The European Commission Initiative for Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis guidelines (European Breast Guidelines) are coordinated by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre. The target audience for the guidelines includes women, health professionals, and policymakers. An international guideline panel of 28 multidisciplinary members, including patients, developed questions and corresponding recommendations that were informed by systematic reviews of the evidence conducted between March 2016 and December 2018. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision frameworks were used to structure the process and minimize the influence of competing interests by enhancing transparency. Questions and recommendations, expressed as strong or condi-tional, focused on outcomes that matter to women and provided a rating of the certainty of evidence. This synopsis of the European Breast Guidelines provides recommendations regarding organized screening programs for women aged 40 to 75 years who are at average risk. The recommendations address digital mammography screening and the addition of hand-held ultrasonography, automated breast ultrasonography, or magnetic resonance imaging compared with mammography alone. The recommendations also discuss the frequency of screening and inform decision making for women at average risk who are recalled for suspicious lesions or who have high breast density.

There is scarce evidence on the use of eosinophil count as a marker of outcome in patients with infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether changes in eosinophil count, as well as the neutrophil-lymphocyte count ratio (NLCR), could be used as clinical markers of outcome in patients with bacteremia. We performed a retrospective study of patients with a first episode of community-acquired or healthcare-related bacteremia during hospital admission between 2004 and 2009. A total of 2,311 patients were included. Cox regression was used to analyze the behaviour of eosinophil count and the NLCR in survivors and non-survivors. In the adjusted analysis, the main independent risk factor for mortality was persistence of an eosinophil count below 0.0454·10³/uL (HR = 4.20; 95% CI 2.66–6.62). An NLCR value >7 was also an independent risk factor but was of lesser importance. The mean eosinophil count in survivors showed a tendency to increase rapidly and to achieve normal values between the second and third day. In these patients, the NLCR was 7 were independent markers of mortality in patients with bacteremia.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate reader variability in screening mammograms according to the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) assessment and breast density categories. Methods: A stratified random sample of 100 mammograms was selected from a population-based breast cancer screening programme in Barcelona, Spain: 13 histopathologically confirmed breast cancers and 51 with true-negative and 36 with false-positive results. 21 expert radiologists from radiological units of breast cancer screening programmes in Catalonia, Spain, reviewed the mammography images twice within a 6-month interval. The readers described each mammography using BI-RADS assessment and breast density categories. Inter- and intraradiologist agreement was assessed using percentage of concordance and the kappa (κ) statistic. Results: Fair interobserver agreement was observed for the BI-RADS assessment [κ=0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36–0.38]. When the categories were collapsed in terms of whether additional evaluation was required (Categories III, 0, IV, V) or not (I and II), moderate agreement was found (κ=0.53, 95% CI 0.52–0.54). Intra-observer agreement for BI-RADS assessment was moderate using all categories (κ=0.53, 95% CI 0.50–0.55) and substantial on recall (κ=0.66, 95% CI 0.63–0.70). Regarding breast density, inter- and intraradiologist agreement was substantial (κ=0.73, 95% CI 0.72–0.74 and κ=0.69, 95% CI 0.68–0.70, respectively). Conclusion: We observed a substantial intra-observer agreement in the BI-RADS assessment but only moderate interobserver agreement. Both inter- and intra-observer agreement in mammographic interpretation of breast density was substantial. Advances in knowledge: Educational efforts should be made to decrease radiologists' variability in BI-RADS assessment interpretation in population-based breast screening programmes.

Background: We aimed to assess the hospital economic costs of nosocomial multi-drug resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa acquisition. Methods: A retrospective study of all hospital admissions between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2006 was carried out in a 420-bed, urban, tertiary-care teaching hospital in Barcelona (Spain). All patients with a first positive clinical culture for P. aeruginosa more than 48 h after admission were included. Patient and hospitalization characteristics were collected from hospital and microbiology laboratory computerized records. According to antibiotic susceptibility, isolates were classified as non-resistant, resistant and multi-drug resistant. Cost estimation was based on a full-costing cost accounting system and on the criteria of clinical Activity-Based Costing methods. Multivariate analyses were performed using generalized linear models of log-transformed costs. Results: Cost estimations were available for 402 nosocomial incident P. aeruginosa positive cultures. Their distribution by antibiotic susceptibility pattern was 37.1% non-resistant, 29.6% resistant and 33.3% multi-drug resistant. The total mean economic cost per admission of patients with multi-drug resistant P. aeruginosa strains was higher than that for non-resistant strains (15,265 vs. 4,933 Euros). In multivariate analysis, resistant and multi-drug resistant strains were independently predictive of an increased hospital total cost in compared with non-resistant strains (the incremental increase in total hospital cost was more than 1.37-fold and 1.77-fold that for non-resistant strains, respectively). Conclusions: P. aeruginosa multi-drug resistance independently predicted higher hospital costs with a more than 70% increase per admission compared with non-resistant strains. Prevention of the nosocomial emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistant microorganisms is essential to limit the strong economic impact.

We investigated the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors on all-cause discontinuation, efficacy and safety, and the effects of study design-, intervention-, and patient-related covariates on the risk-benefit of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer’s disease. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials comparing cholinesterase inhibitors and placebo was performed. The effect of covariates on study outcomes was analysed by means of meta-regression using a Bayesian framework. Forty-three randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving 16106 patients were included. All-cause discontinuation was higher with cholinesterase inhibitors (OR = 1.66), as was discontinuation due to adverse events (OR=1.75). Cholinesterase inhibitors improved cognitive function (standardized mean difference = 0.38), global symptomatology (standardized mean difference=0.28) and functional capacity (standardized mean difference=0.16) but not neuropsychiatric symptoms. Rivastigmine was associated with a poorer outcome on all-cause discontinuation (Diff OR = 1.66) and donepezil with a higher efficacy on global change (Diff standardized mean difference = 0.41). The proportion of patients with serious adverse events decreased with age (Diff OR = -0.09). Mortality was lower with cholinesterase inhibitors than with placebo (OR = 0.65). While cholinesterase inhibitors show a poor risk-benefit relationship as indicated by mild symptom improvement and a higher than placebo all-cause discontinuation, a reduction of mortality was suggested. Intervention- and patient-related factors modify the effect of cholinesterase inhibitors in patients with Alzheimer’s disease.