Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
Drug Saf ; 2024 Jul 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39009928

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pregnant persons are susceptible to significant complications following COVID-19, even death. However, worldwide COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant persons and shared this evidence via an interactive online website. METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods to conduct this living systematic review. We included studies assessing the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. We conducted searches every other week for studies until October 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status, in ten databases, guidelines, preprint servers, and COVID-19 websites. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched to identify additional relevant studies. Pairs of review authors independently selected eligible studies using the web-based software COVIDENCE. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by pairs of authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative effects for relevant confounders of comparative studies and proportional meta-analyses to summarize frequencies from one-sample studies using R statistical software. We present the GRADE certainty of evidence from comparative studies. Findings are available on an interactive living systematic review webpage, including an updated evidence map and real-time meta-analyses customizable by subgroups and filters. RESULTS: We included 177 studies involving 638,791 participants from 41 countries. Among the 11 types of COVID-19 vaccines identified, the most frequently used platforms were mRNA (154 studies), viral vector (51), and inactivated virus vaccines (17). Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination may result in minimal to no important differences compared to no vaccination in all assessed maternal and infant safety outcomes from 26 fewer to 17 more events per 1000 pregnant persons, and 13 fewer to 9 more events per 1000 neonates, respectively. We found statistically significant reductions in emergency cesarean deliveries (9%) with mRNA vaccines, and in stillbirth (75-83%) with mRNA/viral vector vaccines. Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination during pregnancy with mRNA vaccines may reduce severe cases or hospitalizations in pregnant persons with COVID-19 (72%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42-86), symptomatic COVID-19 (78%; 95% CI 21-94), and virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (82%; 95% CI 39-95). Reductions were lower with other vaccine types and during Omicron variant dominance than Alpha and Delta dominance. Infants also presented with fewer severe cases or hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (64%; 95% CI 37-80 and 66%; 95% CI 37-81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We found a large body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. While the certainty of evidence is not high, it stands as the most reliable option available, given the current absence of pregnant individuals in clinical trials. Results are shared in near real time in an accessible and interactive format for scientists, decision makers, clinicians, and the general public. This living systematic review highlights the relevance of continuous vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring, particularly in at-risk populations for COVID-19 impact such as pregnant persons, during the introduction of new vaccines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021281290.

2.
Diabetes Care ; 44(1): 290-296, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33444163

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Long-term glycemic control reduces retinopathy risk, but transient worsening can occur with glucose control intensification. Glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) lower glucose, but the long-term impact on retinopathy is unknown. GLP-1RA cardiovascular outcome trials (CVOTs) provide long-term follow-up, allowing examination of retinopathy outcomes. PURPOSE: To examine the associations between retinopathy, HbA1c, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and weight in GLP-1RA CVOTs. DATA SOURCES: Systematic review identified six placebo-controlled GLP-1RA CVOTs reporting prespecified retinopathy outcomes. STUDY SELECTION: Published trial reports were used as the primary data sources. DATA EXTRACTION: HbA1c, SBP, and weight data throughout follow-up by treatment group were extracted. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects model meta-analysis showed no association between GLP-1RA treatment and retinopathy (odds ratio [OR] 1.10; 95% CI 0.93, 1.30), with high heterogeneity between studies (I 2 = 52.2%; Q statistic P = 0.063). Univariate meta-regression showed an association between retinopathy and average HbA1c reduction during the overall follow-up (slope = 0.77, P = 0.007), but no relationship for SBP or weight. Sensitivity analyses for HbA1c showed a relationship at 3 months (P = 0.006) and 1 year (P = 0.002). A 0.1% (1.09 mmol/mol) increase in HbA1c reduction was associated with 6%, 14%, or 8% increased Ln(OR) for retinopathy at the 3-month, 1-year, and overall follow-up, respectively. LIMITATIONS: CVOTs were not powered to assess retinopathy outcomes and differed in retinopathy-related criteria and methodology. The median follow-up of 3.4 years is short compared with the onset of retinopathy. CONCLUSIONS: HbA1c reduction was significantly associated with increased retinopathy risk in meta-regression for GLP-1RA CVOTs. The magnitude of HbA1c reduction was correlated with retinopathy risk in people with diabetes and additional cardiovascular risk factors, but the long-term impact of improved glycemic control on retinopathy was unmeasured in these studies. Retinopathy status should be assessed when intensifying glucose-lowering therapy.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Diabetic Retinopathy , Diabetic Retinopathy/drug therapy , Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor , Glycated Hemoglobin , Humans , Hypoglycemic Agents
3.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(12): e2141328, 2021 12 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34964849

ABSTRACT

Importance: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia have high rates of morbidity and mortality. Objective: To assess the efficacy of colchicine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Estudios Clínicos Latino América (ECLA) Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) COLCOVID trial was a multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial performed from April 17, 2020, to March 28, 2021, in adults with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection followed for up to 28 days. Participants received colchicine vs usual care if they were hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms and had severe acute respiratory syndrome or oxygen desaturation. The main exclusion criteria were clear indications or contraindications for colchicine, chronic kidney disease, and negative results on a reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction test for SARS-CoV-2 before randomization. Data were analyzed from June 20 to July 25, 2021. Interventions: Patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to usual care or usual care plus colchicine. Colchicine was administered orally in a loading dose of 1.5 mg immediately after randomization, followed by 0.5 mg orally within 2 hours of the initial dose and 0.5 mg orally twice a day for 14 days or discharge, whichever occurred first. Main Outcomes and Measures: The first coprimary outcome was the composite of a new requirement for mechanical ventilation or death evaluated at 28 days. The second coprimary outcome was death at 28 days. Results: A total of 1279 hospitalized patients (mean [SD] age, 61.8 [14.6] years; 449 [35.1%] women and 830 [64.9%] men) were randomized, including 639 patients in the usual care group and 640 patients in the colchicine group. Corticosteroids were used in 1171 patients (91.5%). The coprimary outcome of mechanical ventilation or 28-day death occurred in 160 patients (25.0%) in the colchicine group and 184 patients (28.8%) in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.67-1.02; P = .08). The second coprimary outcome, 28-day death, occurred in 131 patients (20.5%) in the colchicine group and 142 patients (22.2%) in the usual care group (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-1.12). Diarrhea was the most frequent adverse effect of colchicine, reported in 68 patients (11.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that compared with usual care, colchicine did not significantly reduce mechanical ventilation or 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04328480.


Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Colchicine/therapeutic use , Hospitalization , Intubation, Intratracheal , Respiration, Artificial , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , Anti-Inflammatory Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/pathology , Colchicine/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Inflammation/drug therapy , Inflammation/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , SARS-CoV-2 , Standard of Care
4.
J Hypertens ; 37(9): 1813-1821, 2019 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30964825

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The objective is to describe hypertension (HTN) prevalence, awareness, treatment and control in urban and rural communities in Latin America to inform public and policy-makers. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis from urban (n = 111) and rural (n = 93) communities including 33 276 participants from six Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay) were included. HTN was defined as self-reported HTN on blood pressure (BP) medication or average BP over 140/90 mmHg, awareness as self-reported HTN, and controlled as those with BP under 140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Mean age was 52 years, 60% were Female and 32% belonged to rural communities. HTN prevalence was 44.0%, with the lowest rates in Peru (17.7%) and the highest rates in Brazil (52.5%). 58.9% were aware of HTN diagnosis and 53.3% were receiving treatment. Prevalence of HTN were higher in urban (44.8%) than rural (42.1%) communities in all countries. Most participants who were aware of HTN were receiving medical treatment (90.5%), but only 37.6% of patients receiving medical treatment had their BP controlled (<140/<90 mmHg), with the rates being higher in urban (39.6%) than in rural (32.4%) communities. The rate of use of two or more drugs was low [36.4%, lowest in Argentina (29.6%) and highest in Brazil (44.6%)]. Statin use was low (12.3%), especially in rural areas (7.0%). Most modifiable risk factors were higher in people with HTN than people without HTN. CONCLUSION: HTN prevalence is high but BP control is low in Latin America, with marked differences between countries and between urban and rural settings. There is an urgent need for systematic approaches for better detection, treatment optimization and risk factor modification among those with HTN in Latin America.


Subject(s)
Antihypertensive Agents/therapeutic use , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice/ethnology , Hypertension/epidemiology , Rural Population/statistics & numerical data , Urban Population/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Blood Pressure , Brazil , Colombia , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Latin America/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Self Report , South America/epidemiology
5.
Int J Cardiol ; 182: 494-9, 2015 Mar 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25617608

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Myocardial viability tests have been proposed as a key factor in the decision-making process concerning coronary revascularization procedures in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and coronary artery disease (LVD-CAD). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared medical treatment with revascularization in patients with viable and non-viable myocardium and recorded mortality as outcome. RESULTS: Thirty-two non-randomized (4328 patients) and 4 randomized (1079 patients) studies were analyzed. In non-randomized studies, revascularization provided a significant mortality benefit compared with medical treatment (p<0.05). Since the heterogeneity was significant (p<0.05) a viability subgroup analysis was performed, showing that revascularization provided a significant mortality benefit compared with medical treatment in patients with viable myocardium (p<0.05) but not in patients without (p=0.34). There was a significant subgroup effect (p<0.05) related to the intensity of the effect, but not to the direction. In randomized studies, revascularization did not provide a significant mortality benefit compared with medical treatment in either patients with viable myocardium or those without (p=0.21). There was no significant subgroup effect (p=0.72). Neither non-randomized nor randomized studies demonstrated any significant difference in outcomes between patients with and without viable myocardium. CONCLUSIONS: The available data are inconclusive regarding the usefulness of myocardial viability tests for the decision-making process concerning revascularization in LVD-CAD patients. Patients with viable myocardium appear to benefit from revascularization, but similar benefits were observed in patients without viable myocardium. Moreover, a neutral or adverse effect of revascularization cannot be excluded in either group of patients.


Subject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronary Artery Disease/surgery , Decision Making , Myocardial Contraction/physiology , Myocardial Revascularization , Stroke Volume , Ventricular Dysfunction, Left/complications , Coronary Artery Disease/complications , Humans , Ventricular Dysfunction, Left/physiopathology
6.
Int J Epidemiol ; 41(5): 1356-66, 2012 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23045202

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Chagas disease affects mainly poor populations in Latin America. This review assesses the evidence on the independent risk of cardiovascular events associated with positive Chagas serology. METHODS: We searched for studies using the following outcomes: death, stroke, new onset heart failure, heart failure hospitalization or evidence of left ventricular dysfunction. Studies comparing patients with positive serology for Chagas with a control group with a follow-up longer than 1 year were selected. The Medline, Lilacs and Embase databases were searched on 21 January 2011 without restrictions. RESULTS: From 5236 potentially relevant studies, 25 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Fourteen included patients with heart failure, six with severe symptoms and nine with mild symptoms or asymptomatic patients with low ejection fraction. In four studies of patients in functional class III or IV and in three studies of patients with mild symptoms, a higher risk of death was reported among those with positive serology for Chagas. Of the 11 studies of patients without symptoms or low ejection fraction, 3 showed a higher risk of mortality related to Chagas exposure. Two of these were based on the same cohort of people aged >60 years. Overall, 8 out of the 14 heart failure studies and 2 out of the 11 heart damage studies adjusted for confounding factors. CONCLUSION: Positive serology for Chagas is associated with a higher risk of death for patients with heart failure. However, there is little evidence to link positive serology for Chagas with cardiovascular events in asymptomatic subjects.


Subject(s)
Chagas Cardiomyopathy/epidemiology , Age Factors , Chagas Cardiomyopathy/mortality , Heart Failure/epidemiology , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Latin America/epidemiology , Socioeconomic Factors , Stroke/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology , Ventricular Dysfunction, Left/epidemiology
7.
J. Hypertens ; 37(9): 1813-1821, Jul., 31, 2019. ilus, tab
Article in English | SES-SP, SES SP - Instituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia, SES-SP | ID: biblio-1015823

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The objective is to describe hypertension (HTN) prevalence, awareness, treatment and control in urban and rural communities in Latin America to inform public and policy-makers. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis from urban (n = 111) and rural (n = 93) communities including 33 276 participants from six Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Peru and Uruguay)were included. HTN was defined as self-reported HTN on blood pressure (BP)medication or average BP over 140/90 mmHg, awareness as self-reported HTN, and controlled as those with BP under 140/90 mmHg. RESULTS: Mean age was 52 years,60% were Female and 32% belonged to rural communities. HTN prevalence was 44.0%, with the lowest rates in Peru (17.7%) and the highest rates in Brazil (52.5%)58.9% were aware of HTN diagnosis and 53.3% were receiving treatment. Prevalence of HTN were higher in urban (44.8%) than rural (42.1%) communities in all countries. Most participants who were aware of HTN were receiving medical treatment (90.5%), but only 37.6% of patients receiving medical treatment had their BP controlled (<140/<90 mmHg), with the rates being higher in urban (39.6%) than in rural (32.4%) communities. The rate of use of two or more drugs was low [36.4%, lowest in Argentina (29.6%) and highest in Brazil (44.6%)]. Statin use was low (12.3%), especially in rural areas (7.0%). Most modifiable risk factors were higher in people with HTN than people without HTN. CONCLUSION: HTN prevalence is high but BP control is low in Latin America, with marked differences between countries and between urban and rural settings. There is na urgent need for systematic approaches for better detection, treatment optimization and risk factor modification among those with HTN in Latin America.(AU)


Subject(s)
Humans , eHealth Policies , Hypertension/epidemiology , Latin America/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL