Respiratory syncytial virus vs. Influenza virus infection: mortality and morbidity comparison over 7 epidemic seasons in an elderly population.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection is gaining interest due to the recent development of vaccines, but it is still misdiagnosed in the elderly. The primary objective was to compare all-cause mortality at day 30. Secondary objectives were to compare clinical presentation, and rates of consolidative pneumonia, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. METHODS: Single-centre retrospective study conducted in a French university hospital during 7 epidemic seasons. All patients aged ≥75 years were included. RESULTS: 558 patients were included: 125 with RSV and 433 with Influenza. Median age was 84.8 years. RSV patients had more respiratory symptoms (wheezing, dyspnea), whereas Influenza patients had more general symptoms (fever, asthenia, myalgia). Consolidative pneumonia (28.8% vs. 17.2%; p = 0.004), hospitalization rates (83.2% vs. 70%; p = 0.003), ICU admissions (7.2% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.034) and length of stay (9 days [2-16] vs. 5 days [0-12]; p = 0.002), were higher in the RSV group. Mortality rates at day 30 were comparable (RSV 9.6%, Influenza 9.7%; p = 0.973). CONCLUSIONS: This study included the largest cohort of RSV-infected patients aged over 75, documented in-depth thus far. RSV shares a comparable mortality rate with Influenza but is associated with higher rates of consolidative pneumonia, hospitalization, ICU admissions, and extended hospital stays.

Prevalence of lipid abnormalities and attainment of normal lipid levels among patients with dyslipidaemia: a pooled analysis of observational studies from five Asian countries.

AIMS: Guidelines emphasise the importance of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for cardiovascular risk reduction. Given the importance of association between high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) normal levels and cardiovascular risk, there is an additional need to further evaluate diverse dyslipidaemic populations. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal observational study of patients aged ≥ 35 years on lipid-modifying therapy (LMT) for ≥ 12 months was conducted from patient records pooled from five Asian countries (Malaysia, Korea, Hong Kong, Thailand and Philippines). The prevalence of lipid abnormalities and goal attainment was assessed 12 months before and after LMT initiation. RESULTS: Among 3256 patients (mean age - 58.6 years, 50.4% men), 65.4% were high-risk patients and 88% were on statin therapy. At baseline 94.7% of all patients had at least one abnormal lipid value elevated, LDL-C (86.2%) being the most prevalent. Non-smokers [OR (95% CI): 1.42 (1.08-1.87)], non-diabetics [2.35 (1.96-2.82)], non-cardiovascular disease patients [1.77 (1.42-2.21)] and those from Korea [2.56 (1.83-3.59)] were more likely to attain LDL-C goals. On the contrary, women [0.82 (0.68-0.98)], subjects with FRS > 20% [0.56 (0.41-0.77)] those from Malaysia [0.55 (0.39-0.77)] and the Philippines [0.18 (0.12-0.28)] were less likely to reach LDL-C goals. Fewer characteristics were independently associated with reaching normal levels of HDL-C and TG and attaining at least two normal lipid levels. CONCLUSIONS: While current LMT reduced the prevalence of dyslipidaemia, a third of patients still failed to achieve target/normal levels. We highlight country differences and the importance of improving therapy to attain multiple lipid goals/normal levels.

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of simvastatin and atorvastatin in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Simvastatin and atorvastatin are effective statins for treating hypercholesterolemia. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of simvastatin 20 and 40 mg/day and atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg/day. METHODS: In this multinational, open-label, crossover study, 258 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia were randomized after 4 weeks of diet plus placebo to once-daily administration of a starting dose sequence of simvastatin (20 mg) or atorvastatin (10 mg), or a higher dose sequence of simvastatin (40 mg) or atorvastatin (20 mg) for 6 weeks. Patients were then switched after a 1-week washout to the corresponding starting or higher dose of the alternate drug for a second 6-week period. The primary endpoint was the mean percent change from baseline to Week 6 in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol; percent changes from baseline in total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B were also compared. Safety was assessed through adverse experiences and laboratory measurements. RESULTS: Both statins produced statistically significant improvements in all measured plasma lipids and lipoproteins. The main treatment comparison showed no statistically significant difference in changes in LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, whereby the overall effects were comparable when doses of 20 mg and 40 mg of simvastatin were compared with atorvastatin 10 mg and 20 mg. The mean percent reductions for LDL cholesterol from baseline to Week 6 ranged from 35-42% for the entire study cohort. An LDL cholesterol level < or = 130 mg/dl (3.4 mmol/l) was achieved in approximately 70% of patients treated with both drugs in this study. Simvastatin and atorvastatin were well tolerated at the doses studied. CONCLUSION: In patients with hypercholesterolemia, the most commonly used doses of simvastatin and atorvastatin produced similar changes in LDL cholesterol and achieved an LDL cholesterol level < or = 130 mg/dl (3.4 mmol/l) in a similar number of patients. Both statins were well tolerated.