Effect of the COVID-19 Lockdown on Patients Valuation of Usability of Telemedicine.

The aim of this paper was to report patient valuation of usability with our telemedicine system and to explore the effect of pandemic in its behavior. We conducted a cross-sectional study based on the prospective recollection of the results of the Spanish abbreviated version of the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ), from October 2019 to July 2020. We observed an inflection point of growth of answers during the pandemic era and a trend of decrease in usability valuations coinciding with the massive and forced implementation of the system after lockdown. This effect was transitory, evidencing an improvement over time. These results might be explained with a sociotechnical approach that includes considering the learning curve and suggest the importance of a telemedicine usability tool to guide decision-making. In conclusion, tools to assess telemedicine services may identify facilitators and barriers to its use in a highly changing social and technological context.

Vaccination impact: mortality and time shift to COVID-19 maximum severity in hospitalized patients. An Argentine multicenter registry.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 vaccine became an effective instrument to prevent severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, 5% of vaccinated patients will have moderate or severe disease. OBJECTIVE: to compare mortality and days between the symptom onset to the peak disease severity, in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID-19 hospitalized patients. METHODS: Retrospective observational study in 36 hospitals in Argentina. COVID-19 adults admitted to general wards between January 1, 2021, and May 31, 2022 were included. Days between symptoms onset to peak of severity were compared between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients with Cox regression, adjusted by Propensity Score Matching (PSM). Results in patients with one and two doses were also compared. RESULTS: A total of 3663 patients were included (3001 [81.9%] unvaccinated and 662 [18%] vaccinated). Time from symptom onset to peak severity was 7 days (IQR 4-12) vs. 7 days (IQR 4-11) in unvaccinated and vaccinated. In crude Cox regression analysis and matched population, no significant differences were observed. Regarding mortality, a Risk Ratio (RR) of 1.51 (IC95% 1.29-1.77) was observed in vaccinated patients, but in the PSM cohort, the RR was 0.73 (IC95% 0.60-0.88). RR in patients with one COVID-19 vaccine dose in PSM adjusted population was 0.7 (IC95% 0.45-1.03), and with two doses 0.6 (IC95% 0.46-0.79). DISCUSSION: The time elapsed between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms to the highest severity was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. However, hospitalized vaccinated patients had a lower risk of mortality than unvaccinated patients.

Introducción: A pesar de la eficacia de la vacuna contra el COVID-19 el 5% de los pacientes vacunados presentaran una enfermedad moderada o grave. El objetivo del presente estudio fue comparar los días entre el inicio de los síntomas y la gravedad máxima de la enfermedad, en pacientes con COVID-19 vacunados vs. no vacunados. Métodos: Estudio observacional retrospectivo en 36 hospitales de Argentina. Se incluyeron adultos con COVID-19 hospitalizados entre el 1/01/2021 y 31/5/2022. Se recolectaron datos demográficos, comorbilidades y progresión clínica de la enfermedad. Se compararon los días entre el inicio de los síntomas y el pico de gravedad entre vacunados y no vacunados mediante regresión de Cox, ajustada por emparejamiento por Propensity Score Matching (PSM). En un análisis de subgrupos, se compararon los resultados en pacientes con una y dos dosis de vacuna. Resultados: Se incluyeron 3663 pacientes (3001 [81.9%] no vacunados y 662 [18%] vacunados). El tiempo transcurrido desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta el pico de gravedad fue de 7 días (IQR 4 - 12) en no vacunados, y de 7 días (IQR 4-11) en vacunados. Tanto en el análisis de regresión de Cox crudo como en el ajustado, no se observaron diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos (HR ajustado 1.08 [IC 95% 0.82-1.4; p = 0.56]). En cuanto a la mortalidad, el Riesgo Relativo (RR) fue 1.51 (IC95% 1.29-1.77) en los pacientes vacunados, pero en la cohorte ajustada por Propensity Score, el RR fue de 0.73 (IC95% 0.60-0.88). El RR en el grupo con una dosis de vacuna COVID-19 en el análisis PSM fue 0.7 (IC95% 0.45-1.03), y con dos dosis 0.6 (IC95% 0.46-0.79). Discusión: El tiempo entre el inicio de los síntomas de COVID-19 y el pico de severidad fue igual en vacunados y no vacunados. Sin embargo, los pacientes vacunados hospitalizados presentaron menor mortalidad tras el ajuste por confundidores.

Vaccination impact: mortality and time shift to Covid-19 maximum severity in hospitalized patients - An Argentine multicenter registry / Mortalidad y tiempo entre el inicio y máxima gravedad de COVID-19, en pacientes hospitalizados vacunados y no vacunados. Registro multicéntrico argentino

Abstract Introduction : The COVID-19 vaccine became an effec tive instrument to prevent severe SARS-CoV-2 infections. However, 5% of vaccinated patients will have moderate or severe disease. Objective: to compare mortality and days between the symptom onset to the peak disease severity, in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated COVID-19 hos pitalized patients. Methods : Retrospective observational study in 36 hospitals in Argentina. COVID-19 adults admitted to general wards between January 1, 2021, and May 31, 2022 were included. Days between symptoms onset to peak of severity were compared between vaccinated vs. unvaccinated patients with Cox regression, adjusted by Propensity Score Matching (PSM). Results in patients with one and two doses were also compared. Results : A total of 3663 patients were included (3001 [81.9%] unvaccinated and 662 [18%] vaccinated). Time from symptom onset to peak severity was 7 days (IQR 4-12) vs. 7 days (IQR 4-11) in unvaccinated and vacci nated. In crude Cox regression analysis and matched population, no significant differences were observed. Regarding mortality, a Risk Ratio (RR) of 1.51 (IC95% 1.29-1.77) was observed in vaccinated patients, but in the PSM cohort, the RR was 0.73 (IC95% 0.60-0.88). RR in patients with one COVID-19 vaccine dose in PSM adjusted population was 0.7 (IC95% 0.45-1.03), and with two doses 0.6 (IC95% 0.46-0.79). Discussion : The time elapsed between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms to the highest severity was simi lar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. However, hospitalized vaccinated patients had a lower risk of mortality than unvaccinated patients.

Resumen Introducción : A pesar de la eficacia de la vacuna contra el COVID-19 el 5% de los pacientes vacunados presentaran una enfermedad moderada o grave. El ob jetivo del presente estudio fue comparar los días entre el inicio de los síntomas y la gravedad máxima de la enfermedad, en pacientes con COVID-19 vacunados vs. no vacunados. Métodos : Estudio observacional retrospectivo en 36 hospitales de Argentina. Se incluyeron adultos con CO VID-19 hospitalizados entre el 1/01/2021 y 31/5/2022. Se recolectaron datos demográficos, comorbilidades y progresión clínica de la enfermedad. Se compararon los días entre el inicio de los síntomas y el pico de gravedad entre vacunados y no vacunados mediante regresión de Cox, ajustada por emparejamiento por Propensity Score Matching (PSM). En un análisis de subgrupos, se compararon los resultados en pacientes con una y dos dosis de vacuna. Resultados : Se incluyeron 3663 pacientes (3001 [81.9%] no vacunados y 662 [18%] vacunados). El tiempo transcurrido desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta el pico de gravedad fue de 7 días (IQR 4 - 12) en no vacunados, y de 7 días (IQR 4-11) en vacunados. Tanto en el análisis de regresión de Cox crudo como en el ajustado, no se observaron diferencias significativas entre ambos grupos (HR ajustado 1.08 [IC 95% 0.82-1.4; p = 0.56]). En cuanto a la mortalidad, el Riesgo Relativo (RR) fue 1.51 (IC95% 1.29-1.77) en los pacientes vacunados, pero en la cohorte ajustada por Propensity Score, el RR fue de 0.73 (IC95% 0.60-0.88). El RR en el grupo con una dosis de vacuna COVID-19 en el análisis PSM fue 0.7 (IC95% 0.45-1.03), y con dos dosis 0.6 (IC95% 0.46-0.79). Discusión : El tiempo entre el inicio de los síntomas de COVID-19 y el pico de severidad fue igual en vacu nados y no vacunados. Sin embargo, los pacientes va cunados hospitalizados presentaron menor mortalidad tras el ajuste por confundidores.

Development and validation of COEWS (COVID-19 Early Warning Score) for hospitalized COVID-19 with laboratory features: A multicontinental retrospective study.

Background: The emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants with significant immune-evasiveness, the relaxation of measures for reducing the number of infections, the waning of immune protection (particularly in high-risk population groups), and the low uptake of new vaccine boosters, forecast new waves of hospitalizations and admission to intensive care units. There is an urgent need for easily implementable and clinically effective Early Warning Scores (EWSs) that can predict the risk of complications within the next 24-48 hr. Although EWSs have been used in the evaluation of COVID-19 patients, there are several clinical limitations to their use. Moreover, no models have been tested on geographically distinct populations or population groups with varying levels of immune protection. Methods: We developed and validated COVID-19 Early Warning Score (COEWS), an EWS that is automatically calculated solely from laboratory parameters that are widely available and affordable. We benchmarked COEWS against the widely used NEWS2. We also evaluated the predictive performance of vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Results: The variables of the COEWS predictive model were selected based on their predictive coefficients and on the wide availability of these laboratory variables. The final model included complete blood count, blood glucose, and oxygen saturation features. To make COEWS more actionable in real clinical situations, we transformed the predictive coefficients of the COEWS model into individual scores for each selected feature. The global score serves as an easy-to-calculate measure indicating the risk of a patient developing the combined outcome of mechanical ventilation or death within the next 48 hr.The discrimination in the external validation cohort was 0.743 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.703-0.784) for the COEWS score performed with coefficients and 0.700 (95% CI: 0.654-0.745) for the COEWS performed with scores. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients. Additionally, we observed that the AUROC of the NEWS2 was 0.677 (95% CI: 0.601-0.752) in vaccinated patients and 0.648 (95% CI: 0.608-0.689) in unvaccinated patients. Conclusions: The COEWS score predicts death or MV within the next 48 hr based on routine and widely available laboratory measurements. The extensive external validation, its high performance, its ease of use, and its positive benchmark in comparison with the widely used NEWS2 position COEWS as a new reference tool for assisting clinical decisions and improving patient care in the upcoming pandemic waves. Funding: University of Vienna.

