Disruption in Blood Pressure Control With the COVID-19 Pandemic: The PCORnet Blood Pressure Control Laboratory.

OBJECTIVE: To explore trends in blood pressure (BP) control before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Health systems participating in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Blood Pressure Control Laboratory Surveillance System responded to data queries, producing 9 BP control metrics. Averages of the BP control metrics (weighted by numbers of observations in each health system) were calculated and compared between two 1-year measurement periods (January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, and January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2020). RESULTS: Among 1,770,547 hypertensive persons in 2019, BP control to <140/<90 mm Hg varied across 24 health systems (range, 46%-74%). Reduced BP control occurred in most health systems with onset of the COVID-19 pandemic; the weighted average BP control was 60.5% in 2019 and 53.3% in 2020. Reductions were also evident for BP control to <130/<80 mm Hg (29.9% in 2019 and 25.4% in 2020) and improvement in BP (reduction of 10 mm Hg in systolic BP or achievement of systolic BP <140 mm Hg; 29.7% in 2019 and 23.8% in 2020). Two BP control process metrics exhibited pandemic-associated disruption: repeat visit in 4 weeks after a visit with uncontrolled hypertension (36.7% in 2019 and 31.7% in 2020) and prescription of fixed-dose combination medications among those with 2 or more drug classes (24.6% in 2019 and 21.5% in 2020). CONCLUSION: BP control decreased substantially during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a corresponding reduction in follow-up health care visits among persons with uncontrolled hypertension. It is unclear whether the observed decline in BP control during the pandemic will contribute to future cardiovascular events.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and COVID-19-related outcomes: A patient-level analysis of the PCORnet blood pressure control lab.

SARS-CoV-2 accesses host cells via angiotensin-converting enzyme-2, which is also affected by commonly used angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), raising concerns that ACEI or ARB exposure may portend differential COVID-19 outcomes. In parallel cohort studies of outpatient and inpatient COVID-19-diagnosed adults with hypertension, we assessed associations between antihypertensive exposure (ACEI/ARB vs. non-ACEI/ARB antihypertensives, as well as between ACEI- vs. ARB) at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis, using electronic health record data from PCORnet health systems. The primary outcomes were all-cause hospitalization or death (outpatient cohort) or all-cause death (inpatient), analyzed via Cox regression weighted by inverse probability of treatment weights. From February 2020 through December 9, 2020, 11,246 patients (3477 person-years) and 2200 patients (777 person-years) were included from 17 health systems in outpatient and inpatient cohorts, respectively. There were 1015 all-cause hospitalization or deaths in the outpatient cohort (incidence, 29.2 events per 100 person-years), with no significant difference by ACEI/ARB use (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.88, 1.15). In the inpatient cohort, there were 218 all-cause deaths (incidence, 28.1 per 100 person-years) and ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with reduced death (adjusted HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.57, 0.99). ACEI, versus ARB exposure, was associated with higher risk of hospitalization in the outpatient cohort, but no difference in all-cause death in either cohort. There was no evidence of effect modification across pre-specified baseline characteristics. Our results suggest ACEI and ARB exposure have no detrimental effect on hospitalizations and may reduce death among hypertensive patients diagnosed with COVID-19.

Divergent Trends in Emergency Department Presentations Amid the Novel Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in Chicago, Illinois.

Excess deaths during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have been largely attributed to cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, patterns in CVD hospitalizations after the first surge of the pandemic have not well-documented. Our brief report, examining trends in health care avoidance documents that CVD hospitalizations decreased in Chicago before significant burden of COVID-19 cases or deaths and normalized during the first COVID-19 surge. These data may help to inform health care systems responses in the coming months while mobilizing vaccinations to the population at large.

Angiotensin II receptor blocker or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor use and COVID-19-related outcomes among US Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) may positively or negatively impact outcomes in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We investigated the association of ARB or ACEI use with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes in US Veterans with treated hypertension using an active comparator design, appropriate covariate adjustment, and negative control analyses. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this retrospective cohort study of Veterans with treated hypertension in the Veterans Health Administration (01/19/2020-08/28/2020), we compared users of (A) ARB/ACEI vs. non-ARB/ACEI (excluding Veterans with compelling indications to reduce confounding by indication) and (B) ARB vs. ACEI among (1) SARS-CoV-2+ outpatients and (2) COVID-19 hospitalized inpatients. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization or mortality (outpatients) and all-cause mortality (inpatients). We estimated hazard ratios (HR) using propensity score-weighted Cox regression. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between exposure groups after weighting. Among outpatients, there were 5.0 and 6.0 primary outcomes per 100 person-months for ARB/ACEI (n = 2,482) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 2,487) users (HR 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73-0.99, median follow-up 87 days). Among outpatients who were ARB (n = 4,877) vs. ACEI (n = 8,704) users, there were 13.2 and 14.8 primary outcomes per 100 person-months (HR 0.91, 95%CI 0.86-0.97, median follow-up 85 days). Among inpatients who were ARB/ACEI (n = 210) vs. non-ARB/ACEI (n = 275) users, there were 3.4 and 2.0 all-cause deaths per 100 person months (HR 1.25, 95%CI 0.30-5.13, median follow-up 30 days). Among inpatients, ARB (n = 1,164) and ACEI (n = 2,014) users had 21.0 vs. 17.7 all-cause deaths, per 100 person-months (HR 1.13, 95%CI 0.93-1.38, median follow-up 30 days). CONCLUSIONS: This observational analysis supports continued ARB or ACEI use for patients already using these medications before SARS-CoV-2 infection. The novel beneficial association observed among outpatients between users of ARBs vs. ACEIs on hospitalization or mortality should be confirmed with randomized trials.

A predictive tool for identification of SARS-CoV-2 PCR-negative emergency department patients using routine test results.

BACKGROUND: Testing for COVID-19 remains limited in the United States and across the world. Poor allocation of limited testing resources leads to misutilization of health system resources, which complementary rapid testing tools could ameliorate. OBJECTIVE: To predict SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity based on complete blood count components and patient sex. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case-control design for collection of data and a logistic regression prediction model was used. Participants were emergency department patients > 18 years old who had concurrent complete blood counts and SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. 33 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive and 357 negative patients at Stanford Health Care were used for model training. Validation cohorts consisted of emergency department patients > 18 years old who had concurrent complete blood counts and SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing in Northern California (41 PCR positive, 495 PCR negative), Seattle, Washington (40 PCR positive, 306 PCR negative), Chicago, Illinois (245 PCR positive, 1015 PCR negative), and South Korea (9 PCR positive, 236 PCR negative). RESULTS: A decision support tool that utilizes components of complete blood count and patient sex for prediction of SARS-CoV-2 PCR positivity demonstrated a C-statistic of 78 %, an optimized sensitivity of 93 %, and generalizability to other emergency department populations. By restricting PCR testing to predicted positive patients in a hypothetical scenario of 1000 patients requiring testing but testing resources limited to 60 % of patients, this tool would allow a 33 % increase in properly allocated resources. CONCLUSIONS: A prediction tool based on complete blood count results can better allocate SARS-CoV-2 testing and other health care resources such as personal protective equipment during a pandemic surge.