Rationale: Use of ACEIs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and ARBs (angiotensin II receptor blockers) is a major concern for clinicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with hypertension. Objective: To determine the association between in-hospital use of ACEI/ARB and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension and hospitalized due to COVID-19. Methods and Results: This retrospective, multi-center study included 1128 adult patients with hypertension diagnosed with COVID-19, including 188 taking ACEI/ARB (ACEI/ARB group; median age 64 [interquartile range, 55–68] years; 53.2% men) and 940 without using ACEI/ARB (non-ACEI/ARB group; median age 64 [interquartile range 57–69]; 53.5% men), who were admitted to 9 hospitals in Hubei Province, China from December 31, 2019 to February 20, 2020. In mixed-effect Cox model treating site as a random effect, after adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and in-hospital medications, the detected risk for all-cause mortality was lower in the ACEI/ARB group versus the non-ACEI/ARB group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.19–0.92]; P =0.03). In a propensity score-matched analysis followed by adjusting imbalanced variables in mixed-effect Cox model, the results consistently demonstrated lower risk of COVID-19 mortality in patients who received ACEI/ARB versus those who did not receive ACEI/ARB (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15–0.89]; P =0.03). Further subgroup propensity score-matched analysis indicated that, compared with use of other antihypertensive drugs, ACEI/ARB was also associated with decreased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.12–0.70]; P =0.01) in patients with COVID-19 and coexisting hypertension. Conclusions: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and coexisting hypertension, inpatient use of ACEI/ARB was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that in-hospital use of ACEI/ARB was associated with an increased mortality risk.

We conducted a multicentre cross-sectional survey of COVID-19 patients to evaluate the acute psychological impact on the patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during isolation treatment based on online questionnaires from 2 February to 5 March 2020. A total of 460 COVID-19 patients from 13 medical centers in Hubei province were investigated for their mental health status using online questionnaires (including Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-15, and Insomnia Severity Index scales). Among all 460 COVID-19 patients, 187 (40.65%) of them were healthcare workers (HCWs). 297 (64.57%) of them were females. The most common psychological problems were somatization symptoms (66.09%, n = 304), followed by depression (53.48%, n = 246), anxiety (46.30%, n = 213), problems of insomnia (42.01%, n = 171), and then self-mutilating or suicidal thoughts (23.26%, n = 107). Of all the patients, 15.65% (n = 72) had severe somatization symptoms, and 2.83% (n = 13) had severe (almost every day) self-mutilating or suicidal thoughts. The most common psychological problems for HCWs were somatization symptoms (67.84%, n = 125), followed by depression (51.87%, n = 97), anxiety (44.92%, n = 84), problems of insomnia (36.18%, n = 55), and then self-mutilating or suicidal thoughts (20.86%, n = 39). Patients with lower education levels were found to be associated with higher incidence of self-mutilating or suicidal thoughts (odds ratio [OR], 2.68, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.66–4.33 [P < 0.001]). Patients with abnormal body temperature were found to be associated with higher incidence of self-mutilating or suicidal thoughts (OR, 3.97, 95% CI, 2.07–7.63 [P < 0.001]), somatic symptoms (OR, 2.06, 95% CI, 1.20–3.55 [P = 0.009]) and insomnia (OR, 1.66, 95% CI, 1.04–2.65 [P = 0.033]). Those with suspected infected family members displayed a higher prevalence of anxiety than those without infected family members (OR, 1.61, 95% CI, 1.1–2.37 [P = 0.015]). Patients at the age of 18–44 years old had fewer somatic symptoms than those aged over 45 years old (OR, 1.91, 95% CI, 1.3–2.81 [P = 0.001]). In conclusion, COVID-19 patients tended to have a high prevalence of adverse psychological events. Early identification and intervention should be conducted to avoid extreme events such as self-mutilating or suicidal impulsivity for COVID-19 patients, especially for those with low education levels and females who have undergone divorce or bereavement.

Schizophrenic patients tend to have reduced incidence of some cancers due to the treatment of antipsychotic drugs with antitumor effects, such as chlorpromazine and trifluoperazine (TFP). Forkhead Box O1 (FOXO1) as tumor suppressor in many malignancies is often inactivated by nuclear export, which could be inhibited by TFP. However, the antitumor efficiency of TFP and related role of FOXO1 in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are unclear. Thus, two HCC cell lines SMMC-7721 and Bel-7402 were treated with different concentrations of TFP and the IC50 was determined. We found that TFP could inhibit the vitality of two cell lines and induce cell cycle arrest at G0/G1. Meanwhile, the apoptosis was also increased and the ability of migration or invasion was found to be impaired by TFP. Interestingly, TFP reversed the cytoplasmic localization of FOXO1 to nuclear and increased its expression in nuclear, and increased the ratio of Bax/Bcl-2. However, knockdown of FOXO1 significantly abrogated the TFP-induced apoptosis by decreasing the Bcl-2 expression [corrected]. Furthermore, we found that TFP in vivo could effectively restrict the angiogenesis and tumor growth with reduced expression of VEGF, Bcl-2, and PCNA, and increased the nuclear localization of FOXO1, which indicated its antitumor role in HCC.

No abstract

ObjectiveCurrently radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablations are the two standard ablation systems used for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation; however, there is no universal consensus on which ablation is the optimal choice. We therefore sought to undertake a meta-analysis with special emphases on comparing the efficacy and safety between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations by synthesizing published clinical trials.Methods and ResultsArticles were identified by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases before September 2013, by reviewing the bibliographies of eligible reports, and by consulting with experts in this field. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. There were respectively 469 and 635 patients referred for cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations from 14 qualified clinical trials. Overall analyses indicated that cryoballoon ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopic time and total procedure time by a weighted mean of 14.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.82 to 25.45; P = 0.014) minutes and 29.65 (95% CI: 8.54 to 50.77; P = 0.006) minutes compared with radiofrequency ablation, respectively, whereas ablation time in cryoballoon ablation was nonsignificantly elongated by a weighted mean of 11.66 (95% CI: −10.71 to 34.04; P = 0.307) minutes. Patients referred for cryoballoon ablation had a high yet nonsignificant success rate of catheter ablation compared with cryoballoon ablation (odds ratio; 95% CI; P: 1.34; 0.53 to 3.36; 0.538), and cryoballoon ablation was also found to be associated with the relatively low risk of having recurrent atrial fibrillation (0.75; 0.3 to 1.88; 0.538) and major complications (0.46; 0.11 to 1.83; 0.269). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity and low probability of publication bias.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate greater improvement in fluoroscopic time and total procedure duration for atrial fibrillation patients referred for cryoballoon ablation than those for radiofrequency ablation.