No abstract

Background There is a paucity of contemporary data estimating the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events ( MACE ) in patients with established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors managed in routine practice. We estimated 1‐ and 4‐year incidences of MACE and the association between MACE and vascular beds affected in these patients. Methods and Results Using US IBM MarketScan data from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017, we identified patients ≥45 years old with established coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, or the presence of ≥3 risk factors for atherosclerosis during 2013 with a minimum of 4 years of follow‐up. We calculated 1‐ and 4‐year incidences of MACE (cardiovascular death or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke). A Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for age and sex was used to evaluate the association between vascular bed number/location(s) affected and MACE . We identified 1 302 856 patients with established atherosclerotic disease or risk factors for atherosclerosis. Coronary artery disease was present in 16.9% of patients, cerebrovascular disease in 7.6%, peripheral artery disease in 13.6%, and risk factors for atherosclerosis only in 66.0%. The 1‐ and 4‐year incidences of MACE were 1.4% and 6.9%, respectively. At 4 years, MACE was more frequent in patients with atherosclerotic disease in a single (hazard ratio=1.51, 95% CI =1.48–1.55), 2‐(hazard ratio=2.35, 95% CI =2.27–2.44), or all 3 vascular beds (hazard ratio=3.30, 95% CI =2.97–3.68) compared with having risk factors for atherosclerosis. Conclusions Patients with established atherosclerotic disease or who have multiple risk factors and are treated in contemporary, routine practice carry a substantial risk for MACE at 1‐ and 4‐ years of follow‐up. MACE risk was shown to vary based on the number and location of vascular beds involved.

Background Efficacy and safety of treatments for hospitalized COVID-19 are uncertain. We systematically reviewed efficacy and safety of remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods Studies evaluating remdesivir in adults with hospitalized COVID-19 were searched in several engines until August 21, 2020. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, clinical improvement or recovery, need for invasive ventilation, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Inverse variance random effects meta-analyses were performed. Results We included four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 2296) [two vs. placebo (n = 1299) and two comparing 5-day vs. 10-day regimens (n = 997)], and two case series (n = 88). Studies used intravenous remdesivir 200mg the first day and 100mg for four or nine more days. One RCT (n = 236) was stopped early due to AEs; the other three RCTs reported outcomes between 11 and 15 days. Time to recovery was decreased by 4 days with remdesivir vs. placebo in one RCT (n = 1063), and by 0.8 days with 5-days vs. 10-days of therapy in another RCT (n = 397). Clinical improvement was better for 5-days regimen vs. standard of care in one RCT (n = 600). Remdesivir did not decrease all-cause mortality (RR 0.71, 95%CI 0.39 to 1.28, I2 = 43%) and need for invasive ventilation (RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.23 to 1.42, I2 = 60%) vs. placebo at 14 days but had fewer SAEs; 5-day decreased need for invasive ventilation and SAEs vs. 10-day in one RCT (n = 397). No differences in all-cause mortality or SAEs were seen among 5-day, 10-day and standard of care. There were some concerns of bias to high risk of bias in RCTs. Heterogeneity between studies could be due to different severities of disease, days of therapy before outcome determination, and how ordinal data was analyzed. Conclusions There is paucity of adequately powered and fully reported RCTs evaluating effects of remdesivir in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Until stronger evidence emerges, we cannot conclude that remdesivir is efficacious for treating COVID-19.