Fármacos potencialmente útiles en el tratamiento de la COVID-19 en Atención Primaria / Potentially useful drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 in Primary Care

Las consecuencias de la pandemia por el SARS-CoV-2 han desbordado cualquier previsión realizada. Hoy sabemos que el nivel de gravedad de la infección en sus fases iniciales se va a corresponder con la evolución y la presencia de secuelas en el futuro. No existen tratamientos específicos que hayan demostrado evidencia suficiente que permita su recomendación, especialmente en las fases leves-moderadas de la enfermedad. La vacunación anti-COVID está demostrando claros beneficios, tanto en la prevención de la enfermedad como en la evolución de la misma, con la consiguiente mejoría en las cifras de afectados por la pandemia. A pesar de ello, el número de nuevos contagios persiste en cifras inaceptables. Se ha propuesto el uso de distintos fármacos utilizados en otras indicaciones como posibles tratamientos beneficiosos para la COVID-19 que, en caso de utilizarse, se prescribirán de forma individualizada atendiendo a las características y la situación del paciente, a la fase evolutiva de la enfermedad, así como a las limitaciones propias de la falta de evidencia en su administración (AU)

The consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have exceeded any forecast made. Today we know that the level of severity of the infection in its initial stages will correspond to the evolution and the presence of sequelae in the future. There are no specific treatments that have shown sufficient evidence to allow their recommendation, especially in the mild-moderate stages of the disease. The anti-Covid vaccination is showing clear benefits, both in the prevention of the disease and in its evolution, with the consequent improvement in the numbers of those affected by the pandemic. The use of different drugs used in other indications has been proposed as possible beneficial treatments for COVID-19 that, if used, will be prescribed individually taking into account the characteristics and situation of the patient, the evolutionary phase of the disease as well as well as the limitations of the lack of evidence in its administration (AU)

Evaluation of prophylaxis in primary prevention with acetylsalicylic acid in people with diabetes: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) prophylaxis for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACVD) remain controversial in people with diabetes (DM) without ACVD, because the possible increased risk of major bleeding could outweigh the potential reduction in the risk of mortality and of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) considered individually or together. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the overall risk-benefit of ASA prophylaxis in primary prevention in people with DM and to compare the recommendations of the guidelines with the results of the meta-analyses (MA) and systematic reviews (SR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We searched Medline, Google Scholar, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for SR and MA published from 2009 to 2020 which compared the effects of ASA prophylaxis versus placebo or control followed up for at least one year in people with DM without ACVD. Heterogeneity among the randomized clinical trials (RCT) included in the SR and MA was assessed. Cardiovascular outcomes of efficacy (all-cause mortality [ACM], cardiovascular mortality [CVM], myocardial infarction [MI], stroke and MACE) and of safety (major bleeding events [MBE], major gastrointestinal bleeding events [MGIBE], and intracranial and extracranial bleeding) were shown. RESULTS: The recommendations of 12 guidelines were evaluated. The results of 25 SR and MA that included a total of 20 RCT were assessed. None of the MA or SR showed that ASA prophylaxis decreased the risk of ACM, CVM or MI. Only two of the 19 SR and MA that evaluated ischemic stroke showed a decrease in the stroke risk (mean 20.0% [SD±5.7]), bordering on statistical significance. Almost half of the MA and SR showed, bordering on statistical significance, a risk reduction for the MACE composite endpoint (mean 10.5% [SD±3.3]). The significant increases in MGIBE risk ranged from 35% to 55%. The significant increases in the risk of MBE and extracraneal bleeding were 33.4% (SD±14.9) and 54.5% (SD±0.7) respectively. CONCLUSION: The overall risk-benefit assessment of ASA prophylaxis in primary prevention suggests that it should not be applied in people with DM.

