Disruption in Blood Pressure Control With the COVID-19 Pandemic: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory.

OBJECTIVE: To explore trends in blood pressure (BP) control before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System responded to data queries, producing 9 BP control metrics. Averages of the BP control metrics (weighted by numbers of observations in each health system) were calculated and compared between two 1-year measurement periods (January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020). RESULTS: Among 1,770,547 hypertensive persons in 2019, BP control to <140/<90 mm Hg varied across 24 health systems (range, 46%-74%). Reduced BP control occurred in most health systems with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the weighted average BP control was 60.5% in 2019 and 53.3% in 2020. Reductions were also evident for BP control to <130/<80 mm Hg (29.9% in 2019 and 25.4% in 2020) and improvement in BP (reduction of 10 mm Hg in systolic BP or achievement of systolic BP <140 mm Hg; 29.7% in 2019 and 23.8% in 2020). Two BP control process metrics exhibited pandemic-associated disruption: repeat visit in 4 weeks after a visit with uncontrolled hypertension (36.7% in 2019 and 31.7% in 2020) and prescription of fixed-dose combination medications among those with 2 or more drug classes (24.6% in 2019 and 21.5% in 2020). CONCLUSION: BP control decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a corresponding reduction in follow-up health care visits among persons with uncontrolled hypertension. It is unclear whether the observed decline in BP control during the pandemic will contribute to future cardiovascular events.

Atrial fibrillation is a risk factor for major adverse cardiovascular events in COVID-19.

Background: New-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) during COVID-19 infection is associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes and mortality, with new-onset AF being associated with worse clinical outcomes than recurrent AF. However, it is not known whether a prior history of AF is an independent cardiovascular risk factor predicting worse outcomes in COVID-19 patients. The present investigation sought to determine whether AF should be considered a risk factor for worse outcomes in COVID-19 illness. Methods: From March 2020-September 2021 patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 with a prior AF diagnosis (n = 3623) were propensity matched to non-AF SARS-CoV-2 positive patients (n = 3610). Multivariable Cox hazard regression was used to determine subsequent MACE (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, HF and stroke) risk among patients with and without AF. Results: COVID-19 patients with a prior history of AF were more likely to be hospitalized, require ICU care, supplemental oxygen, and ventilator support compared COVID-19 patients without a history of AF. There was a 1.40 times higher rate of MACE in the COVID-19 patients with prior AF compared to patients without prior AF (p < 0.0001). The increased rate of MACE in patients with a prior AF was primarily secondary to increases in heart failure hospitalization and death. This finding was confirmed even after controlling for acute AF during COVID-19 illness (HR 1.22, p = 0.0009). Conclusion: AF history was shown to be an independent risk factor for MACE during a COVID-19 illness. Both recurrent and principally new-onset AF were associated with an increased risk of poor clinical outcomes during COVID-19 illness.

Efficacy and Safety of Ensovibep for Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ensovibep (MP0420) is a designed ankyrin repeat protein, a novel class of engineered proteins, under investigation as a treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection. OBJECTIVE: To investigate if ensovibep, in addition to remdesivir and other standard care, improves clinical outcomes among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 compared with standard care alone. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multinational, multicenter trial. PARTICIPANTS: Adults hospitalized with COVID-19. INTERVENTION: Intravenous ensovibep, 600 mg, or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Ensovibep was assessed for early futility on the basis of pulmonary ordinal scores at day 5. The primary outcome was time to sustained recovery through day 90, defined as 14 consecutive days at home or place of usual residence after hospital discharge. A composite safety outcome that included death, serious adverse events, end-organ disease, and serious infections was assessed through day 90. RESULTS: An independent data and safety monitoring board recommended that enrollment be halted for early futility after 485 patients were randomly assigned and received an infusion of ensovibep (n = 247) or placebo (n = 238). The odds ratio (OR) for a more favorable pulmonary outcome in the ensovibep (vs. placebo) group at day 5 was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.67 to 1.30; P = 0.68; OR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The 90-day cumulative incidence of sustained recovery was 82% for ensovibep and 80% for placebo (subhazard ratio [sHR], 1.06 [CI, 0.88 to 1.28]; sHR > 1 would favor ensovibep). The primary composite safety outcome at day 90 occurred in 78 ensovibep participants (32%) and 70 placebo participants (29%) (HR, 1.07 [CI, 0.77 to 1.47]; HR < 1 would favor ensovibep). LIMITATION: The trial was prematurely stopped because of futility, limiting power for the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Compared with placebo, ensovibep did not improve clinical outcomes for hospitalized participants with COVID-19 receiving standard care, including remdesivir; no safety concerns were identified. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Association of periodic fasting with lower severity of COVID-19 outcomes in the SARS-CoV-2 prevaccine era: an observational cohort from the INSPIRE registry.

Objectives: Intermittent fasting boosts some host defence mechanisms while modulating the inflammatory response. Lower-frequency fasting is associated with greater survival and lower risk from COVID-19-related comorbidities. This study evaluated associations of periodic fasting with COVID-19 severity and, secondarily, initial infection by SARS-CoV-2. Design: Prospective longitudinal observational cohort study. Setting: Single-centre secondary care facility in Salt Lake City, Utah, USA with follow-up across a 24-hospital integrated healthcare system. Participants: Patients enrolled in the INSPIRE registry in 2013-2020 were studied for the primary outcome if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during March 2020 to February 2021 (n=205) or, for the secondary outcome, if they had any SARS-CoV-2 test result (n=1524). Interventions: No treatment assignments were made; individuals reported their personal history of routine periodic fasting across their life span. Main outcome measures: A composite of mortality or hospitalisation was the primary outcome and evaluated by Cox regression through February 2021 with multivariable analyses considering 36 covariables. The secondary outcome was whether a patient tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Results: Subjects engaging in periodic fasting (n=73, 35.6%) did so for 40.4±20.6 years (max: 81.9 years) prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. The composite outcome occurred in 11.0% of periodic fasters and 28.8% of non-fasters (p=0.013), with HR=0.61 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.90) favouring fasting. Multivariable analyses confirmed this association. Other predictors of hospitalisation/mortality were age, Hispanic ethnicity, prior MI, prior TIA and renal failure, with trends for race, smoking, hyperlipidaemia, coronary disease, diabetes, heart failure and anxiety, but not alcohol use. In secondary analysis, COVID-19 was diagnosed in 14.3% of fasters and 13.0% of non-fasters (p=0.51). Conclusions: Routine periodic fasting was associated with a lower risk of hospitalisation or mortality in patients with COVID-19. Fasting may be a complementary therapy to vaccination that could provide immune support and hyperinflammation control during and beyond the pandemic. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02450006 (the INSPIRE registry).

Association of the Intermountain Risk Score with major adverse health events in patients positive for COVID-19: an observational evaluation of a US cohort.

OBJECTIVES: The Intermountain Risk Score (IMRS), composed using published sex-specific weightings of parameters in the complete blood count (CBC) and basic metabolic profile (BMP), is a validated predictor of mortality. We hypothesised that IMRS calculated from prepandemic CBC and BMP predicts COVID-19 outcomes and that IMRS using laboratory results tested at COVID-19 diagnosis is also predictive. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Primary, secondary, urgent and emergent care, and drive-through testing locations across Utah and in sections of adjacent US states. Viral RNA testing for SARS-CoV-2 was conducted from 3 March to 2 November 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years were evaluated if they had CBC and BMP measured in 2019 and tested positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of hospitalisation or mortality, with secondary outcomes being hospitalisation and mortality separately. RESULTS: Among 3883 patients, 8.2% were hospitalised and 1.6% died. Subjects with low, mild, moderate and high-risk IMRS had the composite endpoint in 3.5% (52/1502), 8.6% (108/1256), 15.5% (152/979) and 28.1% (41/146) of patients, respectively. Compared with low-risk, subjects in mild-risk, moderate-risk and high-risk groups had HR=2.33 (95% CI 1.67 to 3.24), HR=4.01 (95% CI 2.93 to 5.50) and HR=8.34 (95% CI 5.54 to 12.57), respectively. Subjects aged <60 years had HR=3.06 (95% CI 2.01 to 4.65) and HR=7.38 (95% CI 3.14 to 17.34) for moderate and high risks versus low risk, respectively; those ≥60 years had HR=1.95 (95% CI 0.99 to 3.86) and HR=3.40 (95% CI 1.63 to 7.07). In multivariable analyses, IMRS was independently predictive and was shown to capture substantial risk variation of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: IMRS, a simple risk score using very basic laboratory results, predicted COVID-19 hospitalisation and mortality. This included important abilities to identify risk in younger adults with few diagnosed comorbidities and to predict risk prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Responses to a Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19 According to Baseline Antibody and Antigen Levels : A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, bamlanivimab, a SARS-CoV-2-neutralizing monoclonal antibody, given in combination with remdesivir, did not improve outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 based on an early futility assessment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the a priori hypothesis that bamlanivimab has greater benefit in patients without detectable levels of endogenous neutralizing antibody (nAb) at study entry than in those with antibodies, especially if viral levels are high. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04501978). SETTING: Multicenter trial. PATIENTS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 without end-organ failure. INTERVENTION: Bamlanivimab (7000 mg) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS: Antibody, antigen, and viral RNA levels were centrally measured on stored specimens collected at baseline. Patients were followed for 90 days for sustained recovery (defined as discharge to home and remaining home for 14 consecutive days) and a composite safety outcome (death, serious adverse events, organ failure, or serious infections). RESULTS: Among 314 participants (163 receiving bamlanivimab and 151 placebo), the median time to sustained recovery was 19 days and did not differ between the bamlanivimab and placebo groups (subhazard ratio [sHR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.79 to 1.22]; sHR > 1 favors bamlanivimab). At entry, 50% evidenced production of anti-spike nAbs; 50% had SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid plasma antigen levels of at least 1000 ng/L. Among those without and with nAbs at study entry, the sHRs were 1.24 (CI, 0.90 to 1.70) and 0.74 (CI, 0.54 to 1.00), respectively (nominal P for interaction = 0.018). The sHR (bamlanivimab vs. placebo) was also more than 1 for those with plasma antigen or nasal viral RNA levels above median level at entry and was greatest for those without antibodies and with elevated levels of antigen (sHR, 1.48 [CI, 0.99 to 2.23]) or viral RNA (sHR, 1.89 [CI, 1.23 to 2.91]). Hazard ratios for the composite safety outcome (<1 favors bamlanivimab) also differed by serostatus at entry: 0.67 (CI, 0.37 to 1.20) for those without and 1.79 (CI, 0.92 to 3.48) for those with nAbs. LIMITATION: Subgroup analysis of a trial prematurely stopped because of futility; small sample size; multiple subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSION: Efficacy and safety of bamlanivimab may differ depending on whether an endogenous nAb response has been mounted. The limited sample size of the study does not allow firm conclusions based on these findings, and further independent trials are required that assess other types of passive immune therapies in the same patient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. government Operation Warp Speed and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

