Safety of ACE-I and ARB medications in COVID-19: A retrospective cohort study of inpatients and outpatients in California.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
There is significant interest in the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and concern over potential adverse effects since these medications upregulate the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 host cell entry receptor ACE2. Recent studies on ACE-I and ARB in COVID-19 were limited by excluding outpatients, excluding patients by age, analyzing ACE-I and ARB together, imputing missing data, and/or diagnosing COVID-19 by chest computed tomography without definitive reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), all of which are addressed here.Methods
We performed a retrospective cohort study of 1023 COVID-19 patients diagnosed by RT-PCR at Stanford Hospital through April 8, 2020 with a minimum follow-up time of 14 days to investigate the association between ACE-I or ARB use with outcomes.Results
Use of ACE-I or ARB medications was not associated with increased risk of hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death. Compared to patients with charted past medical history, there was a lower risk of hospitalization for patients on ACE-I (odds ratio (OR) 0.43; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.97; P = 0.0426) and ARB (OR 0.39; 95% CI 0.17-0.90; P = 0.0270). Compared to patients with hypertension not on ACE-I or ARB, patients on ARB medications had a lower risk of hospitalization (OR 0.09; 95% CI 0.01-0.88; P = 0.0381).Conclusions
These findings suggest that the use of ACE-I and ARB is not associated with adverse outcomes and may be associated with improved outcomes in COVID-19, which is immediately relevant to care of the many patients on these medications.
SUBMITTER: Rubin SJS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7605244 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background & aimsSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2)is a highly contagious virus that has infected 260 million individuals since December 2019. The severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) depends upon the complex interplay between viral factors and the host's inflammatory response, which can trigger a cascadeeventually leading to multiorgan failure. There is contradictory evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect mortality in patients with severe COVID-19, theoretically due to interaction with the bradykinin pathway. Therefore, we aim to explore the association between ACEi and ARB use and mortality in severe SARS-CoV2 infection.Severe acute respiratory yndrome with coronavirus (SARS-CoV2) is a highly contagious virus that has infected 260 million individuals since December 2019. The severity of COVID-19 depends upon the complex interplay between viral factors and the host's inflammatory response, which can trigger a cascadeeventually leading to multiorgan failure. There is contradictory evidence that angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may affect mortality in patients with severe COVID-19, theoretically due to interaction with the bradykinin pathway. Therefore, we aim to explore the association between ACEi and ARB use and mortality in severe SARS-CoV2 infection.Materials & methodologyThis multicenter retrospective observational study enrolled 2935 COVID-19 patients admitted at six hospitals in Southern California, USA, between March 2020 and August 2021. Our primary outcome was the association of pre-hospital use of ACEi and ARB on in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. First, relevant deidentified patient data were extracted using an SQL program from the electronic medical record. Then, a bivariate analysis of the relationship between ACEi and ARB use and different study variables using χ2 and t test was done. Finally, we did a backward selection Cox multivariate regression analysis using mortality as a dependent variable.ResultsOf the 2935 patients in the study, hypertension was present in 40.6%, and congestive heart failure in 13.8%. ACEi and ARB were used by 17.5% and 11.3% of patients, respectively, with 28.8% of patients on either medication. After adjusting for confounding variables in the multivariate analysis, the use of ACEi (HR: 1.226, 95% CI: 0.989-1.520) or ARB (HR: 0.923, 95% CI: 0.701-1.216) was not independently associated with increased mortality.ConclusionOur results are consistent with the clinical guidelines and position statements per the International Society of Hypertension, that there is no indication to stop the use of ACEi/ARB in COVID-19 patients.
| S-EPMC9110920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe uncertainty about COVID-19 outcomes in angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) users continues with contradictory findings. This study aimed to determine the effect of ACEI/ARB use in patients with severe COVID-19.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study was done in two Saudi public specialty hospitals designated as COVID-19 referral facilities. We included 354 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 between April and June 2020, of which 146 were ACEI/ARB users and 208 were non-ACEI/ARB users. Controlling for confounders, we conducted multivariate logistic regression and sensitivity analyses using propensity score matching (PSM) and Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) for high-risk patient subsets.ResultsCompared to non-ACEI/ARB users, ACEI/ARB users had an eight-fold higher risk of developing critical or severe COVID-19 (OR = 8.25, 95%CI = 3.32-20.53); a nearly 7-fold higher risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (OR = 6.76, 95%CI = 2.88-15.89) and a nearly 5-fold higher risk of requiring noninvasive ventilation (OR = 4.77,95%CI = 2.15-10.55). Patients with diabetes, hypertension, and/or renal disease had a five-fold higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease (OR = 5.40,95%CI = 2.0-14.54]. These results were confirmed in the PSM and IPSW analyses.ConclusionIn general, but especially among patients with hypertension, diabetes, and/or renal disease, ACEI/ARB use is associated with a significantly higher risk of severe or critical COVID-19 disease, and ICU care.
| S-EPMC7986317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe novel coronavirus pandemic has had a differential impact on communities of color across the US. The University of California hospital system serves a large population of people who are often underrepresented elsewhere. Data from hospital stays can provide much-needed localized information on risk factors for severe cases and/or death.MethodsPatient-level retrospective case series of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 hospital admissions at five UC hospitals (N = 4730). Odds ratios of ICU admission, death, and a composite of both outcomes were calculated with univariate and multivariate logistic regression based on patient characteristics, including sex, race/ethnicity, and select comorbidities. Associations between comorbidities were quantified and visualized with a correlation network.ResultsOverall mortality rate was 7.0% (329/4,730). ICU mortality rate was 18.8% (225/1,194). The rate of the composite outcome (ICU admission and/or death) was 27.4% (1298/4730). Comorbidity-controlled odds of a composite outcome were increased for age 75-84 (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.11-1.93) and 85-59 (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.04-1.87) compared to 18-34 year-olds, males (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.21-1.59) vs. females, and patients identifying as Hispanic/Latino (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.14-1.61) or Asian (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23-1.82) compared to White. Patients with 5 or more comorbidities were exceedingly likely to experience a composite outcome (OR 2.74, 95% CI 2.32-3.25).ConclusionsMales, older patients, those with multiple pre-existing comorbidities, and those identifying as Hispanic/Latino or Asian experienced an increased risk of ICU admission and/or death. These results are consistent with reported risks among the Hispanic/Latino population elsewhere in the United States, and confirm multiple concerns about heightened risk among the Asian population in California.
| S-EPMC8429886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe Actionable Register of Geneva Outpatients and inpatients with SARS-CoV-2 (ARGOS) is an ongoing prospective cohort created by the Geneva Directorate of Health. It consists of an operational database compiling all SARS-CoV-2 test results recorded in the Geneva area since late February 2020. This article aims at presenting this comprehensive cohort, in light of some of the varying public health measures in Geneva, Switzerland, since March 2020.ParticipantsAs of 1 June 2021, the database included 360 525 patients, among which 65 475 had at least one positive test result for SARS-CoV-2. Among all positive patients, 37.6% were contacted only once, 10.6% had one follow-up call, 8.5% had two and 27.7% had three or more follow-up calls. Participation rate among positive patients is 94%. Data collection is ongoing.Findings to dateARGOS data illustrates the magnitude of COVID-19 pandemic in Geneva, Switzerland, and details a variety of population factors and outcomes. The content of the cohort includes demographic data, comorbidities and risk factors for poor clinical outcome, self-reported COVID-19 symptoms, environmental and socioeconomic factors, prospective and retrospective contact tracing data, travel quarantine data and deaths. The registry has already been used in several publications focusing on symptoms and long COVID-19, infection fatality rate and re-infection.Future plansThe data of this large real-world registry provides a valuable resource for various types of research, such as clinical research, epidemiological research or policy assessment as it illustrates the impact of public health policies and overall disease burden of COVID-19.
| S-EPMC8634627 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Inappropriate dosing of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has been associated with clinical safety and efficacy; however, little is known about clinical data associated with an inappropriate DOAC dosing in Japan. In addition, there is no report in which the appropriateness of DOAC dosing between prescription for inpatients and for outpatients was examined. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prevalence and factors associated in the inappropriate dosing of DOACs in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods:The retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single Japanese university hospital. Both inpatients and outpatients, who were diagnosed with AF and for whom treatment with either dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, or edoxaban was initiated between April 1, 2014 and March 31, 2018, were enrolled in the study. Appropriateness of DOAC dosing was assessed according to the manufacturer's labeling recommendations (dose reduction criteria) of each DOAC. Inappropriate reduced dose, namely, underdosing, was defined as prescription of a reduced dose of DOAC despite the patient not meeting the dose reduction criteria. Inappropriate standard dose, namely, overdosing, was defined as prescription of a standard dose of DOAC despite the patient meeting the dose reduction criteria. Inappropriate DOAC dosing was defined as a deviation of the recommended dose (both underdosing and overdosing). Results:A total of 316 patients (dabigatran, 28; rivaroxaban, 107; apixaban, 116; and edoxaban, 65) were included, with a median (interquartile range) age of 75 (66-81) years and 62.3% male. DOACs were prescribed at an appropriate standard dose in 39.2% of patients, an appropriate reduced dose in 36.7%, an inappropriate standard dose in 2.5%, and an inappropriate reduced dose in 19.3%. Multivariate analysis revealed that the inappropriate dosing of DOACs was significantly associated with prescriptions for outpatients (vs. inpatients; odds ratio [OR] 2.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.53-5.62, p?<?0.001) and those with higher HAS-BLED scores (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.42-2.51, p?<?0.001). Conclusions:Our results demonstrated that the inappropriate dosing of DOACs occurred in approximately 20% of AF patients, and was more frequent in outpatients (vs. inpatients) and in those with a higher risk of bleeding. It is recommended that pharmacists play a greater role in assisting in the prescription process to help physicians make better decisions.
| S-EPMC7014592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AIMS:To determine the incidence of drug-related deaths (DRD) in a university hospital in 2015, to describe their characteristics, and to discover risk factors of DRD. METHODS:An analytic and retrospective cohort study. Patients with a death diagnosed predefined from a list of medical conditions potentially caused by drugs were the selected cases for further review. Causality assessment was evaluated by a local drug safety committee. RESULTS:Out of 1135 inpatient deaths, 73 DRD were included (six were hospital-acquired). The incidence of DRD of all hospital admissions was 0.34%, and the incidence of all deaths cases was 7%. Drugs were the cause of death in 38 patients (52%) and a contributive role in 35 (48%). The median age of DRD patients was 72 years (range 19-94) and 72.6% were men. The median hospital stay, Charlson score and number of drugs were 5 days, 2 points and seven drugs respectively. The most frequent DRD were cerebral haemorrhages and infections in drug-immunosuppressed patients (32, 43.8%, each group). The most frequently involved drugs were antineoplastics and glucocorticosteroids (40% and 18%), and antithrombotics (33%); drug-drug interactions were present in 44% DRD. Sex, age and number of drugs were risk factors of DRD. CONCLUSIONS:Adverse drug reactions were a significant cause of death in hospitalized patients, mainly haemorrhages and infections precipitated by drug-drug interactions. Risk factors for DRD were sex, age and number of drugs. Preventable DRD and measures to avoid them should be accurately assessed in further studies.
| S-EPMC5809345 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is now one of the three leading causes of acute kidney injury in the world. A lot is known about the risk factors of CIN, yet it remains a major cause of morbidity, end stage renal disease, prolonged hospital stay, and increased costs as well as a high mortality. Many patients undergoing contrast-based radiological investigations are treated with angiotensin converting inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for their cardiac and renal benefits and their known mortality benefits. However, controversy exists among clinicians as to whether ACE-Is and ARBs should be continued or discontinued prior to contrast media exposure. In this paper we review the current evidence on ACE-I/ARB therapy for patients undergoing procedures involving use of contrast media and provide recommendations as to whether these drugs should be continued or held prior to contrast exposure.
| S-EPMC3925541 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe majority of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 can be managed using virtual care. Dyspnoea is challenging to assess remotely, and the accuracy of subjective dyspnoea measures in capturing hypoxaemia have not been formally evaluated for COVID-19. We explored the accuracy of subjective dyspnoea in diagnosing hypoxaemia in COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of consecutive outpatients with COVID-19 who met criteria for home oxygen saturation monitoring at a university-affiliated acute care hospital in Toronto, Canada from 3 April 2020 to 13 September 2020. Dyspnoea measures were treated as diagnostic tests, and we determined their sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), negative/positive predictive value (NPV/PPV) and positive/negative likelihood ratios (+LR/-LR) for detecting hypoxaemia. In the primary analysis, hypoxaemia was defined by oxygen saturation <95%; the diagnostic accuracy of subjective dyspnoea was also assessed across a range of oxygen saturation cutoffs from 92% to 97%.ResultsDuring the study period, 89/501 (17.8%) of patients met criteria for home oxygen saturation monitoring, and of these 17/89 (19.1%) were diagnosed with hypoxaemia. The presence/absence of dyspnoea had limited accuracy for diagnosing hypoxaemia, with SN 47% (95% CI 24% to 72%), SP 80% (95% CI 68% to 88%), NPV 86% (95% CI 75% to 93%), PPV 36% (95% CI 18% to 59%), +LR 2.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 4.7) and -LR 0.7 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1). The SN of dyspnoea was 50% (95% CI 19% to 81%) when a cut-off of <92% was used to define hypoxaemia. A modified Medical Research Council dyspnoea score >1 (SP 98%, 95% CI 88% to 100%), Roth maximal count <12 (SP 100%, 95% CI 75% to 100%) and Roth counting time <8 s (SP 93%, 95% CI 66% to 100%) had high SP that could be used to rule in hypoxaemia, but displayed low SN (≤50%).ConclusionsSubjective dyspnoea measures have inadequate accuracy for ruling out hypoxaemia in high-risk patients with COVID-19. Safe home management of patients with COVID-19 should incorporate home oxygenation saturation monitoring.
| S-EPMC7941675 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study examined the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of behavioral sensing among individuals with schizophrenia.Nine outpatients and 11 inpatients carried smartphones for two- or one-week periods, respectively. Device-embedded sensors (accelerometers, microphone, global positioning system, WiFi, and Bluetooth) collected behavioral data and ascertained the patients' location, activity, and exposure to human speech as they went about their day. Participants rated this approach by completing usability and acceptability measures.Sensing successfully captured individuals' activity, time spent proximal to human speech, and time spent in various locations. Participants felt comfortable using the sensing system (95%), and most were interested in receiving feedback (65%) and suggestions (65%). Approximately 20% reported that sensing made them upset. One-third of inpatients were concerned about their privacy, but no outpatients expressed this concern.Mobile behavioral sensing was a feasible, acceptable, and informative approach for data collection among outpatients and inpatients with schizophrenia.
| S-EPMC4918904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOur understanding of the association between coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) and preterm or early term birth among racially and ethnically diverse populations and people with chronic medical conditions is limited.MethodsWe determined the association between COVID-19 and preterm (PTB) birth among live births documented by California Vital Statistics birth certificates between July 2020 and January 2021 (n=240,147). We used best obstetric estimate of gestational age to classify births as very preterm (VPTB, <32 weeks), PTB (< 37 weeks), early term (37 and 38 weeks), and term (39-44 weeks), as each confer independent risks to infant health and development. Separately, we calculated the joint effects of COVID-19 diagnosis, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity on PTB and VPTB.FindingsCOVID-19 diagnoses on birth certificates increased for all racial/ethnic groups between July 2020 and January 2021 and were highest for American Indian/Alaska Native (12.9%), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (11.4%), and Latinx (10.3%) birthing people. COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with an increased risk of VPTB (aRR 1.6, 95% CI [1.4, 1.9]), PTB (aRR 1.4, 95% CI [1.3, 1.4]), and early term birth (aRR 1.1, 95% CI [1.1, 1.2]). There was no effect modification of the overall association by race/ethnicity or insurance status. COVID-19 diagnosis was associated with elevated risk of PTB in people with hypertension, diabetes, and/or obesity.InterpretationIn a large population-based study, COVID-19 diagnosis increased the risk of VPTB, PTB, and early term birth, particularly among people with medical comorbidities. Considering increased circulation of COVID-19 variants, preventative measures, including vaccination, should be prioritized for birthing persons.FundingUCSF-Kaiser Department of Research Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health Program (BIRCWH) National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and the Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) [K12 HD052163] and the California Preterm Birth Initiative, funded by Marc and Lynn Benioff.
| S-EPMC8497178 | biostudies-literature