Sex-Based Differences in Severe Outcomes, Including Cardiovascular Hospitalization, in Adults With COVID-19 in Ontario, Canada.

Background: While men have experienced higher risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to women, an analysis of sex differences by age in severe outcomes during the acute phase of infection is lacking. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess heterogeneity in severe outcome risks by age and sex by conducting a retrospective cohort study of community-dwelling adults in Ontario who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 3 waves. Methods: Adjusted odds ratios were estimated using multilevel multivariable logistic regression models including an interaction term for age and sex. The primary outcome was a composite of severe outcomes (hospitalization for a cardiovascular (CV) event, intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, or death) within 30 days. Results: Among 30,736, 199,132, and 186,131 adults who tested positive during the first 3 waves, 1,908 (6.2%), 5,437 (2.7%), and 5,653 (3.0%) experienced a severe outcome within 30 days. For all outcomes, the sex-specific risk depended on age (all P for interaction <0.05). Men with SARS-CoV-2 infection experienced a higher risk of outcomes than infected women of the same age, except for the risk of all-cause hospitalization being higher for young women than men (ages 18-45 years) during waves 2 and 3. The sex disparity in CV hospitalization across all ages either persisted or increased with each subsequent wave. Conclusions: To mitigate risks in subsequent waves, it is helpful to further understand the factors that contribute to the generally higher risks faced by men across all ages, and the persistent or increasing sex disparity in the risk of CV hospitalization.

Clinical risk, sociodemographic factors, and SARS-CoV-2 infection over time in Ontario, Canada.

We aimed to determine whether early public health interventions in 2020 mitigated the association of sociodemographic and clinical risk factors with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We conducted a population-based cohort study of all adults in Ontario, Canada who underwent testing for SARS-CoV-2 through December 31, 2020. The outcome was laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction testing. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were determined for sociodemographic and clinical risk factors before and after the first-wave peak of the pandemic to assess for changes in effect sizes. Among 3,167,753 community-dwelling individuals, 142,814 (4.5%) tested positive. The association between age and SARS-CoV-2 infection risk varied over time (P-interaction < 0.0001). Prior to the first-wave peak, SARS-CoV-2 infection increased with age whereas this association reversed thereafter. Risk factors that persisted included male sex, residing in lower income neighborhoods, residing in more racially/ethnically diverse communities, immigration to Canada, hypertension, and diabetes. While there was a reduction in infection rates after mid-April 2020, there was less impact in regions with higher racial/ethnic diversity. Immediately following the initial peak, individuals living in the most racially/ethnically diverse communities with 2, 3, or ≥ 4 risk factors had ORs of 1.89, 3.07, and 4.73-fold higher for SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to lower risk individuals in their community (all P < 0.0001). In the latter half of 2020, this disparity persisted with corresponding ORs of 1.66, 2.48, and 3.70-fold higher, respectively. In the least racially/ethnically diverse communities, there was little/no gradient in infection rates across risk strata. Further efforts are necessary to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among the highest risk individuals residing in the most racially/ethnically diverse communities.

Reduction of dietary sodium to less than 100 mmol in heart failure (SODIUM-HF): an international, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dietary restriction of sodium has been suggested to prevent fluid overload and adverse outcomes for patients with heart failure. We designed the Study of Dietary Intervention under 100 mmol in Heart Failure (SODIUM-HF) to test whether or not a reduction in dietary sodium reduces the incidence of future clinical events. METHODS: SODIUM-HF is an international, open-label, randomised, controlled trial that enrolled patients at 26 sites in six countries (Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and New Zealand). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class 2-3), and receiving optimally tolerated guideline-directed medical treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), using a standard number generator and varying block sizes of two, four, or six, stratified by site, to either usual care according to local guidelines or a low sodium diet of less than 100 mmol (ie, <1500 mg/day). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular-related admission to hospital, cardiovascular-related emergency department visit, or all-cause death within 12 months in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all randomly assigned patients). Safety was assessed in the ITT population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02012179, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between March 24, 2014, and Dec 9, 2020, 806 patients were randomly assigned to a low sodium diet (n=397) or usual care (n=409). Median age was 67 years (IQR 58-74) and 268 (33%) were women and 538 (66%) were men. Between baseline and 12 months, the median sodium intake decreased from 2286 mg/day (IQR 1653-3005) to 1658 mg/day (1301-2189) in the low sodium group and from 2119 mg/day (1673-2804) to 2073 mg/day (1541-2900) in the usual care group. By 12 months, events comprising the primary outcome had occurred in 60 (15%) of 397 patients in the low sodium diet group and 70 (17%) of 409 in the usual care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·89 [95% CI 0·63-1·26]; p=0·53). All-cause death occurred in 22 (6%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 17 (4%) in the usual care group (HR 1·38 [0·73-2·60]; p=0·32), cardiovascular-related hospitalisation occurred in 40 (10%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 51 (12%) patients in the usual care group (HR 0·82 [0·54-1·24]; p=0·36), and cardiovascular-related emergency department visits occurred in 17 (4%) patients in the low sodium diet group and 15 (4%) patients in the usual care group (HR 1·21 [0·60-2·41]; p=0·60). No safety events related to the study treatment were reported in either group. INTERPRETATION: In ambulatory patients with heart failure, a dietary intervention to reduce sodium intake did not reduce clinical events. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the University Hospital Foundation, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Health Research Council of New Zealand.

A randomized controlled trial of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor management in patients admitted in hospital with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) are commonly used among patients hospitalized with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated whether continuation versus discontinuation of RAASi were associated with short term clinical or biochemical outcomes. METHODS: The RAAS-COVID-19 trial was a randomized, open label study in adult patients previously treated with RAASi who are hospitalized with COVID-19 (NCT04508985). Participants were randomized 1:1 to discontinue or continue RAASi. The primary outcome was a global rank score calculated from baseline to day 7 (or discharge) incorporating clinical events and biomarker changes. Global rank scores were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon test statistic and the negative binomial test (using incident rate ratio [IRR]) and the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Overall, 46 participants were enrolled; 21 participants were randomized to discontinue RAASi and 25 to continue. Patients' mean age was 71.5 years and 43.5% were female. Discontinuation of RAASi, versus continuation, resulted in a non-statistically different mean global rank score (discontinuation 6 [standard deviation [SD] 6.3] vs continuation 3.8 (SD 2.5); P = .60). The negative binomial analysis identified that discontinuation increased the risk of adverse outcomes (IRR 1.67 [95% CI 1.06-2.62]; P = .027); RAASi discontinuation increased brain natriuretic peptide levels (% change from baseline: +16.7% vs -27.5%; P = .024) and the incidence of acute heart failure (33% vs 4.2%, P = .016). CONCLUSION: RAASi continuation in participants hospitalized with COVID-19 appears safe; discontinuation increased brain natriuretic peptide levels and may increase risk of acute heart failure; where possible, RAASi should be continued.

