A Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and COVID-19

Potential use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors to reduce COVID-19 severity

SARS-CoV-2 infection and its clinical manifestations (COVID-19) quickly evolved to a pandemic and a global public health emergency. The limited effectivity of available treatments aimed at reducing virus replication and the lessons learned from other coronavirus infections (SARS-CoV-1 or NL63) that share the internalization process of SARS-CoV-2, led us to revisit the COVID-19 pathogenesis and potential treatments. Virus protein S binds to the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) initiating the internalization process. Endosome formation removes ACE2 from the cellular membrane preventing its counter-regulative effect mediated by the metabolism of angiotensin II to angiotensin (1-7). Internalized virus-ACE2 complexes have been identified for these coronaviruses. SARS-CoV-2 presents the highest affinity for ACE2 and produces the most severe symptoms. Assuming ACE2 internalization is the trigger for COVID-19 pathogenesis, accumulation of angiotensin II can be viewed as the potential cause of symptoms. Angiotensin II is a strong vasoconstrictor, but has also important roles in hypertrophy, inflammation, remodeling, and apoptosis. Higher levels of ACE2 in the lungs explain the acute respiratory distress syndrome as primary symptoms. Most of the described findings and clinical manifestations of COVID-19, including increased interleukin levels, endothelial inflammation, hypercoagulability, myocarditis, dysgeusia, inflammatory neuropathies, epileptic seizures and memory disorders can be explained by excessive angiotensin II levels. Several meta-analyses have demonstrated that previous use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers were associated with better prognosis for COVID-19. Therefore, pragmatic trials to assess the potential therapeutic benefits of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors should be urgently promoted by health authorities to widen the therapeutic options for COVID-19.

An umbrella review and meta-analysis of renin-angiotensin system drugs use and COVID-19 outcomes

BACKGROUND

Despite the availability of extensive literature on the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 outcomes, the evidence is still controversial. We aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related outcomes by summarising the currently available evidence.

METHODS

An umbrella review was conducted using Medline (OVID), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and medRxiv from inception to 1 February 2021. Systematic reviews with meta-analysis that evaluated the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes were eligible. Studies' quality was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 Critical Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the random-effects modelling including several subgroup analyses. Heterogenicity was assessed using I2 statistic. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021233398) and reported using PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 47 reviews were eligible for inclusion. Out of the nine COVID-19 outcomes evaluated, there was significant associations between ACEIs/ARBs use and each of death (OR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.75-0.86; I2  = 51.9%), death/ICU admission as composite outcome (OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.80-0.92; I2  = 43.9%), severe COVID-19 (OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.78-0.95; I2  = 68%) and hospitalisation (OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.04-1.46; I2  = 76.4%). The significant reduction in death/ICU admission, however, was higher among studies which presented adjusted measure of effects (OR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.47-0.84) and were of moderate quality (OR = 0.74, 95%CI = 0.63-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Collective evidence from observational studies indicate a good quality evidence on the significant association between ACEIs/ARBs use and reduction in death and death/ICU admission, but poor-quality evidence on both reducing severe COVID-19 and increasing hospitalisation. Our findings further support the current recommendations of not discontinuing ACEIs/ARBs therapy in patients with COVID-19.

Association of outpatient use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers on outcomes of acute respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the associations between patients taking ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and their clinical outcomes after an acute viral respiratory illness (AVRI) due to COVID-19.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

The USA; 2017-2018 influenza season, 2018-2019 influenza season, and 2019-2020 influenza/COVID-19 season.

PARTICIPANTS

People with hypertension (HTN) taking an ACEi, ARB or other HTN medications, and experiencing AVRI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Change in hospital admission, intensive care unit (ICU) or coronary care unit (CCU), acute respiratory distress (ARD), ARD syndrome (ARDS) and all-cause mortality, comparing COVID-19 to pre-COVID-19 influenza seasons.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1 059 474 episodes of AVRI (653 797 filled an ACEi or ARB, and 405 677 other HTN medications). 58.6% were women and 72.9% with age ≥65. The ACEi/ARB cohort saw a larger increase in risk in the COVID-19 influenza season than the other HTN medication cohort for four out of five outcomes, with an additional 1.5 percentage point (pp) increase in risk of an inpatient stay (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9 pp) and of ICU/CCU use (95% CI 0.3 to 2.7 pp) as well as a 0.7 pp (0.1 to 1.2 pp) additional increase in risk of ARD and 0.9 pp (0.4 to 1.3 pp) additional increase in risk of ARDS. There was no statistically significant difference in the absolute risk of death (-0.2 pp, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1 pp). However, the relative risk of death in 2019/2020 versus 2017/2018 for the ACEi/ARB group was larger (1.40 (1.36 to 1.44)) than for the other HTN medication cohort (1.24 (1.21 to 1.28)).

CONCLUSIONS

People with AVRI using ACEi/ARBs for HTN had a greater increase in poor outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic than those using other medications to treat HTN. The small absolute magnitude of the differences likely does not support changes in clinical practice.

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.

The Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

COVID-19 has proved to be a serious, and consequential disease that has affected millions of people globally. Previously, the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) have been observed with increasing the risk of pneumonia and COVID-19. This meta-analysis aims to address the relationship between the use of PPI and the severity of COVID-19 infection. We conducted a systemic literature search from PUBMED, Science Direct, and Cinahl from December 2019 to January 2022. Published and unpublished randomized control trials and cohort studies were included. Review Manager was used for all statistical analyses. In total, 14 studies were included in this systemic review and meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest include: (1) susceptibility of COVID-19 infection and (2) severity of COVID-19 (defined as the composite of poor outcomes: ICU admission, need for oxygen therapy, need for a ventilator, or death), and (3) mortality due to COVID-19. PPI use was marginally associated with a nominal but statistically significant increase in the risk of COVID-19 infection (OR 1.05 [1.01, 1.09]; I2 97%, p = 0.007). PPI use also increased the risk of the composite poor outcome (OR 1.84 [1.71, 1.99]; I2 98%, p < 0.00001) and mortality (OR 1.12 [1.00, 1.25]; I2 84%, p = 0.05) in patients with COVID-19.

Postmortem findings in COVID-19 fatalities: A systematic review of current evidence

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is responsible for the ongoing pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Almost 17 months after the first COVID-19 case was reported, the exact pathogenesis of the virus is still open to interpretation. Postmortem studies have been relatively scarce due to the high infectivity rate of the virus. We systematically reviewed the literature available for studies that reported gross, histological, microscopic, and immunohistochemical findings in COVID-19 fatalities with the aim of reporting any recurrent findings among different demographics. PubMed and Scopus were searched up till the second of May 2021 and 46 studies with a total of 793 patients were shortlisted after the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. The selected studies reported gross, histological, microscopic, and immunohistochemical autopsy findings in the lungs, heart, liver, gallbladder, bowels, kidney, spleen, bone marrow, lymph nodes, CNS, pancreas, endocrine/exocrine glands, and a few other miscellaneous locations. The SARS-CoV-2 virus was detected in multiple organs and so was the presence of widespread microthrombi. This finding suggests that the pathogenesis of this highly infectious virus might be linked to some form of coagulopathy. Further studies should focus on analyzing postmortem findings in a larger number of patients from different demographics in order to obtain more generalizable results.

Cardiovascular Disease Prevention During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned and Future Opportunities

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has been the defining healthcare issue since its outbreak, consuming healthcare systems and disrupting all aspects of human life throughout 2020 and continuing through 2021. When reviewing cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the first tendency may be to focus on the negative disruption. Months of quarantine, isolation, and missed healthcare visits or delayed care may have exacerbated the epidemic of CVD in the United States. Looking back, however, perhaps it wasn't a lost year as much as a health crisis that better prepared us for the battle to improve cardiovascular health. The pandemic brought new platforms for interacting with patients eager to engage, presenting a unique opportunity to reset how we approach preventive care. In this review, we discuss what the pandemic has taught us about caring for those vulnerable patients who were most afflicted-older adults, persons of color, and people facing adverse socioeconomic circumstances-and who continue to be impacted by CVD. We also identify opportunities for enhanced CVD prevention now boosted by the overnight adoption of telemedicine and other innovative cardiac care models. Lastly, we discuss how the COVID-19 pandemic has motivated physicians and patients alike to prioritize our health above all else, if only transiently, and how we can leverage this increased health awareness and investment into long-term, meaningful disease prevention.

Influence of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers on the risk of all-cause mortality and other clinical outcomes in patients with confirmed COVID-19: A systemic review and meta-analysis

Since the COVID-19 pandemic, physicians concerned about the potential adverse effects of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). To explore the relationship between ACEIs/ARBs and the risk of mortality and other clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients, the authors conducted a systemic review and meta-analysis. An electronic search was performed from inception to November 12, 2020 in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials, TRIP, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang, and CBM database. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality measured at 30-day or longer term, mechanical ventilation, length of hospital stay, readmission, and cardiac adverse events. A total of 28 studies with 73 465 patients was included. Twenty-two studies with 19 871 patients reported the incidence of all-cause mortality. Results showed no association between using ACEIs/ARBs and risk of mortality crude odds ratio （OR） of 1.02, 95% CI 0.71-1.46, p = .90, I2  = 88%, adjusted OR in 6260 patients of 0.96, 95% CI 0.77-1.18, p = .68, I2  = 0%. While six studies with 10 030 patients reported a lower risk of mortality in ACEIs/ARBs group hazard ratio (HR) of 0.53, 95% CI 0.34-0.84, p = .007, I2  = 68%. Similar association (for HR) was found in hypertension subgroup. There was no significant association for the secondary outcomes. Based on the available data, we concluded that ACEIs/ARBs is not associated with the risk of in-hospital all-cause mortality in COVID-19 patients, but may be associated with a decreased risk of 30-day all-cause mortality. Patients with hypertension may benefit from using ACEIs/ARBs.

Evaluation of pathophysiological relationships between renin-angiotensin and ACE-ACE2 systems in cardiovascular disorders: from theory to routine clinical practice in patients with heart failure

Despite the progressive improvements in diagnosis and therapy during the first 20 years of this century, the morbidity and mortality of patients with heart failure (HF) remain high, resulting in an enormous health and economic burden. Only a further improvement in understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms related to the development of cardiac injury and dysfunction can allow more innovative and personalized approaches to HF management. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has a critical role in cardiovascular physiology by regulating blood pressure and electrolyte balance. The RAS is mainly regulated by both angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) and type 2 angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE2). However, the balance between the various peptides and peptidases constituting the RAS/ACE pathway remains in great part unraveled in patients with HF. This review summarizes the role of the RAS/ACE axis in cardiac physiology and HF pathophysiology as well as some analytical issues relevant to the clinical and laboratory assessment of inter-relationships between these two systems. There is evidence that RAS peptides represent a dynamic network of peptides, which are altered in different HF states and influenced by medical therapy. However, the mechanisms of signal transduction have not been fully elucidated under physiological and pathophysiological conditions. Further investigations are necessary to explore novel molecular mechanisms related to the RAS, which will provide alternative therapeutic agents. Moreover, monitoring the circulating levels of active RAS peptides in HF patients may enable a personalized approach by facilitating assessment of the pathophysiological status of several cardiovascular diseases and thus better selection of therapies for HF patients.

COVID and Cardiovascular Disease: What We Know in 2021

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been the cause of significant global morbidity and mortality. Here, we review the literature to date of the short-term and long-term consequences of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection on the heart.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early case reports described a spectrum of cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19, including myocarditis, stress cardiomyopathy, myocardial infarction, and arrhythmia. However, in most cases, myocardial injury in COVID-19 appears to be predominantly mediated by the severity of critical illness rather than direct injury to myocardium from viral particles. While cardiac magnetic resonance imaging remains a powerful tool for diagnosing acute myocarditis, it should be used judiciously in light of low baseline prevalence of myocarditis. Guiding an athletic patient through return to play (RTP) after COVID-19 infection is a challenging process. More recent data show RTP has been a safe endeavor using a screening protocol. "Long COVID" or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection has also been described. The reported symptoms span a large breadth of cardiopulmonary and neurologic complaints including fatigue, palpitations, chest pain, breathlessness, brain fog, and dysautonomia including postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS). Management of POTS/dysautonomia primarily centers on education, exercise, and salt and fluid repletion. Our understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on the cardiovascular system is constantly evolving. As we enter a new age of survivorship, additional research is needed to catalogue the burden of persistent cardiopulmonary symptoms. Research is also needed to learn how acute management may alter the likelihood and prevalence of this chronic syndrome.

Association of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers With the Risk of Hospitalization and Death in Hypertensive Patients With COVID-19

Background

Despite its clinical significance, the risk of severe infection requiring hospitalization among outpatients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who receive angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) remains uncertain.

Methods and Results

In a propensity score–matched outpatient cohort (January–May 2020) of 2263 Medicare Advantage and commercially insured individuals with hypertension and a positive outpatient SARS‐CoV‐2, we determined the association of ACE inhibitors and ARBs with COVID‐19 hospitalization. In a concurrent inpatient cohort of 7933 hospitalized with COVID‐19, we tested their association with in‐hospital mortality. The robustness of the observations was assessed in a contemporary cohort (May–August). In the outpatient study, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 0.53–1.13, P=0.18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; 0.61–1.26, P=0.48) were associated with hospitalization risk. ACE inhibitors were associated with lower hospitalization risk in the older Medicare group (HR, 0.61; 0.41–0.93, P=0.02), but not the younger commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; 0.82–5.60, P=0.12; P‐interaction 0.09). Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with lower hospitalization risk in either population in the validation cohort. In the primary inpatient study cohort, neither ACE inhibitors (HR, 0.97; 0.81–1.16; P=0.74) nor ARBs (HR, 1.15; 0.95–1.38, P=0.15) were associated with in‐hospital mortality. These observations were consistent in the validation cohort.

Conclusions

ACE inhibitors and ARBs were not associated with COVID‐19 hospitalization or mortality. Despite early evidence for a potential association between ACE inhibitors and severe COVID‐19 prevention in older individuals, the inconsistency of this observation in recent data argues against a role for prophylaxis.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockers Prior to Hospitalization and Their Association With Clinical Outcomes in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Objective: To determine the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) use prior to hospitalization on clinical outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

Design: An observational retrospective cohort study from 178 hospitals from a large health system across the United States. 

Patient population: Hospitalized patients (n=2726) with confirmed COVID-19 between January 1, 2020, and April 1, 2020.

Main outcome(s) and measure(s): Outcomes during hospitalization, including disease severity by level of care, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilator (MV) use, hospital length of stay, and in-hospital death. Patient demographics and comorbidities were also recorded.

Results: A total of 2,726 patients were included in the analysis. Three hundred ninety-eight (14.6%) patients were taking an ACEI, while 352 (12.9%) patients were taking an ARB prior to hospitalization. After adjusting for comorbidities, age, renal function, and severity of illness based on level of care, ACEI prior to admission was independently associated with decreased need for MV (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, p value 0.003) and mortality (OR 0.45, p value <0.001). Similarly, patients who took ARBs were less likely to require MV when compared to the non-renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade (RAASb) group (7.4% vs 12.2%, p value 0.009, respectively). ARB prior to admission was also independently associated with decreased need for MV (OR 0.46, p value 0.001) and mortality (OR 0.66, p value 0.017) compared to the non-RAASb group.

Conclusion: Taking ACEIs and ARBs prior to admission for COVID-19 was independently associated with decreased need for mechanical ventilation and in-hospital mortality.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

Introduction

Increased virulence, the severity of illness, and mortality have all been hypothesized with respect to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Our study aims to assess whether ACEi/ARB use in patients with COVID-19 conferred worsened severity of illness or increased mortality. Additionally, we explore the possibility of an unearthed protective benefit due to their interruption of the RAS signaling pathway as observed in cardiovascular diseases.

Methods

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for studies relevant to COVID-19 severity, mortality, and inflammation in the context of ACEi/ARB use. Eight studies were included with a total of 17,943 patients, 4,292 (23.9%) of which were taking an ACEi or an ARB. The study population was 47.9% female and the average age across all studies was 65. The studies chosen had a sample size of at least 100 patients.

Results

Mortality outcomes were assessed in six studies and showed no significant difference in mortality among the ACEi/ARB and control groups (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99, 95%CI: 0.48-2.04). Seven studies assessed the severity of COVID-19 and showed no statistically significant difference in disease severity when comparing the ACEi/ARB group to the control group (odds ratio [OR]: 1.30, 95% CI 0.87-1.94). Four studies reported the length of stay with no significant difference between the ACEi/ARB groups as compared to non-users. Four studies included inflammatory markers C-reactive protein (CRP) and D-Dimer, which were noted to be consistently lower in the ACEi/ARB groups when compared to control groups, however, this was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Our study found no significant difference in mortality, severity of illness, or length of stay between ACEi/ARB users and non-users with COVID-19 infection. These results support the continuation of ACEi and ARBs in the setting of COVID-19 as advised by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA). The decrease in CRP and D-dimer suggests a possible protective effect related to ACEi/ARB use in COVID-19, however, more studies with larger sample sizes are needed to establish this effect.

Intensive Care Unit Management of the Adult with Congenital Heart Disease

PURPOSE

Adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) are a rapidly growing population with ever-increasing complexity, and intensive care unit (ICU) management is often necessary. This review summarizes common cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular complications in ACHD and provides a framework for ICU care.

RECENT FINDINGS

Heart failure is the leading cause of hospitalization and mortality in ACHD. Varied anatomy and repairs, as well as differing physiological complications, limit generalized application of management algorithms. Recent studies suggest that earlier mechanical support in advanced cases is feasible and potentially helpful. Cardiac arrhythmias are poorly tolerated and often require immediate attention. Other complications requiring intensive care include infections such as endocarditis and COVID-19, pulmonary hypertension, renal failure, hepatic dysfunction, coagulopathy, and stroke. Successful ICU care in ACHD requires a multi-disciplinary approach with careful consideration of anatomy, physiology, and associated comorbidities. Few studies have formally examined ICU management in ACHD and further research is necessary.