Valoración desde atención primaria del manejo del hipertenso en atención especializada (estudio DERIVA-DOS) / Primary care evaluation of the hypertensive patient management in specialized care after derivation (DERIVA-2 Study)

INTRODUCCIÓN: Estudiar la opinión del médico de atención primaria (MAP) de la información de los pacientes remitida desde el médico especialista en hipertensión arterial (MEHTA). DISEÑO: Estudio observacional descriptivo. Emplazamiento: Realizado a nivel nacional. PARTICIPANTES: Médicos de atención primaria que reciben hipertensos estudiados por MEHTA. MÉTODOS: Se utilizó el consenso de derivación de la SEH-LELHA, y una encuesta en la que se recogían en la visita basal las características demográficas, antropométricas, presión y causa de derivación; en la posderivación se añaden preguntas sobre: tiempo utilizado en estudiar al paciente, modificaciones del diagnóstico y fármacos. Además se preguntó sobre el tiempo en recibir respuesta y se pidió la valoración del informe que le remite el MEHTA. RESULTADOS: Participaron 578 investigadores de AP que incluyeron 1.715 pacientes válidos. Edad 60,7 ± 13,3 años, varones 62,7%. En prederivación los pacientes tomaban 2,3 ± 1,2 fármacos antihipertensivos, y 2,5 ± 1,2 en posderivación; la presión arterial pasó de 166 ± 21.6 /97,7±12,6 mmHg a 143 ± 14,4 /85,5 ± 10,5mmHg. Los pacientes controlados (PA < 140 y < 90 mmHg) pasaron del 5,8 al 32,2%. El tiempo transcurrido entre la visita al hospital y la recepción del informe fue de 72 ± 64días. Se realizó ampliación del estudio por parte del MEHTA en 1.250 casos (72,9%). El MAP médico de familia recibió informe reglado en el 80,3% de los casos. Globalmente, el 63% de los MAP están totalmente de acuerdo con la actuación del especialista, el 29% parcialmente de acuerdo y el 2% nada de acuerdo. La derivación se ha valorado mediante opinión subjetiva del MAP como efectiva o muy efectiva en el 86% de los pacientes y nada efectiva en el 9%. CONCLUSIONES: La comunicación entre niveles es clave en el cuidado de algunos pacientes hipertensos, como corresponde a una entidad crónica

INTRODUCTION: To know the opinion/evaluation of the primary care physicians (PCPH) of the received information about patients that were attended in specialized care (SC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. LOCATION: Performed nationwide in primary care centers. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers from the primary care network. METHODS: We used the SEH-LELHA derivation criteria guidelines, plus an ad hoc survey that included demographic and anthropometric data, blood pressure levels, and the main reason for derivation to SC at the baseline and final (post-derivation) visit. In addition, time deployed for the study of every patient, changes in diagnosis and treatment, type of follow-up, issues throughout the derivation process and assessment of the medical referred to the PCPH were evaluated. RESULTS: With participation of 578 researchers from primary, the study included 1715 patients aged 60.7 ± 13.3 years, 62.7% male. Patients were taking 2.3 ± 1.2 (range 0-10) antihypertensive drugs pre-referral and 2.5 ± 1.2 (0-9) after derivation. Blood pressure levels changed from 166 ± 21.6 /97.7 ± 12.6mmHg to 143 ± 14.4 /85.5 ± 10.5 mmHg. The number of controlled patients (BP < 140 and < 90 mmHg) increased from 5.8% to 32.2%. Time between pre- and post-derivation visit was 72 ± 64days (median 57 days, IQ26-99). The PCPH received a medical report in 80.3% of cases, 76.9% with an explanation of the results of the complementary tests, 75.8% with additional information or a reasoning of treatment and in 71% of cases information about the patient future management. 63% of PCPH were fully agreed with the management of the specialist, 29% agree and 2% strongly disagree. The derivation was evaluated as effective or very effective in 86% of patients and no effective in 9%. CONCLUSIONS: Communication between AE and SC in HTA is valued satisfactorily by MAP. However there is still room for improvement in the process

[Primary care evaluation of the hypertensive patient management in specialized care after derivation (DERIVA-2 Study)]. / Valoración desde atención primaria del manejo del hipertenso en atención especializada (estudio DERIVA-DOS).

