Objective To evaluate contraindications and precautions for the yellow fever vaccine (YFV) in risk populations. Methods A literature review was conducted by searching PubMed for “yellow fever vaccine” and “adverse events” (AEs); 207 studies were found, and 43 of them met the inclusion criteria and were included in a systematic review. Results The results for first dose of YFV in elderly patients were conflicting—some showed AEs while some showed benefits. Therefore, precaution and case-by-case decisionmaking for YFV in this population are advised. The same precautions are warranted for YFV in infants 6-8 months, with the vaccine contraindicated in those < 6 months old and safe after 9 months of age. YFV seems safe in the first trimester of pregnancy, and probably throughout gestation, as it was not associated with increased malformations. During breastfeeding, YFV continues to be controversial. The vaccine seems safe in people being treated with immunomodulatory or immunosuppressive therapy, people with immunosuppressive diseases, and solid organ and hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients; in stem cell transplants, however, a booster dose should only be applied once immunity is recovered. HlV-infected patients with a CD4+ count > 200 cells/mm 3 do not have increased risk of AEs from YFV. Egg allergy vaccination protocols seem to provide a safe way to immunize these patients. Conclusions YFV safety has been confirmed based on data from many vaccination campaigns and multiple studies. AEs seem more frequent after a first-time dose, mainly in risk groups, but this review evaluated YFV in several of the same risk groups and the vaccine was found to be safe in most of them.

In 2004, an influential report in The Lancet suggested that open health information for all could be achieved by 2015. Unfortunately, this goal has not yet been accomplished. Despite progress in obtaining quality scientific articles in Latin America, it remains difficult to reliably access new and cutting-edge research. As graduating Peruvian medical students, we have confronted many obstacles in obtaining access to quality and up-to-date information and a constant tension between accessing "what is available" rather than "what we need". As we have learned, these limitations affect not only our own education but also the choices we make in the management of our patients. In the following article, we state our point of view regarding limitations in access to scientific articles in Peru and Latin America.

In 2004, an influential report insuggested that open health The Lancet information for all could be achieved by 2015. Unfortunately, this goal has not yet been accomplished. Despite progress in obtaining quality scientific articles in Latin America, it remains difficult to reliably access new and cutting-edge research. As graduating Peruvian medical students, we have confronted many obstacles in obtaining access to quality and up-to-date information and a constant tension between accessing "what is available" rather than "what we need". As we have learned, these limitations affect not only our own education but also the choices we make in the management of our patients. In the following article, we state our point of view regarding limitations in access to scientific articles in Peru and Latin America.

No abstract

Background Epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) is a highly inflammatory depot of fat, with high concentrations of IL-6 and macrophages, which can directly reach the myo-pericardium via the vasa vasorum or paracrine pathways. TNF-α and IL-6 diminish cardiac inotropic function, making EAT inflammation a potential cause of cardiac dysfunction. Methods A retrospective cohort study assessing EAT Thickness and Density from CT scans, without contrast, from adult patients during index admission for COVID-19 infection at Mount Sinai Medical Center from March 2020 to January 2021. A total of 1,644 patients were screened, of which 148 patients were included. Follow-up completed until death or discharge. The descriptive analysis was applied to the general population, parametric test of normality for comparisons between groups. Kaplan survival analysis was conducted after survival distribution was confirmed significant. It was followed by the assumption of normality by Q-Q Plot, prior to performing a multiple regression analysis in the vulnerable group using a K-Matrix input for cofounders. A log-rank test was conducted to determine differences in the survival distributions for the different ranges of EAT thickness. Results A total of 148 Participants were assigned to two groups based on epicardial adipose tissue in order to classify them as increased or decreased risk of cardiovascular risk: &gt;5mm (n = 99), &lt; 5mm (n = 49). The survival percentage was higher in the group with no EAT inflammation compared to the group with EAT inflammation (95.0% and 65%, respectively). Participants with EAT &gt;5mm had a median day of hospital stay of 18 (95% CI, 16.86 to 29.92). The survival distributions for the two categories were statistically significantly different, χ2(2) = 6.9, p &lt; 0.01. A Bonferroni correction was made with statistical significance accepted at the p &lt; 0.025 level. There was a statistically significant difference in survival distributions for the EAT &gt;5 mm vs EAT &lt; 5 mm, χ2(1) =6.953, p = 0.008. EAT Thickness Survival Analysis 2020-2021 COVID-19 MSMC Scatter Plot Length of Stay by EAT Thickness Conclusion There was an association with increased EAT thickness and increased mortality. These findings suggest that EAT thickness can be used as a prognostic factor and as a risk factor for increased mortality in patients with COVID-19 Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures