SummaryObjective. To estimate prevalence and distribution of cardiovascular risk factors and Metabolic Syndrome (MS) in young individuals admitted to the National University of Colombia in Bogotá.MethOds. An analytic cross-sectional study was conducted in a sample of 249 individuals of both genders aged 15 to 20 years. A questionnaire was personally administered to collect demographic, socioeconomic, smoking, perinatal, and women's health data. Anthropometric measurements, blood pressure, and a fasting blood sample were taken. Prevalence of MS was determined and compared using criteria from several qualified institutions. Results. We found a high prevalence of smoking (18.9%), arterial prehypertension (14.1%) and overweight (11.2%), 9.2% of study participants had prediabetes, and the most frequent dyslipidemia was low HDL cholesterol (13.3%). Alcoholic beverage consumption was declared by 60.6% of study participants. Body mass index was associated with significant increases in blood pressure, LDL cholesterol and plasma triglyceride levels. Gestational age at birth was inversely associated with presence of low HDL cholesterol levels and high blood pressure. Prevalence of the MS varied markedly according to the definition employed: 9.2% using REGODCI (Research Group on Diabetes and Chronic Illnesses) criteria, 2% using IDF (International Diabetes Federation) criteria, and 2.4% using AHA (American Heart Association) criteria. cOnclusiOn. The encountered prevalence of modifiable cardiovascular risk factors justifies promotion of therapeutic lifestyle changes among this age group in Colombia. Further harmonization of MS criteria in young individuals is needed. caRdiOvasculaR Risk factORs and MetabOlic syndROMe in a pOpulatiOn Of yOung students fROM the natiOnal univeRsity Of cOlOMbia jOhn edwin felicianO-alfOnsO 1* , caRlOs OliMpO Mendivil 2 , iván daRíO sieRRa aRiza 3 , claRa eugenia péRez 4 Study conducted at

Self-medication (SM) is a global and growing phenomenon. It represents a public health problem due to antibiotic resistance, risk of adverse drug reactions, drug–drug interactions, disease masking, and increased morbidity. There is not a consensus on the definition of SM. The definitions found in different studies make it difficult to address this problem from a theoretical perspective and therefore find an adequate solution to this public health problem. The aim of this article is to search the medical literature to characterize the current understanding of SM in the medical community. We conducted a scoping review of definitions of SM by searching on PubMed – Medline, Embase, and LILACS using the following combination of keywords: ‘self-prescription’ or ‘self prescription’, ‘self-medication’ or ‘self medication’, or ‘automedication’ and ‘definition’ or ‘explanation’. The search was limited to articles containing the definition of SM, with no limit on language or year. Duplicate studies and those that did not mention the definition of SM were excluded from the final review. A total of 65 studies were included in the final selection. We found a vast heterogeneity in the definition of SM. Most articles based their definition of SM on the process of obtaining the drug, the nonparticipation of a specific health professional, the source of the medication, and the reason for SM. Other interesting concepts such as self-care, nonadherence to a prescription, reuse of stored drugs, and sharing and lending medicines were also considered forms of SM by other authors, however. This study highlights the need to reach a consensus regarding the definition of SM to adequately propose strategies to address this global health problem. This study shows the diverse concepts that need to be included in a future definition of SM. Plain Language Summary Definition of self-medication: a review with systematic methodology Self-medication (SM) is a global and growing phenomenon that represents a public health problem due to antibiotic resistance, risk of dangerous side effects, interactions between drugs, and disease masking. Currently, there is not a consensus on the definition of SM, which makes it difficult to address this problem and therefore find an adequate solution. Making a standard definition would allow the development of programs focused on addressing drug-related problems associated with self-medication behavior. The purpose of this article is to search the medical literature to define the current understanding of SM in the medical community. We included a total of 65 studies and found a great variance in the definition of SM. Most articles based their definition of SM on the process of obtaining the drug, the nonparticipation of a specific health professional, the source of the medication, and the reason for SM. Other interesting concepts such as self-care, not following a prescription, reuse of stored drugs, and sharing and lending medicines were also considered forms of SM by other authors, however. Furthermore, this study highlights that SM is a wider concept that goes beyond aiming to promote and restore health, as aesthetic and recreational purposes are also reasons for SM that can put individuals at risk and compromise the correct and safe use of medications.

Background Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, which leads to visual impairment in a large proportion of patients. Antibiotics and corticosteroids lower the risk of permanent visual loss by controlling infection and inflammation. However, there remains disagreement regarding optimal antibiotic therapy for OT. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine the effects and safety of existing antibiotic treatment regimens for OT. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LILACS, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform portal, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Gray Literature in Europe (“OpenGrey”) were searched for relevant studies; manual searches of reference lists were performed for studies identified by other methods. All published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that compared antibiotic schemes known to be effective in OT at any dosage, duration, and administration route were included. Studies comparing antibiotics with placebo were excluded. This review followed standard methodological procedures recommended by the Cochrane group. Results Ten studies were included in the narrative summary, of which four were included for quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis). Interventions were organized into three groups: intravitreal clindamycin versus pyrimethamine + sulfadiazine, trimethoprim + sulfamethoxazole versus other antibiotics, and other interventions. The first comparison favored intravitreal clindamycin (Mean difference (MD) = 0.10 logMAR; 95% confidence interval = 0.01 to 0.22). However, this finding lacks clinical relevance. Other outcomes showed no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups. In general, the risk of performance bias was high in evaluated studies, and the quality of the evidence found was low to very low. Conclusions No antibiotic scheme was superior to others, and the selection of a treatment regimen depends on multiple factors; therefore, treatment should be chosen based on safety, sulfa allergies, and availability.

Background Ocular toxoplasmosis (OT) is the most common cause of posterior uveitis, leading to visual impairment in a high proportion of patients. Antibiotics and corticosteroids lower the risk of permanent visual impairment by reducing the size of the retinochoroidal scar, the risk of recurrence, and the severity and duration of acute symptoms. Although OT is a very common cause of infectious posterior uveitis, its treatment remains controversial. Through our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aim to provide the best possible evidence-based information on the safety and effectiveness of the different antibiotic regimes for OT. Methods This systematic review protocol has been developed based on PRISMA-P guidelines for reporting systematic reviews evaluating health care interventions. We will include all published and unpublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different antibiotics used for the treatment of OT. We will consider changes in visual acuity, number of recurrences, improvement or worsening of ocular inflammation, size of lesion, and adverse effects as our outcomes. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment will be undertaken by two reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion. Studies that compared antibiotics with placebo will be excluded. The reviews will be assessed for quality and relevance. We will assess the risk of bias in five domains according to Cochrane group’s tool. The type of data will dictate measures of treatment effect. We will use a random-effects model to calculate our meta-analysis, as eligible studies represent clinically varied populations of participants. Discussion The strength of our study will lie in the exhaustive and systematic nature of the literature search, as well as in its methods for assessing quality and analyzing RCT data. Considering the controversial efficacy of the treatment for OT, our study will contribute to improving the existing evidence on the effectiveness of different antibiotics. Future studies may be conducted to increase physicians’ awareness of antibiotic therapies, improving the health of patients with OT. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018085468. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1067-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multiple drugs currently used in clinical practice have been approved by regulatory agencies based on studies that utilize composite endpoints. Composite endpoints are appealing because they reduce sample size requirements, follow-up periods, and costs. However, interpreting composite endpoints can be challenging, and their misuse is not uncommon. Incorrect interpretation of composite outcomes can lead to misleading conclusions that impact patient care. To correctly interpret composite outcomes, several important questions should be considered. Are the individual components of the composite outcome equally important to patients? Did the more and less important endpoints occur with similar frequency? Do the component endpoints exhibit similar relative risk reductions? If these questions receive affirmative answers, the use and interpretation of the composite endpoint would be appropriate. However, if any component of the composite endpoint fails to satisfy the aforementioned criteria, interpretation can become difficult, necessitating additional steps. Regulatory agencies acknowledge these challenges and have specific considerations when approving drugs based on studies employing composite endpoints. In conclusion, composite endpoints are valuable tools for evaluating the efficacy and net clinical benefit of interventions; however, cautious interpretation is advised.