Impact of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibition on mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients with pre-existing hypertension: a prospective cohort study

Ginseng and ginsenosides on cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases; Pharmacological potentials for the coronavirus (COVID-19)

Since its outbreak in late 2019, the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly caused global morbidity and deaths. The COVID-19 pandemic caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has major complications in cardiovascular and pulmonary system. The increased rate of mortality is due to delayed detection of certain biomarkers that are crucial in the development of disease. Furthermore, certain proteins and enzymes in cellular signaling pathways play an important role in replication of SARS-CoV-2. Most cases are mild to moderate symptoms, however severe cases of COVID-19 leads to death. Detecting the level of biomarkers such as C-reactive protein, cardiac troponin, creatine kinase, creatine kinase-MB, procalcitonin and Matrix metalloproteinases helps in early detection of the severity of disease. Similarly, through downregulating Renin-angiotensin system, interleukin, Mitogen-activated protein kinases and Phosphoinositide 3-kinases pathways, COVID-19 can be effectively controlled and mortality could be prevented. Ginseng and ginsenosides possess therapeutic potential in cardiac and pulmonary complications, there are several studies performed in which they have suppressed these biomarkers and downregulated the pathways, thereby inhibiting the further spread of disease. Supplementation with ginseng or ginsenoside could act on multiple pathways to reduce the level of biomarkers significantly and alleviate cardiac and pulmonary damage. Therefore, this review summarizes the potential of ginseng extract and ginsenosides in controlling the cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases by COVID-19.

Pharmacological therapies and drug development targeting SARS-CoV-2 infection

The development of therapies for SARS-CoV-2 infection, based on virus biology and pathology, and of large- and small-scale randomized controlled trials, have brought forward several antiviral and immunomodulatory drugs targeting the disease severity. Casirivimab/Imdevimab monoclonal antibodies and convalescent plasma to prevent virus entry, Remdesivir, Molnupiravir, and Paxlovid nucleotide analogs to prevent viral replication, a variety of repurposed JAK-STAT signaling pathway inhibitors, corticosteroids, and recombinant agonists/antagonists of cytokine and interferons have been found to provide clinical benefits in terms of mortality and hospitalization. However, current treatment options face multiple clinical needs, and therefore, in this review, we provide an update on the challenges of the existing therapeutics and highlight drug development strategies for COVID-19 therapy, based on ongoing clinical trials, meta-analyses, and clinical case reports.

Drug-Disease Severity and Target-Disease Severity Interaction Networks in COVID-19 Patients

Drug interactions with other drugs are a well-known phenomenon. Similarly, however, pre-existing drug therapy can alter the course of diseases for which it has not been prescribed. We performed network analysis on drugs and their respective targets to investigate whether there are drugs or targets with protective effects in COVID-19, making them candidates for repurposing. These networks of drug-disease interactions (DDSIs) and target-disease interactions (TDSIs) revealed a greater share of patients with diabetes and cardiac co-morbidities in the non-severe cohort treated with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP4) inhibitors. A possible protective effect of DPP4 inhibitors is also plausible on pathophysiological grounds, and our results support repositioning efforts of DPP4 inhibitors against SARS-CoV-2. At target level, we observed that the target location might have an influence on disease progression. This could potentially be attributed to disruption of functional membrane micro-domains (lipid rafts), which in turn could decrease viral entry and thus disease severity.

Association of outpatient use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers on outcomes of acute respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the associations between patients taking ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and their clinical outcomes after an acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI) due to COVID-19.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

The USA; 2017-2018 influenza season, 2018-2019 influenza season, and 2019-2020 influenza/COVID-19 season.

PARTICIPANTS

People with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit (CCU), acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome (ARDS) and all-cause mortality, comparing COVID-19 to pre-COVID-19 influenza seasons.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1 059 474 episodes of AVRI (653 797 filled an ACEi or ARB, and 405 677 other HTN medications). 58.6% were women and 72.9% with age ≥65. The ACEi/ARB cohort saw a larger increase in risk in the COVID-19 influenza season than the other HTN medication cohort for four out of five outcomes, with an additional 1.5 percentage point (pp) increase in risk of an inpatient stay (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9 pp) and of ICU/CCU use (95% CI 0.3 to 2.7 pp) as well as a 0.7 pp (0.1 to 1.2 pp) additional increase in risk of ARD and 0.9 pp (0.4 to 1.3 pp) additional increase in risk of ARDS. There was no statistically significant difference in the absolute risk of death (-0.2 pp, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1 pp). However, the relative risk of death in 2019/2020 versus 2017/2018 for the ACEi/ARB group was larger (1.40 (1.36 to 1.44)) than for the other HTN medication cohort (1.24 (1.21 to 1.28)).

CONCLUSIONS

People with AVRI using ACEi/ARBs for HTN had a greater increase in poor outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic than those using other medications to treat HTN. The small absolute magnitude of the differences likely does not support changes in clinical practice.