For secondary prevention following acute MI, younger age, depression, and a complex drug treatment plan are associated with lower medication adherence. Meanwhile, adherence is increased in patients with higher insurance coverage levels and social support. Compared with the 3 drugs given separately, the use of a polypill strategy met the primary endpoint for adherence for secondary prevention following an acute MI. (Fixed Dose Combination Drug [Polypill] for Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention [FOCUS]; NCT01321255).

Background Although both hospitalization and mortality due to heart failure (HF) have been widely studied, less is known about the impact of HF on disability and quality of life. Aim To assess the degree of disability and quality of life in HF patients attended at family medicine centres. Design and setting Cross-sectional study of a cohort of HF patients attended at family medicine centres. Methods Disability was assessed with the WHODAS 2 questionnaire, which provides a global and six domain scores that is understanding and communication, getting around, self-care, getting along with people, life activities and participation in society. Quality of life was assessed with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, which furnishes a global and two domain scores, physical and emotional. Results A breakdown of the results showed that 28% of patients had moderate disability and 16.7% had severe disability, with the most important areas affected being: life activities, 8.9% extreme disability and 30.3% severe disability; getting around, 34.6% severe disability and 2% extreme disability; and participation in society, 53.3% moderate-severe disability. Quality of life was mildly affected. New York Heart Association (NYHA) Functional Classification and sex were the major determinants of disability and quality of life. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor antagonists were associated with better scores in the “getting around” and “life activity” domains. Conclusion HF patients in primary care show an important degree of disability and an acceptable quality of life.

No abstract

Earlier activities on health technology assessment (HTA) started in Spain around 1984, with the creation of a National Advisory Board on HTA, and the development of national and regional HTA organizations in the early 1990s. In 2012, the Spanish Health Ministry established the Spanish Network for Health Technology Assessment of the National Health System (RedETS); funded at national level and including all public HTA organizations at national and regional levels. RedETSis focused on the assessment of nondrug health technologies to inform the revision (approval and funding or disinvestment) of the Benefit Portfolio of the Spanish NHS. In parallel with European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA), RedETS has been setting-up and sharing common procedures and methodological guidelines to ensure effective cooperation and mutual recognition of the scientific and technical production in HTA. The output of RedETS is fifty to sixty annual reports, including the production of full HTA reports, Clinical Practice Guidelines, methodological guidance reports, relative effectiveness assessments, tools to support shared decision making between patients and healthcare professionals, and monitoring studies. The HTA assessments requested by the Regional Health Authorities are the biggest component of the annual RedETS working plan. These assessment needs are identified according to a yearly process and prioritized by a Commission composed of representatives from all Spanish regions with the aid of the PRITEC tool. The objectives of this study are to report and update the normative and organizational state of HTA in Spain; describing noteworthy advances witnessed over the past 10 years, as well as discussing existing challenges.

ObjectivePersonalised medicine (PM) allows treating patients based on their individual demographic, genomic or biological characteristics for tailoring the ‘right treatment for the right person at the right time’. Robust methodology is required for PM clinical trials, to correctly identify groups of participants and treatments. As an initial step for the development of new recommendations on trial designs for PM, we aimed to present an overview of the study designs that have been used in this field.DesignScoping review.MethodsWe searched (April 2020) PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for all reports in English, French, German, Italian and Spanish, describing study designs for clinical trials applied to PM. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate resolving disagreements by consensus or by involving a third expert reviewer. We extracted information on the characteristics of trial designs and examples of current applications of these approaches. The extracted information was used to generate a new classification of trial designs for PM.ResultsWe identified 21 trial designs, 10 subtypes and 30 variations of trial designs applied to PM, which we classified into four core categories (namely, Master protocol, Randomise-all, Biomarker strategy and Enrichment). We found 131 clinical trials using these designs, of which the great majority were master protocols (86/131, 65.6%). Most of the trials were phase II studies (75/131, 57.2%) in the field of oncology (113/131, 86.3%). We identified 34 main features of trial designs regarding different aspects (eg, framework, control group, randomisation). The four core categories and 34 features were merged into a double-entry table to create a new classification of trial designs for PM.ConclusionsA variety of trial designs exists and is applied to PM. A new classification of trial designs is proposed to help readers to navigate the complex field of PM clinical trials.

