[Descriptive analysis of the electroencephalogram in Angelman syndrome]. / Análisis descriptivo del electroencefalograma en el síndrome de Angelman.

INTRODUCTION: Angelman syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder of genetic origin, with important clinical motor, behavioural, communicative and electroencephalographic manifestations, with particular relevance as regards the presence of epileptic seizures. AIMS: To describe the electroencephalographic characteristics (qualitatively and quantitatively) of patients diagnosed with Angelman syndrome and to determine the electroencephalographic profile according to age and genetic alteration. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study in which the demographic, clinical and electroencephalographic characteristics of 51 patients with Angelman syndrome were analysed. RESULTS: A higher delta power was evident in all brain regions, with a maximum peak in the frontopolar and temporal regions, and a lower power in the alpha and beta frequency range in all regions, with a greater preponderance in younger patients, and a trend that decreases with age. The coherence showed a predominance of delta and theta in the frontopolar region, which was higher for all frequencies in the deletion group, where delta was predominant, especially in the frontopolar region. CONCLUSION: The electroencephalogram could be a useful biomarker as a qualitative and quantitative tool in the investigation of Angelman syndrome and in measuring the response to possible therapies under investigation.

TITLE: Análisis descriptivo del electroencefalograma en el síndrome de Angelman.Introducción. El síndrome de Angelman es un trastorno del neurodesarrollo de origen genético, con importantes manifestaciones clínicas motoras, conductuales, comunicativas y electroencefalográficas, con especial relevancia en lo que concierne a la presencia de crisis epilépticas. Objetivos. Describir las características electroencefalográficas (cualitativa y cuantitativamente) de los pacientes con diagnóstico de síndrome de Angelman y determinar el perfil electroencefalográfico según la edad y la alteración genética. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio observacional retrospectivo donde se analizaron las características demográficas, clínicas y electroencefalográficas de 51 pacientes con síndrome de Angelman. Resultados. Se evidenció una mayor potencia delta en todas las regiones cerebrales, con un pico máximo en las regiones frontopolar y temporal, y una menor potencia en el rango de frecuencias alfa y beta en todas las regiones, con mayor preponderancia en los pacientes más jóvenes, con tendencia decreciente con la edad. La coherencia mostró un predominio delta y theta en la región frontopolar, que fue mayor para todas las frecuencias en el grupo de deleción, con predominio delta, especialmente en la región frontopolar. Conclusión. El electroencefalograma podría ser un biomarcador útil como herramienta cualitativa y cuantitativa en la investigación del síndrome de Angelman y en la medición de la respuesta a eventuales terapias en investigación.

Conocimiento sobre biosimilares en Atención Primaria: Un estudio de la Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN) / Knowledge about Biosimilars in Primary Care: a study by the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMERGEN)

Introducción: El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar el grado de conocimiento y las necesidades de formación sobre fármacos biosimilares en los médicos de Atención Primaria (AP). Material y métodos: Estudio observacional, descriptivo y transversal mediante encuesta con cuestionario de 34 preguntas cumplimentado electrónicamente por médicos de familia a través de la página web de la Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN). Las áreas de conocimiento incluidas en la encuesta fueron: definición de biosimilar, marco regulatorio, prescripción de biosimilares, trazabilidad, intercambiabilidad, farmacovigilancia, biosimilares autorizados en AP y contribución a la sostenibilidad. El programa utilizado para el análisis y proceso de los datos fue el Barbwin 7.5. Resultados: Se analizaron 701 encuestas; el 57% fueron cumplimentadas por mujeres y el 60,9% eran procedentes del ámbito urbano. El 58% de los respondedores desconoce la definición de biosimilar y el 73% no sabe que el manejo de biosimilares no es equiparable al del genérico. La mayoría de los respondedores (84%) desconoce que el desarrollo requerido para la autorización de biosimilares es distinto del de los biológicos de referencia, el 66% no conoce ningún biosimilar en el ámbito de AP en España y el 94% desconoce el marco legal para el manejo de los biosimilares. Conclusiones: El conocimiento de los médicos de AP sobre biosimilares es bajo. Es necesaria la formación específica sobre biosimilares en AP y sobre los aspectos legales de su prescripción, intercambiabilidad y farmacovigilancia. Seis de cada 10 médicos no conocen ningún biosimilar utilizado en AP en España

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the awareness and training needs on biosimilar drugs in Primary Care (PC) physicians. Material and methods: Descriptive cross-sectional study based on an on-line questionnaire with a total of 34 multiple choice questions, published on the SEMERGEN website. The main Knowledge areas were: biosimilar definition; regulatory and legal framework; prescription, traceability, interchangeability and pharmacovigilance; availability of biosimilars in the PC setting, and the biosimilars contribution to sustainability. The software used for the analysis and data processing was the Barbwin 7.5. Results: An analysis was performed on the responses from 701 questionnaires completed. There was a slight majority (57%) of women participants. The majority of participant worked in urban centres (60.91%). The definition of biosimilar was not known by 58% of those that responded, and 73% were unaware that the management of biosimilars and generics was not comparable. Most (84%) of those that responded were not aware that the studies required for the approval of biosimilars is different from reference biological medicines. Around two-thirds (66%) those that responded did not know of any biosimilars available in PC setting, and the 94% were also unaware of the Spanish legal framework for the management of biosimilar medicines. Conclusions: The current knowledge about biosimilars among PC physicians is low. The critical areas in need of further training include specific information on biosimilars currently available in PC setting, as well as key aspects regarding prescription, interchangeability and pharmacovigilance requirements. Six out of ten doctors do not know of any biosimilar used in PC in Spain

