Nutrición en Salud Pública

La salud pública es uno de los esfuerzos colectivos organizados de la sociedad para prevenir la muerte prematura, la enfermedad, las lesiones y la discapacidad, y para promover la salud de las poblaciones. La Nutrición es la ciencia que estudia el conjunto de procesos por los cuales un organismo utiliza la energía de los alimentos para mantenerse y crecer; o, expresado de forma más operativa, la ciencia que estudia los alimentos, nutrientes y otras sustancias relacionadas, su interacción y balance en relación con la salud y la enfermedad y los procesos por los cuales el organismo ingiere, digiere, absorbe, transporta, utiliza y extrae las sustancias alimenticias. A partir de estas definiciones, podemos conceptualizar la nutrición en salud pública o la salud pública nutricional (public health nutrition) como la ciencia que estudia la relación entre dieta y salud a nivel poblacional y el desarrollo de intervenciones nutricionales a nivel comunitario con el objeto de mejorar el estado de salud de las poblaciones

The SignSpeak Project -- Bridging the Gap Between Signers and Speakers

peer reviewe

SignSpeak -- Scientific Understanding and Vision-Based Technological Development for Continuous Sign Language Recognition and Translation

peer reviewe

Antimicrobial management of Tropheryma whipplei endocarditis: the Spanish Collaboration on Endocarditis (GAMES) experience

OBJECTIVES: Tropheryma whipplei has been detected in 3.5% of the blood culture-negative cases of endocarditis in Spain. Experience in the management of T. whipplei endocarditis is limited. Here we report the long-term outcome of the treatment of previously reported patients who were diagnosed with infective endocarditis (IE) caused by T. whipplei from the Spanish Collaboration on Endocarditis-Grupo de Apoyo al Manejo de la Endocarditis Infecciosa en Espana (GAMES) and discuss potential options for antimicrobial therapy for IE caused by T. whipplei. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen patients with T. whipplei endocarditis were recruited between 2008 and 2014 in 25 Spanish hospitals. Patients were classified according to the therapeutic regimen: ceftriaxone and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, doxycycline + hydroxychloroquine and other treatment options. RESULTS: Follow-up data were obtained from 14 patients. The median follow-up was 46.5 months. All patients completed the antibiotic treatment prescribed, with a median duration of 13 months. Six patients were treated with ceftriaxone and trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole (median duration 13 months), four with doxycycline + hydroxychloroquine (median duration 13.8 months) and four with other treatment options (median duration 22.3 months). The follow-up after the end of the treatments was between 5 and 84 months (median 24 months). CONCLUSIONS: All treatment lines were effective and well tolerated. Therapeutic failures were not detected during the treatment. None of the patients died or experienced a relapse during the follow-up. Only six patients received antibiotic treatment in accordance with guidelines. These data suggest that shorter antimicrobial treatments could be effective

Outpatient Parenteral Antibiotic Treatment for Infective Endocarditis: A Prospective Cohort Study From the GAMES Cohort

BACKGROUND: Outpatient parenteral antibiotic treatment (OPAT) has proven efficacious for treating infective endocarditis (IE). However, the 2001 Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) criteria for OPAT in IE are very restrictive. We aimed to compare the outcomes of OPAT with those of hospital-based antibiotic treatment (HBAT). METHODS: Retrospective analysis of data from a multicenter, prospective cohort study of 2000 consecutive IE patients in 25 Spanish hospitals (2008-2012) was performed. RESULTS: A total of 429 patients (21.5%) received OPAT, and only 21.7% fulfilled IDSA criteria. Males accounted for 70.5%, median age was 68 years (interquartile range [IQR], 56-76), and 57% had native-valve IE. The most frequent causal microorganisms were viridans group streptococci (18.6%), Staphylococcus aureus (15.6%), and coagulase-negative staphylococci (14.5%). Median length of antibiotic treatment was 42 days (IQR, 32-54), and 44% of patients underwent cardiac surgery. One-year mortality was 8% (42% for HBAT; P < .001), 1.4% of patients relapsed, and 10.9% were readmitted during the first 3 months after discharge (no significant differences compared with HBAT). Charlson score (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.42; P = .01) and cardiac surgery (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, .09-.63; P = .04) were associated with 1-year mortality, whereas aortic valve involvement (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, .22-.98; P = .007) was the only predictor of 1-year readmission. Failing to fulfill IDSA criteria was not a risk factor for mortality or readmission. CONCLUSIONS: OPAT provided excellent results despite the use of broader criteria than those recommended by IDSA. OPAT criteria should therefore be expanded

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

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: 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