The Monitoring Studies (MS) program, the approach developed by RedETS to generate postlaunch real-world evidence (RWE), is intended to complement and enhance the conventional health technology assessment process to support health policy decision making in Spain, besides informing other interested stakeholders, including clinicians and patients. The MS program is focused on specific uncertainties about the real effect, safety, costs, and routine use of new and insufficiently assessed relevant medical devices carefully selected to ensure the value of the additional research needed, by means of structured, controlled, participative, and transparent procedures. However, despite a clear political commitment and economic support from national and regional health authorities, several difficulties were identified along the development and implementation of the first wave of MS, delaying its execution and final reporting. Resolution of these difficulties at the regional and national levels and a greater collaborative impulse in the European Union, given the availability of an appropriate methodological framework already provided by EUnetHTA, might provide a faster and more efficient comparative RWE of improved quality and reliability at the national and international levels.

Background Robotic surgery (RS) may offer benefits compared with freehand/conventional surgery (FS) in the treatment of patients with spinal disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RS versus FS in spinal fusion. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. Data analysis and risk of bias assessment were analysed using REVMAN V5.3. Results We found 11 randomised clinical trials involving 817 patients (FS: 408, RS: 409). The main diagnosis was degenerative spine disease. SpineAssist, Renaissance (Mazor Robotics), Tianji Robot and TiRobot robots (TINAVI Medical Technologies) were used. Pedicle screw placement within the safety zone (grades A + B according to the Gertzbein and Robbins scale) ranged from 93% to 100% in FS versus 85–100% in RS (relative risk 1.01, 95% CI  1.00–1.03, p = 0.14). Regarding intervention time, the meta-analysis showed a mean difference (MD) of 6.45 min (95% CI  −13.59 to 26.49, p = 0.53). Mean hospital stay was MD of −0.36 days (95% CI  −1.03 to 0.31, p = 0.30) with no differences between groups. Contradictory results were found regarding fluoroscopy time, although there seems to be a lower radiation dose in RS versus FS (p < 0.05). Regarding safety, the studies included surgical revision frequency. Conclusions No conclusive results were found suggesting that there are benefits in using RS over FS for spinal fusion. Further research with adequate patient selection, robot type and quality-of-life variables is needed. Level of evidence: level 1.

This work describes the methodology used to assess a strategy for implementing clinical practice guidelines (CPG) for cardiovascular risk control in a health area of Madrid.BackgroundThe results on clinical practice of introducing CPGs have been little studied in Spain. The strategy used to implement a CPG is known to influence its final use. Strategies based on the involvement of opinion leaders and that are easily executed appear to be among the most successful.AimThe main aim of the present work was to compare the effectiveness of two strategies for implementing a CPG designed to reduce cardiovascular risk in the primary healthcare setting, measured in terms of improvements in the recording of calculated cardiovascular risk or specific risk factors in patients' medical records, the control of cardiovascular risk factors, and the incidence of cardiovascular events.MethodsThis study involved a controlled, blinded community intervention in which the 21 health centres of the Number 2 Health Area of Madrid were randomly assigned by clusters to be involved in either a proposed CPG implementation strategy to reduce cardiovascular risk, or the normal dissemination strategy. The study subjects were patients ≥ 45 years of age whose health cards showed them to belong to the studied health area. The main variable examined was the proportion of patients whose medical histories included the calculation of their cardiovascular risk or that explicitly mentioned the presence of variables necessary for its calculation. The sample size was calculated for a comparison of proportions with alpha = 0.05 and beta = 0.20, and assuming that the intervention would lead to a 15% increase in the measured variables. Corrections were made for the design effect, assigning a sample size to each cluster proportional to the size of the population served by the corresponding health centre, and assuming losses of 20%. This demanded a final sample size of 620 patients. Data were analysed using summary measures for each cluster, both in making estimates and for hypothesis testing. Analysis of the variables was made on an intention-to-treat basis.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01270022