Efficacy of oral 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101), a MAS receptor activator, in adults with severe COVID-19 (COVA): a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 binding to ACE2 is potentially associated with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19. The aim of the study was to test whether Mas-receptor activation by 20-hydroxyecdysone (BIO101) could restore the Renin-Angiotensin System equilibrium and limit the frequency of respiratory failure and mortality in adults hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Methods: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase 2/3 trial. Randomization: 1:1 oral BIO101 (350 mg BID) or placebo, up to 28 days or until an endpoint was reached. Primary endpoint: mortality or respiratory failure requiring high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation. Key secondary endpoint: hospital discharge following recovery (ClinicalTrials.gov Number, NCT04472728). Findings: Due to low recruitment the planned sample size of 310 was not reached and 238 patients were randomized between August 26, 2020 and March 8, 2022. In the modified ITT population (233 patients; 126 BIO101 and 107 placebo), respiratory failure or early death by day 28 was 11.4% lower in the BIO101 (13.5%) than in the placebo (24.3%) group, (p = 0.0426). At day 28, proportions of patients discharged following recovery were 80.1%, and 70.9% in the BIO101 and placebo group respectively, (adjusted difference 11.0%, 95% CI [-0.4%, 22.4%], p = 0.0586). Hazard Ratio for time to death over 90 days: 0.554 (95% CI [0.285, 1.077]), a 44.6% mortality reduction in the BIO101 group (not statistically significant). Treatment emergent adverse events of respiratory failure were more frequent in the placebo group. Interpretation: BIO101 significantly reduced the risk of death or respiratory failure supporting its use in adults hospitalized with severe respiratory symptoms due to COVID-19. Funding: Biophytis.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3­0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59­1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61­8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation.

Implications for Clinical Practice from a Multicenter Survey of Heart Failure Management Centers.

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Implications for clinical practice from a multicenter survey of heart failure management centers

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

One year follow-up Assessment of Patients Included in the Brazilian Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACCEPT). / Avaliação do Seguimento de um Ano dos Pacientes Incluídos no Registro Brasileiro de Síndromes Coronárias Agudas (ACCEPT).

Background There is lack of prospective data on evolution within one year of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in a representative population of Brazilian patients. Objectives To assess the prescription of evidence-based therapies, the incidence of severe outcomes and the predictors for these outcomes in a multicenter Brazilian registry of ACS patients. Methods The ACCEPT is a prospective observational study, which included patients hospitalized with a diagnostic of ACS in 47 Brazilian hospitals. The patients were followed for a 1 year and data were collected on the medical prescription and the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction and cerebrovascular accident - CVA). Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results A total of 5,047 patients were included in this registry from August 2010 to April 2014. The diagnosis of ACS was confirmed in 4,782 patients (94.7%) and, among those, the most frequent diagnosis was ACS with ST segment elevation (35.8%). The rate of major cardiovascular events was 13.6 % within 1 year. Adherence to prescription of evidence-based therapy at admission was of 62.1%. Age, public service, acute myocardial infarction, CVA, renal failure, diabetes and quality of therapy were associated independently with the occurrence of major cardiovascular events. Conclusions During the one-year follow-up of the ACCEPT registry, more than 10% of the patients had major cardiovascular events and this rate ranged according with the quality of therapy. Strategies must be elaborated to improve the use of evidence-based therapies to minimize the cardiovascular events among the Brazilian population. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(6):995-1003).

Avaliação do seguimento de um ano dos pacientes incluídos no registro brasileiro de síndromes coronárias agudas (ACCEPT) / One year follow-up assessment of patients included in the brazilian registry of acute coronary syndromes (ACCEPT)

