Dataset Information

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

More than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness.

Results

After screening 22 414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, n = 1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70; 1.04, n = 2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77; 1.13, n = 5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid-modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial).

Conclusion

Moderate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.

SUBMITTER: Asiimwe IG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9111446 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Asiimwe Innocent G IG Pushpakom Sudeep P SP Turner Richard M RM Kolamunnage-Dona Ruwanthi R Jorgensen Andrea L AL Pirmohamed Munir M

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20220425 8

<h4>Aims</h4>To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).<h4>Methods</h4>More than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and comple ...[more]

PMID: 35322889

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe 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.MethodsEligible 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionCardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

Project description:Background and aimsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the effects of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This meta-analysis provides estimates of the safety and efficacy of treatment with (vs. without) RAS blockers from these trials.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (1 March-12 April 2023). Event/patient numbers were extracted, comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) treatment with no treatment, for the outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, acute kidney injury (AKI), renal replacement therapy (RRT), acute myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and all-cause death. Fixed-effects meta-analysis estimates were pooled.ResultsSixteen RCTs including 3492 patients were analysed. Compared with discontinuation of RAS blockers, continuation was not associated with increased risk of ICU [risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 0.66-1.41], ventilation (RR 0.77, 0.55-1.09), vasopressors (RR 0.92, 0.58-1.44), AKI (RR 1.01, 0.40-2.56), RRT (RR 1.01, 0.46-2.21), or thromboembolic events (RR 1.07, 0.36-3.19). RAS blocker initiation was not associated with increased risk of ICU (RR 0.71, 0.47-1.08), ventilation (RR 1.12, 0.91-1.38), AKI (RR 1.28, 0.89-1.86), RRT (RR 1.66, 0.89-3.12), or thromboembolic events (RR 1.20, 0.06-23.70), although vasopressor use increased (RR 1.27, 1.02-1.57). The RR for all-cause death in the continuation/discontinuation trials was 1.24 (0.80-1.92), and 1.22 (0.96-1.55) in the initiation trials. In patients with severe/critical COVID-19, RAS blocker initiation increased the risk of all-cause death (RR 1.31, 1.01-1.72).ConclusionACE inhibitors and ARBs may be continued in non-severe COVID-19 infection, where indicated. Conversely, initiation of RAS blockers may be harmful in critically ill patients.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023408926.

Project description:Abstract Background: While passive immunotherapy has been considered beneficial for patients with severe respiratory viral infections, the treatment of COVID-19 cases with convalescent plasma produced mixed results. Thus, there is a lack of certainty and consensus regarding its effectiveness. This meta-analysis aims to assess the role of convalescent plasma treatment on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed database (end-of-search: 29 December 2022) for RCTs on convalescent plasma therapy compared to supportive care\standard of care. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated with random-effects models. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also performed, in order to address heterogeneity and examine any potential association between the factors that varied, and the outcomes reported. The present meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 34 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Per overall analysis, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with lower 28-day mortality [RR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.91, 1.06)] or improved 28-day secondary outcomes, such as hospital discharge [RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.97, 1.03)], ICU-related or score-related outcomes, with effect estimates of RR = 1.00, 95% CI (0.98, 1.05) and RR = 1.06, 95% CI (0.95, 1.17), respectively. However, COVID-19 outpatients treated with convalescent plasma had a 26% less risk of requiring hospital care, when compared to those treated with the standard of care [RR = 0.74, 95% CI (0.56, 0.99)]. Regarding subgroup analyses, COVID-19 patients treated with convalescent plasma had an 8% lower risk of ICU-related disease progression when compared to those treated with the standard of care (with or without placebo or standard plasma infusions) [RR = 0.92, 95% CI (0.85, 0.99)] based on reported outcomes from RCTs carried out in Europe. Finally, convalescent plasma treatment was not associated with improved survival or clinical outcomes in the 14-day subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Outpatients with COVID-19 treated with convalescent plasma had a statistically significantly lower risk of requiring hospital care when compared to those treated with placebo or the standard of care. However, convalescent plasma treatment was not statistically associated with prolonged survival or improved clinical outcomes when compared to placebo or the standard of care, per overall analysis in hospitalized populations. This hints at potential benefits, when used early, to prevent progression to severe disease. Finally, convalescent plasma was significantly associated with better ICU-related outcomes in trials carried out in Europe. Well-designed prospective studies could clarify its potential benefit for specific subpopulations in the post-pandemic era.

Dataset Information

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets