Effects of ACEI and ARB on COVID-19 patients: A meta-analysis

A retrospective prognostic evaluation using unsupervised learning in the treatment of COVID-19 patients with hypertension treated with ACEI/ARB drugs

Introduction

This study aimed to evaluate the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and hypertension who were treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor B (ARB) drugs and to identify key features affecting patient prognosis using an unsupervised learning method.

Methods

A large-scale clinical dataset, including patient information, medical history, and laboratory test results, was collected. Two hundred patients with COVID-19 and hypertension were included. After cluster analysis, patients were divided into good and poor prognosis groups. The unsupervised learning method was used to evaluate clinical characteristics and prognosis, and patients were divided into different prognosis groups. The improved wild dog optimization algorithm (IDOA) was used for feature selection and cluster analysis, followed by the IDOA-k-means algorithm. The impact of ACEI/ARB drugs on patient prognosis and key characteristics affecting patient prognosis were also analysed.

Results

Key features related to prognosis included baseline information and laboratory test results, while clinical symptoms and imaging results had low predictive power. The top six important features were age, hypertension grade, MuLBSTA, ACEI/ARB, NT-proBNP, and high-sensitivity troponin I. These features were consistent with the results of the unsupervised prediction model. A visualization system was developed based on these key features.

Conclusion

Using unsupervised learning and the improved k-means algorithm, this study accurately analysed the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 and hypertension. The use of ACEI/ARB drugs was found to be a protective factor for poor clinical prognosis. Unsupervised learning methods can be used to differentiate patient populations and assess treatment effects. This study identified important features affecting patient prognosis and developed a visualization system with clinical significance for prognosis assessment and treatment decision-making.

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.

Discontinuation of Antihypertensive Drug Use Compared to Continuation in COVID-19 Patients: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 related mortality is about 2%, and it increases with comorbidities, like hypertension. Regarding management, there is debatable evidence about the benefits of continuation vs. discontinuation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB).

AIM

We performed a systematic review to assess the effects and safety of in-hospital discontinuation compared to continuation of ACEI/ARB in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched on PubMed, Scopus, and EMBASE from inception to June 19, 2021. We included observational studies and trials that compared the effects and safety of continuing ACEI/ARB compared to discontinuing it in COVID-19 patients. Effects sizes for dichotomous variables were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals. For continuous variables, effects were expressed as mean difference (MD). We used random effect models with the inverse variance method. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

We included three open-label randomized controlled trials and five cohort studies. We found that the continuation group had lower risk of death compared with the discontinuation group only in the cohort group (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.24-0.90), but not in the RCT group (RR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.75-2.00). The ICU admission rate was significantly lower in the continuation group (RR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.31-0.68) in the cohort group, but not in RCT group (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.67-1.59). We did not find significant differences between groups regarding hospitalization length, hypotension, AKI needing renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, new or worsening heart failure, myocarditis, renal replacement therapy, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events and SOFA AUC. The GRADE approach revealed that the certainty ranged from moderate to high level.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no significant difference in mortality and other outcomes between continuation and discontinuation groups.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Block of the Angiotensin Pathways Affects Flow-Volume Spirometry in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) is an endothelial cell receptor used by SARS-CoV- 2 virus to enter cells. Pulmonary function tests (PFTs), mainly spirometry, are the main diagnostic tools for most respiratory diseases. PFTs are mandatory for assessing the response to therapy.

AIM

We evaluated patients after the SARS-CoV-2 infection through flow-volume spirometry that evaluates the role of drugs inhibiting the ACE2 pathway.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We evaluated 112 Caucasian patients 3-6 months after COVID-19 disease, i.e. after the date of negative molecular or antigenic nasopharyngeal swab. The series of patients showed a great variability due to a wide spectrum of age, the severity of disease manifestations, hospitalization, invasive/non-invasive ventilation, comorbidities, the presence/absence of a previous pneumological diagnosis and the variants of the virus. Patients were divided into those who were being treated with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) or ACE2 inhibitors (ACEi) (ARB/ACEi, group 1, 23 females and 12 males, aged 63.63 ± 10.40), and those who were not treated with these drugs (group 2, 38 females and 37 males, aged 55.12 ± 16.51). Distal airflow obstruction (DAO) was evaluate as forced expiratory flow (FEF) at 25%, 50% and 75% of total flow.

RESULTS

Group 1 presented lower peripheral oxygen saturation percentage vs group 2 (96.54 ± 3.06 vs 97.30 ± 1.19%, p < 0.05). Spirometry data were worst in group1: Forced expiratory volume at first minute (FEV1) (91.20 ± 17.09 vs 97.56 ± 16.40%, p < 0.05), Forced vital capacity (94.06 ± 17.48 vs 99.13 ± 17.71%, p < 0.05), and Tiffenau Index (0.78 ± 0.12 vs 0.84 ± 0.10, p < 0.05). There was a DAO in group1. In group 1, we found also a reduction in FEF 25 (73.97 ± 27.28 vs 86.89 ± 22.44%, p < 0.05), FEF 50 (74.69 ± 33.01 vs 85.67 ± 23.74%, p < 0.05), and FEF 25-75 (74.14 ± 35.03 vs 83.92 ± 25.38%, p < 0.05) but not in FEF 75 (73.06 ± 39.37 vs 82.27 ± 43.33%, p < 0.05).

DISCUSSION

In patients treated with ARB/ACEi the indexes of respiratory function were shifted towards the lower limits (albeit within normal limits). These parameters were significantly reduced compared to patients not treated with these drugs. This indicates that the COVID-19 disease is not only a pulmonary disease, but also a vascular one.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockers in Bulgarian COVID-19 patients with or without chronic kidney disease

When angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker-treated patients present with SARS-CoV-2 infection there is a debate to know whether renin-angiotensin-aldosterone (RAAS) blockers should be stopped or not. We conducted a prospective observational study in Bulgarian COVID-19-infected patients with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD) to assess whether maintenance RAAS blocker therapy has an impact on SARS-CoV-2 infection and its complications. We included 120 in-patient COVID-19 subjects, of whom 70 had CKD and 50 had normal renal function. A total of 30% of the patients (total number of 36 patients, 21 females) were receiving RAAS therapy at admission and it was maintained throughout hospitalization. The overall mortality was 19.2% (23 patients); there was no significant difference across the 2 groups (P-value = .21), except in RAAS blockers-treated hypertensive patients who had a significantly lower mortality as compared to non-RAAS-blockers-treated hypertensive patients (P = .04). Regarding subsequent intensive-care unit admission, there were 50% less patients in the RAAS group (4 out of 36, i.e., 11%) as compared to 19 out of 84 from the non-RAAS group, that is, 22.6% (P = .29). Overall, 37 patients developed acute kidney injury (any stage by KDIGO); of them 14 (37.8%) were receiving RAAS blockers. Acute kidney injury was not significantly associated with the use of RAAS blockers (P-value = .28). Likewise, both in non-CKD and in CKD patients the use of RAAS blockers did not have an impact on renal function recovery after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Finally, regarding RAAS blockers and the biological parameters outcome only D-dimers were significantly lower at the follow-up as compared to that in non-RAAS blocker treated patients. RAAS blockers benefited patients with hypertension by lowering mortality rate. Other than that, RAAS blocker therapy continuation during SARS-CoV-2 infection in CKD and non-CKD patients had no significant impact upon major outcomes.

Global pattern of cardiovascular disease management in patients with cancer and impact of COVID-19 on drug selection: IRAQ—IC-OS survey-based study

Background

Regional variations in cardiovascular disease (CVD) and CVD management are well known. However, there is limited information on geographical variations in the discipline of Cardio-Oncology, including both the nature of CVD in patients with cancer and its management. Furthermore, during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, CV care for patients was disrupted resulting in an unknown impact on cardio-oncology services.

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify the regional variations in the management of CVD among patients with cancer and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the selection of cardiovascular drugs in cardio-oncology.

Methods

An online survey was conducted by the Iraq Chapter of the International Cardio-Oncology Society (IC-OS). The survey was shared with cardiologists and oncologists in all seven continents to identify whether regional variations exist in cardio-oncology daily practice.

Results

From April to July 2021, 140 participants responded to the survey, including cardiologists (72.9%) and oncologists (27.1%). Most of the respondents were from the Middle East (26.4%), North America (25%), Latin America and the Caribbean (25%), and Europe (20.7%). Baseline CV risk assessment in patients with cancer using the HFA/IC-OS score was reported in 75.7% of respondents (78.4% cardiologists and 68.4% oncologists). Hypertension was the most common CVD treated by the survey respondents globally (52.1%) unlike in Europe where heart failure was the most prominent CVD (51.7%). The blood pressure cutoff value to initiate hypertension management is &gt;140/90 mmHg globally (72.9%), but in North America (48.6%) it was &gt;130/80 mmHg. In the Middle East, 43.2% of respondents do not use cardioprotective medication. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 10.7% of respondents changed their practice, such as switching from prescribing ACEI to ARB. Apixaban is the main anticoagulant used in patients with cancer (32.9%); however, in cancer patients with COVID-19 infection, the majority used enoxaparin (31.4%).

Conclusion

More than three-quarters of cardiologists and oncologists responding to the survey are using HFA/IC-OS proformas. The survey showed regional variations in the management of CVD on different continents. The use of cardioprotective agents was limited in some regions including the Middle East. COVID-19 pandemic impacted daily practice on the selection and switching of cardiovascular drugs including ACEI/ARB and the choice of anticoagulants.

The effect of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

Background

Contradictory opinions exist regarding the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with hypertension, which is the most common comorbidity associated with COVID-19. Herein, the effects of ACEIs and ARBs on outcomes of COVID-19 patients were evaluated.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, the outcomes of COVID-19 patients were compared between patients who received pretreatment ACEIs or ARBs and those who did not.

Results

The incidence of moderate and severe forms of COVID-19 was significantly higher in patients taking ACEI/ARB drugs (P-value = 0.012). Also, patients taking ACEI/ARB drugs (P-value = 0.034), patients with hypertension (P-value = 0.011), and patients with dyslipidemia (P-value = 0.011) experienced more severe forms of COVID-19. There was an association between increased length of hospital stay and dyslipidemia (P-value = 0.033) and the use of ACEI/ARB drugs (P-value = 0.041), while no correlation was found between other parameters in univariate linear regression analysis as well as multivariate linear regression. There was an association between increased mortality of patients with increasing age (P-value < 0.001), BMI greater than 30 kg/m² (P-value = 0.02), asthma (P-value = 0.003), and dyslipidemia (P-value = 0.045).

Conclusions

ACEI/ARB drugs put COVID-19 patients at high risk for moderate to severe forms of COVID-19 and higher length of hospital stay. Although, it is notable that these drugs did not significantly affect specific adverse outcomes of COVID-19, such as the need for admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), length of ICU stay, ventilation, and mortality.

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

Background

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

Methods and Results

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

Conclusions

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

Registration

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

The Effect of ACEI/ARB on the Outcomes of COVID-19 Hospitalized Patients

: Considering that there are different reports about the effects of angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) on the outcomes of the patients with COVID-19, we aimed to conduct this retrospective study on 138 hypertensive patients (81 ACEI/ARB users) to assess the patients’ outcomes by comparing ACEI/ARB and non-ACEI/ARB users. Multivariate adjusted cox regression model, by considering the effect of other variables, demonstrated that increased age (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01 -1.07, P =0.003) and non- ACEI/ARB users (HR = 2.12 95% CI = 1.12 - 4.13, P = 0.021) were associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality in about one week follow-up. In conclusion, we found that in-hospital mortality was lower in ACEI/ARB users, showing the positive effect of these treatments on patients’ outcomes.

COVID-19: The Cause of the Manifested Cardiovascular Complications During the Pandemic

In the course of human history, we encountered several devastating waves of pandemics, affecting millions of lives globally and now the rapid and progressive spread of the novel SARS-CoV-2, causing Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has created a worldwide wave of crisis. Profoundly straining national health care systems, it also significantly impacted the global economic stability. With the introduction of COVID-19 measures, mainly driven by immunization drives, casualties due to the virus were reported to decrease considerably. But then comes into play the post-Covid morbidities, along with their short and long-term effects on the elderly and the co-morbid population. Moreover, the pediatric population and the otherwise healthy cohort of the young athletes were also reported being largely affected by the varying amount of post-recovery virus-induced Cardiac manifestations, in the subsequent waves of the pandemic. Therefore, here we thrived to find answers to the seemingly unending series of questions that popped up with the advent of the disease, nevertheless, there still lies a blind spot in understanding the impacts of the disease on the Cardiovascular Health of an individual, even after the clinical recovery. Thus, along with the current data related to the diverse cardiovascular complications due to SARS-COV-2 infection, we suggest long-term ‘Cardiac surveillance' for the COVID-19 recovered individuals.

Pharmacotherapy for hypertensive urgency and emergency in COVID-19 patients

Introduction

Hypertension is a common chronic disorder in patients hospitalized for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Furthermore, an exaggerated cardiovascular response with persistently raised blood pressure during hospitalization seems independently associated with in-hospital all-cause mortality, intensive care unit admission and heart failure. However, the real burden of elevated blood pressure during the acute phase of COVID-19 remains undefined.

Areas covered

The authors review the available evidence on the pharmacotherapy for the treatment of acute elevations in blood pressure (including hypertensive urgency and emergency) in COVID-19 patients.

Expert opinion

Acute elevations in blood pressure and unstable in-hospital blood pressure may be associated with organ damage and worse outcome in patients with COVID-19. In this setting, hypertensive emergencies require immediate reduction in blood pressure through intravenous treatment according to specific features and goals. Conversely, hypertensive urgencies usually require solely oral treatment. Diuretics, beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers may be of benefit in treating COVID-19 patients with elevated blood pressure values.

Hypothesis for renin-angiotensin inhibitor mitigation of COVID-19

Preexisting hypertension is a known risk factor for severe COVID-19. Abnormal activation of RAS upregulates angiotensin II (Ang-II) and contributes to severe manifestations of COVID-19. Although RAS inhibitors (RASi) are a mainstay of antihypertensive therapy, they have been associated (in some animal studies) with an increase in angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors that facilitate cellular entry of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Nonetheless, current medical practice does not recommend curtailing RASi to protect hypertensive patients from COVID. On the contrary, there is clinical evidence to support a beneficial effect of RASi for hypertensive patients in the midst of a COVID-19 pandemic, although the precise mechanism for this is unclear. In this paper, we hypothesize that RASi reduces the severity of COVID-19 by promoting ACE2-AT1R complex formation at the cell surface, where AT1R mediates the major vasopressor effects of Ang-II. Furthermore, we propose that the interaction between ACE2 and AT1R impedes binding of SARS-CoV-2 to ACE2, thereby allowing ACE2 to convert Ang-II to the more beneficial Ang(1–7), that has vasodilator and anti-inflammatory activity. Evidence for ACE2-AT1R complex formation during reduced Ang-II comes from receptor colocalization studies in isolated HEK293 cells, but this has not been confirmed in cells having endogenous expression of ACE2 and AT1R. Since the SARS-CoV-2 virus attacks the kidney, as well as the heart and lung, our hypothesis for the effect of RASi on COVID-19 could be tested in vitro using human proximal tubule cells (HK-2), having ACE2 and AT1 receptors. Specifically, colocalization of fluorescent labelled: SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, ACE2, and AT1R in HK-2 cells can be used to clarify the mechanism of RASi action in renal and lung epithelia, which could lead to protocols for reducing the severity of COVID-19 in both hypertensive and normotensive patients.

Comparison Between Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for Incidence of Lung Cancer: A Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are taken as the first treatment option for hypertensive patients. The various global trials have suggested that ACEIs and ARBs may increase risk of lung cancer; however, the results are contradictory and there is no local study available. This study is conducted to compare the incidence of lung cancers in patients on ACEIs and ARBs.

METHODS

This retrospective study, conducted in a major cardiology unit of a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan, included patients diagnosed with hypertension, between 2005 and 2010, who were prescribed either ACEIs or ARBs. During the period of 2005 to 2010, 47,823 naïve hypertensive patients were reported in the outpatient department of the cardiology unit. Of which, 22,241 were prescribed ACEI and 25,582 were prescribed ARBs. After sorting patient data based on our inclusion criteria, n = 14,891 participants were included in the ACEI group and n = 19,112 participants were included in the ARB group.

RESULTS

The incidence of lung cancer in the ACEI and ARB group was n = 165 and n = 160, respectively. In this study, the overall incidence rates of lung cancer in the ACEI and ARB cohorts were 12.2 and 16.6 per 10,000 person-years, respectively. The hazard ratio was 1.32 (95% confidence interval: 1.06-1.64; p-value: 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the incidence of lung cancer was relatively more among people using ACEIs than ARBs. Hence, patients undergoing long-term treatment with ACEIs need regular follow-up and proper scanning to avoid grave complications.