Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular heart disease medication use: time-series analysis of England's prescription data during the COVID-19 pandemic (January 2019 to October 2020).

BACKGROUND: Management of high blood pressure (BP) typically requires adherence to medication regimes. However, it is known that the COVID-19 pandemic both interrupted access to some routine prescriptions and changed some patient health behaviours. AIM: This study, therefore, retrospectively investigated prescription reimbursement of cardiovascular (CVD) medicines as a proxy measure for patient adherence and access to medicines during the pandemic. METHODS: A cohort study of all primary care patients in England prescribed CVD medicines. The exposure was to the global pandemic. Prescriptions were compared before and after the pandemic's onset. Statistical variation was the outcome of interest. RESULTS: Descriptive statistics show changes to monthly prescriptions, with wide confidence intervals indicating varying underlying practice. Analysis of variance reveals statistically significant differences for bendroflumethiazide, potassium-sparing diuretics, nicorandil, ezetimibe, ivabradine, ranolazine, colesevelam and midodrine. After the pandemic began (March-October 2020), negative parameters are observed for ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, statins, antiplatelet, antithrombotics, ARBs, loop diuretics, doxazosin, bendroflumethiazide, nitrates and indapamide, indicating decelerating monthly prescription items (statistically significant declines of calcium channel blockers, antithrombotic, adrenoreceptor blockers and diuretics) of CVD medicines within the general population. Many data points are not statistically significant, but fluctuations remain clinically important for the large population of patients taking these medications. CONCLUSION: A concerning decline in uptake of CVD therapies for chronic heart disease was observed. Accessible screening and treatment alongside financial relief on prescription levies are needed. A video abstract is (4 min 51 s) available: https://bit.ly/39gvEHi.

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

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 November 2020 and 2 October 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 -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, 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.

Trends and concerns of potentially inappropriate medication use in patients with cardiovascular diseases.

Introduction: The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) is an alarming social risk factor in cardiovascular patients. PIM administration may result in iatrogenic disorders and adverse consequences may be attenuated by limiting PIM intake.Areas covered: The goal of this review article is to discuss the trends, risks, and concerns regarding PIM administration with focus on cardiovascular patients. To find data, we searched literature using electronic databases (Pubmed/Medline 1966-2021 and Web of Science 1975-2021). The data search terms were cardiovascular diseases, potentially inappropriate medication, potentially harmful drug-drug combination, potentially harmful drug-disease combination, drug interaction, deprescribing, and electronic health record.Expert opinion: Drugs for heart diseases are the most commonly prescribed medications in older individuals. Despite the availability of explicit and implicit PIM criteria, the incidence of PIM use in cardiovascular patients remains high ranging from 7 to 85% in different patient categories. Physician-induced disorders often occur when PIM is administered and adverse effects may be reduced by limiting PIM intake. Main strategies promising for addressing PIM use include deprescribing, implementation of systematic electronic records, pharmacist medication review, and collaboration among cardiologists, internists, geriatricians, clinical pharmacologists, pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals as basis of multidisciplinary assessment teams.

Adverse effects, pharmacological interactions, and cardiovascular drugs in COVID-19 treatment.

In severe coronavirus disease (COVID)-19 patients, an extraordinary systemic inflammatory response is seen. It could impact in multiple organ disorders, specially a severe myocardial injury, an acute myocarditis results in focal or global myocardial inflammation and necrosis. Those events can be present in healthy subjects or cardiovascular (CV) patients. It is clinically associated with ventricular dysfunction exacerbation or worsening and tachyarrhythmias. It is also related to a poor outcome for CV patients with ischemic heart disease, hypertensión, and heart failure. COVID-19 patients require multiple and complex treatment that alleviates symptoms, the vast variety of agents interacts with diseases and CV drugs. Our purpose is to correlate in guidance synopsis: Adverse effects, pharmacological interactions, and CV drugs in COVID-19 treatment.

En pacientes con COVID-19 grave se ha observado una extraordinaria respuesta inflamatoria sistémica. Este impacto se traduce en múltiples trastornos de órganos, especialmente cardíacos, por lesión miocárdica grave, miocarditis aguda que resulta en inflamación focal o miocárdica global, necrosis cardiaca. Estos tremendos eventos son observados en sujetos sanos como pacientes cardiovasculares. Clínicamente asociados con nueva presentación o empeoramiento de la disfunción ventricular y taquiarritmias. Relacionado a un predictor principal de malos resultado en pacientes cardiovasculares (CV), especialmente en aquellos con cardiopatía isquémica, hipertensión e insuficiencia cardíaca. Los enfermos con COVID-19 requieren múltiples y complejos tratamientos que alivien los síntomas, esta gran variedad de agentes interactúa con enfermedades y medicamentos CV. Nuestro propósito es correlacionar, en una guía sinóptica: efectos adversos, interacciones farmacológicas y fármacos cardiovasculares en el tratamiento del COVID-19.