INTRODUCTION: To know the opinion/evaluation of the primary care physicians (PCPH) of the received information about patients that were attended in specialized care (SC). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. LOCATION: Performed nationwide in primary care centers. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers from the primary care network. METHODS: We used the SEH-LELHA derivation criteria guidelines, plus an ad hoc survey that included demographic and anthropometric data, blood pressure levels, and the main reason for derivation to SC at the baseline and final (post-derivation) visit. In addition, time deployed for the study of every patient, changes in diagnosis and treatment, type of follow-up, issues throughout the derivation process and assessment of the medical referred to the PCPH were evaluated. RESULTS: With participation of 578 researchers from primary, the study included 1715 patients aged 60.7±13.3years, 62.7% male. Patients were taking 2.3±1.2 (range 0-10) antihypertensive drugs pre-referral and 2.5±1.2 (0-9) after derivation. Blood pressure levels changed from 166±21.6 /97.7±12.6mmHg to 143±14.4 /85.5±10.5mmHg. The number of controlled patients (BP<140 and <90mmHg) increased from 5.8% to 32.2%. Time between pre- and post-derivation visit was 72±64days (median 57days, IQ26-99). The PCPH received a medical report in 80.3% of cases, 76.9% with an explanation of the results of the complementary tests, 75.8% with additional information or a reasoning of treatment and in 71% of cases information about the patient future management. 63% of PCPH were fully agreed with the management of the specialist, 29% agree and 2% strongly disagree. The derivation was evaluated as effective or very effective in 86% of patients and no effective in 9%. CONCLUSIONS: Communication between AE and SC in HTA is valued satisfactorily by MAP. However there is still room for improvement in the process.

Disfunción tiroidea en los pacientes con carcinoma de células renales avanzado en tratamiento con sunitinib: un problema multifactorial / Thyroid dysfunction in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib: A multifactorial issue

Objetivo Distintos estudios ya han señalado la prevalencia importante de disfunción tiroidea inducida por sunitinib. No obstante, se desconoce el mecanismo de acción subyacente y el beneficio del tratamiento sustitutivo. Con el objeto de evaluar la función tiroidea en los pacientes con carcinoma de células renales avanzado tratados con sunitinib, se realizó el estudio descriptivo presentado. Material y métodos Se incluyeron 24 pacientes tratados entre 2006 y 2008 en el Hospital Clínico San Carlos. Los datos recogidos de forma retrospectiva se analizaron con el paquete estadístico SPSS 15.0.ResultadosLa duración del tratamiento fue de 30 (18–42) semanas (mediana [RIQ]). Cinco pacientes (20,8%) desarrollaron hipotiroidismo subclínico, y 3 (12,5%) hipotiroidismo clínico. El número de semanas necesarias para observar elevación de TSH fue 15 (6–20) (mediana [RIQ]). Cinco pacientes (20,8%) presentaron TSH disminuida previa al tratamiento o durante el mismo, sin poder establecer el diagnóstico de hipertiroidismo subclínico dados los factores intercurrentes. Catorce pacientes (58,3%) presentaron toxicidad, sin encontrarse una asociación con el desarrollo de hipotiroidismo (p=0,388).Conclusiones La elevada prevalencia de hipotiroidismo inducido por sunitinib hace necesario un seguimiento sistemático de la función tiroidea en estos pacientes. No obstante, dicho estudio puede estar interferido por distintos factores fisiopatológicos y farmacológicos, por lo que podría ser útil determinar no solo TSH y T4 libre, sino también T3 libre e, idealmente, T3 reversa. A día de hoy carecemos de recomendaciones para el manejo del hipotiroidismo en el paciente oncológico basadas en la evidencia (AU)

Objective Several studies have reported the substantial prevalence of sunitinib-induced thyroid dysfunction. However, the underlying mechanism and the benefit of thyroid hormone replacement therapy remain to be determined. To evaluate the effect of sunitinib on thyroid function, we carried out a descriptive study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. Patients and methods A total of 24 patients treated by sunitinib between 2006 and 2008 at Hospital Clínico San Carlos were included. The data were collected retrospectively and analyzed with SPSS 15.0.ResultsTreatment duration was 30 weeks (18–42) [median (IQR)]. Five patients (20.8%) developed subclinical hypothyroidism and three (12.5%) developed overt hypothyroidism. The number of weeks needed to observe an increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) values in these patients was 15 (6–20) [median (IQR)]. TSH levels were below the normal range in five patients (20.8%) before or during the treatment period, but the diagnosis of subclinical hyperthyroidism could not be established because of concomitant factors. Fourteen patients (58.3%) showed sunitinib adverse events, but these were not related to the development of hypothyroidism (p=0.388).Conclusions Because of the high prevalence of sunitinib-induced hypothyroidism, thyroid function should be systematically monitored in patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with this drug. However, several pathophysiological and pharmacological factors may interfere with monitoring. Consequently, it might be useful to determine not only TSH and free T4 but also free T3 and, ideally, reverse T3. Evidence-based recommendations to manage hypothyroidism in oncology patients are not available at present (AU)

[Thyroid dysfunction in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib: a multifactorial issue]. / Disfunción tiroidea en los pacientes con carcinoma de células renales avanzado en tratamiento con sunitinib: un problema multifactorial.

OBJECTIVE: Several studies have reported the substantial prevalence of sunitinib-induced thyroid dysfunction. However, the underlying mechanism and the benefit of thyroid hormone replacement therapy remain to be determined. To evaluate the effect of sunitinib on thyroid function, we carried out a descriptive study in patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 24 patients treated by sunitinib between 2006 and 2008 at Hospital Clínico San Carlos were included. The data were collected retrospectively and analyzed with SPSS 15.0. RESULTS: Treatment duration was 30 weeks (18-42) [median (IQR)]. Five patients (20.8%) developed subclinical hypothyroidism and three (12.5%) developed overt hypothyroidism. The number of weeks needed to observe an increase in thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) values in these patients was 15 (6-20) [median (IQR)]. TSH levels were below the normal range in five patients (20.8%) before or during the treatment period, but the diagnosis of subclinical hyperthyroidism could not be established because of concomitant factors. Fourteen patients (58.3%) showed sunitinib adverse events, but these were not related to the development of hypothyroidism (p=0.388). CONCLUSIONS: Because of the high prevalence of sunitinib-induced hypothyroidism, thyroid function should be systematically monitored in patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with this drug. However, several pathophysiological and pharmacological factors may interfere with monitoring. Consequently, it might be useful to determine not only TSH and free T4 but also free T3 and, ideally, reverse T3. Evidence-based recommendations to manage hypothyroidism in oncology patients are not available at present.

Bases neuromédicas del dolor / Neuro-medical bases of pain

El dolor es una experiencia sensitiva y emocional desagradable asociada a una lesión tisular real o potencial o descrita en términos de tal daño. El dolor se puede clasificar por numerosos criterios; por su aspecto temporal se habla de dolor crónico cuando persiste más de tres meses, aunque el criterio más importante para su diagnóstico es su relación con aspectos cognitivos y conductuales. La señal dolorosa es recogida por los nociceptores y enviada hacia el Sistema Nervioso Central pasando por varias estaciones; la primera situada en los ganglios espinales dorsales, la segunda en el asta dorsal de la médula espinal, la tercera en diversas estructuras subcorticales, entre las que destaca el tálamo, y la cuarta, en la corteza cerebral, sobre todo, la corteza somatosensorial, la circunvolución cingulada anterior, la ínsula, la corteza prefrontal y parietal inferior. En estas estructuras se originan la percepción consciente del dolor y las actividades subconscientes y respuestas neuromoduladoras efectoras, endocrinas y emocionales, iniciadas consciente o inconscientemente. La experiencia dolorosa tiene tres dimensiones, la sensitivo-discriminativa, la cognitivo- evaluadora y la afectivo-emocional. Antes de iniciar un tratamiento analgésico es fundamental una meticulosa evaluación del mismo. Se debe seguir una estrategia general para abordar el dolor crónico (evaluar antes de tratar, iniciar tratamiento combinado, promover el cumplimiento terapéutico y prevenir los efectos secundarios, estrategia general planificada, equipo multidiscliplinar, información, planificación, revisión, accesibilidad, disponibilidad y flexibilidad). El tratamiento farmacológico se basa en la escalera analgésica de la O.M.S.: el primer escalón está formado por analgésicos no opioides (paracetamol, dipirona, antiinflamatorios), el segundo por opioides débiles (más no opioides) y el tercero por opioides potentes (más no opioides). A todos los escalones se le puede sumar un fármaco adyuvante. En el dolor crónico se utilizan además medidas no farmacológicas: físicas, psicológicas y otras (radioterapia, ablación por radiofrecuencia o cirugía) (AU)

Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such a damage. Pain can be classified by numerous criteria. If pain lasts at least three months, it is considered chronic pain, though the most important feature of chronic pain is its relation with cognitive and behavioural alterations. Nociceptors pick up pain sensations and send them up to the Central Nervous System through several stations. The first station is the dorsal root ganglia, the second station is the dorsal horn of the spinal cord, the third station consists of several subcortical structure (the thalamus being the most important), and finally the fourth station is the cerebral cortex, mainly somatosensorial, cingulus, insula and prefrontal areas. These structures are responsible for the perception of pain, for subconscious activities and for the modulatory, endocrine and emotional answers. The painful experience has three dimentions –sensitive-discriminative, cognitive, and emotional. A careful evaluation of pain is essential before prescribing analgesic drugs. A global planned strategy must be built to manage chronic pain –evaluating before treating, combining different methods of treatment, promoting ensuring therapeutic adherence, preventing adverse effects, working in a multidisciplinary team, gathering information, providing planification, systematically reviewing, and guaranteeing accesability, availability and flexibility. Drug treatment is based on the WHO’s three-step analgesic ladder: the first step consists of non opioids analgesics (acetaminophen, non steroidantiinflamatories), the second consists of weak opioids (plus non opioid agents) and the third step consists of powerful opioids (plus non opioid agents). An adjuvant agent may be added at each step. In chronic pain, other non pharmacologic measures must be used – physical, psychological and other measures such as radiation, surgery or radiofrequency (AU)