Federal Practitioner

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

Opioid and nonopioid prescription pain medications have taken different journeys since 2009, but they ended up in the same place in 2018, according to a recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics.

At least by one measure, anyway. Survey data from 2009 to 2010 show that 6.2% of adults aged 20 years and older had taken at least one prescription opioid in the last 30 days and 4.3% had used a prescription nonopioid without an opioid. By 2017-2018, past 30-day use of both drug groups was 5.7%, Craig M. Hales, MD, and associates said in an NCHS data brief.

“Opioids may be prescribed together with nonopioid pain medications, [but] nonpharmacologic and nonopioid-containing pharmacologic therapies are preferred for management of chronic pain,” the NCHS researchers noted.

The increase in prescription nonopioid use over the entire 10-year period managed to reach statistical significance, as did the short-term increase in nonopioids from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, but the 10-year trend for opioids was not significant, based on data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

Much of the analysis focused on 2015-2018, when 30-day use of any prescription pain medication was reported by 10.7% of adults aged 20 years and older, with use of opioids at 5.7% and nonopioids at 5.0%. For women, use of any pain drug was 12.6% (6.4% opioid, 6.2% nonopioid) from 2015 to 2018, compared with 8.7% for men (4.9%, 3.8%), Dr. Hales and associates reported.

Past 30-day use of both opioids and nonopioids over those 4 years was highest for non-Hispanic whites and lowest, by a significant margin for both drug groups, among non-Hispanic Asian adults, a pattern that held for both men and women, they said.

[email protected]

People living with HIV who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 are no more likely to die than those without HIV, an analysis conducted in New York City shows. This is despite the fact that comorbidities associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes were more common in the HIV group.

“We don’t see any signs that people with HIV should take extra precautions” to protect themselves from COVID-19, said Keith Sigel, MD, associate professor of medicine and infectious diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and the lead researcher on the study, published online June 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We still don’t have a great explanation for why we’re seeing what we’re seeing,” he added. “But we’re glad we’re seeing it.”

The findings have changed how Dr. Sigel talks to his patients with HIV about protecting themselves from COVID-19. Some patients have so curtailed their behavior for fear of acquiring COVID-19 that they aren’t buying groceries or attending needed medical appointments. With these data, Dr. Sigel said he’s comfortable telling his patients, “COVID-19 is bad all by itself, but you don’t need to go crazy. Wear a mask, practice appropriate social distancing and hygiene, but your risk doesn’t appear to be greater.”

The findings conform with those on the lack of association between HIV and COVID-19 severity seen in a cohort study from Spain, a case study from China, and case series from New Jersey, New York City, and Spain.

One of the only regions reporting something different so far is South Africa. There, HIV is the third most common comorbidity associated with death from COVID-19, according to a cohort analysis conducted in the province of Western Cape.

The intersection of HIV and COVID-19 will be a major theme at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. Along with data from HIV prevention and treatment trials, the conference will feature updates on where the world stands in the control of HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic. And for an even more focused look, the IAS COVID-19 Conference will immediately follow that meeting.

The New York City cohort

For their study, Dr. Sigel and colleagues examined the 4402 COVID-19 cases at the Mount Sinai Health System’s five hospitals between March 12 and April 23.

They found 88 people with COVID-19 whose charts showed codes indicating they were living with HIV. All 88 were receiving treatment, and 81% of them had undetectable viral loads documented at COVID admission or in the 12 months prior to admission.

The median age was 61 years, and 40% of the cohort was black and 30% was Hispanic.

Patients in the comparison group – 405 people without HIV from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study who had been admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 – were matched in terms of age, race, and stage of COVID-19.

The study had an 80% power to detect a 15% increase in the absolute risk for death in people with COVID-19, with or without HIV.

Patients with HIV were almost three times as likely to have smoked and were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cirrhosis, and a history of cancer.

“This was a group of patients that one might suspect would do worse,” Dr. Sigel said. And yet, “we didn’t see any difference in deaths. We didn’t see any difference in respiratory failure.”

In fact, people with HIV required mechanical ventilation less often than those without HIV (18% vs. 23%). And when it came to mortality, one in five people died from COVID-19 during follow-up whether they had HIV or not (21% vs. 20%).

The only factor associated with significantly worse outcomes was a history of organ transplantation, “suggesting that non-HIV causes of immunodeficiency may be more prominent risks for severe outcomes,” Dr. Sigel and colleagues explained.

A surprise association

What’s more, the researchers found a slight association between the use of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) by people with HIV and better outcomes in COVID-19. That echoes findings published June 26 in Annals of Internal Medicine, which showed that people with HIV taking the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine (Truvada, Gilead Sciences) were less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19, less likely to be hospitalized, and less likely to die.

This has led some to wonder whether NRTIs have some effect on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Dr. Sigel said he wonders that too, but right now, it’s just musings.

“These studies are not even remotely designed” to show that NRTIs are protective against COVID-19, he explained. “Ours was extremely underpowered to detect that and there was a high potential for confounding.”

“I’d be wary of any study in a subpopulation – which is what we’re dealing with here – that is looking for signals of protection with certain medications,” he added.

A “modest” increase

Using the South African data, released on June 22, public health officials estimate that people with HIV are 2.75 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those without HIV, making it the third most common comorbidity in people who died from COVID-19, behind diabetes and hypertension. This held true regardless of whether the people with HIV were on treatment.

But when they looked at COVID-19 deaths in the sickest of the sick – those hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms – HIV was associated with just a 28% increase in the risk for death. The South African researchers called this risk “modest.”

“While these findings may overestimate the effect of HIV on COVID-19 death due to the presence of residual confounding, people living with HIV should be considered a high-risk group for COVID-19 management, with modestly elevated risk of poor outcomes, irrespective of viral suppression,” they wrote.

Epidemiologist Gregorio Millett, MPH, has been tracking the effect of HIV on COVID-19 outcomes since the start of the pandemic in his role as vice president and head of policy at the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amFAR).

Back in April, he and his colleagues looked at rates of COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations in counties with disproportionate levels of black residents. These areas often overlapped with the communities selected for the Ending the HIV Epidemic plan to control HIV by 2030. What they found was that there was more HIV and COVID-19 in those communities.

What they didn’t find was that people with HIV in those communities had worse outcomes with COVID-19. This remained true even when they reran the analysis after the number of cases of COVID-19 in the United States surpassed 100,000. Those data have yet to be published, Mr. Millett reported.

“HIV does not pop out,” he said. “It’s still social determinants of health. It’s still underlying conditions. It’s still age as a primary factor.”

“People living with HIV are mainly dying of underlying conditions – so all the things associated with COVID-19 – rather than the association being with HIV itself,” he added.

Although he’s not ruling out the possibility that an association like the one in South Africa could emerge, Mr. Millett, who will present a plenary on the context of the HIV epidemic at the IAS conference, said he suspects we won’t see one.

“If we didn’t see an association with the counties that are disproportionately African American, in the black belt where we see high rates of HIV, particularly where we see the social determinants of health that definitely make a difference – if we’re not seeing that association there, where we have a high proportion of African Americans who are at risk both for HIV and COVID-19 – I just don’t think it’s going to emerge,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People living with HIV who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 are no more likely to die than those without HIV, an analysis conducted in New York City shows. This is despite the fact that comorbidities associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes were more common in the HIV group.

“We don’t see any signs that people with HIV should take extra precautions” to protect themselves from COVID-19, said Keith Sigel, MD, associate professor of medicine and infectious diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and the lead researcher on the study, published online June 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We still don’t have a great explanation for why we’re seeing what we’re seeing,” he added. “But we’re glad we’re seeing it.”

The findings have changed how Dr. Sigel talks to his patients with HIV about protecting themselves from COVID-19. Some patients have so curtailed their behavior for fear of acquiring COVID-19 that they aren’t buying groceries or attending needed medical appointments. With these data, Dr. Sigel said he’s comfortable telling his patients, “COVID-19 is bad all by itself, but you don’t need to go crazy. Wear a mask, practice appropriate social distancing and hygiene, but your risk doesn’t appear to be greater.”

The findings conform with those on the lack of association between HIV and COVID-19 severity seen in a cohort study from Spain, a case study from China, and case series from New Jersey, New York City, and Spain.

One of the only regions reporting something different so far is South Africa. There, HIV is the third most common comorbidity associated with death from COVID-19, according to a cohort analysis conducted in the province of Western Cape.

The intersection of HIV and COVID-19 will be a major theme at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. Along with data from HIV prevention and treatment trials, the conference will feature updates on where the world stands in the control of HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic. And for an even more focused look, the IAS COVID-19 Conference will immediately follow that meeting.

The New York City cohort

For their study, Dr. Sigel and colleagues examined the 4402 COVID-19 cases at the Mount Sinai Health System’s five hospitals between March 12 and April 23.

They found 88 people with COVID-19 whose charts showed codes indicating they were living with HIV. All 88 were receiving treatment, and 81% of them had undetectable viral loads documented at COVID admission or in the 12 months prior to admission.

The median age was 61 years, and 40% of the cohort was black and 30% was Hispanic.

Patients in the comparison group – 405 people without HIV from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study who had been admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 – were matched in terms of age, race, and stage of COVID-19.

The study had an 80% power to detect a 15% increase in the absolute risk for death in people with COVID-19, with or without HIV.

Patients with HIV were almost three times as likely to have smoked and were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cirrhosis, and a history of cancer.

“This was a group of patients that one might suspect would do worse,” Dr. Sigel said. And yet, “we didn’t see any difference in deaths. We didn’t see any difference in respiratory failure.”

In fact, people with HIV required mechanical ventilation less often than those without HIV (18% vs. 23%). And when it came to mortality, one in five people died from COVID-19 during follow-up whether they had HIV or not (21% vs. 20%).

The only factor associated with significantly worse outcomes was a history of organ transplantation, “suggesting that non-HIV causes of immunodeficiency may be more prominent risks for severe outcomes,” Dr. Sigel and colleagues explained.

A surprise association

What’s more, the researchers found a slight association between the use of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) by people with HIV and better outcomes in COVID-19. That echoes findings published June 26 in Annals of Internal Medicine, which showed that people with HIV taking the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine (Truvada, Gilead Sciences) were less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19, less likely to be hospitalized, and less likely to die.

This has led some to wonder whether NRTIs have some effect on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Dr. Sigel said he wonders that too, but right now, it’s just musings.

“These studies are not even remotely designed” to show that NRTIs are protective against COVID-19, he explained. “Ours was extremely underpowered to detect that and there was a high potential for confounding.”

“I’d be wary of any study in a subpopulation – which is what we’re dealing with here – that is looking for signals of protection with certain medications,” he added.

A “modest” increase

Using the South African data, released on June 22, public health officials estimate that people with HIV are 2.75 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those without HIV, making it the third most common comorbidity in people who died from COVID-19, behind diabetes and hypertension. This held true regardless of whether the people with HIV were on treatment.

But when they looked at COVID-19 deaths in the sickest of the sick – those hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms – HIV was associated with just a 28% increase in the risk for death. The South African researchers called this risk “modest.”

“While these findings may overestimate the effect of HIV on COVID-19 death due to the presence of residual confounding, people living with HIV should be considered a high-risk group for COVID-19 management, with modestly elevated risk of poor outcomes, irrespective of viral suppression,” they wrote.

Epidemiologist Gregorio Millett, MPH, has been tracking the effect of HIV on COVID-19 outcomes since the start of the pandemic in his role as vice president and head of policy at the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amFAR).

Back in April, he and his colleagues looked at rates of COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations in counties with disproportionate levels of black residents. These areas often overlapped with the communities selected for the Ending the HIV Epidemic plan to control HIV by 2030. What they found was that there was more HIV and COVID-19 in those communities.

What they didn’t find was that people with HIV in those communities had worse outcomes with COVID-19. This remained true even when they reran the analysis after the number of cases of COVID-19 in the United States surpassed 100,000. Those data have yet to be published, Mr. Millett reported.

“HIV does not pop out,” he said. “It’s still social determinants of health. It’s still underlying conditions. It’s still age as a primary factor.”

“People living with HIV are mainly dying of underlying conditions – so all the things associated with COVID-19 – rather than the association being with HIV itself,” he added.

Although he’s not ruling out the possibility that an association like the one in South Africa could emerge, Mr. Millett, who will present a plenary on the context of the HIV epidemic at the IAS conference, said he suspects we won’t see one.

“If we didn’t see an association with the counties that are disproportionately African American, in the black belt where we see high rates of HIV, particularly where we see the social determinants of health that definitely make a difference – if we’re not seeing that association there, where we have a high proportion of African Americans who are at risk both for HIV and COVID-19 – I just don’t think it’s going to emerge,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

People living with HIV who are admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 are no more likely to die than those without HIV, an analysis conducted in New York City shows. This is despite the fact that comorbidities associated with worse COVID-19 outcomes were more common in the HIV group.

“We don’t see any signs that people with HIV should take extra precautions” to protect themselves from COVID-19, said Keith Sigel, MD, associate professor of medicine and infectious diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and the lead researcher on the study, published online June 28 in Clinical Infectious Diseases.

“We still don’t have a great explanation for why we’re seeing what we’re seeing,” he added. “But we’re glad we’re seeing it.”

The findings have changed how Dr. Sigel talks to his patients with HIV about protecting themselves from COVID-19. Some patients have so curtailed their behavior for fear of acquiring COVID-19 that they aren’t buying groceries or attending needed medical appointments. With these data, Dr. Sigel said he’s comfortable telling his patients, “COVID-19 is bad all by itself, but you don’t need to go crazy. Wear a mask, practice appropriate social distancing and hygiene, but your risk doesn’t appear to be greater.”

The findings conform with those on the lack of association between HIV and COVID-19 severity seen in a cohort study from Spain, a case study from China, and case series from New Jersey, New York City, and Spain.

One of the only regions reporting something different so far is South Africa. There, HIV is the third most common comorbidity associated with death from COVID-19, according to a cohort analysis conducted in the province of Western Cape.

The intersection of HIV and COVID-19 will be a major theme at the virtual meeting of the International AIDS conference. Along with data from HIV prevention and treatment trials, the conference will feature updates on where the world stands in the control of HIV during the COVID-19 pandemic. And for an even more focused look, the IAS COVID-19 Conference will immediately follow that meeting.

The New York City cohort

For their study, Dr. Sigel and colleagues examined the 4402 COVID-19 cases at the Mount Sinai Health System’s five hospitals between March 12 and April 23.

They found 88 people with COVID-19 whose charts showed codes indicating they were living with HIV. All 88 were receiving treatment, and 81% of them had undetectable viral loads documented at COVID admission or in the 12 months prior to admission.

The median age was 61 years, and 40% of the cohort was black and 30% was Hispanic.

Patients in the comparison group – 405 people without HIV from the Veterans Aging Cohort Study who had been admitted to the hospital for COVID-19 – were matched in terms of age, race, and stage of COVID-19.

The study had an 80% power to detect a 15% increase in the absolute risk for death in people with COVID-19, with or without HIV.

Patients with HIV were almost three times as likely to have smoked and were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cirrhosis, and a history of cancer.

“This was a group of patients that one might suspect would do worse,” Dr. Sigel said. And yet, “we didn’t see any difference in deaths. We didn’t see any difference in respiratory failure.”

In fact, people with HIV required mechanical ventilation less often than those without HIV (18% vs. 23%). And when it came to mortality, one in five people died from COVID-19 during follow-up whether they had HIV or not (21% vs. 20%).

The only factor associated with significantly worse outcomes was a history of organ transplantation, “suggesting that non-HIV causes of immunodeficiency may be more prominent risks for severe outcomes,” Dr. Sigel and colleagues explained.

A surprise association

What’s more, the researchers found a slight association between the use of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) by people with HIV and better outcomes in COVID-19. That echoes findings published June 26 in Annals of Internal Medicine, which showed that people with HIV taking the combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus emtricitabine (Truvada, Gilead Sciences) were less likely to be diagnosed with COVID-19, less likely to be hospitalized, and less likely to die.

This has led some to wonder whether NRTIs have some effect on SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. Dr. Sigel said he wonders that too, but right now, it’s just musings.

“These studies are not even remotely designed” to show that NRTIs are protective against COVID-19, he explained. “Ours was extremely underpowered to detect that and there was a high potential for confounding.”

“I’d be wary of any study in a subpopulation – which is what we’re dealing with here – that is looking for signals of protection with certain medications,” he added.

A “modest” increase

Using the South African data, released on June 22, public health officials estimate that people with HIV are 2.75 times more likely to die from COVID-19 than those without HIV, making it the third most common comorbidity in people who died from COVID-19, behind diabetes and hypertension. This held true regardless of whether the people with HIV were on treatment.

But when they looked at COVID-19 deaths in the sickest of the sick – those hospitalized with COVID-19 symptoms – HIV was associated with just a 28% increase in the risk for death. The South African researchers called this risk “modest.”

“While these findings may overestimate the effect of HIV on COVID-19 death due to the presence of residual confounding, people living with HIV should be considered a high-risk group for COVID-19 management, with modestly elevated risk of poor outcomes, irrespective of viral suppression,” they wrote.

Epidemiologist Gregorio Millett, MPH, has been tracking the effect of HIV on COVID-19 outcomes since the start of the pandemic in his role as vice president and head of policy at the American Foundation for AIDS Research (amFAR).

Back in April, he and his colleagues looked at rates of COVID-19 deaths and hospitalizations in counties with disproportionate levels of black residents. These areas often overlapped with the communities selected for the Ending the HIV Epidemic plan to control HIV by 2030. What they found was that there was more HIV and COVID-19 in those communities.

What they didn’t find was that people with HIV in those communities had worse outcomes with COVID-19. This remained true even when they reran the analysis after the number of cases of COVID-19 in the United States surpassed 100,000. Those data have yet to be published, Mr. Millett reported.

“HIV does not pop out,” he said. “It’s still social determinants of health. It’s still underlying conditions. It’s still age as a primary factor.”

“People living with HIV are mainly dying of underlying conditions – so all the things associated with COVID-19 – rather than the association being with HIV itself,” he added.

