Re-examining the widespread policy of stopping sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors during acute illness: A perspective based on the updated evidence.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are now seen as an integral part of therapy in type 2 diabetes to control not only blood glucose but to improve cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an uncommon but serious complication of type 2 diabetes, which has a high case fatality rate. The absolute risk of DKA in large, prospective randomized clinical trials in people with type 2 diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors has been low, although the relative risk is higher in those assigned to SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo. In those without diabetes but prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure or chronic kidney disease, the risk of DKA is similar to placebo. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, cases of DKA have also been reported in cases of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Consensus guidelines have recommended that SGLT2 inhibitors should be avoided in cases of serious illness and suggest they are not recommended for routine in-hospital use. However, recent data suggest potential beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of acute illness with COVID-19 with no increase in adverse events and low rates of DKA, which were non-severe. Given the low rates of DKA in cardiovascular outcome trials and in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, the potential for SGLT2 inhibitors not being re-initiated following discharge and their cardiovascular and kidney benefits, we believe the practice of routine 'sick day' guidance should be re-examined based on current evidence with a call for further research in this area. Furthermore, high-quality trials of initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people admitted to hospital with cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, and trials of continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people, with careful monitoring of DKA should be conducted. These should be further supplemented with large observational studies.

Feasibility of randomizing Danish citizens aged 65-79 years to high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine vs. standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine in a pragmatic registry-based setting: rationale and design of the DANFLU-1 Trial.

BACKGROUND: High-dose influenza vaccines provide better protection against influenza infection than standard-dose in persons aged 65 years and above; however, in most countries, high-dose vaccines are not widely implemented. Assessing the relative effectiveness of high-dose compared to standard-dose vaccines on hospitalizations and mortality would enable more robust public health and cost-effectiveness estimates. This study aims to investigate the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic randomized clinical trial in Denmark comparing high-dose to standard-dose vaccines utilizing existing vaccination infrastructure and the Danish nationwide health registries for data collection. METHODS: The DANFLU-1 trial (NCT05048589) is a pragmatic, open-label, active-controlled randomized trial randomizing Danish citizens aged 65-79 years to either high-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine or standard-dose quadrivalent influenza vaccine. The study utilizes the infrastructure of a private vaccination provider (Danske Lægers Vaccinations Service) for recruitment, inclusion, randomization, and vaccination. All collection of baseline and follow-up data including safety monitoring is performed centrally by the Department of Cardiology at Herlev and Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark using the Danish nationwide health registries. The study aims to include 40,000 participants during the 2021/2022 influenza season. The primary endpoints address feasibility and include the number of participants enrolled, randomization balance, and representativeness compared to the Danish general population. Relative vaccine effectiveness will also be assessed, however, this feasibility study is not powered for clinical outcomes and may be affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. DISCUSSION: The DANFLU-1 study is investigating the feasibility of conducting a large-scale pragmatic clinical trial in Denmark utilizing existing infrastructure and the Danish nationwide registries. This will provide valuable insight, especially for potential future fully powered vaccine trials, but also for trials wishing to investigate other interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT05048589 , registered September 17, 2021.

Re-examining the widespread policy of stopping sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors during acute illness: A perspective based on the updated evidence.

Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are now seen as an integral part of therapy in type 2 diabetes to control not only blood glucose but to improve cardiovascular and kidney outcomes. Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is an uncommon but serious complication of type 2 diabetes, which has a high case fatality rate. The absolute risk of DKA in large, prospective randomized clinical trials in people with type 2 diabetes using SGLT2 inhibitors has been low, although the relative risk is higher in those assigned to SGLT2 inhibitors compared with placebo. In those without diabetes but prescribed SGLT2 inhibitors for heart failure or chronic kidney disease, the risk of DKA is similar to placebo. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, cases of DKA have also been reported in cases of COVID-19 hospitalizations. Consensus guidelines have recommended that SGLT2 inhibitors should be avoided in cases of serious illness and suggest they are not recommended for routine in-hospital use. However, recent data suggest potential beneficial effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in the setting of acute illness with COVID-19 with no increase in adverse events and low rates of DKA, which were non-severe. Given the low rates of DKA in cardiovascular outcome trials and in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes, the potential for SGLT2 inhibitors not being re-initiated following discharge and their cardiovascular and kidney benefits, we believe the practice of routine 'sick day' guidance should be re-examined based on current evidence with a call for further research in this area. Furthermore, high-quality trials of initiation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people admitted to hospital with cardiovascular disease or kidney disease, and trials of continuation of SGLT2 inhibitors in people, with careful monitoring of DKA should be conducted. These should be further supplemented with large observational studies.

Association of Influenza Vaccination With Cardiovascular Risk: A Meta-analysis.

Importance: Influenza infection is associated with increased cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. Our prior systematic review and meta-analysis hypothesized that influenza vaccination was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events. Objective: To evaluate, via an updated meta-analysis, if seasonal influenza vaccination is associated with a lower risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events and assess whether the newest cardiovascular outcome trial results are consistent with prior findings. Data Sources: A previously published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a large 2021 cardiovascular outcome trial. Study Selection: Studies with RCTs published between 2000 and 2021 that randomized participants to either influenza vaccine or placebo/control. Eligible participants were inpatients and outpatients recruited for international multicenter RCTs and randomized to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo/control. Data Extraction and Synthesis: PRISMA guidelines were followed in the extraction of study details, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Trial quality was evaluated using Cochrane criteria. Data were analyzed January 2020 and December 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Random-effects Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were derived for a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality within 12 months of follow-up. Where available, analyses were stratified by patients with and without recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 1 year of randomization. Results: Six published RCTs comprising a total of 9001 patients were included (mean age, 65.5 years; 42.5% women; 52.3% with a cardiac history). Overall, influenza vaccine was associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events (3.6% vs 5.4%; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P < .001). A treatment interaction was detected between patients with recent ACS (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75) and without recent ACS (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.68-1.47) (P for interaction = .02). For cardiovascular mortality, a treatment interaction was also detected between patients with recent ACS (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) and without recent ACS (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.84-2.50) (P for interaction = .006), while 1.7% of vaccine recipients died of cardiovascular causes compared with 2.5% of placebo or control recipients (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.30; P = .29). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, receipt of influenza vaccination was associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, and individuals with recent ACS had a 45% lower risk. Given influenza poses a threat to population health during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is integral to counsel high-risk patients on the cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination.

The Landscape of Cardiovascular Clinical Trials in the United States Initiated Before and During COVID-19

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has taken an unprecedented toll on the American healthcare system and economy. While numerous COVID-19 clinical trials have been initiated in hopes of curtailing its impact, most pre-existing clinical trials have been forced to suspend or limit activity, which itself can have significant consequences. Missed or postponed trial-related assessments may hinder data quality, and heterogeneity in data collection both across the country and over time introduces bias. In addition, COVID-19 may lower specific event rates due to patients avoiding the healthcare system that could result in underpowered outcome analyses, or conversely, some endpoints (mortality) may be inflated.

Renin-angiotensin system blockers, risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and outcomes from CoViD-19: systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: This meta-analysis provides summary odds ratio (OR) estimates for associations between treatment with (vs. without) renin-angiotensin system blockers and risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and coronavirus disease 2019 (CoViD-19) severity (including case-fatality) in patients with hypertension, and in all patients (irrespective of hypertension). METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, medRxiv, and SSRN were searched (2 May 2020 to 12 August 2020) for non-randomized observational CoViD-19 studies. Event/patient numbers were extracted, comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) treatment (and each separately), to treatment with neither drug, for the outcomes: (i) likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection; (ii) CoViD-19 severity [including hospitalization, intensive therapy unit (ITU), ventilation]; (iii) case-fatality. The risk of bias was assessed (ROBINS-I). Random-effects meta-analysis estimates were pooled. Eighty-six studies including 459 755 patients (103 317 with hypertension), were analysed. In patients with hypertension, ACE inhibitor or ARB treatment was not associated with a greater likelihood of SARS-CoV-2 infection in 60 141 patients (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99-1.14), hospitalization in 5925 patients (OR 0.90, 0.62-1.31), ITU in 7218 patients (OR 1.06, 0.73-1.56), ventilation (or ITU/ventilation/death) in 13 163 patients (OR 0.91, 0.72-1.15) or case-fatality in 18 735 patients with 2893 deaths (OR 0.75, 0.61-0.92). CONCLUSION: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and ARBs appear safe in the context of SARS-CoV-2 infection and should not be discontinued.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020186996.

Pre-existing traits associated with Covid-19 illness severity.

IMPORTANCE: Certain individuals, when infected by SARS-CoV-2, tend to develop the more severe forms of Covid-19 illness for reasons that remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the demographic and clinical characteristics associated with increased severity of Covid-19 infection. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. We curated data from the electronic health record, and used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association of pre-existing traits with a Covid-19 illness severity defined by level of required care: need for hospital admission, need for intensive care, and need for intubation. SETTING: A large, multihospital healthcare system in Southern California. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with confirmed Covid-19 infection (N = 442). RESULTS: Of all patients studied, 48% required hospitalization, 17% required intensive care, and 12% required intubation. In multivariable-adjusted analyses, patients requiring a higher levels of care were more likely to be older (OR 1.5 per 10 years, P<0.001), male (OR 2.0, P = 0.001), African American (OR 2.1, P = 0.011), obese (OR 2.0, P = 0.021), with diabetes mellitus (OR 1.8, P = 0.037), and with a higher comorbidity index (OR 1.8 per SD, P<0.001). Several clinical associations were more pronounced in younger compared to older patients (Pinteraction<0.05). Of all hospitalized patients, males required higher levels of care (OR 2.5, P = 0.003) irrespective of age, race, or morbidity profile. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In our healthcare system, greater Covid-19 illness severity is seen in patients who are older, male, African American, obese, with diabetes, and with greater overall comorbidity burden. Certain comorbidities paradoxically augment risk to a greater extent in younger patients. In hospitalized patients, male sex is the main determinant of needing more intensive care. Further investigation is needed to understand the mechanisms underlying these findings.

Fewer Hospitalizations for Acute Cardiovascular Conditions During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Although patients with cardiovascular disease face excess risks of severe illness with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), there may be indirect consequences of the pandemic on this high-risk patient segment. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine longitudinal trends in hospitalizations for acute cardiovascular conditions across a tertiary care health system. METHODS: Acute cardiovascular hospitalizations were tracked between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020. Daily hospitalization rates were estimated using negative binomial models. Temporal trends in hospitalization rates were compared across the first 3 months of 2020, with the first 3 months of 2019 as a reference. RESULTS: From January 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, 6,083 patients experienced 7,187 hospitalizations for primary acute cardiovascular reasons. There were 43.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 27.4% to 56.0%) fewer estimated daily hospitalizations in March 2020 compared with March 2019 (p < 0.001). The daily rate of hospitalizations did not change throughout 2019 (-0.01% per day [95% CI: -0.04% to +0.02%]; p = 0.50), January 2020 (-0.5% per day [95% CI: -1.6% to +0.5%]; p = 0.31), or February 2020 (+0.7% per day [95% CI: -0.6% to +2.0%]; p = 0.27). There was significant daily decline in hospitalizations in March 2020 (-5.9% per day [95% CI: -7.6% to -4.3%]; p < 0.001). Length of stay was shorter (4.8 days [25th to 75th percentiles: 2.4 to 8.3 days] vs. 6.0 days [25th to 75th percentiles: 3.1 to 9.6 days]; p = 0.003) and in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (6.2% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.30) in March 2020 compared with March 2019. CONCLUSIONS: During the first phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, there was a marked decline in acute cardiovascular hospitalizations, and patients who were admitted had shorter lengths of stay. These data substantiate concerns that acute care of cardiovascular conditions may be delayed, deferred, or abbreviated during the COVID-19 pandemic.