Impacto de la fragilidad en la supervivencia intrahospitalaria en pacientes mayores con infección por COVID-19: la importancia de su identificación temprana. Registro Nacional SEMI-COVID / The impact of frailty on intra-hospital survival in older patients with COVID-19 infection: The importance of early identification. SEMI-COVID National Registry

Introducción La evidencia reciente sugiere que la fragilidad puede ser un importante predictor de resultados adversos en personas mayores hospitalizadas por COVID-19. El objetivo de este estudio es determinar el valor pronóstico de la fragilidad en la supervivencia intrahospitalaria de estos pacientes. Métodos Estudio observacional, multicéntrico y de ámbito nacional de pacientes ≥70 años hospitalizados a consecuencia de la COVID-19 en España desde el 1 de marzo hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2020. Los datos de los pacientes se obtuvieron del Registro SEMI-COVID-19 de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna. Se utilizó la escala de fragilidad Clínica (CFS, por sus siglas en inglés) para evaluar la fragilidad. El resultado primario fue la supervivencia hospitalaria. Se realizó un modelo de riesgos proporcionales de Cox para evaluar los predictores de supervivencia. Resultados Se incluyeron 1.878 participantes (52% varones y 48% mujeres). Mil trescientos cincuenta y un supervivientes (71,9%) y 527 no supervivientes (28,1%). El grupo de no supervivientes presentaba en comparación con los supervivientes una media de edad superior (83,5 frente a 81 años), más comorbilidades (6,3 frente a 5,3 puntos en el índice de Charlson), mayor grado de dependencia (26,8 frente al 12,4% de pacientes con dependencia severa) y de fragilidad (34,5 frente al 14,7% de pacientes con fragilidad severa), sin embargo, no hubo diferencias en cuanto al sexo. Nuestros resultados muestran que un grado de fragilidad moderado-grave es el principal factor asociado de forma independiente con una menor supervivencia (HR: 2,344; 1,437-3,823; p<0,001 para SFC 5-6 y HR: 3,694; 2,155-6,330; p<0,001 para SFC 7-9. Conclusiones La fragilidad es el principal predictor de resultados adversos en pacientes mayores con COVID-19. El uso de herramientas como la CFS es fundamental para la detección precoz de fragilidad en esta población (AU)

Background Emerging evidence suggests that frailty may be a significant predictor of poor outcomes in older individuals hospitalized due to COVID-19. This study aims to determine the prognostic value of frailty on intrahospital patient survival. Methods This observational, multicenter, nationwide study included patients aged 70 years and older who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Spain between March 1 and December 31, 2020. Patient data were obtained from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale. The primary outcome was hospital survival. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess predictors of survival. Results A total of 1878 participants (52% men and 48% women) were included, with 1351 (71.9%) survivors and 527 (28.1%) non-survivors. The non-survivor group had higher mean age (83.5 vs. 81 years), comorbidities (6.3 vs. 5.3 points on the Charlson index), degree of dependency (26.8% vs. 12.4% severely dependent patients), and frailty (34.5% vs. 14.7% severely frail patients) compared to survivors. However, there were no differences in terms of sex. Our results demonstrate that a moderate–severe degree of frailty is the primary factor independently associated with shorter survival (HR 2.344; 1.437-3.823; p < 0.001 for CFS 5-6 and 3.694; 2.155–6.330; p < 0.001 for CFS 7-9). Conclusion Frailty is the main predictor of adverse outcomes in older patients with COVID-19. The utilization of tools such as the Clinical Frailty Scale is crucial for early detection in this population (AU)

The impact of frailty on intra-hospital survival in older patients with COVID-19 infection: the importance of early identification. SEMI-COVID National Registry.

