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

Clinical Outcomes of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in COVID-19 Patients With Pre-existing Cardiac Comorbidities: A Literature Review

The growing research regarding the implementation of angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of COVID-19 in patients with pre-existing cardiac comorbidities has become a large topic of discussion since the onset of the pandemic. Previous research primarily associates positive outcomes to the use of these drug classes due to their mechanism of action, which involves the downregulation of angiotensin I-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) in the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone-system (RAAS) pathway, inflammatory mediators, and cytokines. Thus, these medications can convey preventative and protective effects in patients suffering from a SARS-CoV-2 infection. While we explored the studies that supported the positive outcomes of the use of these drugs in the first half of this review, we also expanded on the limitations of these studies in the latter portion. We also further explored the contradictory studies that indicated that using these antihypertensives can paradoxically increase the severity of COVID-19 infection as well. The studies in support of the use of these medications should consider epigenetic variations, ACE2 variants and acknowledge inherent genetic variations in certain ethnic groups as some have a predisposition for a severe COVID-19 infection. Additionally, mortality rates need to be taken into consideration in these studies as they naturally differ throughout the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic. While some studies are in support of the use of these antihypertensives despite other studies suggesting otherwise, further research is needed to explore the long-term effects of these antihypertensives and observe whether they are truly beneficial or not in reducing the severity of COVID-19 infections.

Ramipril for the Treatment of COVID-19: RAMIC, a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Retrospective studies report that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) may reduce the severity of COVID-19, but prospective data on de novo treatment with ACEIs are limited. The RAMIC trial was a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind, allocation-concealed clinical trial to examine the efficacy of de novo ramipril versus placebo for the treatment of COVID-19.

METHODS

Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, recruited from urgent care clinics, emergency departments, and hospital inpatient wards at eight sites in the USA. Participants were randomly assigned to daily ramipril 2.5 mg or placebo orally in a 2:1 ratio, using permuted block randomization. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, or invasive mechanical ventilation by day 14.

RESULTS

Between 27 May 2020 and 19 April 2021, a total of 114 participants (51% female) were randomized to ramipril (n = 79) or placebo (n = 35). The overall mean (± SD) age and BMI were 45 (± 15) years and 33 (± 8) kg/m2. Two participants in the ramipril group required ICU admission and one died, compared with none in the placebo group. There were no significant differences between ramipril and placebo in the primary endpoint (ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, or death) (3% versus 0%, p = 1.00) or adverse events (27% versus 29%, p = 0.82). The study was terminated early because of a low event rate and subsequent Emergency Use Authorization of therapies for COVID-19.

CONCLUSION

De novo ramipril was not different compared with placebo in improving or worsening clinical outcomes from COVID-19 but appeared safe in non-critically ill patients with COVID-19.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04366050.

Bibliometric evaluation of 2020-2022 publications on COVID-19-related cardiovascular disease

Objective

This study aimed to investigate the international scientific output regarding the relationship between COVID-19 and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) through a bibliometric analysis and explore research hotspots in this field.

Methods

We searched the Web of Science Core Collection for publications and used different types of software, such as R, CiteSpace, and VOSviewer, to analyze and visualize the data.

Results

A total of 10,055 publications were retrieved as of the 13 December 2022, based on the inclusion criteria after screening. The USA and China lead in the quantity and quality of publications in this field. Based on Bradford's law, 63 journals were considered core journals in the field. Co-cited references and keywords analysis indicated that researchers paid particular attention to cardiovascular comorbidities, outcomes, and COVID-19 regenerative medicine. In summary, with increasing COVID-19 research related to CVD, more attention might be drawn to the relationship between these two diseases.

Conclusion

The hotspots in this field may continue to revolve around cardiovascular comorbidities, outcomes, and COVID-19 regenerative medicine. Owing to the different situations faced by different groups with COVID-19, further exploration of the related factors specific to each of these groups, e.g., history or no history of heart failure, is needed, with a view to providing a reference for intervention measures in COVID-19 research.

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.

A multicenter evaluation of computable phenotyping approaches for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalizations

Diagnosis codes are used to study SARS-CoV2 infections and COVID-19 hospitalizations in administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data. Using EHR data (April 2020–March 2021) at the Yale-New Haven Health System and the three hospital systems of the Mayo Clinic, computable phenotype definitions based on ICD-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) were evaluated against positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen tests. We included 69,423 patients at Yale and 75,748 at Mayo Clinic with either a diagnosis code or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The precision and recall of a COVID-19 diagnosis for a positive test were 68.8% and 83.3%, respectively, at Yale, with higher precision (95%) and lower recall (63.5%) at Mayo Clinic, varying between 59.2% in Rochester to 97.3% in Arizona. For hospitalizations with a principal COVID-19 diagnosis, 94.8% at Yale and 80.5% at Mayo Clinic had an associated positive laboratory test, with secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 identifying additional patients. These patients had a twofold higher inhospital mortality than based on principal diagnosis. Standardization of coding practices is needed before the use of diagnosis codes in clinical research and epidemiological surveillance of COVID-19.

Understanding the role of nACE2 in neurogenic hypertension among COVID-19 patients

Currently, the third and fourth waves of the coronavirus disease -19 (COVID-19) pandemic are creating havoc in many parts of the world. Although vaccination programs have been launched in most countries, emerging new strains of the virus along with geographical variations are leading to varying success rates of the available vaccines. The presence of comorbidities such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and hypertension is responsible for increasing the severity of COVID-19 and, thus, the COVID-19 mortality rate. Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is utilized by SARS-CoV-2 for entry into host cells, is widely expressed in the lungs, kidneys, testes, gut, adipose tissue, and brain. Infection within host cells mediates RAS overactivation, which leads to a decrease in the ACE2/ACE ratio, AT2R/AT1R ratio, and MasR/AT1R ratio. Such imbalances lead to the development of heightened inflammatory responses, such as cytokine storms, leading to post-COVID-19 complications and mortality. As the association of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hypertension remains unclear, this report provides an overview of the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection on patients with hypertension. We discuss here the interaction of ACE2 with SARS-CoV-2, focusing on neuronal ACE2 (nACE2), and further shed light on the possible involvement of nACE2 in hypertension. SARS-CoV-2 enters the brain through neuronal ACE2 and spreads in various regions of the brain. The effect of viral binding to neuronal ACE2 in areas of the brain that regulate salt/water balance and blood pressure is also discussed in light of the neural regulation of hypertension in COVID-19.

Clinical pharmacology: Current innovations and future challenges

Clinical pharmacology is the study of drugs in humans, from first-in-human studies to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and benefit-risk ratio assessment in large populations. The objective of this review is to present the recent innovations that may revolutionize the development of drugs in the future. On behalf of the French Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, we provide recommendations to address those future challenges in clinical pharmacology. Whatever the future will be, robust preliminary data on drug mechanism of action and rigorous study design will remain crucial prior to the start of pharmacological studies in human. At the present time, RCTs remains the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy of human drugs, although alternative designs (pragmatic trials, platform trials, etc.) are emerging. Innovations in healthy volunteers' studies and the contribution of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and internet-based trials have the potential to improve drug development. In the field of precision medicine, new disease phenotypes and endotypes will probably help to identify new pharmacological targets, responders to therapies and patients at risk for drug adverse events. In such a moving landscape, the development of translational research through academic and private partnership, transparent sharing of clinical trial data and enhanced interactions between drug experts, patients and the general public are priority areas for action.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Use Associated with Reduced Mortality and Other Disease Outcomes in US Veterans with COVID-19

Objective

To determine the association between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) use and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) severity and outcomes in US veterans.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively examined 27,556 adult US veterans who tested positive for COVID-19 between March to November 2020. Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models using propensity score (PS) for weight, adjustment, and matching were used to examine the odds of an event within 60 days following a COVID-19–positive case date and time to death, respectively, according to ACEI and/or ARB prescription within 6 months prior to the COVID-19–positive case date.

Results

The overlap PS weighted logistic regression model showed lower odds of an intensive care unit (ICU) admission (odds ratio [OR] 95% CI 0.77, 0.61–0.98) and death within 60 days (0.87, 0.79–0.97) with an ACEI or ARB prescription. Veterans with an ARB-only prescription also had lower odds of an ICU admission (0.64, 0.44–0.92). The overlap PS weighted model similarly showed a lower risk of time to all-cause mortality in veterans with an ACEI or ARB prescription (HR [95% CI]: 0.87, 0.79–0.97) and an ARB only prescription (0.78, 0.67–0.91). Veterans with an ACEI prescription had higher odds of experiencing a septic event within 60 days after the COVID-19–positive case date (1.22, 1.02–1.46).

Conclusion

In this study of a national cohort of US veterans, we found that the use of an ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 was not associated with increased mortality and other worse outcomes. Future studies should examine underlying pathways and further confirm the relationship of ACEI prescription with sepsis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40265-021-01639-2.

Analysis of Excess Mortality Data at Different Altitudes During the COVID-19 Outbreak in Ecuador

Ortiz-Prado, Esteban, Raul Patricio Fernandez Naranjo, Eduardo Vasconez, Katherine Simbaña-Rivera, Trigomar Correa-Sancho, Alex Lister, Manuel Calvopiña, and Ginés Viscor. Analysis of excess mortality data at different altitudes during the COVID-19 outbreak in Ecuador. High Alt Med Biol. 22:406-416, 2021. Background: It has been speculated that living at high altitude confers some risk reduction in terms of SARS-CoV-2 infection, reduced transmissibility, and arguable lower COVID-19-related mortality. Objective: We aim to determine the number of excess deaths reported in Ecuador during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to different altitude categories among 221 cantons in Ecuador, ranging from sea level to 4,300 m above. Methods: A descriptive ecological country-wide analysis of the excess mortality in Ecuador was performed since March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Every canton was categorized as lower (for altitudes 2,500 m or less) or higher (for altitudes >2,500 m) in a first broad classification, as well as in two different classifications: The one proposed by Imray et al. in 2011 (low altitude <1,500 m, moderate altitude 1,500-2,500 m, high altitude 2,500-3,500 m, or very high altitude 3,500-5,500 m) and the one proposed by Bärtsch et al. in 2008 (near sea level 0-500 m, low altitude 500-2,000 m, moderate altitude 2,000-3,000 m, high altitude 3,000-5,500 m, and extreme altitude 5,500 m). A Poisson fitting analysis was used to identify trends on officially recorded all-caused deaths and those attributed to COVID-19. Results: In Ecuador, at least 120,573 deaths were recorded during the first year of the pandemic, from which 42,453 were catalogued as excessive when compared with the past 3 years of averages (2017-2019). The mortality rate at the lower altitude was 301/100,000 people, in comparison to 242/100,000 inhabitants in elevated cantons. Considering the four elevation categories, the highest excess deaths came from towns located at low altitude (324/100,000), in contrast to the moderate altitude (171/100,000), high-altitude (249/100,000), and very high-altitude (153/100,000) groups. Conclusions: This is the first report on COVID-19 excess mortality in a high-altitude range from 0 to 4,300 m above sea level. We found that absolute COVID-19-related excess mortality is lower both in time and in proportion in the cantons located at high and very high altitude when compared with those cantons located at low altitude.

Risk of Covid-19-Related Hospitalization and More Severe Outcomes in Medicare Beneficiaries Treated with Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors for Hypertension

BACKGROUND

There are theoretical concerns that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) could increase the risk of severe Covid-19.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if ACEIs and ARBs are associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization overall, or hospitalization involving intensive care unit (ICU) admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death.

DESIGN

Observational case-control study.

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 66 years with hypertension, treated with ACEIs, ARBs, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), or thiazide diuretics.

MAIN MEASURES

Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the outcomes of Covid-19 hospitalization, or hospitalization involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death.

RESULTS

A total of 35,300 cases of hospitalized Covid-19 were matched to 228,228 controls on calendar date and neighborhood of residence. The median age of cases was 79 years, 57.4% were female, and the median duration of hospitalization was 8 days (interquartile range 5-12). ACEIs and ARBs were associated with a slight reduction in Covid-19 hospitalization risk compared with treatment with other first-line antihypertensives (OR for ACEIs 0.95, 95% CI 0.92-0.98; OR for ARBs 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.97). Similar results were obtained for hospitalizations involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. There were no meaningful differences in risk for ACEIs compared with ARBs. In an analysis restricted to monotherapy with a first-line agent, CCBs were associated with a small increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization compared with ACEIs (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.14), ARBs (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05-1.15), or thiazide diuretics (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.03-1.19).

CONCLUSIONS

ACEIs and ARBs were not associated with an increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization or with hospitalization involving ICU admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death. The finding of a small increased risk of Covid-19 hospitalization with CCBs was unexpected and could be due to residual confounding.

Pharmacotherapeutic agents for the management of COVID-19 patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease

INTRODUCTION

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is the largest public health challenge of the twenty-first century. While COVID-19 primarily affects the respiratory system, manifesting as interstitial pneumonitis and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), it also has implications for the cardiovascular system. Moreover, those admitted to hospital with severe COVID-19 are more likely to have cardiovascular comorbidities such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus. The underlying pathophysiology of why COVID-19 onset can further decline cardiac pathologies as well as trigger acute onset of new cardiac complications is not yet well understood.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors extensively review literature focused on the current understanding and approaches of managing patients who have underlying cardiovascular diseases and concomitant COVID-19 infection. Furthermore, the authors explore the possible cardiovascular implications of the suggested COVID-19 therapeutic agents that are used to treat this lethal disease.

EXPERT OPINION

Current evidence is evolving around the many trialed pharmacotherapeutic considerations for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with cardiovascular disease. While we await such data, clinicians should advocate for careful consideration of all concomitant medications for those presenting with COVID-19 on a patient-by-patient basis.

Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System Antagonism in 2019 Novel Coronavirus Acute Lung Injury

It has been established that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) uses angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), a membrane-bound regulatory peptide, for host cell entry. Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors have been reported to increase ACE2 in type 2 pneumocyte pulmonary tissue. Controversy exists for the continuation of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in the current pandemic. ACE2 serves as a regulatory enzyme in maintaining homeostasis between proinflammatory angiotensin II and anti-inflammatory angiotensin 1,7 peptides. Derangements in these peptides are associated with cardiovascular disease and are implicated in the progression of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Augmentation of the ACE2/Ang 1,7 axis represents a critical target in the supportive management of coronavirus disease 2019–associated lung disease. Observational data describing the use of RAAS inhibitors in the setting of SARS-CoV-2 have not borne signals of harm to date. However, equipoise persists, requiring an analysis of novel agents including recombinant human-ACE2 and existing RAAS inhibitors while balancing ongoing controversies associated with increased coronavirus infectivity and virulence.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and SARS-CoV-2 infection: an analysis from the veteran's affairs healthcare system

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are known to impact the functional receptor for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The association between chronic therapy with these medications and infection risk remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine the association between prior ACEI or ARB therapy and SARS-CoV-2 infection among patients with hypertension in the U.S. Veteran's Affairs health system.

METHODS

We compared the odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection among three groups: patients treated with ACEI, treated with ARB, or treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. We excluded patients with alternate indications for ACEI or ARB therapy. We performed an augmented inverse propensity weighted analysis with adjustment for demographics, region, comorbidities, vitals, and laboratory values.

RESULTS

Among 1,724,723 patients with treated hypertension, 659,180 were treated with ACEI, 310,651 with ARB, and 754,892 with neither. Before weighting, patients treated with ACEI or ARB were more likely to be diabetic and use more anti-hypertensives. There were 13,278 SARS-CoV-2 infections (0.8%) between February 12, 2020 and August 19, 2020. Patients treated with ACEI had lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89-0.97) while those treated with ARB had similar odds (OR 1.02; 95% CI: 0.96-1.07) compared with patients treated with alternate first-line anti-hypertensives without ACEI/ARB. In falsification analyses, patients on ACEI did not have a difference in their odds of unrelated outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest the safety of continuing ACEI and ARB therapy. The association between ACEI therapy and lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 infection requires further investigation.

In-hospital use of ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers associates with COVID-19 outcomes in African American patients

BACKGROUNDThe angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) D allele is more prevalent among African Americans compared with other races and ethnicities and has previously been associated with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pathogenesis through excessive ACE1 activity. ACE inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACE-I/ARB) may counteract this mechanism, but their association with COVID-19 outcomes has not been specifically tested in the African American population.METHODSWe identified 6218 patients who were admitted into Mount Sinai hospitals with COVID-19 between February 24 and May 31, 2020, in New York City. We evaluated whether the outpatient and in-hospital use of ACE-I/ARB is associated with COVID-19 in-hospital mortality in an African American compared with non-African American population.RESULTSOf the 6218 patients with COVID-19, 1138 (18.3%) were ACE-I/ARB users. In a multivariate logistic regression model, ACE-I/ARB use was independently associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality in the entire population (OR, 0.655; 95% CI, 0.505-0.850; P = 0.001), African American population (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.249-0.779; P = 0.005), and non-African American population (OR, 0.748, 95% CI, 0.553-1.012, P = 0.06). In the African American population, in-hospital use of ACE-I/ARB was associated with improved mortality (OR, 0.378; 95% CI, 0.188-0.766; P = 0.006), whereas outpatient use was not (OR, 0.889; 95% CI, 0.375-2.158; P = 0.812). When analyzing each medication class separately, ARB in-hospital use was significantly associated with reduced in-hospital mortality in the African American population (OR, 0.196; 95% CI, 0.074-0.516; P = 0.001), whereas ACE-I use was not associated with impact on mortality in any population.CONCLUSIONIn-hospital use of ARB was associated with a significant reduction in in-hospital mortality among COVID-19-positive African American patients.FUNDINGNone.

Effects of the Na+/H+ Ion Exchanger on Susceptibility to COVID-19 and the Course of the Disease

The Na⁺/H⁺ ion exchanger (NHE) pumps Na⁺ inward the cell and H⁺ ion outside the cell. NHE activity increases in response to a decrease in intracellular pH, and it maintains intracellular pH in a narrow range. Patients with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension and the elderly are prone to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The angiotensin II (Ang II) level is high in chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Ang II is the main stimulator of NHE, and an increased Ang II level causes prolonged NHE activation in these patients. The long-term increase in NHE activity causes H⁺ ions to leave the cell in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Increasing H⁺ ions outside the cell lead to an increase in oxidative stress and reactive oxygen species. H⁺ ion flows into the cell due to the increased oxidative stress. This vicious circle causes intracellular pH to drop. Although NHE is activated when intracellular pH decreases, there is prolonged NHE activation in chronic diseases such as aforementioned. Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression may be more severe and mortal in these patients. SARS-CoV-2 readily invades the cell at low intracellular pH and causes infection. The renin-angiotensin system and NHE play a vital role in regulating intracellular pH. The reduction of NHE activity or its prolonged activation may cause susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection by lowering intracellular pH in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Prolonged NHE activation in these patients with COVID-19 may worsen the course of the disease. Scientists continue to investigate the mechanism of the disease and the factors that affect its clinical progression.

Comparison of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors with other antihypertensives in association with coronavirus disease-19 clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Reports on the effects of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) have been conflicting. We performed this meta-analysis to find conclusive evidence.

METHODS

We searched published articles through PubMed, EMBASE and medRxiv from 5 January 2020 to 3 August 2020. Studies that reported clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19, stratified by the class of antihypertensives, were included. Random and fixed-effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR).

RESULTS

A total 36 studies involving 30,795 patients with COVID-19 were included. The overall risk of poor patient outcomes (severe COVID-19 or death) was lower in patients taking RAAS inhibitors (OR = 0.79, 95% CI: [0.67, 0.95]) compared with those receiving non-RAAS inhibitor antihypertensives. However, further sub-meta-analysis showed that specific RAAS inhibitors did not show a reduction of poor COVID-19 outcomes when compared with any class of antihypertensive except beta-blockers (BBs). For example, compared to calcium channel blockers (CCBs), neither angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR = 0.91, 95% CI: [0.67, 1.23]) nor angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR = 0.90, 95% CI: [0.62, 1.33]) showed a reduction of poor COVID-19 outcomes. When compared with BBs, however, both ACEIs (OR = 0.85, 95% CI: [0.73, 0.99) and ARBs (OR = 0.72, 95% CI: [0.55, 0.94]) showed an apparent decrease in poor COVID-19 outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

RAAS inhibitors did not increase the risk of mortality or severity of COVID-19. Differences in COVID-19 clinical outcomes between different class of antihypertensive drugs were likely due to the underlying comorbidities for which the antihypertensive drugs were prescribed, although adverse effects of drugs such as BBs could not be excluded.

Accuracy of Computable Phenotyping Approaches for SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Hospitalizations from the Electronic Health Record

Objective:

Real-world data have been critical for rapid-knowledge generation throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. To ensure high-quality results are delivered to guide clinical decision making and the public health response, as well as characterize the response to interventions, it is essential to establish the accuracy of COVID-19 case definitions derived from administrative data to identify infections and hospitalizations.

Methods:

Electronic Health Record (EHR) data were obtained from the clinical data warehouse of the Yale New Haven Health System (Yale, primary site) and 3 hospital systems of the Mayo Clinic (validation site). Detailed characteristics on demographics, diagnoses, and laboratory results were obtained for all patients with either a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen test or ICD-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) between April 1, 2020 and March 1, 2021. Various computable phenotype definitions were evaluated for their accuracy to identify SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Results:

Of the 69,423 individuals with either a diagnosis code or a laboratory diagnosis of a SARS-CoV-2 infection at Yale, 61,023 had a principal or a secondary diagnosis code for COVID-19 and 50,355 had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Among those with a positive laboratory test, 38,506 (76.5%) and 3449 (6.8%) had a principal and secondary diagnosis code of COVID-19, respectively, while 8400 (16.7%) had no COVID-19 diagnosis. Moreover, of the 61,023 patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis code, 19,068 (31.2%) did not have a positive laboratory test for SARS-CoV-2 in the EHR. Of the 20 cases randomly sampled from this latter group for manual review, all had a COVID-19 diagnosis code related to asymptomatic testing with negative subsequent test results. The positive predictive value (precision) and sensitivity (recall) of a COVID-19 diagnosis in the medical record for a documented positive SARS-CoV-2 test were 68.8% and 83.3%, respectively. Among 5,109 patients who were hospitalized with a principal diagnosis of COVID-19, 4843 (94.8%) had a positive SARS-CoV-2 test within the 2 weeks preceding hospital admission or during hospitalization. In addition, 789 hospitalizations had a secondary diagnosis of COVID-19, of which 446 (56.5%) had a principal diagnosis consistent with severe clinical manifestation of COVID-19 (e.g., sepsis or respiratory failure). Compared with the cohort that had a principal diagnosis of COVID-19, those with a secondary diagnosis had a more than 2-fold higher in-hospital mortality rate (13.2% vs 28.0%, P<0.001). In the validation sample at Mayo Clinic, diagnosis codes more consistently identified SARS-CoV-2 infection (precision of 95%) but had lower recall (63.5%) with substantial variation across the 3 Mayo Clinic sites. Similar to Yale, diagnosis codes consistently identified COVID-19 hospitalizations at Mayo, with hospitalizations defined by secondary diagnosis code with 2-fold higher in-hospital mortality compared to those with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19.

Conclusions:

COVID-19 diagnosis codes misclassified the SARS-CoV-2 infection status of many people, with implications for clinical research and epidemiological surveillance. Moreover, the codes had different performance across two academic health systems and identified groups with different risks of mortality. Real-world data from the EHR can be used to in conjunction with diagnosis codes to improve the identification of people infected with SARS-CoV-2.

Lack of association of antihypertensive drugs with the risk and severity of COVID-19: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The association of antihypertensive drugs with the risk and severity of COVID-19 remains unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched PubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and medRxiv for publications before July 13, 2020. Cohort studies and case-control studies that contain information on the association of antihypertensive agents including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs), β-blockers, and diuretics with the risk and severity of COVID-19 were selected. The random or fixed-effects models were used to pool the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the outcomes. The literature search yielded 53 studies that satisfied our inclusion criteria, which comprised 39 cohort studies and 14 case-control studies. These studies included a total of 2,100,587 participants. We observed no association between prior usage of antihypertensive medications including ACEIs/ARBs, CCBs, β-blockers, or diuretics and the risk and severity of COVID-19. Additionally, when only hypertensive patients were included, the severity and mortality were lower with prior usage of ACEIs/ARBs (overall OR of 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-0.99, p < 0.05 and overall OR of 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.91, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, usage of antihypertensive drugs is not associated with the risk and severity of COVID-19. Based on the current available literature, it is not recommended to abstain from the usage of these drugs in COVID-19 patients.

REGISTRATION

The meta-analysis was registered on OSF (https://osf.io/ynd5g).

Different therapeutic associations of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with usual pneumonia

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Although it is near concluded that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors do not have a harmful effect on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there is no report about whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) offer any protective role. This study aimed to compare the association of ARBs and ACEIs with COVID-19-related mortality.

METHODS

All patients with COVID-19 in Korea between January 19 and April 16, 2020 were enrolled. The association of ARBs and ACEIs with mortality within 60 days were evaluated. A comparison of hazard ratio (HR) was performed between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of pneumonia patients hospitalized in 2019 in Korea.

RESULTS

Among 10,448 COVID-19 patients, ARBs and ACEIs were prescribed in 1,231 (11.7%) and 57 (0.6%) patients, respectively. After adjusting for age, sex, and history of comorbidities, the ARB group showed neutral association (HR, 1.034; 95% CI, 0.765 to 1.399; p = 0.8270) and the ACEI groups showed no significant associations likely owing to the small population size (HR, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.314 to 1.726; p = 0.4810). When comparing HR between COVID-19 patients and a retrospective cohort of patients hospitalized with pneumonia in 2019, the trend of ACEIs showed similar benefits, whereas the protective effect of ARBs observed in the retrospective cohort was absent in COVID-19 patients. Meta-analyses showed significant positive correlation with survival of ACEIs, whereas a neutral association between ARBs and mortality.

CONCLUSION

Although ARBs or ACEIs were not associated with fatal outcomes, potential beneficial effects of ARBs observed in pneumonia were attenuated in COVID-19.

Associations Between the Use of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and the Risks of Severe COVID-19 and Mortality in COVID-19 Patients With Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) share a target receptor with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The use of ACEIs/ARBs may cause angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor upregulation, facilitating the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into host cells. There is concern that the use of ACEIs/ARBs could increase the risks of severe COVID-19 and mortality. The impact of discontinuing these drugs in patients with COVID-19 remains uncertain. We aimed to assess the association between the use of ACEIs/ARBs and the risks of mortality and severe disease in patients with COVID-19. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and MedRxiv.org from December 1, 2019, to June 20, 2020. We also identified additional citations by manually searching the reference lists of eligible articles. Forty-two observational studies including 63,893 participants were included. We found that the use of ACEIs/ARBs was not significantly associated with a reduction in the relative risk of all-cause mortality [odds ratio (OR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.75-1.00; I 2 = 57%, p = 0.05]. We found no significant reduction in the risk of severe disease in the ACEI subgroup (OR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.88-1.02, I 2 = 50%, p = 0.18), the ARB subgroup (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.94-1.13, I 2 = 62%, p = 0.48), or the ACEI/ARB subgroup (OR = 0.83, 95% CI = 0.65-1.08, I 2 = 67%, p = 0.16). Moreover, seven studies showed no significant difference in the duration of hospitalization between the two groups (mean difference = 0.33, 95% CI = -1.75 to 2.40, p = 0.76). In conclusion, the use of ACEIs/ARBs appears to not have a significant effect on mortality, disease severity, or duration of hospitalization in COVID-19 patients. On the basis of the findings of this meta-analysis, there is no support for the cessation of treatment with ACEIs or ARBs in patients with COVID-19.

Antihypertensives and their relation to mortality by SARS-CoV-2 infection

The role of antihypertensives, especially Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System inhibitors, is still debatable in COVID-19-related severity and outcome. Therefore, we search for a more global analysis of antihypertensive medication in relation to SAS-CoV-2 severity using prescription data worldwide. The association between the percentage use of different types of antihypertensive medications and mortality rates due to a SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first 3 weeks of the pandemic was analyzed using random effects linear regression models for 30 countries worldwide. Higher percentages of prescribed angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (β, 95% confidence interval [CI]; -0.02 [-0.04 to -0.0012]; p = .042) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (β, 95% CI; -0.023 [-0.05 to -0.0028]; p = .0304) were associated with a lower first 3-week SARS-CoV-2-related death rate, whereas a higher percentage of prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) (β, 95% CI; 0.03 [0.0061-0.05]; p = .0103) was associated with a higher first 3-week death rate, even when adjusted for age and metformin use. There was no association between the amount of prescribed beta-blockers (BBs) and diuretics (Diu) and the first 3-week death rate. When analyzing the combination of drugs that is used by at least 50% of antihypertensive users, within the different countries, countries with the lowest first 3-week death rates had at least an angiotensin receptor blocker as one of the most often prescribed antihypertensive medications (ARBs/CCBs: [β, 95% CI; -0.02 [-0.03 to -0.004]; p = .009], ARBs/BBs: [β, 95% CI; -0.03 [-0.05 to -0.006]; p = .01]). Finally, countries prescribing high-potency ARBs had lower first 3-week ARBs. In conclusion, ARBs and CCB seem to have a protective effect against death from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19: Pathophysiological and Pharmacological Considerations About Ongoing and Future Prospective Clinical Trials

COVID-19 pandemic demands a swift response to find therapeutic tools that effectively reduce morbidity and mortality. Despite initial fears, evidence from retrospective observational studies supports the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system as an emerging pathway to delay or moderate angiotensin II-driven lung inflammation. This has triggered several prospective clinical trials. In this commentary we provide an overview and analysis of current ongoing clinical trials aimed at evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use in COVID-19. The relevance of the results of these trials will have to be interpreted depending on the stage and severity of the disease and in light of the start time of their prescription related to the time of diagnosis of COVID-19 as well as the administered doses.

Use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers associated with lower risk of COVID-19 in household contacts

Background

Use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) has been hypothesized to affect COVID-19 risk.

Objective

To examine the association between use of ACEI/ARB and household transmission of COVID-19.

Methods

We conducted a modified cohort study of household contacts of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 4 and May 17, 2020 in a large Northeast US health system. Household members were identified by geocoding and full address matching with exclusion of addresses with >10 matched residents or known congregate living functions. Medication use, clinical conditions and sociodemographic characteristics were obtained from electronic medical record (EMR) data on cohort entry. Cohort members were followed for at least one month after exposure to determine who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Mixed effects logistic regression and propensity score analyses were used to assess adjusted associations between medication use and testing positive.

Results

1,499 of the 9,101 household contacts were taking an ACEI or an ARB. Probability of COVID-19 diagnosis during the study period was slightly higher among ACEI/ARB users in unadjusted analyses. However, ACEI/ARB users were older and more likely to have clinical comorbidities so that use of ACEI/ARB was associated with a decreased risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19 in mixed effect models (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44–0.81) or propensity score analyses (predicted probability 18.6% in ACEI/ARB users vs. 24.5% in non-users, p = 0.03). These associations were similar within age and comorbidity subgroups, including patients with documented hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease, as well as when including other medications in the models.

Conclusions

In this observational study of household transmission, use of ACEIs or ARBs was associated with a decreased risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19. While causality cannot be inferred from these observational data, our results support current recommendations to continue ACEI/ARB in individuals at risk of COVID-19 exposure.

Medication use during COVID-19: Review of recent evidence

OBJECTIVE

To keep health care providers, in response to the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, informed about the medications that have been proposed to treat the disease and the evidence supporting their use.

QUALITY OF EVIDENCE

A narrative review of medications most widely used to treat COVID-19 was conducted, outlining the best available evidence for each pharmacologic treatment to date. Searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE using key words COVID-19 and treatment, as well as related terms. Relevant research studies conducted in human populations and cases specific to patients with COVID-19 were included, as were relevant hand-searched papers and reviews. Only articles in English and Chinese were included.

MAIN MESSAGE

While current management of patients with COVID-19 largely involves supportive care, without a widely available vaccine, practitioners have also resorted to repurposing medications used for other indications. This has caused considerable controversy, as many of these treatments have limited clinical evidence supporting their use and therefore pose implications for patient safety, drug access, and public health. For instance, medications such as hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin receptor blockers gained widespread media attention owing to hype, misinformation, or misinterpretation of research evidence.

CONCLUSION

Given the severity of the pandemic and the potential broad effects of implementing safe and effective treatment, this article provides a narrative review of the current evidence behind the most widely used medications to treat COVID-19 in order to enable health care practitioners to make informed decisions in the care of patients with this life-threatening disease.

Médicaments utilisés durant la COVID-19

Objectif

En réponse à la pandémie actuelle de maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), garder les médecins au fait des médicaments qui ont été proposés pour combattre la maladie, et des données probantes à l’appui de leur utilisation.

Sources d’information

Une revue narrative des médicaments les plus fréquemment utilisés pour combattre la COVID-19 a été réalisée, afin de souligner les meilleures données probantes disponibles concernant chaque traitement pharmacologique jusqu’ici. Des recherches ont été effectuées sur PubMed, EMBASE et MEDLINE à l’aide des mots-clés anglais COVID-19 et treatment , ainsi que d’autres mots-clés connexes. Ont été inclus les études pertinentes menées auprès de populations humaines et des cas de patients atteints de la COVID-19, ainsi que les articles et revues relevés à la main. Seuls les articles rédigés en anglais et en chinois ont été retenus.

Message principal

Alors que la prise en charge actuelle des patients atteints de la COVID-19 consiste principalement en soins de soutien, sans accès aux vaccins, les praticiens se sont tournés vers des médicaments utilisés dans d’autres indications. Cela a causé une grande controverse, puisque des données cliniques limitées étayaient l’utilisation de beaucoup de ces traitements, et cela pouvait se répercuter sur la sécurité du patient, l’accès aux médicaments et la santé publique. Par exemple, les médicaments tels que l’hydroxychloroquine et la chloroquine, le lopinavir-ritonavir, les anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens, les inhibiteurs de l’enzyme de conversion de l’angiotensine et les antagonistes des récepteurs de l’angiotensine ont capté l’attention des médias en raison de la médiatisation, de la mésinformation ou de la mauvaise interprétation des données de recherche.

Conclusion

Vu la gravité de la pandémie et les vastes effets éventuels de l’adoption de traitements sûrs et efficaces, cet article se veut être une revue narrative des données probantes actuelles étayant les médicaments les plus utilisés pour le traitement de la COVID-19 afin de permettre aux professionnels de la santé de prendre des décisions éclairées en matière de soins pour les patients qui sont atteints de cette maladie potentiellement mortelle.

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.

Real-World Evidence for Assessing Pharmaceutical Treatments in the Context of COVID-19

The emergence and global spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has resulted in an urgent need for evidence on medical interventions and outcomes of the resulting disease, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Although many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating treatments and vaccines for COVID-19 are already in progress, the number of clinical questions of interest greatly outpaces the available resources to conduct RCTs. Therefore, there is growing interest in whether nonrandomized real-world evidence (RWE) can be used to supplement RCT evidence and aid in clinical decision making, but concerns about nonrandomized RWE have been highlighted by a proliferation of RWE studies on medications and COVID-19 outcomes with widely varying conclusions. The objective of this paper is to review some clinical questions of interest, potential data types, challenges, and merits of RWE in COVID-19, resulting in recommendations for nonrandomized RWE designs and analyses based on established RWE principles.

Soluble ACE2 as a potential therapy for COVID-19

Soluble angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (sACE2) could be a therapeutic option to treat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) utilizes ACE2 receptors on cell surfaces to gain intracellular entry, making them an ideal target for therapy. High-affinity variants of sACE2, engineered using high-throughput mutagenesis, are capable of neutralizing COVID-19 infection as decoy receptors. These variants compete with native ACE2 present on cells by binding with spike (S) protein of SARS-CoV-2, making native ACE2 on cell surfaces available to convert angiotensin II to angiotensin-1,7, thus alleviating the exaggerated inflammatory response associated with COVID-19 infection. This article explores the use of sACE2 as potential therapy for COVID-19 infection.

Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Use and COVID-19 Infection Among 824 650 Patients With Hypertension From a US Integrated Healthcare System

Background Previous reports suggest that the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may upregulate angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors and increase severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infectivity. We evaluated the association between ACEI or ARB use and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection among patients with hypertension. Methods and Results We identified patients with hypertension as of March 1, 2020 (index date) from Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Patients who received ACEIs, ARBs, calcium channel blockers, beta blockers, thiazide diuretics (TD), or no therapy were identified using outpatient pharmacy data covering the index date. Outcome of interest was a positive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction test for COVID-19 between March 1 and May 6, 2020. Patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were identified within 1 year preindex date. Among 824 650 patients with hypertension, 16 898 (2.0%) were tested for COVID-19. Of those tested, 1794 (10.6%) had a positive result. Overall, exposure to ACEIs or ARBs was not statistically significantly associated with COVID-19 infection after propensity score adjustment (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.25) for ACEIs versus calcium channel blockers/beta blockers/TD; OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.91-1.31 for ARBs versus calcium channel blockers/beta blockers/TD). The associations between ACEI use and COVID-19 infection varied in different age groups (P-interaction=0.03). ACEI use was associated with lower odds of COVID-19 among those aged ≥85 years (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.77). Use of no antihypertensive medication was significantly associated with increased odds of COVID-19 infection compared with calcium channel blockers/beta blockers/TD (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.11-1.56). Conclusions Neither ACEI nor ARB use was associated with increased likelihood of COVID-19 infection. Decreased odds of COVID-19 infection among adults ≥85 years using ACEIs warrants further investigation.

Antihypertensive Drugs and COVID-19 Risk: A Cohort Study of 2 Million Hypertensive Patients

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

After initially hypothesizing a positive relationship between use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), more recent evidence suggests negative associations. We examined whether COVID-19 risk differs according to antihypertensive drug class in patients treated by ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) compared with calcium channel blockers (CCBs). Three exclusive cohorts of prevalent ACE inhibitors, ARB and CCB users, aged 18 to 80 years, from the French National Health Insurance databases were followed from February 15, 2020 to June 7, 2020. We excluded patients with a history of diabetes, known cardiovascular disease, chronic renal failure, or chronic respiratory disease during the previous 5 years, to only consider patients treated for uncomplicated hypertension and to limit indication bias. The primary end point was time to hospitalization for COVID-19. The secondary end point was time to intubation/death during a hospital stay for COVID-19. In a population of almost 2 million hypertensive patients (ACE inhibitors: 566 023; ARB: 958 227; CCB: 358 306) followed for 16 weeks, 2338 were hospitalized and 526 died or were intubated for COVID-19. ACE inhibitors and ARBs were associated with a lower risk of COVID-19 hospitalization compared with CCBs (hazard ratio, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.65–0.83] and 0.84 [0.76–0.93], respectively) and a lower risk of intubation/death. Risks were slightly lower for ACE inhibitor users than for ARB users. This large observational study may suggest a lower COVID-19 risk in hypertensive patients treated over a long period with ACE inhibitors or ARBs compared with CCBs. These results, if confirmed, tend to contradict previous hypotheses and raise new hypotheses.

Effects of the Na+/H+ Ion Exchanger on Susceptibility to COVID-19 and the Course of the Disease

The Na⁺/H⁺ ion exchanger (NHE) pumps Na⁺ inward the cell and H⁺ ion outside the cell. NHE activity increases in response to a decrease in intracellular pH, and it maintains intracellular pH in a narrow range. Patients with obesity, diabetes, and hypertension and the elderly are prone to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. The angiotensin II (Ang II) level is high in chronic diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Ang II is the main stimulator of NHE, and an increased Ang II level causes prolonged NHE activation in these patients. The long-term increase in NHE activity causes H⁺ ions to leave the cell in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Increasing H⁺ ions outside the cell lead to an increase in oxidative stress and reactive oxygen species. H⁺ ion flows into the cell due to the increased oxidative stress. This vicious circle causes intracellular pH to drop. Although NHE is activated when intracellular pH decreases, there is prolonged NHE activation in chronic diseases such as aforementioned. Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression may be more severe and mortal in these patients. SARS-CoV-2 readily invades the cell at low intracellular pH and causes infection. The renin-angiotensin system and NHE play a vital role in regulating intracellular pH. The reduction of NHE activity or its prolonged activation may cause susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection by lowering intracellular pH in patients with diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. Prolonged NHE activation in these patients with COVID-19 may worsen the course of the disease. Scientists continue to investigate the mechanism of the disease and the factors that affect its clinical progression.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors and COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Evidence for Significant Geographical Disparities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

While the COVID-19 pandemic is constantly evolving, it remains unclear whether the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) affects the clinical course of SARS-CoV-2 infection. For this meta-analysis, PubMed, CENTRAL, and grey literature were searched from their inception to 19 May 2020 for randomized, controlled trials or observational studies that evaluate the association between the use of either ACE inhibitors or ARBs and the risk for major clinical endpoints (infection, hospitalization, admission to ICU, death) in adult patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, a subgroup geographical analysis of outcomes was performed. Studies including less than 100 subjects were excluded from our analysis.

RECENT FINDINGS

In total, 25 observational studies were included. ACE inhibitors and ARBs were not associated with increased odds for SARS-CoV-2 infection, admission to hospital, severe or critical illness, admission to ICU, and SARS-CoV-2-related death. In Asian countries, the use of ACE inhibitors/ARBs decreased the odds for severe or critical illness and death (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.89, I² = 83%, and OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, I² = 0%, respectively), whereas they increased the odds for ICU admission in North America and death in Europe (OR = 1.75, 95% CI 1.37-2.23, I² = 0%, and OR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.05-2.70, I² = 82%, respectively). ACE inhibitors might be marginally protective regarding SARS-CoV-2-related death compared with ARBs (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.00, I² = 0%). Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the aforementioned associations between ACE inhibitors, ARBs, and SARS-CoV-2.

African League Against Rheumatism (AFLAR) preliminary recommendations on the management of rheumatic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic

Objectives

To develop recommendations for the management of rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Method

A task force comprising of 25 rheumatologists from the 5 regions of the continent was formed and operated through a hub-and-spoke model with a central working committee (CWC) and 4 subgroups. The subgroups championed separate scopes of the clinical questions and formulated preliminary statements of recommendations which were processed centrally in the CWC. The CWC and each subgroup met by several virtual meetings, and two rounds of voting were conducted on the drafted statements of recommendations. Votes were online-delivered and recommendations were pruned down according to predefined criteria. Each statement was rated between 1 and 9 with 1–3, 4–6 and 7–9 representing disagreement, uncertainty and agreement, respectively. The levels of agreement on the statements were stratified as low, moderate or high according to the spread of votes. A statement was retired if it had a mean vote below 7 or a ‘low’ level of agreement.

Results

A total of 126 initial statements of recommendations were drafted, and these were reduced to 22 after the two rounds of voting.

Conclusions

The preliminary statements of recommendations will serve to guide the clinical practice of rheumatology across Africa amidst the changing practices and uncertainties in the current era of COVID-19. It is recognized that further updates to the recommendations will be needed as more evidence emerges.

Key Points • AFLAR has developed preliminary recommendations for the management of RMDs in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. • COVID-19 is an unprecedented experience which has brought new concerns regarding the use of some disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and these recommendations seek to provide guidelines to the African rheumatologists. • Hydroxychloroquine shortage has become rampart across Africa as the drug is being used as prophylaxis against COVID-19 and this may necessitate a review of treatment plan for some patients with RMDs. • Breastfeeding should continue for as long as possible if a woman is positive for SARS-CoV-2 as there is currently no evidence that the infection can be transmitted through breast milk.