The effect of an mRNA vaccine against COVID-19 on endothelial function and arterial stiffness.

To fight the COVID-19 pandemic, messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines were the first to be adopted by vaccination programs worldwide. We sought to investigate the short-term effect of mRNA vaccine administration on endothelial function and arterial stiffness. Thirty-two participants (mean age 37 ± 8 years, 20 men) who received the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were studied in three sessions in a sequence-randomized, sham-controlled, assessor-blinded, crossover design. The primary outcome was endothelial function (assessed by brachial artery flow-mediated dilatation (FMD)), and the secondary outcomes were aortic stiffness (evaluated with carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV)) and inflammation (measured by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) in blood samples). The outcomes were assessed prior to and at 8 h and 24 h after the 1st dose of vaccine and at 8 h, 24 h, and 48 h after the 2nd dose. There was an increase in hsCRP that was apparent at 24 h after both the 1st dose (-0.60 [95% confidence intervals [CI]: -1.60 to -0.20], p = 0.013) and the 2nd dose (maximum median difference at 48 h -6.60 [95% CI: -9.80 to -3.40], p < 0.001) compared to placebo. The vaccine did not change PWV. FMD remained unchanged during the 1st dose but decreased significantly by 1.5% (95% CI: 0.1% to 2.9%, p = 0.037) at 24 h after the 2nd dose. FMD values returned to baseline at 48 h. Our study shows that the mRNA vaccine causes a prominent increase in inflammatory markers, especially after the 2nd dose, and a transient deterioration of endothelial function at 24 h that returns to baseline at 48 h. These results confirm the short-term cardiovascular safety of the vaccine.

Hypertensive urgencies during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in a tertiary hospital setting: a U-shaped alarming curve.

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic provoked unprecedented disturbance in hypertension care, while alarming concerns arose about its long-term consequences. We investigated the trends of emergency visits and admissions regarding uncontrolled hypertension in order to assess the impact of COVID-19 spread on population behavior towards hypertension urgencies during its first wave. Material and methods: Data from daily unscheduled visits and admission counts in the Cardiology sector were collected from the Emergency Department database of a tertiary General Hospital in Athens, Greece for the period January 15th to July 15th 2020. These data were compared with those from the previous year. Cases of patients who presented with hypertensive urgency or who were admitted due to uncontrolled hypertension were separately analyzed. Results: A total of 7,373 patient records were analyzed. Hypertension urgency cases demonstrated a U-shaped distribution in 2020, showing a declining trend during the rapid virus spread, an image that was reversed after the transmission rate's decline. COVID-19 incidence in Greece was inversely associated with uncontrolled hypertension admissions during its declining phase (r = -0.64, p = 0.009), whereas total attendance exhibited a similar correlation during the first and the following months of the pandemic (r = 0.677, p = 0.031, r = -0.789, p = 0.001). Uncontrolled hypertension rate on admission was positively related to the national incidence of COVID-19 cases during the first months of 2020 (r = 0.82, p = 0.045). Conclusions: Hypertensive urgency-related visits followed a U-shape distribution during the pandemic's first wave with the attendance nadir coinciding with the virus spread peak. This is a complex phenomenon, closely related to increased levels of public stress, disruptions in health care services and to a lesser extent to the imposed restrictions in transportation. The initial relative increase in uncontrolled hypertension-related admissions rate, combined with the later increase of hypertensive urgencies may be indicative of blood pressure deregulation among the studied population, which is multifactorial and potentially detrimental.

Do the Kinetics of Antibody Responses Predict Clinical Outcome in Hospitalized Patients With Moderate-to-Severe COVID-19?

BACKGROUND/AIM: The relationship between the kinetics of antibody responses to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and the severity of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) is poorly understood. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether serum SARS-CoV-2 antibody kinetics serve as an early predictor of clinical deterioration or recovery in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 102 consecutive patients (median age: 60 years, 58% males) with symptomatic COVID-19 infection diagnosed by real-time polymerase chain reaction assay, hospitalized in two tertiary hospitals, were included. Rapid test for qualitative detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and immunoglobulin G (IgG) SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was performed at pre-defined time intervals during hospitalization (days: 0, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21 and 28). RESULTS: During a 3-month follow-up period after COVID-19 disease onset, a total of 87 patients were discharged, 12 patients were intubated and entered the Intensive Care Unit, and three patients died. The median time for seroconversion was 10 days for IgM and 12 days for IgG post onset of symptoms. Univariate logistic regression analysis found no associations between IgM or IgG positivity and clinical outcomes or complications during hospitalization for COVID-19 infection. Diabetes and dyslipidemia were the only clinical risk factors predictive of COVID-19-related complications during hospitalization. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 antibody responses do not predict clinical outcome in hospitalized patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 infection.

Real-Life Effectiveness and Safety of Baricitinib as Adjunctive to Standard-of-Care Treatment in Hospitalized Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic options for hospitalized patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (sCOVID-19) are limited. Preliminary data have shown promising results with baricitinib, but real-life experience is lacking. We assessed the safety and effectiveness of add-on baricitinib to standard-of-care (SOC) including dexamethasone in hospitalized patients with sCOVID-19. METHODS: This study is a 2-center, observational, retrospective cohort study of patients with sCOVID-19, comparing outcomes and serious events between patients treated with SOC versus those treated with SOC and baricitinib combination. RESULTS: We included 369 patients with sCOVID-19 (males 66.1%; mean age 65.2 years; median symptom duration 6 days). The SOC was administered in 47.7% and combination in 52.3%. Patients treated with the combination reached the composite outcome (intensive care unit [ICU] admission or death) less frequently compared with SOC (22.3% vs 36.9%, P = .002). Mortality rate was lower with the combination in the total cohort (14.7% vs 26.6%, P = .005), and ICU admission was lower in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (29.7% vs 44.8%, P = .03). By multivariable analysis, age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36-2.44, per 10-year increase), partial pressure of oxygen/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = .52-0.68, per 10 units increase), and use of high-flow nasal cannula (OR = 0.34; 95% CI, .16-0.74) were associated with the composite outcome, whereas baricitinib use was marginally not associated with the composite outcome (OR = 0.52; 95% CI, .26-1.03). However, baricitinib use was found to be significant after inverse-probability weighted regression (OR = 0.93; 95% CI, .87-0.99). No difference in serious events was noted between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In real-life settings, addition of baricitinib to SOC in patients hospitalized with sCOVID-19 is associated with decreased mortality without concerning safety signals.