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests that frailty may be a significant predictor of poor outcomes in older individuals hospitalized due to COVID-19. This study aims to determine the prognostic value of frailty on intrahospital patient survival. METHODS: This observational, multicenter, nationwide study included patients aged 70 years and older who were hospitalized due to COVID-19 in Spain between March 1 and December 31, 2020. Patient data were obtained from the SEMI-COVID-19 Registry of the Spanish Society of Internal Medicine. Frailty was assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale. The primary outcome was hospital survival. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess predictors of survival. RESULTS: A total of 1,878 participants (52% men and 48% women) were included, with 1,351 (71.9%) survivors and 527 (28.1%) non-survivors. The non-survivor group had higher mean age (83.5 vs. 81 years), comorbidities (6.3 vs. 5.3 points on the Charlson index), degree of dependency (26.8% vs. 12.4% severely dependent patients), and frailty (34.5% vs. 14.7% severely frail patients) compared to survivors. However, there were no differences in terms of sex. Our results demonstrate that a moderate-severe degree of frailty is the primary factor independently associated with shorter survival [HR 2.344 (1.437-3.823; p<0.001) for CFS 5-6 and 3.694 (2.155-6.330; p<0.001) for CFS 7-9]. CONCLUSION: Frailty is the main predictor of adverse outcomes in older patients with COVID-19. The utilization of tools such as the Clinical Frailty Scale is crucial for early detection in this population.

[Impact of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality: Time matters]. / Impacto de los días transcurridos desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta la hospitalización en la mortalidad hospitalaria por COVID-19: el tiempo importa.

Background: COVID-19 shows different clinical and pathophysiological stages over time. Theeffect of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms (DEOS) to hospitalization on COVID-19prognostic factors remains uncertain. We analyzed the impact on mortality of DEOS to hospital-ization and how other independent prognostic factors perform when taking this time elapsedinto account. Methods: This retrospective, nationwide cohort study, included patients with confirmed COVID-19 from February 20th and May 6th, 2020. The data was collected in a standardized online datacapture registry. Univariate and multivariate COX-regression were performed in the generalcohort and the final multivariate model was subjected to a sensitivity analysis in an earlypresenting (EP; < 5 DEOS) and late presenting (LP; ≥5 DEOS) group. Results: 7915 COVID-19 patients were included in the analysis, 2324 in the EP and 5591 in theLP group. DEOS to hospitalization was an independent prognostic factor of in-hospital mortalityin the multivariate Cox regression model along with other 9 variables. Each DEOS incrementaccounted for a 4.3% mortality risk reduction (HR 0.957; 95% CI 0.93---0.98). Regarding variationsin other mortality predictors in the sensitivity analysis, the Charlson Comorbidity Index onlyremained significant in the EP group while D-dimer only remained significant in the LP group. Conclusion: When caring for COVID-19 patients, DEOS to hospitalization should be consideredas their need for early hospitalization confers a higher risk of mortality. Different prognosticfactors vary over time and should be studied within a fixed timeframe of the disease.

Impacto de los días transcurridos desde el inicio de los síntomas hasta la hospitalización en la mortalidad hospitalaria por COVID-19: el tiempo importa / Impact of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality: Time matters

Antecedentes La COVID-19 muestra diferentes fases clínicas y fisiopatológicas a lo largo del tiempo. El efecto de los días transcurridos desde el comienzo de los síntomas (DTCS) hasta la hospitalización sobre los factores pronósticos de la COVID-19 sigue siendo incierto. Analizamos el impacto en la mortalidad de los DTCS hasta la hospitalización y cómo se comportan otros factores pronósticos independientes al tener en cuenta dicho tiempo transcurrido. Métodos En este estudio de cohortes nacional retrospectivo se incluyó a pacientes con COVID-19 confirmada entre el 20 de febrero y el 6 de mayo de 2020. Los datos se recopilaron en un registro normalizado de captura de datos en línea. Se realizó una regresión de Cox uni y multifactorial en la cohorte general y el modelo multifactorial final se sometió a un análisis de sensibilidad en un grupo de presentación precoz (PP) < 5 DTCS y otro de presentación tardía (PT) ≥ 5 DTCS). Resultados En el análisis se incluyó a 7.915 pacientes con COVID-19, 2.324 en el grupo de PP y 5.591 en el de PT. Los DTCS hasta la hospitalización fueron un factor pronóstico independiente de mortalidad intrahospitalaria en el modelo de regresión de Cox multifactorial junto con otras nueve variables. Cada incremento en un DTCS supuso una reducción del riesgo de mortalidad del 4,3% (RRI = 0,957; IC 95%, 0,93-0,98). En cuanto a las variaciones de otros factores predictivos de la mortalidad en el análisis de sensibilidad, únicamente el índice de comorbilidad de Charlson siguió siendo significativo en el grupo de PP, mientras que únicamente el dímero D lo siguió siendo en el grupo de PT. Conclusiones Al atender a pacientes con COVID-19 hay que tener en cuenta los DTCS hasta la hospitalización porque la necesidad de hospitalización precoz confiere un mayor riesgo de mortalidad. Los diferentes factores pronósticos varían con el tiempo y deberían estudiarse dentro de un marco temporal fijo de la enfermedad (AU)

Background COVID-19 shows different clinical and pathophysiological stages over time. Theeffect of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms (DEOS) to hospitalization on COVID-19prognostic factors remains uncertain. We analyzed the impact on mortality of DEOS to hospital-ization and how other independent prognostic factors perform when taking this time elapsedinto account. Methods This retrospective, nationwide cohort study, included patients with confirmed COVID-19 from February 20th and May 6th, 2020. The data was collected in a standardized online datacapture registry. Univariate and multivariate COX-regression were performed in the generalcohort and the final multivariate model was subjected to a sensitivity analysis in an earlypresenting (EP; <5 DEOS) and late presenting (LP; ≥5 DEOS) group. Results 7915 COVID-19 patients were included in the analysis, 2324 in the EP and 5591 in theLP group. DEOS to hospitalization was an independent prognostic factor of in-hospital mortalityin the multivariate Cox regression model along with other 9 variables. Each DEOS incrementaccounted for a 4.3% mortality risk reduction (HR 0.957; 95% CI 0.93---0.98). Regarding variationsin other mortality predictors in the sensitivity analysis, the Charlson Comorbidity Index onlyremained significant in the EP group while D-dimer only remained significant in the LP group. Conclusion When caring for COVID-19 patients, DEOS to hospitalization should be consideredas their need for early hospitalization confers a higher risk of mortality. Different prognosticfactors vary over time and should be studied within a fixed timeframe of the disease (AU)

Impact of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms to hospitalization in COVID-19 in-hospital mortality: time matters.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 shows different clinical and pathophysiological stages over time. The effect of days elapsed from the onset of symptoms (DEOS) to hospitalization on COVID-19 prognostic factors remains uncertain. We analyzed the impact on mortality of DEOS to hospitalization and how other independent prognostic factors perform when taking this time elapsed into account. METHODS: This retrospective, nationwide cohort study, included patients with confirmed COVID-19 from February 20th and May 6th, 2020. The data was collected in a standardized online data capture registry. Univariate and multivariate COX-regression were performed in the general cohort and the final multivariate model was subjected to a sensitivity analysis in an early presenting (EP; <5 DEOS) and late presenting (LP; ≥5 DEOS) group. RESULTS: 7915 COVID-19 patients were included in the analysis, 2324 in the EP and 5591 in the LP group. DEOS to hospitalization was an independent prognostic factor of in-hospital mortality in the multivariate Cox regression model along with other 9 variables. Each DEOS increment accounted for a 4.3% mortality risk reduction (HR 0.957; 95% CI 0.93-0.98). Regarding variations in other mortality predictors in the sensitivity analysis, the Charlson Comorbidity Index only remained significant in the EP group while D-dimer only remained significant in the LP group. CONCLUSION: When caring for COVID-19 patients, DEOS to hospitalization should be considered as their need for early hospitalization confers a higher risk of mortality. Different prognostic factors vary over time and should be studied within a fixed timeframe of the disease.

[Parasitosis (I). Imported heart and lung lesions]. / Parasitosis (I). Lesiones cardiacas y pulmonares importadas.

Imported parasitoses are an uncommon condition in our setting, although recently, the increase of migratory flow has been leading to an increase in the detected cases of these diseases. This fundamentally occurs in immigrants from tropical zones where these conditions are generally endemic. However, imported parasitoses are being increasingly diagnosed in Western persons who have lived in the tropics for different reasons. When examining a subject with cardiovascular syndromes with a possible parasitic origin, it could be useful to classify the possible geographic zone of origin in order to perform disease screening. Then, if the problem is mainly respiratory, it would be well to first rule out the existence of tuberculosis in the case of long stays and to individual the diagnosis according to the geographic area, season of the year, type of exposure and symptoms presented, in the case of shorter stays.

[Acarbose and propofol: a dangerous combination?]. / Acarbosa y propofol: ¿una peligrosa combinación?

Hepatotoxicity is a rare complication following the use of propofol and can be potentially serious if an early diagnosis is not made. Propofol is being increasingly used in daily practice, not only in surgery, but also in outpatient sedation procedures, such as endoscopy. Acarbose is a well-known drug used in type 2 diabetes treatment, particularly in the early phase. A case is reported on a patient who suffered an acute hepatitis secondary to the use of propofol in ophthalmology surgery, a hepatitis probably enhanced by prior use of acarbose, a drug that also can cause hepatotoxicity. An early diagnosis and it was resolved without complications. This case could contribute to improve pre-anesthetic evaluation of patients who will be undergoing sedation with propofol in order to avoid the possible appearance of hepatitis.

La amiodarona como causa de parálisis periódica tirotóxica hipopotasémica / Amiodarone as cause of Periodic thyrotoxic hypopotasemic paralysis

No disponible

No disponible

[Clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of four highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in antiretroviral-naive treatment with advanced HIV infection]. / Ensayo clínico comparativo de eficacia y seguridad de cuatro pautas de tratamiento antirretroviral de alta eficacia (TARGA) en pacientes naive con infección por VIH avanzada.

BACKGROUND: Comparison of efficacy and safety of four highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens (HAART) including two nucleoside analogues (NA) and a protease inhibitor (PI) in HIV positive patients with advanced infection and antiretroviral naive. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Multicenter, randomized and open labeled clinical trial in ten community hospitals of Castilla-La Mancha and Madrid. Regimen 1 contains zidovudine (AZT), lamivudine (3TC) and indinavir (IDV) regimen 2 includes AZT, 3TC and ritonavir (RTV), regimen 3 was didanosine (DDI), estavudine (D4T) and IDV, and regimen 4 included DDI, D4T and RTV. Decrease in viral load of HIV (VC) has been assessed as primary endpoint and as secondary one, the increase of the numbers of CD4 lymphocytes, percentage of disease progression, adverse reactions and adherence. Measurements were made at baseline visit and at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 98 patients with a mean baseline CD4 count of 122 x 10(6)/l (range of 5-340) and a baseline viral load of 5.1 log copies/ml were included. At 48 weeks, a mean increase of the CD4 and decrease of the viral load without significant difference between the 4 regimens (103 cells/2.62 log in regimen 1; 169 cells/2.86 log in regimen 2; 171 cells/2.56 log in regimen 3 and 141 cells/1.71 log in regimen 4) were observed in the analysis of the patients in treatment. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse reactions: 24% in regimen 1, 48% in regimen 2, 26% in regimen 3 and 32% in regimen 4, without significant difference. Analyzing by PI groups, 41% of the patients with RTV and 25% of those with IDV discontinued treatment due to adverse effects. There was withdrawal from treatment due to disease progression in 7% of the RTV patients and in 9% of IDV patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the HIV positive patients with advanced infection, efficacy between the four regimens of HAART is similar, but there is a tendency to require more withdrawal due to adverse effects in the RTV group than in those of IDV, the two used as single PI.

Ensayo clínico comparativo de eficacia y seguridad de cuatro pautas de tratamiento antirretroviral de alta eficacia (TARGA) en pacientes naive con infección por VIH avanzada / Clinical trial comparing efficacy and safety of four highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in antiretroviral-naive treatment with advanced HIV infection

Introducción. Comparación de la eficacia y seguridad de cuatro pautas de terapia antirretroviral de gran actividad (TARGA) incluyendo dos análogos de nucleósidos (AN) y un inhibidor de proteasa (IP) en pacientes con el virus de la inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) con infección avanzada y naive a antirretrovirales. Pacientes y método. Ensayo clínico, multicéntrico, randomizado y abierto en diez hospitales comunitarios de Castilla-La Mancha y Madrid. La pauta 1 contenía zidovudina (ZDV), lamivudina (3TC) e indinavir (IDV); la pauta 2 incluía ZDV, 3TC y ritonavir (RTV); la pauta 3 era didanosina (DDI), estavudina (D4T) e IDV, y la pauta 4 incluía DDI, D4T y RTV. Se ha valorado como variable principal de respuesta el descenso de la carga viral del VIH (CV), y como variables secundarias: el aumento del número de linfocitos CD4, el porcentaje de progresión de la enfermedad, las reacciones adversas y la adherencia. Las determinaciones se realizaron en la visita basal y a las 6, 12, 24, 36 y 48 semanas. Resultados. Se incluyeron 98 pacientes con una media de CD4 basal de 122 x 106/l (rango de 5-340) y una carga viral basal de 5,1 log copias/ml. A las 48 semanas, en el análisis de los pacientes en tratamiento se observó un incremento medio de los CD4 y una disminución de la carga viral sin diferencia significativa entre las 4 pautas (103 células/2,62 log en la pauta 1, 169 células/ 2,86 log en la pauta 2, 171 células/2,56 log en la pauta 3 y 141 células/1,71 log en la pauta 4). Interrumpieron el tratamiento por reacciones adversas: el 24% en la pauta 1, el 48% en la pauta 2, el 26% en la pauta 3 y el 32% en la pauta 4, sin diferencias significativas. Analizando por grupos de IP el 41% de los pacientes con RTV y el 25% de los pacientes con IDV suspendieron el tratamiento por efectos adversos. Se produjo retirada del tratamiento por progresión de la enfermedad en el 7% de los pacientes con RTV y en el 9% de los pacientes con IDV. Conclusiones. En los pacientes VIH positivos con infección avanzada la eficacia entre cuatro pautas de TARGA es similar, pero existe una tendencia a precisar mayor retirada por efectos adversos en los grupos de RTV que en los de IDV, los dos usados como IP único

Background. Comparison of efficacy and safety of four highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens (HAART) including two nucleoside analogues (NA) and a protease inhibitor (PI) in HIV positive patients with advanced infection and antiretroviral naive. Patients and methods. Multicenter, randomized and open labeled clinical trial in ten community hospitals of Castilla-La Mancha and Madrid. Regimen 1 contains zidovudine (AZT), lamivudine (3TC) and indinavir (IDV) regimen 2 includes AZT, 3TC and ritonavir (RTV), regimen 3 was didanosine (DDI), estavudine (D4T) and IDV, and regimen 4 included DDI, D4T and RTV. Decrease in viral load of HIV (VC) has been assessed as primary endpoint and as secondary one, the increase of the numbers of CD4 lymphocytes, percentage of disease progression, adverse reactions and adherence. Measurements were made at baseline visit and at 6, 12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks. Results. A total of 98 patients with a mean baseline CD4 count of 122 x 106/l (range of 5-340) and a baseline viral load of 5.1 log copies/ml were included. At 48 weeks, a mean increase of the CD4 and decrease of the viral load without significant difference between the 4 regimens (103 cells/2.62 log in regimen 1; 169 cells/2.86 log in regimen 2; 171 cells/2.56 log in regimen 3 and 141 cells/1.71 log in regimen 4) were observed in the analysis of the patients in treatment. Treatment was discontinued due to adverse reactions: 24% in regimen 1, 48% in regimen 2, 26% in regimen 3 and 32% in regimen 4, without significant difference. Analyzing by PI groups, 41% of the patients with RTV and 25% of those with IDV discontinued treatment due to adverse effects. There was withdrawal from treatment due to disease progression in 7% of the RTV patients and in 9% of IDV patients. Conclusions. In the HIV positive patients with advanced infection, efficacy between the four regimens of HAART is similar, but there is a tendency to require more withdrawal due to adverse effects in the RTV group than in those of IDV, the two used as single PI

Neumonía extrahospitalaria bacteriémica por Citrobacter diversus / Citrobacter diversus bacteriemic community-acquired pheumonia

No disponible