RESUMEN
ObjectivesTo estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CVD management using routinely collected medication data as a proxy. DesignDescriptive and interrupted time series analysis using anonymised individual-level population-scale data for 1.32 billion records of dispensed CVD medications across 15.8 million individuals in England, Scotland and Wales. SettingCommunity dispensed CVD medications with 100% coverage from England, Scotland and Wales, plus primary care prescribed CVD medications from England (including 98% English general practices). Participants15.8 million individuals aged 18+ years alive on 1st April 2018 dispensed at least one CVD medicine in a year from England, Scotland and Wales. Main outcome measuresMonthly counts, percent annual change (1st April 2018 to 31st July 2021) and annual rates (1st March 2018 to 28th February 2021) of medicines dispensed by CVD/ CVD risk factor; prevalent and incident use. ResultsYear-on-year change in dispensed CVD medicines by month were observed, with notable uplifts ahead of the first (11.8% higher in March 2020) but not subsequent national lockdowns. Using hypertension as one example of the indirect impact of the pandemic, we observed 491,203 fewer individuals initiated antihypertensive treatment across England, Scotland and Wales during the period March 2020 to end May 2021 than would have been expected compared to 2019. We estimated that this missed antihypertension treatment could result in 13,659 additional CVD events should individuals remain untreated, including 2,281 additional myocardial infarctions (MIs) and 3,474 additional strokes. Incident use of lipid-lowering medicines decreased by an average 14,793 per month in early 2021 compared with the equivalent months prior to the pandemic in 2019. In contrast, the use of incident medicines to treat type-2 diabetes (T2DM) increased by approximately 1,642 patients per month. ConclusionsManagement of key CVD risk factors as proxied by incident use of CVD medicines has not returned to pre-pandemic levels in the UK. Novel methods to identify and treat individuals who have missed treatment are urgently required to avoid large numbers of additional future CVD events, further adding indirect cost of the COVID-19 pandemic.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVETo continually evaluate the rapidly evolving evidence base on the role of cardiovascular drugs in COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, hospitalization, hospitalization length, disease severity, and all-cause mortality). DESIGNLiving systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCESEligible publications identified from >500 databases indexed through 31st July 2020 and additional studies from reference lists, with planned continual surveillance for at least two years. STUDY SELECTIONObservational and interventional studies that report on the association between cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes. DATA EXTRACTIONSingle-reviewer extraction and quality evaluation (using ROBINS-I), with half the records independently extracted and evaluated by a second reviewer. RESULTSOf 23,427 titles screened, 175 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. The most reported drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure being associated with higher odds of testing positive for COVID-19 (pooled unadjusted OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.30). Among patients with COVID-19, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with being hospitalized (OR 2.25, 1.70 to 2.98) and having severe disease (OR 1.50, 1.27 to 1.77) but not with the length of hospitalization (mean difference -0.45, -1.33 to 0.43 days) or all-cause mortality (OR 1.25, CI 0.98 to 1.58). However, after adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with testing positive for COVID-19 (pooled adjusted OR 1.01, 0.93 to 1.10), being hospitalized (OR 1.16, 0.80 to 1.68), having severe disease (1.04, 0.76 to 1.42), or all-cause mortality (0.86, 0.64 to 1.15). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with being hospitalized (OR 0.84, 0.58 to 1.22), disease severity (OR 0.88, 0.68 to 1.14) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.77, 0.54 to 1.12) while it decreased the length of hospitalization (mean difference -0.71, -1.11 to -0.30 days). After adjusting for relevant covariates, other cardiovascular drug classes were mostly not found to be associated with poor COVID-19 clinical outcomes. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity in terms of effect sizes and a serious risk of bias, mainly due to confounding in the included studies. CONCLUSIONOur comprehensive review shows that ACEI/ARB exposure is associated with COVID-19 outcomes such as susceptibility to infection, severity, and hospitalization in unadjusted analyses. However, after adjusting for potential confounding factors, this association is not evident. Patients on cardiovascular drugs should continue taking their medications as currently recommended. Higher quality evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials will be needed to determine any adverse or beneficial effects of cardiovascular drugs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCENone SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONPROSPERO (CRD42020191283)
RESUMEN
A major issue in identification of protective T cell responses against SARS-CoV-2 lies in distinguishing people infected with SARS-CoV-2 from those with cross-reactive immunity generated by exposure to other coronaviruses. We characterised SARS-CoV-2 T cell immune responses in 168 PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infected subjects and 118 seronegative subjects without known SARS-CoV-2 exposure using a range of T cell assays that differentially capture immune cell function. Strong ex vivo ELISpot and proliferation responses to multiple antigens (including M, NP and ORF3) were found in those who had been infected by SARS-CoV-2 but were rare in pre-pandemic and unexposed seronegative subjects. However, seronegative doctors with high occupational exposure and recent COVID-19 compatible illness showed patterns of T cell responses characteristic of infection, indicating that these readouts are highly sensitive. By contrast, over 90% of convalescent or unexposed people showed proliferation and cellular lactate responses to spike subunits S1/S2, indicating pre-existing cross-reactive T cell populations. The detection of T cell responses to SARS-CoV-2 is therefore critically dependent on the choice of assay and antigen. Memory responses to specific non-spike proteins provides a method to distinguish recent infection from pre-existing immunity in exposed populations.
RESUMEN
BackgroundThe coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic affects cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) directly through infection and indirectly through health service reorganisation and public health policy. Real-time data are needed to quantify direct and indirect effects. We aimed to monitor hospital activity for presentation, diagnosis and treatment of CVDs during the pandemic to inform on indirect effects. MethodsWe analysed aggregate data on presentations, diagnoses and treatments or procedures for selected CVDs (acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, stroke and transient ischaemic attack, venous thromboembolism, peripheral arterial disease and aortic aneurysm) in UK hospitals before and during the COVID-19 epidemic. We produced an online visualisation tool to enable near real-time monitoring of trends. FindingsNine hospitals across England and Scotland contributed hospital activity data from 28 Oct 2019 (pre-COVID-19) to 10 May 2020 (pre-easing of lockdown), and for the same weeks during 2018-2019. Across all hospitals, total admissions and emergency department (ED) attendances decreased after lockdown (23 March 2020) by 57.9% (57.1-58.6%) and 52.9% (52.2-53.5%) respectively compared with the previous year. Activity for cardiac, cerebrovascular and other vascular conditions started to decline 1-2 weeks before lockdown, and fell by 31-88% after lockdown, with the greatest reductions observed for coronary artery bypass grafts, carotid endarterectomy, aortic aneurysm repair and peripheral arterial disease procedures. Compared with before the first UK COVID-19 (31 January 2020), activity declined across diseases and specialties between the first case and lockdown (total ED attendances RR 0.94, 0.93-0.95; total hospital admissions RR 0.96, 0.95-0.97) and after lockdown (attendances RR 0.63, 0.62-0.64; admissions RR 0.59, 0.57-0.60). There was limited recovery towards usual levels of some activities from mid-April 2020. InterpretationSubstantial reductions in total and cardiovascular activities are likely to contribute to a major burden of indirect effects of the pandemic, suggesting they should be monitored and mitigated urgently. FundingBritish Heart Foundation, Health Data Research UK