First Colombian Multicentric Newborn Screening for Congenital Toxoplasmosis

Congenital toxoplasmosis can result in permanent sequel as blindness or neurological damage in children and it seems to be more severe in South America than in other continents. There is a lack of information about this frequency in Colombia, where no control program is established, although it is a recognized cause of potentially preventable congenital blindness. We propose the first Colombian multicentric study to determine the frequency and impact of congenital toxoplasmosis. More than 15,000 newborns in seven cities were studied. Newborns were tested at birth by doing a cord blood test for toxoplasmosis. Additionally, children from mothers with history of toxoplasmosis acquired during pregnancy were recalled for a follow-up. The program identified fifteen children otherwise undiagnosed; three of these children died as consequence of congenital toxoplasmosis. The frequency of the congenital infection varied significantly between cities, being higher in Armenia and Florencia, intermediate in Bogota, Bucaramanga and Barranquilla and very low in western cities such as Cucuta and Riohacha. For the first time a significant correlation was found between mean rainfall at the city and the incidence of this congenital infection

Phenotypical, Clinical, and Molecular Aspects of Adults and Children With Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia in Iberoamerica

Fil: Alves, Ana Catarina. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisboa; Portugal.Fil: Alonso, Rodrigo. Center for Advanced Metabolic Medicine and Nutrition, Santiago; Chile.Fil: Diaz-Diaz, José Luís. Hospital Universitario A Coruña. Department of Internal Medicine; España.Fil: Medeiros, Ana Margarida. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisboa; Portugal.Fil: Jannes, Cinthia E. University of São Paulo. Medical School. Hospital São Paulo. Heart Institute (InCor); Brasil.Fil: Merchan, Alonso. Fundación Clinica SHAIO, Cardiología, Bogotá; Colombia.Fil: Vasques-Cardenas, Norma A. Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara. Facultad de Medicina Zapopan; México.Fil: Cuevas, Ada. Center for Advanced Metabolic Medicine and Nutrition, Santiago; Chile.Fil: Chacra, Ana Paula. University of São Paulo. Medical School. Hospital São Paulo. Heart Institute (InCor); Brasil.Fil: Krieger, Jose E. University of São Paulo. Medical School. Hospital São Paulo. Heart Institute (InCor); Brasil.Fil: Arroyo, Raquel. Fundación Hipercolesterolemia Familiar, Madrid; España.Fil: Arrieta, Francisco. Hospital Ramón y Cajal. Departamento de Endocrinología, Madrid; España.Fil: Schreier, Laura. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Farmacia y Bioquímica. Departamento de Bioquímica Clínica, Laboratorio de Lípidos y Aterosclerosis; Argentina.Fil: Corral, Pablo. Universidad FASTA. Facultad de Medicina. Cátedra Farmacología e Investigación, Mar del Plata; Argentina.Fil: Bañares, Virginia. ANLIS Dr.C.G.Malbrán. Centro Nacional de Genética Médica. Departamento de Genética Experimental; Argentina.Fil: Araujo, Maria B. Hospital Garrahan. Servicio de Nutrición; Argentina.Fil: Bustos, Paula. Universidad de Concepción. Facultad de Farmacia; Chile.Fil: Asenjo, Sylvia. Universidad de Concepción. Facultad de Medicina; Chile.Fil: Stoll, Mario. Programa GENYCO, Laboratorio de Genética Molecular. Comisión Honoraria de Salud Cardiovascular, Montevideo; Uruguay.Fil: Dell'Oca, Nicolás. Programa GENYCO, Laboratorio de Genética Molecular. Comisión Honoraria de Salud Cardiovascular, Montevideo; Uruguay.Fil: Reyes, Maria. Fundación Cardiovascular de Colombia. Cardiología; Bogotá.Fil: Ressia, Andrés. Fundación Cardiovascular de Colombia. Cardiología; Bogotá.Fil: Campo, Rafael. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Centro de Investigación Biomédica del Occidente, Guadalajara; México.Fil: Magaña-Torres, Maria T. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición. Unidad de Investigación de Enfermedades Metabólicas; México.Fil: Metha, Roopa. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición. Unidad de Investigación de Enfermedades Metabólicas; México.Fil: Aguilar-Salinas, Carlos A. Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán. Departamento de Endocrinología y Metabolismo. Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional. Unidad de Especialidades Médicas. Servicio de Endocrinología; México.Fil: Ceballos-Macias, José J. Pontificia Universidad Javerina. Facultad de Medicina. Departamento de Medicina Interna, Bogotá; Colombia.Fil: Ruiz Morales, Álvaro J. Pontificia Universidad Javerina. Facultad de Medicina. Departamento de Medicina Interna, Bogotá; Colombia.Fil: Mata, Pedro. Fundación Hipercolesterolemia Familiar, Madrid; España.Fil: Bourbon, Mafalda. Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Lisboa; Portugal.Fil: Santos, Raul D. University of São Paulo. Medical School. Hospital São Paulo. Heart Institute (InCor); Brasil.OBJECTIVE: Characterize homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) individuals from Iberoamerica. APPROACH AND RESULTS: In a cross-sectional retrospective evaluation 134 individuals with a HoFH phenotype, 71 adults (age 39.3±15.8 years, 38.0% males), and 63 children (age 8.8±4.0 years, 50.8% males) were studied. Genetic characterization was available in 129 (96%). The majority (91%) were true homozygotes (true HoFH, n=79, 43.0% children, 46.8% males) or compound heterozygotes (compound heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, n=39, 51.3% children, 46.2% males) with putative pathogenic variants in the LDLR. True HoFH due to LDLR variants had higher total (P=0.015) and LDL (low-density lipoprotein)-cholesterol (P=0.008) compared with compound heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Children with true HoFH (n=34) tended to be diagnosed earlier (P=0.051) and had a greater frequency of xanthomas (P=0.016) than those with compound heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (n=20). Previous major cardiovascular events were present in 25 (48%) of 52 children (missing information in 2 cases), and in 43 (67%) of 64 adults with LDLR variants. Children who are true HoFH had higher frequency of major cardiovascular events (P=0.02), coronary heart (P=0.013), and aortic/supra-aortic valve diseases (P=0.022) than compound heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. In adults, no differences were observed in major cardiovascular events according to type of LDLR variant. From 118 subjects with LDLR variants, 76 (64%) had 2 likely pathogenic or pathogenic variants. In 89 subjects with 2 LDLR variants, those with at least one null allele were younger (P=0.003) and had a greater frequency of major cardiovascular events (P=0.038) occurring at an earlier age (P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There was a high frequency of cardiovascular disease even in children. Phenotype and cardiovascular complications were heterogeneous and associated with the type of molecular defect

Impact of COVID-19 on cardiovascular testing in the United States versus the rest of the world

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-US institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection

Treatment of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children

BACKGROUND: Evidence is urgently needed to support treatment decisions for children with multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C) associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.METHODS: We performed an international observational cohort study of clinical and outcome data regarding suspected MIS-C that had been uploaded by physicians onto a Web-based database. We used inverse-probability weighting and generalized linear models to evaluate intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) as a reference, as compared with IVIG plus glucocorticoids and glucocorticoids alone. There were two primary outcomes: the first was a composite of inotropic support or mechanical ventilation by day 2 or later or death; the second was a reduction in disease severity on an ordinal scale by day 2. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation and the time until a reduction in organ failure and inflammation.RESULTS: Data were available regarding the course of treatment for 614 children from 32 countries from June 2020 through February 2021; 490 met the World Health Organization criteria for MIS-C. Of the 614 children with suspected MIS-C, 246 received primary treatment with IVIG alone, 208 with IVIG plus glucocorticoids, and 99 with glucocorticoids alone; 22 children received other treatment combinations, including biologic agents, and 39 received no immunomodulatory therapy. Receipt of inotropic or ventilatory support or death occurred in 56 patients who received IVIG plus glucocorticoids (adjusted odds ratio for the comparison with IVIG alone, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 1.82) and in 17 patients who received glucocorticoids alone (adjusted odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.22 to 1.33). The adjusted odds ratios for a reduction in disease severity were similar in the two groups, as compared with IVIG alone (0.90 for IVIG plus glucocorticoids and 0.93 for glucocorticoids alone). The time until a reduction in disease severity was similar in the three groups.CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that recovery from MIS-C differed after primary treatment with IVIG alone, IVIG plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, although significant differences may emerge as more data accrue. (Funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 Program and others; BATS ISRCTN number, ISRCTN69546370.).</p

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Cardiovascular Testing in Asia The IAEA INCAPS-COVID Study

BackgroundThe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic significantly affected management of cardiovascular disease around the world. The effect of the pandemic on volume of cardiovascular diagnostic procedures is not known.ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the effects of the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular diagnostic procedures and safety practices in Asia.MethodsThe International Atomic Energy Agency conducted a worldwide survey to assess changes in cardiovascular procedure volume and safety practices caused by COVID-19. Testing volumes were reported for March 2020 and April 2020 and were compared to those from March 2019. Data from 180 centers across 33 Asian countries were grouped into 4 subregions for comparison.ResultsProcedure volumes decreased by 47% from March 2019 to March 2020, showing recovery from March 2020 to April 2020 in Eastern Asia, particularly in China. The majority of centers cancelled outpatient activities and increased time per study. Practice changes included implementing physical distancing and restricting visitors. Although COVID testing was not commonly performed, it was conducted in one-third of facilities in Eastern Asia. The most severe reductions in procedure volumes were observed in lower-income countries, where volumes decreased 81% from March 2019 to April&nbsp;2020.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic in Asia caused significant reductions in cardiovascular diagnostic procedures, particularly in low-income countries. Further studies on effects of COVID-19 on cardiovascular outcomes and changes in care delivery are warranted

Immunoglobulin, glucocorticoid, or combination therapy for multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: a propensity-weighted cohort study

BackgroundMultisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C), a hyperinflammatory condition associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection, has emerged as a serious illness in children worldwide. Immunoglobulin or glucocorticoids, or both, are currently recommended treatments.MethodsThe Best Available Treatment Study evaluated immunomodulatory treatments for MIS-C in an international observational cohort. Analysis of the first 614 patients was previously reported. In this propensity-weighted cohort study, clinical and outcome data from children with suspected or proven MIS-C were collected onto a web-based Research Electronic Data Capture database. After excluding neonates and incomplete or duplicate records, inverse probability weighting was used to compare primary treatments with intravenous immunoglobulin, intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, or glucocorticoids alone, using intravenous immunoglobulin as the reference treatment. Primary outcomes were a composite of inotropic or ventilator support from the second day after treatment initiation, or death, and time to improvement on an ordinal clinical severity scale. Secondary outcomes included treatment escalation, clinical deterioration, fever, and coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN69546370.FindingsWe enrolled 2101 children (aged 0 months to 19 years) with clinically diagnosed MIS-C from 39 countries between June 14, 2020, and April 25, 2022, and, following exclusions, 2009 patients were included for analysis (median age 8·0 years [IQR 4·2-11·4], 1191 [59·3%] male and 818 [40·7%] female, and 825 [41·1%] White). 680 (33·8%) patients received primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin, 698 (34·7%) with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, 487 (24·2%) with glucocorticoids alone; 59 (2·9%) patients received other combinations, including biologicals, and 85 (4·2%) patients received no immunomodulators. There were no significant differences between treatments for primary outcomes for the 1586 patients with complete baseline and outcome data that were considered for primary analysis. Adjusted odds ratios for ventilation, inotropic support, or death were 1·09 (95% CI 0·75-1·58; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids and 0·93 (0·58-1·47; corrected p value=1·00) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Adjusted average hazard ratios for time to improvement were 1·04 (95% CI 0·91-1·20; corrected p value=1·00) for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids, and 0·84 (0·70-1·00; corrected p value=0·22) for glucocorticoids alone, versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Treatment escalation was less frequent for intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids (OR 0·15 [95% CI 0·11-0·20]; p&lt;0·0001) and glucocorticoids alone (0·68 [0·50-0·93]; p=0·014) versus intravenous immunoglobulin alone. Persistent fever (from day 2 onward) was less common with intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids compared with either intravenous immunoglobulin alone (OR 0·50 [95% CI 0·38-0·67]; p&lt;0·0001) or glucocorticoids alone (0·63 [0·45-0·88]; p=0·0058). Coronary artery aneurysm occurrence and resolution did not differ significantly between treatment groups.InterpretationRecovery rates, including occurrence and resolution of coronary artery aneurysms, were similar for primary treatment with intravenous immunoglobulin when compared to glucocorticoids or intravenous immunoglobulin plus glucocorticoids. Initial treatment with glucocorticoids appears to be a safe alternative to immunoglobulin or combined therapy, and might be advantageous in view of the cost and limited availability of intravenous immunoglobulin in many countries.FundingImperial College London, the European Union's Horizon 2020, Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Foundation, UK National Institute for Health and Care Research, and National Institutes of Health

Effect of general anaesthesia on functional outcome in patients with anterior circulation ischaemic stroke having endovascular thrombectomy versus standard care: a meta-analysis of individual patient data

