Cost-effective strategies to maintain healthy active lifestyle in aging populations are required to address the global burden of age-related diseases. ASPREE will examine whether the potential primary prevention benefits of low dose aspirin outweigh the risks in older healthy individuals. Our primary hypothesis is that daily oral 100 mg enteric-coated aspirin will extend a composite primary endpoint termed ‘disability-free life’ including onset of dementia, total mortality, or persistent disability in at least one of the Katz Activities of Daily Living in 19,000 healthy participants aged 65 years and above (‘US minorities’) and 70 years and above (non ‘US minorities’). ASPREE is a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of oral 100 mg enteric-coated acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) or matching placebo being conducted in Australian and US community settings on individuals free of dementia, disability and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Secondary endpoints are all-cause and cause specific mortality, fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events, fatal and non-fatal cancer (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer), dementia, mild cognitive impairment, depression, physical disability, and clinically significant bleeding. To 20 September 2013 14383 participants have been recruited. Recruitment and study completion is anticipated in July 2014 and December 2018 respectively. In contrast to other aspirin trials that have largely focused on cardiovascular endpoints, ASPREE has a unique composite primary endpoint to better capture the overall risk and benefit of aspirin to extend healthy independent lifespan in older adults in the US and Australia.

Introduction Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) share their target receptor site with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, that may cause ACE2 receptor up-regulation which raised concerns regarding ACEI and ARB use in COVID-19 patients. However, many medical professional societies recommended their continued use given the paucity of clinical evidence, but there is a need for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the latest clinical studies. Methods and results A search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and various preprint servers for studies comparing clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients on ACEIs and/or ARBs, and a meta-analysis was performed. A total of 16 studies were included for the review and meta-analysis. There were conflicting findings reported in the rates of severity and mortality in several studies. In a pooled analysis of four studies, there was a statistically non-significant association of ACEI/ARB use with lower odds of developing severe disease vs. non-users [odds ratio (OR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41–1.58, I2=50.52, P-value = 0.53). In a pooled analysis of six studies, there was a statistically non-significant association of ACEI/ARB use with lower odds of mortality as compared with non-users (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.53–1.41, I2 = 79.12, P-value = 0.55). Conclusion It is concluded that ACEIs and ARBs should be continued in COVID-19 patients, reinforcing the recommendations made by several medical societies. Additionally, the individual patient factors such as ACE2 polymorphisms which might confer higher risk of adverse outcomes need to be evaluated further.

Introduction: Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) share their target receptor site with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, that may cause ACE2 receptor upregulation which raised concerns regarding ACEI and ARB use in COVID-19 patients. However, many medical professional societies recommended their continued use given the paucity of clinical evidence but there is need for an updated systematic review of latest clinical studies. Methods:A search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and various preprint servers for studies comparing clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients on ACEI and/or ARB and a meta-analysis was performed. Results: A total of sixteen studies were included for review and meta-analysis. There were conflicting findings reported in several studies as Meng J. et al, Liu Y. et al, Feng Y. et al, Zhang P. et al, Mancia G. et al and Reynolds H.R. et al reported that patients on ACE inhibitors/ARB had lower rates of severe outcomes whereas Richardson S. et al reported higher rates of invasive ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions in patients on ACE inhibitors/ARB as compared to non-users. Similarly, there were conflicting results in the rate of mortality reported in the various studies. Meng J. et al, Li J. et al, Zhang P. et al, Yang G. et al, Zeng Z. et al and Andrew Ip et al reported lower rates of mortality in ACE inhibitors/ARB users versus non-users whereas Richardson S. et al and Guo T. et al reported higher rates of mortality.In a pooled analysis of 9 studies, there was a statistically significant reduction (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.75-0.99, I 2 = 53.25, p value = 0.03) in the odds of death in those on ACEI/ARB as compared to patients not on ACEI/ARB. In a pooled analysis of five studies, there was a statistically nonsignificant reduction (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: 0.63-1.23, I 2 =70.36) in the odds of developing severe disease in patients on ACEI/ARB versus non-users.

No abstract

Background It is imperative that non-compliance with statins be identified and addressed to maximize their clinical benefits. Patient self-reporting methods are convenient to apply in clinical practice but need to be validated. Objective We studied the concordance of a patient self-report method, Morisky eight-item medication adherence scale (MMAS)), with the pill count method in measuring adherence with statins and their correlation with extended lipid profile parameters and serum hydroxyl-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase (HMGCoA-R) enzyme levels. Methods MMAS and the pill count method were used to measure the adherence with statins in patients on statins for any duration. Patients were subjected to an estimation of extended lipid profile and serum HMGCoA-R levels at the end of three months follow-up. Results Out of a total of 200 patients included in the study, 117 patients had a low adherence (score less than 6 on MMAS) whereas 65 and 18 patients had medium (score 6 or 7) and high adherence (score of 8), respectively. The majority of patients who had low adherence to statins by MMAS were nonadherent by the pill count method yielding a concordance of 96.5%. Medium or high adherence to statins by the MMAS method had a concordance of 89.1% with the pill count method. The levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and HMGCoA-R were negatively correlated with compliance measured by pill count and MMAS in a statistically significant way and with similar correlation coefficients. HMGCoA-R levels demonstrated a plateau phenomenon, with levels being 9-10 ng/ml when compliance with statin therapy was greater than 60% by pill count and greater than 6 on the Morisky scale.