Mixed Topics

A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.

“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.

The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.

“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.

“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.

Lessons from the past

During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.

There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. 

An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.

In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

These include:

• Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
• Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
• Staff training to support new ways of working.
• Increased support for mental health helplines.
• Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
• Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
• Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.

Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.

“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.

Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
 

Concerning spike in gun sales

Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.

“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported. 

In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.

“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said it’s also important to realize that firearm-related suicides were mounting well before COVID-19 hit. From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.

“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
 

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

A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.

“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.

The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.

“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.

“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.

Lessons from the past

During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.

There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. 

An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.

In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

These include:

• Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
• Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
• Staff training to support new ways of working.
• Increased support for mental health helplines.
• Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
• Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
• Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.

Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.

“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.

Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
 

Concerning spike in gun sales

Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.

“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported. 

In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.

“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said it’s also important to realize that firearm-related suicides were mounting well before COVID-19 hit. From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.

“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
 

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

A global group of suicide experts is urging governments around the world to take action to prevent a possible jump in suicide rates because of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

In a commentary published online April 21 in Lancet Psychiatry, members of the International COVID-19 Suicide Prevention Research Collaboration warned that suicide rates are likely to rise as the pandemic spreads and its ensuing long-term effects on the general population, economy, and vulnerable groups emerge.

“Preventing suicide therefore needs urgent consideration. The response must capitalize on, but extend beyond, general mental health policies and practices,” the experts wrote.

The COVID-19 collaboration was started by David Gunnell, MBChB, PhD, University of Bristol, England, and includes 42 members with suicide expertise from around the world.

“We’re an ad hoc grouping of international suicide prevention researchers, research leaders, and members of larger international suicide prevention organizations. We include specialists in public health, psychiatry, psychology, and other clinical disciplines,” Dr. Gunnell said in an interview.

“Through this comment piece we hope to share our ideas and experiences about best practice, and ask others working in the field of suicide prevention at a regional, national, and international level to share our intervention and surveillance/data collection recommendations with relevant policy makers,” he added.

Lessons from the past

During times of crisis, people with existing mental health disorders may suffer worsening symptoms, whereas others may develop new mental health problems, especially depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the group notes.

There is some evidence that suicide increased in the United States during the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918 and among older people in Hong Kong during the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) outbreak. 

An increase in suicide related to COVID-19 is not inevitable provided preventive action is prompt, the group notes.

In their article, the group offered several potential public health responses to mitigate suicide risk associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

These include:

• Clear care pathways for those who are suicidal.
• Remote or digital assessments for patients currently under the care of a mental health professional.
• Staff training to support new ways of working.
• Increased support for mental health helplines.
• Providing easily accessible grief counseling for those who have lost a loved one to the virus.
• Financial safety nets and labor market programs.
• Dissemination of evidence-based online interventions.

Public health responses must also ensure that those facing domestic violence have access to support and a place to go during times of crisis, they suggested.

“These are unprecedented times. The pandemic will cause distress and leave many vulnerable. Mental health consequences are likely to be present for longer and peak later than the actual pandemic. However, research evidence and the experience of national strategies provide a strong basis for suicide prevention,” the group wrote.

Dr. Gunnell said it’s hard to predict what impact the pandemic will have on suicide rates, “but given the range of concerns, it is important to be prepared and take steps to mitigate risk as much as possible.”
 

Concerning spike in gun sales

Eric Fleegler, MD, MPH, and colleagues from Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, agreed.

“The time to act is now. Both population and individual approaches are needed to reduce the risk for suicide in the coming months,” they wrote in a commentary published online April 22 in Annals of Internal Medicine.

Dr. Fleegler and colleagues are particularly concerned about a potential increase in gun-related suicides, as gun sales in the United States have “skyrocketed” during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In March, more than 2.5 million firearms were sold, including 1.5 million handguns. That’s an 85% increase in gun sales compared with March 2019 and the highest firearm sales ever recorded in the United States, they reported. 

In addition, research has shown that individuals who buy handguns have a 22-fold higher rate of firearm-related suicide within the first year vs. those who don’t purchase a handgun.

“In the best of times, increased gun ownership is associated with a heightened risk for firearm-related suicide. These are not the best of times,” the authors wrote.

Dr. Fleegler and colleagues said it’s also important to realize that firearm-related suicides were mounting well before COVID-19 hit. From 2006 to 2018, firearm-related suicide rates increased by more than 25%, according to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. In 2018 alone, there were 24,432 firearm-related suicides in the United States.

“The United States should take policy and clinical action to avoid a potential epidemic of firearm-related suicide in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic,” they concluded.

This research had no specific funding. Dr. Gunnell and Dr. Fleegler disclosed no relevant financial relationships .
 

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

A week after its launch, a new online registry has information on more than 2 dozen cases of pediatric cancer patients with COVID-19.

The registry, created by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, is the first global COVID-19 registry for children with cancer.

Clinicians enter cases through an online form, then complete 30- and 60-day follow-up reports via email. St. Jude compiles the data and releases regularly updated summaries, including the number of cases by country and by treatment. Eventually, researchers might be able to apply for access to the raw data for their own projects.

It’s all free of charge, said Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, chair of the department of global pediatric medicine at St. Jude.

The registry is hosted on a website called “The Global COVID-19 Observatory and Resource Center for Childhood Cancer.” In addition to the registry, the website has a resource library and a discussion forum where clinicians can exchange information.

Other COVID-19 cancer registries have launched recently as well, including registries created by the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The idea is to compile and disseminate best practices and other information quickly amid concerns that immunosuppressed cancer patients might be especially vulnerable.

So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case for children. Their relative protection from the disease and serious complications seems to hold even when they have cancer, Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo said.

“When we talk with the people in China” the number of COVID-19 cases in children with cancer is “very small,” he said. There are a couple of reports from Europe finding the same thing, and the severity of COVID-19 also “seems to be lower than you would expect,” he added.

The new registry will help better define the situation, according to Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo.

St. Jude is working with European countries that have their own national pediatric cancer COVID-19 registries to share information. St. Jude’s ties with lower- and middle-income countries, established via the department of global pediatric medicine, should help populate the global registry as well.

Furthermore, international surveys are being planned to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on children with cancer and their access to care.

[email protected]

A week after its launch, a new online registry has information on more than 2 dozen cases of pediatric cancer patients with COVID-19.

The registry, created by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, is the first global COVID-19 registry for children with cancer.

Clinicians enter cases through an online form, then complete 30- and 60-day follow-up reports via email. St. Jude compiles the data and releases regularly updated summaries, including the number of cases by country and by treatment. Eventually, researchers might be able to apply for access to the raw data for their own projects.

It’s all free of charge, said Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, chair of the department of global pediatric medicine at St. Jude.

The registry is hosted on a website called “The Global COVID-19 Observatory and Resource Center for Childhood Cancer.” In addition to the registry, the website has a resource library and a discussion forum where clinicians can exchange information.

Other COVID-19 cancer registries have launched recently as well, including registries created by the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The idea is to compile and disseminate best practices and other information quickly amid concerns that immunosuppressed cancer patients might be especially vulnerable.

So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case for children. Their relative protection from the disease and serious complications seems to hold even when they have cancer, Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo said.

“When we talk with the people in China” the number of COVID-19 cases in children with cancer is “very small,” he said. There are a couple of reports from Europe finding the same thing, and the severity of COVID-19 also “seems to be lower than you would expect,” he added.

The new registry will help better define the situation, according to Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo.

St. Jude is working with European countries that have their own national pediatric cancer COVID-19 registries to share information. St. Jude’s ties with lower- and middle-income countries, established via the department of global pediatric medicine, should help populate the global registry as well.

Furthermore, international surveys are being planned to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on children with cancer and their access to care.

[email protected]

A week after its launch, a new online registry has information on more than 2 dozen cases of pediatric cancer patients with COVID-19.

The registry, created by St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn., and the International Society of Paediatric Oncology, is the first global COVID-19 registry for children with cancer.

Clinicians enter cases through an online form, then complete 30- and 60-day follow-up reports via email. St. Jude compiles the data and releases regularly updated summaries, including the number of cases by country and by treatment. Eventually, researchers might be able to apply for access to the raw data for their own projects.

It’s all free of charge, said Carlos Rodriguez-Galindo, MD, chair of the department of global pediatric medicine at St. Jude.

The registry is hosted on a website called “The Global COVID-19 Observatory and Resource Center for Childhood Cancer.” In addition to the registry, the website has a resource library and a discussion forum where clinicians can exchange information.

Other COVID-19 cancer registries have launched recently as well, including registries created by the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. The idea is to compile and disseminate best practices and other information quickly amid concerns that immunosuppressed cancer patients might be especially vulnerable.

So far, that doesn’t seem to be the case for children. Their relative protection from the disease and serious complications seems to hold even when they have cancer, Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo said.

“When we talk with the people in China” the number of COVID-19 cases in children with cancer is “very small,” he said. There are a couple of reports from Europe finding the same thing, and the severity of COVID-19 also “seems to be lower than you would expect,” he added.

The new registry will help better define the situation, according to Dr. Rodriguez-Galindo.

St. Jude is working with European countries that have their own national pediatric cancer COVID-19 registries to share information. St. Jude’s ties with lower- and middle-income countries, established via the department of global pediatric medicine, should help populate the global registry as well.

Furthermore, international surveys are being planned to gauge the impact of COVID-19 on children with cancer and their access to care.

[email protected]

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Initial data from one Chinese center on the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 appear to give some further reassurance about continued use of these drugs.

The report from one hospital in Wuhan found that among patients with hypertension hospitalized with the COVID-19 virus, there was no difference in disease severity or death rate in patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and those not taking such medications.

The data were published online April 23 in JAMA Cardiology.

The study adds to another recent report in a larger number of COVID-19 patients from nine Chinese hospitals that suggested a beneficial effect of ACE inhibitors or ARBs on mortality.

Additional studies

Two other similar studies have also been recently released. Another study from China, published online March 31 in Emerging Microbes & Infections, included a small sample of 42 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on antihypertensive therapy. Those on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had a lower rate of severe disease and a trend toward a lower level of IL-6 in peripheral blood. In addition, patients on ACE inhibitor/ARB therapy had increased CD3+ and CD8+ T-cell counts in peripheral blood and decreased peak viral load compared with other antihypertensive drugs.

And a preliminary study from the UK, which has not yet been peer reviewed, found that treatment with ACE inhibitors was associated with a reduced risk of rapidly deteriorating severe COVID-19 disease.

The study, available online on MedRxiv, a preprint server for health sciences, reports on 205 acute inpatients with COVID-19 at King’s College Hospital and Princess Royal University Hospital, London.

Of these, 51.2% had hypertension, 30.2% had diabetes, and 14.6% had ischemic heart disease or heart failure. Of the 37 patients on ACE inhibitors, five (14%) died or required critical care support compared with 29% (48/168) of patients not taking an ACE inhibitor.
 

New Wuhan study

The authors of the new article published in JAMA Cardiology, led by Juyi Li, MD, reported on a case series of 1,178 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 at the Central Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei, China, between Jan. 15 and March 15, 2020.

Patients were a median age of 55 years, and 46% were men. They had an overall in-hospital mortality rate of 11%.

Of the 1,178 patients, 362 (30.7%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. These patients were older (median age, 66 years) and had a greater prevalence of chronic diseases. Patients with hypertension also had more severe manifestations of COVID-19 compared to those without hypertension, including higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome and in-hospital mortality (21.3% vs. 6.5%).

Of the 362 patients with hypertension, 31.8% were taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs.

Apart from a greater prevalence of coronary artery disease, patients taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs had similar comorbidities to those not taking these medications, and also similar laboratory profile results including blood counts, inflammatory markers, renal and liver function tests, and cardiac biomarkers, although those taking ACE inhibitors/ARBs had higher levels of alkaline phosphatase.

The most commonly used antihypertensive drugs were calcium blockers. The percentage of patients with hypertension taking any drug or drug combination did not differ between those with severe and nonsevere infections and between those who survived and those who died.

Specifically regarding ACE inhibitors/ARBs, there was no difference between those with severe versus nonsevere illness in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.2% vs. 10.1%; P = .80), ARBs (24.9% vs. 21.2%; P = .40), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (32.9% vs. 30.7%; P = .65).

Similarly, there were no differences in nonsurvivors and survivors in the use of ACE inhibitors (9.1% vs. 9.8%; P = .85); ARBs (19.5% vs. 23.9%; P = .42), or the composite of ACE inhibitors or ARBs (27.3% vs. 33.0%; P = .34).

The frequency of severe illness and death also did not differ between those treated with and without ACE inhibitors/ARBs in patients with hypertension and other various chronic conditions including coronary heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, neurological disease, and chronic renal disease.

The authors noted that these data confirm previous reports showing that patients with hypertension have more severe illness and higher mortality rates associated with COVID-19 than those without hypertension.

But they added: “Our data provide some reassurance that ACE inhibitors/ARBs are not associated with the progression or outcome of COVID-19 hospitalizations in patients with hypertension.”

They also noted that these results support the recommendations from almost all major cardiovascular societies that patients do not discontinue ACE inhibitors or ARBs because of worries about COVID-19.

However, the authors did point out some limitations of their study, which included a small number of patients with hypertension taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the fact that a nonsevere disease course was still severe enough to require hospitalization. In addition, it was not clear whether ACE inhibitor/ARB treatment at baseline was maintained throughout hospitalization for all patients.

This was also an observational comparison and may be biased by differences in patients taking versus not taking ACE inhibitors or ARBs at the time of hospitalization, although the measured baseline characteristics were similar in both groups.

But the authors also highlighted the finding that, in this cohort, patients with hypertension had three times the mortality rate of all other patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

“Hypertension combined with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease would predispose patients to an increased risk of severity and mortality of COVID-19. Therefore, patients with these underlying conditions who develop COVID-19 require particularly intensive surveillance and care,” they wrote.
 

Experts cautiously optimistic

Some cardiovascular experts were cautiously optimistic about these latest results.

Michael A. Weber, MD, professor of medicine at the State University of New York, Brooklyn, and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Clinical Hypertension, said: “This new report from Wuhan, China, gives modest reassurance that the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 disease does not increase the risk of clinical deterioration or death.

“Ongoing, more definitive studies should help resolve competing hypotheses regarding the effects of these agents: whether the increased ACE2 enzyme levels they produce can worsen outcomes by increasing access of the COVID virus to lung tissue; or whether there is a benefit linked to a protective effect of increased ACE2 on alveolar cell function,” Dr. Weber noted.

“Though the number of patients included in this new report is small, it is startling that hypertensive patients were three times as likely as nonhypertensives to have a fatal outcome, presumably reflecting vulnerability due to the cardiovascular and metabolic comorbidities associated with hypertension,” he added.

“In any case, for now, clinicians should continue treating hypertensive patients with whichever drugs, including ACE inhibitors and ARBs, best provide protection from adverse outcomes,” Dr. Weber concluded.

John McMurray, MD, professor of medical cardiology, University of Glasgow, Scotland, commented: “This study from Wuhan provides some reassurance about one of the two questions about ACEI/ARBs: Do these drugs increase susceptibility to infection? And if [the patient is] infected, do they increase the severity of infection? This study addresses the latter question and appears to suggest no increased severity.”

However, Dr. McMurray pointed out that the study had many limitations. There were only small patient numbers and the data were unadjusted, “although it looks like the ACE inhibitor/ARB treated patients were higher risk to start with.” It was an observational study, and patients were not randomized and were predominantly treated with ARBs, and not ACE inhibitors, so “we don’t know if the concerns apply equally to these two classes of drug.

“Other data published and unpublished supporting this (even showing better outcomes in patients treated with an ACE inhibitor/ARB), and, to date, any concerns about these drugs remain unsubstantiated and the guidance from medical societies to continue treatment with these agents in patients prescribed them seems wise,” Dr. McMurray added.

Franz H. Messerli, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Bern, Switzerland, commented: “The study from Wuhan is not a great study. They didn’t even do a multivariable analysis. They could have done a bit more with the data, but it still gives some reassurance.”

Dr. Messerli said it was “interesting” that 30% of the patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the sample had hypertension. “That corresponds to the general population, so does not suggest that having hypertension increases susceptibility to infection – but it does seem to increase the risk of a bad outcome.”

Dr. Messerli noted that there are two more similar studies due to be published soon, both said to suggest either a beneficial or neutral effect of ACE inhibitors/ARBs on COVID-19 outcomes in hospitalized patients.

“This does help with confidence in prescribing these agents and reinforces the recommendations for patients to stay on these drugs,” he said.

“However, none of these studies address the infectivity issue – whether their use upregulates the ACE2 receptor, which the virus uses to gain entry to cells, thereby increasing susceptibility to the infection,” Dr. Messerli cautioned. “But the similar or better outcomes on these drugs are encouraging,” he added.

The Wuhan study was supported by the Health and Family Planning Commission of Wuhan City, China. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) with or without azithromycin (AZ) is not associated with a lower risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, according to a retrospective study of Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The study, which was posted on a preprint server April 21 and has not been peer reviewed, also showed an increased risk of death associated with COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ alone.

“These findings highlight the importance of awaiting the results of ongoing prospective, randomized controlled studies before widespread adoption of these drugs,” write Joseph Magagnoli with Dorn Research Institute at the Columbia (S.C.) VA Health Care System and the department of clinical pharmacy & outcomes sciences, University of South Carolina, and colleagues.

A spokesperson with the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, where several of coauthors practice, said that the authors declined to comment for this article before peer review is completed.

The new data are not the first to suggest no benefit with HCQ among patients with COVID-19. A randomized trial showed no benefit and more side effects among 75 patients in China treated with HCQ, compared with 75 who received standard of care alone, according to a preprint posted online April 14.

No benefit in ventilation, death rates

The current analysis included data from all 368 male patients hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19 and treated at Veterans Health Administration medical centers in the United States through April 11.

Patients were categorized into three groups: those treated with HCQ in addition to standard of care (n = 97); those treated with HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin plus standard of care (n = 113); and those who received standard supportive care only (n = 158).

Wait for convincing data

Dr. Wessner, whose research focuses on viral pathogenesis, says that, although the current data don’t definitively answer the question of whether HCQ is effective in treating COVID-19, taking a “let’s try it and see” approach is not reasonable.

“Until we have good, prospective randomized trials, it’s hard to know what to make of this. But this is more evidence that there’s not a good reason to use [HCQ],” Dr. Wessner said. He points out that the small randomized trial from China shows that HCQ comes with potential harms.

Anecdotal evidence is often cited by those who promote HCQ as a potential treatment, but “those are one-off examples,” Wessner continued. “That doesn’t really tell us anything.”

Some HCQ proponents have said that trials finding no benefit are flawed in that the drug is given too late. However, Dr. Wessner says, there’s no way to prove or disprove that claim without randomized controlled trials.

Conflicting messages

Despite lack of clear evidence of benefit for patients with COVID-19, HCQ is recommended off-label by the Chinese National guideline, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an emergency-use authorization for the treatment of adult patients with COVID-19.

Conversely, the Infectious Diseases Society of America and a guideline panel convened by the National Institutes of Health each concluded recently that because of insufficient data, they could not recommend any specific treatments for patients with COVID-19.

The VA data for the current study came from the Veterans Affairs Informatics and Computing Infrastructure, which includes inpatient, outpatient and laboratory data and pharmacy claims.

The authors acknowledge some limitations, “including those inherent to all retrospective analyses such as nonrandomization of treatments.”

However, they note that they did adjust for potential confounders, including comorbidities, medications, and clinical and laboratory factors.

A coauthor, Jayakrishna Ambati, MD, is a cofounder of iVeena Holdings, iVeena Delivery Systems and Inflammasome Therapeutics, and has received consultancy fees from Allergan, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Immunovant, Janssen, Olix Pharmaceuticals, Retinal Solutions, and Saksin LifeSciences, all unrelated to this work. Dr. Ambati is named as an inventor on a patent application filed by the University of Virginia relating to COVID-19 but unrelated to this work. Another coauthor has received research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead Sciences, Portola Pharmaceuticals, and United Therapeutics, all unrelated to this work. The other authors and Dr. Wessner have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Small phase 1 and phase 2 multi-center, open label studies of melflufen toxicity and efficacy in combination with dexamethasone showed significant benefits in overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. A report on these studies was published in Lancet Hematology.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

In phase 2, patients treated with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14/45 patients) and a clinical benefit rate of 49% (22/45 patients). In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (1/13 patients) and the clinical benefit rate was 23% (3/13 patients) before this aspect of the study was discontinued.

In terms of adverse events, among the 45 phase 2 combination–treatment patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were clinically manageable thrombocytopenia (62% of patients) and neutropenia (58%) In addition, 24 serious adverse events were reported in 38% patients, most commonly pneumonia (11%).

Because of the benefits seen and the need for relapsed/refractory MM treatments, further studies on melflufen in combination therapies are ongoing, according to the researchers “with encouraging early results to date”: NCT03151811, NCT02963493, and NCT03481556.

“Melflufen represents a novel treatment concept with a unique mechanism of action that might find future use in combinations with key partners, such as proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB. The authors received funding from a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. Lancet Hematol. 2020; doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30044-2.

Small phase 1 and phase 2 multi-center, open label studies of melflufen toxicity and efficacy in combination with dexamethasone showed significant benefits in overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. A report on these studies was published in Lancet Hematology.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

In phase 2, patients treated with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14/45 patients) and a clinical benefit rate of 49% (22/45 patients). In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (1/13 patients) and the clinical benefit rate was 23% (3/13 patients) before this aspect of the study was discontinued.

In terms of adverse events, among the 45 phase 2 combination–treatment patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were clinically manageable thrombocytopenia (62% of patients) and neutropenia (58%) In addition, 24 serious adverse events were reported in 38% patients, most commonly pneumonia (11%).

Because of the benefits seen and the need for relapsed/refractory MM treatments, further studies on melflufen in combination therapies are ongoing, according to the researchers “with encouraging early results to date”: NCT03151811, NCT02963493, and NCT03481556.

“Melflufen represents a novel treatment concept with a unique mechanism of action that might find future use in combinations with key partners, such as proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB. The authors received funding from a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. Lancet Hematol. 2020; doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30044-2.

Small phase 1 and phase 2 multi-center, open label studies of melflufen toxicity and efficacy in combination with dexamethasone showed significant benefits in overall response rate in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. A report on these studies was published in Lancet Hematology.

Nephron/Wikimedia Commons

In phase 2, patients treated with combination therapy achieved an overall response rate of 31% (14/45 patients) and a clinical benefit rate of 49% (22/45 patients). In the phase 2 single-agent cohort, the overall response rate was 8% (1/13 patients) and the clinical benefit rate was 23% (3/13 patients) before this aspect of the study was discontinued.

In terms of adverse events, among the 45 phase 2 combination–treatment patients, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were clinically manageable thrombocytopenia (62% of patients) and neutropenia (58%) In addition, 24 serious adverse events were reported in 38% patients, most commonly pneumonia (11%).

Because of the benefits seen and the need for relapsed/refractory MM treatments, further studies on melflufen in combination therapies are ongoing, according to the researchers “with encouraging early results to date”: NCT03151811, NCT02963493, and NCT03481556.

“Melflufen represents a novel treatment concept with a unique mechanism of action that might find future use in combinations with key partners, such as proteasome inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies,” the researchers concluded.

The study was sponsored by Oncopeptides AB. The authors received funding from a variety of pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Richardson PG et al. Lancet Hematol. 2020; doi.org/10.1016/S2352-3026(20)30044-2.

The COVID-19 pandemic is already affecting mental health at a population level, with increased anxiety, feelings of isolation, and concerns about access to mental health care.

Two U.K. surveys were conducted to inform research priorities for mental health research and in an effort to head off a mental health crisis. The U.K. charity MQ conducted a “stakeholder” survey of 2,198 individuals who had a lived experience of mental illness, while Ipsos MORI conducted a poll of 1,099 members of the public.

The online surveys were conducted in late March, the same week the U.K.’s nationwide lockdown measures were announced. Respondents were asked about their biggest mental health and well-being concerns and coping strategies as they relate to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results showed that across the two surveys, respondents’ primary concern was anxiety, which was cited in 750 responses. Reported symptoms included overthinking, crying, nausea, heart palpitations, sleep disturbance, and a sense of guilt about not knowing how to help others.

In addition, respondents were worried about being social isolated, becoming mentally unwell, and having a lack of access to mental health services, as well as the impact of the pandemic on personal relationships.

The findings were used by a panel of experts to inform a position paper published in the Lancet Psychiatry. The paper outlines a proposed government response to curb the long-term “profound” and “pervasive” impact of the pandemic on mental health.
 

‘Unprecedented response’ needed

“Governments must find evidence-based ways to boost the resilience of our societies and ... to treat those with mental ill health remotely to come out of this pandemic in good mental health,” coauthor of the paper Emily A. Holmes, PhD, of the department of psychology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“Frontline medical staff and vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with serious mental health conditions must be prioritized for rapid mental health support,” she added.

The position paper authors call for “moment-to-moment” monitoring of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide, as well as using digital technology and rapid deployment of evidence-based programs and treatments.

Patients will need to be accessible via computer, cell phone, and other remote technologies in order to receive treatment during physical isolation. However, they noted that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach, and novel approaches custom tailored to particular populations, including frontline health care workers, are necessary.

“To make a real difference we will need to harness the tools of our digital age, finding smart new ways to measure the mental health of individuals remotely, finding creative ways to boost resilience, and finding ways to treat people in their homes. This effort must be considered central to our global response to the pandemic,” coauthor Ed Bullmore, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge (England), said in a statement.

Dr. Bullmore added that it will take “unprecedented research response if we are to limit the negative consequences of this pandemic on the mental health of our society now and in the future.”
 

Most vulnerable will bear the brunt

During a webinar held to discuss the paper, Matthew Hotopf, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience at King’s College London, cautioned that society’s most vulnerable citizens will bear the brunt of the pandemic’s mental health consequences.

“These individuals often have unstable housing, unstable work, and are disadvantaged in terms of their physical health and their mental health,” with a “very significant gap” in life expectancy versus the rest of the population, he said. The COVID-19 pandemic will widen the gap between “the haves and the have nots.”

“People with established and significant mental disorders are one version of the ‘have nots’ but actually it applies to a lot of people,” said Dr. Hotopf, noting that his experience of lockdown is “very different” from that of someone “living in overcrowded, unstable accommodation, with kids running around and maybe a partner who has problems with anger control.”

The authors of the position paper noted that the COVID-19 pandemic highlights several important research priorities that need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months. These include:

• Understanding the effect of COVID-19 on risk of anxiety, depression, and other outcomes, such as self-harm and suicide
• Understanding how to create physical and social supports to ensure mental health in a climate of physical distancing
• Determining the mental health consequences of social isolation for vulnerable groups, and how can these be mitigated under pandemic conditions
• Understanding the mental health impact of media reporting of COVID-19 in traditional and social media
• Determining the best methods for promoting successful adherence to behavioral advice about COVID-19 while enabling mental well-being and minimizing distress

Another area highlighted by the experts is the potential for neuropsychiatric sequelae in individuals infected with COVID-19. They called for “experimental medicine studies to validate clinical biomarkers and repurpose new treatments for the potentially neurotoxic effects of the virus.”

The authors/investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is already affecting mental health at a population level, with increased anxiety, feelings of isolation, and concerns about access to mental health care.

Two U.K. surveys were conducted to inform research priorities for mental health research and in an effort to head off a mental health crisis. The U.K. charity MQ conducted a “stakeholder” survey of 2,198 individuals who had a lived experience of mental illness, while Ipsos MORI conducted a poll of 1,099 members of the public.

The online surveys were conducted in late March, the same week the U.K.’s nationwide lockdown measures were announced. Respondents were asked about their biggest mental health and well-being concerns and coping strategies as they relate to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results showed that across the two surveys, respondents’ primary concern was anxiety, which was cited in 750 responses. Reported symptoms included overthinking, crying, nausea, heart palpitations, sleep disturbance, and a sense of guilt about not knowing how to help others.

In addition, respondents were worried about being social isolated, becoming mentally unwell, and having a lack of access to mental health services, as well as the impact of the pandemic on personal relationships.

The findings were used by a panel of experts to inform a position paper published in the Lancet Psychiatry. The paper outlines a proposed government response to curb the long-term “profound” and “pervasive” impact of the pandemic on mental health.
 

‘Unprecedented response’ needed

“Governments must find evidence-based ways to boost the resilience of our societies and ... to treat those with mental ill health remotely to come out of this pandemic in good mental health,” coauthor of the paper Emily A. Holmes, PhD, of the department of psychology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“Frontline medical staff and vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with serious mental health conditions must be prioritized for rapid mental health support,” she added.

The position paper authors call for “moment-to-moment” monitoring of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide, as well as using digital technology and rapid deployment of evidence-based programs and treatments.

Patients will need to be accessible via computer, cell phone, and other remote technologies in order to receive treatment during physical isolation. However, they noted that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach, and novel approaches custom tailored to particular populations, including frontline health care workers, are necessary.

“To make a real difference we will need to harness the tools of our digital age, finding smart new ways to measure the mental health of individuals remotely, finding creative ways to boost resilience, and finding ways to treat people in their homes. This effort must be considered central to our global response to the pandemic,” coauthor Ed Bullmore, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge (England), said in a statement.

Dr. Bullmore added that it will take “unprecedented research response if we are to limit the negative consequences of this pandemic on the mental health of our society now and in the future.”
 

Most vulnerable will bear the brunt

During a webinar held to discuss the paper, Matthew Hotopf, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience at King’s College London, cautioned that society’s most vulnerable citizens will bear the brunt of the pandemic’s mental health consequences.

“These individuals often have unstable housing, unstable work, and are disadvantaged in terms of their physical health and their mental health,” with a “very significant gap” in life expectancy versus the rest of the population, he said. The COVID-19 pandemic will widen the gap between “the haves and the have nots.”

“People with established and significant mental disorders are one version of the ‘have nots’ but actually it applies to a lot of people,” said Dr. Hotopf, noting that his experience of lockdown is “very different” from that of someone “living in overcrowded, unstable accommodation, with kids running around and maybe a partner who has problems with anger control.”

The authors of the position paper noted that the COVID-19 pandemic highlights several important research priorities that need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months. These include:

• Understanding the effect of COVID-19 on risk of anxiety, depression, and other outcomes, such as self-harm and suicide
• Understanding how to create physical and social supports to ensure mental health in a climate of physical distancing
• Determining the mental health consequences of social isolation for vulnerable groups, and how can these be mitigated under pandemic conditions
• Understanding the mental health impact of media reporting of COVID-19 in traditional and social media
• Determining the best methods for promoting successful adherence to behavioral advice about COVID-19 while enabling mental well-being and minimizing distress

Another area highlighted by the experts is the potential for neuropsychiatric sequelae in individuals infected with COVID-19. They called for “experimental medicine studies to validate clinical biomarkers and repurpose new treatments for the potentially neurotoxic effects of the virus.”

The authors/investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The COVID-19 pandemic is already affecting mental health at a population level, with increased anxiety, feelings of isolation, and concerns about access to mental health care.

Two U.K. surveys were conducted to inform research priorities for mental health research and in an effort to head off a mental health crisis. The U.K. charity MQ conducted a “stakeholder” survey of 2,198 individuals who had a lived experience of mental illness, while Ipsos MORI conducted a poll of 1,099 members of the public.

The online surveys were conducted in late March, the same week the U.K.’s nationwide lockdown measures were announced. Respondents were asked about their biggest mental health and well-being concerns and coping strategies as they relate to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results showed that across the two surveys, respondents’ primary concern was anxiety, which was cited in 750 responses. Reported symptoms included overthinking, crying, nausea, heart palpitations, sleep disturbance, and a sense of guilt about not knowing how to help others.

In addition, respondents were worried about being social isolated, becoming mentally unwell, and having a lack of access to mental health services, as well as the impact of the pandemic on personal relationships.

The findings were used by a panel of experts to inform a position paper published in the Lancet Psychiatry. The paper outlines a proposed government response to curb the long-term “profound” and “pervasive” impact of the pandemic on mental health.
 

‘Unprecedented response’ needed

“Governments must find evidence-based ways to boost the resilience of our societies and ... to treat those with mental ill health remotely to come out of this pandemic in good mental health,” coauthor of the paper Emily A. Holmes, PhD, of the department of psychology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, said in a press release.

“Frontline medical staff and vulnerable groups such as the elderly and those with serious mental health conditions must be prioritized for rapid mental health support,” she added.

The position paper authors call for “moment-to-moment” monitoring of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide, as well as using digital technology and rapid deployment of evidence-based programs and treatments.

Patients will need to be accessible via computer, cell phone, and other remote technologies in order to receive treatment during physical isolation. However, they noted that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach, and novel approaches custom tailored to particular populations, including frontline health care workers, are necessary.

“To make a real difference we will need to harness the tools of our digital age, finding smart new ways to measure the mental health of individuals remotely, finding creative ways to boost resilience, and finding ways to treat people in their homes. This effort must be considered central to our global response to the pandemic,” coauthor Ed Bullmore, PhD, of the department of psychiatry at the University of Cambridge (England), said in a statement.

Dr. Bullmore added that it will take “unprecedented research response if we are to limit the negative consequences of this pandemic on the mental health of our society now and in the future.”
 

Most vulnerable will bear the brunt

During a webinar held to discuss the paper, Matthew Hotopf, PhD, of the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience at King’s College London, cautioned that society’s most vulnerable citizens will bear the brunt of the pandemic’s mental health consequences.

“These individuals often have unstable housing, unstable work, and are disadvantaged in terms of their physical health and their mental health,” with a “very significant gap” in life expectancy versus the rest of the population, he said. The COVID-19 pandemic will widen the gap between “the haves and the have nots.”

“People with established and significant mental disorders are one version of the ‘have nots’ but actually it applies to a lot of people,” said Dr. Hotopf, noting that his experience of lockdown is “very different” from that of someone “living in overcrowded, unstable accommodation, with kids running around and maybe a partner who has problems with anger control.”

