Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
The aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19.Methods
Eligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer.Results
Of 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias.Conclusion
Cardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.
SUBMITTER: Asiimwe IG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8239929 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To successfully mitigate the extraordinary devastation caused by the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, it is crucial to identify important risk factors for this disease. One such neglected health determinant is the sex of the patient. This is an essential clinical characteristic, as it can factor into a patient's clinical management and preventative measures. Some clinical studies have shown disparities in the proportion between males and females that have more severe clinical outcomes or, subsequently, die from this disease. However, this association has not been unequivocally established. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to examine the association between male sex and COVID-19 severity. We systematically reviewed the literature, identified studies that matched predetermined selection criteria, and performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the proportion of males among four disease severity categories. Appropriate assessment strategies were implemented to assess and minimize potential biases. The results of this meta-analysis indicated that males constituted a significantly higher proportion of those who had adverse clinical outcomes and died from COVID-19. As the coronavirus spread from the East to the West, male sex remained a consistent risk factor. Our results support the establishment of the male sex as an important risk factor for this disease. Early identification and appropriate medical care for males with lab-confirmed COVID-19 may substantially change the course of clinical prognosis, resulting in greater numbers of lives saved.
| S-EPMC7331754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Contrasting data have been published about the impact of cardiovascular disease on Covid-19. A comprehensive synthesis and pooled analysis of the available evidence is needed to guide prioritization of prevention strategies. To clarify the association of cardiovascular disease with Covid-19 outcomes, we searched PubMed up to 26 October 2020, for studies reporting the prevalence of cardiovascular disease among inpatients with Covid-19 in relation to their outcomes. Pooled odds-ratios (OR) for death, for mechanical ventilation or admission in an intensive care unit (ICU) and for composite outcomes were calculated using random effect models overall and in the subgroup of people with comorbid diabetes. Thirty-three studies enrolling 52,857 inpatients were included. Cardiovascular disease was associated with a higher risk of death both overall (OR 2.58, 95% confidence intervals, CI 2.12-3.14, p < 0.001, number of studies 24) and in the subgroup of people with diabetes (OR 2.91, 95% CI 2.13-3.97, p < 0.001, number of studies 4), but not with higher risk of ICU admission or mechanical ventilation (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.73-2.50, p = 0.34, number of studies 4). Four out of five studies reporting OR adjusted for confounders failed to show independent association of cardiovascular disease with Covid-19 deaths. Accordingly, the adjusted-OR for Covid-19 death in people with cardiovascular disease dropped to 1.31 (95% CI 1.01-1.70, p = 0.041). Among patients hospitalized for Covid-19, cardiovascular disease confers higher risk of death, which was highly mitigated when adjusting the association for confounders.
| S-EPMC8285708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients from ethnic minority groups are disproportionately affected by Coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the relationship between ethnicity and clinical outcomes in COVID-19.MethodsDatabases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PROSPERO, Cochrane library and MedRxiv) were searched up to 31st August 2020, for studies reporting COVID-19 data disaggregated by ethnicity. Outcomes were: risk of infection; intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission and death. PROSPERO ID: 180654.Findings18,728,893 patients from 50 studies were included; 26 were peer-reviewed; 42 were from the United States of America and 8 from the United Kingdom. Individuals from Black and Asian ethnicities had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals. This was consistent in both the main analysis (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 2.02, 95% CI 1.67-2.44; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.50, 95% CI 1.24-1.83) and sensitivity analyses examining peer-reviewed studies only (pooled adjusted RR for Black: 1.85, 95%CI: 1.46-2.35; pooled adjusted RR for Asian: 1.51, 95% CI 1.22-1.88). Individuals of Asian ethnicity may also be at higher risk of ITU admission (pooled adjusted RR 1.97 95% CI 1.34-2.89) (but no studies had yet been peer-reviewed) and death (pooled adjusted RR/HR 1.22 [0.99-1.50]).InterpretationIndividuals of Black and Asian ethnicity are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection compared to White individuals; Asians may be at higher risk of ITU admission and death. These findings are of critical public health importance in informing interventions to reduce morbidity and mortality amongst ethnic minority groups.
| S-EPMC7658622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19.DesignLiving systematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesWorld Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021.Study selectionRandomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles.MethodsRandom effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsThe first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain.ConclusionsHydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Systematic review registrationThis review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement.Readers' noteThis article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.