Pulsioximetría: papel en el paciente COVID-19 domiciliario / Pulse oximetry: Role in the COVID-19 patient at home

La COVID-19 se comporta como una enfermedad heterogénea. Algunos pacientes pueden presentar hipoxemia sin disnea durante su evolución (hipoxemia silente). La pulsioximetría juega un papel crucial en la detección de la hipoxemia en estos pacientes, especialmente cuando permanecen en su domicilio. Pacientes con niveles de SpO2 ≤ 92% o desaturaciónes ≥ 3% tras el ejercicio precisan de ingreso hospitalario. Los descensos progresivos de la saturación que alcancen niveles SpO2 < 96% precisan de valoración clínica estricta (estudio radiológico, analítica sanguínea) para lo que será enviado a un centro sanitario (AU)

COVID-19 behaves like a heterogeneous disease. Some patients may develop dyspnea-free hypoxemia during its evolution (silent hypoxemia). Pulse oximetry plays a crucial role in detecting hypoxemia in these patients, especially when they remain at home. Patients with SpO2 levels ≤ 92% or desaturations ≥ 3% after exercise test require hospital admission. Progressive saturation declines reaching SpO2 levels < 96% require strict clinical assessment (radiological study, blood test) for which it will be sent to a health center (AU)

[Pulse oximetry: Role in the COVID-19 patient at home]. / Pulsioximetría: papel en el paciente COVID-19 domiciliario.

COVID-19 behaves like a heterogeneous disease. Some patients may develop dyspnea-free hypoxemia during its evolution (silent hypoxemia). Pulse oximetry plays a crucial role in detecting hypoxemia in these patients, especially when they remain at home. Patients with SpO2 levels ≤ 92% or desaturations ≥ 3% after exercise test require hospital admission. Progressive saturation declines reaching SpO2 levels < 96% require strict clinical assessment (radiological study, blood test) for which it will be sent to a health center.

[Potentially useful drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 in Primary Care]. / Fármacos potencialmente útiles en el tratamiento de la COVID-19 en Atención Primaria.

The consequences of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic have exceeded any forecast made. Today we know that the level of severity of the infection in its initial stages will correspond to the evolution and the presence of sequelae in the future. There are no specific treatments that have shown sufficient evidence to allow their recommendation, especially in the mild-moderate stages of the disease. The anti-Covid vaccination is showing clear benefits, both in the prevention of the disease and in its evolution, with the consequent improvement in the numbers of those affected by the pandemic. The use of different drugs used in other indications has been proposed as possible beneficial treatments for COVID-19 that, if used, will be prescribed individually taking into account the characteristics and situation of the patient, the evolutionary phase of the disease as well as well as the limitations of the lack of evidence in its administration.

Posicionamiento para el manejo de la hipertensión arterial en atención primaria a partir del análisis crítico de las guías americana (2017) y europea (2018). Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (EMERGEN) / Positioning for the management of arterial hypertension in Primary Care from the critical analysis of the American (2017) and European (2018) guidelines. Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMERGEN)

Parece necesario que las sociedades científicas de AP, ámbito en el cual la prevalencia de HTA es considerable, evalúen periódicamente las directrices internacionales para el manejo de la HTA, sobre todo ante recomendaciones dispares que dificultan la toma de decisiones, en la práctica clínica diaria. El presente documento tiene como objetivo analizar los cambios y novedades propuestos en la guía del American College of Cardiology y de la American Heart Association (ACC/AHA 2017) y en la guía de la European Society of Cardiology y de la European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH 2018). Además, analizar las posibles diferencias, limitaciones y su aplicabilidad a la AP de España. En definitiva, se trata de extraer la información más relevante disponible y pertinente, e integrarla para homogeneizar la asistencia al paciente hipertenso desde una perspectiva crítica, pero también razonada. Las discrepancias entre ambas GPC en aspectos tan trascendentales como el manejo de la enfermedad obligan a la recopilación y análisis crítico de la información que nos permita tomar posición como sociedad científica, interesada en trasladar a todos los médicos de AP las recomendaciones más relevantes, pero a la vez sensatas, de ambas GPC

