Safety of ACE-I and ARB medications in COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study of inpatients and outpatients in California

Effect of Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockers on Adverse Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients

INTRODUCTION

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) serves as a functional receptor to gain entry into the cells for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2 is a potential virulent factor in infectivity. Our study aimed to ascertain the association of RAAS inhibitors with adverse cardiovascular and other outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of medical records of ≥18-year-old patients hospitalized for COVID-19 from March 2020 to October 2020. Primary outcomes were acute cardiovascular events (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction type 1, acute congestive heart failure, acute stroke) and mortality. Secondary outcomes were respiratory failure, need for and duration of mechanical ventilation, acute deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (DVT/PE), and readmission rate.

RESULTS

Among 376 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, 149 were on RAAS inhibitors. No statistically significant differences were found between RAAS inhibitor and non-RAAS inhibitor groups with respect to acute cardiovascular events (6% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.94), acute DVT/PE (4.7% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.97), hypoxia (62.4% vs. 58.6%, p = 0.46), need for mechanical ventilation (18.1% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.72), mortality (19.5% vs. 22%, p = 0.56), and readmission rate (11.4% vs. 14.1%, p = 0.45). Some nuances discovered were a higher rate of hospitalizations among Native Americans receiving RAAS inhibitors (30.2% vs. 19.8%) and significantly lower levels of procalcitonin in patients on RAAS inhibitors.

CONCLUSIONS

Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, those on RAAS inhibitors showed no significant differences in acute cardiovascular events, acute DVT/PE, hypoxia, need for mechanical ventilation, readmission, or mortality rate compared to those not on them. However, further large-scale studies are needed to validate these findings.

SARS-CoV-2 and the Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 Receptor: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin 2 Receptor Blocker Utilization and a Shift Towards the Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Classical Pathway

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus responsible for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, uses the surface angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor as the site of entry into host cardiac, respiratory, intestinal, renal, and nervous system cells. Predisposing risk factors such as cardiovascular disease increase the risk of developing severe disease. Hypertension is characterized by the stimulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin 2 receptor blockers (ARBs), medications used to treat hypertension, inhibit RAAS and its downstream effects; however, they have also been shown to upregulate ACE2 receptors. In this review, we aim to evaluate the effectiveness of ACEi/ARBs as an adjunct therapy in patients with SARS-CoV-2 as well as examine the possible protective effects and impact on infection rate and disease severity. A PubMed literature search excluding sources outside the United States and duplicates was performed using the following search criteria: "COVID-19 AND cardiovascular disease AND ACEi AND ARB", "SARS-COVID-19 OR COVID-19, AND ACEi AND ARB AND Infection rate", "COVID-19 AND ACEi and ARB", "Omicron BA.1 and BA.2 AND ACE2 OR ARBs", "Omicron AND ACEi AND ARBs". This resulted in 33 final sources. The review concluded that ACEi/ARB therapy may continue to improve COVID-19 survival as previous treatment is associated with positive clinical outcomes. Patients taking ACEis or ARBs were found to have a decreased risk of hospitalization, reduced severity of COVID-19 pneumonia, a lesser need for mechanical ventilation, and an overall reduction in mortality rate. No statistically significant association between ACEi/ARB use and enhanced COVID-19 infectivity was found. The Omicron variant is theoretically more infectious and was associated with increased negative clinical outcomes in those undertreated with ACEis/ARBs. The majority of the literature supports the current guidelines from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), American Heart Association (AHA), European Society of Cardiology (ESC), and Heart Failure Society of America (HFSA), which state that ACEi and ARB medications should not be withdrawn from or initiated on patients with cardiovascular disease who are infected with SARS-CoV-2. More research needs to be conducted on the association between the emerging COVID-19 variants and ACEis/ARBs to give clinicians confidence when treating patients within this subgroup of the population.

Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions.

RESULTS

325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan.

CONCLUSIONS

In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

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.