Alcobendas, Spain
Alcobendas, Spain

Time filter

Source Type

Chen L.,Eli Lilly and Company | San Antonio B.,Lilly Espana | Yan Y.,Eli Lilly and Company | Chen J.,Eli Lilly and Company | And 2 more authors.
Current Medical Research and Opinion | Year: 2017

Objective: Pemetrexed plus carboplatin (PCb) is a frequently used first-line treatment in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study examined the characteristics and safety profile of a NSCLC population treated with PCb area under the concentration-time curve 5 (PCb5) or 6 mg/mL•min (PCb6) under real-world conditions. Research design and methods: A retrospective, observational, cohort study was conducted, utilizing data from the IMS Oncology US clinic-based, longitudinal, patient-level electronic medical records (EMR), including patients with NSCLC on PCb5 or PCb6 regimens initiated concomitantly on or after the diagnosis of lung cancer during 2004–2014. Patient characteristics and incidence of adverse events (AEs) were described for each cohort. Propensity scores were calculated based on baseline demographic and clinical factors. Propensity score stratification was used to further adjust for cohort differences. Results: In total, 636 NSCLC patients receiving PCb5 (37% aged ≥70 years) and 184 patients receiving PCb6 (34% aged ≥70 years) who met the inclusion criteria were identified in the EMR. Patients with more comorbidities were more likely to have received PCb5. Overall incidence rates (IRs) per 100 person-years were similar for neutropenia in both cohorts, were numerically higher for anemia (IR = 43.6 vs 101.0) and thrombocytopenia (IR = 1.5 vs 17.9), and were numerically lower for nausea (IR = 14.4 vs 9.9) in the PCb6 vs PCb5 cohort. Within the PCb6 cohort, the IR per 100 person-years was higher for neutropenia for ≥70 year-old patients (IR = 41.1) compared to <70 year-old patients (IR = 14.5). After propensity score stratification, adjusted IRs showed similar patterns. Limitations: Limitations included lack of power for AEs other than anemia, given the nature of EMR. Conclusions: Results from this real-world analysis add to existing evidence from randomized clinical trials about PCb safety profiles in the overall NSCLC population and in elderly patients. These results may guide physicians when making treatment decisions. © 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group


Goday-Arno A.,Hospital del Mar | Goday-Arno A.,Autonomous University of Barcelona | Goday-Arno A.,Institute Hospital del Mar dInvestigacions Mediques IMIM | Goday-Arno A.,CIBER ISCIII | And 11 more authors.
Endocrinologia y Nutricion | Year: 2013

Background and objectives: To report the prevalence of obesity in a Spanish working population and its changes in recent years. Material and methods: Data were collected from routine medical examinations performed on workers by a national mutual insurance society for occupational accidents and diseases (Ibermutuamur). A structured questionnaire was completed and physical examinations were performed. Overweight was defined as BMI ranging from 25 and 29.9, obesity as BMI of 30-39.9, and morbid obesity as BMI≥40kg/m2. Results: Data from 1,336,055 medical examinations performed from May 2004 to November 2007 were collected. Prevalence rates in the population examined in 2004 (n = 230,684; 73% males; average age, 36.4 years) were: morbid obesity, 0.5% (0.6% males, 0.5% females); obesity, 14.5% (17.0% males, 7.7% females); overweight, 38.4% (44.8% males, 21.3% females). Prevalence rates of obesity and overweight were higher in blue-collar workers (16.4% and 40.5% respectively) as compared to white-collar workers (10.9% and 34.4% respectively). There was a progressive increase in prevalence of obesity during the 4-year study (2004-2007) in both males (17.0%, 17.6%, 17.9%, 18.2%) and females (7.6%, 8.0%, 8.4%, 8.7%). Conclusions: Prevalence of obesity and overweight in the Spanish working population is high, especially in male blue-collar workers, and is increasing. There is a need to promote early prevention programs and specific treatments for obesity. © 2012 SEEN.


