Objectives The COVID-19 pandemic presents an urgent need to investigate whether existing drugs can enhance or even worsen prognosis; metformin, a known mammalian target of rapamycin (m-TOR) inhibitor, has been identified as a potential agent. We sought to evaluate mortality benefit among older persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were taking metformin as compared to those who were not. Design Retrospective cohort study Setting and Participants: 775 nursing home residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 who resided in one of the 134 Community Living Centers (CLC) of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) during March 1, 2020 to May 13, 2020 were included. Methods Using a window of 14 days prior to SARS-CoV-2 testing, bar coded medication administration records were examined for dispensing of medications for diabetes. The COVID-19 infected residents were divided into groups: 1) residents administered metformin alone or in combination with other medications, 2) residents who used long acting or daily insulin, 3) residents administered other diabetes medications, and 4) residents not administered diabetes medication, including non-diabetics and untreated diabetics. Proportional hazard models adjusted for demographics, hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, and renal function. Results Relative to those not receiving diabetes medications, residents taking metformin were at significantly reduced hazard of death (adjusted HR 0.48, 95%CI 0.28, 0.84) over the subsequent 30 days from COVID-19 diagnosis. There was no association with insulin (adjusted HR 0.99, 95% 0.60, 1.64) or other diabetes medications (adjusted HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38, 1.32). Conclusions and Implications Our data suggests a reduction in 30-day mortality following SARS-CoV-2 infection in residents who were on metformin-containing diabetes regimens. These findings suggest a relative survival benefit in nursing home residents on metformin, potentially through its mTOR inhibition effects. A prospective study should investigate the therapeutic benefits of metformin among persons with COVID-19.

Urotensin II (UII) binds to its receptor, UT, playing an important role in the heart, kidneys, pancreas, adrenal gland, and central nervous system. In the vasculature, it acts as a potent endothelium-independent vasoconstrictor and endothelium-dependent vasodilator. In disease states, however, this constriction–dilation equilibrium is disrupted. There is an upregulation of the UII system in heart disease, metabolic syndrome, and kidney failure. The increase in UII release and UT expression suggest that UII system may be implicated in the pathology and pathogenesis of these diseases by causing an increase in acyl-coenzyme A:cholesterol acyltransferase-1 (ACAT-1) activity leading to smooth muscle cell proliferation and foam cell infiltration, insulin resistance (DMII), as well as inflammation, high blood pressure, and plaque formation. Recently, UT antagonists such as SB-611812, palosuran, and most recently a piperazino-isoindolinone based antagonist have been developed in the hope of better understanding the UII system and treating its associated diseases.

BackgroundICI revolutionized modern Oncology landscape and being utilized in metastatic to adjuvant and neo-adjuvant settings. As Oncologists, we are treating cancer patients with ICI every day, yet there is still a lot that is unknown about these drugs. We don’t have clear understanding of the efficacy and toxicity when sequencing one ICI for another. We conducted a retrospective review of real world data at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center to understand further and to pave path for prospective studies to understand this issue further to improve patient care.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed Oncology patient charts who received ICI between January1, 2014 to December 18, 2018. Total 483 patients received ICI during this time frame and 22 of these patients received a second ICI either as monotherapy or in combination with other ICI or chemotherapy.ResultsA total of 22 patients received subsequent ICI after the initial ICI as showed in table 1. 15 of the 22 (68%) patients were transitioned from one ICI to another monotherapy. 11 of these patients were transitioned secondary to disease progression (73%), three had immune related adverse events and one was switched per standard of care. One patient had ICI re-challenge. Three patients had a transition from ICI monotherapy to combination ICI therapy. One patient went onto chemo-immunotherapy and 2 patients transitioned from combination ICI to chemo-immunotherapy.Abstract 284 Table 1Real world data of sequencing immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) after initial ICIConclusionsICI therapy is evolving and patients are being treated with multiple lines of ICI. In current practices, ICI is frequently being transitioned from cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or its ligand, programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) classes or combined with chemotherapy or targeted therapy. It would be prudent to explore the effects of sequencing these medications either as a monotherapy or in combination with other therapies to better serve our patients and to prevent financial toxicity.