Dataset Information

Discontinuation versus continuation of renin-angiotensin-system inhibitors in COVID-19 (ACEI-COVID): a prospective, parallel group, randomised, controlled, open-label trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

SARS-CoV-2 entry in human cells depends on angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, which can be upregulated by inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). We aimed to test our hypothesis that discontinuation of chronic treatment with ACE-inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) mitigates the course o\f recent-onset COVID-19.

Methods

ACEI-COVID was a parallel group, randomised, controlled, open-label trial done at 35 centres in Austria and Germany. Patients aged 18 years and older were enrolled if they presented with recent symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and were chronically treated with ACEIs or ARBs. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to discontinuation or continuation of RAS inhibition for 30 days. Primary outcome was the maximum sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score within 30 days, where death was scored with the maximum achievable SOFA score. Secondary endpoints were area under the death-adjusted SOFA score (AUC_SOFA), mean SOFA score, admission to the intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, and death. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04353596.

Findings

Between April 20, 2020, and Jan 20, 2021, 204 patients (median age 75 years [IQR 66-80], 37% females) were randomly assigned to discontinue (n=104) or continue (n=100) RAS inhibition. Within 30 days, eight (8%) of 104 died in the discontinuation group and 12 (12%) of 100 patients died in the continuation group (p=0·42). There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint between the discontinuation and continuation group (median [IQR] maximum SOFA score 0·00 (0·00-2·00) vs 1·00 (0·00-3·00); p=0·12). Discontinuation was associated with a significantly lower AUC_SOFA (0·00 [0·00-9·25] vs 3·50 [0·00-23·50]; p=0·040), mean SOFA score (0·00 [0·00-0·31] vs 0·12 [0·00-0·78]; p=0·040), and 30-day SOFA score (0·00 [10-90th percentile, 0·00-1·20] vs 0·00 [0·00-24·00]; p=0·023). At 30 days, 11 (11%) in the discontinuation group and 23 (23%) in the continuation group had signs of organ dysfunction (SOFA score ≥1) or were dead (p=0·017). There were no significant differences for mechanical ventilation (10 (10%) vs 8 (8%), p=0·87) and admission to intensive care unit (20 [19%] vs 18 [18%], p=0·96) between the discontinuation and continuation group.

Interpretation

Discontinuation of RAS-inhibition in COVID-19 had no significant effect on the maximum severity of COVID-19 but may lead to a faster and better recovery. The decision to continue or discontinue should be made on an individual basis, considering the risk profile, the indication for RAS inhibition, and the availability of alternative therapies and outpatient monitoring options.

Funding

Austrian Science Fund and German Center for Cardiovascular Research.

SUBMITTER: Bauer A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8195495 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBiological considerations suggest that renin-angiotensin system inhibitors might influence the severity of COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate whether continuing versus discontinuing renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) affects outcomes in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.MethodsThe REPLACE COVID trial was a prospective, randomised, open-label trial done at 20 large referral hospitals in seven countries worldwide. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older who were admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and were receiving a renin-angiotensin system inhibitor before admission. Individuals with contraindications to continuation or discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitor therapy were excluded. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to continuation or discontinuation of their renin-angiotensin system inhibitor using permuted block randomisation, with allocation concealed using a secure web-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was a global rank score in which participants were ranked across four hierarchical tiers incorporating time to death, duration of mechanical ventilation, time on renal replacement or vasopressor therapy, and multiorgan dysfunction during the hospitalisation. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The REPLACE COVID trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04338009.FindingsBetween March 31 and Aug 20, 2020, 152 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either continue or discontinue renin-angiotensin system inhibitor therapy (continuation group n=75; discontinuation group n=77). Mean age of participants was 62 years (SD 12), 68 (45%) were female, mean body-mass index was 33 kg/m2 (SD 8), and 79 (52%) had diabetes. Compared with discontinuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, continuation had no effect on the global rank score (median rank 73 [IQR 40-110] for continuation vs 81 [38-117] for discontinuation; β-coefficient 8 [95% CI -13 to 29]). There were 16 (21%) of 75 participants in the continuation arm versus 14 (18%) of 77 in the discontinuation arm who required intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation, and 11 (15%) of 75 participants in the continuation group versus ten (13%) of 77 in the discontinuation group died. 29 (39%) participants in the continuation group and 28 (36%) participants in the discontinuation group had at least one adverse event (χ2 test of adverse events between treatment groups p=0·77). There was no difference in blood pressure, serum potassium, or creatinine during follow-up across the two groups.InterpretationConsistent with international society recommendations, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors can be safely continued in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.FundingREPLACE COVID Investigators, REPLACE COVID Trial Social Fundraising Campaign, and FastGrants.

Project description:Background and aimsHaemodynamic instability is associated with peri-operative myocardial injury, particularly in patients receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers). Whether stopping RAS inhibitors to minimise hypotension, or continuing RAS inhibitors to avoid hypertension, reduces peri-operative myocardial injury remains unclear.MethodsFrom 31 July 2017 to 1 October 2021, patients aged ≥60 years undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery were randomly assigned to either discontinue or continue RAS inhibitors prescribed for existing medical conditions in six UK centres. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitors were withheld for different durations (2-3 days) before surgery, according to their pharmacokinetic profile. The primary outcome, masked to investigators, clinicians, and patients, was myocardial injury [plasma high-sensitivity troponin-T (hs-TnT) ≥ 15 ng/L within 48 h after surgery, or ≥5 ng/L increase when pre-operative hs-TnT ≥15 ng/L]. Pre-specified adverse haemodynamic events occurring within 48 h of surgery included acute hypertension (>180 mmHg) and hypotension requiring vasoactive therapy.ResultsTwo hundred and sixty-two participants were randomized to continue (n = 132) or stop (n = 130) RAS inhibitors. Myocardial injury occurred in 58 (48.3%) patients randomized to discontinue, compared with 50 (41.3%) patients who continued, RAS inhibitors [odds ratio (for continuing): 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-1.31]. Hypertensive adverse events were more frequent when RAS inhibitors were stopped [16 (12.4%)], compared with 7 (5.3%) who continued RAS inhibitors [odds ratio (for continuing): 0.4; 95% CI 0.16-1.00]. Hypotension rates were similar when RAS inhibitors were stopped [12 (9.3%)] or continued [11 (8.4%)].ConclusionsDiscontinuing RAS inhibitors before non-cardiac surgery did not reduce myocardial injury, and could increase the risk of clinically significant acute hypertension. These findings require confirmation in future studies.

Project description:BackgroundReducing treatment burden is a priority for people with cystic fibrosis, whose health has benefited from using new modulators that substantially increase CFTR protein function. The SIMPLIFY study aimed to assess the effects of discontinuing nebulised hypertonic saline or dornase alfa in individuals using the CFTR modulator elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor (ETI).MethodsThe SIMPLIFY study included two parallel, multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trials at 80 participating clinics across the USA in the Cystic Fibrosis Therapeutics Development Network. We included individuals with cystic fibrosis aged 12-17 years with percent predicted FEV1 (ppFEV1) of 70% or more, or those aged 18 years or older with ppFEV1 of 60% or more, if they had been taking ETI and either (or both) mucoactive therapies (≥3% hypertonic saline or dornase alfa) for at least 90 days before screening. Participants on both hypertonic saline and dornase alfa were randomly assigned to one of the two trials, and those on a single therapy were assigned to the applicable trial. All participants were then randomly assigned 1:1 to continue or discontinue therapy for 6 weeks using permuted blocks of varying size, stratified by baseline ppFEV1 (week 0; ≥90% or <90%), single or concurrent use of hypertonic saline and dornase alfa, previous SIMPLIFY study participation (yes or no), and age (≥18 or <18 years). For participants randomly assigned to continue their therapy during a given trial, this therapy was instructed to be taken at least once daily according to each participant's pre-existing, clinically prescribed regimen. Hypertonic saline concentration was required to be at least 3%. The primary objective for each trial was to determine whether discontinuing was non-inferior to continuing, measured by the 6-week change in ppFEV1 in the per-protocol population. We established a non-inferiority margin of -3% for the difference between groups in the 6-week change in ppFEV1. Safety outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04378153.FindingsFrom Aug 25, 2020, to May 25, 2022, a total of 672 unique participants were screened for eligibility for one or both trials, resulting in 847 total random assignments across both trials with 594 unique participants. 370 participants were randomly assigned in the hypertonic saline trial and 477 in the dornase alfa trial. Participants across both trials had an average ppFEV1 of 96·9%. Discontinuing treatment was non-inferior to continuing treatment with respect to the absolute 6-week change in ppFEV1 in both the hypertonic saline trial (-0·19% [95% CI -0·85 to 0·48] in the discontinuation group [n=133] vs 0·14% [-0·51 to 0·78] in the continuation group [n=140]; between-group difference -0·32% [-1·25 to 0·60]) and dornase alfa trial (0·18% [-0·38 to 0·74] in the discontinuation group [n=199] vs -0·16% [-0·73 to 0·41] in the continuation group [n=193]; between-group difference 0·35% [-0·45 to 1·14]), with consistent results in the intention-to-treat populations. In the hypertonic saline trial, 64 (35%) of 184 in the discontinuation group versus 44 (24%) of 186 participants in the continuation group and, in the dornase alfa trial, 89 (37%) of 240 in the discontinuation group versus 55 (23%) of 237 in the continuation group had at least one adverse event.InterpretationIn individuals with cystic fibrosis on ETI with relatively well preserved pulmonary function, discontinuing daily hypertonic saline or dornase alfa for 6 weeks did not result in clinically meaningful differences in pulmonary function when compared with continuing treatment.

Project description:BackgroundAngiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been postulated to affect susceptibility to COVID-19. Observational studies so far have lacked rigorous ascertainment adjustment and international generalisability. We aimed to determine whether use of ACEIs or ARBs is associated with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 in patients with hypertension.MethodsIn this international, open science, cohort analysis, we used electronic health records from Spain (Information Systems for Research in Primary Care [SIDIAP]) and the USA (Columbia University Irving Medical Center data warehouse [CUIMC] and Department of Veterans Affairs Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership [VA-OMOP]) to identify patients aged 18 years or older with at least one prescription for ACEIs and ARBs (target cohort) or calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics (THZs; comparator cohort) between Nov 1, 2019, and Jan 31, 2020. Users were defined separately as receiving either monotherapy with these four drug classes, or monotherapy or combination therapy (combination use) with other antihypertensive medications. We assessed four outcomes: COVID-19 diagnosis; hospital admission with COVID-19; hospital admission with pneumonia; and hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis. We built large-scale propensity score methods derived through a data-driven approach and negative control experiments across ten pairwise comparisons, with results meta-analysed to generate 1280 study effects. For each study effect, we did negative control outcome experiments using a possible 123 controls identified through a data-rich algorithm. This process used a set of predefined baseline patient characteristics to provide the most accurate prediction of treatment and balance among patient cohorts across characteristics. The study is registered with the EU Post-Authorisation Studies register, EUPAS35296.FindingsAmong 1 355 349 antihypertensive users (363 785 ACEI or ARB monotherapy users, 248 915 CCB or THZ monotherapy users, 711 799 ACEI or ARB combination users, and 473 076 CCB or THZ combination users) included in analyses, no association was observed between COVID-19 diagnosis and exposure to ACEI or ARB monotherapy versus CCB or THZ monotherapy (calibrated hazard ratio [HR] 0·98, 95% CI 0·84-1·14) or combination use exposure (1·01, 0·90-1·15). ACEIs alone similarly showed no relative risk difference when compared with CCB or THZ monotherapy (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·68-1·21; with heterogeneity of >40%) or combination use (0·95, 0·83-1·07). Directly comparing ACEIs with ARBs demonstrated a moderately lower risk with ACEIs, which was significant with combination use (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·79-0·99) and non-significant for monotherapy (0·85, 0·69-1·05). We observed no significant difference between drug classes for risk of hospital admission with COVID-19, hospital admission with pneumonia, or hospital admission with pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, or sepsis across all comparisons.InterpretationNo clinically significant increased risk of COVID-19 diagnosis or hospital admission-related outcomes associated with ACEI or ARB use was observed, suggesting users should not discontinue or change their treatment to decrease their risk of COVID-19.FundingWellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, US National Institutes of Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare Republic, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, and European Health Data and Evidence Network.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 is a viral prothrombotic respiratory infection. Heparins exert antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects, and might have antiviral properties. We aimed to investigate whether thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin would prevent untoward hospitalisation and death in symptomatic, but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19.MethodsOVID was a randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial and was done at eight centres in Switzerland and Germany. Outpatients aged 50 years or older with acute COVID-19 were eligible if they presented with respiratory symptoms or body temperature higher than 37·5°C. Eligible participants underwent block-stratified randomisation (by age group 50-70 vs >70 years and by study centre) in a 1:1 ratio to receive either subcutaneous enoxaparin 40 mg once daily for 14 days versus standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was a composite of any untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days of randomisation. Analysis of the efficacy outcomes was done in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. The study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04400799) and has been completed.FindingsAt the predefined formal interim analysis for efficacy (50% of total study population), the independent Data Safety Monitoring Board recommended early termination of the trial on the basis of predefined statistical criteria having considered the very low probability of showing superiority of thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin for the primary outcome under the initial study design assumptions. Between Aug 15, 2020, and Jan 14, 2022, from 3319 participants prescreened, 472 were included in the intention-to-treat population and randomly assigned to receive enoxaparin (n=234) or standard of care (n=238). The median age was 57 years (IQR 53-62) and 217 (46%) were women. The 30-day risk of the primary outcome was similar in participants allocated to receive enoxaparin and in controls (8 [3%] of 234 vs 8 [3%] of 238; adjusted relative risk 0·98; 95% CI 0·37-2·56; p=0·96). All hospitalisations were related to COVID-19. No deaths were reported during the study. No major bleeding events were recorded. Eight serious adverse events were recorded in the enoxaparin group versus nine in the control group.InterpretationThese findings suggest thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin does not reduce early hospitalisations and deaths among outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. Futility of the treatment under the initial study design assumptions could not be conclusively assessed owing to under-representation of older patients and consequent low event rates.FundingSNSF (National Research Programme COVID-19 NRP78: 198352), University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Dr-Ing Georg Pollert (Berlin), Johanna Dürmüller-Bol Foundation.

Project description:IntroductionThe benefits of early thromboprophylaxis in symptomatic COVID-19 outpatients remain unclear. We present the 90-day results from the randomised, open-label, parallel-group, investigator-initiated, multinational OVID phase III trial.MethodsOutpatients aged 50 years or older with acute symptomatic COVID-19 were randomised to receive enoxaparin 40 mg for 14 days once daily vs. standard of care (no thromboprophylaxis). The primary outcome was the composite of untoward hospitalisation and all-cause death within 30 days from randomisation. Secondary outcomes included arterial and venous major cardiovascular events, as well as the primary outcome within 90 days from randomisation. The study was prematurely terminated based on statistical criteria after the predefined interim analysis of 30-day data, which has been previously published. In the present analysis, we present the final, 90-day data from OVID and we additionally investigate the impact of thromboprophylaxis on the resolution of symptoms.ResultsOf the 472 patients included in the intention-to-treat population, 234 were randomised to receive enoxaparin and 238 no thromboprophylaxis. The median age was 57 (Q1-Q3: 53-62) years and 217 (46 %) were women. The 90-day primary outcome occurred in 11 (4.7 %) patients of the enoxaparin arm and in 11 (4.6 %) controls (adjusted relative risk 1.00; 95 % CI: 0.44-2.25): 3 events per group occurred after day 30. The 90-day incidence of cardiovascular events was 0.9 % in the enoxaparin arm vs. 1.7 % in controls (relative risk 0.51; 95 % CI: 0.09-2.75). Individual symptoms improved progressively within 90 days with no difference between groups. At 90 days, 42 (17.9 %) patients in the enoxaparin arm and 40 (16.8 %) controls had persistent respiratory symptoms.ConclusionsIn adult community patients with COVID-19, early thromboprophylaxis with enoxaparin did not improve the course of COVID-19 neither in terms of hospitalisation and death nor considering COVID-19-related symptoms.