Functional Status of Patients over 65 Years Old Intervened on for a Hip Fracture One Year after the Operation.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation of the functional status one year after a hip fracture surgery and the influence of sarcopenia and other clinical factors at the time of admission. METHOD: Prospective observational study with 135 patients over 65 years of age. Functional status of basic (modified Katz) and instrumental activities (Lawton and Brody) and walking ability (Functional Ambulation Classification, FAC) was measured on admission, at discharge, and telephonically one year later. The risk or positive screening of sarcopenia (SARC-F) and cognitive status (Pfeiffer), as well as clinical variables, were evaluated. RESULTS: 72% of patients are women; 36% have a risk of sarcopenia (Sarc-F ≥ 4), and 43% have moderate-severe cognitive impairment (Pfeiffer ≥ 5). Walking capacity at one year was closer to the values at admission more often in women than in men (0.2 ± 1.3 points vs. 0.9 ± 1.6; p = 0.001), as well as in patients without risk of sarcopenia versus sarcopenic patients (0.3 ± 1.2 points vs. 0.7 ± 1.7; p = 0.001), although their evolution did not show significant differences (p = 0.183). Instrumental activities after one year have not been recovered (1.7 ± 2.5 points; p = 0.032), and patients at risk of sarcopenia showed worse values (1.7 ± 1.9 points vs. 3.7 ± 2.7; p < 0.001) and worse evolution (p = 0.012). The evolution of basic activities varied according to the risk of sarcopenia (0.6 ± 1.4 points vs. 1.4 ± 2.1; p = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Functional status at one year is related to the functional status at admission, the positive screening of sarcopenia, sex, and cognitive impairment of the patient. Knowing at the time of admission an estimate of the functional status at one year will help to reinforce the individual treatment of patients with a worse prognosis.

Medicines in exceptional circumstances for solid tumours: focusing on evidence, effectiveness, and toxicity profiles.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the applications for drugs in special situations (compassionate use, off-label use and foreign drugs) for solid  tumours, and to assess the level of evidence supporting these applications, as  well as the effectiveness and safety of most frequent drugs. METHOD: We performed a cross-sectional study of all applications for drugs in  special situations during 2018 and 2019 in a representative third-level centre.  We collected data about generic names of drugs, clinical indications, and level  of evidence provided on the application form. Furthermore, tumour response  was assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours  version 1.1., Progression Free Survival and Overall Survival. Safety was  evaluated with the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for  Adverse Events, version 5.0. RESULTS: 2,273 drugs in special situations were approved between January  2018 and December 2019. In 431 cases (19%), they were used to treat solid  tumours. Out of 431, 291 (67.5%) applications were offlabel drugs, 76 (18%)  foreign drugs, and 64 (15%) were compassionate use of drugs. Most of them  were supported by phase 3 (47%) or phase 2 (33%)  clinical trials. The  majority of adverse effects were grade 1 and only in 6/67 cases the treatment  was discontinued due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of drugs in special situations are prescribed  to Oncology patients. The majority of applications of these drugs was supported by clinical trials. The real-life experience showed an effectiveness and tolerance profile similar to those described in randomised  clinical trials.

OBJETIVO: Analizar las solicitudes de medicamentos en situaciones especiales (uso compasivo, uso fuera de indicación y medicamentos  extranjeros) para tumores sólidos, y evaluar el nivel de evidencia que avala  dichas solicitudes, así como la efectividad y seguridad de los medicamentos  más frecuentes.Método: Estudio transversal que incluyó las solicitudes de medicamentos en  situaciones especiales durante el período 2018-2019 en un centro representativo español de tercer nivel. Se recogieron datos sobre  principios activos, indicaciones clínicas y nivel de evidencia aportado en la  solicitud. Asimismo, la respuesta tumoral fue evaluada mediante criterios  Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours versión 1.1, supervivencia libre  de progresión y supervivencia global. La seguridad fue evaluada con la versión 5.0 de los criterios de toxicidad Common Terminology Criteria for  Adverse Events del National Cancer Institute de Estados Unidos. RESULTADOS: Un total de 2.273 medicamentos en situaciones especiales fueron aprobados entre enero de 2018 y diciembre de 2019. El 19% (431) se  aprobaron para el tratamiento de tumores sólidos. De estos 431, 291 (67,5%)  solicitudes fueron de medicamentos fuera de indicación, 76 (18%) extranjeros  y 64 (15%) en uso compasivo. La mayoría son avaladas por estudios clínicos  aleatorizados en fase III (47%) o fase II (33%). La mayor parte de los efectos  adversos fueron de grado 1 y solo en 6/67 casos el tratamiento fue  interrumpido por toxicidad. CONCLUSIONES: Un porcentaje importante de medicamentos en usos especiales se prescriben a pacientes oncológicos. La mayoría de las solicitudes fueron  avaladas por algún estudio clínico aleatorizado. La experiencia en vida real  mostró un perfil de efectividad y tolerancia similar al descrito en los estudios  clínicos aleatorizados.

Medicamentos en situaciones especiales paratumores sólidos: profundizando en la evidencia y los perfiles de efectividad y toxicidad / Medicines in exceptional circumstances for solid tumours: focusing on evidence, effectiveness, and toxicity profiles

Objetivo: Analizar las solicitudes de medicamentos en situaciones especiales(uso compasivo, uso fuera de indicación y medicamentos extranjeros) paratumores sólidos, y evaluar el nivel de evidencia que avala dichas solicitudes,así como la efectividad y seguridad de los medicamentos más frecuentes.Método: Estudio transversal que incluyó las solicitudes de medicamentosen situaciones especiales durante el período 2018-2019 en un centrorepresentativo español de tercer nivel. Se recogieron datos sobre principiosactivos, indicaciones clínicas y nivel de evidencia aportado en la solicitud.Asimismo, la respuesta tumoral fue evaluada mediante criterios ResponseEvaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours versión 1.1, supervivencia libre de progresióny supervivencia global. La seguridad fue evaluada con la versión5.0 de los criterios de toxicidad Common Terminology Criteria for AdverseEvents del National Cancer Institute de Estados Unidos.Resultados: Un total de 2.273 medicamentos en situaciones especialesfueron aprobados entre enero de 2018 y diciembre de 2019. El19% (431) se aprobaron para el tratamiento de tumores sólidos. De estos431, 291 (67,5%) solicitudes fueron de medicamentos fuera de indicación,76 (18%) extranjeros y 64 (15%) en uso compasivo. La mayoría son avaladas por estudios clínicos aleatorizados en fase III (47%) o fase II(33%). La mayor parte de los efectos adversos fueron de grado 1 y soloen 6/67 casos el tratamiento fue interrumpido por toxicidad.Conclusiones: Un porcentaje importante de medicamentos en usosespeciales se prescriben a pacientes oncológicos. La mayoría de lassolicitudes fueron avaladas por algún estudio clínico aleatorizado. Laexperiencia en vida real mostró un perfil de efectividad y tolerancia similaral descrito en los estudios clínicos aleatorizados.

Objective: To analyse the applications for drugs in special situations(compassionate use, off-label use and foreign drugs) for solid tumours, andto assess the level of evidence supporting these applications, as well asthe effectiveness and safety of most frequent drugs.Method: We performed a cross-sectional study of all applications fordrugs in special situations during 2018 and 2019 in a representativethird-level centre. We collected data about generic names of drugs,clinical indications, and level of evidence provided on the applicationform. Furthermore, tumour response was assessed according to the ResponseEvaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1., Progression FreeSurvival and Overall Survival. Safety was evaluated with the NationalCancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version5.0.Results: 2,273 drugs in special situations were approved betweenJanuary 2018 and December 2019. In 431 cases (19%), they were usedto treat solid tumours. Out of 431, 291 (67.5%) applications were offlabeldrugs, 76 (18%) foreign drugs, and 64 (15%) were compassionate use ofdrugs. Most of them were supported by phase 3 (47%) or phase 2 (33%) clinical trials. The majority of adverse effects were grade 1 and only in6/67 cases the treatment was discontinued due to toxicity.Conclusions: A significant number of drugs in special situations areprescribed to Oncology patients. The majority of applications of thesedrugs was supported by clinical trials. The real-life experience showed aneffectiveness and tolerance profile similar to those described in randomisedclinical trials.

Harmonizing and improving European education in prescribing: An overview of digital educational resources used in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

AIM: Improvement and harmonization of European clinical pharmacology and therapeutics (CPT) education is urgently required. Because digital educational resources can be easily shared, adapted to local situations and re-used widely across a variety of educational systems, they may be ideally suited for this purpose. METHODS: With a cross-sectional survey among principal CPT teachers in 279 out of 304 European medical schools, an overview and classification of digital resources was compiled. RESULTS: Teachers from 95 (34%) medical schools in 26 of 28 EU countries responded, 66 (70%) of whom used digital educational resources in their CPT curriculum. A total of 89 of such resources were described in detail, including e-learning (24%), simulators to teach pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics (10%), virtual patients (8%), and serious games (5%). Together, these resources covered 235 knowledge-based learning objectives, 88 skills, and 13 attitudes. Only one third (27) of the resources were in-part or totally free and only two were licensed open educational resources (free to use, distribute and adapt). A narrative overview of the largest, free and most novel resources is given. CONCLUSION: Digital educational resources, ranging from e-learning to virtual patients and games, are widely used for CPT education in EU medical schools. Learning objectives are based largely on knowledge rather than skills or attitudes. This may be improved by including more real-life clinical case scenarios. Moreover, the majority of resources are neither free nor open. Therefore, with a view to harmonizing international CPT education, more needs to be learned about why CPT teachers are not currently sharing their educational materials.

Puntos de corte de la versión española del Cuestionario de Cualidades y Dificultades (SDQ) / Cutt-offs of the Spanish version of the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ)

INTRODUCCIÓN: El Cuestionario de Cualidades y Dificultades (SDQ) es un instrumento breve de evaluación de trastornos mentales en la infancia y la adolescencia. Ha sido desarrollado en el Instituto de Psiquiatría de Londres en los años 90. Se administra a padres y profesores con una única versión para ambos. Consta de 25 ítems y valora 5 aspectos: hiperactividad, síntomas emocionales, problemas de comportamiento, problemas de relaciones con iguales y conducta prosocial. Su sencilla administración e interpretación lo convierte en una herramienta muy útil en pediatría. Se encuentra traducido y validado en muchos idiomas, incluido el español. Es muy utilizado para estudios epidemiológicos, de despistaje y clínicos. Sus propiedades psicométricas han demostrado ser adecuadas para estos aspectos. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Se recogieron las contestaciones del SDQ de padres y profesores de una muestra comunitaria de 597 niños entre 7 y 10 años, estando igualmente representados ambos sexos. Se realizó el análisis estadístico para identificar los puntos de corte. Para cada escala se determinaron los rangos de normalidad, límite y anormalidad. RESULTADOS: Los resultados obtenidos en la presente investigación revelan unos puntos de corte sensiblemente distintos a los obtenidos para las versiones en otros idiomas distintos al español. CONCLUSIONES: La traducción española se presenta como un instrumento igual de útil que el Cuestionario inglés original y el traducido a otros idiomas

INTRODUCTION: The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was developed by Professor Robert Goodman at the Institute of Psychiatry (UK) in the 1990's. It is a brief behavioural screening instrument internationally used for the screening of mental health problems in children and adolescents. It consists in a 25 item questionnaire with 5 different scales: emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity / inattention peer relationship problems and prosocial behaviours. Its simple administration and interpretation has made it a very useful tool in paediatrics. The SDQ has been translated and validated in more than 70 languages, these includes a Spanish version. It is widely used as an adequate tool for epidemiological, early detection and clinical studies, as demonstrated by its psychometric properties. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Parents and teachers ratings of SDQ were collected for a community-based sample of 597 children between 7 and 10 years, in which both genders were equally represented. Statistical evaluation of cutt-offs were performed. Bandings identifying normal, borderline, and clinical ranges were defined for each scale. RESULTS: The present study reveal cut off results sensibly different to those obtained in other languages.CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish translation seems to be a similarly useful tool as the original English and other languages questionnaire