[Diagnosis and treatment of imported eosinophilia in travellers and immigrants: Recommendations of the Spanish Society of Tropical Medicine and International Health (SEMTSI)]. / Diagnóstico y tratamiento de la eosinofilia importada en viajeros e inmigrantes: recomendaciones de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Tropical y Salud Internacional (SEMTSI).

According to published data, prevalence of imported eosinophilia among travellers and immigrants is set between 8% and 28.5%. Etiological diagnosis is often troublesome, and depending on the depth of the study and on the population analyzed, a parasitic cause is identified in 17% to 75.9% of the individuals. Among the difficulties encountered to compare studies are the heterogeneity of the studied populations, the type of data collection (prospective/retrospective) and different diagnostic protocols. In this document the recommendations of the expert group of the Spanish Society of Tropical Medicine and International Health (SEMTSI) for the diagnosis and treatment of imported eosinophilia are detailed.

Persistent infectious and tropical diseases in immigrant correctional populations.

A number of infectious diseases amongst travelers and the immigrant populations are a major public health concern. Some have a long incubation period or remain asymptomatic or paucisymptomatic for many years before leading to significant clinical manifestations and/or complications. HIV, hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis or latent syphilis are among the most significant persistent diseases in migrants. Schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis, for instance, are persistent helminthic infections that may cause significant morbidity, particularly in patients co-infected with HIV, hepatitis B and C. Chagas disease, which was initially confined to Latin America, must also now be considered in immigrants from endemic countries. Visceral leishmaniasis and malaria are other examples of parasitic diseases that must be taken into account by physicians treating incarcerated migrants. The focus of this review article is on the risk of neglected tropical diseases in particularly vulnerable correctional populations and on the risk of infectious diseases that commonly affect migrants but which are often underestimated.

[Externally induced prescriptions, degree of agreement and ... possibility of change in primary care?]. / Prescripción inducida, grado de conformidad y ... posibilidad de cambio en atención primaria?

OBJECTIVE: To find whether externally induced prescriptions (EIP) condition attendance through their prevalence, quality, the degree of agreement of the PC doctor and his/her capacity to alter them. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of use of indication-prescription type medicines. SETTING: Health district. PARTICIPANTS: 2656 prescriptions for 678 patients interviewed. MEASUREMENTS: Each interview recorded: type of visit, age, sex, work situation, existence or otherwise of social problems and/or psychiatric pathology; doctor-patient relationship, pharmaceutical preparations (PP) prescribed and those which the patient remembers he/she is taking, indication, origin, duration, speciality of the prescribing person, agreement of the PC doctor issuing the prescription and the possibility of his/her changing it. For each prescription the following was analysed: therapeutic group, intrinsic value, time it lasts, cost and whether it is a recently marketed PP. MAIN RESULTS: 90% of visits to the doctor end in prescription. 58% of patients remember taking one or more EIP. 72% of the prescriptions analysed were externally caused. They came mostly from the public health system (66%), private medicine (20%) and self-medication (11%). There was no PC agreement with almost half these EIPs, but only 13% could be changed. The EIPs without agreement and without possibility of change were greater in: women, the elderly, people on a pension, psychiatric pathologies and in cases of bad doctor-patient relationship. The EIPs originated in health insurance companies, pharmacies, self-medication, former GPs and private doctors. They were associated with ill-defined signs and symptoms, circulatory diseases and locomotive disease. We found no significant differences in expenditure or use of PP recently put onto the market between self-medication and EIP, though there were in quality. CONCLUSIONS: The current model of prescribing medication causes consultations to be greatly "medicinised" at the expense of EIP. Doctors only alter a small part of the EIPs they don't agree with. Longitudinal studies are needed to monitor patients to find the evolution of EIPs (withdrawal, replacement, dragging on or new external prescription).