Retraction: Comparison of the Performance of Various Scores in Predicting Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.20751.].

Retraction: Comparison of High-Statin Therapy vs Moderate-Statin Therapy in Achieving Positive Low-Density Lipoprotein Change in Patients After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Randomized-Control Trial.

[This retracts the article DOI: 10.7759/cureus.20710.].

Comparison of High-Statin Therapy vs Moderate-Statin Therapy in Achieving Positive Low-Density Lipoprotein Change in Patients After Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Randomized-Control Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Statin use in secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) can play an important role in enhancing clinical outcomes, this has been proven in several randomized trials. This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of moderate-intensity and high-intensity statins in controlling low-density lipoprotein (LDL) after ACS. METHODOLOGY: A randomized control trial was conducted at the Cardiology Department of Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan, from July 2020 to September 2021. During admission, patients were either started on a high-intensity statin dose (rosuvastatin 20 mg) or moderate-intensity statin (rosuvastatin 10 mg) by a computer-generated allocation sequence. Patients were followed-up in the outpatient department (OPD) after 3 months, and a lipid profile at follow-up was obtained. The percentage of LDL change was determined on 3 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 590 patients were enrolled in the study. Out of all participants enrolled, 334 (80.48%) completed the 3-month follow-up. The mean age of participants was 58.08 (+12.06) years. High-intensity statin therapy is positively associated with positive LDL change (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=4.45, P-value=0.001). CONCLUSION: Our data implies that high-intensity statin medication may be an initial therapeutic option to decrease LDL. However, future randomized clinical trials should corroborate these findings.

Comparison of the Performance of Various Scores in Predicting Mortality Among Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

Introduction Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a major social and economic challenge, devastating the health care system in several countries around the world. Mortality scores are important as they can help health care professionals to plan treatment as per the patients' condition for proper resource allocation. When it comes to patients, it provides invaluable information for implementing advance directives. The aim of the study is to validate mortality scores for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19. Methodology This was a retrospective cohort study that included data from three tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. Data of patients diagnosed with confirmed COVID-19 infection and hospitalized in Ziauddin Hospital, Aga Khan Hospital, and Liaquat National Hospital were enrolled in the study from November 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021. Data was extracted from the hospital management information system (HMIS) using a structured questionnaire. Results Overall, 835 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean age of patients was 53.29 (SD ± 15.17) years, and 675 patients (80.72%) were males. The sensitivity of the CALL score is highest among all four scores, i.e., 77.25%, and the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score has the lowest sensitivity (59.79%). However, CALL has the lowest specificity (58.04%), while qSOFA has the highest specificity (73.91%). However, MulBSTA and CRB-65 have a sensitivity of 70.11% and 64.96%, respectively. Conclusion The current study showed that the CALL score had better sensitivity as compared to other mortality scores.