The Scientific Societies of Primary Care, being the area in which there is a considerable prevalence of Arterial Hypertension (AHT), need to periodically evaluate the international guidelines for its management. This is particularly relevant when disparate guidelines make it difficult to make decisions in daily clinical practice. The present document has as its aim to analyse the changes and new developments proposed in the guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA 2017), as well as in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH 2018). An analysis will be made of any differences, limitations, and their applicability to Primary Care in Spain. Finally, the most relevant available and appropriate information is extracted and integrated in order to homogenise the care of the hypertensive patient, from a critical, but also a reasoned, perspective. The discrepancies between the recommendations in such essential aspects as the management of the disease, require the compiling and critical analysis of the information that enables us as scientific society, interested in providing all PC physicians with the most relevant, and at the same time, sensible, recommendations of all the guidelines

[Positioning for the management of arterial hypertension in Primary Care from the critical analysis of the American (2017) and European (2018) guidelines. Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMERGEN)]. / Posicionamiento para el manejo de la hipertensión arterial en atención primaria a partir del análisis crítico de las guías americana (2017) y europea (2018). Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN).

The Scientific Societies of Primary Care, being the area in which there is a considerable prevalence of Arterial Hypertension (AHT), need to periodically evaluate the international guidelines for its management. This is particularly relevant when disparate guidelines make it difficult to make decisions in daily clinical practice. The present document has as its aim to analyse the changes and new developments proposed in the guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA 2017), as well as in the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Hypertension (ESC/ESH 2018). An analysis will be made of any differences, limitations, and their applicability to Primary Care in Spain. Finally, the most relevant available and appropriate information is extracted and integrated in order to homogenise the care of the hypertensive patient, from a critical, but also a reasoned, perspective. The discrepancies between the recommendations in such essential aspects as the management of the disease, require the compiling and critical analysis of the information that enables us as scientific society, interested in providing all PC physicians with the most relevant, and at the same time, sensible, recommendations of all the guidelines.

Control de la presión arterial en una población hipertensa diabética asistida en atención primaria: estudio PRESCAP-Diabetes 2010 / Blood pressure control in a population of hypertensive diabetic patients treated in primary care: PRESCAP-Diabetes Study 2010

Objetivos. Conocer el grado de control de la presión arterial (PA) en los pacientes hipertensos diabéticos atendidos en atención primaria y determinar los factores asociados al mal control. Material y métodos. Estudio transversal, multicéntrico que incluyó a hipertensos diabéticos, reclutados mediante muestreo consecutivo por médicos de familia de toda España en junio de 2010. Se consideró buen control de la hipertensión arterial al promedio de PA inferior a 140/90 mmHg. Se evaluó también el porcentaje de pacientes con PA< 130/80 mmHg, 140/80 mmHg y 140/85 mmHg. Se registraron datos sociodemográficos, clínicos, factores de riesgo cardiovascular y tratamientos farmacológicos. Resultados. Se incluyeron 3.993 pacientes (50,1% mujeres) con una edad media (desviación típica) de 68,2 (10,2) años. El 73,9% recibía terapia combinada. Presentaron cifras de buen control de ambas cifras tensionales (< 140/90 mmHg) el 56,4% (IC 95%: 54,3-58,4) de los casos; el 58,5%(IC 95%: 57-60) solo de la PA sistólica y el 84,6% (IC 95%: 83,2-85,8) únicamente de la PA diastólica. Las variables con mayor fuerza de asociación con el mal control fueron la presencia de albuminuria, el colesterol total elevado, el sedentarismo y no tomar la medicación el día de la entrevista. Conclusiones. Los resultados del estudio PRESCAP-Diabetes 2010 indican que el 43,6% de los hipertensos diabéticos asistidos en atención primaria tiene mal controlada la PA, fundamentalmente la PA sistólica (AU)

