Search

Aims To evaluate whether a strategy of double-dose influenza vaccination during hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with standard-dose outpatient vaccination (as recommended by current guidelines) would further reduce the risk of major cardiopulmonary events. Methods and results Vaccination against Influenza to Prevent cardiovascular events after Acute Coronary Syndromes (VIP-ACS) was a pragmatic, randomized, multicentre, active-comparator, open-label trial with blinded outcome adjudication comparing two strategies of influenza vaccination following an ACS: double-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine before hospital discharge vs. standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine administered in the outpatient setting 30 days after randomization. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory causes, analysed by the win ratio method. Patients were followed for 12 months. During two influenza seasons, 1801 participants were included at 25 centres in Brazil. The primary outcome was not different between groups, with 12.7% wins in-hospital double-dose vaccine group and 12.3% wins in the standard-dose vaccine group {win ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79–1.32], P = 0.84}. Results were consistent for the key secondary outcome, a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke [win ratio: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66–1.33), P = 0.72]. Time-to-first event analysis for the primary outcome showed results similar to those of the main analysis [hazard ratio 0.97 (95% CI: 0.75–1.24), P = 0.79]. Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ between groups. Conclusion Among patients hospitalized with an ACS, double-dose influenza vaccination before discharge did not reduce cardiopulmonary outcomes compared with standard-dose vaccination in the outpatient setting. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04001504

Summary Background COVID-19 can lead to multiorgan failure. Dapagliflozin, a SGLT2 inhibitor, has significant protective benefits for the heart and kidney. We aimed to see whether this agent might provide organ protection in patients with COVID-19 by affecting processes dysregulated during acute illness. Methods DARE-19 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and with at least one cardiometabolic risk factor (ie, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease). Patients critically ill at screening were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to dapagliflozin (10 mg daily orally) or matched placebo for 30 days. Dual primary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population: the outcome of prevention (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death), and the hierarchial composite outcome of recovery (change in clinical status by day 30). Safety outcomes, in patients who received at least one study medication dose, included serious adverse events, adverse events leading to discontinuation, and adverse events of interest. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04350593 . Findings Between April 22, 2020 and Jan 1, 2021, 1250 patients were randomly assigned with 625 in each group. The primary composite outcome of prevention showed organ dysfunction or death occurred in 70 patients (11·2%) in the dapagliflozin group, and 86 (13·8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·58–1·10; p=0·17). For the primary outcome of recovery, 547 patients (87·5%) in the dapagliflozin group and 532 (85·1%) in the placebo group showed clinical status improvement, although this was not statistically significant (win ratio 1·09, 95% CI 0·97–1·22; p=0·14). There were 41 deaths (6·6%) in the dapagliflozin group, and 54 (8·6%) in the placebo group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·52–1·16). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (10·6%) of 613 patients treated with dapagliflozin and in 82 (13·3%) of 616 patients given the placebo. Interpretation In patients with cardiometabolic risk factors who were hospitalised with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin did not result in a statistically significant risk reduction in organ dysfunction or death, or improvement in clinical recovery, but was well tolerated. Funding AstraZeneca.

Aims To evaluate a telemonitoring strategy based on automated text messaging and telephone support after heart failure (HF) hospitalization. Methods and results The MESSAGE‐HF study is a prospective multicentre, randomized, nationwide trial enrolling patients from 30 clinics in all regions of Brazil. HF patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (

The effects of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve remain uncertain.In this randomized trial, we compared rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) with dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. The primary outcome was a composite of death, major cardiovascular events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, valve thrombosis, or hospitalization for heart failure), or major bleeding at 12 months.A total of 1005 patients were enrolled at 49 sites in Brazil. A primary-outcome event occurred at a mean of 347.5 days in the rivaroxaban group and 340.1 days in the warfarin group (difference calculated as restricted mean survival time, 7.4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 16.3; P0.001 for noninferiority). Death from cardiovascular causes or thromboembolic events occurred in 17 patients (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 26 (5.1%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.20). The incidence of stroke was 0.6% in the rivaroxaban group and 2.4% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (1.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 13 (2.6%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.35). The frequency of other serious adverse events was similar in the two groups.In patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the mean time until the primary outcome of death, major cardiovascular events, or major bleeding at 12 months. (Funded by PROADI-SUS and Bayer; RIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02303795.).

Submitted by DSpace Unilasalle (dspace@unilasalle.edu.br) on 2021-07-30T17:29:03Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin_NEJM.pdf: 657905 bytes, checksum: abd774ed0fca84d1bf82fc915cc48491 (MD5) Made available in DSpace on 2021-07-30T17:29:03Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin_NEJM.pdf: 657905 bytes, checksum: abd774ed0fca84d1bf82fc915cc48491 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2020 BACKGROUND Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P=1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P=1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.)