[Blood groups and SARS-CoV-2 in health professionals from a single center]. / Grupos sanguíneos y SARS-CoV-2 en personal de salud de un solo centro.

BACKGROUND: The possibility that the blood group (BG) predisposes to SARS-CoV-2 infection is controversial. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence of BG, anti-IgG SARS-CoV-2, and more frequent symptoms in convalescent health personnel vs controls prior to vaccination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Analytical cross-sectional design of cases and controls, which included health personnel, from March to June 2020, confirmed with (polymerase chain reaction) PCR-SARS-CoV-2 and negative controls with PCR and anti-IgG-SARS-CoV-2. Participants were questioned concerning symptoms and BG was determined. It was used descriptive statistics and comparative analysis with chi squared, Fisher's exact test, Student's t, and Mann Whitney's U tests. RESULTS: Of 218 workers, 102 (46.8%) were confirmed cases for SARS-CoV-2 (convalescent) and 116 controls. The distribution of BG was similar between cases and controls, being BG-O + the most frequent (52.9%). The risk of becoming infected by SARS-CoV-2 for BG-O compared to BGNo-O showed a lower trend (odds ratio [OR] 0.725, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.416-1.261, p = ns). The BG-A (28.4%) compared with BG-No-A (71.6%) showed a trend of increased risk in BG-A (OR 1.523, 95% CI 0.818-2.837, p = ns). The presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was 85% in the convalescent group. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of infected was proportionally higher for BG-A and lower for BG-O. About 15% did not develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after overcoming COVID-19 disease.

INTRODUCCIÓN: la posibilidad de que el grupo sanguíneo (GS) predisponga a infección por SARS-CoV-2 es controversial. OBJETIVO: comparar prevalencia de GS, anti-IgG SARSCoV-2 y síntomas más frecuentes, en personal de salud convaleciente frente a controles previo a la vacunación. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: diseño transversal analítico de casos y controles, que incluyó personal de salud, de marzo a junio de 2020, confirmados con reaccion en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR-SARS-CoV-2) y controles negativos con PCR y anti-IgG-SARS-COV-2. Se les interrogó sobre los síntomas y se determinó el GS. Se empleó estadística descriptiva y análisis comparativo con chi cuadrada o prueba exacta de Fisher y t de Student o U de Mann-Whitney. RESULTADOS: de 218 trabajadores, 102 (46.8%) fueron casos confirmados para SARS-CoV-2 (convalecientes) y 116 controles. La distribución de GS fue similar entre los casos y los controles y el GS-O+ fue el más frecuente (52.9%). El riesgo de infectarse de SARS-CoV-2 para el GS-O, comparado con GS-No-O mostró menor tendencia: razón de momios [RM] 0.725 (intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC 95%] 0.416-1.261; p = ns). El GS-A (28.4%) comparado con GSNo-A (71.6%) mostró tendencia de incremento del riesgo en GS-A, RM 1.523 (IC 95% 0.818-2.837, p = ns). La presencia de anticuerpos IgG de SARS-CoV-2 fue del 85% en el grupo de convalecientes. CONCLUSIONES: la prevalencia de infectados fue proporcionalmente mayor para GS-A y menor para GS-O. Alrededor de 15% no desarrollaron anticuerpos de SARS-CoV-2 después de recuperarse de COVID-19.

Grupos sanguíneos y SARS-CoV-2 en personal de salud de un solo centro / Blood groups and SARS-CoV-2 in health professionals from a single center

Introducción: la posibilidad de que el grupo sanguíneo (GS) predisponga a infección por SARS-CoV-2 es controversial. Objetivo: comparar prevalencia de GS, anti-IgG SARS-CoV-2 y síntomas más frecuentes, en personal de salud convaleciente frente a controles previo a la vacunación. Material y métodos: diseño transversal analítico de casos y controles, que incluyó personal de salud, de marzo a junio de 2020, confirmados con reaccion en cadena de la polimerasa (PCR-SARS-CoV-2) y controles negativos con PCR y anti-IgG-SARS-COV-2. Se les interrogó sobre los síntomas y se determinó el GS. Se empleó estadística descriptiva y análisis comparativo con chi cuadrada o prueba exacta de Fisher y t de Student o U de Mann-Whitney. Resultados: de 218 trabajadores, 102 (46.8%) fueron casos confirmados para SARS-CoV-2 (convalecientes) y 116 controles. La distribución de GS fue similar entre los casos y los controles y el GS-O+ fue el más frecuente (52.9%). El riesgo de infectarse de SARS-CoV-2 para el GS-O, comparado con GS-No-O mostró menor tendencia: razón de momios [RM] 0.725 (intervalo de confianza del 95% [IC 95%] 0.416-1.261; p = ns). El GS-A (28.4%) comparado con GS-No-A (71.6%) mostró tendencia de incremento del riesgo en GS-A, RM 1.523 (IC 95% 0.818-2.837, p = ns). La presencia de anticuerpos IgG de SARS-CoV-2 fue del 85% en el grupo de convalecientes. Conclusiones: la prevalencia de infectados fue proporcionalmente mayor para GS-A y menor para GS-O. Alrededor de 15% no desarrollaron anticuerpos de SARS-CoV-2 después de recuperarse de COVID-19.

Background: The possibility that the blood group (BG) predisposes to SARS-CoV-2 infection is controversial. Objective: To compare the prevalence of BG, anti-IgG SARS-CoV-2, and more frequent symptoms in convalescent health personnel vs controls prior to vaccination. Material and methods: Analytical cross-sectional design of cases and controls, which included health personnel, from March to June 2020, confirmed with (polymerase chain reaction) PCR-SARS-CoV-2 and negative controls with PCR and anti-IgG-SARS-CoV-2. Participants were questioned concerning symptoms and BG was determined. It was used descriptive statistics and comparative analysis with chi squared, Fisher's exact test, Student's t, and Mann Whitney's U tests. Results: Of 218 workers, 102 (46.8%) were confirmed cases for SARS-CoV-2 (convalescent) and 116 controls. The distribution of BG was similar between cases and controls, being BG-O + the most frequent (52.9%). The risk of becoming infected by SARS-CoV-2 for BG-O compared to BG-No-O showed a lower trend (odds ratio [OR] 0.725, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.416-1.261, p = ns). The BG-A (28.4%) compared with BG-No-A (71.6%) showed a trend of increased risk in BG-A (OR 1.523, 95% CI 0.818-2.837, p = ns). The presence of SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was 85% in the convalescent group. Conclusions: The prevalence of infected was proportionally higher for BG-A and lower for BG-O. About 15% did not develop SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after overcoming COVID-19 disease.

Pediatric asthma treatment: What to do when international guideline recommendations do not agree.

BACKGROUND: There was a need for a solid asthma guideline in Mexico to update and unify asthma management. Because high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, in which the latest evidence on asthma management is summarized, the ADAPTE approach allows for the development of a national asthma guideline based on evidence from already existing guidelines, adapted to national needs. OBJECTIVE: To fuse evidence from the best asthma guidelines and adapt it to local needs with the ADAPTE approach. METHODS: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II asthma guidelines were evaluated by a core group to select 3 primary guidelines. For each step of asthma management, clinical questions were formulated and replied according to (1) evidence in the primary guidelines, (2) safety, (3) Cost, and (4) patient preference. The Guidelines Development Group, composed of a broad range of experts from medical specialties, primary care physicians, and methodologists, adjusted the draft questions and replies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings, taking into account the reality of the situation in Mexico. We present the results of the pediatric asthma treatment part. RESULTS: Selected primary guidelines are from the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and Spanish Guidelines on the Management of Asthma (GEMA) 2015, with 2016 updates. Recommendations or suggestions were made for asthma treatment in Mexico. In this article, the detailed analysis of the evidence present in the BTS/SIGN, GINA, and GEMA sections on the (non) pharmacologic treatment of pediatric asthma, education, and devices are presented for 2 age groups: children 5 years or younger and children 6 to 11 years old with asthma. CONCLUSION: For the pediatric treatment and patient education sections, applying the AGREE II and Delphi methods is useful to develop a scientifically sustained document, adjusted to the Mexican situation, as is the Mexican Guideline on Asthma.

[Mexican Asthma Guidelines: GUIMA 2017]. / Guía Mexicana del Asma: GUIMA 2017.

BACKGROUND: The need for a national guideline, with a broad basis among specialists and primary care physicians was felt in Mexico, to try unifying asthma management. As several high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, it was decided to select the best three for transculturation. METHODS: Following the internationally recommended methodology for guideline transculturation, ADAPTE, a literature search for asthma guidelines, published 1-1-2007 through 31-12-2015 was conducted. AGREE-II evaluations yielded 3/40 most suitable for transculturation. Their compound evidence was fused with local reality, patient preference, cost and safety considerations to draft the guideline document. Subsequently, this was adjusted by physicians from 12 national medical societies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings to reach the final version. RESULTS: Evidence was fused from British Thoracic Society Asthma Guideline 2014, Global Initiative on Asthma 2015, and Guía Española del Manejo del Asma 2015 (2016 updates included). After 3 Delphi-rounds we developed an evidence-based document taking into account patient characteristics, including age, treatment costs and safety and best locally available medication. CONCLUSIONS: In cooperation pulmonologists, allergists, ENT physicians, paediatricians and GPs were able to develop an evidence-based document for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of asthma and its exacerbations in Mexico.

Antecedentes: Con el objetivo de unificar el manejo del asma en México se estructuró una guía clínica que conjunta el conocimiento de diversas especialidades y la atención en el primer nivel de contacto. Se seleccionaron 3 guías publicadas en el ámbito internacional para su transculturación. Métodos: Conforme a la metodología ADAPTE se usó AGREE II después de la búsqueda bibliográfica de guías sobre asma publicadas entre 2007 y 2015. Se fusionó la realidad local con la evidencia de 3/40 mejores guías. El documento inicial fue sometido a la revisión de representantes de 12 sociedades médicas en varias rondas Delphi hasta llegar a la versión final. Resultados: Las guías base fueron la British Thoracic Society Asthma Guideline 2014, la Global Initiative on Asthma 2015 y la Guía Española del Manejo del Asma 2015. Después de 3 rondas Delphi se desarrolló un documento en el que se consideraron las características de los pacientes según edad, costos de los tratamientos y perfiles de seguridad de los fármacos disponibles en México. Conclusión: Con la cooperación de neumólogos, alergólogos, otorrinolaringólogos, pediatras y médicos generales se llegó a un consenso basado en evidencia, en el que se incluyeron recomendaciones sobre prevención, diagnóstico y tratamiento del asma y sus crisis.