scholarly journals COVID-19 first and delta waves in relation to ACEI, ARB, Influenza vaccination, and comorbidity in a North Metropolitan Barcelona Health Consortium

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta Juanes-Gonzalez ◽  
Ana Calderon-Valdiviezo ◽  
Helena Losa-Puig ◽  
Roger Valls-Foix ◽  
Marta Gonzalez-Salvador ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care ◽  
Influenza Vaccination ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Free Access ◽  
Delta Wave ◽  
Infection Age ◽  
The North ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND: Some authors have reported that angiotensin converter enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) improve clinical outcomes in hypertensive COVID-19 patients, and others have proposed cross-protection for influenza vaccination. This study explores the impact of these variables on the evolution of hospitalized patients, focusing in the first wave and the Delta wave. METHODS: Hospitalizations (n=1888) from March 1, 2020, to July 31, 2021, in the Hospital of Terrassa, the referral center for the free access Terrassa Health Consortium in the North Metropolitan Barcelona Health Region (population=167,386) were studied. The number of chronic treatments and conditions of patients from the initial outbreak (n=184) and the Delta outbreak (n=158) were recorded. RESULTS: Of the non-survivors, 96.3% were aged >60 years in the first wave and 100% were aged >70 years in the Delta wave. In non-survival hospitalized patients aged >60 years, the percentage treated with ACEI was similar to general population but was significantly different for ARB treatments of influenza vaccination, although associated to a higher comorbidity and age. In July 2021, the number of hospitalizations for patients aged <50 years was higher than March 2020 and 22% of hospitalized patients without chronic treatments and conditions needed admission to the intensive care unit. Mortality was reduced in the groups with most comorbidities who received influenza and SARS-CoV2 vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 infection, age and comorbidity are related to survival, ACEI use is safe. A high proportion of patients without comorbidity require hospitalization and intensive care.

scholarly journals Clinical Management of Hypertension, Inflammation and Thrombosis in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Impact on Survival and Concerns

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 1073
Author(s):  
Patricia Martínez-Botía ◽  
Ángel Bernardo ◽  
Andrea Acebes-Huerta ◽  
Alberto Caro ◽  
Blanca Leoz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Clinical Management ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Clinical Manifestations ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Thrombosis Prophylaxis ◽  
The Impact

The most severe clinical manifestations of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), are due to an unbalanced immune response and a pro-thrombotic hemostatic disturbance, with arterial hypertension or diabetes as acknowledged risk factors. While waiting for a specific treatment, the clinical management of hospitalized patients is still a matter of debate, and the effectiveness of treatments to manage clinical manifestations and comorbidities has been questioned. In this study, we aim to assess the impact of the clinical management of arterial hypertension, inflammation and thrombosis on the survival of COVID-19 patients. The Spanish cohorts included in this observational retrospective study are from HM Hospitales (2035 patients) and from Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias (72 patients). Kaplan Meier survival curves, Cox regression and propensity score matching analyses were employed, considering demographic variables, comorbidities and treatment arms (when opportune) as covariates. The management of arterial hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers is not detrimental, as was initially reported, and neither was the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). On the contrary, our analysis shows that the use on itself of corticosteroids is not beneficial. Importantly, the management of COVID-19 patients with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) as an anticoagulant significantly improves the survival of hospitalized patients. These results delineate the current treatment options under debate, supporting the effectiveness of thrombosis prophylaxis on COVID-19 patients as a first-line treatment without the need for compromising the treatment of comorbidities, while suggesting cautiousness when administering corticosteroids.

scholarly journals Pandemic Perspective: Commonalities Between COVID-19 and Cardio-Oncology

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherry-Ann Brown ◽  
Svetlana Zaharova ◽  
Peter Mason ◽  
Jonathan Thompson ◽  
Bicky Thapa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Cancer Therapies ◽  
Converting Enzyme ◽  
Cytokine Release ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
The Impact

Overlapping commonalities between coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) and cardio-oncology regarding cardiovascular toxicities (CVT), pathophysiology, and pharmacology are special topics emerging during the pandemic. In this perspective, we consider an array of CVT common to both COVID-19 and cardio-oncology, including cardiomyopathy, ischemia, conduction abnormalities, myopericarditis, and right ventricular (RV) failure. We also emphasize the higher risk of severe COVID-19 illness in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) or its risk factors or cancer. We explore commonalities in the underlying pathophysiology observed in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology, including inflammation, cytokine release, the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system, coagulopathy, microthrombosis, and endothelial dysfunction. In addition, we examine common pharmacologic management strategies that have been elucidated for CVT from COVID-19 and various cancer therapies. The use of corticosteroids, as well as antibodies and inhibitors of various molecules mediating inflammation and cytokine release syndrome, are discussed. The impact of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) is also addressed, since these drugs are used in cardio-oncology and have received considerable attention during the COVID-19 pandemic, since the culprit virus enters human cells via the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. There are therefore several areas of overlap, similarity, and interaction in the toxicity, pathophysiology, and pharmacology profiles in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology syndromes. Learning more about either will likely provide some level of insight into both. We discuss each of these topics in this viewpoint, as well as what we foresee as evolving future directions to consider in cardio-oncology during the pandemic and beyond. Finally, we highlight commonalities in health disparities in COVID-19 and cardio-oncology and encourage continued development and implementation of innovative solutions to improve equity in health and healing.