Although he’s not ruling out the possibility that an association like the one in South Africa could emerge, Mr. Millett, who will present a plenary on the context of the HIV epidemic at the IAS conference, said he suspects we won’t see one.

“If we didn’t see an association with the counties that are disproportionately African American, in the black belt where we see high rates of HIV, particularly where we see the social determinants of health that definitely make a difference – if we’re not seeing that association there, where we have a high proportion of African Americans who are at risk both for HIV and COVID-19 – I just don’t think it’s going to emerge,” he said.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Nearly 40% of hundreds of opioid abusers at several emergency departments tested positive for stimulants, and they were more likely to be white than other users, a new study finds. Reflecting national trends, patients in the Midwest and West Coast regions were more likely to show signs of stimulant use.

Stimulant/opioid users were also “younger, with unstable housing, mostly unemployed, and reported high rates of recent incarcerations,” said substance use researcher and study lead author Marek Chawarski, PhD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “They also reported higher rates of injection drug use during 1 month prior to the study admission and had higher rates of HCV infection. And higher proportions of amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS)–positive patients presented in the emergency departments (EDs) for an injury or with drug overdose.”

Dr. Chawarski, who presented the study findings at the virtual annual meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence, said in an interview that the study is the first to analyze stimulant use in ED patients with opioid use disorder.

The researchers analyzed data for the period 2017-2019 from EDs in Baltimore, New York, Cincinnati, and Seattle. Out of 396 patients, 150 (38%) were positive for amphetamine-type stimulants.

Patients in the Midwest and West Coast were more likely to test positive (38%). The rates of stimulant use were 6% in Baltimore, 7% in New York, 32% in Cincinnati, and 80% in Seattle.

In general, stimulant use is higher in the Midwest and West Coast, said epidemiologist Brandon Marshall, PhD, of Brown University, Providence, R.I., in an interview. “This is due to a number of supply-side, historical, and cultural reasons. New England, Appalachia, and large urban centers on the East Coast are the historical hot spots for opioid use, while states west of the Mississippi River have lower rates of opioid overdose, but a much higher prevalence of ATS use and stimulant-related morbidity and mortality.”

Those who showed signs of stimulant use were more likely to be white (69%) vs. the nonusers (46%), and were more likely to have unstable housing (67% vs. 49%).

Those who used stimulants also were more likely to be suffering from an overdose (23% vs. 13%) and to report injecting drugs in the last month (79% vs. 47%). More had unstable housing (67% vs. 49%, P < .05 for all comparisons).

Dr. Chawarski said there are many reasons why users might use more than one kind of drug. For example, they may take one drug to “alleviate problems created by the use of one substance with taking another substance and multiple other reasons,” he said. “Polysubstance use can exacerbate social and medical harms, including overdose risk. It can pose greater treatment challenges, both for the patients and treatment providers, and often is more difficult to overcome.”

Links between opioid and stimulant use are not new. Last year, a study of 2,244 opioid-related overdose deaths in Massachusetts from 2014 to 2015 found that 36% of patients also showed signs of stimulant use. “Persons older than 24 years, nonrural residents, those with comorbid mental illness, non-Hispanic black residents, and persons with recent homelessness were more likely than their counterparts to die with opioids and stimulants than opioids alone,” the researchers reported (Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019 Jul 1;200:59-63).

Dr. Marshall said the study findings are not surprising. However, he said, they do indicate “ongoing, intentional consumption of opioids. The trends and characteristics we are seeing here suggests a large population of persons who are intentionally using both stimulants and opioids, many of whom are also injecting.”

He added that the study sample is probably higher risk than the general population since they’re presenting to the emergency department, so the findings might not reflect the use of stimulants in the general opioid-misusing population.

Dr. Marshall added that “there have been several instances in modern U.S. history during which increases in stimulant use follow a rise in opioid use, so the pattern we are seeing isn’t entirely surprising.”

“What we don’t know,” he added, “is the extent to which overdoses involving both an opioid and a stimulant are due to fentanyl contamination of the methamphetamine supply or intentional concurrent use – e.g., ‘speedballing’ or ‘goof balling’ – or some other pattern of polysubstance use, such as using an opioid to come down off a methamphetamine high.”

The National Institute on Drug Abuse funded the study. The study authors reported no relevant disclosures. Dr. Marshall reported that he has collaborated frequently with two of the study coauthors.

Treating hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer, according to findings from a large retrospective study.

However, another study reported just over a year ago suggested that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. An expert approached for comment emphasized that both studies are observational, and, as such, they only show an association, not causation.

In this latest study, published online July 6 in the journal Hypertension, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 22% lower risk for colorectal cancer developing within 3 years after a negative baseline colonoscopy.

This is the largest study to date, with a cohort of more than 185,000 patients, to suggest a significant protective effect for these two common antihypertensive medications, the authors note. The risk of developing colorectal cancer decreased with longer duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB use, with a 5% reduction in adjusted hazard ratio risk for each year of use. However, this effect was limited to patients who had negative colonoscopies within a 3-year period and did not extend beyond that point.

Lead author Wai K. Leung, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Hong Kong, explained that they are not advising patients to take ACE inhibitors simply to prevent cancer. “Unlike aspirin and statins, the potential chemopreventive role of ACE inhibitors on cancer has never been established,” he said in an interview. “The study findings may favor the use of ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension, over many other antihypertensives, in some patients for preventing colorectal cancer.”

Increased or reduced risk?

There has been considerable debate about the potential carcinogenic effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and the relationship with “various solid organ cancer risks have been unsettled,” the authors note. Studies have produced conflicting results – showing no overall cancer risk and a modestly increased overall cancer risk – associated with these agents.

A recent study reported that ACE inhibitors, as compared with ARBs, increased risk for lung cancer by 14%. The risk for lung cancer increased by 22% among those using ACE inhibitors for 5 years, and the risk peaked at 31% for patients who took ACE inhibitors for 10 years or longer.

The lead author of that lung cancer study, Laurent Azoulay, PhD, of McGill University in Montreal, offered some thoughts on the seemingly conflicting data now being reported showing a reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer.

“In a nutshell, this study has important methodologic issues that can explain the observed findings,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Azoulay pointed out that, in the univariate model, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 26% increased risk of colorectal cancer. “It is only after propensity score adjustment that the effect estimate reversed in the protective direction,” he pointed out. “However, the variables included in the propensity score model were measured in the same time window as the exposure, which can lead to an overadjustment bias and generate spurious findings.”

Another issue is that the study period did not begin at the time of the exposure, but rather at a distant point after treatment initiation – in this case, colorectal cancer screening. “As such, the authors excluded patients who were previously diagnosed with colorectal cancer prior to that point, which likely included patients exposed to ACE inhibitors/ARBs,” he said. “This approach can lead to the inclusion of the ‘survivors’ for whom the risk of developing colorectal cancer is lower.

“But certainly,” Dr. Azoulay added, “this possible association should be investigated using methodologically sound approaches.”

Take-home message for physicians

Another expert emphasized the observational nature of both studies. Raymond Townsend, MD, director of the Hypertension Program and a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said: “First and foremost, these are observational studies and cannot make inference about causality; they can only show associations.”

He pointed out that, sometimes, associations are truly present, whereas at other times, there is bias or confounding that cannot be controlled for statistically because it is “unknown.” That said, the size of this latest study is a plus, and there is a reasonable follow-up period.

“The take-home [message] for practitioners is that there may be a benefit in keeping older people on ACE inhibitors on the likelihood of developing colorectal cancer if your last colonoscopy was negative,” Dr. Townsend, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

But there are some questions that remain unanswered regarding characteristics of the cohort, Dr. Townsend noted. “Who were the people having the colonoscopy in the first place? Were they a group at higher risk? Why were some on an ACE inhibitors/ARBs and many others not?” 

There are other conclusions that clinicians can glean from this. “Make a choice of treatment for a patient based on your best estimate of what will lower their blood pressure and prevent hypertension-mediated organ damage,” said Dr. Townsend, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “Keep in mind that patients hear about these studies and read unreviewed blogs on the web and so have questions.”

He emphasized that it always comes back to two things. “One is that every treatment decision is inherently a risk-benefit scenario,” he said. “And second is that most of our patients are adults, and if they choose to not be treated for their hypertension despite our best advice and reasoning with them, relinquish control and let them proceed as they wish, offering to renegotiate in the future when and if they reconsider.”

Study details

In the latest study, Dr. Leung and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study and used data from an electronic health care database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. A total of 187,897 individuals aged 40 years and older had undergone colonoscopy between 2005 and 2013 with a negative result and were included in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was colorectal cancer that was diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after undergoing colonoscopy, and the median age at colonoscopy was 60.6 years. Within this population, 30,856 patients (16.4%) used ACE inhibitors/ARBs.

Between 6 months and 3 years after undergoing colonoscopy, 854 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed, with an incidence rate of 15.2 per 10,000 person-years. The median time between colonoscopy and diagnosis was 1.2 years.

ACE inhibitor/ARB users had a median duration of 3.3 years of use within the 5-year period before their colonoscopy. Within this group, there were 169 (0.55%) cases of colorectal cancer. On univariate analysis, the crude hazard ratio (HR) of colorectal cancer and ACE inhibitor/ARB use was 1.26 (P = .008), but on propensity score regression adjustment, the adjusted HR became 0.78.

The propensity score absolute reduction in risk for users was 3.2 per 10,000 person-years versus nonusers, and stratification by subsite showed an HR of 0.77 for distal cancers and 0.83 for proximal cancers.

In a subgroup analysis, the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs were seen in patients aged 55 years or older (adjusted HR, 0.79) and in those with a history of colonic polyps (adjusted HR, 0.71).

The authors also assessed if there was an association between these medications and other types of cancer. On univariate analysis, usage was associated with an increased risk of lung and prostate cancer but lower risk of breast cancer. But after propensity score regression adjustment, the associations were no longer there.

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Dr. Leung has received honorarium for attending advisory board meetings of AbbVie, Takeda, and Abbott Laboratories; coauthor Esther W. Chan has received funding support from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Takeda, Janssen (a division of Johnson & Johnson); Research Grants Council of Hong Kong; Narcotics Division, Security Bureau; and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, all for work unrelated to the current study. None of the other authors have disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Azoulay has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend is employed by Penn Medicine.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Treating hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer, according to findings from a large retrospective study.

However, another study reported just over a year ago suggested that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. An expert approached for comment emphasized that both studies are observational, and, as such, they only show an association, not causation.

In this latest study, published online July 6 in the journal Hypertension, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 22% lower risk for colorectal cancer developing within 3 years after a negative baseline colonoscopy.

This is the largest study to date, with a cohort of more than 185,000 patients, to suggest a significant protective effect for these two common antihypertensive medications, the authors note. The risk of developing colorectal cancer decreased with longer duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB use, with a 5% reduction in adjusted hazard ratio risk for each year of use. However, this effect was limited to patients who had negative colonoscopies within a 3-year period and did not extend beyond that point.

Lead author Wai K. Leung, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Hong Kong, explained that they are not advising patients to take ACE inhibitors simply to prevent cancer. “Unlike aspirin and statins, the potential chemopreventive role of ACE inhibitors on cancer has never been established,” he said in an interview. “The study findings may favor the use of ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension, over many other antihypertensives, in some patients for preventing colorectal cancer.”

Increased or reduced risk?

There has been considerable debate about the potential carcinogenic effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and the relationship with “various solid organ cancer risks have been unsettled,” the authors note. Studies have produced conflicting results – showing no overall cancer risk and a modestly increased overall cancer risk – associated with these agents.

A recent study reported that ACE inhibitors, as compared with ARBs, increased risk for lung cancer by 14%. The risk for lung cancer increased by 22% among those using ACE inhibitors for 5 years, and the risk peaked at 31% for patients who took ACE inhibitors for 10 years or longer.

The lead author of that lung cancer study, Laurent Azoulay, PhD, of McGill University in Montreal, offered some thoughts on the seemingly conflicting data now being reported showing a reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer.

“In a nutshell, this study has important methodologic issues that can explain the observed findings,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Azoulay pointed out that, in the univariate model, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 26% increased risk of colorectal cancer. “It is only after propensity score adjustment that the effect estimate reversed in the protective direction,” he pointed out. “However, the variables included in the propensity score model were measured in the same time window as the exposure, which can lead to an overadjustment bias and generate spurious findings.”

Another issue is that the study period did not begin at the time of the exposure, but rather at a distant point after treatment initiation – in this case, colorectal cancer screening. “As such, the authors excluded patients who were previously diagnosed with colorectal cancer prior to that point, which likely included patients exposed to ACE inhibitors/ARBs,” he said. “This approach can lead to the inclusion of the ‘survivors’ for whom the risk of developing colorectal cancer is lower.

“But certainly,” Dr. Azoulay added, “this possible association should be investigated using methodologically sound approaches.”

Take-home message for physicians

Another expert emphasized the observational nature of both studies. Raymond Townsend, MD, director of the Hypertension Program and a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said: “First and foremost, these are observational studies and cannot make inference about causality; they can only show associations.”

He pointed out that, sometimes, associations are truly present, whereas at other times, there is bias or confounding that cannot be controlled for statistically because it is “unknown.” That said, the size of this latest study is a plus, and there is a reasonable follow-up period.

“The take-home [message] for practitioners is that there may be a benefit in keeping older people on ACE inhibitors on the likelihood of developing colorectal cancer if your last colonoscopy was negative,” Dr. Townsend, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

But there are some questions that remain unanswered regarding characteristics of the cohort, Dr. Townsend noted. “Who were the people having the colonoscopy in the first place? Were they a group at higher risk? Why were some on an ACE inhibitors/ARBs and many others not?” 

There are other conclusions that clinicians can glean from this. “Make a choice of treatment for a patient based on your best estimate of what will lower their blood pressure and prevent hypertension-mediated organ damage,” said Dr. Townsend, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “Keep in mind that patients hear about these studies and read unreviewed blogs on the web and so have questions.”

He emphasized that it always comes back to two things. “One is that every treatment decision is inherently a risk-benefit scenario,” he said. “And second is that most of our patients are adults, and if they choose to not be treated for their hypertension despite our best advice and reasoning with them, relinquish control and let them proceed as they wish, offering to renegotiate in the future when and if they reconsider.”

Study details

In the latest study, Dr. Leung and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study and used data from an electronic health care database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. A total of 187,897 individuals aged 40 years and older had undergone colonoscopy between 2005 and 2013 with a negative result and were included in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was colorectal cancer that was diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after undergoing colonoscopy, and the median age at colonoscopy was 60.6 years. Within this population, 30,856 patients (16.4%) used ACE inhibitors/ARBs.

Between 6 months and 3 years after undergoing colonoscopy, 854 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed, with an incidence rate of 15.2 per 10,000 person-years. The median time between colonoscopy and diagnosis was 1.2 years.

ACE inhibitor/ARB users had a median duration of 3.3 years of use within the 5-year period before their colonoscopy. Within this group, there were 169 (0.55%) cases of colorectal cancer. On univariate analysis, the crude hazard ratio (HR) of colorectal cancer and ACE inhibitor/ARB use was 1.26 (P = .008), but on propensity score regression adjustment, the adjusted HR became 0.78.

The propensity score absolute reduction in risk for users was 3.2 per 10,000 person-years versus nonusers, and stratification by subsite showed an HR of 0.77 for distal cancers and 0.83 for proximal cancers.

In a subgroup analysis, the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs were seen in patients aged 55 years or older (adjusted HR, 0.79) and in those with a history of colonic polyps (adjusted HR, 0.71).

The authors also assessed if there was an association between these medications and other types of cancer. On univariate analysis, usage was associated with an increased risk of lung and prostate cancer but lower risk of breast cancer. But after propensity score regression adjustment, the associations were no longer there.

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Dr. Leung has received honorarium for attending advisory board meetings of AbbVie, Takeda, and Abbott Laboratories; coauthor Esther W. Chan has received funding support from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Takeda, Janssen (a division of Johnson & Johnson); Research Grants Council of Hong Kong; Narcotics Division, Security Bureau; and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, all for work unrelated to the current study. None of the other authors have disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Azoulay has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend is employed by Penn Medicine.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Treating hypertension with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) was associated with a reduced risk for colorectal cancer, according to findings from a large retrospective study.

However, another study reported just over a year ago suggested that ACE inhibitors, but not ARBs, are associated with an increased risk for lung cancer. An expert approached for comment emphasized that both studies are observational, and, as such, they only show an association, not causation.

In this latest study, published online July 6 in the journal Hypertension, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 22% lower risk for colorectal cancer developing within 3 years after a negative baseline colonoscopy.

This is the largest study to date, with a cohort of more than 185,000 patients, to suggest a significant protective effect for these two common antihypertensive medications, the authors note. The risk of developing colorectal cancer decreased with longer duration of ACE inhibitor/ARB use, with a 5% reduction in adjusted hazard ratio risk for each year of use. However, this effect was limited to patients who had negative colonoscopies within a 3-year period and did not extend beyond that point.

Lead author Wai K. Leung, MD, clinical professor of medicine at the University of Hong Kong, explained that they are not advising patients to take ACE inhibitors simply to prevent cancer. “Unlike aspirin and statins, the potential chemopreventive role of ACE inhibitors on cancer has never been established,” he said in an interview. “The study findings may favor the use of ACE inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension, over many other antihypertensives, in some patients for preventing colorectal cancer.”

Increased or reduced risk?

There has been considerable debate about the potential carcinogenic effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, and the relationship with “various solid organ cancer risks have been unsettled,” the authors note. Studies have produced conflicting results – showing no overall cancer risk and a modestly increased overall cancer risk – associated with these agents.

A recent study reported that ACE inhibitors, as compared with ARBs, increased risk for lung cancer by 14%. The risk for lung cancer increased by 22% among those using ACE inhibitors for 5 years, and the risk peaked at 31% for patients who took ACE inhibitors for 10 years or longer.

The lead author of that lung cancer study, Laurent Azoulay, PhD, of McGill University in Montreal, offered some thoughts on the seemingly conflicting data now being reported showing a reduction in the risk of colorectal cancer.

