RESUMEN
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Influenza infection is a significant, well-established cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CV mortality. Influenza vaccination has been shown to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and CV mortality. Therefore, major society guidelines have given a strong recommendation for its use in patients with established CVD or high risk for CVD. Nevertheless, influenza vaccination remains underutilized. Historically, influenza vaccination is administered to stable outpatients. Until recently, the safety and efficacy of influenza vaccination among patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) had not been established. RECENT FINDINGS: The recently published Influenza Vaccination after Myocardial Infarction (IAMI) trial showed that influenza vaccination within 72 h of hospitalization for MI led to a significant 28% reduction in MACE and a 41% reduction in CV mortality, without any excess in serious adverse events. Additionally, we newly performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) including IAMI and the recent Influenza Vaccine to Prevent Adverse Vascular Events (IVVE) trial. In pooled analysis of 8 RCTs with a total of 14,420 patients, influenza vaccine, as compared with control/placebo, was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE at follow-up [RR 0.75 (95%CI 0.57-0.97), I2 56%]. The recent IAMI trial showed that influenza vaccination in patients with recent MI is safe and efficacious at reducing CV morbidity and mortality. Our updated meta-analysis confirms a 25% reduction in MACE. The influenza vaccine should be strongly encouraged in all patients with CVD and incorporated as an essential facet of post-MI care and secondary CVD prevention.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Vacunas contra la Influenza , Gripe Humana , Infarto del Miocardio , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Humanos , Vacunas contra la Influenza/uso terapéutico , Gripe Humana/complicaciones , Gripe Humana/prevención & control , Infarto del Miocardio/complicaciones , Prevención Secundaria , VacunaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The nucleotide analogue prodrug remdesivir was among the first antiviral therapies to be tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for COVID-19. We performed a meta-analysis to understand efficacy and safety. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases (from January 1, 2020 to November 5, 2020). We included RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of remdesivir to control/placebo in COVID-19. Two independent investigators abstracted data, assessed the quality of evidence, and rated the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: A total of 4 RCTs with 7334 patients with COVID-19 were included. At a follow-up of 28-29 days from randomization, very low certainty evidence showed that use of remdesivir compared with control group (placebo and/or standard of care) was not associated with a significant decrease in time to clinical improvement (standardized mean difference -0.80 day; [CI, -2.12, 0.53]). However, moderate certainty of evidence showed that remdesivir was associated with higher rates of recovered patients (risk difference [RD] 0.07 [0.05, 0.08]) and discharged patients (RD 0.07 [0.03, 0.11]) and lower rates of developing serious adverse events (RD -0.05 [-0.10, -0.01]) compared with control. Moderate and very low certainty of evidence showed there was no significant difference in deaths at 28-29 days follow-up (RD -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01]) and developing any adverse events (RD 0.01 [-0.17, 0.19]) between both groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Patients given remdesivir are more likely to demonstrate recovery and were associated with higher rates of hospital discharge, but not with significant reduction in mean time to clinical improvement or mortality.