Back

Deleterious drugs in COVID-19: a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis

Holder, M. W.; Heeney, C.; Malden, S.; Perera, U.; Sheikh, A.

2021-09-21 pharmacology and therapeutics
10.1101/2021.09.17.21262724
Show abstract

BackgroundConcerns have been expressed about a number of drugs that potentially worsen outcomes in patients with COVID-19. We sought to identify all potentially deleterious drug groups in COVID-19 and critically assess the underpinning strength of evidence pertaining to the harmful effects of these drugs. Methods and findingsWe performed a rapid systematic review, searching Medline, Embase and two COVID-19 portfolios (WHO COVID-19 database and NIH iSearch COVID-19 portfolio) for papers and preprints related to primary studies investigating drugs identified as potentially deleterious. Primary outcomes were direct measures of susceptibility to infection, disease severity and mortality. Study quality was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute quality assessment tools. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis with further subgroup analyses where possible for specific outcome, study design, statistical adjustment and drug groups when two were combined. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing any studies at high risk of bias and by publication status. 49 observational studies (15 peer-reviewed papers and 34 preprints) reported primary outcomes for eight drug groups hypothesised to be deleterious. Meta-analysis showed that acute inpatient corticosteroid use was associated with increased mortality (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.26-3.90), however this result appeared to have been biased by confounding via indication. One subgroup analysis indicated an association between immunosuppressant use and susceptibility to COVID-19 among case control and cross-sectional studies (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.19-1.40) but this was not found with cohort studies (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.86-1.43). Studies which adjusted for multiple confounders showed that people taking angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin-II-receptor blockers (ARBs) required a lower level of care (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.98). Furthermore, studies which combined these two drug groups in their analysis demonstrated an association with a lower mortality (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55-0.85). ConclusionsWe found minimal high quality or consistent evidence that any drug groups increase susceptibility, severity or mortality in COVID-19. Converse to initial hypotheses, we found some evidence that regular use of ACEIs and ARBs prior to infection may be effective in reducing the level of care required, such as requiring intensive care, in patients with COVID-19.

Matching journals

1
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Wiley · based on 19 published papers
#1
192× avg
2
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Wiley · based on 21 published papers
#1
140× avg
3
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 43%
11.7%
4
Frontiers in Pharmacology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 27 published papers
Top 0.4%
40× avg
5
Frontiers in Medicine
Frontiers Media SA · based on 99 published papers
Top 4%
5.1× avg
6
BMJ
BMJ · based on 49 published papers
Top 1%
14× avg
7
Clinical and Translational Science
Wiley · based on 14 published papers
Top 0.2%
36× avg
8
PLOS Medicine
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 95 published papers
Top 4%
5.0× avg
9
Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety
Wiley · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.3%
41× avg
10
BJGP Open
Royal College of General Practitioners · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.9%
23× avg
11
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 19 published papers
Top 0.8%
26× avg
12
Journal of Clinical Medicine
MDPI AG · based on 77 published papers
Top 10%
2.6× avg
13
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 73%
1.5%
14
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
Wiley · based on 14 published papers
Top 2%
11× avg
15
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 219 published papers
Top 18%
0.9%
16
Systematic Reviews
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 11 published papers
Top 2%
9.4× avg
17
Journal of the American Heart Association
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) · based on 92 published papers
Top 11%
0.8%
18
Cureus
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 64 published papers
Top 17%
0.8%
19
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 51%
0.8%
20
JMIRx Med
JMIR Publications Inc. · based on 29 published papers
Top 6%
3.7× avg
21
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
Oxford University Press (OUP) · based on 124 published papers
Top 12%
0.5%
22
Open Heart
BMJ · based on 18 published papers
Top 5%
2.7× avg
23
The Lancet Digital Health
Elsevier BV · based on 25 published papers
Top 6%
2.7× avg
24
Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
Top 2%
8.6× avg
25
Trials
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 24 published papers
Top 4%
3.3× avg