Dataset Information

Discontinuing vs continuing ACEIs and ARBs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity: Insights from the BRACE CORONA trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We explored the effect of discontinuing versus continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 according to baseline disease severity.

Methods

We randomized 659 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and classified them as having mild or moderate COVID-19 disease severity at hospital presentation using blood oxygen saturation and lung imaging. The primary outcome was the mean ratio of number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days according to disease severity.

Results

At presentation, 376 patients (57.1%) had mild and 283 (42.9%) had moderate COVID-19. In patients with mild disease, there was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital between ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 23.5 [SD 6.3] days) and continuation (mean 23.8 [SD 6.5] days), with a mean ratio of 0.98 (95% CI 0.92-1.04). However, in patients with moderate disease, there were fewer days alive and out of the hospital with ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 19.6 [SD 9.5] days) than continuation (mean 21.6 [SD 7.6] days), with a mean ratio of 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00; P-interaction = .01). The impact of discontinuing versus continuing ACEIs/ARBs on days alive and out of hospital through 30 days differed according to baseline COVID-19 disease severity.

Conclusions

Unlike patients with mild disease, patients with moderate disease who continued ACEIs/ARBs had more days alive and out of hospital through 30 days than those who discontinued ACEIs/ARBs. This suggests that ACEIs/ARBs should be continued for patients with moderate COVID-19 disease severity.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04364893).

SUBMITTER: Macedo AVS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8993458 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Discontinuing vs continuing ACEIs and ARBs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity: Insights from the BRACE CORONA trial.

Macedo Ariane Vieira Scarlatelli AVS de Barros E Silva Pedro Gabriel Melo PGM de Paula Thiago Ceccatto TC Moll-Bernardes Renata Junqueira RJ Mendonça Dos Santos Tiago T Mazza Lilian L Feldman Andre A Arruda Guilherme D Andréa Saba GDAS de Albuquerque Denílson Campos DC de Sousa Andrea Silvestre AS de Souza Olga Ferreira OF Gibson C Michael CM Granger Christopher B CB Alexander John H JH Lopes Renato D RD

American heart journal 20220408

<h4>Background</h4>We explored the effect of discontinuing versus continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 according to baseline disease severity.<h4>Methods</h4>We randomized 659 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and classified them as having mild or moderate COVID-19 disease severity at hospital presentation using blood oxygen saturation and lung imaging. The primary outc ...[more]

PMID: 35405099

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors ("statins") have been hypothesized to affect COVID-19 severity. However, up to now, no studies investigating this association have been conducted in the most vulnerable and affected population groups (ie, older adults residing in nursing homes). The objective of this study was to explore the association of ACEi/ARB and/or statins with clinical manifestations in COVID-19-infected older adults residing in nursing homes.DesignWe undertook a retrospective multicenter cohort study to analyze the association between ACEi/ARB and/or statin use with clinical outcome of COVID-19. The outcomes were (1) serious COVID-19 defined as long-stay hospital admission or death within 14 days of disease onset, and (2) asymptomatic (ie, no disease symptoms in the whole study period while still being diagnosed by polymerase chain reaction).Setting and participantsA total of 154 COVID-19-positive subjects were identified, residing in 1 of 2 Belgian nursing homes that experienced similar COVID-19 outbreaks.MeasuresLogistic regression models were applied with age, sex, functional status, diabetes, and hypertension as covariates.ResultsWe found a statistically significant association between statin intake and the absence of symptoms during COVID-19 (odds ratio [OR] 2.91; confidence interval [CI] 1.27-6.71), which remained statistically significant after adjusting for covariates (OR 2.65; CI 1.13-6.68). Although the effects of statin intake on serious clinical outcome were in the same beneficial direction, these were not statistically significant (OR 0.75; CI 0.24-1.87). There was also no statistically significant association between ACEi/ARB and asymptomatic status (OR 2.72; CI 0.59-25.1) or serious clinical outcome (OR 0.48; CI 0.10-1.97).Conclusions and implicationsOur data indicate that statin intake in older, frail adults could be associated with a considerable beneficial effect on COVID-19 clinical symptoms. The role of statins and renin-angiotensin system drugs needs to be further explored in larger observational studies as well as randomized clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension and diabetes mellitus are independent risk factors for cardiovascular diseases. Due to the cardioprotective nature of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), they are recommended for patients with comorbid hypertension and diabetes. However, poor adherence to ACEIs/ARBs among older adults is a major public health concern. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a telephonic motivational interviewing (MI) intervention conducted by pharmacy students among a nonadherent older population (≥ 65 years old) with diabetes and hypertension.MethodsPatients continuously enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan who received an ACEI/ARB prescription between July 2017 and December 2017 were identified. Group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM) was used to identify distinct patterns of ACEI/ARB adherence during the 1-year baseline period: adherent, gaps in adherence, gradual decline, and rapid decline in adherence. Patients from the three nonadherent trajectories were randomized into MI intervention or control group. The intervention consisted of an initial call and five follow-up calls administered by MI-trained pharmacy students and tailored to the baseline ACEI/ARB adherence trajectories. The primary outcome was adherence to ACEI/ARB during the 6- and 12-month periods post-MI implementation. The secondary outcome was discontinuation, defined as no refills for ACEI/ARB during the 6- and 12-month periods post-MI implementation. Multivariable regression analyses examined the impact of MI intervention on ACEI/ARB adherence and discontinuation while adjusting for baseline covariates.ResultsA total of 240 patients in the intervention group and 480 patients as randomly selected controls were included in this study. At 6 months, patients receiving the MI intervention had significantly better adherence (β = 0.06; p = 0.03) compared with the controls. Linear and logistic regression models also showed patients in the intervention group were more likely to be adherent than controls within 12 months of intervention implementation (β = 0.06; p = 0.02 and OR: 1.46; 95% CI 1.05-2.04, respectively). MI intervention did not have any significant impact on the ACEI/ARB discontinuation.ConclusionPatients who received the MI intervention were more likely to be adherent at 6 and 12 months following the intervention initiation, despite gaps in the follow-up calls due to COVID-19. Pharmacist-led MI intervention is an effective behavioral strategy to improve medication adherence among older adults and tailoring the intervention to past adherence patterns may enhance the intervention effectiveness. This study was registered with the United States National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03985098).

Project description:ObjectivesThe widespread use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) by patients with chronic conditions raised early concerns on the potential exacerbation of COVID-19 severity and fatality. Previous studies addressing this question have used standard methods that may lead to biased estimates when analysing hospital data because of the presence of competing events and event-related dependency. We investigated the association of ACEIs/ARBs' use with COVID-19 disease outcomes using time-to-event data in a multistate setting to account for competing events and minimise bias.SettingNationwide surveillance data from 119 Belgian hospitals.ParticipantsMedical records of 10 866 patients hospitalised from 14 March 2020to 14 June 2020 with a confirmed SARS-CoV-19 infection and information about ACEIs/ARBs' use.Primary outcome measureMultistate, multivariate Cox-Markov models were used to estimate the hazards of patients transitioning through health states from admission to discharge or death, along with transition probabilities calculated by combining the baseline cumulative hazard and regression coefficients.ResultsAfter accounting for potential confounders, there was no discernable association between ACEIs/ARBs' use and transfer to intensive care unit (ICU). Contrastingly, for patients without ICU transfer, ACEIs/ARBs' use was associated with a modest increase in recovery (HR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13, p=0.027) and reduction in fatality (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.93, p=0.001) transitions. For patients transferred to ICU admission, no evidence of an association between ACEIs/ARBs' use and recovery (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.38, p=0.098) or in-hospital death (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, p=0.381) was observed. Male gender and older age were significantly associated with higher risk of ICU admission or death. Chronic cardiometabolic comorbidities were also associated with less recovery.ConclusionsFor the first time, a multistate model was used to address magnitude and direction of the association of ACEIs/ARBs' use on COVID-19 progression. By minimising bias, this study provided a robust indication of a protective, although modest, association with recovery and survival.

Project description:ImportanceAs US hospital expenditures continue to rise, understanding drivers of high-severity billing for hospitalized patients among inpatient physicians is critically important.ObjectiveTo evaluate high-severity billing trends of Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.Design setting and participantsThis cohort study used Medicare fee-for-service claims of hospitalized patients from 2009 through 2018 to compare the proportion of high-severity billing between general medicine physicians classified as hospitalists vs nonhospitalists across initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters. We compared physicians within the same hospital using hospital fixed effects and adjusted for patient demographics and comorbidities. Changes in the billing practices were assessed by investigating differences in slopes using an interaction term between physician type and time. Analyses were conducted between August 2021 and January 2022.ExposuresTreatment by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists.Main outcomes and measuresHigh-severity billing for initial, subsequent, and discharge hospital encounters.ResultsThe sample included 3 121 260 and 1 855 678 Medicare beneficiaries treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists, respectively. In each year, mean age, proportion female, proportion Black and Hispanic dual status, and mean number of chronic conditions were similar among those treated by hospitalists vs nonhospitalists (standardized mean difference < .01). The number of hospitalists grew by 76%, from 23 390 in 2009 to 41 084 in 2018, whereas nonhospitalists decreased by 43.6% (53 758 to 30 289). The proportion of encounters performed by hospitalists increased for the initial hospital encounters (46.3% to 76%), subsequent encounters (46.8% to 76.7%), and discharge encounters (46.1% to 78.5%) over the 10-year period. The proportion of high-severity billing across the hospital, subsequent, and discharge encounters was consistently higher among hospitalists relative to nonhospitalists across all years. Compared with the trends for nonhospitalists, the proportion of high-severity billing grew by 0.46% per year (95% CI, 0.44% to 0.49%; P < .001) for initial encounters, 0.38% per year (95% CI, 0.37% to 0.39%; P < .001) for subsequent encounters, and by 1.1% per year (95% CI, 1.1% to 1.15%; P < .001) for discharge encounters among hospitalists.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries treated in hospitals, high-severity billing increased over time for hospital encounters at higher rates for hospitalists than for nonhospitalists. These differences do not appear to be explained by patient complexity. The increase in the number of hospitalists over time may be contributing to rising national costs related to hospital care.

Dataset Information

Discontinuing vs continuing ACEIs and ARBs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity: Insights from the BRACE CORONA trial.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Clinical trial registration

Publications

Discontinuing vs continuing ACEIs and ARBs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity: Insights from the BRACE CORONA trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets