Antecedent Administration of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin II Receptor Antagonists and Survival After Hospitalization for COVID-19 Syndrome.

Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) utilizes the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor to enter human cells. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor antagonists (ARB) are associated with ACE-2 upregulation. We hypothesized that antecedent use of ACEI/ARB may be associated with mortality in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods and Results We used the Coracle registry, which contains data of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in 4 regions of Italy, and restricted analyses to those ≥50 years of age. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Among these 781 patients, 133 (17.0%) used an ARB and 171 (21.9%) used an ACEI. While neither sex nor smoking status differed by user groups, patients on ACEI/ARB were older and more likely to have hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure. The overall mortality rate was 15.1% (118/781) and increased with age (PTrend<0.0001). The crude odds ratios (ORs) for death for ACEI users and ARB users were 0.98, 95% CI, 0.60-1.60, P=0.9333, and 1.13, 95% CI, 0.67-1.91, P=0.6385, respectively. After adjusting for age, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and congestive heart failure, antecedent ACEI administration was associated with reduced mortality (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31-0.98, P=0.0436); a similar, but weaker trend was observed for ARB administration (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.32-1.07, P=0.0796). Conclusions In those aged ≥50 years hospitalized with COVID-19, antecedent use of ACEI was independently associated with reduced risk of inpatient death. Our findings suggest a protective role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition in patients with high cardiovascular risk affected by COVID-19.

Vaccine development and technology for SARS-CoV-2: Current insight.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is associated with a severe respiratory disease in China, that rapidly spread across continents. Since the beginning of the pandemic, available data suggested the asymptomatic transmission and patients were treated with specific drugs with efficacy and safety data not always satisfactory. The aim of this review is to describe the vaccines developed by three companies, Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca, in terms of both technological and pharmaceutical formulation, safety, efficacy, and immunogenicity. A critical analysis of Phases 1, 2, and 3 clinical trial results available was conducted, comparing the three vaccine candidates, underlining their similarities and differences. All candidates showed consistent efficacy and tolerability; although some differences can be noted, such as their technological formulation, temperature storage, which will be related to logistics and costs. Further studies will be necessary to evaluate long-term effects and to assess the vaccine safety and efficacy in the general population.

Infection Control in the Era of COVID-19: A Narrative Review.

COVID-19 quickly became a pandemic causing millions of infections and mortalities. It required real-time adjustments to healthcare systems and infection prevention and control (IPC) measures to limit the spread and protect healthcare providers and hospitalized patients. IPC guidelines were adopted and developed based on experience gained during the MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV outbreaks. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize current evidence on IPC in healthcare settings and patients with COVID-19 to prevent nosocomial infections during the actual pandemic. A search was run on PubMed using the terms ('COVID-19' [Mesh]) AND ('Infection Control' [Mesh]) between 2019 and 2021. We identified 86 studies that were in accordance with our aim and summarized them under certain themes as they related to COVID-19 infection control measures. All the guidelines recommend early diagnosis and rapid isolation of COVID-19 patients. The necessary precautions should be taken comprising the whole process, starting with an infectious disease plan, administrative and engineering controls, triage, and PPE training. Guidelines should target modes of transmission, droplet, aerosol, and oral-fecal, while recommending control precautions. Healthcare facilities must promptly implement a multidisciplinary defense system to combat the outbreak.

Remdesivir Versus Standard-of-Care for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An Analysis of 28-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and has been shown to shorten time to recovery and improve clinical outcomes in randomized trials. METHODS: This was the final day 28 comparative analysis of data from a phase 3, randomized, open-label study comparing 2 remdesivir regimens (5 vs 10 days, combined for this analysis [remdesivir cohort]) and a real-world retrospective longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (nonremdesivir cohort). Eligible patients, aged ≥18 years, had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, with pulmonary infiltrates. Propensity score matching (up to 1:10 ratio) was used to ensure comparable populations. We assessed day 14 clinical recovery (determined using a 7-point ordinal scale) and day 28 all-cause mortality (coprimary endpoints). RESULTS: A total of 368 (remdesivir) and 1399 (nonremdesivir) patients were included in the matched analysis. The day 14 clinical recovery rate was significantly higher among the remdesivir versus the nonremdesivir cohort (65.2% vs 57.1%; odds ratio [OR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002). The day 28 mortality rate was significantly lower in the remdesivir cohort versus the nonremdesivir cohort (12.0% vs 16.2%; OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47-.95; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir was associated with significantly higher rates of day 14 clinical recovery, and lower day 28 mortality, compared with standard-of-care treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. These data, taken together, support the use of remdesivir to improve clinical recovery and decrease mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

COVID-19 pneumonia: do not leave the corticosteroids behind!

The host inflammatory response is critical in the progression of lung injuries in patients with SARS-CoV-2. Corticosteroids (CS) have been widely used as immunomodulating agents, but the right timing, dosage and type of molecule are unknown. In fact, the early use of CS could facilitate the viral replication but late administration may not prevent the alveolar damage. Nevertheless, a short administration of high doses of CS in the early stage of the inflammatory phase resulted in favorable outcomes. Noteworthy, some inhaled CS inhibited in vitro the viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. We aimed to define the place in therapy for CS in COVID-19 infection describing the features of patients who may benefit from their administration.

Mortality Risk Assessment Using CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc Scores in Patients Hospitalized With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection.

Early risk stratification for complications and death related to Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is needed. Because many patients with COVID-19 who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome have diffuse alveolar inflammatory damage associated with microvessel thrombosis, we aimed to investigate a common clinical tool, the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc, to aid in the prognostication of outcomes for COVID-19 patients. We analyzed consecutive patients from the multicenter observational CORACLE registry, which contains data of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection in 4 regions of Italy, according to data-driven tertiles of CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score. The primary outcomes were inpatient death and a composite of inpatient death or invasive ventilation. Of 1045 patients in the registry, 864 (82.7%) had data available to calculate CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score and were included in the analysis. Of these, 167 (19.3%) died, 123 (14.2%) received invasive ventilation, and 249 (28.8%) had the composite outcome. Stratification by CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc tertiles (T1: ≤1; T2: 2 to 3; T3: ≥4) revealed increases in both death (8.1%, 24.3%, 33.3%, respectively; p <0.001) and the composite end point (18.6%, 31.9%, 43.5%, respectively; p <0.001). The odds ratios for mortality and the composite end point for T2 patients versus T1 CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc score were 3.62 (95% CI:2.29 to 5.73,p <0.001) and 2.04 (95% CI:1.42 to 2.93, p <0.001), respectively. Similarly, the odds ratios for mortality and the composite end point for T3 patients versus T1 were 5.65 (95% CI:3.54 to 9.01, p <0.001) and 3.36 (95% CI:2.30 to 4.90,p <0.001), respectively. In conclusion, among Italian patients hospitalized for COVID-19 infection, the CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc risk score for thromboembolic events enhanced the ability to achieve risk stratification for complications and death.