↓ Skip to main content

Influenza vaccines for preventing cardiovascular disease

Overview of attention for article published in Sao Paulo Medical Journal, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
69 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Influenza vaccines for preventing cardiovascular disease
Published in
Sao Paulo Medical Journal, August 2015
DOI 10.1590/1516-3180.20151334t2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Clar, Zainab Oseni, Nadine Flowers, Maryam Keshtkar-Jahromi, Karen Rees

Abstract

This is an update of the original review published in 2008. The risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes is increased with influenza-like infection, and vaccination against influenza may improve cardiovascular outcomes. To assess the potential benefits of influenza vaccination for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. We searched the following electronic databases on 18 October 2013: The Cochrane Library (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Economic Evaluation Database (EED) and Health Technology Assessment database (HTA)), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science and ongoing trials registers (www.controlled-trials.com/ and www.clinicaltrials.gov). We examined reference lists of relevant primary studies and systematic reviews. We performed a limited PubMed search on 20 February 2015, just before publication. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of influenza vaccination compared with placebo or no treatment in participants with or without cardiovascular disease, assessing cardiovascular death or non-fatal cardiovascular events. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We carried out meta-analyses only for cardiovascular death, as other outcomes were reported too infrequently. We expressed effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs), and we used random-effects models. We included eight trials of influenza vaccination compared with placebo or no vaccination, with 12,029 participants receiving at least one vaccination or control treatment. We included six new studies (n = 11,251), in addition to the two included in the previous version of the review. Four of these trials (n = 10,347) focused on prevention of influenza in the general or elderly population and reported cardiovascular outcomes among their safety analyses; four trials (n = 1682) focused on prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established coronary heart disease. These populations were analysed separately. Follow-up continued between 42 days and one year. Five RCTs showed deficits in at least three of the risk of bias criteria assessed. When reported (seven studies), vaccination provided adequate immunogenicity or protection against influenza. Cardiovascular mortality was reported by four secondary prevention trials and was significantly reduced by influenza vaccination overall (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.76; P value 0.003) with no significant heterogeneity between studies, and by three trials reporting cardiovascular mortality as part of their safety analyses when the numbers of events were too small to permit conclusions. In studies of patients with coronary heart disease, composite outcomes of cardiovascular events tended to be decreased with influenza vaccination compared with placebo. Generally no significant difference was found between comparison groups regarding individual outcomes such as myocardial infarction. In patients with cardiovascular disease, influenza vaccination may reduce cardiovascular mortality and combined cardiovascular events. However, studies had some risk of bias, and results were not always consistent, so additional higher-quality evidence is necessary to confirm these findings. Not enough evidence was available to establish whether influenza vaccination has a role to play in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 68 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 16%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 17 25%
Unknown 15 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Unspecified 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 18 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 November 2015.
All research outputs
#21,157,205
of 25,986,827 outputs
Outputs from Sao Paulo Medical Journal
#10
of 13 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,940
of 277,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sao Paulo Medical Journal
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,986,827 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one scored the same or higher as 3 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,646 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.