User login
ACE inhibitors and severe COVID-19: Protective in older patients?
.
In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.
The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.
Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.
At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.
“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.
A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.
The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”
For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.
In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.
Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.
However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).
A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.
The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.
They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.
“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”
The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”
They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
Experts cautious
However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.
“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”
Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.
“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.
“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
New meta-analysis
The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.
The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.
The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”
In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.
“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
.
In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.
The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.
Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.
At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.
“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.
A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.
The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”
For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.
In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.
Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.
However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).
A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.
The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.
They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.
“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”
The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”
They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
Experts cautious
However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.
“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”
Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.
“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.
“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
New meta-analysis
The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.
The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.
The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”
In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.
“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
.
In addition, a new meta-analysis of all the available data on the use of ACE inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19–infected patients has concluded that these drugs are not associated with more severe disease and do not increase susceptibility to infection.
The observational study, which was published on the MedRxiv preprint server on May 19 and has not yet been peer reviewed, was conducted by the health insurance company United Heath Group and by Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
The investigators analyzed data from 10,000 patients from across the United States who had tested positive for COVID-19, who were enrolled in Medicare Advantage insurance plans or were commercially insured, and who had received a prescription for one or more antihypertensive medications.
Results showed that the use of ACE inhibitors was associated with an almost 40% lower risk for COVID-19 hospitalization for older people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. No such benefit was seen in the younger commercially insured patients or in either group with ARBs.
At a telephone media briefing on the study, senior investigator Harlan M. Krumholz, MD, said: “We don’t believe this is enough info to change practice, but we do think this is an interesting and intriguing result.
“These findings merit a clinical trial to formally test whether ACE inhibitors – which are cheap, widely available, and well-tolerated drugs – can reduce hospitalization of patients infected with COVID-19,” added Dr. Krumholz, professor of medicine at Yale and director of the Yale New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research.
A pragmatic clinical trial is now being planned. In this trial, 10,000 older people who test positive for COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to receive either a low dose of an ACE inhibitor or placebo. It is hoped that recruitment for the trial will begin in June of 2020. It is open to all eligible Americans who are older than 50 years, who test negative for COVID-19, and who are not taking medications for hypertension. Prospective patients can sign up at a dedicated website.
The randomized trial, also conducted by United Health Group and Yale, is said to be “one of the first virtual COVID-19 clinical trials to be launched at scale.”
For the observational study, the researchers identified 2,263 people who were receiving medication for hypertension and who tested positive for COVID-19. Of these, approximately two-thirds were older, Medicare Advantage enrollees; one-third were younger, commercially insured individuals.
In a propensity score–matched analysis, the investigators matched 441 patients who were taking ACE inhibitors to 441 patients who were taking other antihypertensive agents; and 412 patients who were receiving an ARB to 412 patients who were receiving other antihypertensive agents.
Results showed that during a median of 30 days after testing positive, 12.7% of the cohort were hospitalized for COVID-19. In propensity score–matched analyses, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; P = .18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; P =.48) were significantly associated with risk for hospitalization.
However, in analyses stratified by the insurance group, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) were associated with a significant lower risk for hospitalization among the Medicare group (HR, 0.61; P = .02) but not among the commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; P = .12).
A second study examined outcomes of 7,933 individuals with hypertension who were hospitalized with COVID-19 (92% of these patients were Medicare Advantage enrollees). Of these, 14.2% died, 59.5% survived to discharge, and 26.3% underwent ongoing hospitalization. In propensity score–matched analyses, use of neither an ACE inhibitor (HR, 0.97; P = .74) nor an ARB (HR, 1.15; P = .15) was associated with risk of in-hospital mortality.
The researchers said their findings are consistent with prior evidence from randomized clinical trials suggesting a reduced risk for pneumonia with ACE inhibitors that is not observed with ARBs.
They also cited some preclinical evidence that they said suggests a possible protective role for ACE inhibitors in COVID-19: that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with the upregulation of ACE2 receptors, which modulate the local interactions of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in the lung tissue.
“The presence of ACE2 receptors, therefore, exerts a protective effect against the development of acute lung injury in infections with SARS coronaviruses, which lead to dysregulation of these mechanisms and endothelial damage,” they added. “Further, our observations do not support theoretical concerns of adverse outcomes due to enhanced virulence of SARS coronaviruses due to overexpression of ACE2 receptors in cell cultures – an indirect binding site for these viruses.”
The authors also noted that their findings have “important implications” for four ongoing randomized trials of ACE inhibitors/ARBs in COVID-19, “as none of them align with the observations of our study.”
They pointed out that of the four ongoing trials, three are testing the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in the treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, and one is testing the use of a 10-day course of ARBs after a positive SARS-CoV-2 test to prevent hospitalization.
Experts cautious
However, two cardiovascular experts who were asked to comment on this latest study were not overly optimistic about the data.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, said: “This report adds to the growing number of observational studies that show varying effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs in increasing or decreasing hospitalizations for COVID-19 and the likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Overall, this new report differs from others in the remarkable effects of insurance coverage: In particular, for ACE inhibitors, there was a 40% reduction in fatal events in Medicare patients but a twofold increase in patients using commercial insurance – albeit the test for heterogeneity when comparing the two groups did not quite reach statistical significance.
“In essence, these authors are saying that ACE inhibitors are highly protective in patients aged 65 or older but bordering on harmful in patients aged below 65. I agree that it’s worthwhile to check this finding in a prospective trial ... but this hypothesis does seem to be a reach.”
Dr. Weber noted that both ACE inhibitors and ARBs increase the level of the ACE2 enzyme to which the COVID-19 virus binds in the lungs.
“The ACE inhibitors do so by inhibiting the enzyme’s action and thus stimulate further enzyme production; the ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II, which results in high angiotensin II levels that also upregulate ACE2 production,” he said. “Perhaps the ACE inhibitors, by binding to the ACE enzyme, can in some way interfere with the enzyme’s uptake of the COVID virus and thus provide some measure of clinical protection. This is possible, but why would this effect be apparent only in older people?”
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, added: “This looks like a subgroup of a subgroup type analysis based on small numbers of events – I think there were only 77 hospitalizations among the 722 patients treated with an ACE inhibitor, and the Medicare Advantage subgroup was only 581 of those 722 patients.
“The hazard ratio had wide 95% CI [confidence interval] and a modest P value,” Dr. McMurray added. “So yes, interesting and hypothesis-generating, but not definitive.”
New meta-analysis
The new meta-analysis of all data so far available on ACE inhibitor and ARB use for patients with COVID-19 was published online in Annals of Internal Medicine on May 15.
The analysis is a living, systematic review with ongoing literature surveillance and critical appraisal, which will be updated as new data become available. It included 14 observational studies.
The authors, led by Katherine M. Mackey, MD, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon, concluded: “High-certainty evidence suggests that ACE-inhibitor or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate certainty evidence suggested no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain.”
In an accompanying editorial, William G. Kussmaul III, MD, Drexel University, Philadelphia, said that initial fears that these drugs may be harmful for patients with COVID-19 now seem to have been unfounded.
“We now have reasonable reassurance that drugs that alter the renin-angiotensin system do not pose substantial threats as either COVID-19 risk factors or severity multipliers,” he wrote.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Framingham risk score may also predict cognitive decline
“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.
“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”
Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition
The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).
Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.
A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.
Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.
At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.
Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.
The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.
Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early
Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.
“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.
“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”
Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.
Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.
Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.
Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.
The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.
Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.
Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.
This article appeared on Medscape.com.
“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.
“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”
Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition
The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).
Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.
A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.
Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.
At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.
Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.
The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.
Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early
Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.
“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.
“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”
Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.
Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.
Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.
Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.
The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.
Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.
Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.
This article appeared on Medscape.com.
“In the absence of effective treatments for dementia, we need to monitor and control cardiovascular risk burden as a way to maintain patient’s cognitive health as they age,” said Weili Xu, PhD, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China, in a press release.
“Given the progressive increase in the number of dementia cases worldwide, our findings have both clinical and public health relevance.”
Dr. Xu and first author Ruixue Song, MSc, also from Tianjin Medical University, published their findings online ahead of print May 18 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The World Health Organization projects that up to 82 million people will have dementia by 2050. Given the lack of effective treatments for dementia, identifying modifiable risk factors for cognitive decline and aggressively managing them is an increasingly appealing strategy.
Assessing cardiovascular risk and cognition
The researchers followed 1,588 dementia-free participants from the Rush Memory and Aging Project for 21 years (median, 5.8 years). FGCRS was assessed at baseline and categorized into tertiles (lowest, middle, and highest). Mean age of the studied population was 79.5 years, 75.8% of participants were female, and mean Framingham score was 15.6 (range, 4 to 28).