COVID-19 vaccines reduce mortality in hospitalized patients with oxygen requirements: Differences between vaccine subtypes. A multicontinental cohort study.

The aim of this study was to analyze whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine reduces mortality in patients with moderate or severe COVID-19 disease requiring oxygen therapy. A retrospective cohort study, with data from 148 hospitals in both Spain (111 hospitals) and Argentina (37 hospitals), was conducted. We evaluated hospitalized patients for COVID-19 older than 18 years with oxygen requirements. Vaccine protection against death was assessed through a multivariable logistic regression and propensity score matching. We also performed a subgroup analysis according to vaccine type. The adjusted model was used to determine the population attributable risk. Between January 2020 and May 2022, we evaluated 21,479 COVID-19 hospitalized patients with oxygen requirements. Of these, 338 (1.5%) patients received a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine and 379 (1.8%) were fully vaccinated. In vaccinated patients, mortality was 20.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.9-24), compared to 19.5% (95% CI: 19-20) in unvaccinated patients, resulting in a crude odds ratio (OR) of 1.07 (95% CI: 0.89-1.29; p = 0.41). However, after considering the multiple comorbidities in the vaccinated group, the adjusted OR was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.56-0.95; p = 0.02) with a population attributable risk reduction of 4.3% (95% CI: 1-5). The higher risk reduction for mortality was with messenger RNA (mRNA) BNT162b2 (Pfizer) (OR 0.37; 95% CI: 0.23-0.59; p < 0.01), ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AstraZeneca) (OR 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20-0.86; p = 0.02), and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) (OR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.41-1.12; p = 0.13), and lower with Gam-COVID-Vac (Sputnik) (OR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.6-1.45; p = 0.76). COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduce the probability of death in patients suffering from a moderate or severe disease (oxygen therapy).

Hip fracture registries in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: The study aims to identify, describe, and organize the currently available evidence regarding hip fracture (HF) registries in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review adhering to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Google Scholar, Global Index Medicus, websites related to HF, and study references for eligible studies. Two reviewers independently performed the study selection and data extraction, including studies describing the use of individual patient records with the aim to improve the quality of care in older people with HF in LMICs. RESULTS: A total of 222 abstracts were screened, 59 full-text articles were reviewed, and 10 studies regarding 3 registries were included in the analysis. Malaysia and Mexico implemented a HF registry in public hospitals whereas Argentina implemented a registry in the private setting. The Mexican registry, the most recent one, is the only one that publishes annual reports. There was significant variability in data fields between registries, particularly in functional evaluation and follow-up. The Ministry of Health finances the Malaysian registry, while Argentinian and Mexican registries founding was unclear. CONCLUSION: The adoption of HF registries in LMICs is scarce. The few experiences show promising results but higher support is required to develop more registries. Long-term sustainability remains a challenge.

Prevalence of men's health history in male breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: Male breast carcinoma (MBC) is an uncommon disease, accounting for less than 0.5% of cancer diagnoses in men. Data on the prevalence thereof in Argentina are unknown. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of a men's health history associated with MBC as well as the anthropometric and clinical characteristics of the study population. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included all men according to original biological sex over 18 years of age with a history of breast cancer who sought care at the Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires [Italian Hospital of Buenos Aires] between January 2010 and December 2018. RESULTS: We included 57 men with breast cancer. Their median age was 71 years. Of them, 53.06% had obesity and 24.53% had diabetes. With respect to men's health history, 5.56% (2/36) had infertility, 29.17% (14/48) had gynaecomastia and 60.71% (17/28) had sexual dysfunction. Some 63% (7/11) had androgen deficiency based on laboratory diagnosis; of them, 45.45% (5/11) had high gonadotropins. CONCLUSION: We identified similarities with the literature as to the prevalence of obesity, diabetes and infertility in patients with MBC. The prevalence of testosterone deficiency was higher than reported for men of the same age. Many of these factors support the need to examine the role of endogenous hormones. Further research is required to help physicians care for and counsel men at higher risk of this disease.

Determination and Management of Risks for Practices and Procedures in the Elderly (DRIPP): the impact of a comprehensive geriatric evaluation in elderly with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma.

INTRODUCTION: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treatment in older patients is challenging. The Determination and Management of Risks for Practices and Procedures in the Elderly (DRIPP) is a multidimensional evaluation program that involves patients undergoing oncological treatments. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) of patients evaluated and those not evaluated by the DRIPP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study, patients > 65 years with DLBCL were included. They were divided into 3 groups: patients with a diagnosis prior to the DRIPP implementation (pre-DRIPP), patients with the DRIPP (DRIPP) and patients with a diagnosis after the DRIPP implementation, but who did not undergo the evaluation (non-DRIPP). RESULTS: A total of 125 patients were analyzed. Fourteen (11%) patients in the pre-DRIPP group, 74 (59%) in the DRIPP group, and 37 (30%) in the non-DRIPP group. In 43 (58%) patients of the DRIPP group, some drug dose adjustments were made vs. 19 (15%) in the non-DRIPP (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in terms of discontinuation of treatment or hematological toxicity between groups. The OS and PFS in one year was 64% (95%CI 34-83) and 50% (95%CI 23-72) for the pre-DRIPP group, 82% (95%CI 71-89) and 72% (95%CI 60-81) for the DRIPP group, 58% (95% CI 41-72) and 56% (95% CI 38-70) for the non-DRIPP group, (p = 0.08). The analysis was adjusted for probable confounders and no differences were found. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to evaluate the DRIPP as a decision-making tool in patients with lymphoma and showed a trend towards improvement in the OS in evaluated patients.

[Telemedicine: validation of a questionnaire to evaluate the experience of health professionalsTelemedicina: validação de um questionário para avaliar a experiência dos profissionais de saúde]. / Telemedicina: validación de un cuestionario para evaluar la experiencia de los profesionales de la salud.

Objective: This objective of this work is to develop and validate a questionnaire to evaluate health professionals' experience with telemedicine systems. Methods: Based on an abbreviated, locally validated Spanish-language version of the patient questionnaire developed by Parmanto et al., a group of experts developed a version to evaluate the experience of health professionals who provide telemedicine services. The psychometric behavior of the items was tested in an initial sample of 129 professionals, using exploratory factor analysis. The comprehensibility of the items was then assessed through cognitive interviews. Finally, in a new sample of 329 professionals, the construct validity of the questionnaire was evaluated by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); its criteria of external validity were assessed by comparing the score with that of a summary question. Results: A 12-item questionnaire was obtained, with a two-factor structure and acceptable adjustment indicators documented through CFA. Reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were appropriate. The criteria of external validity showed optimal results. Conclusions: The instrument obtained has adequate psychometric properties and will contribute to the objective evaluation of the experience of health professionals who perform telemedicine.

Objetivo: Desenvolver e validar um questionário para avaliar a experiência dos profissionais de saúde com os sistemas de telemedicina. Métodos: Com base na versão abreviada em espanhol ­ e validada localmente ­ do questionário para pacientes desenvolvido por Parmanto et al., um grupo de especialistas gerou uma versão de consenso para avaliar a experiência de profissionais de saúde que prestam serviços de telemedicina. O comportamento psicométrico dos itens foi testado em uma primeira amostra de 129 profissionais, por meio de análise fatorial exploratória. Em seguida, sua compreensibilidade foi avaliada por meio de entrevistas cognitivas. Por fim, em uma nova amostra de 329 profissionais, avaliou-se a validade de construto do questionário por meio de uma análise fatorial confirmatória (AFC), e sua validade de critério externo, mediante a avaliação de sua pontuação com a de uma pergunta resumo. Resultados: Obteve-se um questionário de 12 itens com estrutura de dois fatores, com indicadores de ajuste aceitáveis, documentados pela AFC. A confiabilidade, a validade convergente e a validade discriminante foram adequadas. A validade de critério externo apresentou ótimos resultados. Conclusões: O instrumento obtido possui propriedades psicométricas adequadas e contribuirá para a avaliação objetiva da experiência dos profissionais que realizam telemedicina.

Alliance for the development of the Argentinian Hip Fracture Registry.

Age expectancy has significantly increased over the last 50 years, as well as some age-related health conditions such as hip fractures. The development of hip fracture registries has shown enhanced patient outcomes through quality improvement strategies. The development of the Argentinian Hip Fracture Registry is going in the same direction. INTRODUCTION: Age expectancy has increased worldwide in the last 50 years, with the population over 64 growing from 4.9 to 9.1%. As fractures are an important problem in this age group, specific approaches such as hip fracture registries (HFR) are needed. Our aim is to communicate the Argentinian HFR (AHFR) development resulting from an alliance between Fundación Trauma, Fundación Navarro Viola, and the Argentinian Network of Hip Fracture in the elderly. METHODS: Between October 2020 and May 2021, an iterative consensus process involving 5 specialty-focused meetings and 8 general meetings with more than 20 specialists was conducted. This process comprised inclusion criteria definitions, dataset proposals, website deployment with data protection and user validation, the definition of hospital-adjusted registry levels, implementation planning, and sustainability strategies. RESULTS: By June 2021, we were able to (1) outline data fields, including epidemiological, clinical, and functional dimensions for the pre-admission, hospitalization, discharge, and follow-up stages; (2) define three levels: basic (53 fields), intermediate (85), and advanced (99); (3) identify 21 benchmarking indicators; and (4) make a correlation scheme among fracture classifications. Simultaneously, we launched a fundraising campaign to implement the AHFR in 30 centers, having completed 18. CONCLUSION: AHFR development was based on four pillars: (1) representativeness and support, (2) solid definitions from onset, (3) committed teams, and (4) stable funding. This tool may contribute to the design of evidence-based health policies to improve patient outcomes, and we hope this experience will help other LMICs to develop their own tailored-to-their-needs registries.

Development and evaluation of a machine learning-based in-hospital COVID-19 disease outcome predictor (CODOP): A multicontinental retrospective study.

