Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors and susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension: a propensity score-matched cohort study in primary care

Renin-angiotensin system inhibitor discontinuation in COVID-19 did not modify systemic ACE2 in a randomized controlled trial

Despite the similar clinical outcomes after renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor (RASi) continuation or withdrawal in COVID-19, the effects on angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) and RAS metabolites remain unclear. In a substudy of the randomized controlled Austrian Corona Virus Adaptive Clinical Trial (ACOVACT), patients with hypertension and COVID-19 were randomized 1:1 to either RASi continuation (n = 30) or switch to a non-RASi medication (n = 29). RAS metabolites were analyzed using a mixed linear regression model (n = 30). Time to a sustained clinical improvement was equal and ACE2 did not differ between the groups but increased over time in both. Overall ACE2 was higher with severe COVID-19. ACE-S and Ang II levels increased as expected with ACE inhibitor discontinuation. These data support the safety of RASi continuation in COVID-19, although RASi were frequently discontinued in our post hoc analysis. The study was not powered to draw definite conclusions on clinical outcomes using small sample sizes.

Structure-activity relationships andz interindividual variability of drug responses: pharmacogenomics with antimicrobial drugs as a paradigm

Adverse drug reactions represent a major health burden because they cause notable patient morbidity and mortality. From this viewpoint, several strategies have been developed to prevent or reduce adverse drug reactions. One such strategy is the use of pharmacogenomics. Interindividual variability in drug response and adverse effects is mainly attributable to genetic variation in enzymes such as sulfotransferases and cytochrome P450s. The current narrative review discusses the relationship between the structure and activity of drugs. Specifically, the activity of drugs can be increased and/or their adverse effects can be reduced by altering specific positions in their structures.

Atherosclerosis, Cardiovascular Disease, and COVID-19: A Narrative Review

Atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory and degenerative process that mainly occurs in large- and medium-sized arteries and is morphologically characterized by asymmetric focal thickenings of the innermost layer of the artery, the intima. This process is the basis of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), the most common cause of death worldwide. Some studies suggest a bidirectional link between atherosclerosis and the consequent CVD with COVID-19. The aims of this narrative review are (1) to provide an overview of the most recent studies that point out a bidirectional relation between COVID-19 and atherosclerosis and (2) to summarize the impact of cardiovascular drugs on COVID-19 outcomes. A growing body of evidence shows that COVID-19 prognosis in individuals with CVD is worse compared with those without. Moreover, various studies have reported the emergence of newly diagnosed patients with CVD after COVID-19. The most common treatments for CVD may influence COVID-19 outcomes. Thus, their implication in the infection process is briefly discussed in this review. A better understanding of the link among atherosclerosis, CVD, and COVID-19 could proactively identify risk factors and, as a result, develop strategies to improve the prognosis for these patients.

Comparative effectiveness of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Both BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines have shown high efficacy against COVID-19 in randomized controlled trials. However, their comparative effectiveness against COVID-19 is unclear in the real world. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of the BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccines against COVID-19 in the UK general population.

METHODS

We emulated a target trial using IQVIA Medical Research Database (IMRD), an electronic primary care database from the UK (2021). We included 1,311,075 participants, consisting of 637,549 men and 673,526 women age≥18 years, who received vaccination with BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 between January 1 and August 31, 2021. The outcomes consisted of confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalisation for COVID-19 and death from COVID-19 in the IMRD. We performed a cox-proportional hazard model to compare the risk of each outcome variable between the two vaccines adjusting for potential confounders with time-stratified overlap weighting of propensity score (PS).

RESULTS

During a mean of 6.7 months of follow-up, 20,070 confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in individuals who received BNT162b2 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 3.65 per 1000 person-months), and 31,611 SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in those who received ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (PS weighted incidence rate: 5.25 per 1000 person-months). The time-stratified PS weighted rate difference of SARS-CoV-2 infection for BNT162b2 group vs. ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group was -1.60 per 1000 person-months (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.76 to -1.43 per 1000 person-months), and the hazard ratio was 0.69 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.71). The results were similar across the stratum of sex, age (<65 and ≥65 years), and study periods (i.e., alpha-variant predominance period and delta-variant predominance period). The PS weighted incidence of hospitalisation for COVID-19 was also lower in the BNT162b2 vaccine group than that in the ChAdOx1 vaccine group (RD: -0.09, 95%CI: -0.13 to -0.05 per 1000 person-months; HR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.57 to 0.74). No significant difference in the risk of death from COVID-19 was observed between the two comparison groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In this population-based study, the BNT162b2 vaccine appears to be more efficacious than the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalisation for COVID-19 but not death from COVID-19.

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 Effects of Different Classes of Antihypertensive Drugs on Patients with COVID-19 and Hypertension: A Mini-Review

Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Previous studies showed that patients with hypertension are at an increased risk of developing severe COVID-19 infection. Therefore, proper blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with COVID-19 is of great importance. In this review, we discussed the effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs on patients with hypertension and COVID-19.

Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs and Susceptibility to COVID-19

Objective

To identify whether active use of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) increases susceptibility to developing suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) compared to the use of other common analgesics.

Methods

We performed a propensity score–matched cohort study with active comparators, using a large UK primary care data set. The cohort consisted of adult patients age ≥18 years with osteoarthritis (OA) who were followed up from January 30 to July 31, 2020. Patients prescribed an NSAID (excluding topical preparations) were compared to those prescribed either co‐codamol (paracetamol and codeine) or co‐dydramol (paracetamol and dihydrocodeine). A total of 13,202 patients prescribed NSAIDs were identified, compared to 12,457 patients prescribed the comparator drugs. The primary outcome measure was the documentation of suspected or confirmed COVID‐19, and the secondary outcome measure was all‐cause mortality.

Results

During follow‐up, the incidence rates of suspected/confirmed COVID‐19 were 15.4 and 19.9 per 1,000 person‐years in the NSAID‐exposed group and comparator group, respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios for suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 among the unmatched and propensity score–matched OA cohorts, using data from clinical consultations in primary care settings, were 0.82 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.62–1.10) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.57–1.11), respectively, and adjusted hazard ratios for the risk of all‐cause mortality were 0.97 (95% CI 0.75–1.27) and 0.85 (95% CI 0.61–1.20), respectively. There was no effect modification by age or sex.

Conclusion

No increase in the risk of suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 or mortality was observed among patients with OA in a primary care setting who were prescribed NSAIDs as compared to those who received comparator drugs. These results are reassuring and suggest that in the absence of acute illness, NSAIDs can be safely prescribed during the ongoing pandemic.