Annual evaluations included assessment of episodic memory (memory of everyday events), semantic memory (long-term memory), working memory (short-term memory), visuospatial ability (capacity to identify visual and spatial relationships among objects), and perceptual speed (ability to accurately and completely compare letters, numbers, objects, pictures, or patterns) using 19 tests to derive a composite score.
A subsample (n = 378) of participants underwent MRI, and structural total and regional brain volumes were estimated.
Linear regression was used to estimate beta-coefficients for the relationship between cardiovascular risk burden at baseline and longitudinally. If the beta-coefficient is negative, the interpretation is that for every 1-unit increase in the predictor variable (FGCRS), the outcome variable (cognitive function) will decrease by the beta-coefficient value.
At baseline, higher FGCRS was related to small but consistent (although not usually statistically significant) decreases in hippocampal volume, gray matter, and total brain volume.
Considered longitudinally, participants in the highest-risk tertile of FGCRS experienced faster decline in global cognition (beta = −0.019), episodic memory (beta = −0.023), working memory (beta = −0.021), and perceptual speed (beta = −0.027) during follow-up (P < .05 for all) than those in the lowest-risk tertile.
The declines in semantic memory (beta = –0.012) and visuospatial ability (beta = –0.010) did not reach statistical significance.
Bringing dementia prevention into the exam room early
Commenting on the research, Costantino Iadecola, MD, director of the Feil Family Brain and Mind Research Institute at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the study has immediate clinical usefulness.
“The link between the cardiovascular risk factors and dementia is well known, but in your doctor’s office, that link is not seen. If your GP or cardiologist sees you with high blood pressure, he’s not immediately going to think about the risk of dementia 20 years later,” said Dr. Iadecola.
“What this study does is it directly links a simple score that’s commonly used to assess cardiovascular risk to dementia risk, which can be used to counsel patients and, hopefully, reduce the risk of both cardiovascular disease and cognitive disorders.”
Dr. Iadecola wrote an editorial together with Neal S. Parikh, MD, MS, also from Weill Cornell Medicine, that accompanied the findings of the trial.
Even neurologists sometimes fail to make the connection between vascular risk and dementia, he said. “They think that by making a stroke patient move their hand better, they’re treating them, but 30% of stroke patients get dementia 6 or 8 months later and they’re missing this link between cerebrovascular pathology and dementia.
Dr. Iadecola is one of 26 experts who authored the recent Berlin Manifesto, an effort led by Vladimir Hachinski, MD, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Western University in Ontario, Canada, to raise awareness of the link between cardiovascular and brain health.
Dr. Hachinski coined the term “brain attack” and devised the Hachinski Ischemic Score that remains the standard for identifying a vascular component of cognitive impairment.
The current study has some strengths and limitations, noted Dr. Iadecola. The average age of participants was 80 years, which is appropriate given the high risk for cognitive decline at this age, but the generalizability of the study may be limited given that most participants were white women.
Going forward, he said, rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings and to determine how to best prevent dementia through treatment of individual cardiovascular risk factors.
Dr. Xu has received grants from nonindustry entities, including the Swedish Research Council and the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The study was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 320230 research and innovation program. Dr. Iadecola is a member of the scientific advisory board for Broadview Ventures.
This article appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
New diagnostic CT scan model predicts pulmonary hypertension
A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.
The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.
“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.
The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.
The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.
In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
Derivation cohort
Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.
Validation cohort
Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.
With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).
“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.
Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.
“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.
The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.
SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.
A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.
The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.
“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.
The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.
The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.
In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
Derivation cohort
Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.
Validation cohort
Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.
With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).
“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.
Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.
“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.
The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.
SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.
A new CT scan pulmonary angiography model may help optimize the diagnostic work-up process for patients with suspected pulmonary hypertension (PH), according to a recent study.
The diagnostic and prognostic utility of the model was validated in a tertiary referral population of treatment-naive patients who had a high pretest probability of PH.
“The aim of this study was to (a) build a diagnostic CT model in patients with suspected PH using the current guideline definition of PH (mPAP [mean pulmonary arterial pressure] ≥25 mm Hg) and the recent proposed definition of >20 mm Hg and (b) test its prognostic significance,” wrote Andrew J. Swift, MBChB, PhD, of the University of Sheffield (England) and colleagues in European Radiology.
The study cohort included 491 patients with suspected PH who underwent routine CT pulmonary angiography and right-heart catheterization between April 2012 and March 2016. CT metrics for patients with PH were developed using axial and reconstructed images.
The researchers identified the derivation (n = 247) and validation (n = 244) cohorts using random patient selection. In the derivation cohort, multivariate regression analysis was conducted to develop a model with the ability to predict mPAP ≥25 mm Hg and >20 mm Hg.
In the validation cohort, receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to establish compromise CT thresholds, as well as sensitivity and specificity. The prognostic utility of the model was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.
Derivation cohort
Among the 247 patients in the derivation cohort, a CT regression model was identified, which included right-ventricle outflow tract thickness, main pulmonary artery diameter, and left ventricular area and interventricular septal angle; the area under the curve (AUC) in this cohort was 0.92.
Validation cohort
Among the 244 patients in the validation cohort, the model demonstrated strong diagnostic utility for the detection of PH, with an AUC of 0.91 and 0.94 for mPAP >20 mm Hg and ≥25 mm Hg, respectively.
With respect to the prognostic utility of the model, the researchers found that the diagnostic thresholds were prognostic in the CT model (all P < .01).
“The diagnostic CT thresholds are also of prognostic value; patients found not to have PH on CT have an excellent outcome,” they explained.
Dr. Swift and colleagues acknowledged that positive and negative predictive values will change based on the diagnostic setting. As a result, the findings from the current study may only be applicable to tertiary referral patient populations.
“This data may be particularly helpful when triaging patients with suspected severe PH for consideration of targeted pulmonary vascular therapies,” they concluded.
The study was supported by Wellcome Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, MRC POLARIS, and Bayer. The authors reported having no conflicts of interest with any companies related to the publication.
SOURCE: Swift AJ et al. Eur Radiol. 2020 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00330-020-06846-1.
FROM EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
New angiotensin studies in COVID-19 give more reassurance
Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.
Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.
Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.
Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?
Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”
But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.
In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).
In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.
In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).
The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”
“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.
A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.
A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.
In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.
In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.
In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.
Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.
Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.
In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.
“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.
In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.
After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?
A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.
Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.
“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.
“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”
The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”
Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.
“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.
He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”
Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”
Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.
Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.
Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.
Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?
Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”
But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.
In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).
In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.
In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).
The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”
“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.
A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.
A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.
In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.
In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.
In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.
Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.
Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.
In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.
“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.
In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.
After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?
A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.
Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.
“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.
“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”
The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”
Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.
“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.
He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”
Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”
Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Four more studies of the relationship of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) with COVID-19 have been published in the past few days in top-tier peer-reviewed journals, and on the whole, the data are reassuring.
Three of the new studies were published in the New England Journal of Medicine on May 1, and one study was published in JAMA Cardiology on May 5.
Although all the studies are observational in design and have some confounding factors, overall, However, there are some contradictory findings in secondary analyses regarding possible differences in the effects of the two drug classes.
Providing commentary, John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, said: “The overall picture seems to suggest no increase in risk of adverse outcomes in patients taking renin-angiotensin system [RAS] blockers ― but with lots of caveats: These are all observational rather than randomized studies, and there may be residual or unmeasured confounding.”
Was it ‘Much ado about nothing’?
Franz Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern (Switzerland), added: “Given this state of the art, I am inclined to consider RAS blockade and COVID-19 – despite all the hype in the news media – as much ado about nothing.”
But both Dr. McMurray and Dr. Messerli said they were intrigued about possible differences in the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs that some of the new results suggest.
In one study, a team led by Mandeep Mehra, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart and Vascular Center, Boston, analyzed data from 8,910 patients with COVID-19 admitted to 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America who had either died in the hospital (5.8%) or survived to hospital discharge (94.2%).
In multivariate logistic-regression analysis, age greater than 65 years, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, history of cardiac arrhythmia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and current smoking were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death. Female sex was associated with a decreased risk. Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with an increased risk for in-hospital death.
In fact, ACE inhibitors were associated with a significant reduction in mortality (odds ratio, 0.33), as were statins (OR, 0.35).
The authors, however, stressed that these observations about reduced mortality with ACE inhibitors and statins “should be considered with extreme caution.”
“Because our study was not a randomized, controlled trial, we cannot exclude the possibility of confounding. In addition, we examined relationships between many variables and in-hospital death, and no primary hypothesis was prespecified; these factors increased the probability of chance associations being found. Therefore, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred,” they wrote.
A secondary analysis that was restricted to patients with hypertension (those for whom an ACE inhibitor or an ARB would be indicated) also did not show harm.
