Systemic arterial hypertension (referred to as hypertension herein) is a major risk factor of mortality worldwide, and its importance is further emphasized in the context of the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection referred to as COVID-19. Patients with severe COVID-19 infections commonly are older and have a history of hypertension. Almost 75% of patients who have died in the pandemic in Italy had hypertension. This raised multiple questions regarding a more severe course of COVID-19 in relation to hypertension itself as well as its treatment with renin–angiotensin system (RAS) blockers, e.g. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). We provide a critical review on the relationship of hypertension, RAS, and risk of lung injury. We demonstrate lack of sound evidence that hypertension per se is an independent risk factor for COVID-19. Interestingly, ACEIs and ARBs may be associated with lower incidence and/or improved outcome in patients with lower respiratory tract infections. We also review in detail the molecular mechanisms linking the RAS to lung damage and the potential clinical impact of treatment with RAS blockers in patients with COVID-19 and a high cardiovascular and renal risk. This is related to the role of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) for SARS-CoV-2 entry into cells, and expression of ACE2 in the lung, cardiovascular system, kidney, and other tissues. In summary, a critical review of available evidence does not support a deleterious effect of RAS blockers in COVID-19 infections. Therefore, there is currently no reason to discontinue RAS blockers in stable patients facing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Document Reviewers: Luis Alcocer (Mexico), Christina Antza (Greece), Mustafa Arici (Turkey), Eduardo Barbosa (Brazil), Adel Berbari (Lebanon), Luís Bronze (Portugal), John Chalmers (Australia), Tine De Backer (Belgium), Alejandro de la Sierra (Spain), Kyriakos Dimitriadis (Greece), Dorota Drozdz (Poland), Béatrice Duly-Bouhanick (France), Brent M. Egan (USA), Serap Erdine (Turkey), Claudio Ferri (Italy), Slavomira Filipova (Slovak Republic), Anthony Heagerty (UK), Michael Hecht Olsen (Denmark), Dagmara Hering (Poland), Sang Hyun Ihm (South Korea), Uday Jadhav (India), Manolis Kallistratos (Greece), Kazuomi Kario (Japan), Vasilios Kotsis (Greece), Adi Leiba (Israel), Patricio López-Jaramillo (Colombia), Hans-Peter Marti (Norway), Terry McCormack (UK), Paolo Mulatero (Italy), Dike B. Ojji (Nigeria), Sungha Park (South Korea), Priit Pauklin (Estonia), Sabine Perl (Austria), Arman Postadzhian (Bulgaria), Aleksander Prejbisz (Poland), Venkata Ram (India), Ramiro Sanchez (Argentina), Markus Schlaich (Australia), Alta Schutte (Australia), Cristina Sierra (Spain), Sekib Sokolovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Jonas Spaak (Sweden), Dimitrios Terentes-Printzios (Greece), Bruno Trimarco (Italy), Thomas Unger (The Netherlands), Bert-Jan van den Born (The Netherlands), Anna Vachulova (Slovak Republic), Agostino Virdis (Italy), Jiguang Wang (China), Ulrich Wenzel (Germany), Paul Whelton (USA), Jiri Widimsky (Czech Republic), Jacek Wolf (Poland), Grégoire Wuerzner (Switzerland), Eugene Yang (USA), Yuqing Zhang (China).

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic considerably affects health, wellbeing, social, economic and other aspects of daily life. The impact of COVID-19 on blood pressure (BP) control and hypertension remains insufficiently explored. We therefore provide a comprehensive review of the potential changes in lifestyle factors and behaviours as well as environmental changes likely to influence BP control and cardiovascular risk during the pandemic. This includes the impact on physical activity, dietary patterns, alcohol consumption and the resulting consequences, for example increases in body weight. Other risk factors for increases in BP and cardiovascular risk such as smoking, emotional/psychologic stress, changes in sleep patterns and diurnal rhythms may also exhibit significant changes in addition to novel factors such as air pollution and environmental noise. We also highlight potential preventive measures to improve BP control because hypertension is the leading preventable risk factor for worldwide health during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

Aim: To measure the extent of polypharmacy, multimorbidity and potential medication-related problems in elderly patients with chronic pain receiving home care.Methods: Data of 355 patients aged ≥65 years affected by chronic pain in home care who were enrolled in the ACHE study in Berlin, Germany, were analyzed. History of chronic diseases, diagnoses, medications including self-medication were collected for all patients. Multimorbidity was defined as the presence of ≥2 chronic conditions and levels were classified by the Charlson-Comorbidity-Index. Polypharmacy was defined as the concomitant intake of ≥5 medications. Potentially clinically relevant drug interactions were identified and evaluated; underuse of potentially useful medications as well as overprescription were also assessed.Results: More than half of the patients (55.4%) had moderate to severe comorbidity levels. The median number of prescribed drugs was 9 (range 0–25) and polypharmacy was detected in 89.5% of the patients. Almost half of them (49.3%) were affected by excessive polypharmacy (≥10 prescribed drugs). Polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy occurred at all levels of comorbidity. We detected 184 potentially relevant drug interactions in 120/353 (34.0%) patients and rated 57 (31.0%) of them as severe. Underprescription of oral anticoagulants was detected in 32.3% of patients with atrial fibrillation whereas potential overprescription of loop diuretics was observed in 15.5% of patients.Conclusion: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are highly prevalent in elderly outpatients with chronic pain receiving home care. Medication-related problems that could impair safety of drug treatment in this population are resulting from potentially relevant drug interactions, overprescribing as well as underuse.

β-Blockers are important drugs in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. They are suspected of inducing various psychiatric adverse events (PAEs), particularly depression, affecting cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We performed a systematic search for double-blind, randomized controlled trials investigating β-blockers to analyze the risk of PAEs or withdrawal of therapy due to PAEs. We extracted the frequencies of PAEs and rates of withdrawals and reviewed them to the number of exposed patients. For β-blockers versus placebo or other active treatment, we calculated odds ratios for individual PAEs and withdrawal rates. We retrieved overall 285 eligible studies encompassing 53 533 patients. The risk of bias was judged to be high in 79% of the studies. Despite being the most frequently reported PAE with a total of 1600 cases, depression did not occur more commonly during β-blockers than during placebo (odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.83–1.25]). β-Blocker use was also not associated with withdrawal for depression (odds ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.51–1.84]). Similar results were obtained for comparisons against active agents. Among other PAEs, only unusual dreams, insomnia, and sleep disorder were possibly related to β-blocker therapy. In conclusion, this analysis of large-scale data from double-blind, randomized controlled trials does not support an association between β-blocker therapy and depression. Similarly, no effect for β-blockers was found for other PAEs, with the possible exceptions of sleep-related disorders. Consequently, concerns about β-blockers’ impact on psychological health should not affect their use in clinical practice.

GPs should be aware of barriers to statin therapy and useful approaches to overcome them. They could be supported by guideline recommendations that are more closely aligned to primary care as well as comprehensible patient information about lipid-lowering therapy. Future studies, exploring patients' specific needs and involving them in improving adherence behaviour, are recommended.

Statin therapy is the backbone of pharmacologic therapy for low-density lipoproteins cholesterol lowering and plays a pivotal role in cardiovascular disease prevention. Statin intolerance is understood as the inability to continue using a statin to reduce individual cardiovascular risk sufficiently, due to the development of symptoms or laboratory abnormalities attributable to the initiation or dose escalation of a statin. Muscle symptoms are the most common side effects observed. Areas covered: The main aim of this article is to present a review on published definitions of statin intolerance. In addition, a brief review on clinical aspects and risk factors of statin intolerance is provided and features for a common definition for statin intolerance are suggested. Expert opinion: A definition of statin intolerance by major drug regulatory agencies is not available. In clinical studies, different definitions are chosen and results are not comparable; different medical associations do not agree on one common definition. There is an unmet need to establish a common definition of statin intolerance to ensure an appropriate clinical use of this important drug class. Further work is required to develop a consensus definition on statin intolerance that could have significant positive impact on both research and clinical management.