“In a nutshell, this study has important methodologic issues that can explain the observed findings,” he said in an interview.

Dr. Azoulay pointed out that, in the univariate model, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs was associated with a 26% increased risk of colorectal cancer. “It is only after propensity score adjustment that the effect estimate reversed in the protective direction,” he pointed out. “However, the variables included in the propensity score model were measured in the same time window as the exposure, which can lead to an overadjustment bias and generate spurious findings.”

Another issue is that the study period did not begin at the time of the exposure, but rather at a distant point after treatment initiation – in this case, colorectal cancer screening. “As such, the authors excluded patients who were previously diagnosed with colorectal cancer prior to that point, which likely included patients exposed to ACE inhibitors/ARBs,” he said. “This approach can lead to the inclusion of the ‘survivors’ for whom the risk of developing colorectal cancer is lower.

“But certainly,” Dr. Azoulay added, “this possible association should be investigated using methodologically sound approaches.”

Take-home message for physicians

Another expert emphasized the observational nature of both studies. Raymond Townsend, MD, director of the Hypertension Program and a professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said: “First and foremost, these are observational studies and cannot make inference about causality; they can only show associations.”

He pointed out that, sometimes, associations are truly present, whereas at other times, there is bias or confounding that cannot be controlled for statistically because it is “unknown.” That said, the size of this latest study is a plus, and there is a reasonable follow-up period.

“The take-home [message] for practitioners is that there may be a benefit in keeping older people on ACE inhibitors on the likelihood of developing colorectal cancer if your last colonoscopy was negative,” Dr. Townsend, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

But there are some questions that remain unanswered regarding characteristics of the cohort, Dr. Townsend noted. “Who were the people having the colonoscopy in the first place? Were they a group at higher risk? Why were some on an ACE inhibitors/ARBs and many others not?” 

There are other conclusions that clinicians can glean from this. “Make a choice of treatment for a patient based on your best estimate of what will lower their blood pressure and prevent hypertension-mediated organ damage,” said Dr. Townsend, who is also an American Heart Association volunteer expert. “Keep in mind that patients hear about these studies and read unreviewed blogs on the web and so have questions.”

He emphasized that it always comes back to two things. “One is that every treatment decision is inherently a risk-benefit scenario,” he said. “And second is that most of our patients are adults, and if they choose to not be treated for their hypertension despite our best advice and reasoning with them, relinquish control and let them proceed as they wish, offering to renegotiate in the future when and if they reconsider.”

Study details

In the latest study, Dr. Leung and colleagues conducted a retrospective cohort study and used data from an electronic health care database of the Hong Kong Hospital Authority. A total of 187,897 individuals aged 40 years and older had undergone colonoscopy between 2005 and 2013 with a negative result and were included in the analysis.

The study’s primary outcome was colorectal cancer that was diagnosed between 6 and 36 months after undergoing colonoscopy, and the median age at colonoscopy was 60.6 years. Within this population, 30,856 patients (16.4%) used ACE inhibitors/ARBs.

Between 6 months and 3 years after undergoing colonoscopy, 854 cases of colorectal cancer were diagnosed, with an incidence rate of 15.2 per 10,000 person-years. The median time between colonoscopy and diagnosis was 1.2 years.

ACE inhibitor/ARB users had a median duration of 3.3 years of use within the 5-year period before their colonoscopy. Within this group, there were 169 (0.55%) cases of colorectal cancer. On univariate analysis, the crude hazard ratio (HR) of colorectal cancer and ACE inhibitor/ARB use was 1.26 (P = .008), but on propensity score regression adjustment, the adjusted HR became 0.78.

The propensity score absolute reduction in risk for users was 3.2 per 10,000 person-years versus nonusers, and stratification by subsite showed an HR of 0.77 for distal cancers and 0.83 for proximal cancers.

In a subgroup analysis, the benefits of ACE inhibitors and ARBs were seen in patients aged 55 years or older (adjusted HR, 0.79) and in those with a history of colonic polyps (adjusted HR, 0.71).

The authors also assessed if there was an association between these medications and other types of cancer. On univariate analysis, usage was associated with an increased risk of lung and prostate cancer but lower risk of breast cancer. But after propensity score regression adjustment, the associations were no longer there.

The study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund of the Hong Kong SAR Government. Dr. Leung has received honorarium for attending advisory board meetings of AbbVie, Takeda, and Abbott Laboratories; coauthor Esther W. Chan has received funding support from Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, Takeda, Janssen (a division of Johnson & Johnson); Research Grants Council of Hong Kong; Narcotics Division, Security Bureau; and the National Natural Science Foundation of China, all for work unrelated to the current study. None of the other authors have disclosed relevant financial relationships. Dr. Azoulay has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Townsend is employed by Penn Medicine.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Patients with COVID-19 may be at increased risk of acute ischemic stroke compared with patients with influenza, according to a retrospective cohort study conducted at New York–Presbyterian Hospital and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York. “These findings suggest that clinicians should be vigilant for symptoms and signs of acute ischemic stroke in patients with COVID-19 so that time-sensitive interventions, such as thrombolysis and thrombectomy, can be instituted if possible to reduce the burden of long-term disability,” wrote Alexander E. Merkler and colleagues. Their report is in JAMA Neurology.

While several recent publications have “raised the possibility” of this link, none have had an appropriate control group, noted Dr. Merkler of the department of neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine. “Further elucidation of thrombotic mechanisms in patients with COVID-19 may yield better strategies to prevent disabling thrombotic complications like ischemic stroke,” he added.
 

An increased risk of stroke

The study included 1,916 adults with confirmed COVID-19 (median age 64 years) who were either hospitalized or visited an emergency department between March 4 and May 2, 2020. These cases were compared with a historical cohort of 1,486 patients (median age 62 years) who were hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed influenza A or B between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2018.

Among the patients with COVID-19, a diagnosis of cerebrovascular disease during hospitalization, a brain computed tomography (CT), or brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was an indication of possible ischemic stroke. These records were then independently reviewed by two board-certified attending neurologists (with a third resolving any disagreement) to adjudicate a final stroke diagnosis. In the influenza cohort, the Cornell Acute Stroke Academic Registry (CAESAR) was used to ascertain ischemic strokes.

The study identified 31 patients with stroke among the COVID-19 cohort (1.6%; 95% confidence interval, 1.1%-2.3%) and 3 in the influenza cohort (0.2%; 95% CI, 0.0%-0.6%). After adjustment for age, sex, and race, stroke risk was almost 8 times higher in the COVID-19 cohort (OR, 7.6; 95% CI, 2.3-25.2).

This association “persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses, with the magnitude of relative associations ranging from 4.0 to 9,” wrote the authors. “This included a sensitivity analysis that adjusted for the number of vascular risk factors and ICU admissions (OR, 4.6; 95% CI, 1.4-15.7).”

The median age of patients with COVID-19 and stroke was 69 years, and the median duration of COVID-19 symptom onset to stroke diagnosis was 16 days. Stroke symptoms were the presenting complaint in only 26% of the patients, while the remainder developing stroke while hospitalized, and more than a third (35%) of all strokes occurred in patients who were mechanically ventilated with severe COVID-19. Inpatient mortality was considerably higher among patients with COVID-19 with stroke versus without (32% vs. 14%; P = .003).

In patients with COVID-19 “most ischemic strokes occurred in older age groups, those with traditional stroke risk factors, and people of color,” wrote the authors. “We also noted that initial plasma D-dimer levels were nearly 3-fold higher in those who received a diagnosis of ischemic stroke than in those who did not” (1.930 mcg/mL vs. 0.682 mcg/mL).

The authors suggested several possible explanations for the elevated risk of stroke in COVID-19. Acute viral illnesses are known to trigger inflammation, and COVID-19 in particular is associated with “a vigorous inflammatory response accompanied by coagulopathy, with elevated D-dimer levels and the frequent presence of antiphospholipid antibodies,” they wrote. The infection is also associated with more severe respiratory syndrome compared with influenza, as well as a heightened risk for complications such as atrial arrhythmias, myocardial infarction, heart failure, myocarditis, and venous thromboses, all of which likely contribute to the risk of ischemic stroke.”
 

COVID or conventional risk factors?

Asked to comment on the study, Benedict Michael, MBChB (Hons), MRCP (Neurol), PhD, from the United Kingdom’s Coronerve Studies Group, a collaborative initiative to study the neurological features of COVID-19, said in an interview that “this study suggests many cases of stroke are occurring in older patients with multiple existing conventional and well recognized risks for stroke, and may simply represent decompensation during sepsis.”

Dr. Michael, a senior clinician scientist fellow at the University of Liverpool and an honorary consultant neurologist at the Walton Centre, was the senior author on a recently published UK-wide surveillance study on the neurological and neuropsychiatric complications of COVID-19 (Lancet Psychiatry. 2020 Jun 25. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[20]30287-X).

He said among patients in the New York study, “those with COVID and a stroke appeared to have many conventional risk factors for stroke (and often at higher percentages than COVID patients without a stroke), e.g. hypertension, overweight, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, existing vascular disease affecting the coronary arteries and atrial fibrillation. To establish evidence-based treatment pathways, clearly further studies are needed to determine the biological mechanisms underlying the seemingly higher rate of stroke with COVID-19 than influenza; but this must especially focus on those younger patients without conventional risk factors for stroke (which are largely not included in this study).”

SOURCE: Merkler AE et al. JAMA Neurol. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2020.2730.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.

Lipophilic statin use is associated with reduced mortality risk in women with ovarian cancer, findings from a large observational study suggest.

The study included 10,062 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer enrolled in the Finnish national cancer registry. There were 2,621 patients who were prescribed statins between 1995 and 2015, and 80% of them used lipophilic statins.

When compared with no statin use, any statin use was associated with a 40% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (weighted hazard ratio, 0.60), and any use of lipophilic statins was associated with a 43% reduction in ovarian cancer mortality (wHR, 0.57).

Kala Visvanathan, MD, of Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and colleagues reported these findings in a poster at the AACR virtual meeting II.

Reductions in ovarian cancer mortality were observed in women who took simvastatin or atorvastatin (wHRs 0.24 and 0.20, respectively), the researchers found.

Lipophilic statin use also was associated with a reduction in ovarian cancer mortality across disease subtypes, although the magnitude of reduction varied. The hazard ratios were 0.60 for high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 0.50 for endometrioid ovarian cancer, 0.20 for clear cell ovarian cancer, 0.30 for mucinous ovarian cancer, and 0.27 for borderline disease.

Survival benefits were evident both in patients who started statins prior to their ovarian cancer diagnosis and in those who started statins after diagnosis.

Never-statin users had a median age of 62 years at baseline, and ever-statin users had a median age of 67 years. The median follow-up was 3.6 years and 5.5 years, respectively.

Data from the registry were linked to prescription claims, and a series of analyses were conducted to examine the association between pre- and postdiagnostic statin use and mortality. The findings were adjusted for age at diagnosis, stage, ovarian cancer subtype, treatments, year of diagnosis, and chronic disease medications. Adherence to statins was greater than 90%.
 

Implications and next steps

The idea of using statins for the treatment of ovarian cancer is appealing because of the promising survival data as well as the broad access, low cost, and tolerability of statins, Dr. Visvanathan said in a statement. About 28% of U.S. adults over age 40 routinely take statins for cholesterol control, and statins are widely used in other countries, she said.

“Our results support research to evaluate the repurposing of therapies that are well tolerated and inexpensive in order to help reduce the global cancer burden,” Dr. Visvanathan and colleagues wrote in their poster.

“Our results provide evidence in support of the evaluation of lipophilic statins, particularly atorvastatin and/or simvastatin, for the treatment of [epithelial ovarian cancer] in conjunction with existing therapies,” the researchers wrote. They added that these statins should be “evaluated in randomized clinical trials that include correlative endpoints.”

Further, the researchers argued that “the results are biologically plausible based on known mechanisms associated with statin use and highlight the fact that statins may be effective to treat more than one disease/outcome (i.e., high cholesterol, EOC [epithelial ovarian cancer], breast cancer).”

The results of this study are intriguing, according to James Yarmolinsky, MSc, of the University of Bristol, England. Mr. Yarmolinsky is the lead author of a case-control study that showed an association between genetically proxied 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibition and lower odds of developing epithelial ovarian cancer (JAMA. 2020;323[7]:646-655).

Mr. Yarmolinsky and colleagues found that HMG-CoA reductase inhibition equivalent to a 38.7-mg/dL reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was significantly associated with lower odds of epithelial ovarian cancer in the general population (odds ratio, 0.60) and among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (hazard ratio, 0.69). The findings raised questions about whether a similar association would be seen with medications such as statins that inhibit HMG-CoA reductase.

“These findings linking statin use to lower ovarian cancer mortality are really interesting given our own research suggesting that these drugs may also lower women’s risk of developing this disease in the first place,” Mr. Yarmolinsky said.

“The survival rate for ovarian cancer remains the lowest among all gynecological cancers in the United States, so use of these medications in either a preventive or therapeutic context could offer an important approach for reducing disease burden,” he added. “If the findings reported by Visvanathan and colleagues can be shown to replicate in other large population-based studies, testing the efficacy of statins in a randomized clinical trial could provide definitive evidence of whether these medications lower ovarian cancer mortality.”

The Department of Defense and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation funded the current study. Dr. Visvanathan and Mr. Yarmolinsky reported no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Visvanathan K et al. AACR 2020, Abstract 5782.

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

The researchers used data from the National Cancer Database to identify patients with AJCC stage III or stage IV RCC who had undergone nephrectomy and lymph node dissection.

The cohort included 8,988 patients, 6,587 of whom had node–negative stage III disease, 2,218 of whom had node–positive stage III disease, and 183 of whom had stage IV metastatic disease. The researchers compared relative survival between staging groups.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 61.9% in patients with node–negative stage III RCC (95% confidence interval, 60.3%-63.4%), 22.7% in patients with node-positive stage III RCC (95% CI, 20.6%-24.9%), and 15.6% in patients with stage IV RCC (95% CI, 11.1%-23.8%).

“Patients with lymph node–positive stage III disease and those with stage IV disease were found to have overlapping 95% CIs when measuring 5-year survival; both demonstrated similar mortality,” the researchers reported. They further noted that these findings remained unchanged when patients were stratified by clear cell and non–clear cell histology.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniel D. Shapiro, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and E. Jason Abel, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the study results suggest the clinical phenotype of patients with isolated lymph node metastases is different from other stage III RCCs.

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system [should] recognize the increased risk with [lymph node–positive stage III] tumors and consider reclassification of [these] tumors as stage IV tumors so that baseline risks are more accurately measured in these rare populations,” they recommended.

Dr. Srivastava and colleagues acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the retrospective design and the absence of data on other survival measures, such as metastasis-free and cancer-specific survival.

“Despite these limitations, we believe the current study was able to significantly build on prior work recommending the reclassification of lymph node–positive RCC as stage IV cancer,” they concluded.

The National Cancer Institute supported the study. Some study authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations for work performed outside of the current study. The editorial authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Srivastava A et al. Cancer. 2020 Jul 1;126(13):2991-3001.

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

The researchers used data from the National Cancer Database to identify patients with AJCC stage III or stage IV RCC who had undergone nephrectomy and lymph node dissection.

The cohort included 8,988 patients, 6,587 of whom had node–negative stage III disease, 2,218 of whom had node–positive stage III disease, and 183 of whom had stage IV metastatic disease. The researchers compared relative survival between staging groups.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 61.9% in patients with node–negative stage III RCC (95% confidence interval, 60.3%-63.4%), 22.7% in patients with node-positive stage III RCC (95% CI, 20.6%-24.9%), and 15.6% in patients with stage IV RCC (95% CI, 11.1%-23.8%).

“Patients with lymph node–positive stage III disease and those with stage IV disease were found to have overlapping 95% CIs when measuring 5-year survival; both demonstrated similar mortality,” the researchers reported. They further noted that these findings remained unchanged when patients were stratified by clear cell and non–clear cell histology.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniel D. Shapiro, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and E. Jason Abel, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the study results suggest the clinical phenotype of patients with isolated lymph node metastases is different from other stage III RCCs.

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system [should] recognize the increased risk with [lymph node–positive stage III] tumors and consider reclassification of [these] tumors as stage IV tumors so that baseline risks are more accurately measured in these rare populations,” they recommended.

Dr. Srivastava and colleagues acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the retrospective design and the absence of data on other survival measures, such as metastasis-free and cancer-specific survival.

“Despite these limitations, we believe the current study was able to significantly build on prior work recommending the reclassification of lymph node–positive RCC as stage IV cancer,” they concluded.

The National Cancer Institute supported the study. Some study authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations for work performed outside of the current study. The editorial authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Srivastava A et al. Cancer. 2020 Jul 1;126(13):2991-3001.

The definition of stage IV renal cell carcinoma (RCC) should be expanded to include lymph node–positive stage III disease, according to a population-level cohort study published in Cancer.

While patients with lymph node–negative stage III disease had superior overall survival at 5 years, survival rates were similar between patients with node–positive stage III disease and stage IV disease. This supports reclassifying stage III node-positive RCC to stage IV, according to researchers.

“Prior institutional studies have indicated that, among patients with stage III disease, those with lymph node disease have worse oncologic outcomes and experience survival that is similar to that of patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage IV disease,” wrote Arnav Srivastava, MD, of Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey, New Brunswick, and colleagues.

The researchers used data from the National Cancer Database to identify patients with AJCC stage III or stage IV RCC who had undergone nephrectomy and lymph node dissection.

The cohort included 8,988 patients, 6,587 of whom had node–negative stage III disease, 2,218 of whom had node–positive stage III disease, and 183 of whom had stage IV metastatic disease. The researchers compared relative survival between staging groups.

The 5-year overall survival rate was 61.9% in patients with node–negative stage III RCC (95% confidence interval, 60.3%-63.4%), 22.7% in patients with node-positive stage III RCC (95% CI, 20.6%-24.9%), and 15.6% in patients with stage IV RCC (95% CI, 11.1%-23.8%).

