Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

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: NCT0273570

Pneumococcal purpura fulminans in asplenic or hyposplenic patients: a French multicenter exposed-unexposed retrospective cohort study

International audienceBACKGROUND: Pneumococcal infections remain the main cause of overwhelming post-splenectomy infections, and purpura fulminans may develop in almost 20% of patients with overwhelming post-splenectomy infection. We aimed at describing the impact of asplenia/hyposplenia on the clinical features and the outcomes of adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for pneumococcal purpura fulminans. METHODS: A 17-year national multicenter retrospective cohort study included adult patients admitted to 55 French ICUs for an infectious purpura fulminans from 2000 to 2016. Patients with pneumococcal purpura fulminans were analyzed according to the absence or presence of asplenia/hyposplenia. RESULTS: Among the 306 patients admitted to the ICU for purpura fulminans, 67 (22%) had a pneumococcal purpura fulminans, of whom 34 (51%) had asplenia (n = 29/34, 85%) or hyposplenia (n = 5/34, 15%) and 33 (49%) had eusplenia. The prevalence of pneumococcal purpura fulminans was seven times higher in asplenic/hyposplenic patients compared to eusplenic patients with purpura fulminans (n = 34/39, 87% vs. n = 33/267, 12%; p \textless 0.001). The median time interval between the occurrence of asplenia/hyposplenia and ICU admission was 20 [9-32] years. Pneumococcal vaccine coverage was 35% in asplenic/hyposplenic patients. Purpura was more frequently reported before ICU admission in asplenic/hyposplenic patients (n = 25/34, 73% vs. n = 13/33, 39%; p = 0.01). The rate of bacteremia did not differ between asplenic/hyposplenic and eusplenic patients (n = 31/34, 91% vs n = 27/33, 82%; p = 0.261). SAPS II (60 ± 14 vs. 60 ± 18; p = 0.244) and SOFA (13 [1-5] vs. 14 [1-4, 6]; p = 0.48) scores did not differ between asplenic/hyposplenic and eusplenic patients. There were no significant differences between asplenic/hyposplenic and eusplenic patients regarding the rate of limb amputation (n = 9/34, 26% vs. 15/33, 45%; p = 0.11) and hospital mortality (n = 20/34, 59% vs. n = 15/33, 45%; p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Half of pneumococcal purpura fulminans episodes occurred in asplenic or hyposplenic patients. Pneumococcal vaccine coverage was reported in one third of asplenic/hyposplenic patients. Half of pneumococcal purpura fulminans episodes occurred more than 20 years after splenectomy. Outcomes of pneumococcal purpura fulminans did not show significant differences between patients with or without asplenia or hyposplenia, although the small number of patients included limited our power to detect potential differences between groups