New SARS-CoV-2 variants, breakthrough infections, waning immunity, and sub-optimal vaccination rates account for surges of hospitalizations and deaths. There is an urgent need for clinically valuable and generalizable triage tools assisting the allocation of hospital resources, particularly in resource-limited countries. We developed and validate CODOP, a machine learning-based tool for predicting the clinical outcome of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. CODOP was trained, tested and validated with six cohorts encompassing 29223 COVID-19 patients from more than 150 hospitals in Spain, the USA and Latin America during 2020-22. CODOP uses 12 clinical parameters commonly measured at hospital admission for reaching high discriminative ability up to 9 days before clinical resolution (AUROC: 0·90-0·96), it is well calibrated, and it enables an effective dynamic risk stratification during hospitalization. Furthermore, CODOP maintains its predictive ability independently of the virus variant and the vaccination status. To reckon with the fluctuating pressure levels in hospitals during the pandemic, we offer two online CODOP calculators, suited for undertriage or overtriage scenarios, validated with a cohort of patients from 42 hospitals in three Latin American countries (78-100% sensitivity and 89-97% specificity). The performance of CODOP in heterogeneous and geographically disperse patient cohorts and the easiness of use strongly suggest its clinical utility, particularly in resource-limited countries.

While COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, new variants, waxing immunity, unequal rollout and relaxation of mitigation strategies mean that the pandemic will keep on sending shockwaves across healthcare systems. In this context, it is crucial to equip clinicians with tools to triage COVID-19 patients and forecast who will experience the worst forms of the disease. Prediction models based on artificial intelligence could help in this effort, but the task is not straightforward. Indeed, the pandemic is defined by ever-changing factors which artificial intelligence needs to cope with. To be useful in the clinic, a prediction model should make accurate prediction regardless of hospital location, viral variants or vaccination and immunity statuses. It should also be able to adapt its output to the level of resources available in a hospital at any given time. Finally, these tools need to seamlessly integrate into clinical workflows to not burden clinicians. In response, Klén et al. built CODOP, a freely available prediction algorithm that calculates the death risk of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (https://gomezvarelalab.em.mpg.de/codop/). This model was designed based on biochemical data from routine blood analyses of COVID-19 patients. Crucially, the dataset included 30,000 individuals from 150 hospitals in Spain, the United States, Honduras, Bolivia and Argentina, sampled between March 2020 and February 2022 and carrying most of the main COVID-19 variants (from the original Wuhan version to Omicron). CODOP can predict the death or survival of hospitalized patients with high accuracy up to nine days before the clinical outcome occurs. These forecasting abilities are preserved independently of vaccination status or viral variant. The next step is to tailor the model to the current pandemic situation, which features increasing numbers of infected people as well as accumulating immune protection in the overall population. Further development will refine CODOP so that the algorithm can detect who will need hospitalisation in the next 24 hours, and who will need admission in intensive care in the next two days. Equipping primary care settings and hospitals with these tools will help to restore previous standards of health care during the upcoming waves of infections, particularly in countries with limited resources.

Prevalencia de retinopatía diabética en una zona rural de Argentina / Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in a rural area of Argentina

Resumen La retinopatía diabética es uno de los grandes problemas que enfrenta la salud pública en el siglo XXI. La prevalencia mundial se encuentra en constante aumento; sin embargo, poco se conoce sobre la frecuencia de esta enfermedad en la Argentina. Los programas de tele-oftalmología han ayudado a combatir y a comprender mejor esta enfermedad, principalmente en áreas rurales. El objetivo del siguiente tra bajo fue estimar la prevalencia de la retinopatía diabética en la provincia de La Pampa. Se realizó un estudio observacional de corte transversal, evaluando las características de la población asistida por un programa de tele-oftalmología en la zona rural de la provincia. Se evaluaron imágenes de retina obtenidas con un retinógrafo no midriático, la presión intraocular y características generales de la población. Se estimó una prevalencia del 21.5% y un 14.1% de estas personas tenían una amenaza visual grave. Además, se observó que el 5.0% tenían glaucoma, 63.4% hipertensión arterial y 42.6% dislipemia. Estos resultados son similares a los presentados en otros países del mundo. Son datos fundamentales para comprender detalles de la situación epidemiológica en esta región y poder armar estrategias sanitarias para enfrentar a esta enfermedad.

Abstract Diabetic retinopathy is one of the major problems public health is facing in the 21st century. The worldwide prevalence is increasing; however, little is known about the frequency of this disease in Argentina. Tele-ophthalmology programs have helped to face and to better understand this disease, mainly in rural areas. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the province of La Pampa. A cross-sectional observational study was carried out, evaluating the characteristics of the population assisted by a tele-ophthalmology program in a rural area of the province. The images, taken with a non-mydriatic retinal camera, the intraocular pressure and general characteristics of the population were evaluated. A disease prevalence of 21.5% was estimated and 14.1% of them had a vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. In addition, it was observed that 5.0% had glaucoma, 63.4% hypertension and 42.6% dyslipidemia. These findings are similar to those reported in other countries around the world. These data are fundamental to understand the details of the epidemiological situation in this region and to be able to develop health strategies to deal with this disease.

[Prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in a rural area of Argentina]. / Prevalencia de retinopatía diabética en una zona rural de Argentina.

