Update Alert 6: Risks and Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers on SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults

Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the concept of living systematic review (LSR) has attracted the attention of many scholars and institutions. A growing number of studies have been conducted based on LSR methodology, but their focus direction is unclear. The objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive review of existing LSR-related studies and to analyse their whole picture and future trends with bibliometrics.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was used to construct a representative dataset of LSRs up to October 2021. GraphPad V.8.2.1 and Mindmaster Pro presented the basic information of the included studies and the timeline of LSR development, respectively. The author and country cooperation network, hotspot distribution clustering, historical citation network and future development trend prediction related to LSR were visualised by VOSviewer V.1.6.16 and R-Studio V.1.4.

RESULTS

A total of 213 studies were eventually included. The concept of LSR was first proposed in 2014, and the number of studies has proliferated since 2020. There was a closer collaboration between author teams and more frequent LSR research development and collaboration in Europe, North America and Australia. Numerous LSR studies have been published in high-impact journals. COVID-19 is the predominant disease of concern at this stage, and the rehabilitation of its patients and virological studies are possible directions of research in LSR for a long time to come. A review of existing studies found that more than half of the LSR series had not yet been updated and that the method needed to be more standardised in practice.

CONCLUSION

Although LSR has a relatively short history, it has received much attention and currently has a high overall acceptance. The LSR methodology was further practised in COVID-19, and we look forward to seeing it applied in more areas.

Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and COVID-19 infection or hospitalization: a cohort study

There are plausible mechanisms by which angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may increase the risk of COVID-19 infection or affect disease severity. To examine the association between these medications and COVID-19 infection or hospitalization, we conducted a retrospective cohort study within a US integrated healthcare system. Among people aged ≥18 years enrolled in the health plan for at least 4 months as of 2/29/2020, current ACEI and ARB use was identified from pharmacy data, and the estimated daily dose was calculated and standardized across medications. COVID-19 infections were identified through 6/14/2020 from laboratory and hospitalization data. We used logistic regression to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Among 322,044 individuals, 720 developed COVID-19 infection. Among people using ACEI/ARBs, 183/56,105 developed COVID-19 (3.3 per 1000 individuals) compared with 537/265,939 without ACEI/ARB use (2.0 per 1000), yielding an adjusted OR of 0.94 (95% CI 0.75-1.16). For use of < 1 defined daily dose vs. nonuse, the adjusted OR for infection was 0.89 (95% CI 0.62-1.26); for 1 to < 2 defined daily doses, 0.97 (95% CI 0.71-1.31); and for ≥2 defined daily doses, 0.94 (95% CI 0.72-1.23). The OR was similar for ACEIs and ARBs and in subgroups by age and sex. 29% of people with COVID-19 infection were hospitalized; the adjusted OR for hospitalization in relation to ACEI/ARB use was 0.92 (95% CI 0.54-1.57), and there was no association with dose. These findings support current recommendations that individuals on these medications continue their use.

People taking angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, including those using high doses, can continue to take them without concern about higher risk of COVID 19 infection.