Residual ground glass opacities three months after Covid-19 pneumonia correlate to alteration of respiratory function: The post Covid M3 study.

INTRODUCTION: Lung function in survivors of SARS-Co-V2 pneumonia is poorly known, but concern over the possibility of sequelae exists. METHODS: Retrospective study on survivors with confirmed infection and pneumonia on chest-CT. Correlations between PFT and residual radiologic anomalies at three months taking into account initial clinical and radiological severity and steroid use during acute phase. RESULTS: 137 patients (69 men, median age 59 (Q1 50; Q3 68), BMI 27.5 kg/m2 (25.1; 31.7)) were assessed. Only 32.9% had normal PFT, 75 had altered DLCO. Median (Q1; Q3) values were: VC 79 (66; 92) % pred, FEV1 81 (68; 89), TLC 78 (67; 85), DLCO 60 (44; 72), and KCO 89 (77; 105). Ground glass opacities (GGO) were present in 103 patients (75%), reticulations in 42 (30%), and fibrosis in 18 (13%). There were significantly lower FEV1 (p = 0.0089), FVC (p = 0.0010), TLC (p < 0.0001) and DLCO (p < 0.0001) for patients with GGO, lower TLC (p = 0.0913) and DLCO (p = 0.0181) between patients with reticulations and lower FVC (p = 0.0618), TLC (p = 0.0742) DLCO (p = 0.002) and KCO (p = 0.0114) between patients with fibrosis. Patients with initial ≥50% lung involvement had significantly lower FEV1 (p = 0.0019), FVC (p = 0.0033), TLC (p = 0.0028) and DLCO (p = 0.0003) compared to patients with ≤10%. There was no difference in PFT and residual CT lesions between patients who received steroids and those who did not. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients have altered PFT at three months, even in patients with mild initial disease, with significantly lower function in patients with residual CT lesions. Steroids do not seem to modify functional and radiological recovery. Long-term follow-up is needed.

Chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers and mortality in COVID-19: A multicenter prospective cohort and literature review.

AIMS: The role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers on the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is debated. We assessed the association between chronic use of RAAS blockers and mortality among inpatients with COVID-19 and explored reasons for discrepancies in the literature. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included adult hypertensive patients from a prospective nationwide cohort of 3512 inpatients with COVID-19 up to June 30, 2020. Cox proportional hazard models with various adjustment or propensity weighting methods were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HR) of 30-day mortality for chronic users versus non-users of RAAS blockers. We analyzed data of 1160 hypertensive patients: 719 (62%) were male and 777 (67%) were older than 65 years. The main comorbidities were diabetes (n = 416, 36%), chronic cardiac disease (n = 401, 35%), and obesity (n = 340, 29%); 705 (61%) received oxygen therapy. We recorded 135 (11.6%) deaths within 30 days of diagnosis. We found no association between chronic use of RAAS blockers and mortality (unadjusted HR = 1.13, 95% CI [0.8-1.6]; propensity inverse probability treatment weighted HR = 1.09 [0.86-1.39]; propensity standardized mortality ratio weighted HR = 1.08 [0.79-1.47]). Our comprehensive review of previous studies highlighted that significant associations were mostly found in unrestricted populations with inappropriate adjustment, or with biased in-hospital exposure measurement. CONCLUSION: Our results do not support previous concerns regarding these drugs, nor a potential protective effect as reported in previous poorly designed studies and meta-analyses. RAAS blockers should not be discontinued during the pandemic, while in-hospital management of these drugs will be clarified by randomized trials. NCT04262921.

Controversial Roles of the Renin Angiotensin System and Its Modulators During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Since December 2019, the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rapidly spread and overwhelmed healthcare systems worldwide, urging physicians to understand how to manage this novel infection. Early in the pandemic, more severe forms of COVID-19 have been observed in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, who are often treated with renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS)-blockers, such as angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but whether these are indeed independent risk factors is unknown. The cellular receptor for the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the membrane-bound angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), as for SARS-CoV(-1). Experimental data suggest that expression of ACE2 may be increased by RAAS-blockers, raising concerns that these drugs may facilitate viral cell entry. On the other hand, ACE2 is a key counter-regulator of the RAAS, by degrading angiotensin II into angiotensin (1-7), and may thereby mediate beneficial effects in COVID-19. These considerations have raised concerns about the management of these drugs, and early comments shed vivid controversy among physicians. This review will describe the homeostatic balance between ACE-angiotensin II and ACE2-angiotensin (1-7) and summarize the pathophysiological rationale underlying the debated role of the RAAS and its modulators in the context of the pandemic. In addition, we will review available evidence investigating the impact of RAAS blockers on the course and prognosis of COVID-19 and discuss why retrospective observational studies should be interpreted with caution. These considerations highlight the importance of solid evidence-based data in order to guide physicians in the management of RAAS-interfering drugs in the general population as well as in patients with more or less severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Association between renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers and outcome in coronavirus disease 2019: analysing in-hospital exposure generates a biased seemingly protective effect of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The role of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a matter of controversies. Studies based on in-hospital exposure have suggested a beneficial effect of these drugs, unlike those based on chronic exposure. We aimed to analyse RAAS blocker prescription before and during hospital stay in patients with COVID-19, and the corresponding outcomes, to explain these discrepant results. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study conducted in 347 patients hospitalized for COVID-19 (Bichat Hospital, Paris, France, 23 January-29 April 2020), RAAS blocker exposure, as well as timing and reason for treatment modifications, were collected. The association between exposure and mortality within 30 days of hospital admission was analysed using logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Median age was 61 [interquartile range, 51-72] years, 209 (60%) were male, 169 (49%) had a history of treated hypertension, and 117 (34%) received a RAAS blocker prior to hospitalization. RAAS blockers were discontinued within the first 7 days of hospital admission in 33% of previously treated patients (mostly driven by severity of the disease), with a corresponding mortality rate of 33%. Mortality was 8% when treatment was maintained or introduced, and 12% in patients never exposed. Adjusted odds ratios for association between exposure and mortality were 0.62 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.48) based on chronic exposure and 0.25 (0.09-0.65) based on in-hospital exposure. CONCLUSION: A 'healthy user-sick stopper' bias influences RAAS blocker prescription after hospital admission for COVID-19, and explains the seemingly favourable outcome associated with in-hospital treatment.