Search

Background: There was a need for a solid asthma guideline in Mexico to update and unify asthma management. Because high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, in which the latest evidence on asthma management is summarized, the ADAPTE approach allows for the development of a national asthma guideline based on evidence from already existing guidelines, adapted to national needs., Objective: To fuse evidence from the best asthma guidelines and adapt it to local needs with the ADAPTE approach., Methods: The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II asthma guidelines were evaluated by a core group to select 3 primary guidelines. For each step of asthma management, clinical questions were formulated and replied according to (1) evidence in the primary guidelines, (2) safety, (3) Cost, and (4) patient preference. The Guidelines Development Group, composed of a broad range of experts from medical specialties, primary care physicians, and methodologists, adjusted the draft questions and replies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings, taking into account the reality of the situation in Mexico. We present the results of the pediatric asthma treatment part., Results: Selected primary guidelines are from the British Thoracic Society and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (BTS/SIGN), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA), and Spanish Guidelines on the Management of Asthma (GEMA) 2015, with 2016 updates. Recommendations or suggestions were made for asthma treatment in Mexico. In this article, the detailed analysis of the evidence present in the BTS/SIGN, GINA, and GEMA sections on the (non) pharmacologic treatment of pediatric asthma, education, and devices are presented for 2 age groups: children 5 years or younger and children 6 to 11 years old with asthma., Conclusion: For the pediatric treatment and patient education sections, applying the AGREE II and Delphi methods is useful to develop a scientifically sustained document, adjusted to the Mexican situation, as is the Mexican Guideline on Asthma., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The need for a national guideline, with a broad basis among specialists and primary care physicians was felt in Mexico, to try unifying asthma management. As several high-quality asthma guidelines exist worldwide, it was decided to select the best three for transculturation., Methods: Following the internationally recommended methodology for guideline transculturation, ADAPTE, a literature search for asthma guidelines, published 1-1-2007 through 31-12-2015 was conducted. AGREE-II evaluations yielded 3/40 most suitable for transculturation. Their compound evidence was fused with local reality, patient preference, cost and safety considerations to draft the guideline document. Subsequently, this was adjusted by physicians from 12 national medical societies in several rounds of a Delphi process and 3 face-to-face meetings to reach the final version., Results: Evidence was fused from British Thoracic Society Asthma Guideline 2014, Global Initiative on Asthma 2015, and Guía Española del Manejo del Asma 2015 (2016 updates included). After 3 Delphi-rounds we developed an evidence-based document taking into account patient characteristics, including age, treatment costs and safety and best locally available medication., Conclusions: In cooperation pulmonologists, allergists, ENT physicians, paediatricians and GPs were able to develop an evidence-based document for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of asthma and its exacerbations in Mexico.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the coverage rates for influenza vaccination among health-care personnel (HCP), and if the reasons for accepting influenza vaccine by HCP and the frequency of vaccine-related adverse events (AEs) in 2010-2011 were different compared to 2009-2010. The AEs were detected by telephoning the worker one week after the vaccination. The coverage for seasonal vaccination in 2009-2010 was 31.0%, whereas that for 2009 pandemic influenza (H1NI) was 22.2% and 24.4% (p<0.05) in 2010-2011. The most frequent reason for being vaccinated during the three campaigns was to "protect my health". Over 80.5% of the HCP reported 2009 pandemic influenza (H1N1) vaccine-related AEs compared to the 25.3% and 25.4% reporting seasonal vaccine-related AEs in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 respectively (p<0.05). None of the AEs were severe. Specific measures should be implemented in our country to recover and improve poor vaccination coverage., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: BACKGRAUND: Fear of adverse effects (AE) represents a frequent reason among healthcare workers (HCW) for not deciding to receive influenza vaccine. This investigation is carried out with the objectives of knowing the frequency of AE and the factors associated with them after the administration of influenza vaccines in the 2009-2010 season in HCW., Methods: Cohort study that included the 969 HCW vaccinated against seasonal influenza and the 693 HCW vaccinated against new influenza A (H1N1) virus during the 2009-2010 season in a tertiary hospital. To detect adverse effects, HCW was telephoned one week after vaccination., Results: Frequency of AE ranged between 24.5% of HCW who received only seasonal influenza vaccine and 82.6% of those who received vaccine against new influenza A (H1N1) virus. The most frequent AE were pain and general discomfort. None of the adverse effects was considered serious. Age and presence of an adjuvant in the vaccine were associated with appearance of AE after administration of vaccine against new influenza A (H1N1) virus., Conclusions: Vaccines against seasonal influenza and new influenza A (H1N1) are safe; frequency of AE related to this one was high, especially if it contained an adjuvant. Since none of the AE detected was serious, HCW can not justify his rejection of vaccination because of suffering the above-mentioned AE.