COVID-19, ACE -inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: The need to differentiate between early infection and acute lung injury / COVID-19, y IECA -inhibidores y bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina: la necesidad de diferenciar entre una infección temprana y una lesión pulmonar aguda

SARS-CoV-2, along with SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, forms part of the three highly pathogenic coronaviruses identified since the start of the millennium.1,2 While SARS-CoV was identified on 2003 and MERS-CoV on 2012, the initial reports of SARS-CoV-2 (the etiological agent of COVID-19) were first released at the end of December 2019.3,4 Now, after less than four months, the virus has distributed globally and has become the focus of extensive medical research, as the number of cases keeps rising.A significant part of the investigative effort has been directed to the search for an effective therapy or intervention that could stop the spread of the disease or be used to effectively treat infected patients. Likewise, potential predisposing factors to develop a more severe clinical presentation are progressively being identified. Some of the more relevant are older age and the presence of certain comorbidities, such as cerebrovascular and coronary heart disease, hypertension and diabetes.5­8 It is important to highlight that the last two are chronic conditions commonly treated with ACE-inhibitors and angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers.9­11 However, the evidence suggests that these medications can upregulate the expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), the cellular receptor for both SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2.11­16 Thus, a group of researchers hypothesized that ACE2-increasing drugs could raise the risk of infection and prompt a more severe clinical course or a fatal outcome in diabetic and hypertensive patients.

Impacto de un programa de atención domiciliaria al enfermo crónico en ancianos: calidad de vida y reingresos hospitalarios / Impact of the program home care for the chronically ill for elderly: quality of life and hospital readmissions

OBJETIVO: Evaluar el impacto del programa Atención Domiciliaria al Enfermo Crónico (ADEC) comparado con la atención habitual (AH) a ancianos con dependencia funcional, derechohabientes del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS). MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: Cohorte prospectiva a tres meses a partir del egreso hospitalario en dos hospitales de la Ciudad de México. Se ingresaron 130 ancianos con dependencia funcional, 70 insertados al programa ADEC y 60 con atención habitual. Se midió impacto en reingresos hospitalarios y calidad de vida a partir de la escala Perfil de Impacto de la Enfermedad (SIP, por sus siglas en inglés). RESULTADOS: La edad promedio de los ancianos fue de 74 años (61/103) y 60 por ciento fueron mujeres. El principal diagnóstico fue enfermedad vascular cerebral (EVC) (30.77 por ciento). El grupo de ADEC mejoró la calidad de vida en la dimensión psicosocial [46.26 (±13.85) comparado con 29.45 (±16.48) vs. 47.03 (±16.47) a 42.36 (±16.35) p<0.05 en grupo habitual]. No se presentaron diferencias en los reingresos (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONES: El programa mejoró la dimensión psicosocial de calidad de vida.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the ADEC program (acronym in Spanish) as compared with the typical care provided to disabled elderly affiliated with the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective cohort at three months after discharge from two general hospitals in Mexico City. A total of 130 patients with functional dependency were studied, 70 in the ADEC program and 60 with typical care. Impact was measured using hospital readmissions and quality of life based on the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). RESULTS: Average age was 74 (61/103) years and 60 percent were women. The main diagnosis was cerebrovascular disease (30.77 percent). The quality of life in the psychosocial dimension improved for the ADEC group (from 46.26 (±13.85) to 29.45(±16.48) as compared with 47.03 (±16.47) to 42.36 (±16.35) for those receiving typical care (p<0.05). No differences were found regarding hospital readmissions. (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: HC program improved the psychosocial dimension of quality of life.

Usefulness of two instruments in assessing depression among elderly Mexicans in population studies and for primary care / Utilidad de dos instrumentos para valorar depresión entre adultos mayores de México en estudios poblacionales y para la atención en el primer nivel de salud

OBJECTIVE: To determine the psychometric qualities of the CES-DR and GDS scales in the elderly and compare them to clinical psychiatric diagnoses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The first phase consisted of home interviews for determining the psychometric qualities of the GDS and CES-DR scales. In the second phase, psychiatrists conducted diagnostic interviews. The sample consisted of 534 participants older than 60 years of age insured by the Mexican Institute of Social Security. RESULTS: First phase: Cronbach's alpha for the GDS was 0.87 and 0.86 for CES-DR. The GDS factorial analysis found eight factors that could explain 53.5 percent of the total variance and nine factors that explained 57.9 percent in the CES-DR. Second phase: Compared to the psychiatric diagnoses, CES-DR reported a sensitivity of 82 percent and a specificity of 49.2 percent; GDS reported 53.8 percent sensitivity and 78.9 percent specificity. CONCLUSIONS: CES-DR and GDS scales have high reliability and adequate validity but the CES-DR reports higher sensitivity.

RESUMEN OBJETIVO: Determinar las propiedades psicométricas de las escalas CES-DR y GDS para depresión en población anciana y compararlas con el diagnóstico clínico psiquiátrico. MATERIAL Y MÉTODOS: La primera fase consistió en entrevistas en casa para determinar las propiedades psicométricas. En la segunda fase, los psiquiatras condujeron entrevistas diagnósticas. La muestra consistió en 534 participantes de 60 años y más asegurados por el Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. RESULTADOS: Primera fase: Alfa de Cronbach para el GDS y CES-DR fue de 0.87 y 0.86, respectivamente. El análisis factorial del GDS reportó ocho factores que explicaron 53.5 por ciento de la varianza, comparado con nueve del CESDR que explicaron 57.9 por ciento. Segunda fase: Comparado con el diagnóstico psiquiátrico, el CES-DR reportó una sensibilidad de 82 por ciento y una especificidad de 49.2 por ciento comparado con 53.8 por ciento y 78.9 por ciento, respectivamente del GDS. CONCLUSIONES: Las escalas CES-DR y GDS tienen consistencia y adecuada validez pero el CES-DR reporta más alta sensibilidad.