“Patients with lymph node–positive stage III disease and those with stage IV disease were found to have overlapping 95% CIs when measuring 5-year survival; both demonstrated similar mortality,” the researchers reported. They further noted that these findings remained unchanged when patients were stratified by clear cell and non–clear cell histology.

In an accompanying editorial, Daniel D. Shapiro, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and E. Jason Abel, MD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the study results suggest the clinical phenotype of patients with isolated lymph node metastases is different from other stage III RCCs.

“Future editions of the AJCC staging system [should] recognize the increased risk with [lymph node–positive stage III] tumors and consider reclassification of [these] tumors as stage IV tumors so that baseline risks are more accurately measured in these rare populations,” they recommended.

Dr. Srivastava and colleagues acknowledged that two key limitations of the study were the retrospective design and the absence of data on other survival measures, such as metastasis-free and cancer-specific survival.

“Despite these limitations, we believe the current study was able to significantly build on prior work recommending the reclassification of lymph node–positive RCC as stage IV cancer,” they concluded.

The National Cancer Institute supported the study. Some study authors disclosed relationships with pharmaceutical companies and other organizations for work performed outside of the current study. The editorial authors disclosed no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Srivastava A et al. Cancer. 2020 Jul 1;126(13):2991-3001.

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

New data from active surveillance of the severe inflammatory condition associated with COVID-19 in previously healthy children provide further insight into the prevalence and course of the rare syndrome, but experts are concerned that current diagnostic criteria may not capture the true scope of the problem.

In separate reports published online June 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine, researchers from the New York State Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) describe the epidemiology and clinical features of multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) on the basis of information derived from targeted surveillance programs in New York State and across the country.

For the New York study, Elizabeth M. Dufort, MD, from the New York Department of Health in Albany and colleagues analyzed MIS-C surveillance data from 106 hospitals across the state. Of 191 suspected MIS-C cases reported to the Department of Health from March 1 through May 10, 99 met the state’s interim case definition of the condition and were included in the analysis.

The incidence rate for MIS-C was two cases per 100,000 individuals younger than 21 years, whereas the incidence rate of confirmed COVID-19 cases in this age group was 322 per 100,000. Most cases occurred approximately 1 month after the state’s COVID-19 peak.

“Among our patients, predominantly from the New York Metropolitan Region, 40% were black and 36% were Hispanic. This may be a reflection of the well-documented elevated incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among black and Hispanic communities,” the authors report.

All children presented with fever or chills, and most had tachycardia (97%) and gastrointestinal symptoms (80%). Rash (60%), conjunctival infection (56%), hypotension (32%), and mucosal changes (27%) were reported. Among all of the children, levels of inflammatory markers were elevated, including levels of C-reactive protein (100%), D-dimer (91%), and troponin (71%). More than one third of the patients (36%) were diagnosed with myocarditis, and an additional 16% had clinical myocarditis.

Of the full cohort, 80% of the children required intensive care, 62% received vasopressor support, and two children died.

The high prevalence of cardiac dysfunction or depression, coagulopathy, gastrointestinal symptoms, mild respiratory symptoms, and indications for supplemental oxygen in patients with MIS-C stands in contrast to the clinical picture observed in most acute cases of COVID-19 in hospitalized children, the authors write.

“Although most children have mild or no illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection, MIS-C may follow Covid-19 or asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recognition of the syndrome and early identification of children with MIS-C, including early monitoring of blood pressure and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic evaluation, could inform appropriate supportive care and other potential therapeutic options,” they continue.

The incidence of MIS-C among children infected with SARS-CoV-2 is unclear because children with COVID-19 often have mild or no symptoms and because children are not tested as frequently, the authors state. For this reason, “[i]t is crucial to establish surveillance for MIS-C cases, particularly in communities with higher levels of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.”

Important Differences From Kawasaki Disease

In a separate study, Leora R. Feldstein, MD, of the CDC, and colleagues report 186 cases of MIS-C collected through targeted surveillance of pediatric health centers in 26 US states from March 15 to May 20, 2020. As with the New York cohort, a disproportionate number of children in this cohort were black (25%) and Hispanic or Latino (31%).

Similar to the New York cohort, 80% of the children in this group required intensive care, 48% received vasoactive support, 20% required invasive mechanical ventilation, and four children died. Skin rashes, gastrointestinal symptoms, cardiovascular and hematologic effects, mucous changes, and elevations of inflammatory biomarkers were also similarly observed.

The researchers note that, although many of the features of MIS-C overlap with Kawasaki disease, there are some important differences, particularly with respect to the nature of cardiovascular involvement. “Approximately 5% of children with Kawasaki’s disease in the United States present with cardiovascular shock leading to vasopressor or inotropic support, as compared with 50% of the patients in our series,” the authors write.

In addition, coronary-artery aneurysms affect approximately one quarter of Kawasaki disease patients within 21 days of disease onset. “In our series, a maximum z score of 2.5 or higher in the left anterior descending or right coronary artery was reported in 8% of the patients overall and in 9% of patients with echocardiograms,” they report.

Additional differentiating features include patient age and race/ethnicity. Kawasaki disease occurs most commonly in children younger than 5 years. The median age in the multistate study was 8.3 years, and nearly half of the children in the New York cohort were in the 6- to 12-year age group. Further, Kawasaki disease is disproportionately prevalent in children of Asian descent.

Despite the differences, “until more is known about long-term cardiac sequelae of MIS-C, providers could consider following Kawasaki’s disease guidelines for follow-up, which recommend repeat echocardiographic imaging at 1 to 2 weeks.”

As was the case in the New York series, treatment in the multistate cohort most commonly included intravenous immunoglobulin and systemic glucocorticoids. Optimal management, however, will require a better understanding of the pathogenesis of MIS-C, Feldstein and colleagues write.

Questions Remain

With the accumulating data on this syndrome, the MIS-C picture seems to be getting incrementally clearer, but there is still much uncertainty, according to Michael Levin, FMedSci, PhD, from the Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, United Kingdom.

“The recognition and description of new diseases often resemble the parable of the blind men and the elephant, with each declaring that the part of the beast they have touched fully defines it,” he writes in an accompanying editorial.

“As the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has evolved, case reports have appeared describing children with unusual febrile illnesses that have features of Kawasaki’s disease, toxic shock syndrome, acute abdominal conditions, and encephalopathy, along with other reports of children with fever, elevated inflammatory markers, and multisystem involvement. It is now apparent that these reports were describing different clinical presentations of a new childhood inflammatory disorder.”

Although a consistent clinical picture is emerging, “[t]he published reports have used a variety of hastily developed case definitions based on the most severe cases, possibly missing less serious cases,” Levin writes. In particular, both the CDC and World Health Organization definitions require evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection or exposure, which might contribute to underrecognition and underreporting because asymptomatic infections are common and antibody testing is not universally available.

“There is concern that children meeting current diagnostic criteria for MIS-C are the ‘tip of the iceberg,’ and a bigger problem may be lurking below the waterline,” Levin states. With approximately 1000 cases of the syndrome reported worldwide, “do we now have a clear picture of the new disorder, or as in the story of the blind men and the elephant, has only part of the beast been described?”

Adrienne Randolph, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is a coauthor of the multistate report, agrees that there is still much to learn about MIS-C before the whole beast can be understood. In an interview with Medscape Medical News, she listed the following key questions that have yet to be answered:

• Why do some children get MIS-C and not others?
• What is the long-term outcome of children with MIS-C?
• How can we differentiate MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection in children with respiratory failure?
• Does MIS-C occur in young adults?

Randolph said her team is taking the best path forward toward answering these questions, including conducting a second study to identify risk factors for MIS-C and longer-term follow-up studies with the National Institutes of Health. “We are also getting consent to collect blood samples and look at other tests to help distinguish MIS-C from acute COVID-19 infection,” she said. She encouraged heightened awareness among physicians who care for young adults to consider MIS-C in patients aged 21 years and older who present with similar signs and symptoms.

On the basis of the answers to these and additional questions, the case definitions for MIS-C may need refinement to capture the wider spectrum of illness, Levin writes in his editorial. “The challenges of this new condition will now be to understand its pathophysiological mechanisms, to develop diagnostics, and to define the best treatment.”

Kleinman has received grants from the Health Services Resources Administration outside the submitted work. Maddux has received grants from the NIH/NICHD and the Francis Family Foundation outside the submitted work. Randolph has received grants from Genentech and personal fees from La Jolla Pharma outside the submitted work and others from the CDC during the conduct of the study.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Captopril appears to be associated with a higher rate of pulmonary adverse reactions in patients with diabetes than that of other ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and therefore may not be the best choice for patients with diabetes and COVID-19, a new study suggests.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association.

The authors, led by Emma G. Stafford, PharmD, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, note that diabetes seems to confer a higher risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 infection and there is conflicting data on the contribution of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, commonly used medications in diabetes, on the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19.

“In light of the recent COVID-19 outbreak, more research is needed to understand the effects that diabetes (and its medications) may have on the respiratory system and how that could affect the management of diseases such as COVID-19,” they say.

“Although ACE inhibitors and ARBs are generally considered to have similar adverse event profiles, evaluation of postmarketing adverse events may shed light on minute differences that could have important clinical impacts,” they add.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from multiple publicly available data sources on adverse drug reactions in patients with diabetes taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs. The data included all adverse drug events (ADEs) reported nationally to the US Food and Drug Administration and internationally to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).

