Association of prescribed medications with the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity among adults in South Korea

Repurposed drug studies on the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the pandemic: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY

Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease.

DATA SOURCE

PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020-28 September 2022).

RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies.

DATA ANALYSIS

Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available.

RESULTS

In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I2=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I2=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021292797.

The Association Between Inhaled Corticosteroid and the Risks of SARS-COV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The effect of inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) on the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) infection is unclear.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies that assessed the association between the use of ICS and the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection. PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar were searched to January 1^st, 2023. ROBINS-I was used to assess risk of bias of included studies. The outcome of interest was the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection in patients and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using Comprehensive Meta-analysis software version 3.

Results

Twelve studies involving seven observational cohort studies, three case-control studies, and two cross-sectional studies were included in this meta-analysis. Overall, compared to non-ICS use, the pooled odds ratio (OR) of the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection was 0.997 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.664-1.499; p=0.987) for patients with ICS use. Subgroup analyses demonstrated no statistical significance in the increased risk of SARS-COV-2 infection in patients with ICS monotherapy or in combination with bronchodilators (pooled OR=1.408; 95% CI=0.693-2.858; p=0.344 in ICS monotherapy, and pooled OR=1.225; 95% CI=0.533-2.815; p=0.633 in ICS combination, respectively). In addition, no significant association was observed between ICS use and the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection for patients with COPD (pooled OR=0.715; 95% CI=0.415-1.230; p=0.225) and asthma (pooled OR=1.081; 95% CI=0.970-1.206; p=0.160).

Conclusions

The use of ICS, either monotherapy or in combination with bronchodilators, does not have impact on the risk of SARS-COV-2 infection.

Data availability

The datasets used and analysed in the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Serious Clinical Outcomes of COVID-19 Related to Acetaminophen or NSAIDs from a Nationwide Population-Based Cohort Study

Acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) have been widely prescribed to infected patients; however, the safety of them has not been investigated in patients with serious acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Our objective was to evaluate the association between the previous use of acetaminophen or NSAIDs and the clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection. A nationwide population-based cohort study was conducted using the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Database through propensity score matching (PSM). A total of 25,739 patients aged 20 years and older who tested for SARS-CoV-2 were included from 1 January 2015 to 15 May 2020. The primary endpoint was a positive result for a SARS-CoV-2 test, and the secondary endpoint was serious clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection, such as conventional oxygen therapy, admission to the intensive care unit, need for invasive ventilation care, or death. Of 1058 patients, after propensity score matching, 176 acetaminophen users and 162 NSAIDs users were diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019. After PSM, 162 paired data sets were generated, and the clinical outcomes of the acetaminophen group were not significantly different from those of the NSAIDs group. This suggests that acetaminophen and NSAIDs can be used safely to control symptoms in patients suspected of having SARS-CoV-2.

Prevalence of NSAID use among people with COVID-19 and the association with COVID-19-related outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

Recent reports of potential harmful effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have raised great concern.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and MedRxiv databases to examine the prevalence of NSAID use and associated COVID-19 risk, outcomes and safety.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies with a total of 101 215 COVID-19 patients were included. Prevalence of NSAID use among COVID-19 patients was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI] 14-23%, no. of studies [n] = 22) and NSAID use prior to admission or diagnosis of COVID-19 was not associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.93, 95% CI 0.82-1.06, I2  = 34%, n = 3), hospitalization (aOR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.76-1.48, I2  = 81%, n = 5), mechanical ventilation (aOR = 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.06, I2  = 38%, n = 4) or length of hospital stay. Moreover, prior use of NSAIDs was associated with a decreased risk of severe COVID-19 (aOR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.71-0.89, I2  = 0%, n = 7) and death (aOR = 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.89, I2  = 85%, n = 10). Prior NSAID administration might also be associated with an increased risk of stroke (aOR = 2.32, 95% CI 1.04-5.2, I2  = 0%, n = 2), but not myocardial infarction (aOR = 1.49, 95% CI 0.25-8.92, I2  = 0, n = 2) and composite thrombotic events (aOR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.66-3.69, I2  = 52%, n = 2).

CONCLUSION

Based on current evidence, NSAID use prior to admission or diagnosis of COVID-19 was not linked with increased odds or exacerbation of COVID-19. NSAIDs might provide a survival benefit, although they might potentially increase the risk of stroke. Controlled trials are still required to further assess the clinical benefit and safety (e.g., stroke and acute renal failure) of NSAIDs in treating patients with COVID-19.

Use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and adverse outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

There are concerns that the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may increase the risk of adverse outcomes among patients with coronavirus COVID-19. This study aimed to synthesize the evidence on associations between the use of NSAIDs and adverse outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic search of WHO COVID-19 Database, Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, China Biology Medicine disc, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Database for all articles published from January 1, 2020, to November 7, 2021, as well as a supplementary search of Google Scholar. We included all comparative studies that enrolled patients who took NSAIDs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data extraction and quality assessment of methodology of included studies were completed by two reviewers independently. We conducted a meta-analysis on the main adverse outcomes, as well as selected subgroup analyses stratified by the type of NSAID and population (both positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or not).

FINDINGS

Forty comparative studies evaluating 4,867,795 adult cases were identified. Twenty-eight (70%) of the included studies enrolled patients positive to SARS-CoV-2 tests. The use of NSAIDs did not reduce mortality outcomes among people with COVID-19 (number of studies [N] = 29, odds ratio [OR] = 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.75 to 1.14, I²  = 89%). Results suggested that the use of NSAIDs was not significantly associated with higher risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection in patients with or without COVID-19 (N = 10, OR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.07, I²  = 78%; N = 8, aOR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.09, I²  = 26%), or an increased probability of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (N = 12, OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.75, I²  = 82% ; N = 4, aOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.22, I²  = 60%), requiring mechanical ventilation (N = 11, OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.54, I²  = 63%; N = 5, aOR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I²  = 66%), or administration of supplemental oxygen (N = 5, OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.24, I²  = 63%; N = 2, aOR = 1.00, 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.12, I²  = 0%). The subgroup analysis revealed that, compared with patients not using any NSAIDs, the use of ibuprofen (N = 5, OR = 1.09, 95% CI: 0.50 to 2.39; N = 4, aOR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.16) and COX-2 inhibitor (N = 4, OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.35 to 1.11; N = 2, aOR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.18) were not associated with an increased risk of death.

INTERPRETATION

Data suggests that NSAIDs such as ibuprofen, aspirin and COX-2 inhibitor, can be used safely among patients positive to SARS-CoV-2. However, for some of the analyses the number of studies were limited and the quality of evidence was overall low, therefore more research is needed to corroborate these findings.

FUNDING

There was no funding source for this study.

Prescription Patterns of Drugs Given to Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study in Colombia

The impact of COVID-19 prompted a race to find a treatment that would reduce its mortality. Most studies have not shown favorable results for many of these drugs, but they are still used. The aim as to determine the differences and similarities in the hospital pharmacological management of patients with COVID-19 according to sex, age group, and geographical region of Colombia, 2020–2021. Descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted on the prescription patterns of the medications given to patients diagnosed with COVID-19 treated in eight clinics in Colombia between 6 March 2020 and 31 May 2021. We performed a descriptive analysis of the sociodemographic, clinical, and pharmacological variables of the patients. A total of 8596 patients from 170 cities were identified, with a median age of 53.0 years and 53.3% of them men. A total of 24.3% required care in the intensive care unit, and 18.7% required invasive mechanical ventilation. The most commonly used drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 were systemic corticosteroids (63.6%), followed by colchicine (12.8%), azithromycin (8.9%), and ivermectin (6.4%). Corticosteroids, anticoagulants, colchicine, azithromycin, ivermectin, and hydroxychloroquine were prescribed more frequently in men, and their overall use increased with age. There were differences in prescriptions between geographic regions. The majority of patients were managed with medications included in the management guidelines. There were differences between sexes, age groups, and geographical regions.

Mortality and Severity in COVID-19 Patients on ACEIs and ARBs-A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Analysis

Purpose: The primary objective of this systematic review is to assess association of mortality in COVID-19 patients on Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs). A secondary objective is to assess associations with higher severity of the disease in COVID-19 patients. Materials and Methods: We searched multiple COVID-19 databases (WHO, CDC, LIT-COVID) for longitudinal studies globally reporting mortality and severity published before January 18th, 2021. Meta-analyses were performed using 53 studies for mortality outcome and 43 for the severity outcome. Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios were generated to describe overall effect size using random effect models. To account for between study results variations, multivariate meta-regression was performed with preselected covariates using maximum likelihood method for both the mortality and severity models. Result: Our findings showed that the use of ACEIs/ARBs did not significantly influence either mortality (OR = 1.16 95% CI 0.94-1.44, p = 0.15, I 2 = 93.2%) or severity (OR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.94-1.48, p = 0.15, I 2 = 91.1%) in comparison to not being on ACEIs/ARBs in COVID-19 positive patients. Multivariate meta-regression for the mortality model demonstrated that 36% of between study variations could be explained by differences in age, gender, and proportion of heart diseases in the study samples. Multivariate meta-regression for the severity model demonstrated that 8% of between study variations could be explained by differences in age, proportion of diabetes, heart disease and study country in the study samples. Conclusion: We found no association of mortality or severity in COVID-19 patients taking ACEIs/ARBs.

A meta-analysis on the risk factors adjusted association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 severity

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), one of the most common comorbidities of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), has been suspected to be associated with adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients, but their correlation remains controversial.

METHOD

This is a quantitative meta-analysis on the basis of adjusted effect estimates. PubMed, Web of Science, MedRxiv, Scopus, Elsevier ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library and EMBASE were searched comprehensively to obtain a complete data source up to January 7, 2021. Pooled effects (hazard ratio (HR), odds ratio (OR)) and the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated to evaluate the risk of the adverse outcomes in COVID-19 patients with CVD. Heterogeneity was assessed by Cochran's Q-statistic, I2test, and meta-regression. In addition, we also provided the prediction interval, which was helpful for assessing whether the variation across studies was clinically significant. The robustness of the results was evaluated by sensitivity analysis. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's test, Egger's test, and trim-and-fill method.

RESULT

Our results revealed that COVID-19 patients with pre-existing CVD tended more to adverse outcomes on the basis of 203 eligible studies with 24,032,712 cases (pooled ORs = 1.41, 95% CIs: 1.32-1.51, prediction interval: 0.84-2.39; pooled HRs = 1.34, 95% CIs: 1.23-1.46, prediction interval: 0.82-2.21). Further subgroup analyses stratified by age, the proportion of males, study design, disease types, sample size, region and disease outcomes also showed that pre-existing CVD was significantly associated with adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

Our findings demonstrated that pre-existing CVD was an independent risk factor associated with adverse outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

The Risk of SARS-COV-2 Infection and Covid-19 Severity Associated with The Exposure to Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were thought to increase the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) virus entrance into cells. Hence, it was suggested in the media that NSAIDs could lead to a higher risk of infection and/or disease severity. To determine the existence or absence of this association, we aimed to systematically evaluate the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and mortality and the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) associated with previous exposure to NSAIDs.

MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE were searched in February 2021 for controlled studies. The results were calculated through random‐effect meta‐analyses and reported in terms of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I² test.

Eleven studies were included, comprising a total of 683 715 patients. NSAID exposure did not increase the risk of having a positive test for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.85‐1.11, I² = 24%; 5 studies). The exposure to NSAIDs did not increase the risk of severe/critical COVID‐19 disease (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.80‐1.05; I² = 0%; 5 studies) nor all‐cause mortality among patients with COVID‐19 (OR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.75‐0.99; I² = 14%, 4 studies).

Our data did not suggest that exposure to NSAIDs increases the risk of having SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or increases the severity of COVID‐19 disease. Also, the fragility of the studies included precludes definite conclusions and highlights the need for further robust data.

Interstitial lung disease increases susceptibility to and severity of COVID-19

Background

There are limited data regarding the relationship between interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the natural course of COVID-19. In this study, we investigate whether patients with ILD are more susceptible to COVID-19 than those without ILD and evaluate the impact of ILD on disease severity in patients with COVID-19.

Methods

A nationwide cohort of patients with COVID-19 (n=8070) and a 1:15 age-, sex- and residential area-matched cohort (n=121 050) were constructed between 1 January 2020 and 30 May 2020 in Korea. We performed a nested case–control study to compare the proportions of patients with ILD between the COVID-19 cohort and the matched cohort. Using the COVID-19 cohort, we also evaluated the risk of severe COVID-19 in patients with ILD versus those without ILD.

Results

The proportion of patients with ILD was significantly higher in the COVID-19 cohort than in the matched cohort (0.8% versus 0.4%; p<0.001). The odds of having ILD was significantly higher in the COVID-19 cohort than in the matched cohort (adjusted OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.54–2.61). Among patients in the COVID-19 cohort, patients with ILD were more likely to have severe COVID-19 than patients without ILD (47.8% versus 12.6%), including mortality (13.4% versus 2.8%) (all p<0.001). The risk of severe COVID-19 was significantly higher in patients with ILD than in those without ILD (adjusted OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.24–4.01).

Conclusion

The risks of COVID-19 and severe presentation were significantly higher in patients with ILD than in those without ILD.

The risks of COVID-19 and severe presentation were significantly higher in patients with ILD than in those without ILD. Clinicians should be aware of the increased risk of COVID-19 in their ILD patients and manage them appropriately amid this pandemic.https://bit.ly/3guOE6d

Potential Role of Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Therapies to Prevent Severe SARS-Cov-2 Complications

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-like coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Here, we review the molecular pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 and its relationship with oxidative stress (OS) and inflammation. Furthermore, we analyze the potential role of antioxidant and anti-inflammatory therapies to prevent severe complications. OS has a potential key role in the COVID-19 pathogenesis by triggering the NOD-like receptor family pyrin domain containing 3 inflammasome and nuclear factor-kB (NF-kB). While exposure to many pro-oxidants usually induces nuclear factor erythroid 2 p45-related factor2 (NRF2) activation and upregulation of antioxidant related elements expression, respiratory viral infections often inhibit NRF2 and/or activate NF-kB pathways, resulting in inflammation and oxidative injury. Hence, the use of radical scavengers like N-acetylcysteine and vitamin C, as well as of steroids and inflammasome inhibitors, has been proposed. The NRF2 pathway has been shown to be suppressed in severe SARS-CoV-2 patients. Pharmacological NRF2 inducers have been reported to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication, the inflammatory response, and transmembrane protease serine 2 activation, which for the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into the host cells through the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 receptor. Thus, NRF2 activation may represent a potential path out of the woods in COVID-19 pandemic.