[Knowledge about Biosimilars in Primary Care: a study by the Spanish Society of Primary Care Physicians (SEMERGEN)]. / Conocimiento sobre biosimilares en Atención Primaria: Un estudio de la Sociedad Española de Médicos de Atención Primaria (SEMERGEN).

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to evaluate the awareness and training needs on biosimilar drugs in Primary Care (PC) physicians. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Descriptive cross-sectional study based on an on-line questionnaire with a total of 34 multiple choice questions, published on the SEMERGEN website. The main Knowledge areas were: biosimilar definition; regulatory and legal framework; prescription, traceability, interchangeability and pharmacovigilance; availability of biosimilars in the PC setting, and the biosimilars contribution to sustainability. The software used for the analysis and data processing was the Barbwin 7.5. RESULTS: An analysis was performed on the responses from 701 questionnaires completed. There was a slight majority (57%) of women participants. The majority of participant worked in urban centres (60.91%). The definition of biosimilar was not known by 58% of those that responded, and 73% were unaware that the management of biosimilars and generics was not comparable. Most (84%) of those that responded were not aware that the studies required for the approval of biosimilars is different from reference biological medicines. Around two-thirds (66%) those that responded did not know of any biosimilars available in PC setting, and the 94% were also unaware of the Spanish legal framework for the management of biosimilar medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The current knowledge about biosimilars among PC physicians is low. The critical areas in need of further training include specific information on biosimilars currently available in PC setting, as well as key aspects regarding prescription, interchangeability and pharmacovigilance requirements. Six out of ten doctors do not know of any biosimilar used in PC in Spain.

Consideraciones clínicas sobre la posología de los anticoagulantes orales de acción directa / Clinical considerations on the posology of direct oral anticoagulants

Los anticoagulantes dicumarínicos han demostrado su eficacia en pacientes con fibrilación auricular no valvular. Sin embargo, presentan desventajas como la necesidad de ajustar la dosis y la interacción con fármacos y alimentos. Por su parte, los anticoagulantes orales de acción directa se presentan como una alternativa eficaz y segura con un manejo clínico menos complejo. Existe un considerable debate sobre los criterios de selección de las pautas posológicas de los anticoagulantes orales de acción directa. Las diferencias entre ellos y sus pautas de administración han despertado dudas sobre los criterios de selección clínicos, farmacocinéticos y farmacodinámicos que avalan dicha posología. Esta revisión analiza de forma crítica las evidencias disponibles y su impacto en la selección final del esquema posológico (AU)

The efficacy of dicoumarin anticoagulants has been shown in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, they have drawbacks such as the need to adjust the dosage and the interaction with drugs and food. Direct oral anticoagulants are an effective and safe alternative and have a less complicated clinical management. There is considerable debate on the selection criteria for the posology regimens of direct oral anticoagulants. The differences among them and their administration regimens have raised questions about the clinical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic selection criteria that support the posology. This review critically analyses the available evidence and its impact on the final selection of the dosage regimen (AU)

Clinical considerations on the posology of direct oral anticoagulants. / Consideraciones clínicas sobre la posología de los anticoagulantes orales de acción directa.

The efficacy of dicoumarin anticoagulants has been shown in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, they have drawbacks such as the need to adjust the dosage and the interaction with drugs and food. Direct oral anticoagulants are an effective and safe alternative and have a less complicated clinical management. There is considerable debate on the selection criteria for the posology regimens of direct oral anticoagulants. The differences among them and their administration regimens have raised questions about the clinical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic selection criteria that support the posology. This review critically analyses the available evidence and its impact on the final selection of the dosage regimen.

On heterogeneity of treatment effects and clinical freedom.

Three decades ago, John R Hampton announced the death of clinical freedom. Since then, evidence-based medicine has been the predominant paradigm in clinical research. By applying a population-based approach, the randomised controlled trial has become the cornerstone for demonstrating the overall effect of a treatment and for developing guidelines. The new patient-centred medicine movement is rediscovering the important implications of heterogeneity of treatment effects for clinical practice and that a better understanding of such variability can contribute to improve health outcomes for individual patients through practicing a science-based clinical freedom.

Conocimiento sobre el uso de fármacos off-label en Pediatría. Resultados de una encuesta pediátrica nacional 2012-2013 (estudio OL-PED) / Results from the 2012-2013 paediatric national survey on off-label drug use in children in Spain (OL-PED study)

INTRODUCCIÓN: Un número elevado de fármacos se prescriben en niños bajo condiciones no autorizadas en ficha técnica (uso off-label). El objetivo principal del estudio es estimar el conocimiento sobre el uso de fármacos fuera de ficha técnica por parte de los pediatras españoles. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Estudio transversal, multicéntrico, descriptivo, de ámbito nacional, mediante encuesta on-line, enviada por correo electrónico a pediatras socios de la Asociación Española de Pediatría o de sus sociedades de Especialidades y Regionales, entre julio del 2012 y marzo del 2013. RESULTADOS: Se recibieron 673 respuestas. Un 71,5% de los pediatras españoles conocen el significado del término off-label, el 61% afirma que prescribe fármacos con indicaciones fuera de ficha técnica y un 47% conoce que dicho uso debe quedar reflejado en la historia clínica. Sin embargo, algo menos de la mitad informa a los padres y solo el 22% lo deja anotado en la historia clínica. CONCLUSIONES: Muchos pediatras no cumplen con la normativa actual con respecto al uso de fármacos en condiciones no autorizadas en ficha técnica. Esta normativa exige: justificar las decisiones de uso off-label y registrar en la historia clínica que se ha obtenido el consentimiento, al menos verbal, de los padres. Se pone de manifiesto una realidad que los pediatras españoles deben cambiar. Mientras tanto, es prioritario continuar con la realización de documentos de consenso y guías de práctica clínica para ampliar la información sobre la eficacia y seguridad de los usos off-label en niños, y poder incorporarlos a las fichas técnicas autorizadas

INTRODUCTION: Off-label drug use is a common practice in paediatrics. The aim of the present study was to estimate the knowledge of Spaniard paediatricians on off-label use. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional, multicentre, descriptive and national study from July 2012 to March 2013 using an on-line questionnaire on off-label use in children. An e-mail was sent to paediatricians who were members of the Spanish Association of Paediatrics (AEP) or its Regional or Paediatric Specialties Societies. RESULTS: Out of 673 responses were received, 75.1% of Spanish paediatricians knew the meaning of off-label use, 61% of them prescribed medicines outside the conditions authorised in their Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) and 47% knew of the importance of noting the off-label use in the medical record. However, just under half of paediatricians informed parents, and only 22% wrote it down in the medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Most Spanish paediatricians do not meet current regulations regarding off-label use. This regulation demands: justifying the decisions when off-label use is needed, and to write down in the medical record that, at least an oral consent from the parents has been obtained. This study reveals a fact that Spanish paediatricians must change. Meanwhile, it is a priority to continue with the implementation of consensus and clinical guidelines, to obtain more data on the efficacy and safety of off-label drug use in children, and to incorporate them into the SPCien

[Results from the 2012-2013 paediatric national survey on off-label drug use in children in Spain (OL-PED study)]. / Conocimiento sobre el uso de fármacos off-label en Pediatría. Resultados de una encuesta pediátrica nacional 2012-2013 (estudio OL-PED).

INTRODUCTION: Off-label drug use is a common practice in paediatrics. The aim of the present study was to estimate the knowledge of Spaniard paediatricians on off-label use. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Cross-sectional, multicentre, descriptive and national study from July 2012 to March 2013 using an on-line questionnaire on off-label use in children. An e-mail was sent to paediatricians who were members of the Spanish Association of Paediatrics (AEP) or its Regional or Paediatric Specialties Societies. RESULTS: Out of 673 responses were received, 75.1% of Spanish paediatricians knew the meaning of off-label use, 61% of them prescribed medicines outside the conditions authorised in their Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) and 47% knew of the importance of noting the off-label use in the medical record. However, just under half of paediatricians informed parents, and only 22% wrote it down in the medical record. CONCLUSIONS: Most Spanish paediatricians do not meet current regulations regarding off-label use. This regulation demands: justifying the decisions when off-label use is needed, and to write down in the medical record that, at least an oral consent from the parents has been obtained. This study reveals a fact that Spanish paediatricians must change. Meanwhile, it is a priority to continue with the implementation of consensus and clinical guidelines, to obtain more data on the efficacy and safety of off-label drug use in children, and to incorporate them into the SPC.

Interferones: tipos y acciones / Interferons: types and actions

No disponible

No disponible

[The evaluation of the quality of clinical trials: the rationale, usefulness and drawbacks]. / Evaluación de la calidad de los ensayos clínicos: justificación, utilidad e inconvenientes.

The quality of a randomised controlled trial should be understood as its internal validity, that is, the extent in which the study conclusions show correctly what actually happened in the design and conduct phases. This validity may be compromised by multiple biases coming from the allocation of subjects to study groups, treatment administration, observation of outcome variables, patient follow-up and statistical analysis. The presence of bias is assessed through three kinds of measurements: individual components, checklists and numerical scales. In systematic reviews some kind of quality assessment is necessary, which evaluates the quality of individual trials by means of several methods: a) a threshold that sets the minimal level of quality required; b) the relationship between quality and variability in trial results; c) sensitivity analysis, and d) quality scores as weights of trials. However, there exists considerable discrepancy among the published scales whereas their usefulness to assess the quality of trials to be included in the systematic review is a matter of controversy. We hope that the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) initiative to standardize the report of randomized controlled trials and other proposals will contribute to obtain a more realistic view for each trial and to improve their internal validity.