Abstract 17320: Use of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers and Clinical Outcomes in COVID-19

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pan ◽  
Tariq Azam ◽  
Husam Shadid ◽  
Hanna Berlin ◽  
Chelsea Meloche ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Clinical Laboratory ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Protective Role ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
P Value ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Artery Disease

Introduction: COVID-19 is caused by infection with SARS-CoV2 which uses ACE2 as its host receptor. RAS inhibitors such as ACE-inhibitors and ARBs (ACEI/ARB) may increase ACE2 levels. ACE2 levels may also have a lung protective role in ARDS. There is concern over the safety of using these medications in patients with COVID-19. Hypothesis: To characterize the association of a history of ACEI/ARB use by hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and with in-hospital outcomes. Methods: The Michigan Medicine Covid-19 Cohort (M 2 C 2 ) is an ongoing prospective observational study in which detailed clinical, laboratory and outcomes data were collected from chart review of consecutive adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Patients who were positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection but without symptoms of COVID-19 were not included in this cohort. We identified 490 patients admitted between March 1 st and May 1 st for COVID-19, of whom all 490 had data on whether they took ACEI/ARB prior to hospitalization. We examined the association between ACEI/ARB use and all-cause death, respiratory failure and acute kidney injury (AKI) during their hospitalization. Results: 175 (35.7%) patients were taking ACEI/ARB prior to hospitalization (ACEI/ARB group; mean age 63.6 [SD 13.9]; 64% men) and 315 (64.3%) were not taking ACEI/ARB (non-ACEI/ARB group; median age 58.6 [SD 16.1]; 54.3% men). The risk of developing ARDS was not significantly different between the ACEI/ARB group and non-ACEI/ARB group (47.4% vs 43.5%, p-value 0.53) and neither was the risk death (15.4% vs 16.8%, p-value 0.97), despite a higher prevalence of comorbidities in the ACEI/ARB group including hypertension (96.6% vs 51.4%, p-value <0.001), diabetes mellitus (58.9% vs 34.6%, p-value <0.001), coronary artery disease (22.9% vs 11.4%, p-value 0.002), CHF (16.0% vs 12.1%, p-value 0.26), and CKD (32.0% vs 13.7%, p-value <0.001). Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, prior to hospitalization use ACEI/ARB was not associated with significantly different risk of ARDS or mortality despite having higher rates of comorbidities in the ACEI/ARB group.

scholarly journals Evaluation and management of COVID-19-related severity in people with type 2 diabetes

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e002299
Author(s):  
Bowen Wang ◽  
Benjamin S Glicksberg ◽  
Girish N Nadkarni ◽  
Deepak Vashishth
Keyword(s):  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Single Point ◽  
Potential Method ◽  
Electronic Health Record Data ◽  
Combined Use ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionPeople with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have an increased rate of hospitalization and mortality related to COVID-19. To identify ahead of time those who are at risk of developing severe diseases and potentially in need of intensive care, we investigated the independent associations between longitudinal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), the impact of common medications (metformin, insulin, ACE inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and corticosteroids) and COVID-19 severity in people with T2D.Research design and methodsRetrospective cohort study was conducted using deidentified claims and electronic health record data from the OptumLabs Data Warehouse across the USA between January 2017 and November 2020, including 16 504 individuals with T2D and COVID-19. A univariate model and a multivariate model were applied to evaluate the association between 2 and 3-year HbA1c average, medication use between COVID-19 diagnosis and intensive care unit admission (if applicable), and risk of intensive care related to COVID-19.ResultsWith covariates adjusted, the HR of longitudinal HbA1c for risk of intensive care was 1.12 (per 1% increase, p<0.001) and 1.48 (comparing group with poor (HbA1c ≥9%) and adequate glycemic control (HbA1c 6%–9%), p<0.001). The use of corticosteroids and the combined use of insulin and metformin were associated with significant reduction of intensive care risk, while ACEIs and ARBs were not associated with reduced risk of intensive care.ConclusionsTwo to three-year longitudinal glycemic level is independently associated with COVID-19-related severity in people with T2D. Here, we present a potential method to use HbA1c history, which presented a stronger association with COVID-19 severity than single-point HbA1c, to identify in advance those more at risk of intensive care due to COVID-19 in the T2D population. The combined use of metformin and insulin and the use of corticosteroids might be significant to prevent patients with T2D from becoming critically ill from COVID-19.

