The COVID-19 in athletes (COVA) study: a national study on cardio-pulmonary involvement of SARS-CoV-2 infection among elite athletes

Background

COVID-19 can cause cardiopulmonary involvement. Physical activity and cardiac complications can worsen prognosis, while pulmonary complications can reduce performance.

Aims

To determine the prevalence and clinical implications of SARS-CoV-2 cardiopulmonary involvement in elite athletes.

Methods

An observational study between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2021 with the assessment of coronary biomarkers, electrocardiogram, echocardiography, Holter-monitoring, spirometry, and chest X-ray in Danish elite athletes showed that PCR-tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. The cohort consisted of male football players screened weekly (cohort I) and elite athletes on an international level only tested if they had symptoms, were near-contact, or participated in international competitions (cohort II). All athletes were categorized into two groups based on symptoms and duration of COVID-19: Group 1 had no cardiopulmonary symptoms and duration ≤7 days, and; Group 2 had cardiopulmonary symptoms or disease duration >7 days.

Results

In total 121 athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 were investigated. Cardiac involvement was identified in 2/121 (2%) and pulmonary involvement in 15/121 (12%) participants. In group 1, 87 (72%), no athletes presented with signs of cardiac involvement, and 8 (7%) were diagnosed with radiological COVID-19-related findings or obstructive lung function. In group 2, 34 (28%), two had myocarditis (6%), and 8 (24%) were diagnosed with radiological COVID-19-related findings or obstructive lung function.

Conclusions

These clinically-driven data show no signs of cardiac involvement among athletes who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection without cardiopulmonary symptoms and duration <7 days. Athletes with cardiopulmonary symptoms or prolonged duration of COVID-19 display, exercise-limiting cardiopulmonary involvement.

Sex differences in symptoms of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognitive function among survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

AIMS

Anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) survivors may impact long-term recovery. Coping and perception of symptoms may vary between sexes. The aim was to explore sex differences in psychological consequences following OHCA.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This was a prospective observational study of OHCA survivors who attended a structured 3-month follow-up. Symptoms of anxiety/depression were measured using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, range 0-21, with a cut-off score of ≥8 for significant symptoms; PTSD was measured with the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5), range 0-80. A score of ≥33 indicated PTSD symptoms. Cognitive function was assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. From 2016 to 2021, 381 consecutive comatose OHCA survivors were invited. Of these, 288 patients (76%) participated in the follow-up visit [53 (18%) females out of 80 survivors and 235 (82%) males out of 300 alive at follow-up (78%)]. Significant symptoms of anxiety were present in 47 (20%) males and 19 (36%) females (P = 0.01). Significant symptoms of PTSD were present in 30% of males and 55% of females (P = 0.01). Adjusting for pre-specified covariates using multivariable logistic regression, female sex was significantly associated with anxiety [odds ratio (OR): 2.18, confidence interval (CI): 1.09-4.38, P = 0.03]. This difference was especially pronounced among young females (below median age, ORadjusted: 3.31, CI: 1.32-8.29, P = 0.01) compared with young males. No significant sex difference was observed for depression or cognitive function.

CONCLUSION

Symptoms of anxiety and PTSD are frequent in OHCA survivors, and female survivors report significantly more symptoms of anxiety and PTSD compared with males. In particular, young females were significantly more symptomatic than young males.

Marital status, cardiovascular events, and intensive blood pressure lowering among men and women in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial

Background

Married persons may have lower rates of mortality and cardiovascular disease (CV) than unmarried persons although data regarding potential differences between men and women are conflicting. The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) found that intensive versus standard blood pressure (BP) control reduced CV morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients. We hypothesized that marital status would influence CV event risk and the impact of intensive BP control, and that these effects would vary according to sex.

Purpose

To assess the risks of CV events and mortality according to marital status in a high-risk population, and to assess if marital status modified the effect of intensive versus standard BP control.

Methods

SPRINT was a randomized, controlled, open-label trial of 9361 individuals at high CV risk, at least 50 years of age, without diabetes, and with a systolic BP 130–180 mmHg. Participants were randomized to either intensive or standard BP control and followed for median 3.2 years (range 0–4.8 years). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or CV death. Secondary efficacy endpoints included the individual components of the primary endpoint and all-cause death. Event risk according to marital status, including variation of the effects of intensive BP control, was evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression with interaction analyses. The group of subjects who were married or living in a marriage-like relationship served as baseline.

Results

Information on marital status was available for 8762 (93.6%) individuals. A total of 4863 (55.5%) were married or in a marriage-like relationship, 3149 (35.9%) were widowed, divorced, or separated, and 750 (8.6%) were never married. Marital status did not differ between patients randomized to intensive versus standard BP control (P=0.51). The risk of the primary endpoint was not significantly affected by marital status (P&gt;0.05), in neither men nor women (P-interaction&gt;0.05). The same was true for its individual components except the risk of CV death which was higher among never married men (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.29, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34–8.09; P=0.009; P-sex-interaction=0.99). The risk of all-cause death was higher among widowed, divorced, or separated men (aHR, 1.90, 95% CI: 1.35–2.67; P&lt;0.001) and among never married men (aHR, 2.53, 95% CI: 1.51–4.26; P&lt;0.001), but not women belong to these groups (P&gt;0.05; P-sex-interaction=0.24) (Figure). Associations were not modified by age (P-interaction&gt;0.05). Marital status did not modify the effect of intensive BP control for any of the endpoints (P-interaction&gt;0.05).

Conclusions

In SPRINT, never married men had higher risks of both CV death and all-cause death while widowed, divorced, or separated men had a higher risk of all-cause death. The risks and benefits of intensive BP control were not affected by marital status.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1

Greater event rates in high-risk patients with a history of heart disease: from the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)

Background

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) found that intensive versus standard blood pressure (BP) control reduced cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in patients at high CV risk. Effects were consistent among patients with and without prevalent CV disease. However, it is unknown whether the benefits and risks of intensive BP control are affected by the specific type of heart disease.

Purpose

To assess the risks of incident CV events and safety events in patients with individual types of heart disease, and to assess if the presence of heart disease modified the effect of intensive versus standard BP control.

Methods

SPRINT was a randomized, controlled trial comprising 9,361 individuals ≥50 years of age at high CV risk, without diabetes, and with a systolic BP 130–180 mmHg. Participants were randomized to intensive or standard BP control. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from CV causes. The primary safety endpoint was the composite of serious adverse events. We assessed event risk in patients with self-reported heart disease versus those without and further assessed the safety and efficacy of intensive BP control, including relevant interactions, in these individuals, using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression.

Results

Of 9361 participants, 326 (3.5%) reported a history of congestive heart failure, 760 (8.1%) of myocardial infarction, 1206 (12.9%) of angina, and 1830 (19.6%) of atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or irregular heartbeat. The prevalence of these conditions did not significantly differ between patients randomized to intensive versus standard BP control (P&gt;0.05 for all). At median 3.2 years (range 0–4.8 years), congestive heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.94, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45–2.61; P&lt;0.001), myocardial infarction (aHR, 1.73, 95% CI, 1.33–2.25; P&lt;0.001), angina (aHR, 1.41, 95% CI, 1.09–1.84; P=0.01), and atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, or irregular heartbeat (aHR, 1.36, 95% CI, 1.12–1.64; P=0.002) were all independently associated with the primary endpoint (Figure). All conditions except prior myocardial infarction were also associated with composite serious adverse events (P=0.24 for myocardial infarction, P&lt;0.05 for all others). A history of angina modified the efficacy of intensive versus standard BP control, i.e., patients without angina appeared to benefit from intensive BP control (aHR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.54–0.80; P&lt;0.001) while those with angina did not (aHR, 1.04, 95% CI, 0.76–1.44; P=0.80) (P=0.02 for interaction). No significant interactions were detected for the primary safety endpoint.

Conclusions

In SPRINT, a history of any type of heart disease was associated with a greater risk for both efficacy and safety events. Patients with angina did not appear to derive benefit from intensive BP control.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Figure 1

Primary health insurance and cardiovascular outcomes in the systolic blood pressure intervention trial

Background

The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) found that intensive versus standard blood pressure (BP) control reduced cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients. Although antihypertensive therapies were provided at no cost to trial participants, patients were covered by various entities. Insurance coverage provides a unique dimension of risk assessment and may provide additional prognostic information in this setting.

Purpose

To assess the risks of incident CV events and safety events in a high CV risk population according to type of health insurance, and to assess if insurance type interacted with the effect of intensive versus standard BP control.

Methods

SPRINT was a randomized, controlled trial conducted across 102 US sites of 9,361 high-risk adults ≥50 years, without diabetes, and with a systolic BP 130–180 mmHg at screening. Study participants were randomized to intensive (target systolic BP &lt;120mmHg) or standard BP control (target systolic BP &lt;140mmHg) and followed for median 3.2 years (range 0–4.8 years). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or CV death. The primary safety endpoint was the composite of serious adverse events. The risk of efficacy and safety events according to type of health insurance, including the effect of intensive BP control in each subgroup, was evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression with interaction analyses. Private/other insurance type served as the reference group.

Results

Of 9361 participants, 3980 (42.5%) were covered by private/other insurance, 1483 (15.8%) by a Veterans Affairs (VA) health plan, 2691 (28.8%) by Medicare, 207 (2.2%) by Medicaid, and 1000 (10.7%) were uninsured. Insurance coverage distribution was well-balanced between the two study arms (P&gt;0.05). Compared with patients who had private/other insurance, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly higher among Medicaid beneficiaries (adj. hazard ratio [HR], 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09–3.00; P=0.02). The risk of death was similarly highest among Medicaid patients (adj. HR, 2.08, 95% CI, 1.08–4.02; P=0.03) and was also significantly higher among VA patients (adj. HR, 1.49, 95% CI, 1.11–2.99; P=0.008) (Figure). Serious adverse events were more common in the VA population (HR, 1.12, 95% CI, 1.01–1.23; P=0.03). Insurance type did not modify the efficacy and safety of intensive BP control (P&gt;0.05 for all interactions).

Conclusions

In SPRINT, Medicaid beneficiaries were at significantly greater risk for experiencing a primary CV event. Medicaid patients and VA patients both had higher mortality than those covered by private/other insurance. The risks and benefits of intensive BP control were not affected by insurance type.

Funding Acknowledgement

Type of funding sources: None. Risk of death and health insurace type