Prescripción de ácidos alendrónico y risedrónico en varones: uso fuera de la ficha técnica en un área de salud / Prescription of alendronate and risedronate in men: off-label use in a health area

Fundamento y objetivo. El ácido alendrónico y ácido risedrónico son eficaces y seguros para la osteoporosis del varón, pero solo el ácido risedrónico recoge esta indicación en su ficha técnica. Compararemos su uso en ambos sexos. Pacientes y métodos. Estudio descriptivo retrospectivo de prescripciones de ácido risedrónico y alendrónico en 2012 en atención primaria en el área noroeste de la Comunidad de Madrid. Comparamos la proporción de pacientes y dosis diarias definidas (DDD) dispensadas según género. Resultados. Catorce mil ochocientos cincuenta y siete pacientes utilizaron 1.847.370 de DDD de alendronato y risedronato, 1.145 (7,7%) varones. En mujeres, alendronato fue un 10% más prescrito que risedronato (55% vs. 45%). En varones, el risedronato fue el preferido, 47,6% vs. 52,4%, con una diferencia estadísticamente significativa (p < 0,001). Conclusiones. El ácido risedrónico es preferido al alendrónico en varones, que se utiliza a menudo fuera de ficha técnica a pesar de existir alternativas (AU)

Background and objective: Alendronate and risedronate are both effective and safe treatments for osteoporosis in men, but only risedronate has this indication in its data-sheet. We compared their use by gender. Patient and methods: Retrospective descriptive study of prescriptions of risedronate and alendronate in 2012 in primary care in the northwest area of the Community of Madrid. We compared patients and defined daily doses (DDD) dispensed by gender. Results: 14.857 patients used 1.847.370 DDD of alendronate or risedronate, 1.145 (7.7%) patients were men. In women alendronate was most prescribed (55% vs. 45%) than risedronate. Risedronate was preferred in men, 47.6% vs. 52.4%, resulting in a statistically significant difference (P<.001). Conclusions: Risedronate is preferred to alendronate in men, which is often used off-label, despite the existence of alternatives (AU)

Prescription of alendronate and risedronate in men: off-label use in a health area.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Alendronate and risedronate are both effective and safe treatments for osteoporosis in men, but only risedronate has this indication in its data-sheet. We compared their use by gender. PATIENT AND METHODS: Retrospective descriptive study of prescriptions of risedronate and alendronate in 2012 in primary care in the northwest area of the Community of Madrid. We compared patients and defined daily doses (DDD) dispensed by gender. RESULTS: 14.857 patients used 1.847.370 DDD of alendronate or risedronate, 1.145 (7.7%) patients were men. In women alendronate was most prescribed (55% vs. 45%) than risedronate. Risedronate was preferred in men, 47.6% vs. 52.4%, resulting in a statistically significant difference (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Risedronate is preferred to alendronate in men, which is often used off-label, despite the existence of alternatives.

Enfermedades de declaración obligatoria: conocimiento y notificación en el ámbito hospitalario / Notifiable infectious diseases: Knowledge and notification among hospital physicians

INTRODUCCIÓN: Las enfermedades de declaración obligatoria (EDO) suponen un riesgo para la salud pública; por ello se encuentran sometidas a vigilancia y han de ser notificadas. Analizamos el conocimiento sobre las EDO en el ámbito hospitalario y su actitud frente a la notificación. MÉTODOS: Estudio descriptivo observacional mediante cuestionario escrito con 11 preguntas de respuestas múltiples, 2 con respuesta sí/no y una pregunta final abierta. Se entregó a médicos adjuntos y residentes de 19 servicios (médicos y quirúrgicos). RESULTADOS: Se entregaron 248 cuestionarios, con una tasa de respuesta del 79,84%. El 76,3% eran médicos adjuntos. El 29,5% identificaron de forma correcta como EDO el 100% de las enfermedades propuestas; el 3,2% no pudieron identificar ninguna de ellas. El 25,3% identificaron de forma correcta todas las EDO urgentes propuestas. Encontramos diferencias estadísticamente significativas para el conocimiento de las EDO entre los servicios médicos y quirúrgicos, tanto para adjuntos (p = 0,047) como para residentes (p = 0,035). Un alto porcentaje de adjuntos, tanto de servicios médicos (40%) como quirúrgicos (70%), refirieron no haber notificado nunca. Preguntados por las causas de subnotificación, el 72% desconocen si tienen que notificar, el 88% desconocen qué enfermedades tienen que notificar. CONCLUSIONES: A pesar de que muchos de los encuestados son conscientes de que la notificación de las EDO forma parte de su labor asistencial, reconocen que notifican poco, existiendo un conocimiento insuficiente sobre qué enfermedades tienen que notificar y el modo de hacerlo

INTRODUCTION: Notifiable infectious diseases represent a public health hazard, which is why they are under surveillance and must be reported. We tried to assess hospital physicians' knowledge of hospital physicians on notifiable infectious diseases and their self-reported attitudes to notification. METHODS: An observational study was conducted using a questionnaire with 11 multiple choice questions, two yes/no questions and one short-answer question. It was distributed to all senior doctors and residents in 19 medical and surgical departments. RESULTS: A total of 248 questionnaires were sent out, with a response rate of 79.84%. More than three-quarters (76.3%) of the respondents were senior doctors. As regards specific knowledge about whether a particular disease is a notifiable disease, 29.5% identified correctly 100% of the named diseases, 3.2% could not identify any of them. All urgent named notifiable infectious diseases were correctly identified by 25.3% of physicians. Statistically significant differences were found in the knowledge of notifiable diseases knowledge in medical and surgical departments, as well as for senior doctors (P=.047) and residents (P=.035). A high percentage of medical services (40%) and surgical (70%) department reported never failing to notify. When asked about the causes of under-reporting, 72% did not know whether notification was mandatory or not, and 88% did not know what diseases must be notified. CONCLUSIONS: Although many respondents are aware that diseases notification is part of their daily activity, many of them admit under-reporting. There is insufficient knowledge about what diseases are considered notifiable infectious diseases and how to notify them

[Notifiable infectious diseases: knowledge and notification among hospital physicians]. / Enfermedades de declaración obligatoria: conocimiento y notificación en el ámbito hospitalario.

INTRODUCTION: Notifiable infectious diseases represent a public health hazard, which is why they are under surveillance and must be reported. We tried to assess hospital physicians' knowledge of hospital physicians on notifiable infectious diseases and their self-reported attitudes to notification. METHODS: An observational study was conducted using a questionnaire with 11 multiple choice questions, two yes/no questions and one short-answer question. It was distributed to all senior doctors and residents in 19 medical and surgical departments. RESULTS: A total of 248 questionnaires were sent out, with a response rate of 79.84%. More than three-quarters (76.3%) of the respondents were senior doctors. As regards specific knowledge about whether a particular disease is a notifiable disease, 29.5% identified correctly 100% of the named diseases, 3.2% could not identify any of them. All urgent named notifiable infectious diseases were correctly identified by 25.3% of physicians. Statistically significant differences were found in the knowledge of notifiable diseases knowledge in medical and surgical departments, as well as for senior doctors (P=.047) and residents (P=.035). A high percentage of medical services (40%) and surgical (70%) department reported never failing to notify. When asked about the causes of under-reporting, 72% did not know whether notification was mandatory or not, and 88% did not know what diseases must be notified. CONCLUSIONS: Although many respondents are aware that diseases notification is part of their daily activity, many of them admit under-reporting. There is insufficient knowledge about what diseases are considered notifiable infectious diseases and how to notify them.