Neither ACEIs nor ARBs are associated with respiratory distress or mortality in COVID-19 results of a prospective study on a hospital-based cohort.

Considerable concern has emerged for the potential harm in the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor inhibitors (ARBs) in COVID-19 patients, given that ACEIs and ARBs may increase the expression of ACE2 receptors that represent the way for coronavirus 2 to entry into the cell and cause severe acute respiratory syndrome. Assess the effect of ACEI/ARBs on outcome in COVID-19 patients. Hospital-based prospective study. A total of 431 patients consecutively presenting at the Emergency Department and found to be affected by COVID-19 were assessed. Relevant clinical and laboratory variables were recorded, focusing on the type of current anti hypertensive treatment. Outcome variables were NO, MILD, SEVERE respiratory distress (RD) operationally defined and DEATH. Hypertension was the single most frequent comorbidity (221/431 = 51%). Distribution of antihypertensive treatment was: ACEIs 77/221 (35%), ARBs 63/221 (28%), OTHER than ACEIs or ARBs 64/221 (29%). In 17/221 (8%) antihypertensive medication was unknown. The proportion of patients taking ACEIs, ARBs or OTHERs who developed MILD or SEVERE RD was 43/77 (56%), 33/53 (52%), 39/64 (61%) and 19/77 (25%), 16/63 (25%) and 16/64 (25%), respectively, with no statistical difference between groups. Despite producing a RR for SEVERE RD of 2.59 (95% CI 1.93-3.49), hypertension was no longer significant in a logistic regression analysis that identified age, CRP and creatinine as the sole independent predictors of SEVERE RD and DEATH. ACEIs and ARBs do not promote a more severe outcome of COVID-19. There is no reason why they should be withheld in affected patients.

Ig-like ACE2 protein therapeutics: A revival in development during the COVID-19 pandemic.

While the potential therapeutic utility of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is well established, the clinical development of ACE2 drugs has been limited, likely due in part to the short half-life of the protein. In contrast, Ig-like ACE2 fusion proteins have exhibited greatly extended plasma half-life in vivo, and they have been shown to have a potent neutralization effect against SARS-CoV-2. Clinical investigation of Ig-like ACE2 fusion proteins as COVID-19 interventions is thus warranted.

Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 Infection Taking ACEI/ARB.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the virus responsible for the aggressive coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Recently, investigators have stipulated that COVID-19 patients receiving angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) may be subject to poorer outcomes. This editorial presents the available evidence to guide treatment practices during this pandemic. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies from Wuhan cohorts provide valuable information about COVID-19. A cohort with 52 critically ill patients revealed cardiac injury in 12% of patients. Worse outcomes appear to be more prevalent in patients with hypertension and diabetes mellitus (DM), possibly due to overexpression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor in airway alveolar epithelial cells. Investigators suspect that SARS-CoV-2 uses the ACE2 receptor to enter the lungs in a mechanism similar to SARS-CoV. Several hypotheses have been proposed to date regarding the net effect of ACEI/ARB on COVID-19 infections. Positive effects include ACE2 receptor blockade, disabling viral entry into the heart and lungs, and an overall decrease in inflammation secondary to ACEI/ARB. Negative effects include a possible retrograde feedback mechanism, by which ACE2 receptors are upregulated. Even though physiological models of SARS-CoV infection show a theoretical benefit of ACEI/ARB, these findings cannot be extrapolated to SARS-CoV-2 causing COVID-19. Major cardiology scientific associations, including ACC, HFSA, AHA, and ESC Hypertension Council, have rejected these correlation hypotheses. After an extensive literature review, we conclude that there is no significant evidence to support an association for now, but given the rapid evolvement of this pandemic, findings may change.