Management of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System blockade in patients admitted to hospital with confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection (The McGill RAAS-COVID- 19): A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the RAAS-COVID-19 randomized control trial is to evaluate whether an upfront strategy of temporary discontinuation of renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibition versus continuation of RAAS inhibition among patients admitted with established COVID-19 infection has an impact on short term clinical and biomarker outcomes. We hypothesize that continuation of RAAS inhibition will be superior to temporary discontinuation with regards to the primary endpoint of a global rank sum score. The global rank sum score has been successfully used in previous cardiovascular clinical trials. TRIAL DESIGN: This is an open label parallel two arm (1,1 ratio) randomized control superiority trial of approximately 40 COVID-19 patients who are on chronic RAAS inhibitor therapy. PARTICIPANTS: Adults who are admitted to hospital within the McGill University Health Centre systems (MUHC) including Royal Victoria Hospital (RVH), Montreal General Hospital (MGH) and Jewish General Hospital (JGH) and who are within 96 hours of COVID-19 diagnosis (confirmed via PCR on any biological sample) will be considered for the trial. Of note, the initial protocol to screen and enrol within 48 hours of COVID-19 diagnosis was extended through an amendment, to 96 hours to increase feasibility. Participants have to be 18 years or older and would have to be on RAAS inhibitors for at least a month to be considered eligible for the study. Additionally, RAAS inhibitors should not have been held for more than 48 hours before randomization. A list of inclusion and exclusion criteria can be found in the full protocol document. In order to prevent heart failure exacerbation, patients with reduced ejection fraction were excluded from the trial. Once a patient is admitted on the ward with a diagnosis of COVID-19, we will confirm with the treating physician if the participant is suitable for the RAAS-COVID trial and meets all the inclusion and exclusion criteria. If the patient is eligible and informed consent has been obtained we will collect data on sex, age, ethnicity, past medical history and list of medications (e.g. other anti-hypertensives or anticoagulants), for further analysis. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: All the study participants will be randomized to a strategy of temporarily holding the RAAS inhibitor [intervention] versus continuing the RAAS inhibitor [continued standard of care]. Among participants who are randomized to the intervention arm, alternative guide-line directed anti-hypertensive medication will be provided to the treating physician team (detail in study protocol). In the intervention arm RAAS inhibitor will be withheld for a total of 7 days with the possibility of the withdrawn medication being initiated at any point after day 7 or on the day of discharge. The recommendation for re-initiating the withdrawn medication will be made to the treating physician. The re-initiation of these therapies are according to standard convention and follow-up as per Canadian guidelines. Additionally, the date of restarting the withdrawn medication or whether the medication was re-prescribed on discharge or not, will be collected. This will be used to conduct a sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, biomarkers such as troponin, c-reactive protein (CRP) and lymphocyte count will be assessed during the same time period. Samples will be collected on randomization, day 4 and day 7. MAIN OUTCOMES: PRIMARY ENDPOINT: In this study the primary end point is a global rank score calculated for all participants, regardless of treatment assignment ( score from 0 to 7). Please refer to table 4 in the full protocol. In the context of the current trial, it is estimated that death is the most meaningful endpoint, and therefore has the highest score ( score of 7). This is followed by admission to ICU, the need for mechanical ventilation etc. The lowest scores ( score of 1) are assigned to biomarker changes (e.g. change in troponin, change in CRP). This strategy has been used successfully in cardiovascular disease trials and therefore is applicable to the current trial. The primary endpoint for the present trial is assessed from baseline to day 7 (or discharge). Participants are ranked across the clinical and biomarker domains. Lower values indicate better health (or stability). Participants who died during the 7th day of the study will be ranked based on all events occurring before their death and also including the fatal event in the score. Next, participants who did not die but were transferred to ICU for invasive ventilation will be ranked based on all the events occurring before the ICU entry and also including the ICU admission in the score. Those participants who did not die were not transferred to ICU for invasive ventilation, will be ranked based on the subsequent outcomes. The mean rank score will then be compared between groups. In this scheme, a lower mean rank score indicates greater overall stability for participants. Secondary endpoints : The key secondary endpoints are the individual components of the primary components and include the following: death, transfer to ICU primarily for invasive ventilation, transfer to ICU for other indication, non-fatal MACE ( any of following, MI, stroke, acute HF, new onset Afib), length of stay > 4 days, development of acute kidney injury ( > 40% decline in eGFR or doubling of serum creatinine), urgent intravenous treatment for high blood pressure, 30% increase in baseline high sensitivity troponin, 30% increase in baseline BNP, increase in CRP to > 30% in 48 hours and lymphocyte count drop> 30%. We will also look at the World Health Organization (WHO) ordinal scale for clinical improvement (in COVID-19) in our data. In this scale death will be assigned the highest score of 8. Patients with no limitation of activity will be assigned a score of 1 which indicates overall more stability (3). Additionally, we will evaluate the potential effects of discontinuing RAAS inhibition on alternative schedules (longer/shorter than 7 days, intermittent discontinuation) using a mechanistic mathematical model of COVID-19 immunopathology calibrated to data collected from our patient cohort. In particular, we will assess the impact of alternative schedules on primary and secondary endpoints including increases to baseline CRP and lymphocyte counts. RANDOMIZATION: Participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Randomization will be performed within an electronic database system at the time of enrolment using a random number generator, an approach that has been successfully used in other clinical trials. Neither participant, study team, or treating team will be blinded to the intervention arm. BLINDING: This is an open label study with no blinding. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): The approximate number of participants required for this trial is 40 patients (randomized 1:1 to continuation versus discontinuation of RAAS inhibitors). This number was calculated based on previous rates of outcomes for COVID-19 in the literature (e.g. death, ICU transfer) and statistical power calculations. TRIAL STATUS: Protocol number: MP-37-2021-6641, Version 4: 01-10-2020. Trial start date September 1st 2020 and currently enrolling participants. Estimated end date for recruitment of participants : July 2021. Estimated end date for study completion: September 1st 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registration: ClincalTrials.gov : NCT04508985 , date of registration: August 11th , 2020 FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

Optimizing Access to Heart Failure Care in Canada During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The traditional model of heart failure (HF) care in Canada, which relies upon a multidisciplinary team and clinic-based care processes, has been undermined as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the pandemic continues, we will be challenged to improve or maintain the health status of those with HF by optimizing guideline-directed care despite physical distancing constraints and a reduction in the health care workforce. This will require development of new strategies specifically targeted at decreasing the risk of decompensation and resultant HF hospitalization. As such, we must quickly pivot to the adoption and application of novel technologies and revise usual care models, processes, and workflow. The unprecedented COVID-19 crisis has delivered the Canadian HF community a burning platform for the design and implementation of innovative approaches to support the vulnerable population we serve; born out of necessity, we now have the opportunity to explore innovative approaches that might inform the future of HF care delivery in Canada. Herein, we provide perspectives from leadership within the Canadian Heart Failure Society on how to optimize HF care during the COVID-19 pandemic.