Clinical Characterization of the Persistent COVID-19 Symptoms: A Descriptive Observational Study in Primary Care.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence and clinical experience suggest that there are a range of signs of health issues that affect patients who have recovered from acute COVID-19 infection. This condition is commonly referred to as "persistent COVID-19," which is not connected with the severity of the disease. We have identified the prevalence and clinical-epidemiological characteristics of patients with COVID-19 and persistent symptoms treated in primary care centers. This is a descriptive observational study conducted between December 2020 and May 2022, the data were collected from digitized medical records and interviewing 1542 individuals with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. These patients were clinically followed for up to 1 year, based on the prevalence of symptoms. When stratifying by the risk of developing persistent COVID-19, 37.09% of the patients exhibited risk factors, with age (over 60 years) and cardiovascular risk factors predominating. The obtained prevalence of persistent COVID-19 at 90 days was 12.39%, with a slight predominance in females (55%) and a mean age of 45.8 years. The most affected systems were the cardiovascular, respiratory, and psychoneurological systems, with predominant symptoms of fatigue (41.88%), dyspnea (32.46%), and headache (14.66%), among others. The average duration of persistent symptoms was 178 days, equivalent to 6 months. In conclusion, over 10% of patients who recover from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection developed long-term consequences. OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence and clinical-epidemiological characteristics of individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 and persistent symptoms treated in primary care centers in Área Sanitaria Sur de Córdoba (Spain) between December 2020 and May 2022. METHODS: A retrospective observational study of the population of Área Sanitaria Sur de Córdoba was developed between December 2020 and May 2022. The scope of the study was 1542 individuals, and the prevalence of patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and persistent symptoms was determined based on laboratory-confirmed cases, randomly selected from adults who had progressed beyond the acute phase of the disease. All data were managed by the Área Sanitaria Sur de Córdoba (Spain). RESULTS: The risk factor of exhibiting one or more risk factors associated with developing persistent COVID-19 is 37.09%. The obtained prevalence of persistent COVID-19 at 90 days is 12.39%, it is higher in females (55%) than males and the mean age was 45.8 years. The most affected systems were the cardiovascular, respiratory, and psychoneurological systems, with predominant symptoms of fatigue (41.88%), dyspnea (32.46%), and headache (14.66%), among others. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm that more than 10% of individuals recovering from acute SARS-CoV-2 infection showed long-term consequences and the observed persistent symptom duration was 178 days on average.

GEMA 5.3. Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma.

The Spanish Guideline on the Management of Asthma, better known by its acronym in Spanish GEMA, has been available for more than 20 years. Twenty-one scientific societies or related groups both from Spain and internationally have participated in the preparation and development of the updated edition of GEMA, which in fact has been currently positioned as the reference guide on asthma in the Spanish language worldwide. Its objective is to prevent and improve the clinical situation of people with asthma by increasing the knowledge of healthcare professionals involved in their care. Its purpose is to convert scientific evidence into simple and easy-to-follow practical recommendations. Therefore, it is not a monograph that brings together all the scientific knowledge about the disease, but rather a brief document with the essentials, designed to be applied quickly in routine clinical practice. The guidelines are necessarily multidisciplinary, developed to be useful and an indispensable tool for physicians of different specialties, as well as nurses and pharmacists. Probably the most outstanding aspects of the guide are the recommendations to: establish the diagnosis of asthma using a sequential algorithm based on objective diagnostic tests; the follow-up of patients, preferably based on the strategy of achieving and maintaining control of the disease; treatment according to the level of severity of asthma, using six steps from least to greatest need of pharmaceutical drugs, and the treatment algorithm for the indication of biologics in patients with severe uncontrolled asthma based on phenotypes. And now, in addition to that, there is a novelty for easy use and follow-up through a computer application based on the chatbot-type conversational artificial intelligence (ia-GEMA).

La Guía Española para el Manejo del Asma, mejor conocida por su acrónimo en español, GEMA, está a nuestra disposición desde hace más de veinte años. Veintiuna sociedades científicas o grupos relacionados, tanto de España como de otros países, han participado en la preparación y desarrollo de la edición actualizada de GEMA que, de hecho, se ha posicionado en la actualidad a nivel mundial como la guía de referencia sobre asma en lengua española.Su objetivo es prevenir y mejorar la situación clínica de las personas con asma, aumentando el conocimiento de los profesionales sanitarios involucrados en su cuidado. Su propósito es convertir la evidencia científica en recomendaciones prácticas sencillas y fáciles de seguir. Por lo tanto, no se trata de una monografía que reúna todo el conocimiento científico sobre la enfermedad, sino más bien de un documento conciso con lo esencial, diseñado para ser aplicado rápidamente en la práctica clínica de rutina. Las recomendaciones son necesariamente multidisciplinares, están desarrolladas para ser útiles y una herramienta indispensable para médicos de diferentes especialidades, así como para profesionales de enfermería y farmacia.Seguramente, los aspectos más destacados de la guía son las recomendaciones para: establecer el diagnóstico del asma utilizando un algoritmo secuencial basado en pruebas diagnósticas objetivas; el seguimiento de los pacientes, preferentemente basado en la estrategia de lograr y mantener el control de la enfermedad; el tratamiento según el nivel de gravedad del asma utilizando seis escalones, desde la menor hasta la mayor necesidad de medicamentos, y el algoritmo de tratamiento basado en fenotipos para la indicación de biológicos en pacientes con asma grave no controlada. A esto se suma ahora una novedad para su fácil uso y seguimiento a través de una aplicación informática basada en la inteligencia artificial conversacional de tipo chatbot (ia-GEMA).

[Referral Criteria for Asthma: An Updated Consensus]. / Criterios de derivación en asma: Actualización documento de consenso.

Asthma is one of the most prevalent chronic diseases in Spain. In 2019, the Spanish Society of Allergology and Clinical Immunology (SEAIC), the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMERGEN), the Spanish Society of Family and Community Medicine (semFYC), the Spanish Society of General and Family Physicians (SEMG) and the Spanish Society of Pulmonology and Thoracic Surgery (SEPAR) drafted a document laying down the criteria for referral and action guidelines in the diagnosis, control and monitoring of the asthmatic patient to facilitate ongoing care and improved attention in every setting. The new circumstances derived from the Covid-19 pandemic have demanded that some of the recommendations of the previous edition be updated and adapted to the new healthcare situation.

Quantification of inaccurate diagnosis of COPD in primary care medicine: an analysis of the COACH clinical audit.

Background: Inaccurate diagnosis in COPD is a current problem with relevant consequences in terms of inefficient health care, which has not been thoroughly studied in primary care medicine. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the degree of inaccurate diagnosis in Primary Care in Spain and study the determinants associated with it. Methods: The Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study is a national, observational, randomized, non-interventional, national clinical audit aimed at evaluating clinical practice for patients with COPD in primary care medicine in Spain. For the present analysis, a correct diagnosis was evaluated based on previous exposure and airway obstruction with and without the presence of symptoms. The association of patient-level and center-level variables with inaccurate diagnosis was studied using multivariate multilevel binomial logistic regression models. Results: During the study 4,307 cases from 63 centers were audited. The rate of inaccurate diagnosis was 82.4% (inter-regional range from 76.8% to 90.2%). Patient-related interventions associated with inaccurate diagnosis were related to active smoking, lung function evaluation, and specific therapeutic interventions. Center-level variables related to the availability of certain complementary tests and different aspects of the resources available were also associated with an inaccurate diagnosis. Conclusions: The prevalence data for the inaccurate diagnosis of COPD in primary care medicine in Spain establishes a point of reference in the clinical management of COPD. The descriptors of the variables associated with this inaccurate diagnosis can be used to identify cases and centers in which inaccurate diagnosis is occurring considerably, thus allowing for improvement.

Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study: a clinical audit on primary care performance variability in COPD care.

BACKGROUND: A thorough evaluation of the adequacy of clinical practice in a designated health care setting and temporal context is key for clinical care improvement. This study aimed to perform a clinical audit of primary care to evaluate clinical care delivered to patients with COPD in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study was an observational, multicenter, nationwide, non-interventional, retrospective, clinical audit of randomly selected primary care centers in Spain. Two different databases were built: the resources and organization database and the clinical database. From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2016 consecutive clinical cases of COPD in each participating primary care center (PCC) were audited. For descriptive purposes, we collected data regarding the age at diagnosis of COPD and the age at audit, gender, the setting of the PCC (rural/urban), and comorbidities for each patient. Two guidelines widely and uniformly used in Spain were carefully reviewed to establish a benchmark of adequacy for the audited cases. Clinical performance was analyzed at the patient, center, and regional levels. The degree of adequacy was categorized as excellent (> 80%), good (60-80%), adequate (40-59%), inadequate (20-39%), and highly inadequate (< 20%). RESULTS: During the study 4307 cases from 63 primary care centers in 6 regions of the country were audited. Most evaluated parameters were judged to fall in the inadequate performance category. A correct diagnosis based on previous exposure plus spirometric obstruction was made in an average of 17.6% of cases, ranging from 9.8 to 23.3% depending on the region. During the audited visit, only 67 (1.6%) patients had current post-bronchodilator obstructive spirometry; 184 (4.3%) patients had current post-bronchodilator obstructive spirometry during either the audited or initial diagnostic visit. Evaluation of dyspnea was performed in 11.1% of cases. Regarding treatment, 33.6% received no maintenance inhaled therapies (ranging from 31.3% in GOLD A to 7.0% in GOLD D). The two most frequently registered items were exacerbations in the previous year (81.4%) and influenza vaccination (87.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this audit revealed a large variability in clinical performance across centers, which was not fully attributable to the severity of the disease.