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.

Attendance to early, comprehensive short-term cardiac rehabilitation programmes on top of current guideline-adjusted treatment of acute myocardial infarction is associated with a significantly improved 1-year prognosis.

Previous studies on working memory training have indicated that transfer to non-trained tasks of other cognitive domains may be possible. The aim of this study is to compare working memory training and transfer effects between younger and older adults (n = 60). A novel approach to adaptive n-back training (12 sessions) was implemented by varying the working memory load and the presentation speed. All participants completed a neuropsychological battery of tests before and after the training. On average, younger training participants achieved difficulty level 12 after training, while older training participants only reached difficulty level 5. In younger participants, transfer to Verbal Fluency and Digit Symbol Substitution test was found. In older participants, we observed a transfer to Digit Span Forward, CERAD Delayed Recall, and Digit Symbol Substitution test. Results suggest that working memory training may be a beneficial intervention for maintaining and improving cognitive functioning in old age.