Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (preprint)

Aims: : To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: More than 500 databases were searched between 1-Nov-2020 and 2-Oct-2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness. Results: After screening 22,414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference/MD -0.42, 95% CI -1.83; 0.98 days, n=1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n=1661) and mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n=1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length MD -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 days, n=1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70;1.04, n=2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77;1.13, n=5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial). Conclusion: Moderate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.

The adverse impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease prevention and management in England, Scotland and Wales: A population-scale descriptive analysis of trends in medication data (preprint)

Objectives: To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CVD management using routinely collected medication data as a proxy. Design: Descriptive and interrupted time series analysis using anonymised individual-level population-scale data for 1.32 billion records of dispensed CVD medications across 15.8 million individuals in England, Scotland and Wales. Setting: Community dispensed CVD medications with 100% coverage from England, Scotland and Wales, plus primary care prescribed CVD medications from England (including 98% English general practices). Participants: 15.8 million individuals aged 18+ years alive on 1st April 2018 dispensed at least one CVD medicine in a year from England, Scotland and Wales. Main outcome measures: Monthly counts, percent annual change (1st April 2018 to 31st July 2021) and annual rates (1st March 2018 to 28th February 2021) of medicines dispensed by CVD/ CVD risk factor; prevalent and incident use. Results: Year-on-year change in dispensed CVD medicines by month were observed, with notable uplifts ahead of the first (11.8% higher in March 2020) but not subsequent national lockdowns. Using hypertension as one example of the indirect impact of the pandemic, we observed 491,203 fewer individuals initiated antihypertensive treatment across England, Scotland and Wales during the period March 2020 to end May 2021 than would have been expected compared to 2019. We estimated that this missed antihypertension treatment could result in 13,659 additional CVD events should individuals remain untreated, including 2,281 additional myocardial infarctions (MIs) and 3,474 additional strokes. Incident use of lipid-lowering medicines decreased by an average 14,793 per month in early 2021 compared with the equivalent months prior to the pandemic in 2019. In contrast, the use of incident medicines to treat type-2 diabetes (T2DM) increased by approximately 1,642 patients per month. Conclusions: Management of key CVD risk factors as proxied by incident use of CVD medicines has not returned to pre-pandemic levels in the UK. Novel methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment are urgently required to avoid large numbers of additional future CVD events, further adding indirect cost of the COVID-19 pandemic.

AGILE: A Seamless Phase I/IIa Platform for the Rapid Evaluation of Candidates for COVID-19 treatment: An update to the structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised platform trial letter (preprint)

Background: There is an urgent unmet clinical need for the identification of novel therapeutics for the treatment of COVID-19. A number of COVID-19 late phase trial platforms have been developed to investigate (often repurposed) drugs both in the UK and globally (e.g. RECOVERY led by the University of Oxford and SOLIDARITY led by WHO). There is a pressing need to investigate novel candidates within early phase trial platforms, from which promising candidates can feed into established later phase platforms. AGILE grew from a UK-wide collaboration to undertake early stage clinical evaluation of candidates for SARS-CoV-2 infection to accelerate national and global healthcare interventions. Methods: /Design: AGILE is a seamless phase I/IIa platform study to establish the optimum dose, determine the activity and safety of each candidate and recommend whether it should be evaluated further. Each candidate is evaluated in its own trial, either as an open label single arm healthy volunteer study or in patients, randomising between candidate and control usually in a 2:1 allocation in favour of the candidate. Each dose is assessed sequentially for safety usually in cohorts of 6 patients. Once a phase II dose has been identified, efficacy is assessed by seamlessly expanding into a larger cohort. AGILE is completely flexible in that the core design in the master protocol can be adapted for each candidate based on prior knowledge of the candidate (i.e. population, primary endpoint and sample size can be amended). This information is detailed in each candidate specific trial protocol of the master protocol. Discussion: Few approved treatments for COVID-19 are available such as dexamethasone, remdesivir and tociluzimab in hospitalised patients. The AGILE platform aims to rapidly identify new efficacious and safe treatments to help end the current global COVID-19 pandemic. We currently have three candidate specific trials within this platform study that are open to recruitment. Trial registrations: EudraCT Number: 2020-001860-27 14th March 2020 ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04746183ISRCTN reference: 27106947

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a living systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

Aims: : To continually evaluate the role of cardiovascular drugs in COVID-19 clinical outcomes. Methods: Eligible publications were identified from >500 databases on 1-Nov-2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer. Results: Of 52,735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with positive COVID-19 status (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00–1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 1.34–2.32), disease severity (OR 1.41, 1.27–1.56) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 1.12–1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, -1.36; 0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with positive COVID-19 status (OR 0.92, 0.71–1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 0.70–1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 0.81–1.38), or all-cause mortality (OR 0.85, 0.71–1.01). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with positive COVID-19 status (OR 0.93, 0.79–1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 0.58–1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, -1.65; 1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 0.76–1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 0.65–0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias. Conclusion: Cardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a living systematic review and meta-analysis (preprint)

OBJECTIVETo continually evaluate the rapidly evolving evidence base on the role of cardiovascular drugs in COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, hospitalization, hospitalization length, disease severity, and all-cause mortality). DESIGNLiving systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCESEligible publications identified from >500 databases indexed through 31st July 2020 and additional studies from reference lists, with planned continual surveillance for at least two years. STUDY SELECTIONObservational and interventional studies that report on the association between cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTIONSingle-reviewer extraction and quality evaluation (using ROBINS-I), with half the records independently extracted and evaluated by a second reviewer. RESULTSOf 23,427 titles screened, 175 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The most reported drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure being associated with higher odds of testing positive for COVID-19 (pooled unadjusted OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.30). Among patients with COVID-19, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with being hospitalized (OR 2.25, 1.70 to 2.98) and having severe disease (OR 1.50, 1.27 to 1.77) but not with the length of hospitalization (mean difference -0.45, -1.33 to 0.43 days) or all-cause mortality (OR 1.25, CI 0.98 to 1.58). However, after adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with testing positive for COVID-19 (pooled adjusted OR 1.01, 0.93 to 1.10), being hospitalized (OR 1.16, 0.80 to 1.68), having severe disease (1.04, 0.76 to 1.42), or all-cause mortality (0.86, 0.64 to 1.15). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with being hospitalized (OR 0.84, 0.58 to 1.22), disease severity (OR 0.88, 0.68 to 1.14) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.77, 0.54 to 1.12) while it decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -0.71, -1.11 to -0.30 days). After adjusting for relevant covariates, other cardiovascular drug classes were mostly not found to be associated with poor COVID-19 clinical outcomes. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity in terms of effect sizes and a serious risk of bias, mainly due to confounding in the included studies. CONCLUSIONOur comprehensive review shows that ACEI/ARB exposure is associated with COVID-19 outcomes such as susceptibility to infection, severity, and hospitalization in unadjusted analyses. However, after adjusting for potential confounding factors, this association is not evident. Patients on cardiovascular drugs should continue taking their medications as currently recommended. Higher quality evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials will be needed to determine any adverse or beneficial effects of cardiovascular drugs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCENone SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONPROSPERO (CRD42020191283)

T cell assays differentiate clinical and subclinical SARS-CoV-2 infections from cross-reactive antiviral responses (preprint)

A major issue in identification of protective T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 lies in distinguishing people infected with SARS-CoV-2 from those with cross-reactive immunity generated by exposure to other coronaviruses. We characterised SARS-CoV-2 T cell immune responses in 168 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects and 118 seronegative subjects without known SARS-CoV-2 exposure using a range of T cell assays that differentially capture immune cell function. Strong ex vivo ELISpot and proliferation responses to multiple antigens (including M, NP and ORF3) were found in those who had been infected by SARS-CoV-2 but were rare in pre-pandemic and unexposed seronegative subjects. However, seronegative doctors with high occupational exposure and recent COVID-19 compatible illness showed patterns of T cell responses characteristic of infection, indicating that these readouts are highly sensitive. By contrast, over 90% of convalescent or unexposed people showed proliferation and cellular lactate responses to spike subunits S1/S2, indicating pre-existing cross-reactive T cell populations. The detection of T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 is therefore critically dependent on the choice of assay and antigen. Memory responses to specific non-spike proteins provides a method to distinguish recent infection from pre-existing immunity in exposed populations.

De Novo Discovery of High Affinity Peptide Binders for the SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein (preprint)

The beta-coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has caused a global pandemic. Affinity reagents targeting the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the most exposed surface structure of the virus, are of interest for the development of therapeutics and diagnostics. We used affinity selection-mass spectrometry for the rapid discovery of synthetic high affinity peptide binders for the receptor binding domain (RBD) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. From library screening with 800 million synthetic peptides, we identified three sequences with nanomolar affinities (dissociation constants of 80 to 970 nM) for RBD and selectivity over human serum proteins. Picomolar RBD concentrations in biological matrix could be detected using the biotinylated lead peptide in ELISA format. These peptides might associate with the SARS-CoV-2-spike-RBD at a site unrelated to ACE2 binding, making them potential orthogonal reagents for sandwich immunoassays. We envision our discovery as a robust starting point for the development of SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics or conjugates for virus directed delivery of therapeutics.

The 4C Initiative (Clinical Care for Cardiovascular disease in the COVID-19 pandemic): monitoring the indirect impact of the coronavirus pandemic on services for cardiovascular diseases in the UK (preprint)

Background: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic affects cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) directly through infection and indirectly through health service reorganisation and public health policy. Real-time data are needed to quantify direct and indirect effects. We aimed to monitor hospital activity for presentation, diagnosis and treatment of CVDs during the pandemic to inform on indirect effects. Methods: We analysed aggregate data on presentations, diagnoses and treatments or procedures for selected CVDs (acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, stroke and transient ischaemic attack, venous thromboembolism, peripheral arterial disease and aortic aneurysm) in UK hospitals before and during the COVID-19 epidemic. We produced an online visualisation tool to enable near real-time monitoring of trends. Findings: Nine hospitals across England and Scotland contributed hospital activity data from 28 Oct 2019 (pre-COVID-19) to 10 May 2020 (pre-easing of lockdown), and for the same weeks during 2018-2019. Across all hospitals, total admissions and emergency department (ED) attendances decreased after lockdown (23 March 2020) by 57.9% (57.1-58.6%) and 52.9% (52.2-53.5%) respectively compared with the previous year. Activity for cardiac, cerebrovascular and other vascular conditions started to decline 1-2 weeks before lockdown, and fell by 31-88% after lockdown, with the greatest reductions observed for coronary artery bypass grafts, carotid endarterectomy, aortic aneurysm repair and peripheral arterial disease procedures. Compared with before the first UK COVID-19 (31 January 2020), activity declined across diseases and specialties between the first case and lockdown (total ED attendances RR 0.94, 0.93-0.95; total hospital admissions RR 0.96, 0.95-0.97) and after lockdown (attendances RR 0.63, 0.62-0.64; admissions RR 0.59, 0.57-0.60). There was limited recovery towards usual levels of some activities from mid-April 2020. Interpretation: Substantial reductions in total and cardiovascular activities are likely to contribute to a major burden of indirect effects of the pandemic, suggesting they should be monitored and mitigated urgently.