A second study published in the New England Journal of Medicine had a case-control design. The authors, led by Giuseppe Mancia, MD, of the University of Milano-Bicocca (Italy), compared 6,272 patients with confirmed COVID-19 (case patients) with 30,759 control persons who were matched according to age, sex, and municipality of residence.
In a conditional logistic-regression multivariate analysis, neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with the likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection.
“Thus, our results do not provide evidence of an independent relationship between renin angiotensin aldosterone blockers and the susceptibility to COVID-19 in humans,” the authors concluded.
In addition, a second analysis that compared patients who had severe or fatal infections with matched control persons did not show an association between ACE inhibitors or ARBs and severe disease.
In the third study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a group led by Harmony R. Reynolds, MD, of New York University, analyzed data from the health records of 12,594 patients in the NYU Langone Health system who had been tested for COVID-19. They found 5,894 patients whose test results were positive. Of these patients, 1,002 had severe illness, which was defined as illness requiring admission to the ICU, need for mechanical ventilation, or death.
Using Bayesian analysis and propensity score matching, the researchers assessed the relation between previous treatment with five different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACE inhibitors, ARBs, beta blockers, calcium blockers, and thiazide diuretics) and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on COVID-19 testing, as well as the likelihood of severe illness among patients who tested positive.
Results showed no positive association between any of the analyzed drug classes and either a positive test result or severe illness.
In an accompanying editorial, a group led by John A. Jarcho, MD, of Harvard Medical School, Boston, and deputy editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, wrote: “Taken together, these three studies do not provide evidence to support the hypothesis that ACE inhibitor or ARB use is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the risk of severe COVID-19 among those infected, or the risk of in-hospital death among those with a positive test.
“Each of these studies has weaknesses inherent in observational data, but we find it reassuring that three studies in different populations and with different designs arrive at the consistent message that the continued use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs is unlikely to be harmful in patients with COVID-19. Several other smaller studies from China and the United Kingdom have come to the same conclusion,” the authors of the editorial stated.
In the study published in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Neil Mehta, MBBS, of the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, analyzed data on 18,472 patients who had been tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12 in the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. Of these patients, 9.4% tested positive.
After overlap propensity score weighting for both ACE inhibitors and ARBs to take into account relevant comorbidities, there was no difference in risk for testing positive among patients taking an ACE inhibitor or an ARB in comparison with those not taking such medication.
Are there different effects between ACE inhibitors and ARBs?
A secondary exploratory analysis showed a higher likelihood of hospital admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking either ACE inhibitors (OR, 1.84) or ARBs (OR, 1.61), and there was a higher likelihood of ICU admission among patients who tested positive and who were taking an ACE inhibitor (OR 1.77), but no such difference was observed among those taking ARBs.
Coauthor Ankur Kalra, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said in an interview that results of the exploratory analysis fit with the hypothesis that the two drugs classes may have different effects in patients with COVID-19.
“Angiotensin II promotes vasoconstriction, inflammation, and fibrosis in the lungs, and ARBs block the effects of angiotensin II more effectively than ACE inhibitors. In addition, ACE inhibitors (but not ARBs) increase levels of bradykinin, which may be one factor leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome,” he noted.
“However, these results should only be considered exploratory, as there is inherent bias in observational data,” Dr. Kalra stressed.
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA Cardiology, a group led by Laine E. Thomas, PhD, of Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina, said that the results of this secondary exploratory analysis are limited by a small number of patients and “are likely explained by confounding and should not be inferred as causal.”
The New England Journal of Medicine editorialists reached a similar conclusion regarding the lower mortality in COVID-19 patients who took ACE inhibitors in the study by Dr. Mehra and colleagues. They say this unexpected result “may be due to unmeasured confounding and, in the absence of a randomized trial, should not be regarded as evidence to prescribe these drugs in patients with COVID-19.”
Providing further comment, Dr. McMurray said: “Normally, I would not read too much into the different effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs suggested in the Cleveland study because of the small numbers (about 28 ACE inhibitor–treated patients admitted to ICU) and the limited information about matching and/or adjustment for potential differences between groups.
“I could also argue that the comparison that would best answer the question about risk related to type of RAS blocker would be the direct comparison of people taking an ACE inhibitor with those taking an ARB (and that doesn’t look very different). The only thing that makes me a little cautious about completely dismissing the possibility of a difference between ACE inhibitor and ARB here is the suggestion of a similar trend in another large study from the VA [Veterans Affairs] system,” he added.
He also noted that speculation about there being mechanisms that involve different effects of the two drug classes on bradykinin and angiotensin II was “plausible but unproven.”
Dr. Messerli added: “Before turning the page, I would like to see an analysis comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs, since experimentally, their effect on ACE2 (the receptor to which the virus binds) seems to differ. The study of Mehta et al in JAMA Cardiology may be the first clinical hint indicating that ARBs are more protective than ACEIs. However even here, the looming possibility of confounding cannot be excluded.”
Dr. Messerli also pointed to a hypothesis that suggests that direct viral infection of endothelial cells expressing ACE2 receptors may explain worse outcomes in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, which provides a rationale for therapies to stabilize the endothelium, particularly with anti-inflammatory anticytokine drugs, ACE inhibitors, and statins.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
AHA emphasizes the need for cardio-obstetrics teams
according to a statement from the American Heart Association.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, and accounted for approximately 17 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015, wrote Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.
Ideally, a woman with CVD at the time of pregnancy should be managed by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team that can assess cardiovascular risk, obstetric risk, and fetal risk throughout pregnancy, delivery, and up to a year post partum. The team should develop a shared strategy to promote best outcomes, according to the statement. The cardio-obstetrics team may include obstetricians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, geneticists, neurologists, nurses, and pharmacists, according to the statement.
Women with preexisting CVD should receive counseling about maternal and fetal risks before conception, if possible, to involve the women in shared decision-making and to develop strategies for each stage of pregnancy and delivery, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Such counseling should include a review of all medications and assessment of risk factors.
However, some women present already in the early stages of pregnancy even with severe conditions such as pulmonary arterial hypertension, severe ventricular dysfunction, severe left-sided heart obstruction, and significant aortic dilatation with underlying connective tissue disease. Women with these conditions often are counseled to avoid pregnancy, but if they already are pregnant, a high-risk cardio-obstetrics team will need to work together to discover the best strategies going forward to mitigate risk, Dr. Mehta and associates said.
Common CVD conditions that affect pregnancy include hypertensive disorders, notably preeclampsia, defined as systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg in women after 20 weeks of gestation whose blood pressure was normal prior to pregnancy. A management strategy to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications from hypertension includes healthy lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, nutrition, and smoking cessation, according to the statement. However, patients with severe hypertension may require intravenous labetalol or hydralazine. The statement gives more information about handling preeclampsia with pulmonary edema, and prevention of eclampsia and treatment of seizures.
It is important to recognize that severe hypertension or superimposed preeclampsia may occur for the first time post partum. Early ambulatory visits in the first 1-2 weeks are sensible. Medications may be needed to keep a systolic blood pressure not higher than 150 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure not higher than 100 mm Hg, Dr. Mehta and associates said.
According to the statement, severe hypertriglyceridemia and familial hypercholesterolemia are the two most common conditions in which lipids should be addressed during pregnancy, with consideration of the fetal risks associated with certain medications.
“Statins are contraindicated during pregnancy, and all women who are on any lipid-lowering agents should review with their physician the safety of treatment during pregnancy and whether to discontinue treatment before pregnancy,” according to the statement. A heart-healthy lifestyle can help improve lipid profiles in all pregnant patients, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Patients with extremely high triglycerides above 500 mg/dL are at risk of pancreatitis and “may benefit from pharmacological agents (omega-3 fatty acids with or without fenofibrate or gemfibrozil) during the second trimester,” they noted. Pregnant women with familial hypercholesterolemia might take bile acid sequestrants, or as a last resort, low-density lipoprotein apheresis.
Other conditions calling for a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetric approach include preexisting coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, valvular heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and deep venous thrombosis, according to the statement, which provides information about the risks, diagnosis, and management.
When it is time for delivery, spontaneous labor and vaginal birth are preferable for most women with heart disease, as cesarean delivery is associated with increased risk of infection, thrombotic complications, and blood loss, according to the statement.
Women with CVD and associated complications will require “specialized long-term cardiovascular follow-up,” Dr. Mehta and associates said. “In women with a high-risk pregnancy, a cardio-obstetrics team is essential to prevent maternal morbidity and mortality during the length of the pregnancy and post partum.”
“The release of this document demonstrates the AHA’s recognition of the importance of CVD in pregnancy-related death and their commitment to education and ensuring best practices in this field,” said Lisa M. Hollier, MD, past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Health Plan, Bellaire.
“I think one of the most important outcomes from the release of this scientific statement from AHA will be increased implementation of cardio-obstetrics teams,” she said in an interview.
“In the United States, cardiovascular disease and cardiomyopathy together are now the leading cause of death in pregnancy and the postpartum period, and constitute 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, with higher rates of mortality among women of color and women with lower incomes,” she said. “The rising trend in cardiovascular-related maternal deaths appears to be due to acquired, not congenital, heart disease.”
During her tenure as president of ACOG, Dr. Hollier convened a task force on cardiovascular disease in pregnancy that developed guidance that outlines screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women from prepregnancy through post partum.
Dr. Hollier noted that COVID-19 emphasizes racial disparities for maternal mortality.
“Pregnant patients with comorbidities, like heart conditions, may be at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 – consistent with the general population with similar comorbidities,” she said. “And as we know, black women’s risk of dying from CVD-related pregnancy complications is 3.4 times higher than that of white women. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we are seeing these racial health disparities exacerbated.”
However, any pregnant patients should not hesitate to communicate with their health care providers despite the pandemic situation, Dr. Hollier emphasized. “Communication between a patient and her ob.gyn., cardiologist, or other clinician is even more critical now during the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re hearing reports that patients who are experiencing symptoms or those with known cardiac conditions are avoiding the hospital and delaying or not seeking necessary treatment. This has the very real possibility of worsening the devastating maternal mortality crisis that we’re already experiencing in this country.”
To help overcome barriers to treatment, “collaboration between ob.gyns. and cardiologists, such as the cardio-obstetrics team or pregnancy heart team, is critical,” said Dr. Hollier. “These collaborative teams with a multidisciplinary approach can prospectively reduce the communication gaps across specialties when patients are seen separately. They can also improve the communication during care transitions such as between outpatient and inpatient care.
“In reviews of maternal deaths, we have found that there are often delays in diagnosis of heart conditions during and after pregnancy,” Dr. Hollier added. “Most maternal deaths from CVD are due to either undiagnosed cardiovascular disease or new-onset cardiomyopathy. ACOG recommends that all women be assessed for cardiovascular disease in the antepartum and postpartum periods using a recently developed algorithm,” she said. “Women who have known CVD and women who have concerning symptoms should have a consultation with this team. With increased awareness and screening, women can receive the additional care that they need.
“Because management of cardiac conditions in pregnancy is so complex, it is important to ensure that women receive care with teams and in facilities that have appropriate resources,” explained Dr. Hollier. “Women with known heart disease should see a cardiologist prior to pregnancy and receive prepregnancy counseling,” as noted in the AHA statement. “Patients determined to have moderate and high-risk CVD should be managed during pregnancy, delivery, and post partum in a medical center that is able to provide a higher level of care, including a cardio-obstetrics team.”
Early recognition of cardiovascular conditions is essential to help manage care and reduce risks to mother and baby, said Dr. Hollier. “Identification before a woman becomes pregnant means the patient’s care can be properly managed throughout the pregnancy and a detailed delivery plan can be developed through shared decision making between the patient and provider. We must think of heart disease as a possibility in every pregnant or postpartum patient we see to detect and treat at-risk mothers,” she said.
Additional research should focus on identifying risk factors prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Hollier. “There are often delays in recognizing symptoms during pregnancy and post partum, particularly for black women. We need data to understand which protocols are best to identify heart disease,”
Dr. Hollier had no financial conflicts to disclose. The authors of the AHA statement had no financial conflicts to disclose. The scientific statement was produced on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Stroke Council.
SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000772.
according to a statement from the American Heart Association.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, and accounted for approximately 17 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015, wrote Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.
Ideally, a woman with CVD at the time of pregnancy should be managed by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team that can assess cardiovascular risk, obstetric risk, and fetal risk throughout pregnancy, delivery, and up to a year post partum. The team should develop a shared strategy to promote best outcomes, according to the statement. The cardio-obstetrics team may include obstetricians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, geneticists, neurologists, nurses, and pharmacists, according to the statement.
Women with preexisting CVD should receive counseling about maternal and fetal risks before conception, if possible, to involve the women in shared decision-making and to develop strategies for each stage of pregnancy and delivery, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Such counseling should include a review of all medications and assessment of risk factors.
However, some women present already in the early stages of pregnancy even with severe conditions such as pulmonary arterial hypertension, severe ventricular dysfunction, severe left-sided heart obstruction, and significant aortic dilatation with underlying connective tissue disease. Women with these conditions often are counseled to avoid pregnancy, but if they already are pregnant, a high-risk cardio-obstetrics team will need to work together to discover the best strategies going forward to mitigate risk, Dr. Mehta and associates said.
Common CVD conditions that affect pregnancy include hypertensive disorders, notably preeclampsia, defined as systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg in women after 20 weeks of gestation whose blood pressure was normal prior to pregnancy. A management strategy to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications from hypertension includes healthy lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, nutrition, and smoking cessation, according to the statement. However, patients with severe hypertension may require intravenous labetalol or hydralazine. The statement gives more information about handling preeclampsia with pulmonary edema, and prevention of eclampsia and treatment of seizures.
It is important to recognize that severe hypertension or superimposed preeclampsia may occur for the first time post partum. Early ambulatory visits in the first 1-2 weeks are sensible. Medications may be needed to keep a systolic blood pressure not higher than 150 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure not higher than 100 mm Hg, Dr. Mehta and associates said.
According to the statement, severe hypertriglyceridemia and familial hypercholesterolemia are the two most common conditions in which lipids should be addressed during pregnancy, with consideration of the fetal risks associated with certain medications.
“Statins are contraindicated during pregnancy, and all women who are on any lipid-lowering agents should review with their physician the safety of treatment during pregnancy and whether to discontinue treatment before pregnancy,” according to the statement. A heart-healthy lifestyle can help improve lipid profiles in all pregnant patients, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Patients with extremely high triglycerides above 500 mg/dL are at risk of pancreatitis and “may benefit from pharmacological agents (omega-3 fatty acids with or without fenofibrate or gemfibrozil) during the second trimester,” they noted. Pregnant women with familial hypercholesterolemia might take bile acid sequestrants, or as a last resort, low-density lipoprotein apheresis.
Other conditions calling for a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetric approach include preexisting coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, valvular heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and deep venous thrombosis, according to the statement, which provides information about the risks, diagnosis, and management.
When it is time for delivery, spontaneous labor and vaginal birth are preferable for most women with heart disease, as cesarean delivery is associated with increased risk of infection, thrombotic complications, and blood loss, according to the statement.
Women with CVD and associated complications will require “specialized long-term cardiovascular follow-up,” Dr. Mehta and associates said. “In women with a high-risk pregnancy, a cardio-obstetrics team is essential to prevent maternal morbidity and mortality during the length of the pregnancy and post partum.”
“The release of this document demonstrates the AHA’s recognition of the importance of CVD in pregnancy-related death and their commitment to education and ensuring best practices in this field,” said Lisa M. Hollier, MD, past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Health Plan, Bellaire.
“I think one of the most important outcomes from the release of this scientific statement from AHA will be increased implementation of cardio-obstetrics teams,” she said in an interview.
“In the United States, cardiovascular disease and cardiomyopathy together are now the leading cause of death in pregnancy and the postpartum period, and constitute 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, with higher rates of mortality among women of color and women with lower incomes,” she said. “The rising trend in cardiovascular-related maternal deaths appears to be due to acquired, not congenital, heart disease.”
During her tenure as president of ACOG, Dr. Hollier convened a task force on cardiovascular disease in pregnancy that developed guidance that outlines screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women from prepregnancy through post partum.
Dr. Hollier noted that COVID-19 emphasizes racial disparities for maternal mortality.
“Pregnant patients with comorbidities, like heart conditions, may be at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 – consistent with the general population with similar comorbidities,” she said. “And as we know, black women’s risk of dying from CVD-related pregnancy complications is 3.4 times higher than that of white women. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we are seeing these racial health disparities exacerbated.”
However, any pregnant patients should not hesitate to communicate with their health care providers despite the pandemic situation, Dr. Hollier emphasized. “Communication between a patient and her ob.gyn., cardiologist, or other clinician is even more critical now during the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re hearing reports that patients who are experiencing symptoms or those with known cardiac conditions are avoiding the hospital and delaying or not seeking necessary treatment. This has the very real possibility of worsening the devastating maternal mortality crisis that we’re already experiencing in this country.”
To help overcome barriers to treatment, “collaboration between ob.gyns. and cardiologists, such as the cardio-obstetrics team or pregnancy heart team, is critical,” said Dr. Hollier. “These collaborative teams with a multidisciplinary approach can prospectively reduce the communication gaps across specialties when patients are seen separately. They can also improve the communication during care transitions such as between outpatient and inpatient care.
“In reviews of maternal deaths, we have found that there are often delays in diagnosis of heart conditions during and after pregnancy,” Dr. Hollier added. “Most maternal deaths from CVD are due to either undiagnosed cardiovascular disease or new-onset cardiomyopathy. ACOG recommends that all women be assessed for cardiovascular disease in the antepartum and postpartum periods using a recently developed algorithm,” she said. “Women who have known CVD and women who have concerning symptoms should have a consultation with this team. With increased awareness and screening, women can receive the additional care that they need.
“Because management of cardiac conditions in pregnancy is so complex, it is important to ensure that women receive care with teams and in facilities that have appropriate resources,” explained Dr. Hollier. “Women with known heart disease should see a cardiologist prior to pregnancy and receive prepregnancy counseling,” as noted in the AHA statement. “Patients determined to have moderate and high-risk CVD should be managed during pregnancy, delivery, and post partum in a medical center that is able to provide a higher level of care, including a cardio-obstetrics team.”
Early recognition of cardiovascular conditions is essential to help manage care and reduce risks to mother and baby, said Dr. Hollier. “Identification before a woman becomes pregnant means the patient’s care can be properly managed throughout the pregnancy and a detailed delivery plan can be developed through shared decision making between the patient and provider. We must think of heart disease as a possibility in every pregnant or postpartum patient we see to detect and treat at-risk mothers,” she said.
Additional research should focus on identifying risk factors prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Hollier. “There are often delays in recognizing symptoms during pregnancy and post partum, particularly for black women. We need data to understand which protocols are best to identify heart disease,”
Dr. Hollier had no financial conflicts to disclose. The authors of the AHA statement had no financial conflicts to disclose. The scientific statement was produced on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Stroke Council.
SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000772.
according to a statement from the American Heart Association.
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of pregnancy-related mortality in the United States, and accounted for approximately 17 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2015, wrote Laxmi S. Mehta, MD, of The Ohio State University, Columbus, and colleagues.
Ideally, a woman with CVD at the time of pregnancy should be managed by a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetrics team that can assess cardiovascular risk, obstetric risk, and fetal risk throughout pregnancy, delivery, and up to a year post partum. The team should develop a shared strategy to promote best outcomes, according to the statement. The cardio-obstetrics team may include obstetricians, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, maternal-fetal medicine specialists, geneticists, neurologists, nurses, and pharmacists, according to the statement.
Women with preexisting CVD should receive counseling about maternal and fetal risks before conception, if possible, to involve the women in shared decision-making and to develop strategies for each stage of pregnancy and delivery, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Such counseling should include a review of all medications and assessment of risk factors.
However, some women present already in the early stages of pregnancy even with severe conditions such as pulmonary arterial hypertension, severe ventricular dysfunction, severe left-sided heart obstruction, and significant aortic dilatation with underlying connective tissue disease. Women with these conditions often are counseled to avoid pregnancy, but if they already are pregnant, a high-risk cardio-obstetrics team will need to work together to discover the best strategies going forward to mitigate risk, Dr. Mehta and associates said.
Common CVD conditions that affect pregnancy include hypertensive disorders, notably preeclampsia, defined as systolic blood pressure greater than 140 mm Hg or diastolic blood pressure greater than 90 mm Hg in women after 20 weeks of gestation whose blood pressure was normal prior to pregnancy. A management strategy to reduce the risk of pregnancy-related complications from hypertension includes healthy lifestyle behaviors such as exercise, nutrition, and smoking cessation, according to the statement. However, patients with severe hypertension may require intravenous labetalol or hydralazine. The statement gives more information about handling preeclampsia with pulmonary edema, and prevention of eclampsia and treatment of seizures.
It is important to recognize that severe hypertension or superimposed preeclampsia may occur for the first time post partum. Early ambulatory visits in the first 1-2 weeks are sensible. Medications may be needed to keep a systolic blood pressure not higher than 150 mm Hg and a diastolic blood pressure not higher than 100 mm Hg, Dr. Mehta and associates said.
According to the statement, severe hypertriglyceridemia and familial hypercholesterolemia are the two most common conditions in which lipids should be addressed during pregnancy, with consideration of the fetal risks associated with certain medications.
“Statins are contraindicated during pregnancy, and all women who are on any lipid-lowering agents should review with their physician the safety of treatment during pregnancy and whether to discontinue treatment before pregnancy,” according to the statement. A heart-healthy lifestyle can help improve lipid profiles in all pregnant patients, Dr. Mehta and associates said. Patients with extremely high triglycerides above 500 mg/dL are at risk of pancreatitis and “may benefit from pharmacological agents (omega-3 fatty acids with or without fenofibrate or gemfibrozil) during the second trimester,” they noted. Pregnant women with familial hypercholesterolemia might take bile acid sequestrants, or as a last resort, low-density lipoprotein apheresis.
Other conditions calling for a multidisciplinary cardio-obstetric approach include preexisting coronary artery disease, cardiomyopathies, arrhythmias, valvular heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and deep venous thrombosis, according to the statement, which provides information about the risks, diagnosis, and management.
When it is time for delivery, spontaneous labor and vaginal birth are preferable for most women with heart disease, as cesarean delivery is associated with increased risk of infection, thrombotic complications, and blood loss, according to the statement.
Women with CVD and associated complications will require “specialized long-term cardiovascular follow-up,” Dr. Mehta and associates said. “In women with a high-risk pregnancy, a cardio-obstetrics team is essential to prevent maternal morbidity and mortality during the length of the pregnancy and post partum.”
“The release of this document demonstrates the AHA’s recognition of the importance of CVD in pregnancy-related death and their commitment to education and ensuring best practices in this field,” said Lisa M. Hollier, MD, past president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and chief medical officer at Texas Children’s Health Plan, Bellaire.
“I think one of the most important outcomes from the release of this scientific statement from AHA will be increased implementation of cardio-obstetrics teams,” she said in an interview.
“In the United States, cardiovascular disease and cardiomyopathy together are now the leading cause of death in pregnancy and the postpartum period, and constitute 26.5% of pregnancy-related deaths, with higher rates of mortality among women of color and women with lower incomes,” she said. “The rising trend in cardiovascular-related maternal deaths appears to be due to acquired, not congenital, heart disease.”
During her tenure as president of ACOG, Dr. Hollier convened a task force on cardiovascular disease in pregnancy that developed guidance that outlines screening, diagnosis, and management of CVD for women from prepregnancy through post partum.
Dr. Hollier noted that COVID-19 emphasizes racial disparities for maternal mortality.
“Pregnant patients with comorbidities, like heart conditions, may be at increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19 – consistent with the general population with similar comorbidities,” she said. “And as we know, black women’s risk of dying from CVD-related pregnancy complications is 3.4 times higher than that of white women. During the COVID-19 pandemic, we are seeing these racial health disparities exacerbated.”
However, any pregnant patients should not hesitate to communicate with their health care providers despite the pandemic situation, Dr. Hollier emphasized. “Communication between a patient and her ob.gyn., cardiologist, or other clinician is even more critical now during the COVID-19 pandemic. We’re hearing reports that patients who are experiencing symptoms or those with known cardiac conditions are avoiding the hospital and delaying or not seeking necessary treatment. This has the very real possibility of worsening the devastating maternal mortality crisis that we’re already experiencing in this country.”
To help overcome barriers to treatment, “collaboration between ob.gyns. and cardiologists, such as the cardio-obstetrics team or pregnancy heart team, is critical,” said Dr. Hollier. “These collaborative teams with a multidisciplinary approach can prospectively reduce the communication gaps across specialties when patients are seen separately. They can also improve the communication during care transitions such as between outpatient and inpatient care.
“In reviews of maternal deaths, we have found that there are often delays in diagnosis of heart conditions during and after pregnancy,” Dr. Hollier added. “Most maternal deaths from CVD are due to either undiagnosed cardiovascular disease or new-onset cardiomyopathy. ACOG recommends that all women be assessed for cardiovascular disease in the antepartum and postpartum periods using a recently developed algorithm,” she said. “Women who have known CVD and women who have concerning symptoms should have a consultation with this team. With increased awareness and screening, women can receive the additional care that they need.
“Because management of cardiac conditions in pregnancy is so complex, it is important to ensure that women receive care with teams and in facilities that have appropriate resources,” explained Dr. Hollier. “Women with known heart disease should see a cardiologist prior to pregnancy and receive prepregnancy counseling,” as noted in the AHA statement. “Patients determined to have moderate and high-risk CVD should be managed during pregnancy, delivery, and post partum in a medical center that is able to provide a higher level of care, including a cardio-obstetrics team.”
