Effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on the risk and outcomes of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection in patients with hypertension

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical outcomes of ACEI/ARB in East-Asian patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

SARS-CoV-2 invades human cells and leads to COVID-19 by direct associating with angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptors, the level of which may be increased by treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). This meta-analysis aimed to explore the impact of ACEI/ARB treatment on the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19 infections among population in the East-Asia region.

METHODS

We collected clinical data published from January 2000 to May 2022 in the English databases including PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers independently screened and identified studies that met the prespecified criteria. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 28 articles were included in this analysis. The results showed that patients who were prescribed with ACEI/ARB had a shorter duration of hospital stay [MD = -2.37, 95%CI (-3.59, -1.14), P = 0.000 2] and a lower mortality rate [OR = 0.61, 95% CI (0.52, 0.70), P<0.000 01] than patients who were not on ACEI/ARB. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference in disease severity [OR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.83, 1.17), P = 0.90] between individuals receiving ACEI/ARB or not.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis suggested that the use of ACEI/ARB was not associated with adverse clinical outcomes in East-Asian Covid-19 patients and a reduced mortality and shorter duration of hospital stay among East-Asian population (especially for female subjects) was found. Thus, ACEI/ARB should be continued in patients infected by Covid-19.

The effects of hypertension on the prognosis of coronavirus disease 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the interactions with age and antihypertensive treatment

BACKGROUND

Hypertension and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been reported to be associated with the prognosis of COVID-19, but the findings remain controversial. Here, we conducted a systematic review to summarize the current evidence.

METHODS

We retrieved all the studies by MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, and Embase using the MeSH terms until 30 April 2021. A fixed or random effect model was applied to calculate pooled adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Interactive analysis was performed to identify the interaction effect of hypertension and age on in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

In total, 86 articles with 18 775 387 COVID-19 patients from 18 countries were included in this study. The pooled analysis showed that the COVID-19 patients with hypertension had increased risks of in-hospital mortality and other adverse outcomes, compared with those without hypertension, with an AOR (95% CI) of 1.36 (1.28-1.45) and 1.32 (1.24-1.41), respectively. The results were mostly repeated in countries with more than three independent studies. Furthermore, the effect of hypertension on in-hospital mortality is more evident in younger and older COVID-19 patients than in 60-69-year-old patients. ACEI/ARBs did not significantly affect the mortality and adverse outcomes of COVID-19 patients, compared with those receiving other antihypertensive treatments.

CONCLUSION

Hypertension is significantly associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality and adverse outcomes in COVID-19. The effect of hypertension on in-hospital mortality among consecutive age groups followed a U-shaped curve. ACEI/ARB treatments do not increase in-hospital mortality and other poor outcomes of COVID-19 patients with hypertension.

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

Background

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

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

Background Renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor-COVID-19 studies, observational in design, appear to use biased methods that can distort the interaction between RAAS inhibitor use and COVID-19 risk. This study assessed the extent of bias in that research and reevaluated RAAS inhibitor-COVID-19 associations in studies without critical risk of bias. Methods and Results Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases (December 1, 2019 to October 21, 2021) identifying studies that compared the risk of infection and/or severe COVID-19 outcomes between those using or not using RAAS inhibitors (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers). Weighted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were extracted and pooled in fixed-effects meta-analyses, only from studies without critical risk of bias that assessed severe COVID-19 outcomes. Of 169 relevant studies, 164 had critical risks of bias and were excluded. Ultimately, only two studies presented data relevant to the meta-analysis. In 1 351 633 people with uncomplicated hypertension using a RAAS inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide diuretic in monotherapy, the risk of hospitalization (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87; P<0.001; angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; P=0.015) and intubation or death (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.85; P=0.002; angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95; P=0.019) with COVID-19 was lower in those using a RAAS inhibitor. However, these protective effects are probably not clinically relevant. Conclusions This study reveals the critical risk of bias that exists across almost an entire body of COVID-19 research, raising an important question: Were research methods and/or peer-review processes temporarily weakened during the surge of COVID-19 research or is this lack of rigor a systemic problem that also exists outside pandemic-based research? Registration URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42021237859.

Heterogeneity and Risk of Bias in Studies Examining Risk Factors for Severe Illness and Death in COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized the evidence on the impacts of demographics and comorbidities on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19, as well as the sources of the heterogeneity and publication bias of the relevant studies. Two authors independently searched the literature from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and CINAHL on 18 May 2021; removed duplicates; screened the titles, abstracts, and full texts by using criteria; and extracted data from the eligible articles. The variations among the studies were examined by using Cochrane, Q.; I2, and meta-regression. Out of 11,975 articles that were obtained from the databases and screened, 559 studies were abstracted, and then, where appropriate, were analyzed by meta-analysis (n = 542). COVID-19-related severe illness, admission to the ICU, and death were significantly correlated with comorbidities, male sex, and an age older than 60 or 65 years, although high heterogeneity was present in the pooled estimates. The study design, the study country, the sample size, and the year of publication contributed to this. There was publication bias among the studies that compared the odds of COVID-19-related deaths, severe illness, and admission to the ICU on the basis of the comorbidity status. While an older age and chronic diseases were shown to increase the risk of developing severe illness, admission to the ICU, and death among the COVID-19 patients in our analysis, a marked heterogeneity was present when linking the specific risks with the outcomes.

Foe and friend in the COVID-19-associated acute kidney injury: an insight on intrarenal renin-angiotensin system

Since the first reported case in December of 2019, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has became an international public health emergency. So far, there are more than 228,206,384 confirmed cases including 4,687,066 deaths. Kidney with high expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is one of the extrapulmonary target organs affected in patients with COVID-19. Acute kidney injury (AKI) is one of the independent risk factors for the death of COVID-19 patients. The imbalance between ACE2-Ang(1-7)-MasR and ACE-Ang II-AT1R axis in the kidney may contribute to COVID-19-associated AKI. Although series of research have shown the inconsistent effects of multiple common RAS inhibitors on ACE2 expression and enzyme activity, most of the retrospective cohort studies indicated the safety and protective effects of ACEI/ARB in COVID-19 patients. This review article highlights the current knowledge on the possible involvement of intrarenal RAS in COVID-19-associated AKI with a primary focus on the opposing effects of ACE2-Ang(1-7)-MasR and ACE-Ang II-AT1R signaling in the kidney. Human recombinant soluble ACE2 or ACE2 variants with preserved ACE2-enzymatic activity may be the best options to improve COVID-19-associated AKI.

Alternative RAS in Various Hypoxic Conditions: From Myocardial Infarction to COVID-19

Alternative branches of the classical renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAS) represent an important cascade in which angiotensin 2 (AngII) undergoes cleavage via the action of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) with subsequent production of Ang(1-7) and other related metabolites eliciting its effects via Mas receptor activation. Generally, this branch of the RAS system is described as its non-canonical alternative arm with counterbalancing actions to the classical RAS, conveying vasodilation, anti-inflammatory, anti-remodeling and anti-proliferative effects. The implication of this branch was proposed for many different diseases, ranging from acute cardiovascular conditions, through chronic respiratory diseases to cancer, nonetheless, hypoxia is one of the most prominent common factors discussed in conjugation with the changes in the activity of alternative RAS branches. The aim of this review is to bring complex insights into the mechanisms behind the various forms of hypoxic insults on the activity of alternative RAS branches based on the different duration of stimuli and causes (acute vs. intermittent vs. chronic), localization and tissue (heart vs. vessels vs. lungs) and clinical relevance of studied phenomenon (experimental vs. clinical condition). Moreover, we provide novel insights into the future strategies utilizing the alternative RAS as a diagnostic tool as well as a promising pharmacological target in serious hypoxia-associated cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary diseases.

Renin-Angiotensin Aldosterone System Inhibitors in Primary Prevention and COVID-19

Background

Considering the widespread risk of collider bias and confounding by indication in previous research, the associations between renin‐angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor use and COVID‐19 remain unknown. Accordingly, this study tested the hypothesis that RAAS inhibitors influence the summation effect of COVID‐19 and its progression to severe outcomes.

Methods and Results

This nationwide cohort study compared all residents of Sweden, without prior cardiovascular disease, in monotherapy (as of January 1, 2020) with a RAAS inhibitor to those using a calcium channel blocker or a thiazide diuretic. Comparative cohorts were balanced using machine‐learning‐derived propensity score methods. Of 165 355 people in the analysis (51% women), 367 were hospitalized or died with COVID‐19 (246 using a RAAS inhibitor versus 121 using a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic; Cox proportional hazard ratio [HR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.74–1.27). When each outcome was assessed separately, 335 people were hospitalized with COVID‐19 (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.70–1.22), and 64 died with COVID‐19 (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.68–2.19). The severity of COVID‐19 outcomes did not differ between those using a RAAS inhibitor and those using a calcium channel blocker or thiazide diuretic (ordered logistic regression odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89–1.14).

Conclusions

Despite potential limitations, this study is among the best available evidence that RAAS inhibitor use in primary prevention does not increase the risk of severe COVID‐19 outcomes; presenting strong data from which scientists and policy makers alike can base, with greater confidence, their current position on the safety of using RAAS inhibitors during the COVID‐19 pandemic.