Search

Background: There is a lack of information from Brazil regarding therapies used and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome with ST elevation (STEMI)., Objectives: To evaluate evidence-based therapies, occurrence of outcomes, reperfusion use, and predictors of not receiving reperfusion in patients with STEMI in a national multicenter registry., Methods: Patients with STEMI from the ACCEPT registry, with up to 12 hours of symptoms, were followed for 1 year for the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events. A significance level of p < 0.05 was applied for all analyses., Results: In the analysis of 1553 patients, the reperfusion rate was 76.8%, ranging from 47.5% in the North Region to 80.5% in the Southeast Region. The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 12.5% at 1 year. The prescription of evidence-based therapies at hospital admission was 65.6%. The presence of hypertension (odds ratio [OR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11 to 1.96; p < 0.01); prior acute myocardial infarction (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.32 to 2.48; p < 0.001); and the North (OR 4.65; 95% CI 2.87 to 7.52; p < 0.001), Central-West (OR 4.02; 95% CI 1.26 to 12.7; p < 0.05), and Northeast Regions (OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.17 to 2.46; p < 0.01) were independent predictors of not receiving reperfusion therapy., Conclusion: In the 1-year follow-up of the ACCEPT Registry, we were able to verify a wide variation within Brazilian geographical regions regarding adherence to best care practices. The following were independent predictors of not receiving reperfusion therapy: being treated in the North, Central-West, and Northeast Regions; having systemic arterial hypertension; and prior infarction.

Once a patient has been diagnosed with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, treatment options have limited effectiveness. Opaganib is an oral treatment under investigation being evaluated for treatment of hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2/3 trial was conducted in 57 sites worldwide from August 2020 to July 2021. Patients received either opaganib (n = 230; 500 mg twice daily) or matching placebo (n = 233) for 14 days. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients no longer requiring supplemental oxygen by day 14. Secondary outcomes included changes in the World Health Organization Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement, viral clearance, intubation, and mortality at 28 and 42 days. Pre-specified primary and secondary outcome analyses did not demonstrate statistically significant benefit (except nominally for time to viral clearance). Post-hoc analysis revealed the fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO 2 ) at baseline was prognostic for opaganib treatment responsiveness and corresponded to disease severity markers. Patients with FIO 2 levels at or below the median value (≤60%) had better outcomes after opaganib treatment (n = 117) compared to placebo (n = 134). The proportion of patients with ≤60% FIO 2 at baseline that no longer required supplemental oxygen (≥24 h) by day 14 of opaganib treatment increased (76.9% vs. 63.4%; nominal p -value = 0.033). There was a 62.6% reduction in intubation/mechanical ventilation (6.84% vs. 17.91%; nominal p -value = 0.012) and a clinically meaningful 62% reduction in mortality (5.98% vs. 16.7%; nominal p -value = 0.019) by day 42. No new safety concerns were observed. While the primary analyses were not statistically significant, post-hoc analysis suggests opaganib benefit for patients with severe COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen with an FIO 2 of ≤60%. Further studies are warranted to prospectively confirm opaganib benefit in this subpopulation.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

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., Competing Interests: Biophytis declares that potential commercial interests had no impact on the scientific conduct of the study nor on the analysis/interpretation of data. Cendrine Tourette, Luis Esmeraldino, Pierre Jean Dilda, René Lafont, Serge Camelo, Sandrine Rabut, Waly Dioh, Rob van Maanen and Stanislas veillet are Biophytis company employees, Anait Azbekyan Samuel Agus and Mounia Chabane are former Biophytis company employees. Jean Mariani is emeritus professor at Sorbonne University and consultant for Biophytis, Richard Kay is a consultant for Biophytis. Alpesh Amin, MD declares that as principal investigator or co-investigator of clinical trials sponsored by NIH/NIAID, NeuroRx Pharma, Pulmotect, Blade Therapeutics, Novartis, Takeda, Humanigen, Eli Lilly, PTC Therapeutics, OctaPharma, Fulcrum Therapeutics, Alexion, BioPhysitis its institution received payments and that he personnally received consultant fees from BMS, Pfizer, BI, Portola, Sunovion, Mylan, Salix, Alexion, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Nabriva, Paratek, Bayer, Tetraphase, Achogen LaJolla, Ferring, Seres, Spero, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Millenium, HeartRite, Aseptiscope, and Sprightly; but that these relationships were unrelated to the current work. Shaheen Islam, MD declares that he received grants or was in contract as a principal or sub investigator from the following companies:–Pliant therapeutics: INTEGRIS-ARDS, drug (PLN74809) Covid -trial 2021 (PI).—CytoDyn, Inc.: CD12-COVID 19 Drug: Leronlimab COVID trial 2020 (PI). -Pluristem Ltd.: PLX-COV-01. Drug PLX-PAD, COVID Trial 2020 (Sub-I).—Edesa Biotech Inc.: EB05-04-2020. Drug: EB05 COVID Trial 2020 (Sub-I). Fabiano Ramos, MD declares that its institution: Hospital São Lucas da Pontíficia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil received financial resources to conduct the study from Biophytis. Brian Snyder, MD declares that he receives research funding from Biophytis as part of the present clinical trial. Moreover, he declares that he received grants or has contracts with Behring, and Rheonix as part of COVID research studies. None of the other investigators declare any relationship related to the current work., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JHA reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and CSL Behring; grants from AstraZeneca, CryoLife, US Food & Drug Administration, US National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, VoluMetrix, and Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Quantum Genetics, Teikoku Pharmaceuticals, VA Cooperative Studies Program, and Zafgen, outside of the submitted work. AA reports consultant and lecture fees from Bayer, NovoNordisk, and LillyBaxter; lecture fees from Daichii-Sankyo; and research grants from Bayer, EMS Pharma, and the Population Health Research Institute, outside of the submitted work. LCPA reports personal fees from Baxter, Pfizer, and Halex-Istar; and grants from Ache Laboratorios Farmaceuticos, outside of the submitted work. OB reports grants from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, and Amgen, and advisory board and personal fees from Novartis, outside of the submitted work. ABC reports grants from Bayer outside of the submitted work. GEC-S reports grants from Novartis and Air Liquide, outside of the submitted work. PGMdBeS reports grants from Bayer, Roche, and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. MDAD reports personal fees, non-financial support, and other (advisory board participation) from Pfizer; personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer; personal fees and other (advisory board participation) from Servier; and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. RHMF reports grants from Bayer during the conduct of the study; and grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Servier, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, grants and non-financial support from EMS Pharma, and grants from Aché, Health Canada, and the Brazilian Ministry of Health, outside of the submitted work. MBG reports personal fees from COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and Bayer during the conduct of the study. RDL reports grants and personal fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic PLC, and Sanofi; and personal fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside of the submitted work. AVSM reports personal fees, non-financial support, and other (advisory board participation) from Bayer and Pfizer; personal fees and other (advisory board participation) from Novartis; personal fees and non-financial support from Zodiac; and personal fees from Ferring, Janssen, Sanofi, and AstraZeneca, outside of the submitted work. FCN reports grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim; and personal fees from Bayer and Pfizer, outside of the submitted work. ER reports grants and consulting fees from Bayer and Pfizer; grants from the Brazilian Ministry of Science and Technology; and personal fees from Aspen Pharma, Biomm Pharma, and Daiichi Sankyo, outside of the submitted work. ATR reports personal fees from Sanofi and Bayer, outside of the submitted work. VCV reports grants from Aspen Pharma, Pfizer, and Cristalia, outside of the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

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).

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.

Background: There are few registries documenting clinical practice in Brazilian patients with acute coronary syndrome., Objectives: Demography description, occurrence of major clinical adverse events and comparative analysis in patients submitted or not to an invasive strategy (coronary angiography and myocardial revascularization) in a Brazilian multicenter registry of acute coronary syndrome., Methods: The ACCEPT/SBC registry prospectively collected data on acute coronary syndrome patients from 47 Brazilian hospitals. The current analysis reports the occurrence of major clinical outcomes and according to the performance or not of a procedure for myocardial revascularization at the end of 30 day follow-up., Results: Between August 2010 and December 2011, 2.485 patients were enrolled in this registry. Of these, 31.6% had unstable angina, 34.9% and 33.4% had acute coronary syndrome without and with ST-segment elevation. At 30 days, the performance of a myocardial revascularization procedure was progressively higher according to the severity of clinical presentation (38.7% vs. 53.6% vs. 77.7%, p < 0.001). Cardiac mortality among those submitted or not to myocardial revascularization procedure was 1.0% vs. 2.3% (p = 0.268), 1.9% vs. 4.2% (p = 0.070) and 2.0% vs. 8.1% (p < 0.001), in those with unstable angina, acute coronary syndrome without and with ST-segment elevation, respectively., Conclusions: The prescription of a myocardial revascularization procedure was progressively more frequent according to the severity of clinical presentation; for those treated during acute coronary syndrome without and with ST-segment elevation, there was a trend and significant decrease in mortality rate at 30 day of follow-up, respectively.