Early recognition of cardiovascular conditions is essential to help manage care and reduce risks to mother and baby, said Dr. Hollier. “Identification before a woman becomes pregnant means the patient’s care can be properly managed throughout the pregnancy and a detailed delivery plan can be developed through shared decision making between the patient and provider. We must think of heart disease as a possibility in every pregnant or postpartum patient we see to detect and treat at-risk mothers,” she said.
Additional research should focus on identifying risk factors prior to pregnancy, said Dr. Hollier. “There are often delays in recognizing symptoms during pregnancy and post partum, particularly for black women. We need data to understand which protocols are best to identify heart disease,”
Dr. Hollier had no financial conflicts to disclose. The authors of the AHA statement had no financial conflicts to disclose. The scientific statement was produced on behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology; Council on Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; and the Stroke Council.
SOURCE: Mehta LS et al. Circulation. 2020 May 4. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000772.
FROM CIRCULATION
Diastolic dysfunction is a common risk factor for cognitive decline
a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.
“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.
“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.
This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.
“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.
“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.
Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.
Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).
An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.
Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).
Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).
The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.
The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.
Earlier interventions
Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”
Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”
Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.
Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.
“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.
With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.
About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.
Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.
“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.
“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.
This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.
“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.
“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.
Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.
Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).
An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.
Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).
Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).
The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.
The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.
Earlier interventions
Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”
Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”
Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.
Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.
“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.
With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.
About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.
Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
a new study suggests. “We found people with worsening diastolic dysfunction have more white matter hyperintensities on brain imaging and greater difficulty with executive functioning, suggesting that diastolic dysfunction is a common modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment,” said lead author Alicia S. Parker, MD. Dr. Parker is assistant professor of cognitive and behavioral neurology at the Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, University of Texas Health, San Antonio.
“This is an entirely new finding. While there have been some small studies suggesting a link between diastolic dysfunction and a reduction in working memory, this is by far the largest dataset on this topic and the first study that has included brain imaging and neuropsychological measures,” she said.
“Diastolic dysfunction is very common in the older population, and we need to do more to find it and treat it to help prevent or reduce cognitive decline,” Dr. Parker added.
This research is being presented online as part of the 2020 American Academy of Neurology Science Highlights.
Dr. Parker explained that systolic dysfunction is known to have a major effect on cardiovascular outcomes and has been found to be associated with cognitive decline. Proposed mechanisms for cognitive decline in patients with systolic dysfunction include low cardiac output, embolic infarctions, and hypoxic changes, among others.
“There is increasing interest in analyzing the influence of diastolic dysfunction on cardiovascular outcomes, and the effects of diastolic dysfunction on cognition are not currently well delineated, which this study seeks to address,” she added.
“While these results are new, they are not surprising. In general, we are finding more and more that heart health is connected to brain health,” she commented.
Dr. Parker and her colleagues started the current research after noticing in clinic that among patients with significant diastolic dysfunction, there were often changes on brain MRI imaging, and the patients often had trouble with executive function. “The effect of diastolic dysfunction on cognition has not been well characterized, so we wanted to look at this,” she said.
The investigators analyzed data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort at examination 8, collected between 2005 and 2008. The study sample included 1,438 individuals older than 55 years who had undergone neuropsychological assessment and echocardiographic diastolic measurement. Systolic measurements were normal for the participants, and they did not currently have dementia, stroke, or other neurologic illness.
Results showed that increasing E/E’ ratio (the ratio of mitral peak velocity of early filling to early diastolic mitral annular velocity) indicated increasing diastolic dysfunction and was associated with an increase in the incidence of mild cognitive impairment (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.66; P < .043).
An increased E/E’ ratio was associated with increased executive function impairment in the “similarities” (beta, –0.29; P < .002) and “phonemic fluency” (–1.28; P < .001) tasks.
Participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction were more impaired with respect to both similarities (–0.62; P < .046) and phonemic fluency (–2.60; P < .023).
Data from 1,217 participants showed that among those with mild diastolic dysfunction, there was a trend toward an increase in white matter hyperintensities (0.11; P < .105). For participants with moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction, white matter hyperintensities were increased (0.30; P < 0.001).
The results were unchanged after the researchers adjusted for many other predictors of cognitive decline affecting diastolic function.
The researchers conclude: “As cerebral small vessel disease clinically presents with executive dysfunction, these results align well.” They add that replication in additional cohorts and analyses of cognition in treatment trials of diastolic dysfunction are warranted.
Earlier interventions
Commenting on the study, Marco R. Di Tullio, MD, professor of medicine and Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, who is also studying the relationship between subclinical cardiac abnormalities and cognition, said: “This is a promising area of research, as it might allow us to uncover novel risk factors for cognitive decline at an early stage, before the development of clinically manifest cardiac disease, which might allow earlier interventions to decrease or delay the onset of cognitive decline.”
Dr. Di Tullio added that he would like to know more about the interaction between diastolic dysfunction, MRI abnormalities, and cognitive impairment risk. “In this study, MRI abnormalities and cognitive impairment are treated as separate outcomes, with diastolic dysfunction being the exposure for each of them. An additional analysis of the association between diastolic dysfunction and cognitive impairment stratified by presence or absence of brain MRI findings would have been interesting.”
Dr. Parker responded that this is an area of investigation. “We suspect that our cognitive findings would not be explained by any one MRI measure, though a comprehensive examination of MRI findings would be of benefit. The thought that there may be a reversible cardiac abnormality that does not have a structural brain imaging correlate on MRI is an interesting possibility,” she said.
Dr. Di Tullio also pointed out that at present, there is no specific treatment for diastolic dysfunction other than to address some the conditions that predispose to it, such as hypertension and atrial fibrillation.
“We completely agree that specific treatments are an area of investigation and that treatment is therefore targeted at associated modifiable conditions,” Dr. Parker replied.
With regard to more specific estimates of the prevalence of diastolic dysfunction, Dr. Parker cites another Framingham analysis that involved 2,355 persons without any prevalent cardiovascular conditions. That study found that diastolic dysfunction was rare until 50 years of age and then gradually increased with age.
About 5% of people in their 50s had mild diastolic dysfunction, and about 3% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 60s, about 18% had mild and 5% had severe diastolic dysfunction. Among persons in their 70s, mild diastolic dysfunction occurred in 35%, and moderate to severe disease was present in 18%; and in persons older than 80 years, nearly half had mild and about 20% had moderate to severe diastolic dysfunction.
Dr. Parker has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
This article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Angiotensin drugs and COVID-19: More reassuring data
Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.
The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.
The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.
The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.
Additional studies
Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.
And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.
The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.
Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
New Wuhan study
The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.
Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.
Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).
Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.
Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.
The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.
Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).
Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).
The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.
The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.
But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”
They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.
However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.
This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.
But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
Experts cautiously optimistic
Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.
“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.
“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.
“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”
However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.
“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.
Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”
Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”
Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.
“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.
“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.
The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.
The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.
The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.
The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.
Additional studies
Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.
And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.
The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.
Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
New Wuhan study
The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.
Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.
Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).
Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.
Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.
The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.
Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).
Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).
The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.
The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.
But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”
They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.
However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.
This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.
But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
Experts cautiously optimistic
Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.
“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.
“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.
“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”
However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.
“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.
Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”
Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”
Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.
“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.
“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.
The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.
The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.
The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.
The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.
Additional studies
Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.
And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.
The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.
Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
New Wuhan study
The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.
Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.
Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).
Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.
Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.
The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.
Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).
Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).
The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.
The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.
But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”
They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.
However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.
This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.
But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.
“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
Experts cautiously optimistic
Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.
Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.
“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.
“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.
“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.
John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”
However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.
“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.
Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”
Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”
Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.
“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.
“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.
The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
ACEI/ARBs linked with survival in hypertensive, Chinese COVID-19 patients
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.
“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.
“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).
The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.
The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.
Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.
Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.
“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).
But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”
The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.
“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.
“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).
The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.
The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.
Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.
Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.
“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).
But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”
The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.
Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.
“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.
“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.
The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).
The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.
The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.
Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.
Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.
“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).
But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”
The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.
SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.
FROM CIRCULATION RESEARCH
Evidence suggests possible RAS-blocker benefit in COVID-19 patients
Patients infected by the COVID-19 virus may benefit from treatments that dampen the renin-angiotensin system, according to a review of several animal studies. These preclinical findings generally support the positions taken in recent week by several cardiology societies that recommended patients taking drugs that moderate the renin-angiotensin system stay on these treatments.
“In patients with cardiovascular disease and SARS-CoV2, the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs [angiotensin receptor blockers], or MRAs [mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists] may be favorable as a method to endogenously upregulate ACE2 as a compensatory mechanism that provides anti-inflammatory, antifibrotic, and antithrombotic support as well as reduction in progression of vascular/cardiac remodeling and heart failure,” wrote Jeffrey Bander, MD, and his associates in a report published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.028).
“Based on our review, we hypothesize cardiovascular patients with COVID-19 should remain on RAS [renin-angiotensin system] inhibitors given the protective effects of the ACE2 pathway until RAS blockade is proven to increase the risk to COVID-19,” said the researchers, who are affiliated with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.