Diabetic retinopathy is one of the major problems public health is facing in the 21st century. The worldwide prevalence is increasing; however, little is known about the frequency of this disease in Argentina. Tele-ophthalmology programs have helped to face and to better understand this disease, mainly in rural areas. The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy in the province of La Pampa. A cross-sectional observational study was carried out, evaluating the characteristics of the population assisted by a tele-ophthalmology program in a rural area of the province. The images, taken with a non-mydriatic retinal camera, the intraocular pressure and general characteristics of the population were evaluated. A disease prevalence of 21.5% was estimated and 14.1% of them had a vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. In addition, it was observed that 5.0% had glaucoma, 63.4% hypertension and 42.6% dyslipidemia. These findings are similar to those reported in other countries around the world. These data are fundamental to understand the details of the epidemiological situation in this region and to be able to develop health strategies to deal with this disease.

La retinopatía diabética es uno de los grandes problemas que enfrenta la salud pública en el siglo XXI. La prevalencia mundial se encuentra en constante aumento; sin embargo, poco se conoce sobre la frecuencia de esta enfermedad en la Argentina. Los programas de tele-oftalmología han ayudado a combatir y a comprender mejor esta enfermedad, principalmente en áreas rurales. El objetivo del siguiente trabajo fue estimar la prevalencia de la retinopatía diabética en la provincia de La Pampa. Se realizó un estudio observacional de corte transversal, evaluando las características de la población asistida por un programa de tele-oftalmología en la zona rural de la provincia. Se evaluaron imágenes de retina obtenidas con un retinógrafo no midriático, la presión intraocular y características generales de la población. Se estimó una prevalencia del 21.5% y un 14.1% de estas personas tenían una amenaza visual grave. Además, se observó que el 5.0% tenían glaucoma, 63.4% hipertensión arterial y 42.6% dislipemia. Estos resultados son similares a los presentados en otros países del mundo. Son datos fundamentales para comprender detalles de la situación epidemiológica en esta región y poder armar estrategias sanitarias para enfrentar a esta enfermedad.

Geriatric co-management and interdisciplinary transitional care reduced hospital readmissions in frail older patients in Argentina: results from a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization is a moment of extreme vulnerability for frail older adults. There is scarce evidence on the effectiveness of geriatric co-management or transitional care interventions in Latin America. AIMS: To assess whether geriatric co-management combined with an interdisciplinary transitional care intervention could reduce 30-day hospital readmission rate compared to usual care in hospitalized frail older patients in a tertiary hospital in Argentina. METHODS: Single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Usual care treatment arm: all procedures performed during hospitalization were overseen by a senior internal medicine specialist and complied with pre-defined protocols. Patients had access to specialist care if needed, as well as hospital-at-home or home-based primary care services after discharge. Intervention treatment arm: in addition to usual care, a geriatric co-management team performed a comprehensive geriatric assessment during hospitalization, provided tailored recommendations to minimize geriatric syndromes and planned transition of care. A health and social care counselor oversaw continuity of care in patients' homes after discharge. RESULTS: We included 120 participants in each of the intervention and usual care (control) arms. Thirty-day hospital readmissions were 47.7% lower in the intervention arm (18.3% vs 35.0%; P = 0.040); and emergency room visits within the first 6 months after discharge were 27.8% lower (43.3% vs 60.0%; P = 0.010). There was a non-statistically significant decrease in 6-month mortality in the intervention arm (25.0% vs 35.0%; P = 0.124). CONCLUSION: Geriatric co-management of frail older patients during hospitalization combined with an interdisciplinary transitional care intervention reduced 30-day hospital readmissions and emergency visits 6 months after discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration number: RENIS IS003081.

Telemedicina: validación de un cuestionario para evaluar la experiencia de los profesionales de la salud / Telemedicine: validation of a questionnaire to evaluate the experience of health professionals / Telemedicina: validação de um questionário para avaliar a experiência dos profissionais de saúde

RESUMEN Objetivo. El siguiente trabajo tiene como objetivo desarrollar y validar un cuestionario para evaluar la experiencia de los profesionales de la salud con los sistemas de telemedicina. Métodos. A partir de la versión abreviada en español y validada localmente del cuestionario para pacientes desarrollado por Parmanto y col., un grupo de expertos consensuó una versión para evaluar la experiencia de profesionales de la salud que brindan servicios de telemedicina. El comportamiento psicométrico de los ítems se testeó en una primera muestra de 129 profesionales a través de un análisis factorial exploratorio. Luego, se evaluó su comprensibilidad a través de entrevistas cognitivas. Por último, en una nueva muestra de 329 profesionales, se evaluó la validez de constructo del cuestionario mediante un análisis factorial confirmatorio (AFC), y su validez de criterio externo, mediante la evaluación de su puntaje con el de una pregunta de resumen. Resultados. Se obtuvo un cuestionario de 12 ítems con una estructura de dos factores con indicadores de ajuste aceptables, documentada mediante AFC. La fiabilidad, la validez convergente y la validez discriminante fueron apropiadas. La validez de criterio externo mostró resultados óptimos. Conclusiones. El instrumento obtenido cuenta con propiedades psicométricas adecuadas y contribuirá a la evaluación objetiva de la experiencia de los profesionales que realizan telemedicina.

ABSTRACT Objective. This objective of this work is to develop and validate a questionnaire to evaluate health professionals' experience with telemedicine systems. Methods. Based on an abbreviated, locally validated Spanish-language version of the patient questionnaire developed by Parmanto et al., a group of experts developed a version to evaluate the experience of health professionals who provide telemedicine services. The psychometric behavior of the items was tested in an initial sample of 129 professionals, using exploratory factor analysis. The comprehensibility of the items was then assessed through cognitive interviews. Finally, in a new sample of 329 professionals, the construct validity of the questionnaire was evaluated by means of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); its criteria of external validity were assessed by comparing the score with that of a summary question. Results. A 12-item questionnaire was obtained, with a two-factor structure and acceptable adjustment indicators documented through CFA. Reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity were appropriate. The criteria of external validity showed optimal results. Conclusions. The instrument obtained has adequate psychometric properties and will contribute to the objective evaluation of the experience of health professionals who perform telemedicine.

RESUMO Objetivo. Desenvolver e validar um questionário para avaliar a experiência dos profissionais de saúde com os sistemas de telemedicina. Métodos. Com base na versão abreviada em espanhol - e validada localmente - do questionário para pacientes desenvolvido por Parmanto et al., um grupo de especialistas gerou uma versão de consenso para avaliar a experiência de profissionais de saúde que prestam serviços de telemedicina. O comportamento psicométrico dos itens foi testado em uma primeira amostra de 129 profissionais, por meio de análise fatorial exploratória. Em seguida, sua compreensibilidade foi avaliada por meio de entrevistas cognitivas. Por fim, em uma nova amostra de 329 profissionais, avaliou-se a validade de construto do questionário por meio de uma análise fatorial confirmatória (AFC), e sua validade de critério externo, mediante a avaliação de sua pontuação com a de uma pergunta resumo. Resultados. Obteve-se um questionário de 12 itens com estrutura de dois fatores, com indicadores de ajuste aceitáveis, documentados pela AFC. A confiabilidade, a validade convergente e a validade discriminante foram adequadas. A validade de critério externo apresentou ótimos resultados. Conclusões. O instrumento obtido possui propriedades psicométricas adequadas e contribuirá para a avaliação objetiva da experiência dos profissionais que realizam telemedicina.

[Descriptive analysis of 4776 patients admitted to medical clinic services for COVID-19. Results of the Argentine Multi-Center Registry - REMA-COVID-19]. / Análisis descriptivo de 4776 pacientes internados en servicios de clínica médica por COVID-19. Resultados del Registro Multicéntrico Argentino - REMA-COVID-19.

A multicenter registry that included adults hospitalized for COVID-19 was carried out in various provinces of Argentina, from March to October 2020. The objectives were to describe the epidemiological characteristics, clinical manifestations, treatments, complications and risk factors, need for admission to critical care units and mortality. The registry included information on 4776 patients in 37 health centers in Argentina. Of them, 70.2% came from the city of Buenos Aires and from Buenos Aires Province; 52.3% were men. The mean age was 56 years (SD 20.3). Of them, 13.1% stated that they were health personnel. The median time of symptoms at the time of hospitalization was 3 days (CI 1-6). The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension in 32.4% and diabetes mellitus in 15.8%. The most frequent symptoms were: cough 58%, odynophagia 23.3%, myalgia 20.5% and fever / low-grade fever 19.9%. The hospital stay had a median of 8 days (CI 4-15). A 14.8% of the patients required critical care, while 3.2% who also required it, were not transferred to a closed unit due to adequacy of the therapeutic effort. The most frequent complications in critical care were: cardiovascular events (54.1%), septic shock (33.3%), renal failure (9.7%) and pneumonia associated with mechanical ventilation (12.5%). Overall mortality was 12.3%. Old age, dementia and COPD behaved as independent predictors of mortality (p < 0.001, 0.007 and 0.002 respectively) in the multivariate analysis.

Se realizó un registro multicéntrico que incluyó personas adultas internadas por COVID-19 en varias provincias de la Argentina, desde marzo a octubre de 2020. Los objetivos fueron describir las características epidemiológicas, manifestaciones clínicas, tratamientos, complicaciones y factores de riesgo, necesidad de admisión a unidades de cuidados críticos y mortalidad. El registro incluyó información de 4776 pacientes, en 37 centros de salud de Argentina. El 70.2% provenían de la ciudad de Buenos Aires y la provincia de Buenos Aires. El 52.3% eran hombres. La media de edad fue de 56 años (DE 20.3). Un 13.1% de pacientes manifestó ser personal de salud. La mediana de tiempo de síntomas al momento de la internación fue de 3 días (IC 1-6). Las comorbilidades más frecuentes fueron hipertensión arterial en 32.4% y diabetes mellitus en 15.8%. Los síntomas más frecuentes fueron: tos 58%, odinofagia 23.3%, mialgias 20.5% y fiebre/febrícula 19.9%. La estadía hospitalaria tuvo una mediana de internación de 8 días (IC 4-15). El 14.8% de los pacientes requirió cuidados críticos, en tanto que el 3.2%, que también lo requería, no pasó a unidad cerrada por adecuación del esfuerzo terapéutico. Las complicaciones más frecuentes en cuidados críticos fueron: eventos cardiovasculares (54.1%), shock séptico (33.3%), insuficiencia renal (9.7%) y neumonía asociada a la ventilación mecánica (12.5%). La mortalidad global fue del 12.3%. La edad avanzada, demencia y EPOC se comportaron como predictores independientes de mortalidad (p < 0.001, 0.007 y 0.002 respectivamente) en el análisis multivariado.