RESUMO FUNDAMENTO: Existe carência de informações prospectivas sobre a evolução em um ano após uma síndrome coronária aguda (SCA) em uma grande amostra de pacientes brasileiros. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar a prescrição de terapias baseadas em evidência, a ocorrência de desfechos graves e os preditores para estes desfechos em um registro brasileiro multicêntrico de pacientes com SCA. MÉTODOS: O ACCEPT é um estudo observacional prospectivo que incluiu pacientes internados com diagnóstico de SCA em 47 hospitais brasileiros. Os pacientes foram seguidos por 1 ano e coletou-se dados sobre prescrição médica e ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares maiores (mortalidade cardiovascular, reinfarto e acidente vascular encefálico - AVE). Valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significantes. RESULTADOS: Um total de 5.047 pacientes foram incluídos neste registro, de agosto de 2010 até abril de 2014. Foi confirmado o diagnóstico de SCA em 4.782 pacientes (94,7%) e, dentre os 3 diagnósticos possíveis, o mais comum foi SCA com elevação do segmento ST (35,8%). A taxa de eventos cardiovasculares maiores foi de 13,6 % em 1 ano. A prescrição completa de terapias baseadas em evidência na admissão hospitalar foi de 62,1%. Idade, atendimento público, infarto agudo do miocárdio, AVE, insuficiência renal, diabetes e qualidade da terapia estiveram associados de forma independente à ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares maiores. CONCLUSÕES: No seguimento de 1 ano do registro ACCEPT, mais de 10% dos pacientes apresentaram eventos cardiovasculares maiores e esta taxa variou de acordo com a qualidade da terapia. Há necessidade da elaboração de estratégias para melhorar o uso de terapias baseadas em evidência no sentido de minimizar os eventos cardiovasculares na população brasileira.

Avaliação do Seguimento de um Ano dos Pacientes Incluídos no Registro Brasileiro de Síndromes Coronárias Agudas (ACCEPT) / One year follow-up Assessment of Patients Included in the Brazilian Registry of Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACCEPT)

Resumo Fundamento Existe carência de informações prospectivas sobre a evolução em um ano após uma síndrome coronária aguda (SCA) em uma grande amostra de pacientes brasileiros. Objetivos Avaliar a prescrição de terapias baseadas em evidência, a ocorrência de desfechos graves e os preditores para estes desfechos em um registro brasileiro multicêntrico de pacientes com SCA. Métodos O ACCEPT é um estudo observacional prospectivo que incluiu pacientes internados com diagnóstico de SCA em 47 hospitais brasileiros. Os pacientes foram seguidos por 1 ano e coletou-se dados sobre prescrição médica e ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares maiores (mortalidade cardiovascular, reinfarto e acidente vascular encefálico - AVE). Valores de p < 0,05 foram considerados estatisticamente significantes. Resultados Um total de 5.047 pacientes foram incluídos neste registro, de agosto de 2010 até abril de 2014. Foi confirmado o diagnóstico de SCA em 4.782 pacientes (94,7%) e, dentre os 3 diagnósticos possíveis, o mais comum foi SCA com elevação do segmento ST (35,8%). A taxa de eventos cardiovasculares maiores foi de 13,6 % em 1 ano. A prescrição completa de terapias baseadas em evidência na admissão hospitalar foi de 62,1%. Idade, atendimento público, infarto agudo do miocárdio, AVE, insuficiência renal, diabetes e qualidade da terapia estiveram associados de forma independente à ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares maiores. Conclusões No seguimento de 1 ano do registro ACCEPT, mais de 10% dos pacientes apresentaram eventos cardiovasculares maiores e esta taxa variou de acordo com a qualidade da terapia. Há necessidade da elaboração de estratégias para melhorar o uso de terapias baseadas em evidência no sentido de minimizar os eventos cardiovasculares na população brasileira. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(6):995-1003)

Abstract Background There is lack of prospective data on evolution within one year of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in a representative population of Brazilian patients. Objectives To assess the prescription of evidence-based therapies, the incidence of severe outcomes and the predictors for these outcomes in a multicenter Brazilian registry of ACS patients. Methods The ACCEPT is a prospective observational study, which included patients hospitalized with a diagnostic of ACS in 47 Brazilian hospitals. The patients were followed for a 1 year and data were collected on the medical prescription and the occurrence of major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular mortality, reinfarction and cerebrovascular accident - CVA). Values of p < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results A total of 5,047 patients were included in this registry from August 2010 to April 2014. The diagnosis of ACS was confirmed in 4,782 patients (94.7%) and, among those, the most frequent diagnosis was ACS with ST segment elevation (35.8%). The rate of major cardiovascular events was 13.6 % within 1 year. Adherence to prescription of evidence-based therapy at admission was of 62.1%. Age, public service, acute myocardial infarction, CVA, renal failure, diabetes and quality of therapy were associated independently with the occurrence of major cardiovascular events. Conclusions During the one-year follow-up of the ACCEPT registry, more than 10% of the patients had major cardiovascular events and this rate ranged according with the quality of therapy. Strategies must be elaborated to improve the use of evidence-based therapies to minimize the cardiovascular events among the Brazilian population. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 114(6):995-1003)

Há relação entre custos hospitalares e tempo porta-balão? / Is there an association between hospital costs and door-to-balloon time?

O tempo porta-balão (TPB) tornou-se uma medida de desempenho e é foco de iniciativas de melhoria da qualidade assistencial. Este estudo teve como objetivo avaliar a relação entre o TPB e seu impacto nos custos de internação hospitalar. Métodos: Pacientes tratados com intervenção coronária percutânea primária, entre 2008 e 2013, foram divididos de acordo com o TPB < ou ≥ 90 minutos. Todos os custos registrados na alta hospitalar foram ajustados por meio do Índice de Variação de Custos Médico-Hospitalares.Resultados: Foram incluídos 141 pacientes, agrupados em TPB < 90 minutos (n = 77) e TPB ≥ 90 minutos(n = 64). Os TPB foram 64,0 ± 14,1 minutos e 133,8 ± 35,2 minutos, respectivamente. Não foram observadasdiferenças nos desfechos clínicos entre os grupos. Os custos foram de R$ 34.883,24 ± 27.749,46, sendo ocusto médio para TPB < 90 minutos de R$ 33.194,24 ± 27.387,61, e para TPB ≥ 90 minutos, de R$ 36.947,58± 28.267,80 (p = 0,43). Os custos, segundo a artéria culpada, foram de R$ 29.588,53 ± 16.358,85 para acoronária direita; R$ 48.494,62 ± 44.015,04 para a circunflexa; e de R$ 34.016,96 ± 26.503,94 paraa descendente anterior. Houve diferença entre os custos dos procedimentos relativos à artéria circunflexacomparados aos da coronária direita ou da descendente anterior (p = 0,01), mas não houve diferença entre os custos relativos à coronária direita, comparados à descendente anterior (p = 0,68). Conclusões: Não houve diferença nos custos hospitalares, no âmbito da saúde suplementar, quando os grupos foram divididos de acordo com o TPB. Os desfechos clínicos foram semelhantes, e foi encontrada uma diferença de custos em pacientes com a artéria circunflexa culpada...

Door-to-balloon time (DBT) has become a measure of performance and is the focus in quality of care improvement initiatives. This study aimed to evaluate the association between DBT and its impacton hospital costs. Methods: Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2008 and 2013 were divided according to the DBT < or ≥ 90 minutes. All costs recorded at hospital discharge were adjusted bythe Medical-Hospital Cost Variation Index. Results: A total of 141 patients were included, grouped as DBT < 90 minutes (n = 77) and DBT ≥ 90 minutes(n = 64). DBT was 64.0 ± 14.1 minutes and 133.8 ± 35.2 minutes, respectively. There were no diferences in clinical outcomes between the groups. The costs were R$ 34,883.24 ± 27,749.46, with the mean cost for DBT < 90 minutes being R$ 33,194.24 ± 27,387.61 and the cost for DBT ≥ 90 minutes R$ 36,947.58 ±28,267.80 (p = 0.43). The costs, according to the culprit artery, were R$ 29,588.53 ± 16,358.85 for the rightcoronary artery; R$ 48,494.62 ± 44,015.04 for the left circumflex artery; and R$ 34,016.96 ± 26,503.94 forthe left anterior descending artery. There was a difference between the costs of procedures related to theleft circumflex artery when compared to the right coronary or left anterior descending arteries (p = 0.01),but there was no difference between the costs related to the right coronary, when compared to the left anterior descending artery (p = 0.68). Conclusions: There was no difference in hospital costs regarding the private health insurance, when the groups were divided according to the DBT. Clinical outcomes were similar and a difference in costs wasfound for patients with the circumflex artery as the culprit vessel...

Uso de Intervenções Baseadas em Evidências na Síndrome Coronária Aguda – Subanálise do Registro ACCEPT / Use of Evidence-Based Interventions in Acute Coronary Syndrome - Subanalysis of the ACCEPT Registry

Fundamento: As diretrizes baseiam-se em evidências para pautar suas recomendações; apesar disso, há uma lacuna entre o recomendado e a prática clínica. Objetivo: Descrever a prática de prescrição de tratamentos com indicação baseada em diretrizes para pacientes com síndrome coronariana aguda no Brasil. Métodos: Foi realizada uma subanálise do registro ACCEPT, na qual foram avaliados os dados epidemiológicos e a taxa de prescrição de ácido acetilsalicílico, inibidores P2Y12, antitrombóticos, betabloqueadores, inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina/bloqueadores AT1 e estatinas. Além disso, avaliou-se a qualidade da reperfusão coronariana no infarto com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST. Resultados: Foram avaliados 2.453 pacientes. As taxas de prescrição de ácido acetilsalicílico, inibidores de P2Y12, antitrombóticos, betabloqueadores, inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina/bloqueadores AT1 e estatinas foram, respectivamente, de 97,6%, 89,5%, 89,1, 80,2%, 67,9%, 90,6%, em 24 horas, e, respectivamente, de 89,3%, 53,6, 0%, 74,4%, 57,6%, 85,4%, em 6 meses. Com relação ao infarto com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST, somente 35,9% e 25,3% dos pacientes foram submetidos a angioplastia primária e trombólise, respectivamente, nos tempos recomendados. Conclusão: Este registro mostrou altas taxas de prescrição inicial de antiplaquetários, antitrombóticos e estatina, bem como taxas mais baixas de betabloqueadores e de inibidores da enzima conversora de angiotensina/bloqueadores AT1. Independentemente da classe, todos apresentaram queda do uso aos 6 meses. A maioria dos pacientes com infarto com supradesnivelamento do segmento ST não foi submetida a reperfusão coronariana no tempo recomendado. .

Background: The recommendations in guidelines are based on evidence; however, there is a gap between recommendations and clinical practice. Objective: To describe the practice of prescribing evidence-based treatments for patients with acute coronary syndrome in Brazil. Methods: This study carried out a subanalysis of the ACCEPT registry, assessing epidemiological data and the prescription rate of acetylsalicylic acid, p2y12 inhibitors, antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (IAT1RB), and statins. In addition, the quality of myocardial reperfusion in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was evaluated. Results: This study assessed 2,453 patients. The prescription rates of acetylsalicylic acid, p2y12 inhibitors, antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/IAT1RB, and statins were as follows: in 24 hours - 97.6%, 89.5%, 89.1%, 80.2%, 67.9% and 90.6%; and at six months - 89.3%, 53.6%, 0%, 74.4%, 57.6% and 85.4%, respectively. Regarding ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, only 35.9% and 25.3% of the patients underwent primary angioplasty and thrombolysis, respectively, within the recommended times. Conclusion: This registry showed high initial prescription rates of antiplatelet drugs, antithrombotic drugs, and statins, and lower prescription rates of beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/IAT1RB. Independently of the class, the use of all drugs decreased by six months. Most patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction did not undergo myocardial reperfusion within the time recommended. .

Use of evidence-based interventions in acute coronary syndrome - Subanalysis of the ACCEPT registry.

BACKGROUND: The recommendations in guidelines are based on evidence; however, there is a gap between recommendations and clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe the practice of prescribing evidence-based treatments for patients with acute coronary syndrome in Brazil. METHODS: This study carried out a subanalysis of the ACCEPT registry, assessing epidemiological data and the prescription rate of acetylsalicylic acid, p2y12 inhibitors, antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers (IAT1RB), and statins. In addition, the quality of myocardial reperfusion in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was evaluated. RESULTS: This study assessed 2,453 patients. The prescription rates of acetylsalicylic acid, p2y12 inhibitors, antithrombotic drugs, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/IAT1RB, and statins were as follows: in 24 hours - 97.6%, 89.5%, 89.1%, 80.2%, 67.9% and 90.6%; and at six months - 89.3%, 53.6%, 0%, 74.4%, 57.6% and 85.4%, respectively. Regarding ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, only 35.9% and 25.3% of the patients underwent primary angioplasty and thrombolysis, respectively, within the recommended times. CONCLUSION: This registry showed high initial prescription rates of antiplatelet drugs, antithrombotic drugs, and statins, and lower prescription rates of beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/IAT1RB. Independently of the class, the use of all drugs decreased by six months. Most patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction did not undergo myocardial reperfusion within the time recommended.