The authors of the position paper noted that the COVID-19 pandemic highlights several important research priorities that need to be addressed in the coming weeks and months. These include:

• Understanding the effect of COVID-19 on risk of anxiety, depression, and other outcomes, such as self-harm and suicide
• Understanding how to create physical and social supports to ensure mental health in a climate of physical distancing
• Determining the mental health consequences of social isolation for vulnerable groups, and how can these be mitigated under pandemic conditions
• Understanding the mental health impact of media reporting of COVID-19 in traditional and social media
• Determining the best methods for promoting successful adherence to behavioral advice about COVID-19 while enabling mental well-being and minimizing distress

Another area highlighted by the experts is the potential for neuropsychiatric sequelae in individuals infected with COVID-19. They called for “experimental medicine studies to validate clinical biomarkers and repurpose new treatments for the potentially neurotoxic effects of the virus.”

The authors/investigators disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

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

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

Hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension and on treatment with an renin-angiotensin system inhibiting drug had significantly better survival, compared with similar hypertensive patients not on these drugs, in observational, propensity score–matched analyses that drew from a pool of more than 3,430 patients hospitalized at any of nine Chinese hospitals during December 2019–February 2020.

Courtesy CDC

“Among patients with hypertension hospitalized with COVID-19, inpatient treatment with ACEI [ACE inhibitor]/ARB [angiotensin receptor blocker] was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality, compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers, during 28 days of follow-up. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that inpatient ACEI/ARB would be associated with an increased risk of mortality,” wrote Peng Zhang, MD, a cardiology researcher at Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, China, and coauthors in Circulations Research, buttressing recent recommendations from several medical societies to maintain COVID-19 patients on these drugs.

“Our findings in this paper provide evidence supporting continuous use of ACEI/ARB for patients with hypertension infected with SARS-COV-2,” wrote the authors, backing up recent recommendations from cardiology societies that called for not stopping ACEI/ARB prescriptions in patients at risk for contracting or already have COVID-19 infection, including a statement from the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Heart Failure Society of America, and also guidance from the European Society of Cardiology.

The study included 1,128 patients with a history of hypertension, including 188 (17%) who received an ACEI/ARB drug during hospitalization. During 28-day follow-up, 99 died (9%), including 7 deaths among the 188 patients (4%) on an ACEI/ARB drug and 92 deaths among the 940 other hypertensive patients (10%).

The authors ran several analyses to try to adjust for the influence of possible confounders. A mixed-effect Cox model with four adjusted variables showed that treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was tied to a statistically significant 58% lower death rate, compared with patients not receiving these drugs.

The researchers also ran several propensity score–adjusted analyses. One matched 174 of the patients who received an ACEI/ARB drug with 522 who did not, and comparing these two matched arms showed that ACEI/ARB use was linked with a statistically significant 63% cut in mortality, compared with patients not getting these drugs. A second propensity score–matched analysis first excluded the 383 patients who were hypertensive but received no antihypertensive medication during hospitalization. From the remaining 745 patients who received at least one antihypertensive medication, the authors identified 181 patients who received an ACEI/ARB and propensity-score matched them with 181 hypertensive patients on a different medication class, finding that ACEI/ARB use linked with a statistically significant 71% lower rate of all-cause mortality.

Additional analyses also showed that patients with hypertension had a statistically significant, 41% increased rate of all-cause death, compared with patients without hypertension, and another propensity score–matched analysis showed that among hypertensives treatment with an ACEI/ARB drug was linked with a statistically significant 68% reduced rate of septic shock.

Although this report was received with caution and some skepticism, it was also acknowledged as a step forward in the creation of an evidence base addressing ACEI/ARB treatment during COVID-19 infection.

“These drugs are lifesaving and should not be discontinued” for patients with hypertension, heart failure, and other cardiovascular disease, commented Gian Paolo Rossi, MD, professor and chair of medicine and director of the high blood pressure unit at the University of Padua (Italy). The analysis by Zhang and associates included the largest number of hospitalized COVID-19 patients with hypertension yet reported to assess the impact of treatment with ACEI/ARB drugs, and adds important evidence in favor of continuing these drugs in patients who develop COVID-19 infection, Dr. Rossi said in an interview. He recently coauthored a review that argued against ACEI/ARB discontinuation in COVID-19 patients based on previously reported evidence (Elife. 2020 Apr 6. doi: 10.7554/eLife.57278).

But other researchers take a wary view of the potential impact of ACEI/ARB agents. “If ACEI/ARB therapy increases ACE2 and the virus down-regulates it, and because ACE2 is the viral entry port into cells, why would ACE2-mediated down-regulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system lead to amelioration of [COVID-19] disease?” asked Laurence W. Busse, MD, a critical care physician at Emory University, Atlanta. “A number of issues could potentially confound the results, including the definition of COVID-19 and imbalance of antiviral therapy,” added Dr. Busse, who recently coauthored an editorial that posited using angiotensin II (Giapreza), an approved vasopressor drug, as an alternative renin-angiotensin system intervention for COVID-19 patients including both those in shock as well as potentially those not in shock (Crit Care. 2020 Apr 7. doi: 10.1186/s13054-020-02862-1). Despite these caveats, the new Chinese findings reported by Dr. Zhang and associates “are hypothesis generating and worth further exploration.”

The authors of an editorial that accompanied the Zhang study in Circulation Research made similar points. “While the investigators used standard techniques to attempt to reduce bias in this observational study via propensity matching, it is not a randomized study and the residual confounding inherent to this approach renders the conclusions hypothesis generating at best,” wrote Ravi V. Shah, MD, and two coauthors in the editorial (Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317174). They also agreed with the several society statements that have supported continued use of ACEI/ARB drugs in COVID-19 patients. “Withdrawal of these medications in the context of those conditions in which they have proven benefit (e.g., heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction) may actually inflict more harm than good,” they warned. “In the end we must rely on randomized clinical science,” and while this level of evidence is currently lacking, “the study by Zhang and colleagues is a direct step toward that goal.”

Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no commercial disclosures. Dr. Rossi and Dr. Busse had no disclosures. The authors of the Circulation Research editorial reported several disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zhang P et al. Circ Res. 2020 Apr 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.317134.

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
DDW^® 2020 and all associated events have been canceled. While we are disappointed to miss the science, education and networking that are hallmarks of DDW^®, we must focus on the health and safety of our community. Certainly, this cancellation raises many questions. We have attempted to answer them in this FAQ and remain committed to keeping you informed of new details as they form.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 James W. Freston Conference will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Chicago, IL

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Denver, CO
 

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
DDW^® 2020 and all associated events have been canceled. While we are disappointed to miss the science, education and networking that are hallmarks of DDW^®, we must focus on the health and safety of our community. Certainly, this cancellation raises many questions. We have attempted to answer them in this FAQ and remain committed to keeping you informed of new details as they form.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 James W. Freston Conference will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Chicago, IL

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Denver, CO
 

For more information about upcoming events and award deadlines, please visit http://agau.gastro.org and http://www.gastro.org/research-funding.

UPCOMING EVENTS

May 2-5, 2020
Digestive Disease Week® (DDW)
DDW^® 2020 and all associated events have been canceled. While we are disappointed to miss the science, education and networking that are hallmarks of DDW^®, we must focus on the health and safety of our community. Certainly, this cancellation raises many questions. We have attempted to answer them in this FAQ and remain committed to keeping you informed of new details as they form.

Aug. 14-15, 2020
James W. Freston Single Topic Conference: Gastrointestinal Organoids and Engineered Organ Systems
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 James W. Freston Conference will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Chicago, IL

Aug. 14-16, 2020
2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA
AGA is actively evaluating developments concerning coronavirus. We expect the 2020 Principles of GI for the NP and PA will take place as scheduled and continue to monitor the situation.
Denver, CO
 

ANSWER

The correct answer is gouty tophus (choice “b”).

DISCUSSION

Gout is a defect of purine metabolism, usually caused by underexcretion of uric acid. Diet and heredity also play parts in gout’s development. Gouty tophi usually develop after years of hyperuricemia. As uric acid builds up in the bloodstream over time, it can then begin to be deposited into joints—most commonly the first metatarsal-phalangeal—as well as cartilage or even bones.

On further questioning, the patient recalled having been told on several occasions that his serum uric acid was elevated. In retrospect, his arthritis was most likely gouty in nature.

In terms of the differential, BCC (choice “a”) is common on helical rims, but it would not have contained the type of material found in this patient’s lesion. Also, it would not have waxed and waned as this lesion had done.

Epidermal cysts (choice “c”) can certainly come and go in prominence, but they are filled with a cheesy, pasty material—not the dry crystalline substance found in this lesion. Moreover, most epidermal cysts will have a small comedonal punctum over the center of the lesion. Dystrophic calcification (choice “d”) can mimic gouty tophi, but it is usually rough, firm, and fixed. It certainly would not be coming and going as it pleases.

TREATMENT

Surgical excision of the tophus was offered, but the patient was content with knowing the correct diagnosis. His PCP had previously explained therapeutic options—such as medication and dietary changes—that could address the overall problem. The patient elected to pursue treatment with his PCP.

ANSWER

The correct answer is gouty tophus (choice “b”).

DISCUSSION

Gout is a defect of purine metabolism, usually caused by underexcretion of uric acid. Diet and heredity also play parts in gout’s development. Gouty tophi usually develop after years of hyperuricemia. As uric acid builds up in the bloodstream over time, it can then begin to be deposited into joints—most commonly the first metatarsal-phalangeal—as well as cartilage or even bones.

On further questioning, the patient recalled having been told on several occasions that his serum uric acid was elevated. In retrospect, his arthritis was most likely gouty in nature.

In terms of the differential, BCC (choice “a”) is common on helical rims, but it would not have contained the type of material found in this patient’s lesion. Also, it would not have waxed and waned as this lesion had done.

Epidermal cysts (choice “c”) can certainly come and go in prominence, but they are filled with a cheesy, pasty material—not the dry crystalline substance found in this lesion. Moreover, most epidermal cysts will have a small comedonal punctum over the center of the lesion. Dystrophic calcification (choice “d”) can mimic gouty tophi, but it is usually rough, firm, and fixed. It certainly would not be coming and going as it pleases.

TREATMENT

Surgical excision of the tophus was offered, but the patient was content with knowing the correct diagnosis. His PCP had previously explained therapeutic options—such as medication and dietary changes—that could address the overall problem. The patient elected to pursue treatment with his PCP.

ANSWER

The correct answer is gouty tophus (choice “b”).

DISCUSSION

Gout is a defect of purine metabolism, usually caused by underexcretion of uric acid. Diet and heredity also play parts in gout’s development. Gouty tophi usually develop after years of hyperuricemia. As uric acid builds up in the bloodstream over time, it can then begin to be deposited into joints—most commonly the first metatarsal-phalangeal—as well as cartilage or even bones.

On further questioning, the patient recalled having been told on several occasions that his serum uric acid was elevated. In retrospect, his arthritis was most likely gouty in nature.

In terms of the differential, BCC (choice “a”) is common on helical rims, but it would not have contained the type of material found in this patient’s lesion. Also, it would not have waxed and waned as this lesion had done.

Epidermal cysts (choice “c”) can certainly come and go in prominence, but they are filled with a cheesy, pasty material—not the dry crystalline substance found in this lesion. Moreover, most epidermal cysts will have a small comedonal punctum over the center of the lesion. Dystrophic calcification (choice “d”) can mimic gouty tophi, but it is usually rough, firm, and fixed. It certainly would not be coming and going as it pleases.

TREATMENT

Surgical excision of the tophus was offered, but the patient was content with knowing the correct diagnosis. His PCP had previously explained therapeutic options—such as medication and dietary changes—that could address the overall problem. The patient elected to pursue treatment with his PCP.