BackgroundSince the 1980s, Spain experienced two decades of sharply increasing breast cancer incidence. Declines in breast cancer incidence have recently been reported in many developed countries. We examined whether a similar downturn might have taken place in Spain in recent years.MethodsCases of invasive female breast cancer were drawn from all population-based Spanish cancer registries that had at least 10 years of uninterrupted registration over the period 1980–2004. Overall and age-specific changes in incidence rates were evaluated using change-point Poisson models, which allow for accurate detection and estimation of trend changes. All statistical tests were two-sided.ResultsA total of 80 453 incident cases of invasive breast cancer were identified. Overall age- and registry-adjusted incidence rates rose by 2.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7% to 3.1%) annually during the 1980s and 1990s; there was a statistically significant change in this trend in 2001 (95% CI = 1998 to 2004; P value for the existence of a change point <.001), after which incidence declined annually by 3.0% (95% CI = 1.8% to 4.1%). This trend differed by age group: There was a steady increase in incidence for women younger than 45 years, an abrupt downturn in 2001 for women aged 45–64 years, and a gradual leveling off in 1995 for women aged 65 years or older. Separate analyses for registries that had at least 15 years of uninterrupted registration detected a statistically significant interruption of the previous upward trend in breast cancer incidence in provinces that had aggressive breast cancer screening programs and high screening participation rates, including Navarra (change point = 1991, P < .001), Granada (change point = 2002, P = .003), Bizkaia (change point = 1998, P < .001), Gipuzkoa (change point = 1998, P = .001), and Araba (change point = 1997, P = .002).ConclusionsThe recent downturn in breast cancer incidence among Spanish women older than 45 years is best explained by a period effect linked to screening saturation.

Introduction SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia is often associated with hyper-inflammation. The cytokine-storm-like is one of the targets of current therapies for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). High Interleukin-6 (IL6) blood levels have been identified in severe COVID-19 disease, but there are still uncertainties regarding the actual role of anti-IL6 antagonists in COVID-19 management. Our hypothesis was that the use of sarilumab plus corticosteroids at an early stage of the hyper-inflammatory syndrome would be beneficial and prevent progression to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods We randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) COVID-19 pneumonia hospitalized patients under standard oxygen therapy and laboratory evidence of hyper-inflammation to receive sarilumab plus usual care (experimental group) or usual care alone (control group). Corticosteroids were given to all patients at a 1 mg/kg/day of methylprednisolone for at least 3 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (defined as a score in the Brescia-COVID19 scale ≥ 3) up to day 15. Results A total of 201 patients underwent randomization: 99 patients in the sarilumab group and 102 patients in the control group. The rate of patients progressing to severe respiratory failure (Brescia-COVID scale score ≥ 3) up to day 15 was 16.16% in the Sarilumab group versus 15.69% in the control group (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48–2.20). No relevant safety issues were identified. Conclusions In hospitalized patients with Covid-19 pneumonia, who were under standard oxygen therapy and who presented analytical inflammatory parameters, an early therapeutic intervention with sarilumab plus standard of care (including corticosteroids) was not shown to be more effective than current standard of care alone. The study was registered at EudraCT with number: 2020-002037-15. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40121-021-00543-2.

No abstract

No abstract

Background and Purpose: European Guidelines recommend early evaluation of diuresis and natriuresis after the first administration of diuretic to identify patients with insufficient diuretic response during acute heart failure. The aim of this work is to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of patients with insufficient diuretic response according to this new algorithm.Methods: Prospective observational single centre study of consecutive patients with acute heart failure and congestive signs. Clinical evaluation, echocardiography and blood tests were performed. Diuretic naïve patients received 40 mg of intravenous furosemide. Patients on an oupatient diuretic regimen received 2 times the ambulatory dose. The diuresis volume was assessed 6 h after the first loop diuretic administration, and a spot urinary sample was taken after 2 h. Insufficient diuretic response was defined as natriuresis &lt;70 mEq/L or diuresis volume &lt;600 ml.Results: From January 2020 to December 2021, 73 patients were included (59% males, median age 76 years). Of these, 21 patients (28.8%, 95%CI 18.4; 39.2) had an insufficient diuretic response. Diuresis volume was &lt;600 ml in 13 patients (18.1%), and 12 patients (16.4%) had urinary sodium &lt;70 mEq/L. These patients had lower systolic blood pressure, worse glomerular filtration rate, and higher aldosterone levels. Ambulatory furosemide dose was also higher. These patients required more frequently thiazides and inotropes during admission.Conclusion: The diagnostic algorithm based on diuresis and natriuresis was able to detect up to 29% of patients with insufficient diuretic response, who showed some characteristics of more advanced disease.