MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4309156014 · doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00432-6

Influenza vaccine to reduce adverse vascular events in patients with heart failure: a multinational randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

2022· article· en· W4309156014 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Mark Loeb, Ambuj Roy, Hisham Dokainish, Antonio Dans, Lia M. Palileo‐Villanueva, Kamilu M. Karaye, Jun Zhu, Yan Liang, Fastone Goma, Albertino Damasceno, Khalid F. AlHabib, Gerald Yonga, Charles Mondo, Wael Almahmeed, Arif Al Mulla, Vitheya Thanabalan, Rao Ps, Alex Grinvalds, Tara McCready, Shrikant I. Bangdiwala, Salim Yusuf

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Global Health · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Établissements canadiensPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDepartment for International Development, UK GovernmentMedical Research Council CanadaWellcome Trust
Mots-clésMedicineHeart failureMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)PlaceboVaccinationRandomized controlled trialAdverse effectInfluenza vaccineInternal medicineEmergency medicineImmunologyAlternative medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Influenza increases the risk of cardiovascular events and deaths. We aimed to see whether influenza vaccination reduces death and vascular events in patients with heart failure. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 30 centres (mostly hospitals affliated with universities or a research institute) in ten countries in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa (7 in India, 4 in Philippines, 4 in Nigeria, 6 in China, 1 in Zambia, 2 in Mozambique, 3 in Saudi Arabia, 1 in Kenya, 1 in Uganda, and 1 in Zambia). Participants (aged ≥18 years; 52·1% female; not disaggregated by race or ethnicity) with heart failure (New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV) were randomly assigned (1:1) by a centralised web-based system with block randomisation stratified by site, to receive 0·5 ml intramuscularly once a year for up to 3 years of either inactivated standard dose influenza vaccine or placebo (saline). We excluded people who had received influenza vaccine in 2 of the previous 3 years, and those likely to require valve repair or replacement. Those who administered assigned treatments were not masked and had no further role in the study. Investigators, study coordinators, outcome adjudicators, and participants were masked to group assignment. The first of two co-primary outcomes was a first-event composite for cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke, and the second was a recurrent-events composite for cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalisation for heart failure. Outcomes were assessed every 6 months in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, hospitalisation for heart failure, and pneumonia, both overall and during periods of peak influenza exposure. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02762851. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2015, and Nov 21, 2021, we enrolled 5129 participants and randomly assigned (1:1) 2560 (50·0%) to influenza vaccine and 2569 (50·0%) to placebo. The first co-primary outcome occurred in 380 (14·8%) of 2560 participants in the vaccine group and 410 (16·0%) of 2569 participants in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·81-1·07]; p=0·30). The second co-primary outcome occurred in 754 (29·5%) of 2560 participants in the vaccine group and 819 (31·9%) of 2569 participants in the placebo group; HR 0·92 [95% CI 0·84-1·02]; p=0·12). The secondary outcomes of all-cause hospitalisations (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·74-0·97]; p=0·013) and pneumonia (HR 0·58 [0·42-0·80]; p=0·0006) were significantly reduced in the vaccine group compared with in the placebo group but there was no significant difference between groups for all-cause death, cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and hospitalisation for heart failure. In a prespecified analysis, in which events were limited to periods of peak influenza circulation, the first co-primary outcome, and the secondary outcomes of all-cause death, cardiovasular death, and pneumonia were significantly lower in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group, whereas the second co-primary outcome and the secondary outcomes of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, all-cause hospitalisation, and hospitalisation for heart failure were not significantly lower. INTERPRETATION: Although the prespecified co-primary outcomes during the entire period of observation were not statistically significant, the reduction during the peak influenza circulating period suggests that there is likely to be a clinical benefit of giving influenza vaccine, given the clear reduction in pneumonia, a moderate reduction in hospitalisations, and a reduction in cardiovascular events and deaths during periods of peak circulation of influenza. Taken in conjunction with previous trials and the observational studies, the collective data suggest benefit. FUNDING: UK Joint Global Health Trials Scheme and Canadian Institutes for Health Research Foundation.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,006
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,009
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,029

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0060,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0040,003
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0090,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,397
Écart entre enseignants0,344 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations73
Publié2022
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Lancet Global HealthMême sujetInfluenza Virus Research StudiesTravaux en français237 207