Clinical Course of 195 Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) outbreak has spread around the world. However, the dynamic course of critically ill COVID-19 has not been described thoroughly. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 195 critically ill COVID-19 patients in Hubei province, China, between January 5, 2020 and April 3, 2020. Epidemiologic data, clinical features, treatments, and outcomes were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Most critically ill patients were older with higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores. After critical illness onset, a total of 181 (92.8%) patients received ventilation support, of which 84 (43.1%) received noninvasive and 97 (49.7%) received invasive mechanic ventilation (IMV). Among the 97 patients with IMV, 28 (28.9%) received prone ventilation, 57 (58.8%) received neuromuscular blocked therapy, and 22 (11.3%) received tracheostomy due to prolonged ventilator use. Early hypoxemia, subsequent hypercapnia, pulmonary hypertension, and finally pulmonary fibrosis were notable in the clinical course of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Eighty-nine (45.6%) patients presented with shock. Acute kidney injury (29.7%) and secondary infection (28.2%) were also notable. The overall mortality of critically ill patients at day 28 was 42.1%. Intensive care unit (ICU) mortality was around 33%, as 16 patients died prior to ICU admission. A low PaO2/FiO2 ratio was an independent risk factor for death. High viral load was observed in most non-survivors. CONCLUSION: ARDS and shock were notable in the critical illness of COVID-19. Ventilation support and hemodynamic support were the cornerstones for critical care. High viral load was associated with death of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Recommendations for Cardiovascular Prevention During the Sars-Cov-2 Pandemic: An Executive Document by the Board of the Italian Society of Cardiovascular Prevention.

In 2020, the Sars-Cov-2 pandemic is causing a huge and dramatic impact on healthcare systems worldwide. During this emergency, fragile patients suffering from other comorbidities, especially patients susceptible to or affected by cardiovascular disease, are the ones most exposed to the poorer outcomes. Therefore, it is still mandatory to continue to strictly adhere to the rules of cardiovascular prevention. This document aims to provide all doctors with simple and clear recommendations in order to spread useful messages to the widest number of subjects in order to continue the battle against cardiovascular diseases even in times of pandemic.

COVID-19: A Concern for Cardiovascular Disease Patients.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is declared as a pandemic that has spread worldwide, affecting 205 countries. The disease affected 1, 40, 43, 176 individuals and caused 5, 97, 583 deaths around the globe. The organism responsible for the cause of disease is Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). SARS-CoV-2 enters into the cell via receptors present on the cell surface named angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor. Notwithstanding ACE2 receptors acts as a gateway for infection, and most of the cardiovascular patients are treated with the ACE inhibitors. Thus, the role of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers may play a critical role in the severity or outcome of disease. Also, the effect of ACE inhibitors varies with the polymorphism in ACE2 receptors present in the individuals. Hence, it is the need of the hour to investigate the mechanisms which could better aid in the treatment of COVID-19-infected cardiovascular disease (CVD) patients.

Impact of public health emergency response to COVID-19 on management and outcome for NSTEMI patients in Beijing: A single-center historic control.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic, reducing the number of invasive procedure and choosing conservative medication strategy for patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is unavoidable. Whether this relatively conservative strategy will impact in-hospital outcome for NSTEMI patients remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: The current study included all consecutive NSTEMI patients who visited the emergency department in Fuwai Hospital from February 1 to March 31, 2020 and all the NSTEMI patients in the same period of 2019 as a historical control. Very-high-risk patients were defined as clinical presentation of heart failure, cardiac shock, cardiac arrest, recurrent chest pain, and life-threatening arrhythmias. The primary outcome was in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or heart failure. A total of 115 NSTEMI patients were enrolled since the outbreak of COVID-19, and a total of 145 patients were included in the control group. There was a tendency toward higher MACE risk in 2020 compared with 2019 (18.3% vs. 11.7%, p = .14). Among very-high-risk patients, early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategy in 2019 was associated with reduced MACE risk compared with delayed PCI in 2020 (60.6% [20/33] in 2020 vs. 27.9% [12/43] in 2019, p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 pandemic results in a significant reduction in immediate/early PCI and a trend toward higher adverse event rate during hospitalization, particular in very-high-risk patients.