| S-EPMC8073806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim was to assess the clinical effectiveness of drugs used in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection. We conducted a systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing treatment with remdesivir, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, ritonavir, dexamethasone, and convalescent plasma, for hospitalized patients with a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, duration of ventilation, duration of oxygen support, duration of hospitalization, virological clearance, and severe adverse events. A total of 48 studies were retrieved from the databases. Eleven articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative synthesis of results. The meta-analysis suggests a benefit of dexamethasone versus standard care in the reduction of risk of mortality at day 28; and the clinical improvement at days 14 and 28 in patients treated with remdesivir. We can conclude that dexamethasone would have a better result in hospitalized patients, especially in low-resources settings. The analysis of the main treatments proposed for hospitalized patients is of vital importance to reduce mortality in low-income countries, since the COVID-19 pandemic had an economic impact worldwide with the loss of jobs and economic decline in countries with scarce resources.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
| S-EPMC8010807 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionConflicting reports of increases and decreases in rates of preterm birth (PTB) and stillbirth in the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic have surfaced. The objective of our study was to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analyses of studies reporting pregnancy and neonatal outcomes by comparing the pandemic and pre-pandemic periods.Material and methodsWe searched PubMed and Embase databases, reference lists of articles published up until 14 May 2021 and included English language studies that compared outcomes between the COVID-19 pandemic time period and pre-pandemic time periods. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis using the inverse variance method.ResultsThirty-seven studies with low-to-moderate risk of bias, reporting on 1 677 858 pregnancies during the pandemic period and 21 028 650 pregnancies during the pre-pandemic period, were included. There was a significant reduction in unadjusted estimates of PTB (28 studies, unadjusted odds ratio [uaOR] 0.94, 95% confidence [CI] 0.91-0.98) but not in adjusted estimates (six studies, adjusted OR [aOR] 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13). The reduction was noted in studies from single centers/health areas (uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.86-0.94) but not in regional/national studies (uaOR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95-1.03). There was reduction in spontaneous PTB (five studies, uaOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.98) and induced PTB (four studies, uaOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81-1.00). There was no reduction in PTB when stratified by gestational age <34, <32 or <28 weeks. There was no difference in stillbirths between the pandemic and pre-pandemic time periods (21 studies, uaOR 1.08, 95% CI 0.94-1.23; four studies, aOR 1.06, 95% CI 0.81-1.38). There was an increase in birthweight (six studies, mean difference 17 g, 95% CI 7-28 g) during the pandemic period. There was an increase in maternal mortality (four studies, uaOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.26), which was mostly influenced by one study from Mexico. There was significant publication bias for the outcome of PTB.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 pandemic time period may be associated with a reduction in PTB; however, referral bias cannot be excluded. There was no difference in stillbirth between the pandemic and pre-pandemic period.
| S-EPMC8222877 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak was identified in December 2019 in Wuhan, China, a strong response from the research community has been observed with the proliferation of independent clinical trials assessing diagnostic methods, therapeutic and prophylactic strategies. While there is no intervention for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 with proven clinical efficacy to date, tools to distil the current research landscape by intervention, level of evidence and those studies likely powered to address future research questions is essential. This living systematic review aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarising the characteristics of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Weekly search updates of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and source registries will be conducted. Data extraction by two independent reviewers of trial characteristic variables including categorisation of trial design, geographic location, intervention type and targets, level of evidence and intervention adaptability to low resource settings will be completed. Descriptive and thematic synthesis will be conducted. A searchable and interactive visualisation of the results database will be created, and made openly available online. Weekly results from the continued search updates will be published and made available on the Infectious Diseases Data Observatory (IDDO) website ( COVID-19 website). This living systematic review will provide a useful resource of COVID-19 clinical trial registrations for researchers in a rapidly evolving context. In the future, this sustained review will allow prioritisation of research targets for individual patient data meta-analysis.
| S-EPMC7141164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHigh rate of cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been reported among patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Meanwhile there were controversies among different studies about CVD burden in COVID-19 patients. Hence, we aimed to study CVD burden among COVID-19 patients, using a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe have systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science as well as medRxiv pre-print database. Hand searched was also conducted in journal websites and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses were carried out for Odds Ratio (OR) of mortality and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission for different CVDs. We have also performed a descriptive meta-analysis on different CVDs.ResultsFifty-six studies entered into meta-analysis for ICU admission and mortality outcome and 198 papers for descriptive outcomes, including 159,698 COVID-19 patients. Results of meta-analysis indicated that acute cardiac injury, (OR: 13.29, 95% CI 7.35-24.03), hypertension (OR: 2.60, 95% CI 2.11-3.19), heart Failure (OR: 6.72, 95% CI 3.34-13.52), arrhythmia (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 1.43-5.25), coronary artery disease (OR: 3.78, 95% CI 2.42-5.90), and cardiovascular disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.89-3.62) were significantly associated with mortality. Arrhythmia (OR: 7.03, 95% CI 2.79-17.69), acute cardiac injury (OR: 15.58, 95% CI 5.15-47.12), coronary heart disease (OR: 2.61, 95% CI 1.09-6.26), cardiovascular disease (OR: 3.11, 95% CI 1.59-6.09), and hypertension (OR: 1.95, 95% CI 1.41-2.68) were also significantly associated with ICU admission in COVID-19 patients.ConclusionFindings of this study revealed a high burden of CVDs among COVID-19 patients, which was significantly associated with mortality and ICU admission. Proper management of CVD patients with COVID-19 and monitoring COVID-19 patients for acute cardiac conditions is highly recommended to prevent mortality and critical situations.
| S-EPMC7561581 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe novel coronavirus pandemic is an ongoing challenge faced by the public and health care systems around the globe. Majority of information and evidence gathered so far regarding COVID-19 has been derived from data and studies in adult populations. Crucial information regarding the characterization, clinical symptomatology, sequelae, and overall outcomes in the pediatric population is lacking. As such, we aimed to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review to collect and analyze current evidence about COVID-19 in the pediatric population.MethodA systematic search and review of scientific literatures was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Medline, and Google Scholar databases. All relevant studies until June 16, 2020 were included. Studies were reviewed for methodological quality, and random-effects model was used to conduct the primary meta-analysis. I2 value and Egger's test was used to estimate heterogeneity and publication bias respectively.ResultsWe reviewed 20 eligible studies that included 1810 pediatric patient population (<21 yo) with PCR tested COVID-19 positivity. In pooled data, majority (25 % [CI 18-32], I2 59 %) of overall COVID-19 positive patients fell in the 6-10 yr age group. 13 % ([CI 11-14], I2 78 %) of the patients were asymptomatic, with headache (67 % [CI 60-74], I2 46 %), fever (55 % [CI 52-58], I2 61 %), and cough (45 % [CI 42-49], I2 79 %) accounting for the most prevalent physical signs seen in symptomatic patients. Leukopenia (12 % [CI 9-15], I250 %) and lymphopenia (15 % [CI 13-19], I2 85 %) was common. Elevated Ferritin (26 % [CI 16-40], I2 73 %), Procal (25 % [CI 21-29 %], I2 83 %), and CRP (19 % [CI 16-22 %], I2 74 %) were other laboratory abnormalities commonly observed. Common radiological features were ground-glass opacities (36 % [CI 32-39 %], I2 92 %), normal finding (33 % [CI 30-36 %], I2 81 %), and consolidation. 29 % ([CI 26-33], I2 85 %) of the patient cases was non-severe, whereas only 5 % ([CI 1-8], I2 87 %) was severe. Mortality was observed in 0.3 % ([CI 0.1-0.4], I2 0%) of the overall cases.ConclusionCOVID-19 is prevalent across all pediatric age-groups and presents with varying degree of symptomology. However, children have a milder course of the disease with extremely favorable prognosis. Laboratory and radiological features are inconsistent and require further investigations. Additional studies are needed on this topic to corroborate findings and establish evidence-based and consistent characterization of COVID-19 in the pediatric population.
| S-EPMC7723460 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo provide a precise summary and collate the hitherto available clinical evidence on the effect of vitamin D supplementation on clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients.MethodsPubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched using appropriate keywords till June 8, 2021, to identify observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting adverse clinical outcomes (ICU admission and/or mortality) in COVID-19 patients receiving vitamin D supplementation vs. those not receiving the same. Both prior use and use of vitamin D after COVID-19 diagnosis were considered. Unadjusted/adjusted pooled odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated (PROSPERO registration number CRD42021248488).ResultsWe identified 13 studies (10 observational, 3 RCTs) pooling data retrieved from 2933 COVID-19 patients. Pooled analysis of unadjusted data showed that vitamin D use in COVID-19 was significantly associated with reduced ICU admission/mortality (OR 0.41, 95% CI: 0.20, 0.81, p = 0.01, I2 = 66%, random-effects model). Similarly, on pooling adjusted risk estimates, vitamin D was also found to reduce the risk of adverse outcomes (pooled OR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.08, 0.91, p = 0.03, I2 = 80%, random-effects model). Subgroup analysis showed that vitamin D supplementation was associated with improved clinical outcomes only in patients receiving the drug post-COVID-19 diagnosis and not in those who had received vitamin D before diagnosis.ConclusionsVitamin D supplementation might be associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially when administered after the diagnosis of COVID-19. However, issues regarding the appropriate dose, duration, and mode of administration of vitamin D remain unanswered and need further research.
| S-EPMC8223190 | biostudies-literature