Angiotensin receptor blockers for the treatment of covid-19: pragmatic, adaptive, multicentre, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

Novel benzimidazole angiotensin receptor blockers with anti-SARS-CoV-2 activity equipotent to that of nirmatrelvir: computational and enzymatic studies

BACKGROUND

Pre-existing hypertensive pathologies are linked to worsened outcomes in patients infected with severe-acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2). Sartans, a family of anti-hypertensive angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), reduce morbidity and mortality in coronavirus 2019 patients by aeffecting angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2). The purpose of this study was to determine the anti-SARS-CoV-2viral and antihypertensive abilities of nirmatrelvir, and commercially available (e.g. candesartan, losartan, and losartan carboxylic (Exp3174))) and newly synthesized sartans (e.g. benzimidazole-N-biphenyl carboxyl (ACC519C), and benzimidazole-N-biphenyl tetrazole (ACC519T)), compared to nirmatrelvir, the antiviral component of paxlovid.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Surface plasmon resonance-binding (SPR) and enzymatic studies were used to determine drug effect on ACE2, antiviral abilities were evaluated using Vero E6 cells infected with SARS-CoV-2 and antihypertensive effects were investigated using rabbit iliac arteries contracted to angiotensin II-dose response.

RESULTS

The antiviral activity of benzimidazole-based candesartan and ACC519C were equipotent with nirmatrelvir (95% inhibition), while the imidazole-based losartan and E×p3174and ACC519T were less potent (75-80 and 50%, respectively%) and E×p3174was the least effective (50%). Furthermore, SPR analysis revealed a high binding affinity of sartans for ACE2 protein. Moreover, candesartan and nirmatrelvir exhibited the greatest inhibitory and cytopathic effect (3.96%) when given in combination rather than individually (6.10% and 5.08%, respectively). In addition,The ACE2 enzymatic activity assays demonstrated enhancement or inhibition properties of novel sartans toward ACE2 enzyme. Lastly, ACC519T potently reduced angiotensin II-mediated contraction while nirmatrelvir and ACC519T(2) had no effect.

CONCLUSION

This study describes the discovery of a new class of benzimidazole-based sartans that drastically inhibit SARS-CoV-2, which could be attributed, at least in part, to their interaction with ACE2.

Standard of care plus telmisartan on respiratory failure due to COVID-19 (STAR-COVID trial)

BACKGROUND

The potential influence of renin-angiotensin inhibitors on the severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection has been considered in preclinical and observational studies with contradictory results. Therefore, we investigated the effect of telmisartan in reducing lung injury among hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

The STAR-COVID trial was conducted as a prospective, parallel-group, randomized, open-label study involving hospitalized adult patients with severe COVID-19 (NCT04510662). Sixty-six patients were enrolled: 33 were assigned to the telmisartan group and 33 to the control group. The mean age of participants was 48.8 years, with 62.5% being male. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either telmisartan (40 mg daily for 14 days or until discharge) plus standard of care or standard of care alone. The primary outcome assessed was the initiation of mechanical ventilation within 14 days. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, the need for vasopressors, hemodialysis requirements, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

Comparison between the telmisartan group and the control group revealed no significant difference in the occurrence of mechanical ventilation at 14 days (25% with telmisartan vs. 18.7% with control, P=0.579). Additionally, there were no significant differences observed in terms of mortality (25% vs. 21.9%, P=0.768), the need for vasopressors (18.8% in both groups, P=1.000), hemodialysis requirements (6.3% vs. 3.1%, P=0.500), and length of hospital stay (median of 7 days in both groups, P=0.962).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the standard of care, telmisartan therapy demonstrated no significant impact on respiratory failure in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19.

Rethinking the pros and cons of randomized controlled trials and observational studies in the era of big data and advanced methods: a panel discussion

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been considered the gold standard for medical evidence. However, in light of emerging methodologies in data science, many experts question the role of RCTs. Within this context, experts in the USA and Canada came together to debate whether the primacy of RCTs as the gold standard for medical evidence, still holds in light of recent methodological advances in data science and in the era of big data. The purpose of this manuscript, aims to raise awareness of the pros and cons of RCTs and observational studies in order to help guide clinicians, researchers, students, and decision-makers in making informed decisions on the quality of medical evidence to support their work. In particular, new and underappreciated advantages and disadvantages of both designs are contrasted. Innovations taking place in both of these research methodologies, which can blur the lines between the two, are also discussed. Finally, practical guidance for clinicians and future directions in assessing the quality of evidence is offered.

Effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on outcomes from COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the effects of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This meta-analysis provides estimates of the safety and efficacy of treatment with (vs. without) RAS blockers from these trials.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (1 March-12 April 2023). Event/patient numbers were extracted, comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) treatment with no treatment, for the outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, acute kidney injury (AKI), renal replacement therapy (RRT), acute myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and all-cause death. Fixed-effects meta-analysis estimates were pooled.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs including 3492 patients were analysed. Compared with discontinuation of RAS blockers, continuation was not associated with increased risk of ICU [risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 0.66-1.41], ventilation (RR 0.77, 0.55-1.09), vasopressors (RR 0.92, 0.58-1.44), AKI (RR 1.01, 0.40-2.56), RRT (RR 1.01, 0.46-2.21), or thromboembolic events (RR 1.07, 0.36-3.19). RAS blocker initiation was not associated with increased risk of ICU (RR 0.71, 0.47-1.08), ventilation (RR 1.12, 0.91-1.38), AKI (RR 1.28, 0.89-1.86), RRT (RR 1.66, 0.89-3.12), or thromboembolic events (RR 1.20, 0.06-23.70), although vasopressor use increased (RR 1.27, 1.02-1.57). The RR for all-cause death in the continuation/discontinuation trials was 1.24 (0.80-1.92), and 1.22 (0.96-1.55) in the initiation trials. In patients with severe/critical COVID-19, RAS blocker initiation increased the risk of all-cause death (RR 1.31, 1.01-1.72).

CONCLUSION

ACE inhibitors and ARBs may be continued in non-severe COVID-19 infection, where indicated. Conversely, initiation of RAS blockers may be harmful in critically ill patients.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023408926.

The KINETIC phase 2 randomized controlled trial of oral pamapimod-pioglitazone in non-critically ill COVID-19 inpatients

The combination of pamapimod and pioglitazone (KIN001) has a synergetic antiviral, anti-inflammatory, and antifibrotic activity, which may prevent evolution toward COVID-19-associated severe respiratory failure. In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2, multicenter trial, 128 non-critically ill hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were treated with KIN001 or a placebo for 28 days. The proportion of patients alive and free of oxygen or respiratory support at the end of the therapy was lower than anticipated but not different in the two groups (KIN001 n = 19, 29%, placebo n = 21, 33%). 85 participants had at least one adverse event, with no difference in the number and distribution of events between the two groups. The clinical trial was stopped for futility, mainly due to a lower-than-expected incidence of the primary endpoint. KIN001 was safe and well-tolerated but had no significant effect on clinical outcome.

Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19

Continued receipt of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 has shown potential in producing better clinical outcomes. However, superiority between ACEi (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and ARB (angiotensin II receptor blockers) regarding clinical outcomes in this setting remains unknown. We retrospectively collected data on patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19 using the nationwide administrative database (Diagnosis and Procedure Combinations, DPC). The DPC data covered around 25% of all acute care hospitals in Japan. Patient outcomes, with focus on inpatient mortality, were compared between patients previously prescribed ACEi and those prescribed ARB. Comparisons based on crude, multivariate and propensity-score adjusted analysis were conducted. We examined a total of 7613 patients (ARB group, 6903; ACEi group 710). The ARB group showed lower crude in-hospital mortality, compared to the ACEi group (5% vs 8%; odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI 0.48-0.87), however not in the multivariate-adjusted model (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI 0.69-1.3) or propensity-score adjusted models (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI 0.63-1.2). ARB shows potential in reducing hospital stay duration over ACEi in patients admitted for COVID-19, but does not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality. Further prospective studies are needed to draw a definitive conclusion, but continuation of either of these medications is warranted to improve clinical outcomes.

RAAS inhibition and beyond-cardiovascular medications in patients at risk of or affected by COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic led to an enormous burden on healthcare systems worldwide. Causal therapy is still in its infancy. Contrary to initial views that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk for a deleterious disease course, it has been shown that these agents may actually be beneficial for patients affected by COVID-19. In this article, we provide an overview of the three most commonly used classes of drugs in cardiovascular disease (ACEi/ARB, statins, beta-blockers) and their potential role in COVID-19 therapy. More results from randomized clinical trials are necessary to identify patients that can benefit most from the use of the respective drugs.

Effect of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Initiation on Organ Support-Free Days in Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19.

Objective

To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non-critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022).

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was organ support-free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes.

RESULTS

On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support-free days among critically ill patients was 10 (-1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (-1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support-free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Our prior analysis demonstrated no significant difference in risk of mortality or disease progression among patients with COVID-19. With the availability of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we provide an updated review of RCTs which explored the outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitor (ACEis)/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) versus control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This systematic review and meta-analysis covers RCTs exploring mortality, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with ACEi/ARBs.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis. For mortality with ACEi/ARB utilization among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.47, p = 0.89) with heterogeneity of 26%. Further, the pooled RR for ACEi/ARB use on ICU admission and mechanical ventilation were 0.55 (0.55-1.08, p = 0.13) with a heterogeneity of 0% and 1.02 (0.78-1.32, p = 0.91) with a heterogeneity of 0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the use of ACEi/ARB was not associated with increased risk of mortality, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation compared to control. These findings support continuation of ACEi/ARB for whom baseline clinical indications for these agents exist.

Human Coronavirus Cell Receptors Provide Challenging Therapeutic Targets

Coronaviruses interact with protein or carbohydrate receptors through their spike proteins to infect cells. Even if the known protein receptors for these viruses have no evolutionary relationships, they do share ontological commonalities that the virus might leverage to exacerbate the pathophysiology. ANPEP/CD13, DPP IV/CD26, and ACE2 are the three protein receptors that are known to be exploited by several human coronaviruses. These receptors are moonlighting enzymes involved in several physiological processes such as digestion, metabolism, and blood pressure regulation; moreover, the three proteins are expressed in kidney, intestine, endothelium, and other tissues/cell types. Here, we spot the commonalities between the three enzymes, the physiological functions of the enzymes are outlined, and how blocking either enzyme results in systemic deregulations and multi-organ failures via viral infection or therapeutic interventions is addressed. It can be difficult to pinpoint any coronavirus as the target when creating a medication to fight them, due to the multiple processes that receptors are linked to and their extensive expression.

Renin-angiotensin blocker use is associated with improved cardiovascular mortality in Indian patients with mild-moderate chronic kidney disease-findings from the ICKD study

Introduction

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are the antihypertensive drug class of choice in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). Head-to-head comparisons of the renal or non-renal outcomes between ACEI/ARB users and nonusers have not been conducted in all population groups. We examined the renal and cardiovascular outcomes in users and nonusers enrolled in the Indian Chronic Kidney Disease (ICKD) Study.

Methods

A total of 4,056 patients with mild-moderate CKD were studied. Patients were categorized as ACEI/ARB users or nonusers. Major adverse kidney events [ESKD (end stage kidney disease), ≥50% decline in eGFR and kidney death], all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality were analyzed over a median follow-up period of 2.64 (1.40, 3.89) years between the two groups.

Results

Out of a total of 4,056 patients, 3,487 (87%) were hypertensive. The adjusted sub-hazard ratio (SHR) and 95 % CI for ACEI /ARB users was 0.85 (0.71, 1.02) for MAKE, 0.80 (0.64, 0.99) for a 50% decline in eGFR, and 0.72 (0.58, 0.90) for ESKD. For cardiovascular mortality, ACEI/ARB users were at lower risk (SHR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.88). Diuretic users were at increased risk of all-cause mortality (HR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.50, 2.53) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted SHR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.09, 2.73). There was non-significant association between the use of other antihypertensives and any of the end points.

Discussion

ACEI/ARB use is associated with slower rate of decline in eGFR in those with CKD stage 1-3. ACEI/ARB users had a significantly lower risk of renal outcomes, and cardiovascular mortality.