Objectives. To determine the level of blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive diabetic patients treated in primary care and to determine the factors associated with poor control. Material and methods. A cross-sectional, multicentre study that enrolled hypertensive diabetics recruited by consecutive sampling by family doctors in Spain in June 2010. A mean BP of less than 140/90 mmHg was considered as good control of arterial hypertension. The percentages of patients with < 130/80 mmHg PA, 140/80 mmHg, and 140/85 mmHg, respectively, were also determined. Sociodemographic, clinical, cardiovascular risk factors, and pharmacological treatments were recorded. Results. A total of 3,993 patients were enrolled (50.1% female) with a mean age (standard deviation) of 68.2 (10.2) years, of whom 73.9% received combination therapy. The figures showed good control of both blood pressure values (< 140/90 mmHg) in 56.4% (95% CI: 54.3 to 58.4) of the cases, with 58.5% (95% CI: 57.0-60.0) only in systolic BP, and 84.6% (95% CI, 83.2 to 85.8) only in diastolic BP. The variables with strongest association with poor control were the presence of albuminuria, elevated total cholesterol, physical inactivity, and not taking the medication on the day of the interview. Conclusions. The PRESCAP-Diabetes 2010 study results indicate that 43.6% of diabetics with hypertension seen in primary care have a poorly controlled BP, in particular, systolic BP (AU)

[Blood pressure control in a population of hypertensive diabetic patients treated in primary care: PRESCAP-Diabetes Study 2010]. / Control de la presión arterial en una población hipertensa diabética asistida en atención primaria: Estudio PRESCAP-Diabetes 2010.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the level of blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive diabetic patients treated in primary care and to determine the factors associated with poor control. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, multicentre study that enrolled hypertensive diabetics recruited by consecutive sampling by family doctors in Spain in June 2010. A mean BP of less than 140/90mmHg was considered as good control of arterial hypertension. The percentages of patients with<130/80mmHg PA, 140/80mmHg, and 140/85mmHg, respectively, were also determined. Sociodemographic, clinical, cardiovascular risk factors, and pharmacological treatments were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 3,993 patients were enrolled (50.1% female) with a mean age (standard deviation) of 68.2 (10.2) years, of whom 73.9% received combination therapy. The figures showed good control of both blood pressure values (<140/90mmHg) in 56.4% (95% CI: 54.3 to 58.4) of the cases, with 58.5% (95% CI: 57.0-60.0) only in systolic BP, and 84.6% (95% CI, 83.2 to 85.8) only in diastolic BP. The variables with strongest association with poor control were the presence of albuminuria, elevated total cholesterol, physical inactivity, and not taking the medication on the day of the interview. CONCLUSIONS: The PRESCAP-Diabetes 2010 study results indicate that 43.6% of diabetics with hypertension seen in primary care have a poorly controlled BP, in particular, systolic BP.

Blood pressure and urinary excretion of electrolytes in Spanish schoolchildren.

Despite the importance of hypertension in adults, its effects on child health are poorly understood. This cross-sectional epidemiological study was designed to look for a relationship between elevated blood pressure (BP) in children and 24-h urinary excretion of sodium (Na) and potassium (K), and between BP and dietary salt intake. The study population was all 59 856 schoolchildren aged 6 to 14 years in the province of Almería in southern Spain, among whom 613 participants were chosen randomly for study. We measured 24-h urinary Na and K concentrations, systolic and diastolic BP, body weight and height. There was a weak correlation between Na excretion and systolic BP (r = 0.18, 95% confidence interval 0.10-0.26), and between K excretion and systolic BP (r = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.04-0.20). Body weight was the variable that best correlated with systolic (r = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.43-0.55) and diastolic BP, and with Na excretion (r = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.42-0.55). Multiple regression analysis also showed that body weight was the variable that best correlated with systolic BP (b = 0.58), although the variables in the equation explained little of the total variability in BP (26%). These correlations were significant at P < 0.05. In conclusion urinary electrolytes correlated poorly with BP in a sample of Spanish schoolchildren. Body weight was the only variable that showed a weak relationship with BP and Na excretion.