Search

Introduction: In July 2020, a draft bill was introduced in Spain's Congress which proposed that continuing medical education be funded exclusively by the Spanish government, barring involvement from private entities., Aims: This work aims to gather physicians' and pharmacists' opinions on this draft bill, learn what they think about the funding of continuing medical education and possible conflicts of interest., Methods: This work is a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted via voluntary anonymous surveys aimed at physicians and hospital pharmacists., Results: Four hundred thirty-five surveys were analyzed, 59.8% of which were from women. Of the respondents, 87.6% were specialist physicians and 77.2% were part of a specialist department. A total of 55.2% did not agree with the draft bill while 92.4% agreed that the government and private institutes should subsidize training for their workers. Furthermore, 52.4% disagreed that each professional should pay for his or her own training while 14% agreed they should. A total of 19.8% have felt uncomfortable when a course or conference has been paid for by another entity and 74.5% believe that the involvement of private entities in funding does not influence prescribing., Conclusions: The majority of those surveyed did not agree with a draft bill aimed at prohibiting the pharmaceutical industry from funding continuing medical education. Nearly all agreed that the government and private institutions should fund training for their workers. In general, those surveyed did not find conflicts of interest in their relationship with the industry., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI). All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: There is no consensus regarding risk stratification tools for secondary prevention in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Our aim was to compare the discriminative performance of the Framingham, REGICOR, SCORE, and REACH risk functions and the Bohula-TIMI and SMART risk scores, as well as to assess the potential added value of other clinical variables for the prediction of recurrent events in patients with established vascular disease., Methods: A cohort of 269 patients with established vascular disease (52.8% coronary, 32% cerebrovascular, 15.2% PAD) was included. The survival functions of risk groups (low/medium/high) according to commonly used cutoff points for each function/score were compared, and hazard ratios for each were estimated using Cox regression. We calculated Δ Harrell's C statistic, cat-NRI, and cNRI after adding new predictors to a base model including age, sex, total cholesterol, current smoking status, hypertension, and diabetes., Results: After six years of follow-up (median 4.82 years), 61 events occurred (23%). High-risk groups had a higher risk of recurrent event: SMART (HR: 3.17 [1.55-6.5]), Framingham (HR: 3.08 [1.65-5.75]), REGICOR (HR: 2.71 [1.39-5.27]), SCORE (HR: 2.14 [1.01-4.5], REACH (HR: 5.74 [2.83-11.7]), B-TIMI (HR: 3.68 [0.88-15.3]). Polyvascular disease (three territories HR: 5.6 [2.2-14.25]), albuminuria (HR: 3.55 [2.06-6.11]), and heart failure (HR: 3.11 [1.34-7.25]) also increased risk. Discrimination (Harrell's C) was low but improved after adding albuminuria and polyvascular disease. Both variables also improved the performance of the base model (cNRI.326 [.036; .607])., Conclusions: The Framingham, REGICOR, SCORE, and REACH functions and the B-TIMI and SMART scores showed low yet similar performance in secondary prevention. Albuminuria and polyvascular disease improved the predictive performance of major classical cardiovascular risk factors., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI). All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To ascertain whether internists know what limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) means and whether training in palliative care affects this understanding., Methods: A survey was administered to Spanish internists on their knowledge of LTE and training in palliative care., Results: A total of 273 respondents completed the survey (mean age, 42±12 years), 80.2% of whom were associates. Some 23.8% of the respondents identified the complete definition of LTE. The most frequently selected responses were "not starting an active treatment" (85.0%) and "withdrawing an active treatment" (65.9%). Forty-three percent of the respondents lacked training in palliative care, 73.3% considered their level of understanding to be good or very good, 62.3% stated that they became anxious when addressing planning for end-of-life care with a patient, and 81.3% stated that they had experienced some conflict with their LTE decisions., Conclusions: Only 1 of every 4 internists knew the proper definition of LTE, with no association with the level of training in palliative care., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier España, S.L.U. and Sociedad Española de Medicina Interna (SEMI). All rights reserved.)