Expression of Concern: Mehra MR et al. Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007621

Fake news and the seven sins of capital: a metaphorical analysis of vices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Health crises spawn "sins" and moral deformities in society that are evident when they emerge but had seemed to be dormant to collective awareness before. Through the metaphor of the seven capital sins, the article analyzes the phenomenon of fake news in the social media and in the scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic: the lust of sensationalism through the seduction and exploitation of vulnerabilities associated with fear of death; gluttony for confirmatory contents that spread untruths in the attempt to turn versions into facts; the catechism of denialism, fueling wrath or hate in restrictive epistemic environments; the greed of new technologies in the attention economy through engagement as a new commodity; competition for the spotlights of media visibility and derived gains that incite pride and envy in researchers that confuse public meaning with fake research, in a cycle that feeds sensationalism, gluttony, hate, and greed in attention capitalism. Finally, sloth is portrayed as the capital sin of opting for communicative inaction. In the comfort of bubbles, people renounce dialogue out of aversion to dissent, settling for positions of epistemic comfort. In short, the fake news phenomenon in the COVID-19 pandemic is portrayed here as the convergence of various vices that materialize as misinformation, in the communicative vacuity of the moments in which we are obliged to address each other to share our worldviews.

Lessons Learned from Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Therapies: Critical Perspectives From the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) COVID-19 Treatment Guideline Panel

Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Fake news and the seven sins of capital: a metaphorical analysis of vices in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

Health crises spawn “sins” and moral deformities in society that are evident when they emerge but had seemed to be dormant to collective awareness before. Through the metaphor of the seven capital sins, the article analyzes the phenomenon of fake news in the social media and in the scenario of the COVID-19 pandemic: the lust of sensationalism through the seduction and exploitation of vulnerabilities associated with fear of death; gluttony for confirmatory contents that spread untruths in the attempt to turn versions into facts; the catechism of denialism, fueling wrath or hate in restrictive epistemic environments; the greed of new technologies in the attention economy through engagement as a new commodity; competition for the spotlights of media visibility and derived gains that incite pride and envy in researchers that confuse public meaning with fake research, in a cycle that feeds sensationalism, gluttony, hate, and greed in attention capitalism. Finally, sloth is portrayed as the capital sin of opting for communicative inaction. In the comfort of bubbles, people renounce dialogue out of aversion to dissent, settling for positions of epistemic comfort. In short, the fake news phenomenon in the COVID-19 pandemic is portrayed here as the convergence of various vices that materialize as misinformation, in the communicative vacuity of the moments in which we are obliged to address each other to share our worldviews.

Evolving Acceptance and Use of RWE for Regulatory Decision Making on the Benefit/Risk Assessment of a Drug in Japan

There is growing interest in the utilization of real‐world data (RWD) and real‐world evidence (RWE) for regulatory purposes. However, there are challenges in the practical utilization of RWD to provide RWE as a basis for regulatory decision making. This article presents the regulatory initiatives in Japan and efforts taken to promote the utilization of RWD/RWE for regulatory decision making at the pre‐ and postapproval stages of a drug. There has been a rapid increase in the number of RWD cases evaluated for drug safety assessment in Japan. Nevertheless, more regulatory experiences and considerations are necessary for the utilization of RWD in the efficacy evaluation of a drug. Based on past experiences, data reliability and appropriateness of the methodology for analysis are the major discussion points in utilizing RWD and RWE for regulatory decision making. International harmonization of regulatory requirements is another important area in utilizing RWD and sharing the RWE globally. We describe our perspective on providing RWE, which is useful for regulatory decision making throughout a drug’s life cycle.

Sex-tailored pharmacology and COVID-19: Next steps towards appropriateness and health equity

Making gender bias visible allows to fill the gaps in knowledge and understand health records and risks of women and men. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has shown a clear gender difference in health outcomes. The more severe symptoms and higher mortality in men as compared to women are likely due to sex and age differences in immune responses. Age-associated decline in sex steroid hormone levels may mediate proinflammatory reactions in older adults, thereby increasing their risk of adverse outcomes, whereas sex hormones and/or sex hormone receptor modulators may attenuate the inflammatory response and provide benefit to COVID-19 patients. While multiple pharmacological options including anticoagulants, glucocorticoids, antivirals, anti-inflammatory agents and traditional Chinese medicine preparations have been tested to treat COVID-19 patients with varied levels of evidence in terms of efficacy and safety, information on sex-targeted treatment strategies is currently limited. Women may have more benefit from COVID-19 vaccines than men, despite the occurrence of more frequent adverse effects, and long-term safety data with newly developed vectors are eagerly awaited. The prevalent inclusion of men in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with subsequent extrapolation of results to women needs to be addressed, as reinforcing sex-neutral claims into COVID-19 research may insidiously lead to increased inequities in health care. The huge worldwide effort with over 3000 ongoing RCTs of pharmacological agents should focus on improving knowledge on sex, gender and age as pillars of individual variation in drug responses and enforce appropriateness.

No association between use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers prior to hospital admission and clinical course of COVID-19 in the COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study

Since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, also known as COVID-19, conflicting theories have circulated on the influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) on incidence and clinical course of COVID-19, but data are scarce. The COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study is an observational, multinational study that focused on the clinical course of COVID-19 (i.e. hospital mortality and intensive care unit [ICU] admission), and included COVID-19 patients who were registered at the emergency department or admitted to clinical wards of 63 participating hospitals. Pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists or treating physicians collected data on medication prescribed prior to admission. The association between the medication and composite clinical endpoint, including mortality and ICU admission, was analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounders. A total of 4870 patients were enrolled. ACEi were used by 847 (17.4%) patients and ARB by 761 (15.6%) patients. No significant association was seen with ACEi and the composite endpoint (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.12), mortality (OR 1.03; 95%CI 0.84 to 1.27) or ICU admission (OR 0.96; 95%CI 0.78 to 1.19) after adjustment for covariates. Similarly, no association was observed between ARB and the composite endpoint (OR 1.09; 95%CI 0.90 to 1.30), mortality (OR 1.12; OR 0.90 to 1.39) or ICU admission (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.98 to 1.49). In conclusion, we found no evidence of a harmful or beneficial effect of ACEi or ARB use prior to hospital admission on ICU admission or hospital mortality.

Adherence with reporting of ethical standards in COVID-19 human studies: a rapid review

BACKGROUND

Patients with COVID-19 may feel under pressure to participate in research during the pandemic. Safeguards to protect research participants include ethical guidelines [e.g. Declaration of Helsinki and good clinical practice (GCP)], legislation to protect participants' privacy, research ethics committees (RECs) and informed consent. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) advises researchers to document compliance with these safeguards. Adherence to publication guidelines has been suboptimal in other specialty fields. The aim of this rapid review was to determine whether COVID-19 human research publications report compliance with these ethical safeguards.

METHODS

A rapid systematic literature review was conducted in MEDLINE using the search term 'COVID-19'. The search was performed in April 2020 with no start date and repeated to include articles published in November 2020. Filters were 'Full free text available' and 'English Language'. Two reviewers assessed article title, abstracts and full texts. Non-COVID-19 articles and non-clinical studies were excluded. Independent reviewers conducted a second assessment of a random 20% of articles. The outcomes included reporting of compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki and GCP, REC approval, informed consent and participant privacy.

RESULTS

The searches yielded 1275 and 1942 articles of which 247 and 717 were deemed eligible, from the April  search and November respectively. The majority of journals had editorial policies which purported to comply with ICMJE ethical standards. Reporting of compliance with ethical guidelines was low across all study types but was higher in the November search for case series and observational studies. Reporting of informed consent for case studies and observational studies was higher in the November search, but similar for case series. Overall, participant confidentiality was maintained but some case studies included a combination of details which would have enabled participant identification. Reporting of REC approval was higher in the November search for observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of journal's editorial policies purported to support the ethical safeguards, many COVID-19 clinical research publications identified in this rapid review lacked documentation of these important safeguards for research participants. In order to promote public trust, ethical declarations should be included consistently.

Comparison of infection risks and clinical outcomes in patients with and without SARS-CoV-2 lung infection under renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) is the receptor for SARS-CoV-2. Animal studies suggest that renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers might increase the expression of ACE2 and potentially increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The effect of ACE inhibitor (ACEI) treatment on the pneumonia incidence in non-COVID-19 patients (25 studies, 330 780 patients) was associated with a 26% reduction of pneumonia risk (odds ratio [OR]: 0.74, P < .001). Pneumonia-related death cases in ACEI-treated non-COVID-19 patients were reduced by 27% (OR: 0.73, P = .004). However, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) treatment (10 studies, 275 621 non-COVID-19 patients) did not alter pneumonia risk in patients. Pneumonia-related death cases in ARB-treated non-COVID-19 patients was analysed only in 1 study and was significantly reduced (OR, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.72). Results from 11 studies (8.4 million patients) showed that the risk of getting infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus was reduced by 13% (OR: 0.87, P = .014) in patients treated with ACEI, whereas analysis from 10 studies (8.4 million patients) treated with ARBs showed no effect (OR, 0.92, P = .354). Results from 34 studies in 67 644 COVID-19 patients showed that RAAS blockade reduces all-cause mortality by 24% (OR = 0.76, P = .04).

CONCLUSION

ACEIs reduce the risk of getting infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Blocking the RAAS may decrease all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients. ACEIs also reduce the risk of non-COVID pneumonia. All-cause mortality due to non-COVID pneumonia is reduced by ACEI and potentially by ARBs.

How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health

COVID-19 has had negative repercussions on the entire global population. Despite there being a common goal that should have unified resources and efforts, there have been an overwhelmingly large number of clinical trials that have been registered that are of questionable methodological quality. As the final paper of this Series, we discuss how the medical research community has responded to COVID-19. We recognise the incredible pressure that this pandemic has put on researchers, regulators, and policy makers, all of whom were doing their best to move quickly but safely in a time of tremendous uncertainty. However, the research community's response to the COVID-19 pandemic has prominently highlighted many fundamental issues that exist in clinical trial research under the current system and its incentive structures. The COVID-19 pandemic has not only re-emphasised the importance of well designed randomised clinical trials but also highlighted the need for large-scale clinical trials structured according to a master protocol in a coordinated and collaborative manner. There is also a need for structures and incentives to enable faster data sharing of anonymised datasets, and a need to provide similar opportunities to those in high-income countries for clinical trial research in low-resource regions where clinical trial research receives considerably less research funding.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors in COVID-19: A Review

Among the multiple uncertainties surrounding the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, a research letter published in The Lancet implicated drugs that antagonize the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in an unfavorable prognosis of COVID-19. This report prompted investigations to identify mechanisms by which blocking angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) could lead to serious consequences in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The possible association between RAAS inhibitors use and unfavorable prognosis in this disease may have been biased by the presence of underlying cardiovascular diseases. As the number of COVID-19 cases has increased worldwide, it has now become possible to investigate the association between RAAS inhibitors and unfavorable prognosis in larger cohorts. Observational studies and one randomized clinical trial failed to identify any consistent association between the use of these drugs and unfavorable prognosis in COVID-19. In view of the accumulated clinical evidence, several scientific societies recommend that treatment with RAAS inhibitors should not be discontinued in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (unless contraindicated). This recommendation should be followed by clinicians and patients.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Risk of Death in Patients Hospitalised with COVID-19: A Retrospective Italian Cohort Study of 43,000 Patients

INTRODUCTION

The epidemic due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection has been spreading globally, raising increasing concerns. There are several controversial hypotheses on the potentially harmful or beneficial effects of antihypertensive drugs acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, there is accumulating evidence, based on several observational studies, that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) do not increase the risk of contracting SARS-CoV-2 infection. On the other hand, conflicting findings regarding the role of ACEIs/ARBs as prognosis modifiers in COVID-19 hospitalised patients have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this large-scale, retrospective cohort study was to investigate whether prior exposure to ACEIs and/or ARBs was associated with all-cause mortality among over 40,000 hospitalised COVID-19 patients compared with calcium channel blockers (CCBs), a potential therapeutic alternative.

METHODS

This study was conducted using COVID-19 registries linked to claims databases from Lombardy, Veneto and Reggio Emilia (overall, 25% of Italian population). Overall, 42,926 patients hospitalised between 21 February and 21 April 2020 with a diagnosis of COVID-19 confirmed by real-time polymerase chain reaction tests were included in this study. All-cause mortality occurring in or out of hospital, as reported in the COVID-19 registry, was estimated. Using Cox models, adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of all-cause mortality (along with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) were estimated separately for ACEIs/ARBs and other antihypertensives versus CCBs and non-use.

RESULTS

Overall, 11,205 in- and out-of-hospital deaths occurred over a median of 24 days of follow-up after hospital admission due to COVID-19. Compared with CCBs, adjusted analyses showed no difference in the risk of death among ACEI (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.89-1.06) or ARB (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89-1.06) users. When non-use of antihypertensives was considered as a comparator, a modest statistically significant increase in mortality risk was observed for any antihypertensive use. However, when restricting to drugs with antihypertensive indications only, these marginal increases disappeared. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses confirmed our main findings.

CONCLUSIONS

ACEI/ARB use is not associated with either an increased or decreased risk of all-cause mortality, compared with CCB use, in the largest cohort of hospitalised COVID-19 patients exposed to these drugs studied to date. The use of these drugs therefore does not affect the prognosis of COVID-19. This finding strengthens recommendations of international regulatory agencies about not withdrawing/switching ACEI/ARB treatments to modify COVID-19 prognosis.

Characteristics, laboratories, and prognosis of severe COVID-19 in the Tokyo metropolitan area: A retrospective case series

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been immense, while the epidemiology and pathophysiology remain unclear. Despite many casualties in many countries, there have been less than 1,000 deaths in Japan as of end of June, 2020. In this study, we analyzed the cases of COVID-19 patients admitted to our institution located in the Tokyo metropolitan area where the survival rate is higher than those in other cities in the world. Medical records of COVID-19 patients that were admitted to a single Japanese tertiary university hospital in the Tokyo metropolitan area between March 10th and June 2nd, 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. The identified COVID-19 cases were subdivided into two groups (severe and mild) depending on the need for mechanical ventilation. Those in the severe group required mechanical ventilation as opposed to those in the mild group. The data were analyzed using nonparametric tests expressed by median [interquartile range (IQR)]. A total of 45 COVID-19 patients were included, consisting of 22 severe cases (Group S) and 23 mild cases (Group M). Male sex (Group S, 95.5% vs. Group M, 56.5%, p<0.01), high body mass index (Group S, 24.89 [22.44-27.15] vs. Group M, 21.43 [19.05-23.75], p<0.01), and hyperlipidemia (Group S, 36.4% vs. Group M, 0%, p<0.01) were more seen in Group S. Five (22.7%) cases in Group S underwent extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO). On admission, lymphopenia, decreased albumin, and elevated fibrinogen, lactate dehydrogenase, transaminases, creatine kinase, C-reactive protein, and procalcitonin were observed in Group S. The median ICU and hospital stay were 13.5 [10.3-22.3] days and 23.0 [16.3-30.5] days, respectively, in Group S. As of June 28th, 2020, in Group S, 19 (86.4%) patients have survived, of which 17 (77.3%) were discharged, and 2 are still in treatments. Three died of multiple organ failure. All 23 patients in Group M have recovered. Male sex, high body mass index, and hyperlipidemia can be risk factors for severe COVID-19 pneumonia, and its overall short-term survival rate was between 77.3% and 86.4% in this study.

Proliferation of Papers and Preprints During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Progress or Problems With Peer Review?

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread exponentially throughout the world in a short period, aided by our hyperconnected world including global trade and travel. Unlike previous pandemics, the pace of the spread of the virus has been matched by the pace of publications, not just in traditional journals, but also in preprint servers. Not all publication findings are true, and sifting through the firehose of data has been challenging to peer reviewers, editors, as well as to consumers of the literature, that is, scientists, healthcare workers, and the general public. There has been an equally exponential rise in the public discussion on social media. Rather than decry the pace of change, we suggest the nephrology community should embrace it, making deposition of research into preprint servers the default, encouraging prepublication peer review more widely of such preprint studies, and harnessing social media tools to make these actions easier and seamless.

Letter: online search trends suggest patient concerns around immunosuppression use in inflammatory bowel disease during COVID-19 in the United Kingdom

LINKED CONTENT This article is linked to Taxonera et al paper. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/apt.15804

Association between chronic ACE inhibitor exposure and decreased odds of severe disease in patients with COVID-19

Objective:

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) inhibitors may increase the expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which is the receptor for SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein. The consequences of using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) during the COVID-19 pandemic are unknown.

Methods:

A retrospective cohort study aiming to identify the odds of severe disease (defined as either hospitalization of ≥14 days, admission to the intensive care unit, or death) associated with exposure to ACEi or ARB was conducted. Adult patients (age ≥18 years) with COVID-19 admitted to the İstanbul Faculty of Medicine Corona Center between March 9 and May 11, 2020, were included. Chronic users of ACEi, ARB, or other antihypertensive drugs were matched according to age, sex, sick days before hospitalization, comorbidities, smoking, number of antihypertensive regimens, doxazosin use, furosemide use, and serum creatinine level. Odds ratios (OR) of having severe disease were calculated.

Results:

In total, 611 patients were admitted with COVID-19, confirmed by either reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction or computed tomography (CT). There were 363 males, and the age ranged from 18 to 98 years, with an average age of 57±15 years. Of these, 165 participants had severe disease (53 deaths, case fatality rate: 8.7%). Among those with hypertension (n=249), ARB exposure was compatible with decreased odds (OR=0.60, 95% CI: 0.27–1.36, p=0.31) of severe disease though not statistically significant, while ACEi exposure significantly reduced the risk of severe disease (OR=0.37, 95% CI: 0.15–0.87, p=0.03). ACEi exposure was associated with milder infiltrations seen on baseline CT, lower C-reactive protein and ferritin, higher monocytes, shorter hospitalization, and less requirement for specific empirical treatments (favipiravir and meropenem).

Conclusion:

Our data suggest that exposure to ACEi drugs may have favorable effects in the context of COVID-19 pneumonia.

Is hydroxychloroquine beneficial for COVID-19 patients?

The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was first reported in December 2019. As similar cases rapidly emerged around the world1-3, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a public health emergency of international concern on January 30, 2020 and pronounced the rapidly spreading coronavirus outbreak as a pandemic on March 11, 20204. The virus has reached almost all countries of the globe. As of June 3, 2020, the accumulated confirmed cases reached 6,479,405 with more than 383,013 deaths worldwide. The urgent and emergency care of COVID-19 patients calls for effective drugs, in addition to the beneficial effects of remdesivir5, to control the disease and halt the pandemic.

Renin-angiotensin system blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19: a multinational open science cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could influence infection risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Observational studies to date lack pre-specification, transparency, rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalizability, with contradictory results.

METHODS

Using electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Columbia University Irving Medical Center and Department of Veterans Affairs), we conducted a systematic cohort study with prevalent ACE, ARB, calcium channel blocker (CCB) and thiazide diuretic (THZ) use to determine relative risk of COVID-19 diagnosis and related hospitalization outcomes. The study addressed confounding through large-scale propensity score adjustment and negative control experiments.

RESULTS

Following over 1.1 million antihypertensive users identified between November 2019 and January 2020, we observed no significant difference in relative COVID-19 diagnosis risk comparing ACE/ARB vs CCB/THZ monotherapy (hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% CI 0.84 - 1.14), nor any difference for mono/combination use (1.01; 0.90 - 1.15). ACE alone and ARB alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared to CCB/THZ monotherapy or mono/combination use. Directly comparing ACE vs. ARB demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACE, non-significant for monotherapy (0.85; 0.69 - 1.05) and marginally significant for mono/combination users (0.88; 0.79 - 0.99). We observed, however, no significant difference between drug- classes for COVID-19 hospitalization or pneumonia risk across all comparisons.

CONCLUSION

There is no clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospitalization with ACE or ARB use. Users should not discontinue or change their treatment to avoid COVID-19.

Gone, but not Forgotten

The global health and economic impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has rocked our communities and way of life. With millions infected around the globe, and hundreds of thousands of lives lost, there has been a paradigm shift in how clinicians evaluate and care for patients in multiple different types of healthcare settings. Many patients are reluctant to seek medical attention for cardiovascular illnesses, and late presentations of acute cardiac issues are raising the morbidity and mortality for treatable cardiac conditions. In this expert opinion, the authors canvas the many challenges in the diagnosis, treatment and delivery of care to patients with congestive heart failure and acute coronary syndromes during the COVID-19 pandemic.