Background: General anaesthesia (GA) during endovascular thrombectomy has been associated with worse patient outcomes in observational studies compared with patients treated without GA. We assessed functional outcome in ischaemic stroke patients with large vessel anterior circulation occlusion undergoing endovascular thrombectomy under GA, versus thrombectomy not under GA (with or without sedation) versus standard care (ie, no thrombectomy), stratified by the use of GA versus standard care. Methods: For this meta-analysis, patient-level data were pooled from all patients included in randomised trials in PuMed published between Jan 1, 2010, and May 31, 2017, that compared endovascular thrombectomy predominantly done with stent retrievers with standard care in anterior circulation ischaemic stroke patients (HERMES Collaboration). The primary outcome was functional outcome assessed by ordinal analysis of the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 90 days in the GA and non-GA subgroups of patients treated with endovascular therapy versus those patients treated with standard care, adjusted for baseline prognostic variables. To account for between-trial variance we used mixed-effects modelling with a random effect for trials incorporated in all models. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane method. The meta-analysis was prospectively designed, but not registered. Findings: Seven trials were identified by our search; of 1764 patients included in these trials, 871 were allocated to endovascular thrombectomy and 893 were assigned standard care. After exclusion of 74 patients (72 did not undergo the procedure and two had missing data on anaesthetic strategy), 236 (30%) of 797 patients who had endovascular procedures were treated under GA. At baseline, patients receiving GA were younger and had a shorter delay between stroke onset and randomisation but they had similar pre-treatment clinical severity compared with patients who did not have GA. Endovascular thrombectomy improved functional outcome at 3 months both in patients who had GA (adjusted common odds ratio (cOR) 1·52, 95% CI 1·09–2·11, p=0·014) and in those who did not have GA (adjusted cOR 2·33, 95% CI 1·75–3·10, p&lt;0·0001) versus standard care. However, outcomes were significantly better for patients who did not receive GA versus those who received GA (covariate-adjusted cOR 1·53, 95% CI 1·14–2·04, p=0·0044). The risk of bias and variability between studies was assessed to be low. Interpretation: Worse outcomes after endovascular thrombectomy were associated with GA, after adjustment for baseline prognostic variables. These data support avoidance of GA whenever possible. The procedure did, however, remain effective versus standard care in patients treated under GA, indicating that treatment should not be withheld in those who require anaesthesia for medical reasons

Impact of COVID-19 on the imaging diagnosis of cardiac disease in Europe

Objectives We aimed to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiac diagnostic testing and practice and to assess its impact in different regions in Europe. Methods The online survey organised by the International Atomic Energy Agency Division of Human Health collected information on changes in cardiac imaging procedural volumes between March 2019 and March/April 2020. Data were collected from 909 centres in 108 countries. Results Centres in Northern and Southern Europe were more likely to cancel all outpatient activities compared with Western and Eastern Europe. There was a greater reduction in total procedure volumes in Europe compared with the rest of the world in March 2020 (45% vs 41%, p=0.003), with a more marked reduction in Southern Europe (58%), but by April 2020 this was similar in Europe and the rest of the world (69% vs 63%, p=0.261). Regional variations were apparent between imaging modalities, but the largest reductions were in Southern Europe for nearly all modalities. In March 2020, location in Southern Europe was the only independent predictor of the reduction in procedure volume. However, in April 2020, lower gross domestic product and higher COVID-19 deaths were the only independent predictors. Conclusion The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on care of patients with cardiac disease, with substantial regional variations in Europe. This has potential long-term implications for patients and plans are required to enable the diagnosis of non-COVID- 19 conditions during the ongoing pandemic.</p

Impact of COVID-19 on Cardiovascular Testing in the United States Versus the Rest of the World

Objectives: This study sought to quantify and compare the decline in volumes of cardiovascular procedures between the United States and non-U.S. institutions during the early phase of the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the care of many non-COVID-19 illnesses. Reductions in diagnostic cardiovascular testing around the world have led to concerns over the implications of reduced testing for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality. Methods: Data were submitted to the INCAPS-COVID (International Atomic Energy Agency Non-Invasive Cardiology Protocols Study of COVID-19), a multinational registry comprising 909 institutions in 108 countries (including 155 facilities in 40 U.S. states), assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on volumes of diagnostic cardiovascular procedures. Data were obtained for April 2020 and compared with volumes of baseline procedures from March 2019. We compared laboratory characteristics, practices, and procedure volumes between U.S. and non-U.S. facilities and between U.S. geographic regions and identified factors associated with volume reduction in the United States. Results: Reductions in the volumes of procedures in the United States were similar to those in non-U.S. facilities (68% vs. 63%, respectively; p = 0.237), although U.S. facilities reported greater reductions in invasive coronary angiography (69% vs. 53%, respectively; p < 0.001). Significantly more U.S. facilities reported increased use of telehealth and patient screening measures than non-U.S. facilities, such as temperature checks, symptom screenings, and COVID-19 testing. Reductions in volumes of procedures differed between U.S. regions, with larger declines observed in the Northeast (76%) and Midwest (74%) than in the South (62%) and West (44%). Prevalence of COVID-19, staff redeployments, outpatient centers, and urban centers were associated with greater reductions in volume in U.S. facilities in a multivariable analysis. Conclusions: We observed marked reductions in U.S. cardiovascular testing in the early phase of the pandemic and significant variability between U.S. regions. The association between reductions of volumes and COVID-19 prevalence in the United States highlighted the need for proactive efforts to maintain access to cardiovascular testing in areas most affected by outbreaks of COVID-19 infection.</p