therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-3; P < 0.0001) and ulcerative colitis vs Crohn's disease (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1; P = 0.005) were associated with a higher probability of loss of response. Fifteen percent of the patients had adverse events, and 10% had to discontinue the second anti-TNF. Of the 71 patients who received a third anti-TNF, 55% achieved remission. The incidence of loss of response was 22% per patient-year with a third anti-TNF. Adverse events occurred in 7 patients (11%), but only 1 stopped the drug. Conclusions: Approximately half of the patients who received a second anti-TNF achieved remission; nevertheless, a significant proportion of them subsequently lost response. Combination therapy and type of IBD were associated with loss of response. Remission was achieved in almost 50% of patients who received a third anti-TNF; nevertheless, a significant proportion of them subsequently lost response

Impact of a Primary Care Antimicrobial Stewardship Program on Bacterial Resistance Control and Ecological Imprint in Urinary Tract Infections

Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) are a central component in reducing the overprescription of unnecessary antibiotics, with multiple studies showing benefits in the reduction of bacterial resistance. Less commonly, ASPs have been performed in outpatient settings, but there is a lack of available data in these settings. We implemented an ASP in a large regional outpatient setting to assess its feasibility and effectiveness. Over a 5-year post-implementation period, compared to the pre-intervention period, a significant reduction in antibiotic prescription occurred, with a reduction in resistance in E. coli urinary isolates. ASP activities also were found to be cost-effective, with a reduction in medication prescription

Effectiveness of Fosfomycin for the Treatment of Multidrug-Resistant Escherichia coli Bacteremic Urinary Tract Infections

IMPORTANCE The consumption of broad-spectrum drugs has increased as a consequence of the spread of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Escherichia coli. Finding alternatives for these infections is critical, for which some neglected drugs may be an option. OBJECTIVE To determine whether fosfomycin is noninferior to ceftriaxone or meropenem in the targeted treatment of bacteremic urinary tract infections (bUTIs) due to MDR E coli. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This multicenter, randomized, pragmatic, open clinical trial was conducted at 22 Spanish hospitals from June 2014 to December 2018. Eligible participants were adult patients with bacteremic urinary tract infections due to MDR E coli; 161 of 1578 screened patients were randomized and followed up for 60 days. Data were analyzed in May 2021. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized 1 to 1 to receive intravenous fosfomycin disodium at 4 g every 6 hours (70 participants) or a comparator (ceftriaxone or meropenem if resistant; 73 participants) with the option to switch to oral fosfomycin trometamol for the fosfomycin group or an active oral drug or pa renteral ertapenem for the comparator group after 4 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was clinical and microbiological cure (CMC) 5 to 7 days after finalization of treatment; a noninferiority margin of 7% was considered. RESULTS Among 143 patients in the modified intention-to-treat population (median [IQR] age, 72 [62-81] years; 73 [51.0%] women), 48 of 70 patients (68.6%) treated with fosfomycin and 57 of 73 patients (78.1%) treated with comparators reached CMC (risk difference, -9.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI, -21.5 to infinity percentage points; P = .10). While clinical or microbiological failure occurred among 10 patients (14.3%) treated with fosfomycin and 14 patients (19.7%) treated with comparators (risk difference, -5.4 percentage points; 1-sided 95% CI. -infinity to 4.9; percentage points; P = .19), an increased rate of adverse event-related discontinuations occurred with fosfomycin vs comparators (6 discontinuations [8.5%] vs 0 discontinuations; P = .006). In an exploratory analysis among a subset of 38 patients who underwent rectal colonization studies, patients treated with fosfomycin acquired a new ceftriaxone-resistant or meropenem-resistant gram-negative bacteria at a decreased rate compared with patients treated with comparators (0 of 21 patients vs 4 of 17 patients [23.5%]; 1-sided P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that fosfomycin did not demonstrate noninferiority to comparators as targeted treatment of bUTI from MDR E coli; this was due to an increased rate of adverse event-related discontinuations. This finding suggests that fosfomycin may be considered for selected patients with these infections

Risk Factors for COVID-19 in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A National, ENEIDA-Based Case–Control Study (COVID-19-EII)

(1) Scant information is available concerning the characteristics that may favour the acquisition of COVID-19 in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess these differences between infected and noninfected patients with IBD. (2) This nationwide case-control study evaluated patients with inflammatory bowel disease with COVID-19 (cases) and without COVID-19 (controls) during the period March-July 2020 included in the ENEIDA of GETECCU. (3) A total of 496 cases and 964 controls from 73 Spanish centres were included. No differences were found in the basal characteristics between cases and controls. Cases had higher comorbidity Charlson scores (24% vs. 19%; p = 0.02) and occupational risk (28% vs. 10.5%; p < 0.0001) more frequently than did controls. Lockdown was the only protective measure against COVID-19 (50% vs. 70%; p < 0.0001). No differences were found in the use of systemic steroids, immunosuppressants or biologics between cases and controls. Cases were more often treated with 5-aminosalicylates (42% vs. 34%; p = 0.003). Having a moderate Charlson score (OR: 2.7; 95%CI: 1.3-5.9), occupational risk (OR: 2.9; 95%CI: 1.8-4.4) and the use of 5-aminosalicylates (OR: 1.7; 95%CI: 1.2-2.5) were factors for COVID-19. The strict lockdown was the only protective factor (OR: 0.1; 95%CI: 0.09-0.2). (4) Comorbidities and occupational exposure are the most relevant factors for COVID-19 in patients with IBD. The risk of COVID-19 seems not to be increased by immunosuppressants or biologics, with a potential effect of 5-aminosalicylates, which should be investigated further and interpreted with caution

El reto de la inclusión de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible en la formación inicial de profesores de secundaria: creación del MOOC curso cero sobre educación y ODS, inclusión en asignaturas y en trabajos fin de máster

Memoria ID-041. Ayudas de la Universidad de Salamanca para la innovación docente, curso 2021-2022

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

Correction : Chaparro et al. Incidence, Clinical Characteristics and Management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease in Spain: Large-Scale Epidemiological Study. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2885

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [...]