The study was supported by Novartis.

ImportanceMost epidemiological studies of heart failure (HF) have been conducted in high-income countries with limited comparable data from middle- or low-income countries.ObjectiveTo examine differences in HF etiology, treatment, and outcomes between groups of countries at different levels of economic development.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMultinational HF registry of 23 341 participants in 40 high-income, upper–middle-income, lower–middle-income, and low-income countries, followed up for a median period of 2.0 years.Main Outcomes and MeasuresHF cause, HF medication use, hospitalization, and death.ResultsMean (SD) age of participants was 63.1 (14.9) years, and 9119 (39.1%) were female. The most common cause of HF was ischemic heart disease (38.1%) followed by hypertension (20.2%). The proportion of participants with HF with reduced ejection fraction taking the combination of a β-blocker, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist was highest in upper–middle-income (61.9%) and high-income countries (51.1%), and it was lowest in low-income (45.7%) and lower–middle-income countries (39.5%) (P < .001). The age- and sex- standardized mortality rate per 100 person-years was lowest in high-income countries (7.8 [95% CI, 7.5-8.2]), 9.3 (95% CI, 8.8-9.9) in upper–middle-income countries, 15.7 (95% CI, 15.0-16.4) in lower–middle-income countries, and it was highest in low-income countries (19.1 [95% CI, 17.6-20.7]). Hospitalization rates were more frequent than death rates in high-income countries (ratio = 3.8) and in upper–middle-income countries (ratio = 2.4), similar in lower–middle-income countries (ratio = 1.1), and less frequent in low-income countries (ratio = 0.6). The 30-day case-fatality rate after first hospital admission was lowest in high-income countries (6.7%), followed by upper–middle-income countries (9.7%), then lower–middle-income countries (21.1%), and highest in low-income countries (31.6%). The proportional risk of death within 30 days of a first hospital admission was 3- to 5-fold higher in lower–middle-income countries and low-income countries compared with high-income countries after adjusting for patient characteristics and use of long-term HF therapies.Conclusions and RelevanceThis study of HF patients from 40 different countries and derived from 4 different economic levels demonstrated differences in HF etiologies, management, and outcomes. These data may be useful in planning approaches to improve HF prevention and treatment globally.

Background and Aims There is little information on the incremental prognostic importance of frailty beyond conventional prognostic variables in heart failure (HF) populations from different country income levels. Methods A total of 3429 adults with HF (age 61 ± 14 years, 33% women) from 27 high-, middle- and low-income countries were prospectively studied. Baseline frailty was evaluated by the Fried index, incorporating handgrip strength, gait speed, physical activity, unintended weight loss, and self-reported exhaustion. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 39 ± 14% and 26% had New York Heart Association Class III/IV symptoms. Participants were followed for a median (25th to 75th percentile) of 3.1 (2.0–4.3) years. Cox proportional hazard models for death and HF hospitalization adjusted for country income level; age; sex; education; HF aetiology; left ventricular ejection fraction; diabetes; tobacco and alcohol use; New York Heart Association functional class; HF medication use; blood pressure; and haemoglobin, sodium, and creatinine concentrations were performed. The incremental discriminatory value of frailty over and above the MAGGIC risk score was evaluated by the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve. Results At baseline, 18% of participants were robust, 61% pre-frail, and 21% frail. During follow-up, 565 (16%) participants died and 471 (14%) were hospitalized for HF. Respective adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for death among the pre-frail and frail were 1.59 (1.12–2.26) and 2.92 (1.99–4.27). Respective adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence interval) for HF hospitalization were 1.32 (0.93–1.87) and 1.97 (1.33–2.91). Findings were consistent among different country income levels and by most subgroups. Adding frailty to the MAGGIC risk score improved the discrimination of future death and HF hospitalization. Conclusions Frailty confers substantial incremental prognostic information to prognostic variables for predicting death and HF hospitalization. The relationship between frailty and these outcomes is consistent across countries at all income levels.

Background: The first months of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Spain resulted in high incidence and mortality. A national sero-epidemiological survey suggests higher cumulative incidence of infection in older individuals than in younger individuals. However, little is known about the epidemic dynamics in different age groups, including the relative effect of the lockdown measures introduced on March 15, and strengthened on March 30 to April 14, 2020 when only essential workers continued to work. Methods: We used data from the National Epidemiological Surveillance Network (RENAVE in Spanish) on the daily number of reported COVID-19 cases (by date of symptom onset) in eleven 5-year age groups: 15-19y through 65-69y. For each age group g, we computed the proportion E(g) of individuals in age group g among all reported cases aged 15-69y during the pre-lockdown period (March 1-10, 2020) and the corresponding proportion L(g) during two lockdown periods (March 25-April 3 and April 8-17, 2020). For each lockdown period, we computed the proportion ratios PR(g)= L(g)/E(g). For each pair of age groups g1,g2, PR(g1)>PR(g2) implies a relative increase in the incidence of detected SARS-CoV-2 infection in the age group g1 compared with g2 for the later vs. early period. Results: For the first lockdown period, the highest PR values were in age groups 50-54y (PR=1.21; 95% CI: 1.12,1.30) and 55-59y (PR=1.19; 1.11,1.27). For the second lockdown period, the highest PR values were in age groups 15-19y (PR=1.26; 0.95,1.68) and 50-54y (PR=1.20; 1.09,1.31). Conclusions: Our results suggest that different outbreak control measures led to different changes in the relative incidence by age group. During the first lockdown period, when non-essential work was allowed, individuals aged 40-64y, particularly those aged 50-59y presented with higher COVID-19 relative incidence compared to pre-lockdown period, while younger adults/older adolescents (together with persons aged 50-59y) had increased relative incidence during the later, strengthened lockdown. The role of different age groups during the epidemic should be considered when implementing future mitigation efforts.

No abstract