RESUMO
There are limited data available on outcomes and pathophysiology behind ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in populations without standard modifiable risk factors (SMuRFs). The authors carried out this meta-analysis to understand the differences in treatment and outcomes of STEMI patients with and without SMuRFs. Methods: A systematic database search was performed for relevant studies. Studies reporting desired outcomes among STEMI patients with and without SMuRFs were selected based on predefined criteria in the study protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42022341389). Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts using Covidence. Full texts of the selected studies were independently reviewed to confirm eligibility. Data were extracted from all eligible studies via a full-text review of the primary article for qualitative and quantitative analysis. In-hospital mortality following the first episode of STEMI was the primary outcome, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), repeat myocardial infarction (MI), cardiogenic shock, heart failure, and stroke as secondary outcomes of interest. Odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI was used to estimate the effect. Results: A total of 2135 studies were identified from database search, six studies with 521 150 patients with the first STEMI episode were included in the analysis. The authors found higher in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.43; CI: 1.40-1.47) and cardiogenic shock (OR: 1.59; 95% CI: 1.55-1.63) in the SMuRF-less group with no differences in MACE, recurrent MI, major bleeding, heart failure, and stroke. There were lower prescriptions of statin (OR: 0.62; CI: 0.42-0.91) and Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor /Angiotensin II receptor blocker (OR: 0.49; CI: 0.28-0.87) at discharge in SMuRF-less patients. There was no difference in procedures like coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, and thrombolysis. Conclusion: In the SMuRF-less STEMI patients, higher in-hospital mortality and treatment discrepancies were noted at discharge.
RESUMO
The ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has placed tremendous strain on health systems throughout the world. This has led to many clinical trials being launched in order to try to find ways to combat the disease. The unprecedented nature of the pandemic has been reflected in the methods used in some of these trials. Placebo-controlled randomized trials are considered the gold-standard, however, there are inherent challenges in the use of placebo, especially during COVID-19. We herein review the pros, cons, challenges and limitations of using placebo in clinical trials investigating treatments for COVID-19. We also discuss the importance of viewing research critically, examining the potential impact of placebo use or lack thereof, on blinding and possible biases. This becomes important as we assess the responses to the pandemic in preparation for a future pandemic. Although placebo-controlled clinical trials are the gold standard for clinical research, they may not be practically or ethically feasible during a pandemic. Choices accomplished to design many COVID-19 trials might reflect the unprecedently trying environment in which they were made. However, critical evaluation of the methodology and practice of scientific research remains a crucial part of the scientific process. Even when conducted as randomized double-blind studies, residual biases may exist and interfere with the study conduct and interpretation of the data. A critical review of all data remains essential to thoroughly assess the impact of a research study.
