Chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients: Results from a Spanish registry and meta-analysis

Effect of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors on time to nucleic acid negative conversion in hypertensive patients with SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection: a propensity score matching study

We examined the relationship between RAAS inhibitor use and Omicron infection in mildly symptomatic patients. This retrospective case-control observational study included 50,121 patients with mild Omicron infection from the largest "Fangcang" shelter hospital in Shanghai between April 9, 2022, and May 21, 2022. Using 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM), we classified 4394 COVID-19 patients into hypertension and non-hypertension groups, and 406 hypertensive patients into RAAS inhibitor and non-RAAS inhibitor groups. The risk of initial symptoms of infection, cumulative negative conversion rates, time to nucleic-acid negative conversion, and viral loads were compared. In the hypertension group, the median number of days for nucleic-acid negative conversion was 7.0 (IQR, 5.0-9.0), which was greater than non-hypertensive group (median (IQR) 6.0 (4.0-8.0), P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.29); the mean and minimum cycle threshold values (CT-values) were significantly lower (P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.23). In the RAAS inhibitors group, the median number of days for nucleic-acid negative conversion was 7.0 days (IQR, 5.0-9.0), which was shorter than the non-RAAS inhibitors group ([median (IQR)] 8.0 (6.0-10.0), P < 0.001, Cohen's d = 0.34), the cumulative negative conversion rates at 3-8 days being all higher than non-RAAS inhibitors groups (P < 0.05). The most significant difference in negative conversion rate between the RAAS inhibitor and non-RAAS inhibitor group was on the 4th day. No significant difference was observed in mean and minimum CT-values from RAAS inhibitor and non-RAAS inhibitor groups (P > 0.05). RAAS inhibitor use in patients with hypertension is associated with nucleic-acid negative conversion duration and negative conversion rate. RAAS inhibitors clearly do not aggravate or prolong COVID-19.

Ramipril After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation in Patients Without Reduced Ejection Fraction: The RASTAVI Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with aortic stenosis may continue to have an increased risk of heart failure, arrhythmias, and death after successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors may be beneficial in this setting. We aimed to explore whether ramipril improves the outcomes of patients with aortic stenosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PROBE (Prospective Randomized Open, Blinded Endpoint) was a multicenter trial comparing ramipril with standard care (control) following successful transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40%. The primary end point was the composite of cardiac mortality, heart failure readmission, and stroke at 1-year follow-up. Secondary end points included left ventricular remodeling and fibrosis. A total of 186 patients with median age 83 years (range 79-86), 58.1% women, and EuroSCORE-II 3.75% (range 3.08-4.97) were randomized to receive either ramipril (n=94) or standard treatment (n=92). There were no significant baseline, procedural, or in-hospital differences. The primary end point occurred in 10.6% in the ramipril group versus 12% in the control group (P=0.776), with no differences in cardiac mortality (ramipril 1.1% versus control group 2.2%, P=0.619) but lower rate of heart failure readmissions in the ramipril group (3.2% versus 10.9%, P=0.040). Cardiac magnetic resonance analysis demonstrated better remodeling in the ramipril compared with the control group, with greater reduction in end-systolic and end-diastolic left ventricular volumes, but nonsignificant differences were found in the percentage of myocardial fibrosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Ramipril administration after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients with preserved left ventricular function did not meet the primary end point but was associated with a reduction in heart failure re-admissions at 1-year follow-up.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03201185.

Impact of prior antihypertensive treatment on COVID-19 outcomes, by active ingredient

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of prior chronic treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/ angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), both as a group and by active ingredient, on severity (risk of hospitalization and mortality), progression of and susceptibility to COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a multiple population-based case-control study in Galicia (north-west Spain). The study data were sourced from medical, administrative and clinical databases. We assessed: (1) risk of hospitalization, by selecting all patients hospitalized due to COVID-19 with PCR + as cases, and a random sample of subjects without a PCR + as controls; (2) COVID-19 mortality risk; (3) risk of disease progression; and (4) susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2, considering all patients with PCR + as cases, and the same subjects used in the previous model as controls. Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated.

RESULTS

ACEIs and ARBs were shown to decrease the risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.78 [95%CI 0.69-0.89] and aOR = 0.80 [95%CI 0.72-0.90] respectively), risk of mortality (aOR = 0.71 [95%CI 0.52-0.98] and aOR = 0.69 [95%CI 0.52-0.91] respectively), and susceptibility to the virus (aOR = 0.88 [95%CI 0.82-0.94] and aOR = 0.92 [95%CI 0.86-0.97] respectively). By active ingredient: use of enalapril was associated with a significantly lower risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.72 [95%CI 0.61-0.85]), mortality (aOR = 0.59 [95%CI 0.38-0.92]) and susceptibility to COVID-19 (aOR = 0.86 [95%CI 0.79-0.94]); and use of candesartan was associated with a decreased risk of hospitalization (aOR = 0.76 [95%CI 0.60-0.95]), mortality (aOR = 0.36 [95%CI 0.17-0.75]) and disease progression (aOR = 0.73 [95%CI 0.56-0.95]).

CONCLUSION

This large-scale real-world data study suggest that enalapril and candesartan are associated with a considerable reduction in risk of severe COVID19 outcomes.

Influence of angiotensin receptor and converting enzyme blockers therapy in the respiratory outcome of COVID-19 hospitalized patients

OBJECTIVES

COVID-19, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has spread around the world since 2019. In severe cases, COVID-19 can lead to hospitalization and death. Systemic arterial hypertension and other comorbidities are associated with serious COVID-19 infection. Literature is unclear whether antihypertensive therapy with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors affect COVID-19 outcomes. We aim to assess whether ACEI/ARB therapy is a risk factor for worse respiratory outcomes related to COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

METHODS

Retrospective study enrolling admitted COVID-19-diagnosed patients by RT-PCR at the Hospital Geral de Fortaleza, Brazil, during 2021. Patient medical records, sociodemographic, and clinical data were analyzed. Chest CT images were analyzed using CAD4COVID-CT/Thirona™ software.

RESULTS

A total of 294 patients took part in the study. A cut-off point of 66% of pulmonary involvement was found by ROC curve, with patients having higher risk of death and intubation and lower 60-day survival. Advanced age (RR 1.025, P=0.001) and intubation (RR 16.747, P<0.001) were significantly associated with a higher risk of death. Advanced age (RR 1.023, P=0.001) and the use of noninvasive ventilation (RR 1.548, P=0.037) were associated with a higher risk of intubation. Lung involvement (>66%) increased the risk of death by almost 2.5-fold (RR 2.439, P<0.001) and by more than 2.3-fold the risk of intubation (RR 2.317, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Altogether, our findings suggest that ACEI or ARB therapy does not affect the risk of death and disease course during hospitalization.

Overreactive macrophages in SARS-CoV-2 infection: The effects of ACEI

Among various factors influencing the course of SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans, macrophage overactivation is considered the main cause of the cytokine storm that leads to severe complications of COVID-19. Moreover, the increased expression of angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), an obligatory entry receptor of the coronavirus, caused by treatment with ACE inhibitors (ACEI) lowered overall confidence in the safety of these drugs. However, analysis of the course of coronavirus infection in patients treated with ACEI does not support these concerns. Instead, the beneficial effect of ACEI on macrophages has increasingly been emphasized. This includes their anti-inflammatory activation and the consequent reduction in the risk of severe disease and life-threatening complications. Herein, we summarize the current knowledge and understanding of the dual role of macrophages in SARS-CoV-2 infection, with a special focus on the postulated mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of macrophage targeting by ACEI. These seem to involve the stimulation of macrophage angiotensin II type 2 and Mas receptors by angiotensin 1-7, intensively produced due to the up-regulation of ACE2 expression on macrophages, as well as the direct inhibition of macrophage hyper-responsiveness by ACEI. The impact of ACEI on macrophages may also lead to the activation of an effective antiviral response due to the increased expression of ACE2.

Treating COVID-19: Targeting the Host Response, Not the Virus

In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), inexpensive generic drugs like statins, ACE inhibitors, and ARBs, especially if used in combination, might be the only practical way to save the lives of patients with severe COVID-19. These drugs will already be available in all countries on the first pandemic day. Because they target the host response to infection instead of the virus, they could be used to save lives during any pandemic. Observational studies show that inpatient statin treatment reduces 28–30-day mortality but randomized controlled trials have failed to show this benefit. Combination treatment has been tested for antivirals and dexamethasone but, with the exception of one observational study in Belgium, not for inexpensive generic drugs. Future pandemic research must include testing combination generic drug treatments that could be used in LMICs.

Effect of continuing the use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors on mortality in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on mortality was preliminarily explored through the comparison of ACEIs/ARBs with non-ACEIs/ARBs in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Reaching a conclusion on whether previous ACEI/ARB treatment should be continued in view of the different ACE2 levels in the comparison groups was not unimpeachable. Therefore, this study aimed to further elucidate the effect of ACEI/ARB continuation on hospital mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in the same patient population.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Ovid, and Embase for relevant articles published between December 1, 2019 and April 30, 2022. Continuation of ACEI/ARB use after hospitalization due to COVID-19 was considered as an exposure and discontinuation of ACEI/ARB considered as a control. The primary outcome was hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, rate of ICU admission, IMV, and other clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Seven observational studies and four randomized controlled trials involving 2823 patients were included. The pooled hospital mortality in the continuation group (13.04%, 158/1212) was significantly lower than that (22.15%, 278/1255) in the discontinuation group (risk ratio [RR] = 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.28-0.72; P = 0.001). Continuation of ACEI/ARB use was associated with lower rates of ICU admission (10.5% versus 16.2%, RR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.5-0.79; P < 0.0001) and IMV (8.2% versus 12.5%, RR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.46-0.83, P = 0.001). Nevertheless, the effect was mainly demonstrated in the observational study subgroup (P < 0.05). Continuing ACEI/ARB had no significant effect on 30-day mortality (P = 0.34), acute myocardial infarction (P = 0.08), heart failure (P = 0.82), and acute kidney injury after hospitalization (P = 0.98).

CONCLUSION

Previous ACEI/ARB treatment could be continued since it was associated with lower hospital deaths, ICU admission, and IMV in patients with COVID-19, although the benefits of continuing use were mainly shown in observational studies. More evidence from multicenter RCTs are still needed to increase the robustness of the data. Trial registration PROSPERO (CRD42022341169). Registered 27 June 2022.

The effect of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors in patients with hypertension and COVID-19: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

Background

High-quality evidence for whether the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors worsens clinical outcomes for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is lacking. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of RAAS inhibitors on disease severity and mortality in patients with hypertension and COVID-19 using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity score-matched (PSM) studies.

Methods

A literature search was conducted with PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from 31 December 2019 to 10 January 2022. We included RCTs and PSM studies comparing the risk of severe illness or mortality in patients with hypertension and COVID-19 treated or not treated with RAAS inhibitors. Individual trial data were combined to estimate the pooled odds ratio (OR) with a random-effects model.

Results

A total of 17 studies (4 RCTs and 13 PSM studies) were included in the meta-analysis. The use of RAAS inhibitors was not associated with an increased risk of severe illness (OR=1.00, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.88-1.14, I²=28%) or mortality (OR=0.96, 95% CI: 0.83-1.11, I²=16%) for patients with hypertension and COVID-19. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the severity of COVID-19 when patients continued or discontinued treatment with RAAS inhibitors (OR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.78-1.29, I²=0%).

Conclusions

This study suggests that there was no association between treatment with RAAS inhibitors and worsened COVID-19 disease outcomes. Our findings support the current guidelines that RAAS inhibitors should be continued in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the benefit of RAAS inhibitor medications for COVID-19 patients should be further validated with more RCTs.

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.