First wave of COVID-19 in Venezuela:Epidemiological, clinical, and paraclinical characteristics of first cases

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has particularly affected countries with weakened health services in Latin America, where proper patient management could be a critical step to address the epidemic. In this study, we aimed to characterize and identify which epidemiological, clinical, and paraclinical risk factors defined COVID-19 infection from the first confirmed cases through the first epidemic wave in Venezuela. A retrospective analysis of consecutive suspected cases of COVID-19 admitted to a sentinel hospital was carried out, including 576 patient cases subsequently confirmed for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. Of these, 162 (28.1%) patients met the definition criteria for severe/critical disease, and 414 (71.2%) were classified as mild/moderate disease. The mean age was 47 (SD 16) years, the majority of which were men (59.5%), and the most frequent comorbidity was arterial hypertension (23.3%). The most common symptoms included fever (88.7%), headache (65.6%), and dry cough (63.9%). Severe/critical disease affected mostly older males with low schooling (p < 0.001). Similarly, higher levels of glycemia, urea, aminotransferases, total bilirubin, lactate dehydrogenase, and erythrocyte sedimentation rate were observed in severe/critical disease patients compared to those with mild/moderate disease. Overall mortality was 7.6% (44/576), with 41.7% (28/68) dying in hospital. We identified risk factors related to COVID-19 infection, which could help healthcare providers take appropriate measures and prevent severe clinical outcomes. Our results suggest that the mortality registered by this disease in Venezuela during the first epidemic wave was underestimated. An increase in fatalities is expected to occur in the coming months unless measures that are more effective are implemented to mitigate the epidemic while the vaccination process is ongoing

International eDelphi Study to Reach Consensus on the Methotrexate Dosing Regimen in Patients with Psoriasis

Importance: A clear dosing regimen for methotrexate in psoriasis is lacking, and this might lead to a suboptimal treatment. Because methotrexate is affordable and globally available, a uniform dosing regimen could potentially optimize the treatment of patients with psoriasis worldwide. Objective: To reach international consensus among psoriasis experts on a uniform dosing regimen for treatment with methotrexate in adult and pediatric patients with psoriasis and identify potential future research topics. Design, Setting, and Participants: Between September 2020 and March 2021, a survey study with a modified eDelphi procedure that was developed and distributed by the Amsterdam University Medical Center and completed by 180 participants worldwide (55 [30.6%] resided in non-Western countries) was conducted in 3 rounds. The proposals on which no consensus was reached were discussed in a conference meeting (June 2021). Participants voted on 21 proposals with a 9-point scale (1-3 disagree, 4-6 neither agree nor disagree, 7-9 agree) and were recruited through the Skin Inflammation and Psoriasis International Network and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in June 2020. Apart from being a dermatologist/dermatology resident, there were no specific criteria for participation in the survey. The participants worked mainly at a university hospital (97 [53.9%]) and were experienced in treating patients with psoriasis with methotrexate (163 [91.6%] had more than 10 years of experience). Main Outcomes and Measures: In a survey with eDelphi procedure, we tried to reach consensus on 21 proposals. Consensus was defined as less than 15% voting disagree (1-3). For the consensus meeting, consensus was defined as less than 30% voting disagree. Results: Of 251 participants, 180 (71.7%) completed all 3 survey rounds, and 58 participants (23.1%) joined the conference meeting. Consensus was achieved on 11 proposals in round 1, 3 proposals in round 2, and 2 proposals in round 3. In the consensus meeting, consensus was achieved on 4 proposals. More research is needed, especially for the proposals on folic acid and the dosing of methotrexate for treating subpopulations such as children and vulnerable patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In this eDelphi consensus study, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 proposals involving methotrexate dosing in patients with psoriasis. This consensus may potentially be used to harmonize the treatment with methotrexate in patients with psoriasis.

International eDelphi Study to Reach Consensus on the Methotrexate Dosing Regimen in Patients With Psoriasis

Abstract Importance: A clear dosing regimen for methotrexate in psoriasis is lacking, and this might lead to a suboptimal treatment. Because methotrexate is affordable and globally available, a uniform dosing regimen could potentially optimize the treatment of patients with psoriasis worldwide. Objective: To reach international consensus among psoriasis experts on a uniform dosing regimen for treatment with methotrexate in adult and pediatric patients with psoriasis and identify potential future research topics. Design, setting, and participants: Between September 2020 and March 2021, a survey study with a modified eDelphi procedure that was developed and distributed by the Amsterdam University Medical Center and completed by 180 participants worldwide (55 [30.6%] resided in non-Western countries) was conducted in 3 rounds. The proposals on which no consensus was reached were discussed in a conference meeting (June 2021). Participants voted on 21 proposals with a 9-point scale (1-3 disagree, 4-6 neither agree nor disagree, 7-9 agree) and were recruited through the Skin Inflammation and Psoriasis International Network and European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology in June 2020. Apart from being a dermatologist/dermatology resident, there were no specific criteria for participation in the survey. The participants worked mainly at a university hospital (97 [53.9%]) and were experienced in treating patients with psoriasis with methotrexate (163 [91.6%] had more than 10 years of experience). Main outcomes and measures: In a survey with eDelphi procedure, we tried to reach consensus on 21 proposals. Consensus was defined as less than 15% voting disagree (1-3). For the consensus meeting, consensus was defined as less than 30% voting disagree. Results: Of 251 participants, 180 (71.7%) completed all 3 survey rounds, and 58 participants (23.1%) joined the conference meeting. Consensus was achieved on 11 proposals in round 1, 3 proposals in round 2, and 2 proposals in round 3. In the consensus meeting, consensus was achieved on 4 proposals. More research is needed, especially for the proposals on folic acid and the dosing of methotrexate for treating subpopulations such as children and vulnerable patients. Conclusions and relevance: In this eDelphi consensus study, consensus was reached on 20 of 21 proposals involving methotrexate dosing in patients with psoriasis. This consensus may potentially be used to harmonize the treatment with methotrexate in patients with psoriasis

American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force; European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines. ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death).

The purpose this document is to update and combine the previously published recommendations into one source approved by the major cardiology organizations in the United States and Europe. We have consciously attempted to create a streamlined document, not a textbook, that would be useful specifically to locate recommendations on the evaluation and treatment of patients who have or may be at risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, sections on epidemiology, mechanisms and substrates, and clinical presentations are brief, because there are no recommendations for those sections. For the other sections, the wording has been kept to a minimum, and clinical presentations have been confined to those aspects relevant to forming recommendations