Efficacy of Losartan in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19-Induced Lung Injury: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: SARS-CoV-2 viral entry may disrupt angiotensin II (AII) homeostasis, contributing to COVID-19 induced lung injury. AII type 1 receptor blockade mitigates lung injury in preclinical models, although data in humans with COVID-19 remain mixed. Objective: To test the efficacy of losartan to reduce lung injury in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This blinded, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 13 hospitals in the United States from April 2020 to February 2021. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and a respiratory sequential organ failure assessment score of at least 1 and not already using a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor were eligible for participation. Data were analyzed from April 19 to August 24, 2021. Interventions: Losartan 50 mg orally twice daily vs equivalent placebo for 10 days or until hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the imputed arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (Pao2:Fio2) ratio at 7 days. Secondary outcomes included ordinal COVID-19 severity; days without supplemental o2, ventilation, or vasopressors; and mortality. Losartan pharmacokinetics and RAAS components (AII, angiotensin-[1-7] and angiotensin-converting enzymes 1 and 2)] were measured in a subgroup of participants. Results: A total of 205 participants (mean [SD] age, 55.2 [15.7] years; 123 [60.0%] men) were randomized, with 101 participants assigned to losartan and 104 participants assigned to placebo. Compared with placebo, losartan did not significantly affect Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days (difference, -24.8 [95%, -55.6 to 6.1]; P = .12). Compared with placebo, losartan did not improve any secondary clinical outcomes and led to fewer vasopressor-free days than placebo (median [IQR], 9.4 [9.1-9.8] vasopressor-free days vs 8.7 [8.2-9.3] vasopressor-free days). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that initiation of orally administered losartan to hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and acute lung injury did not improve Pao2:Fio2 ratio at 7 days. These data may have implications for ongoing clinical trials. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04312009

Estimations and predictors of non-compliance in switchers to reduced nicotine content cigarettes.

Background and aimsClinical trials on the impact and safety of reduced nicotine content cigarettes (RNCs) are ongoing, and an important methodological concern is participant compliance with smoking only RNCs. Our aims were to measure non-compliance biochemically with urine cotinine (COT) and total nicotine equivalents (TNEs), compare with self-reported non-compliance and identify associated covariates.DesignSecondary analysis of a double-blind, parallel, randomized clinical trial.SettingResearch centers from the United States, enrolling participants from June 2013 to July 2014.ParticipantsVolunteer sample of 242 participants (55% Caucasian), average age of 41.2 years, smoking at least five cigarettes per day (CPD).InterventionSmoking very low nicotine cigarettes (VLNCs; 0.4 mg nicotine/g tobacco) for 6 weeks.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was biochemically verified non-compliance, measured as thresholds of COT/CPD and TNE/CPD ratios, considering changes in nicotine content from conventional levels to VLNCs, and as an absolute threshold of week 6 TNEs. Self-reported non-compliance was measured via daily phone calls. Key predictors included age, sex, race, menthol preference, nicotine metabolite ratio, time to first cigarette, dependence, CPD, TNEs, tar level and cigarette evaluation.FindingsEstimates of non-compliance with smoking the VLNCs exclusively include: the biochemical ratios (both 78%), the week 6 TNE threshold (76%) and self-report (39%). Of the key covariates, age, dependence and cigarette evaluations of satisfaction were significant; for age, younger participants more likely to be non-compliant [P = 0.01; odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.96-0.99]. Dependence was associated significantly with self-reported non-compliance (P = 0.01; OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.06-1.55). Cigarette evaluations of satisfaction were associated significantly with non-compliance (P = 0.001; OR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61-0.82).ConclusionsAmong smokers volunteering to smoke only very low nicotine cigarettes for 6 weeks, non-compliance was common and biochemical assessments detected more cases of non-compliance than self-report. Despite high levels of non-compliance, smokers reduced their intake of nicotine by an average of 60%

Mouth-Level Nicotine Intake Estimates from Discarded Filter Butts to Examine Compensatory Smoking in Low Nicotine Cigarettes.

BackgroundA mandated reduction in the nicotine content of cigarettes could reduce smoking rate and prevalence. However, one concern is that smokers may compensate by increasing the intensity with which they smoke each cigarette to obtain more nicotine. This study assessed whether smokers engage in compensatory smoking by estimating the mouth-level nicotine intake of low nicotine cigarettes smoked during a clinical trial.MethodsSmokers were randomly assigned to receive cigarettes with one of five nicotine contents for 6 weeks. An additional group received a cigarette with the lowest nicotine content, but an increased tar yield. The obtained mouth-level nicotine intake from discarded cigarette butts for a subset of participants (51-70/group) was estimated using solanesol as described previously. A compensation index was calculated for each group to estimate the proportion of nicotine per cigarette recovered through changes in smoking intensity.ResultsThere was no significant increase in smoking intensity for any of the reduced nicotine cigarettes as measured by the compensation index (an estimated 0.4% of the nicotine lost was recovered in the lowest nicotine group; 95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 1.2). There was a significant decrease in smoking intensity for very low nicotine content cigarettes with increased tar yield.ConclusionsReductions in nicotine content did not result in compensatory changes in how intensively participants smoked research cigarettes.ImpactCombined with data from clinical trials showing a reduction in cigarettes smoked per day, these data suggest that a reduction in nicotine content is unlikely to result in increased smoke exposure

Effects of immediate versus gradual nicotine reduction in cigarettes on biomarkers of biological effects.

