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.

The Surgical Optimal Mobility Score predicts mortality and length of stay in an Italian population of medical, surgical, and neurologic intensive care unit patients.

PURPOSE: We validated the Italian version of Surgical Optimal Mobility Score (SOMS) and evaluated its ability to predict intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), and hospital mortality in a mixed population of ICU patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We applied the Italian version of SOMS in a consecutive series of prospectively enrolled, adult ICU patients. Surgical Optimal Mobility Score level was assessed twice a day by ICU nurses and twice a week by an expert mobility team. Zero-truncated Poisson regression was used to identify predictors for ICU and hospital LOS, and logistic regression for hospital mortality. All models were adjusted for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 98 patients recruited, 19 (19.4%) died in hospital, of whom 17 without and 2 with improved mobility level achieved during the ICU stay. SOMS improvement was independently associated with lower hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.42) but increased hospital LOS (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% CI: 1.10-1.33). A higher first-morning SOMS on ICU admission, indicating better mobility, was associated with lower ICU and hospital LOS (rate ratios, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.80-0.99] and 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79-0.89], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The first-morning SOMS on ICU admission predicted ICU and hospital LOS in a mixed population of ICU patients. SOMS improvement was associated with reduced hospital mortality but increased hospital LOS, suggesting the need of optimizing hospital trajectories after ICU discharge.