Utilidad de una estrategia de cribado de hipertensión ocular y glaucoma en atención primaria

ObjetivosEvaluar la utilidad de una estrategia de cribado de glaucoma e hipertensión ocular (HTO) medida como número de casos detectados. Evaluar la aceptabilidad de la toma de presión intraocular (PIO) y la aparición de efectos secundarios.DiseñoEstudio descriptivo transversal.EmplazamientoCentro de salud urbano y consulta de oftalmología del hospital de referencia.ParticipantesEn total, 2.044 pacientes mayores de 40 años, seleccionados por muestreo consecutivo entre los que consultaron en el centro de salud durante 9 meses. Se excluyeron los sujetos diagnosticados de glaucoma, HTO, conjuntivitis o enfermedad corneal.IntervencionesToma de PIO con Tonopen XL en atención primaria. Se remitió a oftalmología a los sujetos con una PIO≥21 mmHg. En éstos se midió la PIO con la prueba de Goldmann y, en los que se confirmó la HTO, se realizaron una oftalmoscopia y una campimetría.Mediciones principalesPorcentaje de sujetos con glaucoma, sospecha de glaucoma e HTO confirmada en oftalmología. Valor predictivo positivo (VPP) para HTO.ResultadosSe detectaron 100 sujetos con HTO (4,89%; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%, 3,93-5,85%), de los que 21 fueron diagnosticados de glaucoma (1,04%; IC del 95%, 0,57-1,49%) y 10 de sospecha de glaucoma (0,49%; IC del 95%, 0,16-0,82). El VPP para HTO fue del 44,27%. La aceptabilidad de la prueba fue del 98,09%. Ningún paciente presentó efectos secundarios tras la toma de la PIO.ConclusionesLa estrategia evaluada es útil en cuanto al porcentaje de sujetos con glaucoma e HTO detectados. La aceptabilidad de la toma de la PIO con Tonopen XL es alta.ObjectivesTo evaluate the usefulness of a glaucoma and intraocular hypertension screening strategy for new cases detected. To evaluate the acceptability of taking intraocular pressure (IOP) and the appearance of side effects.DesignCross-sectional, descriptive study.SettingAn urban health centre and the ophthalmology clinic of its main hospital.ParticipantsA total of 2044 patients aged over 40, 63.5% women and 36.5% men, with a mean age of 61.23 (SD, 11.42). They were selected by consecutive sampling from patients who visited the health centre over a 9-month period. Subjects diagnosed with glaucoma, ocular hypertension (OH), conjunctivitis, or corneal pathology were excluded.InterventionsTaking of IOP with Tonopen XL in primary care. Subjects with IOP ≥21 mm Hg were referred to ophthalmology. In these patients, IOP was measured with Goldmann, and patients with confirmed OH received ophthalmoscopy and campimetry.Main measurementsPercentage of subjects with glaucoma, suspected glaucoma, and OH confirmed in ophthalmology. Positive predictive value (PPV) for OH.ResultsOne hundred subjects with OH were detected (4.89%; 95% CI, 3.93%-5.85%), of whom 21 were diagnosed with glaucoma (1.04%; 95% CI, 0.57-1.49) and 10 with suspected glaucoma (0.49%; 95% CI, 0.16-0.82). The PPV for OH was 44.27%. The acceptability of the test was 98.09%. No patients presented with side-effects following the taking of their IOP.ConclusionsThe strategy evaluated is useful in terms of the number of subjects with glaucoma and OH detected. The acceptability of taking IOP with Tonopen XL was high

Patient preferences and treatment safety for uncomplicated vulvovaginal candidiasis in primary health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Vaginitis is a common complaint in primary care. In uncomplicated candidal vaginitis, there are no differences in effectiveness between oral or vaginal treatment. Some studies describe that the preferred treatment is the oral one, but a Cochrane's review points out inconsistencies associated with the report of the preferred way that limit the use of such data. Risk factors associated with recurrent vulvovaginal candidiasis still remain controversial.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This work describes a protocol of a multicentric prospective observational study with one year follow up, to describe the women's reasons and preferences to choose the way of administration (oral vs topical) in the treatment of not complicated candidal vaginitis. The number of women required is 765, they are chosen by consecutive sampling. All of whom are aged 16 and over with vaginal discharge and/or vaginal pruritus, diagnosed with not complicated vulvovaginitis in Primary Care in Madrid.</p> <p>The main outcome variable is the preferences of the patients in treatment choice; secondary outcome variables are time to symptoms relief and adverse reactions and the frequency of recurrent vulvovaginitis and the risk factors. In the statistical analysis, for the main objective will be descriptive for each of the variables, bivariant analysis and multivariate analysis (logistic regression).. The dependent variable being the type of treatment chosen (oral or topical) and the independent, the variables that after bivariant analysis, have been associated to the treatment preference.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Clinical decisions, recommendations, and practice guidelines must not only attend to the best available evidence, but also to the values and preferences of the informed patient.</p