AimA previous study showed significantly greater reductions in number of cigarettes smoked and biomarkers of toxicant and carcinogen exposure in smokers assigned to immediate reduction of nicotine in cigarettes to very low levels versus gradually over time or continued smoking of normal nicotine content cigarettes. This study examines the effects of these approaches on selected biomarkers associated with harmful biological effects.DesignThree-arm, randomized controlled trial.SettingTen United States academic institutional sites.ParticipantsDaily smokers uninterested in quitting smoking with a mean age of 45.1 [standard deviation (SD) = 13.4)] years and smoking 17.1 (SD = 8.5) cigarettes/day; 43.9% (549 of 1250) female; 60.6% (758 of 1250) white ethnicity.Interventions(1) Smoking cigarettes where nicotine content was immediately reduced to very low levels (n = 503); (2) smoking cigarettes where nicotine content was gradually reduced, with dose changes occurring monthly (n = 498); and (3) continued smoking with normal nicotine content cigarettes (n = 249).MeasurementsSmokers were assessed at baseline while smoking their usual brand cigarettes, and again at 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 weeks. Outcomes were areas under the concentration time curve (AUC) for the period of study of biomarkers of inflammation, oxidative stress and hematological parameters.FindingsNo consistent significant differences were observed across groups (Bayes factors showing data to be insensitive), with the only exception being red blood cell size variability, which was observed to be lower in the immediate versus gradual nicotine reduction [mean difference =  -0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.18, -0.04, P = 0.004] and normal nicotine control groups (mean difference = - 0.15, 95% CI = -0.23, -0.06, P = 0.001).ConclusionIt remains unclear whether switching to very low nicotine cigarettes leads to a short-term reduction in biomarkers of tobacco-related harm

Effects of immediate versus gradual nicotine reduction in cigarettes on biomarkers of biological effects.

AimA previous study showed significantly greater reductions in number of cigarettes smoked and biomarkers of toxicant and carcinogen exposure in smokers assigned to immediate reduction of nicotine in cigarettes to very low levels versus gradually over time or continued smoking of normal nicotine content cigarettes. This study examines the effects of these approaches on selected biomarkers associated with harmful biological effects.DesignThree-arm, randomized controlled trial.SettingTen United States academic institutional sites.ParticipantsDaily smokers uninterested in quitting smoking with a mean age of 45.1 [standard deviation (SD) = 13.4)] years and smoking 17.1 (SD = 8.5) cigarettes/day; 43.9% (549 of 1250) female; 60.6% (758 of 1250) white ethnicity.Interventions(1) Smoking cigarettes where nicotine content was immediately reduced to very low levels (n = 503); (2) smoking cigarettes where nicotine content was gradually reduced, with dose changes occurring monthly (n = 498); and (3) continued smoking with normal nicotine content cigarettes (n = 249).MeasurementsSmokers were assessed at baseline while smoking their usual brand cigarettes, and again at 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 weeks. Outcomes were areas under the concentration time curve (AUC) for the period of study of biomarkers of inflammation, oxidative stress and hematological parameters.FindingsNo consistent significant differences were observed across groups (Bayes factors showing data to be insensitive), with the only exception being red blood cell size variability, which was observed to be lower in the immediate versus gradual nicotine reduction [mean difference =  -0.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.18, -0.04, P = 0.004] and normal nicotine control groups (mean difference = - 0.15, 95% CI = -0.23, -0.06, P = 0.001).ConclusionIt remains unclear whether switching to very low nicotine cigarettes leads to a short-term reduction in biomarkers of tobacco-related harm

A multi-center phase II randomized clinical trial of losartan on symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19

Background: The SARS-CoV-2 virus enters cells via Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), disrupting the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis, potentially contributing to lung injury. Treatment with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), such as losartan, may mitigate these effects, though induction of ACE2 could increase viral entry, replication, and worsen disease. Methods: This study represents a placebo-controlled blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) to test the efficacy of losartan on outpatients with COVID-19 across three hospital systems with numerous community sites in Minnesota, U.S. Participants included symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 not already taking ACE-inhibitors or ARBs, enrolled within 7 days of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to 1:1 losartan (25 mg orally twice daily unless estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR, was reduced, when dosing was reduced to once daily) versus placebo for 10 days, and all patients and outcome assesors were blinded. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalization within 15 days. Secondary outcomes included functional status, dyspnea, temperature, and viral load. (clinicatrials.gov, NCT04311177, closed to new participants) Findings: From April to November 2020, 117 participants were randomized 58 to losartan and 59 to placebo, and all were analyzed under intent to treat principles. The primary outcome did not differ significantly between the two arms based on Barnard's test [losartan arm: 3 events (5.2% 95% CI 1.1, 14.4%) versus placebo arm: 1 event (1.7%; 95% CI 0.0, 9.1%)]; proportion difference -3.5% (95% CI -13.2, 4.8%); p = 0.32]. Viral loads were not statistically different between treatment groups at any time point. Adverse events per 10 patient days did not differ signifcantly [0.33 (95% CI 0.22–0.49) for losartan vs. 0.37 (95% CI 0.25–0.55) for placebo]. Due to a lower than expected hospitalization rate and low likelihood of a clinically important treatment effect, the trial was terminated early. Interpretation: In this multicenter blinded RCT for outpatients with mild symptomatic COVID-19 disease, losartan did not reduce hospitalizations, though assessment was limited by low event rate. Importantly, viral load was not statistically affected by treatment. This study does not support initiation of losartan for low-risk outpatients. Funding: This study was supported by Minnesota Partnership for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics (CON000000076883)