Análisis descriptivo de 4776 pacientes internados en servicios de clínica médica POR COVID-19. Resultados del Registro Multicéntrico Argentino - REMA-COVID-19 / Descriptive analysis of 4776 patients admitted to medical clinic services for COVID-19. Results of the Argentine Multi-Center Registry - REMA-COVID-19

Resumen Se realizó un registro multicéntrico que incluyó personas adultas internadas por COVID-19 en varias provincias de la Argentina, desde marzo a octubre de 2020. Los objetivos fueron describir las características epidemiológicas, manifestaciones clínicas, tratamientos, complicaciones y factores de riesgo, necesidad de admisión a unidades de cuidados críticos y mortalidad. El registro incluyó información de 4776 pacientes, en 37 centros de salud de Argentina. El 70.2% provenían de la ciudad de Buenos Aires y la provincia de Buenos Aires. El 52.3% eran hombres. La media de edad fue de 56 años (DE 20.3). Un 13.1% de pacientes manifestó ser personal de salud. La mediana de tiempo de síntomas al momento de la internación fue de 3 días (IC 1-6). Las comorbilidades más frecuentes fueron hipertensión arterial en 32.4% y diabetes mellitus en 15.8%. Los síntomas más frecuentes fueron: tos 58%, odinofagia 23.3%, mialgias 20.5% y fiebre/febrícula 19.9%. La estadía hospitalaria tuvo una mediana de internación de 8 días (IC 4-15). El 14.8% de los pacientes requirió cuidados críticos, en tanto que el 3.2%, que también lo requería, no pasó a unidad cerrada por adecuación del esfuerzo terapéutico. Las complicaciones más frecuentes en cuidados críticos fueron: eventos cardiovasculares (54.1%), shock séptico (33.3%), insuficiencia renal (9.7%) y neumonía asociada a la ventilación mecánica (12.5%). La mortalidad global fue del 12.3%. La edad avanzada, demencia y EPOC se comportaron como predictores independientes de mortalidad (p < 0.001, 0.007 y 0.002 respectivamente) en el análisis multivariado.

Abstract A multicenter registry that in cluded adults hospitalized for COVID-19 was carried out in various provinces of Argentina, from March to October 2020. The objectives were to describe the epidemiological characteristics, clinical manifestations, treatments, complications and risk factors, need for admission to critical care units and mortality. The registry included information on 4776 patients in 37 health centers in Argentina. Of them, 70.2% came from the city of Buenos Aires and from Buenos Aires Province; 52.3% were men. The mean age was 56 years (SD 20.3). Of them, 13.1% stated that they were health personnel. The median time of symptoms at the time of hospitalization was 3 days (CI 1-6). The most frequent comorbidities were hypertension in 32.4% and diabetes mellitus in 15.8%. The most frequent symptoms were: cough 58%, odynophagia 23.3%, myalgia 20.5% and fever / low-grade fever 19.9%. The hospital stay had a median of 8 days (CI 4-15). A 14.8% of the patients required critical care, while 3.2% who also required it, were not transferred to a closed unit due to adequacy of the thera peutic effort. The most frequent complications in critical care were: cardiovascular events (54.1%), septic shock (33.3%), renal failure (9.7%) and pneumonia associated with mechanical ventilation (12.5%). Overall mortality was 12.3%. Old age, dementia and COPD behaved as independent predictors of mortality (p < 0.001, 0.007 and 0.002 respectively) in the multivariate analysis.

Prolonged social lockdown during COVID-19 pandemic and hip fracture epidemiology.

PURPOSE: To analyse the impact of prolonged mandatory lockdown due to COVID-19 on hip fracture epidemiology. METHODS: Retrospective case-control study of 160 hip fractures operated upon between December 2019 and May 2020. Based on the date of declaration of national lockdown, the cohort was separated into two groups: 'pre-COVID time' (PCT), including 86 patients, and 'COVID time' (CT), consisting of 74 patients. All CT patients tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. Patients were stratified based on demographic characteristics. Outcome measures were 30-day complications, readmissions and mortality. A logistic regression model was run to evaluate factors associated with mortality. RESULTS: Age, female/male ratio, body mass index and American Society of Anaesthesia score were similar between both groups (p > 0.05). CT patients had a higher percentage of Charlson ≥ 5 and Rockwood Frailty Index ≥ 5 scores (p < 0.05) as well as lower UCLA and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scores (p < 0.05). This translated into a higher hemiarthroplasty/total hip arthroplasty ratio during CT (p = 0.04). Thromboembolic disease was higher during CT (p = 0.02). Readmissions (all negative for SARS-CoV-2) were similar between both groups (p = 0.34). Eight (10.8%) casualties were detected in the CT group, whereas no deaths were seen in the control group. Logistic regression showed that frailer (p = 0.006, OR 10.46, 95%CI 8.95-16.1), less active (p = 0.018, OR 2.45, 95%CI 1.45-2.72) and those with a thromboembolic event (p = 0.005, OR 30, 95%CI 11-42) had a higher risk of mortality. CONCLUSION: Despite testing negative for SARS-CoV-2, CT patients were less active and frailer than PCT patients, depicting an epidemiological shift that was associated with higher mortality rate.