ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 entry in human cells depends on angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which can be upregulated by inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We aimed to test our hypothesis that discontinuation of chronic treatment with ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) mitigates the course o\f recent-onset COVID-19. METHODS: ACEI-COVID was a parallel group, randomised, controlled, open-label trial done at 35 centres in Austria and Germany. Patients aged 18 years and older were enrolled if they presented with recent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and were chronically treated with ACEIs or ARBs. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to discontinuation or continuation of RAS inhibition for 30 days. Primary outcome was the maximum sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score within 30 days, where death was scored with the maximum achievable SOFA score. Secondary endpoints were area under the death-adjusted SOFA score (AUCSOFA), mean SOFA score, admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and death. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353596. FINDINGS: Between April 20, 2020, and Jan 20, 2021, 204 patients (median age 75 years [IQR 66-80], 37% females) were randomly assigned to discontinue (n=104) or continue (n=100) RAS inhibition. Within 30 days, eight (8%) of 104 died in the discontinuation group and 12 (12%) of 100 patients died in the continuation group (p=0·42). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between the discontinuation and continuation group (median [IQR] maximum SOFA score 0·00 (0·00-2·00) vs 1·00 (0·00-3·00); p=0·12). Discontinuation was associated with a significantly lower AUCSOFA (0·00 [0·00-9·25] vs 3·50 [0·00-23·50]; p=0·040), mean SOFA score (0·00 [0·00-0·31] vs 0·12 [0·00-0·78]; p=0·040), and 30-day SOFA score (0·00 [10-90th percentile, 0·00-1·20] vs 0·00 [0·00-24·00]; p=0·023). At 30 days, 11 (11%) in the discontinuation group and 23 (23%) in the continuation group had signs of organ dysfunction (SOFA score ≥1) or were dead (p=0·017). There were no significant differences for mechanical ventilation (10 (10%) vs 8 (8%), p=0·87) and admission to intensive care unit (20 [19%] vs 18 [18%], p=0·96) between the discontinuation and continuation group. INTERPRETATION: Discontinuation of RAS-inhibition in COVID-19 had no significant effect on the maximum severity of COVID-19 but may lead to a faster and better recovery. The decision to continue or discontinue should be made on an individual basis, considering the risk profile, the indication for RAS inhibition, and the availability of alternative therapies and outpatient monitoring options. FUNDING: Austrian Science Fund and German Center for Cardiovascular Research.
Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors , COVID-19 , Hypertension , Renin-Angiotensin System , SARS-CoV-2 , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/administration & dosage , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2/metabolism , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/administration & dosage , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/adverse effects , Area Under Curve , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/metabolism , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Hypertension/drug therapy , Hypertension/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care , Renin-Angiotensin System/drug effects , Renin-Angiotensin System/physiology , Risk Adjustment/methods , SARS-CoV-2/drug effects , SARS-CoV-2/physiology , Severity of Illness Index , Withholding Treatment/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The presence of conditions, such as cardiovascular or chronic lung diseases, was reported to be associated with more severe cases of COVID-19. It is, however, so far unclear how patients with a history of pulmonary embolism (PE) perceive their individual COVID-19 risk. Moreover, their worries and preventive behaviors and their associations with risk perception are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A postal survey was conducted in April 2020, including participants with previous PE from the German "Lungenembolie Augsburg" (LEA) cohort study. The questionnaire contained items on COVID-19 knowledge, risk perception (infection likelihood, susceptibility, dangerousness), information sources and satisfaction with information, individual assignment to a high risk group due to pre-existing conditions, worries, infection likelihood, and implementation of preventive behaviors. RESULTS: From the 185 respondents, 71.7% assigned themselves to a high risk group in terms of developing a severe case of COVID-19. The likelihood of being infected was rated as verylow/low by 82.3% and the susceptability by 37.8%. A considerable percentage of patients expected a very high/high infection risk in a hospital (48.3%) or at a doctor's practice (37.9%). Major sources of information were the patients' general practitioners (48.9%) and the internet (31.5%). Assignment to a high risk group (ß = 1.04) and uncertainty in terms of assignment (ß = 1.26) were significantly (p = 0.01) associated with a higher level of health-related worries. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with previous PE feel that they belong to a high risk group in terms of severe illness from COVID-19. Support in coping with their individual COVID-19 risk is warranted.