scholarly journals Controversial Roles of the Renin Angiotensin System and Its Modulators During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon B. Gressens ◽  
Georges Leftheriotis ◽  
Jean-Claude Dussaule ◽  
Martin Flamant ◽  
Bernard I. Levy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Angiotensin Ii ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Renin Angiotensin System ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Converting Enzyme ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Renin Angiotensin ◽  
The Impact

Since December 2019, the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread and overwhelmed healthcare systems worldwide, urging physicians to understand how to manage this novel infection. Early in the pandemic, more severe forms of COVID-19 have been observed in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, who are often treated with renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS)-blockers, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but whether these are indeed independent risk factors is unknown. The cellular receptor for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the membrane-bound angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), as for SARS-CoV(-1). Experimental data suggest that expression of ACE2 may be increased by RAAS-blockers, raising concerns that these drugs may facilitate viral cell entry. On the other hand, ACE2 is a key counter-regulator of the RAAS, by degrading angiotensin II into angiotensin (1-7), and may thereby mediate beneficial effects in COVID-19. These considerations have raised concerns about the management of these drugs, and early comments shed vivid controversy among physicians. This review will describe the homeostatic balance between ACE-angiotensin II and ACE2-angiotensin (1-7) and summarize the pathophysiological rationale underlying the debated role of the RAAS and its modulators in the context of the pandemic. In addition, we will review available evidence investigating the impact of RAAS blockers on the course and prognosis of COVID-19 and discuss why retrospective observational studies should be interpreted with caution. These considerations highlight the importance of solid evidence-based data in order to guide physicians in the management of RAAS-interfering drugs in the general population as well as in patients with more or less severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

scholarly journals Drugs Becoming Generics—The Impact of Genericization on the Market Performance of Antihypertensive Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (18) ◽  
pp. 9429
Author(s):  
Bence Kovács ◽  
Miklós Darida ◽  
Judit Simon
Keyword(s):  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Rank Order ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients ◽  
Pharmaceutical Ingredients ◽  
Drug Classes ◽  
Eastern European Countries ◽  
The Impact

To explore long-term changes in intra and inter-class choices between generic compounds, this paper investigates the market trends of two antihypertensive drug classes that have closely related pharmacological mechanisms—angiotensin convertase enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). We analysed the development of ACEI and ARB markets between 2001 and 2016 in nine European countries, covering the genericization transition periods of both therapeutic groups. The analysis was undertaken on the level of the active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and focused on international and country-specific diffusion patterns. Comparison of ARB and ACEI therapies shows that although ARBs became off-patent during the observed period, and have a clinical advantage in terms of the adverse event profile over ACEIs, the increasing dominance of ARBs cannot be identified. One explanation is that ACEI therapies became generics earlier, relocating competition to the level of brands, while competition among ARBs remained at the level of the APIs. As for intra-class drug preferences, it was observed that the long-term trends show that ramipril outperformed its ACEI competitors, even though the kinetics and the rank order of preferred active compounds were inconsistent among markets. The diffusion of clinically preferable therapies seems to be ultimately supported by generic entries. In Eastern European countries, the emergence of generic markets has not only improved access to ACE inhibitors and ARBs, but has been a prerequisite for changing preferences. In contrast, genericization resulted in the relative anchoring of prior, branded era-based preferences in some Western European countries, which may be attributed to the role of the cessation of promotion and the fixity of prescription behaviour.

scholarly journals Impact of renin–angiotensin system inhibitors use on mortality in severe COVID-19 patients with hypertension: a retrospective observational study

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (12) ◽  
pp. 030006052097915
Author(s):  
Yanjun Zhong ◽  
Lishu Zhao ◽  
Guobao Wu ◽  
Chunhong Hu ◽  
Chenfang Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Propensity Score Matching ◽  
Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Multivariable Analysis ◽  
Renin Angiotensin System ◽  
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽  
Hospital Deaths ◽  
The Impact

