Did COVID-19 policies have the same effect on covid-19 incidence among women and men? Evidence from Spain and Switzerland

Objective: This study aimed to investigate how COVID-19 prevention policies influenced the COVID-19 incidence in men and women. Methods: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal study using the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health and the Spanish Ministry of Health surveillance data for February 2020-June 2021 to explore sex and age differences in COVID-19 cases and testing. The female-male incidence rate ratios (IRR) were estimated for each week of the pandemic. We complemented our analysis with qualitative information on relevant containment measures in each country. Results: In Switzerland and in Spain, there was an excess of cases in women of 20-59 years old and 80+. This excess of cases was significant during the waves of the pandemic in both countries. In Switzerland, the biggest difference was observed for the age group 20-29, reaching an excess of 94% of cases compared to men during the first wave of COVID-19 (March-May 2020). The excess of cases in women was greater in Spain than in Switzerland, where it reached 159% for women aged 20-29 during the first wave (March-June 2020). In both countries, the age groups 60-79 had a significant excess of cases in men during the pandemic. Conclusion: COVID-19 public health policies affect men and women in different ways. Our findings highlight the importance of gender-sensitive responses to address a public health crisis

Contemporary use of cefazolin for MSSA infective endocarditis: analysis of a national prospective cohort

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the real use of cefazolin for methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) infective endocarditis (IE) in the Spanish National Endocarditis Database (GAMES) and to compare it with antistaphylococcal penicillin (ASP). Methods: Prospective cohort study with retrospective analysis of a cohort of MSSA IE treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Outcomes assessed were relapse; intra-hospital, overall, and endocarditis-related mortality; and adverse events. Risk of renal toxicity with each treatment was evaluated separately. Results: We included 631 IE episodes caused by MSSA treated with cloxacillin and/or cefazolin. Antibiotic treatment was cloxacillin, cefazolin, or both in 537 (85%), 57 (9%), and 37 (6%) episodes, respectively. Patients treated with cefazolin had significantly higher rates of comorbidities (median Charlson Index 7, P <0.01) and previous renal failure (57.9%, P <0.01). Patients treated with cloxacillin presented higher rates of septic shock (25%, P = 0.033) and new-onset or worsening renal failure (47.3%, P = 0.024) with significantly higher rates of in-hospital mortality (38.5%, P = 0.017). One-year IE-related mortality and rate of relapses were similar between treatment groups. None of the treatments were identified as risk or protective factors. Conclusion: Our results suggest that cefazolin is a valuable option for the treatment of MSSA IE, without differences in 1-year mortality or relapses compared with cloxacillin, and might be considered equally effective