The ACE2 protein, found both in human blood as well as in cell membranes, especially cells of the lungs, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tissues, functions as both a key enzyme in RAS regulation as well as the primary cell receptor for entry of SARS-CoV2.
Their conclusion jibed with both a joint statement in March from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America; and with the conclusions of a review organized by the European Society of Hypertension’s COVID-19 Task Force (Cardiovasc Res. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa097).
In their review, the Mount Sinai authors described results from several animal studies suggesting that ACE2 and its associated signaling proteins could potentially be a “valuable therapeutic target.” They also highlighted several clinical intervention studies recently launched to target ACE2, related proteins, and regulation of this arm of the RAS.
Currently, “no data support any conclusive effects of the use of RAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19,” they concluded. They acknowledged that “the question remains whether the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and MRAs should be avoided in the setting of SARS-CoV infection,” but emphasized that “adequate data on the effects of RAS inhibition in COVID-19 patients is not available,” with more data becoming available soon from ongoing clinical studies.
None of the authors had any disclosures.
Patients infected by the COVID-19 virus may benefit from treatments that dampen the renin-angiotensin system, according to a review of several animal studies. These preclinical findings generally support the positions taken in recent week by several cardiology societies that recommended patients taking drugs that moderate the renin-angiotensin system stay on these treatments.
“In patients with cardiovascular disease and SARS-CoV2, the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs [angiotensin receptor blockers], or MRAs [mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists] may be favorable as a method to endogenously upregulate ACE2 as a compensatory mechanism that provides anti-inflammatory, antifibrotic, and antithrombotic support as well as reduction in progression of vascular/cardiac remodeling and heart failure,” wrote Jeffrey Bander, MD, and his associates in a report published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.028).
“Based on our review, we hypothesize cardiovascular patients with COVID-19 should remain on RAS [renin-angiotensin system] inhibitors given the protective effects of the ACE2 pathway until RAS blockade is proven to increase the risk to COVID-19,” said the researchers, who are affiliated with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.
The ACE2 protein, found both in human blood as well as in cell membranes, especially cells of the lungs, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tissues, functions as both a key enzyme in RAS regulation as well as the primary cell receptor for entry of SARS-CoV2.
Their conclusion jibed with both a joint statement in March from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America; and with the conclusions of a review organized by the European Society of Hypertension’s COVID-19 Task Force (Cardiovasc Res. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa097).
In their review, the Mount Sinai authors described results from several animal studies suggesting that ACE2 and its associated signaling proteins could potentially be a “valuable therapeutic target.” They also highlighted several clinical intervention studies recently launched to target ACE2, related proteins, and regulation of this arm of the RAS.
Currently, “no data support any conclusive effects of the use of RAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19,” they concluded. They acknowledged that “the question remains whether the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and MRAs should be avoided in the setting of SARS-CoV infection,” but emphasized that “adequate data on the effects of RAS inhibition in COVID-19 patients is not available,” with more data becoming available soon from ongoing clinical studies.
None of the authors had any disclosures.
Patients infected by the COVID-19 virus may benefit from treatments that dampen the renin-angiotensin system, according to a review of several animal studies. These preclinical findings generally support the positions taken in recent week by several cardiology societies that recommended patients taking drugs that moderate the renin-angiotensin system stay on these treatments.
“In patients with cardiovascular disease and SARS-CoV2, the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs [angiotensin receptor blockers], or MRAs [mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists] may be favorable as a method to endogenously upregulate ACE2 as a compensatory mechanism that provides anti-inflammatory, antifibrotic, and antithrombotic support as well as reduction in progression of vascular/cardiac remodeling and heart failure,” wrote Jeffrey Bander, MD, and his associates in a report published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.04.028).
“Based on our review, we hypothesize cardiovascular patients with COVID-19 should remain on RAS [renin-angiotensin system] inhibitors given the protective effects of the ACE2 pathway until RAS blockade is proven to increase the risk to COVID-19,” said the researchers, who are affiliated with the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.
The ACE2 protein, found both in human blood as well as in cell membranes, especially cells of the lungs, heart, kidneys, and gastrointestinal tissues, functions as both a key enzyme in RAS regulation as well as the primary cell receptor for entry of SARS-CoV2.
Their conclusion jibed with both a joint statement in March from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America; and with the conclusions of a review organized by the European Society of Hypertension’s COVID-19 Task Force (Cardiovasc Res. 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1093/cvr/cvaa097).
In their review, the Mount Sinai authors described results from several animal studies suggesting that ACE2 and its associated signaling proteins could potentially be a “valuable therapeutic target.” They also highlighted several clinical intervention studies recently launched to target ACE2, related proteins, and regulation of this arm of the RAS.
Currently, “no data support any conclusive effects of the use of RAS inhibitors in patients with COVID-19,” they concluded. They acknowledged that “the question remains whether the use of ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and MRAs should be avoided in the setting of SARS-CoV infection,” but emphasized that “adequate data on the effects of RAS inhibition in COVID-19 patients is not available,” with more data becoming available soon from ongoing clinical studies.
None of the authors had any disclosures.
REPORTING FROM JACC
COVID-19 cases highlight longstanding racial disparities in health care
African Americans are overrepresented among patients who have died as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the current crisis puts a spotlight on long-standing racial disparities in health care and health access in the United States, according to David R. Williams, PhD, a professor of public health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Williams, a social scientist specializing in the link between race and health, is a professor of African and African American Studies and of Sociology at Harvard. He spoke on the topic of racial disparities amid the COVID-19 pandemic in a teleconference sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
“Many Americans are shocked” by the higher mortality rates among African American COVID-19 patients, said Dr. Williams. However, data from decades of research show that “black people in America live sicker and shorter lives,” he said.
Keys to the increased mortality among African Americans include an increased prevalence of risk factors, increased risk for exposure to the virus because of socioeconomic factors, and less access to health care if they do become ill, he said.
Many minority individuals work outside the home in areas deemed essential during the pandemic, such as transit, delivery, maintenance, cleaning, and in businesses such as grocery stores, although in general “race continues to matter for health at every level of income and education,” Dr. Williams said.
In addition, social distance guidelines are not realistic for many people in high-density, low-income areas, who often live in shared, multigenerational housing, he said.
Data show that individuals with chronic conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease are more likely to die as a result of COVID-19, and minority populations are more likely to develop these conditions at younger ages, Dr. Williams noted. Access to health care also plays a role. Many minority individuals of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to have health insurance, or if they do, may have Medicaid, which is not consistently accepted, he said. Also, some low-income neighborhoods lack convenient access to primary care and thus to screening services, he noted.
Dr. Williams said the COVID-19 pandemic could serve as an opportunity to examine and improve health care services for underserved communities. In the short term, “we need to collect data so we can see patterns” and address pressing needs, he said, but long-term goals should “prioritize investments that would create healthy homes and communities,” he emphasized.
A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report cited COVID-NET (the COVID-19 Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network) as showing that, in their catchment population, “approximately 59% of residents are white, 18% are black, and 14% are Hispanic; however, among 580 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with race/ethnicity data, approximately 45% were white, 33% were black, and 8% were Hispanic, suggesting that black populations might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19,” the researchers said.
“These findings, including the potential impact of both sex and race on COVID-19–associated hospitalization rates, need to be confirmed with additional data,” according to the report.
Collecting racial/ethnic information is not always feasible on the front lines, and many areas still face shortages of ventilators and protective equipment, said Dr. Williams.
“I want to salute the providers on the front lines of this pandemic, many putting their own lives at risk, I want to acknowledge the good that they are doing,” Dr. Williams emphasized. He noted that all of us, himself included, may have conscious or unconscious stereotypes, but the key is to acknowledge the potential for these thoughts and feelings and continue to provide the best care.
Clyde W. Yancy, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, expressed similar concerns about disparity in COVID-19 cases in an editorial published on April 15 in JAMA.
“Researchers have emphasized older age, male sex, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, concomitant cardiovascular diseases (including coronary artery disease and heart failure), and myocardial injury as important risk factors associated with worse outcomes,” wrote Dr. Yancy. However, evidence also suggests that “persons who are African American or black are contracting SARS-CoV-2 at higher rates and are more likely to die,” he said.
“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.
“Even though these data are preliminary and further study is warranted, the pattern is irrefutable: Underrepresented minorities are developing COVID-19 infection more frequently and dying disproportionately,” said Dr. Yancy.
Dr. Williams’ and Dr. Yancy’s comments were supported by an analysis of COVID-19 patient data from several areas of the country conducted by the Washington Post. In that analysis, data showed that several counties with a majority black population showed three times the rate of COVID-19 infections and approximately six times as many deaths compared with counties with a majority of white residents.
