Aritz Merchán Flores

Mr. Aritz Merchán Flores

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

5Years (2022-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 November 2022 in Medical Sciences Forum
Verified
Conference Paper
Open access
PDF file
RFRAQUEL FRESQUET
RAQUEL FRESQUET
LSLucía Sopena
Lucía Sopena
JVJose Manuel Vinuesa
Jose Manuel Vinuesa
AFAritz Merchán Flores
Aritz Merchán Flores
LCLucía Cazorla
Lucía Cazorla
TSTránsito Salvador
Tránsito Salvador
A retrospective comparative study was conducted to compare the efficacy of monoclonal antibody drugs against the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway in migraine and to establish whether they can be considered equivalent therapeutic alternatives for this pathology. A total of 21 patients with chronic migraine were treated with Fremanezumab 225 mg/30 days and 24 patients treated with Erenumab 70 mg/30 days for at least 6 months. Data were collected at baseline and at six months using the following scales: Headache Impact Test (HIT), Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS), and a numerical scale of pain intensity (0 (no pain) and 10 (unbearable pain)). Days of migraine per month were recorded. Mean HIT at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 68.6 (62–76) and 54 (36–70) and 66 (42–78) and 53 (9–72), respectively. In both cases, it decreased by more than 6 points (efficacy criteria). Mean MIDAS at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 70 (25–127) and 25 (0–135) and 73.3 (19–150) and 23 (0–68), respectively. In both cases, it decreased by more than 30% (efficacy criteria). Mean pain intensity at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab was 8.8 (6–10) and 6(5–8) and 8.6 (7–10) and 6 (10–0), respectively. Mean number of migraine days in a month at baseline and 6 months for Fremanezumab and Erenumab were 16.6 (10–30) and 5.3 (0–11) days and 17 (3–30) and 5.8(–15) days, respectively. In both cases, the reduction was > 50%. It can be concluded that the initial values of the scales are very similar. The initial situation of the patient is not a trigger for the use of one drug or the other. Clinically, there is no difference between the two drugs.

1 April 2025 in Indian Journal of Transplantation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
AFAritz Merchán Flores
Aritz Merchán Flores
MMMercedes Arenere Mendoza
Mercedes Arenere Mendoza
IPIrene Navarro Pardo
Irene Navarro Pardo
MBMaría Ángeles Allende Bandrés
María Ángeles Allende Bandrés
Immunosuppressive therapy after liver transplantation typically combines a calcineurin inhibitor, an antimetabolite, and corticosteroids. Tacrolimus, due to its narrow therapeutic margin and variability in blood levels, requires therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). This case report describes a 37-year-old woman with a history of bariatric surgery who developed fulminant liver failure and underwent emergency liver transplantation in January 2024. Despite receiving oral prolonged-release tacrolimus (Advagraf®), TDM showed sustained subtherapeutic levels and elevated transaminases, leading to a type II acute rejection and re-transplantation. Given suspected tacrolimus malabsorption, a literature review suggested sublingual administration of immediate-release tacrolimus (Prograf®) as an alternative with an initial dosing ratio of 1:2 sublingual-to-oral. The patient was switched to 3 mg/12 h sublingual tacrolimus, with subsequent dose adjustments based on TDM. Therapeutic tacrolimus levels were achieved, and transaminases gradually normalized. Sublingual tacrolimus could be an effective strategy for achieving therapeutic levels in patients with intestinal malabsorption.