Results showed that captopril, the first ACE inhibitor approved back in 1981, has a higher incidence of pulmonary ADEs in patients with diabetes as compared with other ACE-inhibitor drugs (P = .005) as well as a statistically significant difference in pulmonary events compared with ARBs (P = .012).

“These analyses suggest that pharmacists and clinicians will need to consider the specific medication’s adverse event profile, particularly captopril, on how it may affect infections and other acute disease states that alter pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” the authors conclude.

They say that the high incidence of pulmonary adverse drug effects with captopril “highlights the fact that the drugs belonging in one class are not identical and that its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can affect the patients’ health especially during acute processes like COVID-19.”

“This is especially important as current observational studies of COVID-19 patients tend to group drugs within a class and are not analyzing the potential differences within each class,” they add.

They note that ACE inhibitors can be broadly classified into 3 structural classes: sulfhydryl-, dicarboxyl-, and phosphorous- containing molecules. Notably, captopril is the only currently available ACE inhibitor belonging to the sulfhydryl-containing class and may explain the higher incidence of adverse drug effects observed, they comment.

“Health care providers have been left with many questions when treating patients with COVID-19, including how ACE inhibitors or ARBs may affect their clinical course. Results from this study may be helpful when prescribing or continuing ACE inhibitors or ARBs for patients with diabetes and infections or illnesses that may affect pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” they conclude.

Questioning safety in COVID-19 an “overreach”

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at State University of New York, said he thought the current article appears to overreach in questioning captopril’s safety in the COVID-19 setting.

“Captopril was the first ACE inhibitor available for clinical use. In early prescribing its dosage was not well understood and it might have been administered in excessive amounts,” Weber notes.

“There were some renal and other adverse effects reported that at first were attributed to the fact that captopril, unlike any other popular ACE inhibitors, contained a sulfhydryl (SH) group in its molecule,” he said. “It is not clear whether this feature could be responsible for the increased pulmonary side effects and potential danger to COVID-19 patients now reported with captopril in this new pharmacy article.”

But he adds: “The article contains no evidence that the effect of captopril or any other ACE inhibitor on the pulmonary ACE-2 enzyme has a deleterious effect on outcomes of COVID-19 disease. In any case, captopril — which should be prescribed in a twice-daily dose — is not frequently prescribed these days since newer ACE inhibitors are effective with just once-daily dosing.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Captopril appears to be associated with a higher rate of pulmonary adverse reactions in patients with diabetes than that of other ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and therefore may not be the best choice for patients with diabetes and COVID-19, a new study suggests.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association.

The authors, led by Emma G. Stafford, PharmD, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, note that diabetes seems to confer a higher risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 infection and there is conflicting data on the contribution of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, commonly used medications in diabetes, on the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19.

“In light of the recent COVID-19 outbreak, more research is needed to understand the effects that diabetes (and its medications) may have on the respiratory system and how that could affect the management of diseases such as COVID-19,” they say.

“Although ACE inhibitors and ARBs are generally considered to have similar adverse event profiles, evaluation of postmarketing adverse events may shed light on minute differences that could have important clinical impacts,” they add.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from multiple publicly available data sources on adverse drug reactions in patients with diabetes taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs. The data included all adverse drug events (ADEs) reported nationally to the US Food and Drug Administration and internationally to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).

Results showed that captopril, the first ACE inhibitor approved back in 1981, has a higher incidence of pulmonary ADEs in patients with diabetes as compared with other ACE-inhibitor drugs (P = .005) as well as a statistically significant difference in pulmonary events compared with ARBs (P = .012).

“These analyses suggest that pharmacists and clinicians will need to consider the specific medication’s adverse event profile, particularly captopril, on how it may affect infections and other acute disease states that alter pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” the authors conclude.

They say that the high incidence of pulmonary adverse drug effects with captopril “highlights the fact that the drugs belonging in one class are not identical and that its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can affect the patients’ health especially during acute processes like COVID-19.”

“This is especially important as current observational studies of COVID-19 patients tend to group drugs within a class and are not analyzing the potential differences within each class,” they add.

They note that ACE inhibitors can be broadly classified into 3 structural classes: sulfhydryl-, dicarboxyl-, and phosphorous- containing molecules. Notably, captopril is the only currently available ACE inhibitor belonging to the sulfhydryl-containing class and may explain the higher incidence of adverse drug effects observed, they comment.

“Health care providers have been left with many questions when treating patients with COVID-19, including how ACE inhibitors or ARBs may affect their clinical course. Results from this study may be helpful when prescribing or continuing ACE inhibitors or ARBs for patients with diabetes and infections or illnesses that may affect pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” they conclude.

Questioning safety in COVID-19 an “overreach”

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at State University of New York, said he thought the current article appears to overreach in questioning captopril’s safety in the COVID-19 setting.

“Captopril was the first ACE inhibitor available for clinical use. In early prescribing its dosage was not well understood and it might have been administered in excessive amounts,” Weber notes.

“There were some renal and other adverse effects reported that at first were attributed to the fact that captopril, unlike any other popular ACE inhibitors, contained a sulfhydryl (SH) group in its molecule,” he said. “It is not clear whether this feature could be responsible for the increased pulmonary side effects and potential danger to COVID-19 patients now reported with captopril in this new pharmacy article.”

But he adds: “The article contains no evidence that the effect of captopril or any other ACE inhibitor on the pulmonary ACE-2 enzyme has a deleterious effect on outcomes of COVID-19 disease. In any case, captopril — which should be prescribed in a twice-daily dose — is not frequently prescribed these days since newer ACE inhibitors are effective with just once-daily dosing.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Captopril appears to be associated with a higher rate of pulmonary adverse reactions in patients with diabetes than that of other ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and therefore may not be the best choice for patients with diabetes and COVID-19, a new study suggests.

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Pharmacists Association.

The authors, led by Emma G. Stafford, PharmD, University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Pharmacy, note that diabetes seems to confer a higher risk of adverse outcomes in COVID-19 infection and there is conflicting data on the contribution of ACE inhibitors and ARBs, commonly used medications in diabetes, on the mortality and morbidity of COVID-19.

“In light of the recent COVID-19 outbreak, more research is needed to understand the effects that diabetes (and its medications) may have on the respiratory system and how that could affect the management of diseases such as COVID-19,” they say.

“Although ACE inhibitors and ARBs are generally considered to have similar adverse event profiles, evaluation of postmarketing adverse events may shed light on minute differences that could have important clinical impacts,” they add.

For the current study, the researchers analyzed data from multiple publicly available data sources on adverse drug reactions in patients with diabetes taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs. The data included all adverse drug events (ADEs) reported nationally to the US Food and Drug Administration and internationally to the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA).

Results showed that captopril, the first ACE inhibitor approved back in 1981, has a higher incidence of pulmonary ADEs in patients with diabetes as compared with other ACE-inhibitor drugs (P = .005) as well as a statistically significant difference in pulmonary events compared with ARBs (P = .012).

“These analyses suggest that pharmacists and clinicians will need to consider the specific medication’s adverse event profile, particularly captopril, on how it may affect infections and other acute disease states that alter pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” the authors conclude.

They say that the high incidence of pulmonary adverse drug effects with captopril “highlights the fact that the drugs belonging in one class are not identical and that its pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can affect the patients’ health especially during acute processes like COVID-19.”

“This is especially important as current observational studies of COVID-19 patients tend to group drugs within a class and are not analyzing the potential differences within each class,” they add.

They note that ACE inhibitors can be broadly classified into 3 structural classes: sulfhydryl-, dicarboxyl-, and phosphorous- containing molecules. Notably, captopril is the only currently available ACE inhibitor belonging to the sulfhydryl-containing class and may explain the higher incidence of adverse drug effects observed, they comment.

“Health care providers have been left with many questions when treating patients with COVID-19, including how ACE inhibitors or ARBs may affect their clinical course. Results from this study may be helpful when prescribing or continuing ACE inhibitors or ARBs for patients with diabetes and infections or illnesses that may affect pulmonary function, such as COVID-19,” they conclude.

Questioning safety in COVID-19 an “overreach”

Commenting for Medscape Medical News, Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at State University of New York, said he thought the current article appears to overreach in questioning captopril’s safety in the COVID-19 setting.

“Captopril was the first ACE inhibitor available for clinical use. In early prescribing its dosage was not well understood and it might have been administered in excessive amounts,” Weber notes.

“There were some renal and other adverse effects reported that at first were attributed to the fact that captopril, unlike any other popular ACE inhibitors, contained a sulfhydryl (SH) group in its molecule,” he said. “It is not clear whether this feature could be responsible for the increased pulmonary side effects and potential danger to COVID-19 patients now reported with captopril in this new pharmacy article.”

But he adds: “The article contains no evidence that the effect of captopril or any other ACE inhibitor on the pulmonary ACE-2 enzyme has a deleterious effect on outcomes of COVID-19 disease. In any case, captopril — which should be prescribed in a twice-daily dose — is not frequently prescribed these days since newer ACE inhibitors are effective with just once-daily dosing.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.