Back

Association between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers use and the risk of infection and clinical outcome of COVID-19: a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qu, G.; Shu, L.; Song, E. J.; Verghese, D.; Uy, J. P.; Cheng, C.; Zhou, Q.; Yang, H.; Guo, Z.; Chen, M.; Sun, C.

2020-07-03 infectious diseases
10.1101/2020.07.02.20144717 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundThe effect of using Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and Angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) on the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a topic of recent debate. Although studies have examined the potential association between them, the results remain controversial. This study aims to determine the true effect of ACEI/ARBs use on the risk of infection and clinical outcome of COVID-19. MethodsFive electronic databases (PubMed, Web of science, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure database, medRxiv preprint server) were retrieved to find eligible studies. Meta-analysis was performed to examine the association between ACEI/ARBs use and the risk of infection and clinical outcome of COVID-19. Results22 articles containing 157,328 patients were included. Use of ACEI/ARBs was not associated with increased risk of infection (Adjusted OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.91-1.01, I2=5.8%) or increased severity (Adjusted OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77-1.05, I2=27.6%) of COVID-19. The use of ACEI/ARBs was associated with lower risk of death from COVID-19 (Adjusted OR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.44-0.99, I2=57.9%). Similar results of reduced risk of death were also found for ACEI/ARB use in COVID-19 patients with hypertension (Adjusted OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17-0.77, I2=0). ConclusionThis study provides evidence that ACEI/ARBs use for COVID-19 patients does not lead to harmful outcomes and may even provide a beneficial role and decrease mortality from COVID-19. Clinicians should not discontinue ACEI/ARBs for patients diagnosed with COVID-19 if they are already on these agents.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.