Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 31
Filter
1.
Curr Probl Cardiol ; : 101870, 2023 Jun 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-20239221

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 pandemic hampered operational efficiency of heart transplant (HT) programs worldwide. Little is known about the global and country-specific changes in HT volumes during the pandemic years 2020-2021. We aimed to describe the global and country-level impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on HT volumes in 2020-2021. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of the Global Observatory on Donation and Transplantation, including the years 2019 to 2021. Among 60 countries that reported HT data in the years 2019-2020, we analyzed 52 countries with ≥1 transplant during each year. RESULTS: Overall, the number of HTs decreased during 2020 by 9.3% (1.82 to 1.65 PMP). While 75% (n=39/52) of countries experienced a decrease in HT volumes in 2020, volumes were maintained/increased in the remaining countries. Countries with maintained HT volumes had a higher organ donation rate in 2020 compared to those with decreased volumes (P=.03), the only significant predictor of change in HT volumes (P=.005). In 2021, a 6.6% recovery from the previous year's drop in global HT rate was noticed, reaching 1.76 HT PMP. Only one in five countries with reduced volumes in 2020 recovered their baseline volumes in 2021. Only 30.8% of countries with maintained volumes in 2020 had continued growth in HT volumes in 2021. CONCLUSION: Further work should define underlying causes of this heterogeneity in HT volume during the pandemic. Identifying policies and practices that helped certain countries mitigate the effect of the pandemic on HT activities may help other countries during similar health crises in the future.

2.
JACC Heart Fail ; 11(6): 691-698, 2023 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2308188

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and previous heart failure hospitalization (HFH), hemodynamic-guided HF management using a wireless pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) sensor reduces HFH, but it is unclear whether these benefits extend to patients who have not been recently hospitalized but remain at risk because of elevated natriuretic peptides (NPs). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of hemodynamic-guided HF management in patients with elevated NPs but no recent HFH. METHODS: In the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure) trial, 1,000 patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II to IV HF and either previous HFH or elevated NP levels were randomly assigned to hemodynamic-guided HF management or usual care. The authors evaluated the primary study composite of all-cause mortality and total HF events at 12 months according to treatment assignment and enrollment stratum (HFH vs elevated NPs) by using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Of 999 evaluable patients, 557 were enrolled on the basis of a previous HFH and 442 on the basis of elevated NPs alone. Those patients enrolled by NP criteria were older and more commonly White persons with lower body mass index, lower NYHA class, less diabetes, more atrial fibrillation, and lower baseline PAP. Event rates were lower among those patients in the NP group for both the full follow-up (40.9 per 100 patient-years vs 82.0 per 100 patient-years) and the pre-COVID-19 analysis (43.6 per 100 patient-years vs 88.0 per 100 patient-years). The effects of hemodynamic monitoring were consistent across enrollment strata for the primary endpoint over the full study duration (interaction P = 0.71) and the pre-COVID-19 analysis (interaction P = 0.58). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent effects of hemodynamic-guided HF management across enrollment strata in GUIDE-HF support consideration of hemodynamic monitoring in the expanded group of patients with chronic HF and elevated NPs without recent HFH. (Hemodynamic-Guided Management of Heart Failure [GUIDE-HF]; NCT03387813).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Humans , Hospitalization , Natriuretic Peptides , Hemodynamics
3.
JACC Heart Fail ; 10(12): 931-944, 2022 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2210691

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamically-guided management using an implanted pulmonary artery pressure sensor is indicated to reduce heart failure (HF) hospitalizations in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-III with a prior HF hospitalization or those with elevated natriuretic peptides. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the effect of left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) on treatment outcomes in the GUIDE-HF (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd management of Heart Failure) randomized trial. METHODS: The GUIDE-HF randomized arm included 1,000 NYHA functional class II-IV patients (with HF hospitalization within the prior 12 months or elevated natriuretic peptides adjusted for EF and body mass index) implanted with a pulmonary artery pressure sensor, randomized 1:1 to a hemodynamically-guided management group (treatment) or a control group (control). The primary endpoint was the composite of HF hospitalizations, urgent HF visits, and all-cause mortality at 12 months. The authors assessed outcomes by EF in guideline-defined subgroups ≤40%, 41%-49%, and ≥50%, within the trial specified pre-COVID-19 period cohort. RESULTS: There were 177 primary events (0.553/patient-year) in the treatment group and 224 events (0.682/patient-year) in the control group (HR: 0.81 [95% CI: 0.66-1.00]; P = 0.049); HF hospitalization was lower in the treatment vs control group (HR: 0.72 [95% CI: 0.57-0.92]; P = 0.0072). Within each EF subgroup, primary endpoint and HF hospitalization rates were lower in the treatment group (HR <1.0 across the EF spectrum). Event rate reduction by EF in the treatment groups was correlated with reduction in pulmonary artery pressures and medication changes. CONCLUSIONS: Hemodynamically-guided HF management decreases HF-related endpoints across the EF spectrum in an expanded patient population of patients with HF. (Hemodynamic-GUIDEd Management of Heart Failure [GUIDE-HF]; NCT03387813).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Humans , Stroke Volume , Ventricular Function, Left , Heart Failure/therapy , Body Mass Index
4.
Eur Heart J ; 43(23): 2237-2246, 2022 06 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2188653

ABSTRACT

Heart transplantation is advocated in selected patients with advanced heart failure in the absence of contraindications. Principal challenges in heart transplantation centre around an insufficient and underutilized donor organ pool, the need to individualize titration of immunosuppressive therapy, and to minimize late complications such as cardiac allograft vasculopathy, malignancy, and renal dysfunction. Advances have served to increase the organ donor pool by advocating the use of donors with underlying hepatitis C virus infection and by expanding the donor source to use hearts donated after circulatory death. New techniques to preserve the donor heart over prolonged ischaemic times, and enabling longer transport times in a safe manner, have been introduced. Mechanical circulatory support as a bridge to transplantation has allowed patients with advanced heart failure to avoid progressive deterioration in hepato-renal function while awaiting an optimal donor organ match. The management of the heart transplantation recipient remains a challenge despite advances in immunosuppression, which provide early gains in rejection avoidance but are associated with infections and late-outcome challenges. In this article, we review contemporary advances and challenges in this field to focus on donor recovery strategies, left ventricular assist devices, and immunosuppressive monitoring therapies with the potential to enhance outcomes. We also describe opportunities for future discovery to include a renewed focus on long-term survival, which continues to be an area that is under-studied and poorly characterized, non-human sources of organs for transplantation including xenotransplantation as well as chimeric transplantation, and technology competitive to human heart transplantation, such as tissue engineering.


Subject(s)
Heart Diseases , Heart Failure , Heart Transplantation , Heart-Assist Devices , Heart Failure/therapy , Heart Transplantation/methods , Humans , Tissue Donors
5.
Clin Transplant ; 36(7): e14733, 2022 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1874408

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: A growing proportion of transplant donors and recipients have a history of COVID-19 infection. This study sought to characterize clinical practice after recipient or donor COVID-19 infection. METHODS: An online survey was distributed to heart transplant clinicians through a professional society message board and social media. Responses were collected between September 29 and November 5, 2021. RESULTS: There were 222 health care professionals (68% transplant cardiologists, 22% transplant surgeons, 10% other) across diverse geographic regions who completed the survey. While there was significant variation in donor acceptance, as it relates to past and current COVID-19 infection, the respondents were fairly cautious: 28% would not typically accept a donor with a history of COVID-19 regardless of the infection course and > 80% would not accept donors who had evidence of myocardial dysfunction during past COVID-19 infection, or who died of COVID-19 or its complications. The timing of candidate reactivation on the waiting list after COVID-19 infection also varied and often diverged from scenarios addressed by social guidelines. Eighty-one percent of the respondents felt COVID-19 vaccine should be mandatory before transplant, but this rate varied by geographic region. CONCLUSION: Our results reflect evolving experience of the heart transplant field at a time of lack of high-quality evidence. In the absence of longer-term outcome data for donors and transplant candidates with history of COVID-19 infection, clinicians remain cautious; however, this approach will likely need to be refined as an increasing proportion of the population will continue to be infected with COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Transplantation , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , Tissue Donors , Transplant Recipients
6.
Eur Heart J ; 43(27): 2603-2618, 2022 07 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1735557

ABSTRACT

AIMS: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, important changes in heart failure (HF) event rates have been widely reported, but few data address potential causes for these changes; several possibilities were examined in the GUIDE-HF study. METHODS AND RESULTS: From 15 March 2018 to 20 December 2019, patients were randomized to haemodynamic-guided management (treatment) vs. control for 12 months, with a primary endpoint of all-cause mortality plus HF events. Pre-COVID-19, the primary endpoint rate was 0.553 vs. 0.682 events/patient-year in the treatment vs. control group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, P = 0.049]. Treatment difference was no longer evident during COVID-19 (HR 1.11, P = 0.526), with a 21% decrease in the control group (0.536 events/patient-year) and no change in the treatment group (0.597 events/patient-year). Data reflecting provider-, disease-, and patient-dependent factors that might change the primary endpoint rate during COVID-19 were examined. Subject contact frequency was similar in the treatment vs. control group before and during COVID-19. During COVID-19, the monthly rate of medication changes fell 19.2% in the treatment vs. 10.7% in the control group to levels not different between groups (P = 0.362). COVID-19 was infrequent and not different between groups. Pulmonary artery pressure area under the curve decreased -98 mmHg-days in the treatment group vs. -100 mmHg-days in the controls (P = 0.867). Patient compliance with the study protocol was maintained during COVID-19 in both groups. CONCLUSION: During COVID-19, the primary event rate decreased in the controls and remained low in the treatment group, resulting in an effacement of group differences that were present pre-COVID-19. These outcomes did not result from changes in provider- or disease-dependent factors; pulmonary artery pressure decreased despite fewer medication changes, suggesting that patient-dependent factors played an important role in these outcomes. Clinical Trials.gov: NCT03387813.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Heart Failure , Hemodynamics , Humans , Pandemics , Pulmonary Artery
7.
JACC Case Rep ; 3(12): 1403-1408, 2021 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1428084

ABSTRACT

A previously healthy 39-year-old man presented in cardiogenic shock with evidence of multisystem inflammatory syndrome of adults 2 months after a mild case of coronavirus disease 2019. He was treated with intravenous immunoglobulin and pulse-dose corticosteroids with rapid resolution of his symptoms and normalization of biventricular function. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

9.
Lancet ; 398(10304): 991-1001, 2021 09 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1373313

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that haemodynamic-guided management using an implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitor reduces heart failure hospitalisations in patients with moderately symptomatic (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class III) chronic heart failure and a hospitalisation in the past year, irrespective of ejection fraction. It is unclear if these benefits extend to patients with mild (NYHA functional class II) or severe (NYHA functional class IV) symptoms of heart failure or to patients with elevated natriuretic peptides without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. This trial was designed to evaluate whether haemodynamic-guided management using remote pulmonary artery pressure monitoring could reduce heart failure events and mortality in patients with heart failure across the spectrum of symptom severity (NYHA funational class II-IV), including those with elevated natriuretic peptides but without a recent heart failure hospitalisation. METHODS: The randomised arm of the haemodynamic-GUIDEed management of Heart Failure (GUIDE-HF) trial was a multicentre, single-blind study at 118 centres in the USA and Canada. Following successful implantation of a pulmonary artery pressure monitor, patients with all ejection fractions, NYHA functional class II-IV chronic heart failure, and either a recent heart failure hospitalisation or elevated natriuretic peptides (based on a-priori thresholds) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either haemodynamic-guided heart failure management based on pulmonary artery pressure or a usual care control group. Patients were masked to their study group assignment. Investigators were aware of treatment assignment but did not have access to pulmonary artery pressure data for control patients. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and total heart failure events (heart failure hospitalisations and urgent heart failure hospital visits) at 12 months assessed in all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients. A pre-COVID-19 impact analysis for the primary and secondary outcomes was prespecified. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03387813. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Dec 20, 2019, 1022 patients were enrolled, with 1000 patients implanted successfully, and follow-up was completed on Jan 8, 2021. There were 253 primary endpoint events (0·563 per patient-year) among 497 patients in the haemodynamic-guided management group (treatment group) and 289 (0·640 per patient-year) in 503 patients in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·74-1·05; p=0·16). A prespecified COVID-19 sensitivity analysis using a time-dependent variable to compare events before COVID-19 and during the pandemic suggested a treatment interaction (pinteraction=0·11) due to a change in the primary endpoint event rate during the pandemic phase of the trial, warranting a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis. In the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis, there were 177 primary events (0·553 per patient-year) in the intervention group and 224 events (0·682 per patient-year) in the control group (HR 0·81, 95% CI 0·66-1·00; p=0·049). This difference in primary events almost disappeared during COVID-19, with a 21% decrease in the control group (0·536 per patient-year) relative to pre-COVID-19, virtually no change in the treatment group (0·597 per patient-year), and no difference between groups (HR 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·53). The cumulative incidence of heart failure events was not reduced by haemodynamic-guided management (0·85, 0·70-1·03; p=0·096) in the overall study analysis but was significantly decreased in the pre-COVID-19 impact analysis (0·76, 0·61-0·95; p=0·014). 1014 (99%) of 1022 patients had freedom from device or system-related complications. INTERPRETATION: Haemodynamic-guided management of heart failure did not result in a lower composite endpoint rate of mortality and total heart failure events compared with the control group in the overall study analysis. However, a pre-COVID-19 impact analysis indicated a possible benefit of haemodynamic-guided management on the primary outcome in the pre-COVID-19 period, primarily driven by a lower heart failure hospitalisation rate compared with the control group. FUNDING: Abbott.


Subject(s)
Electrodes, Implanted , Heart Failure , Hemodynamics , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Pulmonary Artery , Aged , COVID-19 , Female , Heart Failure/classification , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Hemodynamics/physiology , Hospitalization/trends , Humans , Male , Mortality/trends , Remote Sensing Technology
10.
J Heart Lung Transplant ; 40(8): 763-766, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1230503
11.
Drug Discov Today ; 26(2): 593-603, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1065014

ABSTRACT

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Expanded Access (EA) Program, which allows for compassionate uses of unapproved therapeutics and diagnostics outside of clinical trials, has gained significant traction during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While development of vaccines has been the major focus, uncertainties around new vaccine safety and effectiveness have spawned interest in other pharmacological options. Experimental drugs can also be approved under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) program, designed to combat infectious disease and other threats. Here, we review the US experience in 2020 with pharmacological EA and EUA approvals during the pandemic. We also provide a description of, and clinical rationale for, each of the EA- or EUA-approved drugs (e.g. remdesivir, convalescent plasma, propofol 2%, hydroxychloroquine, ruxolitinib, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, casirivimab plus imdevimab) during the pandemic and concluding reflections on the EA program and its potential future uses.


Subject(s)
Antiviral Agents , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , COVID-19 Vaccines/pharmacology , COVID-19 , Compassionate Use Trials , Antiviral Agents/classification , Antiviral Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Compassionate Use Trials/methods , Compassionate Use Trials/trends , Drug Approval , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
12.
Lancet ; 2020 05 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-952335

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, often in combination with a second-generation macrolide, are being widely used for treatment of COVID-19, despite no conclusive evidence of their benefit. Although generally safe when used for approved indications such as autoimmune disease or malaria, the safety and benefit of these treatment regimens are poorly evaluated in COVID-19. METHODS: We did a multinational registry analysis of the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19. The registry comprised data from 671 hospitals in six continents. We included patients hospitalised between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020, with a positive laboratory finding for SARS-CoV-2. Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded. The main outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality and the occurrence of de-novo ventricular arrhythmias (non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation). FINDINGS: 96 032 patients (mean age 53·8 years, 46·3% women) with COVID-19 were hospitalised during the study period and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 14 888 patients were in the treatment groups (1868 received chloroquine, 3783 received chloroquine with a macrolide, 3016 received hydroxychloroquine, and 6221 received hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide) and 81 144 patients were in the control group. 10 698 (11·1%) patients died in hospital. After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%), hydroxychloroquine (18·0%; hazard ratio 1·335, 95% CI 1·223-1·457), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (23·8%; 1·447, 1·368-1·531), chloroquine (16·4%; 1·365, 1·218-1·531), and chloroquine with a macrolide (22·2%; 1·368, 1·273-1·469) were each independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Compared with the control group (0·3%), hydroxychloroquine (6·1%; 2·369, 1·935-2·900), hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide (8·1%; 5·106, 4·106-5·983), chloroquine (4·3%; 3·561, 2·760-4·596), and chloroquine with a macrolide (6·5%; 4·011, 3·344-4·812) were independently associated with an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalisation. INTERPRETATION: We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19. FUNDING: William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.

13.
Am Heart J ; 232: 105-115, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-893406

ABSTRACT

Morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 has increased exponentially, and patients with cardiovascular (CV) disease are at risk for poor outcomes. Several lines of evidence suggest a potential role for CV therapies in COVID-19 treatment. Characteristics of clinical trials of CV therapies related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov have not been described. METHODS: ClinicalTrials.gov was queried on August 7, 2020 for COVID-19 related trials. Studies evaluating established CV drugs, other fibrinolytics (defibrotide), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were included. Studies evaluating anti-microbial, convalescent plasma, non-colchicine anti-inflammatory, and other therapies were excluded. Trial characteristics were tabulated from study-specific entries. RESULTS: A total of 2,935 studies related to COVID-19 were registered as of August 7, 2020. Of these, 1,645 were interventional studies, and the final analytic cohort consisted of 114 studies evaluating 10 CV therapeutic categories. Antithrombotics (32.5%; n = 37) were most commonly evaluated, followed by pulmonary vasodilators (14.0%; n = 16), renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system-related therapies (12.3%; n = 14), and colchicine (8.8%; n = 10). Trials evaluating multiple CV therapy categories and CV therapies in combination with non-CV therapies encompassed 4.4% (n = 5) and 9.6% (n = 11) of studies, respectively. Most studies were designed for randomized allocation (87.7%; n = 100), enrollment of less than 1000 participants (86.8%; n = 99), single site implementation (55.3%; n = 63), and had a primary outcome of mortality or a composite including mortality (56.1%; n = 64). Most study populations consisted of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 (81.6%; n = 93). At the time of database query, 28.9% (n = 33) of studies were not yet recruiting and the majority were estimated to be completed after December 2020 (67.8%; n = 78). Most lead sponsors were located in North America (43.9%; n = 50) or Europe (36.0%; n = 41). CONCLUSIONS: A minority (7%) of clinical trials related to COVID-19 registered on ClinicalTrials.gov plan to evaluate CV therapies. Of CV therapy studies, most were planned to be single center, enroll less than 1000 inpatients, sponsored by European or North American academic institutions, and estimated to complete after December 2020. Collectively, these findings underscore the need for a network of sites with a platform protocol for rapid evaluation of multiple therapies and generalizability to inform clinical care and health policy for COVID-19 moving forward.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Cardiovascular Diseases/drug therapy , Clinical Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , National Library of Medicine (U.S.) , Registries/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , Cardiovascular Agents/therapeutic use , Cardiovascular Diseases/complications , Cardiovascular Diseases/mortality , Colchicine/therapeutic use , Combined Modality Therapy/statistics & numerical data , Databases, Factual/statistics & numerical data , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/statistics & numerical data , Fibrinolytic Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Hypoglycemic Agents/therapeutic use , Patient Participation/statistics & numerical data , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data , Renin-Angiotensin System , Treatment Outcome , United States , Vasodilator Agents/therapeutic use
15.
Eur J Heart Fail ; 22(10): 1755-1758, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-777442
17.
Drugs ; 80(13): 1267-1292, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-660486

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) illness is a syndrome of viral replication in concert with a host inflammatory response. The cytokine storm and viral evasion of cellular immune responses may play an equally important role in the pathogenesis, clinical manifestation, and outcomes of COVID-19. Systemic proinflammatory cytokines and biomarkers are elevated as the disease progresses towards its advanced stages, and correlate with worse chances of survival. Immune modulators have the potential to inhibit cytokines and treat the cytokine storm. A literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted through 8 July 2020 using the search terms 'coronavirus', 'immunology', 'cytokine storm', 'immunomodulators', 'pharmacology', 'severe acute respiratory syndrome 2', 'SARS-CoV-2', and 'COVID-19'. Specific immune modulators include anti-cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-1 and IL-6 receptor antagonists (e.g. anakinra, tocilizumab, sarilumab, siltuximab), Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors (e.g. baricitinib, ruxolitinib), anti-tumor necrosis factor-α (e.g. adalimumab, infliximab), granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factors (e.g. gimsilumab, lenzilumab, namilumab), and convalescent plasma, with promising to negative trials and other data. Non-specific immune modulators include human immunoglobulin, corticosteroids such as dexamethasone, interferons, statins, angiotensin pathway modulators, macrolides (e.g. azithromycin, clarithromycin), hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, colchicine, and prostaglandin D2 modulators such as ramatroban. Dexamethasone 6 mg once daily (either by mouth or by intravenous injection) for 10 days may result in a reduction in mortality in COVID-19 patients by one-third for patients on ventilators, and by one-fifth for those receiving oxygen. Research efforts should focus not only on the most relevant immunomodulatory strategies but also on the optimal timing of such interventions to maximize therapeutic outcomes. In this review, we discuss the potential role and safety of these agents in the management of severe COVID-19, and their impact on survival and clinical symptoms.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections , Immunologic Factors , Immunomodulation/immunology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral , Betacoronavirus/physiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/drug therapy , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Humans , Immunologic Factors/classification , Immunologic Factors/pharmacology , Pneumonia, Viral/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
19.
Nat Med ; 26(7): 1017-1032, 2020 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-639177

ABSTRACT

Although COVID-19 is most well known for causing substantial respiratory pathology, it can also result in several extrapulmonary manifestations. These conditions include thrombotic complications, myocardial dysfunction and arrhythmia, acute coronary syndromes, acute kidney injury, gastrointestinal symptoms, hepatocellular injury, hyperglycemia and ketosis, neurologic illnesses, ocular symptoms, and dermatologic complications. Given that ACE2, the entry receptor for the causative coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, is expressed in multiple extrapulmonary tissues, direct viral tissue damage is a plausible mechanism of injury. In addition, endothelial damage and thromboinflammation, dysregulation of immune responses, and maladaptation of ACE2-related pathways might all contribute to these extrapulmonary manifestations of COVID-19. Here we review the extrapulmonary organ-specific pathophysiology, presentations and management considerations for patients with COVID-19 to aid clinicians and scientists in recognizing and monitoring the spectrum of manifestations, and in developing research priorities and therapeutic strategies for all organ systems involved.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/pathology , Organ Specificity , Pneumonia, Viral/pathology , Adaptive Immunity/physiology , Betacoronavirus/physiology , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Disease Progression , Endothelium, Vascular/pathology , Endothelium, Vascular/virology , Humans , Inflammation/etiology , Inflammation/pathology , Inflammation/virology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Renin-Angiotensin System/physiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Thrombosis/etiology , Thrombosis/pathology , Thrombosis/virology , Virus Internalization
20.
N Engl J Med ; 382(25): e102, 2020 06 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-633919

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) may disproportionately affect people with cardiovascular disease. Concern has been aroused regarding a potential harmful effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in this clinical context. METHODS: Using an observational database from 169 hospitals in Asia, Europe, and North America, we evaluated the relationship of cardiovascular disease and drug therapy with in-hospital death among hospitalized patients with Covid-19 who were admitted between December 20, 2019, and March 15, 2020, and were recorded in the Surgical Outcomes Collaborative registry as having either died in the hospital or survived to discharge as of March 28, 2020. RESULTS: Of the 8910 patients with Covid-19 for whom discharge status was available at the time of the analysis, a total of 515 died in the hospital (5.8%) and 8395 survived to discharge. The factors we found to be independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death were an age greater than 65 years (mortality of 10.0%, vs. 4.9% among those ≤65 years of age; odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.60 to 2.41), coronary artery disease (10.2%, vs. 5.2% among those without disease; odds ratio, 2.70; 95% CI, 2.08 to 3.51), heart failure (15.3%, vs. 5.6% among those without heart failure; odds ratio, 2.48; 95% CI, 1.62 to 3.79), cardiac arrhythmia (11.5%, vs. 5.6% among those without arrhythmia; odds ratio, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.33 to 2.86), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (14.2%, vs. 5.6% among those without disease; odds ratio, 2.96; 95% CI, 2.00 to 4.40), and current smoking (9.4%, vs. 5.6% among former smokers or nonsmokers; odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.47). No increased risk of in-hospital death was found to be associated with the use of ACE inhibitors (2.1% vs. 6.1%; odds ratio, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.54) or the use of ARBs (6.8% vs. 5.7%; odds ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed previous observations suggesting that underlying cardiovascular disease is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death among patients hospitalized with Covid-19. Our results did not confirm previous concerns regarding a potential harmful association of ACE inhibitors or ARBs with in-hospital death in this clinical context. (Funded by the William Harvey Distinguished Chair in Advanced Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women's Hospital.).

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL