Infección por el virus de la hepatitis C y nuevas estrategias de tratamiento

Hepatitis C is a major public health problem worldwide. This disease is caused by the hepatitis C virus, which is characterised by its genetic diversity. The infection is usually asymptomatic. However, between 60% and 80% of HCV-infected individuals will progress to chronic hepatitis, 20% to liver cirrhosis in the medium-to long-term and, each year, between 1% and 4% of these patients with cirrhosis will develop hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A Spanish consensus document has recently been drafted to diagnose hepatitis C in a single step, consisting of active investigation (antibodies and viremia) in a single sample, which according to the experts, would reduce the time to access treatment and avoid tracking losses. To definitively change the hepatitis C treatment paradigm, direct-acting antiviral drugs (DAAs) have been approved, whose development has been based on achieving cure rates close to 100% regardless of the genotype of the virus, ie, pangenotypes, with good tolerance and bioavailability. These drugs have constituted a real therapeutic revolution. Supplement information: This article is part of a supplement entitled «SEIMC External Quality Control Programme. Year 2016», which is sponsored by Roche, Vircell Microbiologists, Abbott Molecular and Francisco Soria Melguizo, S.A.© 2019 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Enfermedades Infecciosasy Microbiología Clínica. All rights reserved.     

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced inflammatory arthritis: identification and management

ABSTRACT

Introduction

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have proved to be groundbreaking in the field of oncology. However, immune system overactivation from ICIs has introduced a novel medical entity known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), that can affect any organ or tissue. ICI-induced inflammatory arthritis (ICI-IIA) is the most common musculoskeletal irAE and can lead to significant morbidity and limitation in anti-cancer therapy.     

Adverse events due to unnecessary radiation exposure in medical imaging reported in Finland

IntroductionAdverse events in radiology are quite rare, but they do occur. Radiation safety regulations and the law obligate organizations to report certain adverse events, harm and near misses, especially events related to patients' health and safety. The aim of this study was to describe and analyse incidents related to radiation safety issues reported in Finland.MethodsThe data were collected from incident reports documented by radiology personnel concerning notifications of abnormal events in medical imaging made to the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority between 2010 and 2017. During these eight years, 312 reports were submitted. Only events reported from radiology departments were included; nuclear medicine, radiotherapy and animal radiology cases were excluded. The final number of reports was 293 (94%).ResultsThe majority of the 293 approved reports were related to computed tomography (CT, 68.3%) and to X-ray examinations (27.6%). Altogether 82.9% of those irradiated were adults, most of whom were exposed to unnecessary radiation through CT (86.5%), 5.5% were children, and 4.4% pregnant women. The most common effective dose of unnecessary radiation was 1 mSv or less (89.7% of all examinations). The highest effective doses were reported in CT (from under 1 mSv–20 mSv and above). The reasons for the adverse events were incorrect identification (32%), incorrect procedure, site or side (30%); and human errors or errors of knowledge (20%).ConclusionAdverse events occurred especially in CT examinations. It is important to collect and analyse incident data, assess the harmful events, learn from them and aim to reduce adverse events.Implications for practiceThis study emphasizes the need for radiological personnel to obtain evidence-based information on adverse events and focus on training to improve patient safety.     

Accuracy of prehospital triage systems for mass casualty incidents in trauma register studies - A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies

BackgroundPrioritising patients in mass casualty incidents (MCI) can be extremely difficult. Therefore, triage systems are important in every emergency medical service. This study reviews the accuracy of primary triage systems for MCI in trauma register studies.MethodsWe registered a protocol at PROSPERO ID: CRD42018115438. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Central, Web of Science, Scopus, Clinical Trials, Google Scholar, and reference lists for eligible studies. We included studies that both examined a primary triage system for MCI in trauma registers and provided sensitivity and specificity for critically injured vs non-critically injured as results. We excluded studies that used paediatric, chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear MCIs populations or triage systems. Finally, we calculated intra-study relative sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio for each triage system.ResultsTriage Sieve (TS) significantly underperformed in relative diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) when compared to START and CareFlight (CF) (START vs TS: 19.85 vs 13.23 (p<0.0001)│CF vs TS: 23.72 vs 12.83 (p<0.0001)). There was no significant difference in DOR between TS and Military Sieve (MS) (p<0.710). Compared to START, MS and CF TS had significantly higher relative specificity (START vs TS: 93.6% vs 96.1% (p=0.047)│CF vs TS: 96% vs 95.3% (p=0.0006)│MS vs TS: 94% vs 88.3% (p=0.0002)) and lower relative sensitivity (START vs TS: 57.8% vs 34.8% (p<0.0001)│CF vs TS: 53.9% vs 34.7% (p<0.0001)│MS vs TS: 51.9% vs 35.2% p<0.0001)).CF had significantly better relative DOR than START (CF vs START: 23.56 vs 27.79 (p=0.043)). MS had significantly better relative sensitivity than CF and START (MS vs CF: 49.5% vs 38.7% (p<0.0001)│MS vs START: 49.4% vs 43.9% (p=0.01)). In contrast, CF had significantly better relative specificity than MS (MS vs CF: 91.3% vs 93.3% (p<0.0001)). The remaining comparisons did not yield any significant differences.ConclusionAs the included studies were at risk of bias and had heterogenic characteristics, our results should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, our results point towards inferior accuracy of Triage Sieve compared to START and CareFlight, and less firmly point towards superior accuracy of Military Sieve compared to START, CareFlight and Triage Sieve     

Effects of a yoga nidra on the life stress and self-esteem in university students

ObjectivesTo assess the effects of a yoga nidra on life stress and self-esteem in university students.MethodsThis study is a non-equivalent control group pretest-posttest design. Forty university students were selected by convenience sampling, with 20 assigned to a yoga nidra group and 20 to a control group. The yoga group participated in bi-weekly, 1-h sessions of yoga nidra for 8 weeks. Life stress intensity level was measured using a 10 cm Visual Analog Scale. Self-esteem score was measured by Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale.ResultsThe yoga nidra group showed significantly decreased life stress intensity levels compared to the control group. The yoga group also showed significantly increased self-esteem scores compared to the control group.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that yoga nidra could alleviate the life stress intensity level and increase the self-esteem in university students.     

Wrong tooth extraction: further analysis of “never event” data

The NHS in England requires the reporting of defined “never events” that are directly related to patients’ safety. Analysis of data from 2012–2015 has been published previously in this journal. An examination of continuing data from 2015–2019 shows that “wrong tooth/teeth removed” has not reduced in frequency and it still remains a common “wrong-site surgery” event accounting for between 16% and 24% of wrong-site surgery never events and 7%–10% of all never events reported. Hospitals and community Trusts remain the main source of such reports, although some now originate from primary-care-based dental settings. Further efforts have focused on prevention, and the implementation of existing measures to reduce the risk of wrong tooth extraction, is warranted.