Objective Association of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) use with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the impact of ACEI/ARB use on all-cause mortality in severe COVID-19 patients with hypertension. Methods We enrolled 650 COVID-19 patients from Changsha and Wuhan city between 17 January 2020 and 8 March 2020. Demographic, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were collected. Multivariable analysis and propensity-score matching were performed to assess the impact of ACEI/ARB therapy on mortality. Results Among the 650 patients, 126 who had severe COVID-19 concomitant with hypertension were analyzed. The average age was 66 years and 56 (44.4%) were men. There were 37 ACEI/ARB users and 21 in-hospital deaths (mortality rate, 16.7%). Male sex (odds ratio [OR], 5.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 17.8), but not ACEI/ARB use (OR, 1.09; 95%CI, 0.31 to 3.43), was an independent risk factor for mortality in severe COVID-19 patients with hypertension. After propensity-score matching, 60 severe COVID-19 patients were included and no significant correlation between use of ACEI/ARB and mortality was observed. Conclusions There was no significant association of ACEI/ARB use with mortality in severe COVID-19 patients with hypertension. These findings support the continuation of ACEI/ARB therapy for such patients.

scholarly journals Renin–Angiotensin System Blockers and Adverse Outcomes of Influenza and Pneumonia: A Danish Cohort Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (19) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Fynbo Christiansen ◽  
Uffe Heide‐Jørgensen ◽  
Thomas Bøjer Rasmussen ◽  
Jacob Bodilsen ◽  
Ole Schmeltz Søgaard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Propensity Score ◽  
Calcium Channel ◽  
Calcium Channel Blockers ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Channel Blockers ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

Background Angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE‐Is) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may worsen the prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019, but any association could be confounded by the cardiometabolic conditions indicating ACE‐I/ARB use. We therefore examined the impact of ACE‐Is/ARBs on respiratory tract infection outcomes. Methods and Results This cohort study included all adult patients hospitalized with influenza or pneumonia from 2005 to 2018 in Denmark using population‐based medical databases. Thirty‐day mortality and risk of admission to the intensive care unit in ACE‐Is/ARBs users was compared with nonusers and with users of calcium channel blockers. We used propensity scores to handle confounding and computed propensity score‐weighted risks, risk differences (RDs), and risk ratios (RRs). Of 568 019 patients hospitalized with influenza or pneumonia, 100 278 were ACE‐I/ARB users and 37 961 were users of calcium channel blockers. In propensity score‐weighted analyses, ACE‐I/ARB users had marginally lower 30‐day mortality than users of calcium channel blockers (13.9% versus 14.5%; RD, −0.6%; 95% CI, −1.0 to −0.1; RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.93–0.99), and a lower risk of admission to the intensive care unit (8.0% versus 9.6%; RD, −1.6%; 95% CI, −2.0 to −1.2; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.80–0.87). Compared with nonusers, current ACE‐I/ARB users had lower mortality (RD, −2.4%; 95% CI, −2.8 to −2.0; RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.83–0.87), but similar risk of admission to the intensive care unit (RD, 0.4%; 95% CI, 0.0–0.7; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.00–1.09). Conclusions Among patients with influenza or pneumonia, ACE‐I/ARB users had no increased risk of admission to the intensive care unit and slightly reduced mortality after controlling for confounding.

scholarly journals Evaluation of Basal Insulin Dose Reductions in Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes While Unable to Eat

2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 246-252
Author(s):  
Sarah E. Petite ◽  
Joseph Huenecke ◽  
Natalie Tuttle
Keyword(s):  
Intensive Care Unit ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Basal Insulin ◽  
Insulin Dose ◽  
Severe Hypoglycemia ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Intensive Care Unit Setting ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Insulin Regimen ◽  
The Impact

Background: The American Diabetes Association guidelines recommend a basal plus correction or basal insulin regimen for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) receiving nothing by mouth (NPO; nil per os) in the non–intensive care unit setting. In the perioperative setting, 60% to 80% of long-acting insulin or half-dose morning insulin NPH is recommended. Objective: The goal of this study was to determine the impact of basal insulin dose reduction for hospitalized patients with insulin-dependent T2DM while NPO. Methods: This retrospective, single-center study evaluated patients admitted to the non–intensive care unit setting. Administration of >50% of home basal insulin was compared with administration of ≤50% of home basal insulin. The primary outcome was the difference in hypoglycemic events (blood glucose [BG] < 70 mg/dL). Secondary outcomes included comparing severe hypoglycemic events (BG < 40 mg/dL), hyperglycemic events (BG > 180 mg/dL), and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: Two hundred fifty-eight patient encounters were included, of which 85 and 173 patients received ≤50% and >50% of their home basal insulin dose, respectively. There were no significant differences in hypoglycemia (21.2% vs 21.4%; P = .97), severe hypoglycemia (1.2% vs 2.9%; P = .67), and hospital LOS (3 [IQR 2.13-6.74] days vs 4.66 [IQR 2.94-8.17] days; P = .74). Hyperglycemia occurred at a higher rate in patients receiving ≤50% of their home basal insulin dose (97.6% vs 89%; P = .02). Conclusions: No differences were observed in hypoglycemic events between those patients receiving ≤50% and >50% of their home basal insulin.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document