Risk factors for mortality of adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalised in an emerging country: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe mortality of in-hospital patients with COVID-19 and compare risk factors between survivors and non-survivors. DESIGN: Prospective cohort of adult inpatients. SETTING: Tertiary healthcare teaching hospital in Guadalajara, Mexico. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with confirmed COVID-19 hospitalised from 25 March to 7 September 2020 were included. End of study: 7 November 2020. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient survival analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and comparison of factors by the log-rank test. Mortality risk factors analysed by multivariate Cox's proportional-hazard model. RESULTS: One thousand ten patients included: 386 (38%) died, 618 (61%) alive at discharge and six (0.6%) remained hospitalised. There was predominance of men (63%) and high frequency of overweight-obesity (71%); hypertension (54%); diabetes (40%); and lung (9%), cardiovascular (8%) and kidney diseases (11%); all of them significantly more frequent in non-survivors. Overweight-obesity was not different between groups, but severity of disease (Manchester Triage System and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) was significantly worse in non-survivors, who were also significantly older (65 vs 45 years, respectively) and had haematological, biochemical, coagulation and inflammatory biomarkers more altered than survivors. Mortality predictors were invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV; OR 3.31, p<0.0001), admission to intensive care unit (ICU; OR 2.18, p<0.0001), age (OR 1.02, p<0.0001), Manchester Triage System (urgent OR 1.44, p=0.02; immediate/very urgent OR 2.02, p=0.004), baseline C reactive protein (CRP; OR 1.002, p=0.009) and antecedent of kidney disease (OR 1.58, p=0.04) CONCLUSIONS: Mortality in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in this emerging country centre seemed to be higher than in developed countries. Patients displayed a high frequency of risk factors for poor outcome, but the need for IMV, ICU admission, older age, more severe disease at admission, antecedent of kidney disease and higher CRP levels significantly predicted mortality.

STEMI and NSTEMI: Real-world Study in Mexico (RENASCA).

INTRODUCTION: Mexico is the country with the highest mortality due to acute myocardial infarction in adults older than 45 years old according to the OECD (28 vs. 7.5% of the average). The first real-world study, RENASCA IMSS, showed a high-risk population at 65%, but 50% without reperfusion strategies. The aim was to describe the clinical presentation, treatment, and outcomes of acute coronary syndromes at the IMSS. METHODS: RENASCA IMSS is a nation-wide, prospective, longitudinal-cohort study. We include consecutive patients with an Acute Coronary Syndrome diagnosis (ACC/AHA/ESC) admitted in 177 representative hospitals of the IMSS (166 of second level and 11 of third level of attention). In an electronic database clinical, paraclinical, times, reperfusion treatment, complications, and other variables were assessed. Confidentiality was maintained in data and informed consent was obtained. Registrer calibration was performed with more than 80% of the variables and 80% of the cases. RESULTS: From March 1, 2014 to December 25, 2017; 21,827 patients were enrolled presenting an average age 63.2 ± 11.7, 75% men (16,259) and 25% women (5,568). The most frequent risk factors were: hypertension (60.5%), smoking (46.8%), diabetes (45.5%), dyslipidemia (35.3%) and metabolic syndrome (39.1%). STEMI diagnosis was established in 73.2% of the patients and NSTEMI in 26.8%. The STEMI group within the Code Infarction showed an improvement in the reperfusion therapy (34.9% before vs. 71.4% after, p ≤0.0001) and reduction of mortality (21.1 vs. 9.4%, p ≤0.0001); while the NSTEMI group showed high risk set by a GRACE score of 131.5 ± 43.7 vs. 135.9 + 41.7, p ≤0.0001. Mortality was more frequent within the STEMI group (14.9 vs. 7.6%, p ≤0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: RENASCA IMSS study represents the largest Acute Coronary Syndromes real-world study in Mexico, demonstrating that the Mexican population has a high risk. Patients with a STEMI diagnosis were more frequently enrolled and were associated with higher mortality and complications; however, there is improvement in the reperfusion therapy and in mortality with the Code Infarction strategy.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia--Prospective study to evaluate the Use of Low doses of the Statins Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin (PULSAR).

BACKGROUND: Many patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease do not achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. This study compared the efficacy and safety of low doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg) and atorvastatin (20 mg) in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: A total of 996 patients with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C > or = 3.4 and < 5.7 mmol/L [130 and 220 mg/dL]) and coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerosis, or a CHD-risk equivalent were randomized to once-daily rosuvastatin 10 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in LDL-C levels at 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included LDL-C goal achievement (National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP ATP III] goal < 100 mg/dL; 2003 European goal < 2.5 mmol/L for patients with atherosclerotic disease, type 2 diabetes, or at high risk of cardiovascular events, as assessed by a Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk > or = 5% or 3.0 mmol/L for all other patients), changes in other lipids and lipoproteins, cost-effectiveness, and safety. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL-C levels significantly more than atorvastatin 20 mg at week 6 (44.6% vs. 42.7%, p < 0.05). Significantly more patients achieved NCEP ATP III and 2003 European LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 20 mg (68.8% vs. 62.5%, p < 0.05; 68.0% vs. 63.3%, p < 0.05, respectively). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol was increased significantly with rosuvastatin 10 mg versus atorvastatin 20 mg (6.4% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001). Lipid ratios and levels of apolipoprotein A-I also improved more with rosuvastatin 10 mg than with atorvastatin 20 mg. The use of rosuvastatin 10 mg was also cost-effective compared with atorvastatin 20 mg in both a US and a UK setting. Both treatments were well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events (rosuvastatin 10 mg, 27.5%; atorvastatin 20 mg, 26.1%). No cases of rhabdomyolysis, liver, or renal insufficiency were recorded. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia, rosuvastatin 10 mg was more efficacious than atorvastatin 20 mg at reducing LDL-C, enabling LDL-C goal achievement and improving other lipid parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated.