Rapid metabolism of exogenous angiotensin II by catecholaminergic neuronal cells in culture media

Between two storms, vasoactive peptides or bradykinin underlie severity of COVID-19?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), continues to be a world-wide pandemic with overwhelming socioeconomic impact. Since inflammation is one of the major causes of COVID-19 complications, the associated molecular mechanisms have been the focus of many studies to better understand this disease and develop improved treatments for patients contracting SARS-CoV-2. Among these, strong emphasis has been placed on pro-inflammatory cytokines, associating severity of COVID-19 with so-called "cytokine storm." More recently, peptide bradykinin, its dysregulated signaling or "bradykinin storm," has emerged as a primary mechanism to explain COVID-19-related complications. Unfortunately, this important development may not fully capture the main molecular players that underlie the disease severity. To this end, in this focused review, several lines of evidence are provided to suggest that in addition to bradykinin, two closely related vasoactive peptides, substance P and neurotensin, are also likely to drive microvascular permeability and inflammation, and be responsible for development of COVID-19 pathology. Furthermore, based on published experimental observations, it is postulated that in addition to ACE and neprilysin, peptidase neurolysin (Nln) is also likely to contribute to accumulation of bradykinin, substance P and neurotensin, and progression of the disease. In conclusion, it is proposed that "vasoactive peptide storm" may underlie severity of COVID-19 and that simultaneous inhibition of all three peptidergic systems could be therapeutically more advantageous rather than modulation of any single mechanism alone.

Angiotensin II Signal Transduction: An Update on Mechanisms of Physiology and Pathophysiology

The renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system plays crucial roles in cardiovascular physiology and pathophysiology. However, many of the signaling mechanisms have been unclear. The angiotensin II (ANG II) type 1 receptor (AT₁R) is believed to mediate most functions of ANG II in the system. AT₁R utilizes various signal transduction cascades causing hypertension, cardiovascular remodeling, and end organ damage. Moreover, functional cross-talk between AT₁R signaling pathways and other signaling pathways have been recognized. Accumulating evidence reveals the complexity of ANG II signal transduction in pathophysiology of the vasculature, heart, kidney, and brain, as well as several pathophysiological features, including inflammation, metabolic dysfunction, and aging. In this review, we provide a comprehensive update of the ANG II receptor signaling events and their functional significances for potential translation into therapeutic strategies. AT₁R remains central to the system in mediating physiological and pathophysiological functions of ANG II, and participation of specific signaling pathways becomes much clearer. There are still certain limitations and many controversies, and several noteworthy new concepts require further support. However, it is expected that rigorous translational research of the ANG II signaling pathways including those in large animals and humans will contribute to establishing effective new therapies against various diseases.

The effect of angiotensin II on blood pressure in patients with circulatory shock: a structured review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Circulatory shock is a common syndrome with a high mortality and limited therapeutic options. Despite its discovery and use in clinical and experimental settings more than a half-century ago, angiotensin II (Ang II) has only been recently evaluated as a vasopressor in distributive shock. We examined existing literature for associations between Ang II and the resolution of circulatory shock.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, and Embase to identify all English literature accounts of intravenous Ang II in humans for the treatment of shock (systolic blood pressure [SBP] ≤ 90 mmHg or a mean arterial pressure [MAP] ≤ 65 mmHg), and hand-searched the references of extracted papers for further studies meeting inclusion criteria. Of 3743 articles identified, 24 studies including 353 patients met inclusion criteria. Complete data existed for 276 patients. Extracted data included study type, publication year, demographics, type of shock, dosing of Ang II or other vasoactive medications, and changes in BP, lactate, and urine output. BP effects were grouped according to type of shock, with additional analyses completed for patients with absent blood pressure. Shock was distributive (n = 225), cardiogenic (n = 38), or from other causes (n = 90). Blood pressure as absent in 18 patients.

RESULTS

For the 276 patients with complete data, MAP rose by 23.4% from 63.3 mmHg to 78.1 mmHg in response to Ang II (dose range: 15 ng/kg/min to 60 mcg/min). SBP rose by 125.2% from 56.9 mmHg to 128.2 mmHg (dose range: 0.2 mcg/min to a 1500 mcg bolus). A total of 271 patients with complete data were determined to exhibit a BP effect which was directly associated with Ang II. Subgroups (patients with cardiogenic, septic, and other types of shock) exhibited similar increases in BP. In patients with absent BP, deemed to be cardiac arrest, return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved, and BP increased by an average of 107.3 mmHg in 11 of 18 patients. The remaining seven patients with cardiac arrest did not respond.

CONCLUSIONS

Intravenous Ang II is associated with increased BP in patients with cardiogenic, distributive, and unclassified shock. A role may exist for Ang II in restoring circulation in cardiac arrest.