A Small but Significantly Greater Incidence of Inflammatory Heart Disease Identified After Vaccination for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccines are being administered on an unprecedented scale. Assessing the risks of side effects is needed to aid clinicians in early detection and treatment. This study examined the risk of inflammatory heart disease, including pericarditis and myocarditis, after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. METHODS: Intermountain Healthcare patients with inflammatory heart disease from December 15, 2020 to June 15, 2021, and with or without preceding SARS-CoV-2 vaccinations, were studied. Relative rates of inflammatory heart disease were examined for vaccinated patients compared to unvaccinated patients. RESULTS: Of 67 patients identified with inflammatory heart disease, 21 (31.3%) had a SARS-Cov-2 vaccination within the previous 60 days. Overall, 914 611 Intermountain Healthcare patients received a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, resulting in an inflammatory heart disease rate of 2.30 per 100 000 vaccinated patients. The relative risk of inflammatory heart disease for the vaccinated patients compared to the unvaccinated patients was 2.05 times higher rate within the 30-day window (P = .01) and had a trend toward increase in the 60-day window (relative rate = 1.63; P = .07). All vaccinated patients with inflammatory heart disease were treated successfully with 1 death related to a pre-existing condition. CONCLUSIONS: Although rare, the rate of inflammatory heart disease was greater in a SARS-CoV-2-vaccinated population than the unvaccinated population. This risk is eclipsed by the risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 and its associated, commonly severe outcomes. Nevertheless, clinicians and patients should be informed of this risk to facilitate earlier recognition and treatment.

SARS-CoV-2 as an inflammatory cardiovascular disease: current knowledge and future challenges.

SARS-CoV-2 is responsible for the 2020 global COVID-19 pandemic. In patients with COVID-19, multiple cardiovascular (CV) manifestations have been reported. SARS coronavirus 2 infection can lead to inflammatory CV disease first via takeover of the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 enzyme as a cell receptor as well as the macrophage activation syndrome in severe illness. We review the CV manifestations of COVID-19 and therapeutics under investigation. We discuss the potential long-term CV sequelae after recovery from COVID-19 and the gaps in knowledge including the pathophysiological links between acute cardiac injury, myocardial inflammation and chronic cardiomyopathy. Future investigational efforts could result in significant diagnostic and therapeutic advances potentially impacting the broader field of chronic heart failure and cardiac recovery.

Lay abstract COVID-19 has led to a global pandemic, and many patients infected with this novel virus develop cardiovascular (CV) complications including heart attacks, strokes, heart failure and sudden cardiac death. We will review the pathophysiology behind how a viral infection can place a patient at risk and cause multiple CV diseases. Additionally, we will review our current knowledge regarding treatment for the novel corona virus and long-term risk for patients who recover from COVID-19. At last, we will discuss the future perspective regarding what we can learn about how a virus can cause CV disease and how we can better equip ourselves for future pandemics.

A Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody for Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: LY-CoV555, a neutralizing monoclonal antibody, has been associated with a decrease in viral load and the frequency of hospitalizations or emergency department visits among outpatients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Data are needed on the effect of this antibody in patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19. METHODS: In this platform trial of therapeutic agents, we randomly assigned hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LY-CoV555 or matching placebo. In addition, all the patients received high-quality supportive care as background therapy, including the antiviral drug remdesivir and, when indicated, supplemental oxygen and glucocorticoids. LY-CoV555 (at a dose of 7000 mg) or placebo was administered as a single intravenous infusion over a 1-hour period. The primary outcome was a sustained recovery during a 90-day period, as assessed in a time-to-event analysis. An interim futility assessment was performed on the basis of a seven-category ordinal scale for pulmonary function on day 5. RESULTS: On October 26, 2020, the data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment for futility after 314 patients (163 in the LY-CoV555 group and 151 in the placebo group) had undergone randomization and infusion. The median interval since the onset of symptoms was 7 days (interquartile range, 5 to 9). At day 5, a total of 81 patients (50%) in the LY-CoV555 group and 81 (54%) in the placebo group were in one of the two most favorable categories of the pulmonary outcome. Across the seven categories, the odds ratio of being in a more favorable category in the LY-CoV555 group than in the placebo group was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 1.29; P = 0.45). The percentage of patients with the primary safety outcome (a composite of death, serious adverse events, or clinical grade 3 or 4 adverse events through day 5) was similar in the LY-CoV555 group and the placebo group (19% and 14%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.78 to 3.10; P = 0.20). The rate ratio for a sustained recovery was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.77 to 1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Monoclonal antibody LY-CoV555, when coadministered with remdesivir, did not demonstrate efficacy among hospitalized patients who had Covid-19 without end-organ failure. (Funded by Operation Warp Speed and others; TICO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04501978.).