“The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event,” said Dr. Yancy. “Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the US, there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain,” he said.
Dr. Williams had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yancy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Yancy CW. JAMA 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6548Garg S et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 Apr 8;69:458-64.
Thebault R et al. The coronavirus is infecting and killing black Americans at an alarmingly high rate. Washington Post. 2020 Apr 7.
African Americans are overrepresented among patients who have died as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the current crisis puts a spotlight on long-standing racial disparities in health care and health access in the United States, according to David R. Williams, PhD, a professor of public health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Williams, a social scientist specializing in the link between race and health, is a professor of African and African American Studies and of Sociology at Harvard. He spoke on the topic of racial disparities amid the COVID-19 pandemic in a teleconference sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
“Many Americans are shocked” by the higher mortality rates among African American COVID-19 patients, said Dr. Williams. However, data from decades of research show that “black people in America live sicker and shorter lives,” he said.
Keys to the increased mortality among African Americans include an increased prevalence of risk factors, increased risk for exposure to the virus because of socioeconomic factors, and less access to health care if they do become ill, he said.
Many minority individuals work outside the home in areas deemed essential during the pandemic, such as transit, delivery, maintenance, cleaning, and in businesses such as grocery stores, although in general “race continues to matter for health at every level of income and education,” Dr. Williams said.
In addition, social distance guidelines are not realistic for many people in high-density, low-income areas, who often live in shared, multigenerational housing, he said.
Data show that individuals with chronic conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease are more likely to die as a result of COVID-19, and minority populations are more likely to develop these conditions at younger ages, Dr. Williams noted. Access to health care also plays a role. Many minority individuals of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to have health insurance, or if they do, may have Medicaid, which is not consistently accepted, he said. Also, some low-income neighborhoods lack convenient access to primary care and thus to screening services, he noted.
Dr. Williams said the COVID-19 pandemic could serve as an opportunity to examine and improve health care services for underserved communities. In the short term, “we need to collect data so we can see patterns” and address pressing needs, he said, but long-term goals should “prioritize investments that would create healthy homes and communities,” he emphasized.
A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report cited COVID-NET (the COVID-19 Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network) as showing that, in their catchment population, “approximately 59% of residents are white, 18% are black, and 14% are Hispanic; however, among 580 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with race/ethnicity data, approximately 45% were white, 33% were black, and 8% were Hispanic, suggesting that black populations might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19,” the researchers said.
“These findings, including the potential impact of both sex and race on COVID-19–associated hospitalization rates, need to be confirmed with additional data,” according to the report.
Collecting racial/ethnic information is not always feasible on the front lines, and many areas still face shortages of ventilators and protective equipment, said Dr. Williams.
“I want to salute the providers on the front lines of this pandemic, many putting their own lives at risk, I want to acknowledge the good that they are doing,” Dr. Williams emphasized. He noted that all of us, himself included, may have conscious or unconscious stereotypes, but the key is to acknowledge the potential for these thoughts and feelings and continue to provide the best care.
Clyde W. Yancy, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, expressed similar concerns about disparity in COVID-19 cases in an editorial published on April 15 in JAMA.
“Researchers have emphasized older age, male sex, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, concomitant cardiovascular diseases (including coronary artery disease and heart failure), and myocardial injury as important risk factors associated with worse outcomes,” wrote Dr. Yancy. However, evidence also suggests that “persons who are African American or black are contracting SARS-CoV-2 at higher rates and are more likely to die,” he said.
“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.
“Even though these data are preliminary and further study is warranted, the pattern is irrefutable: Underrepresented minorities are developing COVID-19 infection more frequently and dying disproportionately,” said Dr. Yancy.
Dr. Williams’ and Dr. Yancy’s comments were supported by an analysis of COVID-19 patient data from several areas of the country conducted by the Washington Post. In that analysis, data showed that several counties with a majority black population showed three times the rate of COVID-19 infections and approximately six times as many deaths compared with counties with a majority of white residents.
“The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event,” said Dr. Yancy. “Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the US, there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain,” he said.
Dr. Williams had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yancy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Yancy CW. JAMA 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6548Garg S et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 Apr 8;69:458-64.
Thebault R et al. The coronavirus is infecting and killing black Americans at an alarmingly high rate. Washington Post. 2020 Apr 7.
African Americans are overrepresented among patients who have died as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the current crisis puts a spotlight on long-standing racial disparities in health care and health access in the United States, according to David R. Williams, PhD, a professor of public health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.
Dr. Williams, a social scientist specializing in the link between race and health, is a professor of African and African American Studies and of Sociology at Harvard. He spoke on the topic of racial disparities amid the COVID-19 pandemic in a teleconference sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
“Many Americans are shocked” by the higher mortality rates among African American COVID-19 patients, said Dr. Williams. However, data from decades of research show that “black people in America live sicker and shorter lives,” he said.
Keys to the increased mortality among African Americans include an increased prevalence of risk factors, increased risk for exposure to the virus because of socioeconomic factors, and less access to health care if they do become ill, he said.
Many minority individuals work outside the home in areas deemed essential during the pandemic, such as transit, delivery, maintenance, cleaning, and in businesses such as grocery stores, although in general “race continues to matter for health at every level of income and education,” Dr. Williams said.
In addition, social distance guidelines are not realistic for many people in high-density, low-income areas, who often live in shared, multigenerational housing, he said.
Data show that individuals with chronic conditions such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease are more likely to die as a result of COVID-19, and minority populations are more likely to develop these conditions at younger ages, Dr. Williams noted. Access to health care also plays a role. Many minority individuals of lower socioeconomic status are less likely to have health insurance, or if they do, may have Medicaid, which is not consistently accepted, he said. Also, some low-income neighborhoods lack convenient access to primary care and thus to screening services, he noted.
Dr. Williams said the COVID-19 pandemic could serve as an opportunity to examine and improve health care services for underserved communities. In the short term, “we need to collect data so we can see patterns” and address pressing needs, he said, but long-term goals should “prioritize investments that would create healthy homes and communities,” he emphasized.
A recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report cited COVID-NET (the COVID-19 Associated Hospitalization Surveillance Network) as showing that, in their catchment population, “approximately 59% of residents are white, 18% are black, and 14% are Hispanic; however, among 580 hospitalized COVID-19 patients with race/ethnicity data, approximately 45% were white, 33% were black, and 8% were Hispanic, suggesting that black populations might be disproportionately affected by COVID-19,” the researchers said.
“These findings, including the potential impact of both sex and race on COVID-19–associated hospitalization rates, need to be confirmed with additional data,” according to the report.
Collecting racial/ethnic information is not always feasible on the front lines, and many areas still face shortages of ventilators and protective equipment, said Dr. Williams.
“I want to salute the providers on the front lines of this pandemic, many putting their own lives at risk, I want to acknowledge the good that they are doing,” Dr. Williams emphasized. He noted that all of us, himself included, may have conscious or unconscious stereotypes, but the key is to acknowledge the potential for these thoughts and feelings and continue to provide the best care.
Clyde W. Yancy, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago, expressed similar concerns about disparity in COVID-19 cases in an editorial published on April 15 in JAMA.
“Researchers have emphasized older age, male sex, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, concomitant cardiovascular diseases (including coronary artery disease and heart failure), and myocardial injury as important risk factors associated with worse outcomes,” wrote Dr. Yancy. However, evidence also suggests that “persons who are African American or black are contracting SARS-CoV-2 at higher rates and are more likely to die,” he said.
“Why is this uniquely important to me? I am an academic cardiologist; I study health care disparities; and I am a black man,” he wrote.
“Even though these data are preliminary and further study is warranted, the pattern is irrefutable: Underrepresented minorities are developing COVID-19 infection more frequently and dying disproportionately,” said Dr. Yancy.
Dr. Williams’ and Dr. Yancy’s comments were supported by an analysis of COVID-19 patient data from several areas of the country conducted by the Washington Post. In that analysis, data showed that several counties with a majority black population showed three times the rate of COVID-19 infections and approximately six times as many deaths compared with counties with a majority of white residents.
“The U.S. has needed a trigger to fully address health care disparities; COVID-19 may be that bellwether event,” said Dr. Yancy. “Certainly, within the broad and powerful economic and legislative engines of the US, there is room to definitively address a scourge even worse than COVID-19: health care disparities. It only takes will. It is time to end the refrain,” he said.
Dr. Williams had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Yancy had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCES: Yancy CW. JAMA 2020 Apr 15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.6548Garg S et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020 Apr 8;69:458-64.
Thebault R et al. The coronavirus is infecting and killing black Americans at an alarmingly high rate. Washington Post. 2020 Apr 7.
FROM A TELECONFERENCE SPONSORED BY THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION