Sex Differences in Association Between Anti-Hypertensive Medications and Risk of COVID-19 in Middle-Aged and Older Adults

Sex-Related Differences in the Pharmacological Response in SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Dyslipidemia, and Diabetes Mellitus: A Narrative Review

Pharmacological responses vary by sex in several illnesses. This narrative review summarizes sex variations in pharmaceutical response in SARS-CoV-2 infection, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is more severe and deadly in men than women. This may be attributed to immunological responses, genetics, and hormones. Some research shows that men may respond better to genomic vaccinations and females to antiviral medications such as remdesivir (Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech). In dyslipidemia, women tend to have greater HDL-C and lower LDL-C than men. Some studies show that females may need lower statin dosages than men to obtain equal LDL-C reductions. Ezetimibe co-administered with a statin significantly improved lipid profile indicators in men compared to women. Statins reduce dementia risk. Atorvastatin decreased dementia risk in males (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.88-0.97), whereas lovastatin lowered dementia risk in women (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95). In diabetes mellitus, evidence suggests that females may have a higher risk of developing certain complications such as diabetic retinopathy and neuropathy, despite having lower rates of cardiovascular disease than males. This could be the result of differences in hormonal influences and genetic factors. Some research shows females may respond better to oral hypoglycemic medications such as metformin. In conclusion, sex-related differences in pharmacological response have been observed in SARS-CoV-2 infection, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus. Further research is needed to better understand these differences and to develop personalized treatment strategies for males and females with these conditions.

Intrahospital supervised exercise training improves survival rate among hypertensive patients with COVID-19

Among the people most affected by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are those suffering from hypertension (HTN). However, pharmacological therapies for HTN are ineffective against COVID-19 progression and severity. It has been proposed that exercise training (EX) could be used as post-COVID treatment, which does not rule out the possible effects during hospitalization for COVID-19. Therefore, we aimed to determine the impact of supervised EX on HTN patients with COVID-19 during hospitalization. Among a total of 1,508 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR), 439 subjects were classified as having HTN and were divided into two groups: EX (n = 201) and control (n = 238) groups. EX (3-4 times/wk during all hospitalizations) consisted of aerobic exercises (15-45 min; i.e., walking); breathing exercises (10-15 min) (i.e., diaphragmatic breathing, pursed-lip breathing, active abdominal contraction); and musculoskeletal exercises (8-10 sets of 12-15 repetitions/wk; lifting dumbbells, standing up and sitting, lumbar stabilization). Our data revealed that the EX (clinician: patient, 1:1 ratio) intervention was able to improve survival rates among controlled HTN patients with COVID-19 during their hospitalization when compared with the control group (chi-squared: 4.83; hazard ratio: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.117 to 2.899; P = 0.027). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that EX was a prognostic marker (odds ratio: 0.449; 95% CI: 0.230-0.874; P = 0.018) along with sex and invasive and noninvasive mechanical ventilation. Our data showed that an intrahospital supervised EX program reduced the mortality rate among patients with HTN suffering from COVID-19 during their hospitalization.NEW & NOTEWORTHY In the present study, we found that exercise training improves the survival rate in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 during their hospitalization period. Our results provide strong evidence for the therapeutic efficacy of exercise training as a feasible approach to improving the outcomes of patients with COVID-19 who suffer from hypertension during their hospitalization.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Statin Use and Mortality, Intensive Care Unit Admission and Requirement for Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 Patients

There is mounting evidence that statin use is beneficial for COVID-19 outcomes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the association between statin use and mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients, on studies which provided covariate adjusted effect estimates, or performed propensity score matching. We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Scopus for studies and extracted odds or hazard ratios for specified outcome measures. Data synthesis was performed using a random-effects inverse variance method. Risk of bias, heterogeneity and publication bias were analyzed using standard methods. Our results show that statin use was associated with significant reductions in mortality (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.67–0.77; HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.69, 0.79), ICU admission (OR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89–0.99; HR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.60–0.96) and mechanical ventilation (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78–0.92; HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.47–0.97). Nevertheless, current retrospective studies are based on the antecedent use of statins prior to infection and/or continued use of statin after hospital admission. The results may not apply to the de novo commencement of statin treatment after developing COVID-19 infection. Prospective studies are lacking and necessary.

Renin-Angiotensin Aldosterone System Inhibitors and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Revealing Critical Bias Across a Body of Observational Research

Background

Renin‐angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor—COVID‐19 studies, observational in design, appear to use biased methods that can distort the interaction between RAAS inhibitor use and COVID‐19 risk. This study assessed the extent of bias in that research and reevaluated RAAS inhibitor—COVID‐19 associations in studies without critical risk of bias.

Methods and Results

Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases (December 1, 2019 to October 21, 2021) identifying studies that compared the risk of infection and/or severe COVID‐19 outcomes between those using or not using RAAS inhibitors (ie, angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type‐I receptor blockers). Weighted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were extracted and pooled in fixed‐effects meta‐analyses, only from studies without critical risk of bias that assessed severe COVID‐19 outcomes. Of 169 relevant studies, 164 had critical risks of bias and were excluded. Ultimately, only two studies presented data relevant to the meta‐analysis. In 1 351 633 people with uncomplicated hypertension using a RAAS inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide diuretic in monotherapy, the risk of hospitalization (angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66–0.87; P<0.001; angiotensin II type‐I receptor blockers: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.97; P=0.015) and intubation or death (angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48–0.85; P=0.002; angiotensin II type‐I receptor blockers: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58–0.95; P=0.019) with COVID‐19 was lower in those using a RAAS inhibitor. However, these protective effects are probably not clinically relevant.

Conclusions

This study reveals the critical risk of bias that exists across almost an entire body of COVID‐19 research, raising an important question: Were research methods and/or peer‐review processes temporarily weakened during the surge of COVID‐19 research or is this lack of rigor a systemic problem that also exists outside pandemic‐based research?

Registration

URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42021237859.