Evidence based medicine (EBM) and patient centered medicine (PCM) are two movements that have emerged with great force in health systems in recent years. EBM has a population approach, and its primary objective is the generalization and improvement of health outcomes in the average patient. PCM has a personalized approach, focuses on individualization and improving health outcomes in specific patients. While EBM has its conceptual anchor in research, PCM has it in medical care. Despite EBM and PCM may be perceived as conflicting movements, the profound changes that are currently taking place in health systems can facilitate the confluence of clinical research and medical care. This article constitutes a reflection on how research methods should approach the individual patient and medical practice should approach future patients. EBM and PCM, like research and medical practice are two sides of the same coin, which should complement and aid each other. It is difficult to see how one of them can reach its full potential without the other as a continual reference. Because PCM should not be practiced without being based on the best available evidence and it is impossible to imagine an EBM whose ultimate goal is disconnected from the individual patient. © 2013 Elsevier España, S.L.


Rodriguez Bernardino A.,Lilly Espana | Garcia Polavieja P.,Lilly Espana | Reviriego Fernandez J.,Lilly Espana | Serrano Rios M.,Hospital Clinico San Carlos
Endocrinologia y Nutricion | Year: 2010

Objective: To determine the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, the degree of consistency among World Health Organization (WHO), The Third Report National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) diagnostic criteria and the relationship with cardiovascular risk in a Spanish population of patients with type 2 diabetes. Material and methods: This descriptive, epidemiologic, multicenter and cross-sectional study included 1259 patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary variable was diagnosis of metabolic syndrome according to WHO, NCEP-ATP III and IDF criteria. Results: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 71.5% (WHO), 78.2% (NCEP-ATP III), and 89.5% (IDF). The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was higher in sedentary diabetic patients (WHO=79.3%, NCEP-ATP III=86.2%, and IDF=93.9) than in those who exercised moderately (WHO=61.4%, NCEP-ATP III=73.2%, and IDF=85.5%, [p<0.001]). The percentage of patients with metabolic syndrome and moderate/high cardiovascular risk was 38.9% (WHO), 33.6% (NCEP-ATP III), and 30.1%, (IDF). Consistency among WHO, NCEP-ATP III and IDF criteria was low. Only comparison of WHO vs NCEP-ATP III criteria was acceptable (k=0.52 [0.46-0.58]). Conclusions: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes in Spain is high, even when the low consistency among WHO, NCEP-ATP III and IDF criteria is considered. A standard definition of metabolic syndrome, according to routine clinical practice, is needed. Cardiovascular risk is greater when OMS and NCEP-ATP III criteria are used for the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome compared with IDF criteria. © 2009 SEEN.


PubMed | Lilly Espana
Type: Comparative Study | Journal: Endocrinologia y nutricion : organo de la Sociedad Espanola de Endocrinologia y Nutricion | Year: 2010

To determine the prevalence of metabolic syndrome, the degree of consistency among World Health Organization (WHO), The Third Report National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP-ATP III) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) diagnostic criteria and the relationship with cardiovascular risk in a Spanish population of patients with type 2 diabetes.This descriptive, epidemiologic, multicenter and cross-sectional study included 1259 patients with type 2 diabetes. The primary variable was diagnosis of metabolic syndrome according to WHO, NCEP-ATP III and IDF criteria.The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was 71.5% (WHO), 78.2% (NCEP-ATP III), and 89.5% (IDF). The prevalence of metabolic syndrome was higher in sedentary diabetic patients (WHO=79.3%, NCEP-ATP III=86.2%, and IDF=93.9) than in those who exercised moderately (WHO=61.4%, NCEP-ATP III=73.2%, and IDF=85.5%, [p<0.001]). The percentage of patients with metabolic syndrome and moderate/high cardiovascular risk was 38.9% (WHO), 33.6% (NCEP-ATP III), and 30.1%, (IDF). Consistency among WHO, NCEP-ATP III and IDF criteria was low. Only comparison of WHO vs NCEP-ATP III criteria was acceptable (k=0.52 [0.46-0.58]).The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with type 2 diabetes in Spain is high, even when the low consistency among WHO, NCEP-ATP III and IDF criteria is considered. A standard definition of metabolic syndrome, according to routine clinical practice, is needed. Cardiovascular risk is greater when OMS and NCEP-ATP III criteria are used for the diagnosis of metabolic syndrome compared with IDF criteria.

Loading Lilly Espana collaborators
Loading Lilly Espana collaborators