Newer alternatives for resistant hypertension: Beyond 2022 paradigms.

Given the increased incidence of resistant hypertension and no novel agents to manage hypertension for more than 15 years, there has been an increase in the development of newer agents with unique mechanisms that will hopefully aid in getting this subset of patients under control. More recent classes of agents include nonsteroidal mineralocorticoid receptor blockers, aminopeptidase A inhibitors, dual endothelin A and B antagonists and aldosterone synthetase inhibitors, and novel agents affecting angiotensinogen mRNA in the liver. All these agents are under different levels of development and, if all goes well, should be available to the public within the next 2-5 years. In addition to these agents, renal denervation is anticipated to be approved in the United States within the next 6-9 months, whereas it has already been authorized in certain European countries. Thus, by 2025 and later, we will have a more extensive armamentarium to help quell the rise in resistant hypertension. From early actuarial data associating elevated blood pressure with mortality to the first trials of blood pressure-lowering medications to contemporary American and European hypertension guidelines, the beneficial impact of blood pressure lowering in individuals with hypertension is well established1,2-4. Population-level decreases in incident cardiovascular disease and mortality over the past 50 years reflect this well-established impact. Yet, the year-over-year decline in the incidence of cardiovascular disease has now plateaued, and concomitantly rates of uncontrolled hypertension have increased5,6. Additionally, how the global COVID-19 pandemic impacts cardiovascular disease and hypertension-related outcomes is yet to be determined, but early data suggests population-level increases in blood pressure7.

Assessment of Postvaccination Neutralizing Antibodies Response against SARS-CoV-2 in Cancer Patients under Treatment with Targeted Agents.

The administration of a third dose of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 has increased protection against disease transmission and severity. However, the kinetics of neutralizing antibodies against the virus has been poorly studied in cancer patients under targeted therapies. Baseline characteristics and levels of neutralizing antibodies at specific timepoints after vaccination were compared between patients suffering from breast, ovarian or prostate cancer and healthy individuals. Breast cancer patients were treated with cyclin D kinase 4/6 inhibitors and hormonal therapy, ovarian cancer patients were treated with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and prostate cancer patients were treated with an androgen receptor targeted agent. Levels of neutralizing antibodies were significantly lower in cancer patients compared to healthy individuals at all timepoints. Antibodies' titers declined over time in both groups but remained above protective levels (>50%) at 6 months after the administration of the second dose. The administration of a third dose increased neutralizing antibodies' levels in both groups. The titers of protective against SARS-CoV-2 antibodies wane over time and increase after a third dose in cancer patients under treatment.

SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibodies Kinetics Postvaccination in Cancer Patients under Treatment with Immune Checkpoint Inhibition.

Considering that COVID-19 could adversely affect cancer patients, several countries have prioritized this highly susceptible population for vaccination. Thus, rapidly generating evidence on the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the subset of patients with cancer under active therapy is of paramount importance. From this perspective, we launched the present prospective observational study to comprehensively address the longitudinal dynamics of immunogenicity of both messenger RNA (mRNA) and viral vector-based vaccines in 85 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for a broad range of solid tumors. Despite the relatively poor humoral responses following the priming vaccine inoculum, the seroconversion rates significantly increased after the second dose. Waning vaccine-based immunity was observed over the following six months, yet the administration of a third booster dose remarkably optimized antibody responses. Larger cohort studies providing real-world data with regard to vaccines effectiveness and durability of their protection among cancer patients receiving immunotherapy are an increasing priority.

Immunological Response to COVID-19 Vaccination in Ovarian Cancer Patients Receiving PARP Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 provides significant protection against the infection in the general population. However, limited data exist for cancer patients under systemic therapy. METHODS: In this cohort, we prospectively enrolled cancer patients treated with PARPi as well as healthy volunteers in order to study the kinetics of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (NAbs) after COVID-19 vaccination. Baseline demographics, co-morbidities, and NAb levels were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: The results of the cohort of 36 patients receiving PARP inhibitors are presented here. Despite no new safety issues being noticed, their levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies were significantly lower in comparison to matched healthy volunteers up to day 30 after the second dose. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that maintaining precautions against COVID-19 is essential for cancer patients and should be taken into consideration for the patients under treatment, while further exploration is needed to reduce the uncertainty of SARS-CoV-2 immunity among cancer patients under treatment.

Treatment with abiraterone or enzalutamide does not impair immunological response to COVID-19 vaccination in prostate cancer patients.

Data regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-10 vaccines among cancer patients are lacking. Factors such as age, underlying disease and antineoplastic treatment confer negatively to the immune response due to vaccination. The degree of immunosuppression though may be lessen by targeted treatments like the androgen receptor-targeted agents (ARTA) that are commonly used in patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Herein, we report our data on 25 patients with prostate cancer under treatment with ARTA who were vaccinated for COVID-19. Our data suggest that these patients develop neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 similarly to healthy volunteers. No safety issues were noted.

Poor neutralizing antibody responses in 106 patients with WM after vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: a prospective study.

Immunocompromised patients with hematologic malignancies are more susceptible to COVID-19 and at higher risk of severe complications and worse outcomes compared with the general population. In this context, we evaluated the humoral response by determining the titers of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) after vaccination with the BNT162b2 or AZD1222 vaccine. A US Food and Drug Administration-approved enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based methodology was implemented to evaluate NAbs on the day of the first vaccine shot, as well as on days 22 and 50 afterward. A total of 106 patients with WM (43% men; median age, 73 years) and 212 healthy controls (46% men; median age, 66 years) who were vaccinated during the same period at the same center were enrolled in the study (which is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04743388). Our data indicate that vaccination with either 2 doses of the BNT162b2 or 1 dose of the AZD1222 vaccine leads to lower production of NAbs against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with WM compared with controls on days 22 and 50 (P < .001 for all comparisons). Disease-related immune dysregulation and therapy-related immunosuppression are involved in the low humoral response. Importantly, active treatment with either rituximab or Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors was proven as an independent prognostic factor for suboptimal antibody response after vaccination. In conclusion, patients with WM have low humoral response after COVID-19 vaccination, which underlines the need for timely vaccination ideally during a treatment-free period and for continuous vigilance on infection control measures.

SARS-CoV-2 Viral Load and Myocardial Injury: Independent and Incremental Predictors of Adverse Outcome.

To evaluate the association of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) initial viral load (iVL) and the incidence of myocardial injury (MCI) in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, we conducted a retrospective longitudinal study of hospitalized patients who had a nasopharyngeal swab sample on admission that returned a positive result for SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction between April 4 and June 5, 2020. The cycle threshold (Ct) value was used as a surrogate for the iVL level, with a Ct level of 36 or less for elevated iVL and greater than 36 for low iVL. Myocardial injury was defined as an elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I level that was higher than the 99th percentile upper reference limit. A total of 270 patients were included. Of these, 171 (63.3%) had an elevated iVL and 88 (32.6%) had MCI. There was no significant difference in the incidence of MCI in patients with low iVL compared to those with elevated iVL (28 of 99 [28.3%] vs 60 of 171 [35.1%]; P=.25). In a multivariable model, MCI (odds ratio, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.80 to 8.34; P<.001) and elevated iVL (odds ratio, 4.21; 95% CI, 2.06 to 8.61; P<.001) were independent and incremental predictors of in-hospital mortality. The SARS-CoV-2 iVL level is not associated with increased incidence of MCI, although both parameters are strong independent and incremental predictors of mortality. Understanding the MCI mechanisms allows for early focused interventions to improve survival, especially in patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and high iVL.

Myeloma patients with COVID-19 have superior antibody responses compared to patients fully vaccinated with the BNT162b2 vaccine.

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have a suboptimal antibody response following vaccination against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and lower seroconversion rates following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) compared with healthy individuals. In this context, we evaluated the development of neutralising antibodies (NAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 in non-vaccinated patients with MM and COVID-19 compared with patients after vaccination with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine. Serum was collected either four weeks post confirmed diagnosis or four weeks post a second dose of BNT162b2. NAbs were measured with a Food and Drug Administration-approved enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay methodology. Thirty-five patients with COVID-19 and MM along with 35 matched patients were included. The two groups did not differ in age, sex, body mass index, prior lines of therapy, disease status, lymphocyte count, immunoglobulin levels and comorbidities. Patients with MM and COVID-19 showed a superior humoral response compared with vaccinated patients with MM. The median (interquartile range) NAb titre was 87·6% (71·6-94%) and 58·7% (21·4-91·8%) for COVID-19-positive and vaccinated patients, respectively (P = 0·01).Importantly, there was no difference in NAb production between COVID-19-positive and vaccinated patients who did not receive any treatment (median NAb 85·1% vs 91·7%, P = 0·14). In conclusion, our data indicate that vaccinated patients with MM on treatment without prior COVID-19 should be considered for booster vaccine doses.

Poor Neutralizing Antibody Responses in 132 Patients with CLL, NHL and HL after Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: A Prospective Study.

Emerging data suggest suboptimal antibody responses to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies. We evaluated the humoral response following the BNT162b2 vaccine in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), and Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL). An FDA-approved, ELISA-based methodology was implemented to evaluate the titers of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 on day 1 of the first vaccine, and afterwards on day 22 and 50. One hundred and thirty-two patients with CLL/lymphomas and 214 healthy matched controls vaccinated during the same period, at the same center were enrolled in the study (NCT04743388). Vaccination with two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine led to lower production of NAbs against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with CLL/lymphomas compared with controls both on day 22 and on day 50 (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Disease-related immune dysregulation and therapy-related immunosuppression are involved in the low humoral response. Importantly, active treatment with Rituximab, Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitors, or chemotherapy was an independent prognostic factor for suboptimal antibody response. Patients with HL showed superior humoral responses to the NHL/CLL subgroups. In conclusion, patients with CLL/lymphomas have low humoral response following COVID-19 vaccination, underlining the need for timely vaccination ideally during a treatment-free period and for continuous vigilance on infection control measures.

SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies after first vaccination dose in breast cancer patients receiving CDK4/6 inhibitors.

Undoubtedly, the development of COVID-19 vaccines displays a critical step towards ending this devastating pandemic, considering their protective benefits in the general population. Yet, data regarding their efficacy and safety in cancer patients are limited. Herein we provide the initial analysis of immune responses after the first dose of vaccination in 21 breast cancer patients receiving cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. The levels of neutralizing antibodies post vaccination were similar to the matched healthy controls, whereas no safety issues have been raised. Further exploration is needed to reduce the uncertainty of SARS-CoV-2 immunity among cancer patients under treatment.

The neutralizing antibody response post COVID-19 vaccination in patients with myeloma is highly dependent on the type of anti-myeloma treatment.

Recent data suggest a suboptimal antibody response to COVID-19 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies. Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 were evaluated in 276 patients with plasma cell neoplasms after vaccination with either the BNT162b2 or the AZD1222 vaccine, on days 1 (before the first vaccine shot), 22, and 50. Patients with MM (n = 213), SMM (n = 38), and MGUS (n = 25) and 226 healthy controls were enrolled in the study (NCT04743388). Vaccination with either two doses of the BNT162b2 or one dose of the AZD1222 vaccine leads to lower production of NAbs in patients with MM compared with controls both on day 22 and on day 50 (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Furthermore, MM patients showed an inferior NAb response compared with MGUS on day 22 (p = 0.009) and on day 50 (p = 0.003). Importantly, active treatment with either anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies (Mabs) or belantamab mafodotin and lymphopenia at the time of vaccination were independent prognostic factors for suboptimal antibody response following vaccination. In conclusion, MM patients have low humoral response following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, especially under treatment with anti-CD38 or belamaf. This underlines the need for timely vaccination, possibly during a treatment-free period, and for continuous vigilance on infection control measures in non-responders.

Low neutralizing antibody responses in WM, CLL and NHL patients after the first dose of the BNT162b2 and AZD1222 vaccine.

Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 is considered as the most important preventive strategy against COVID-19, but its efficacy in patients with hematological malignancies is largely unknown. We investigated the development of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with Waldenstrom Macroglobulinemia (WM), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) and Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL). After the first dose of the vaccine, on D22, WM/CLL/NHL patients had lower NAb titers compared to controls: the median NAb inhibition titer was 17% (range 0-91%, IQR 8-27%) for WM/CLL/NHL patients versus 32% (range 2-98%, IQR 19-48%) for controls (P < 0.001). Only 8 (14%) patients versus 114 (54%) controls developed NAb titers ≥ 30% on D22 (p < 0.001). Our data indicate that the first dose of both BNT162b2 and AZD1222 leads to lower production of NAbs against SARS-CoV-2 in patients with WM/CLL/NHL compared to controls of similar age and gender and without malignant disease. Even though the response rates were not optimal, vaccination is still considered essential and if possible should be performed before treatment initiation. These patients with suboptimal responses should be considered to be prioritized for booster doses.

Chronic disease management in heart failure: focus on telemedicine and remote monitoring.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, many barriers to telemedicine disappeared. Virtual visits and telemonitoring strategies became routine. Evidence is accumulating regarding the safety and efficacy of virtual visits to replace in-person visits. A structured approach to virtual encounters is recommended. Telemonitoring includes patient reported remote vital sign monitoring, information from wearable devices, cardiac implantable electronic devices and invasive remote hemodynamic monitoring. The intensity of the monitoring should match the risk profile of the patient. Attention to cultural and educational barriers is important to prevent disparities in telehealth implementation.

Low titers of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies after first vaccination dose in cancer patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors.

Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 provides significant protection against the infection in the general population. However, only limited data exist for patients with cancer under systemic therapy. Based on this, our site has initiated a study evaluating safety and efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with solid and hematological malignancies under several systemic therapies. The initial results of the cohort of 59 patients receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors are presented here. Despite no new safety issues have been noticed, the levels of SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies are significantly lower in comparison to matched healthy volunteers up to day 22 post the first dose. These results should be taken into consideration for the patients under treatment.

Association of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors with mortality and testing positive of COVID-19: Meta-analysis.

Some have hypothesized that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) may modify susceptibility to coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in humans. Thus, we conducted two meta-analyses to investigate the effect of ACEI and ARB on mortality and susceptibility to COVID-19. Pubmed and EMBASE were searched through June 2020 to identify clinical trials that investigated the testing positive and in-hospital mortality rates for COVID-19 for those who were treated with ACEI and/or ARB and for those who were not treated with ACEI or ARB. The first analysis investigated the testing positive rate of COVID-19. The second analysis investigated the in-hospital mortality rate for patients with COVID-19. Three eligible studies for the first analysis and 14 eligible studies for the second analysis were identified. The first analysis demonstrated that the use of ACEI or ARB did not affect the testing positive rates (odds ratio [OR] [confidence interval [CI]] = 0.96 [0.88-1.04]; p = .69, OR [CI] = 0.99 [0.91-1.08]; p = 0.35, respectively). The second analysis showed that the use of ACEI and/or ARB did not affect in-hospital mortality (risk ratio [RR] 95% [CI]] = 0.88 [0.64-1.20], p = 0.42). The subgroup analysis by limiting studies of patients with hypertension showed ACEI and/or ARB use was associated with a significant reduction of in-hospital mortality compared with no ACEI or ARB use (RR [CI] = 0.66 [0.49-0.89], p = 0.004). Our analysis demonstrated that ACEI and/or ARB use was associated neither with testing positive rates of COVID-19 nor with mortality of COVID-19 patients.

Effect of remdesivir on patients with COVID-19: A network meta-analysis of randomized control trials.

Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to investigate the effect of remdesivir for patients with COVID-19, but their results were conflicting. Thus, we conducted a network meta-analysis comparing the rate of clinical improvement among patients with COVID-19 who received 5-day course of remdesivir versus 10-day course of remdesivir versus standard care. Our network meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled trials demonstrated that the rate of clinical improvement was significantly higher in the 5-day remdesivir group and 10-day remdesivir group compared to standard care group (OR [95% confidence interval [CI]] =1.89 [1.40-2.56], P <0.001, OR [95% CI] =1.38 [1.15-1.66], P <0.001, respectively). In addition, the rate of clinical improvement was significantly higher in the 5-day remdesivir group compared to the 10-day remdesivir group (OR [95% confidence interval [CI]] =1.37 [1.01-1.85], P =0.041). Our analysis demonstrated that the use of remdesivir for patients with COVID-19 was associated with the significantly higher clinical improvement rate compared with standard care alone.