Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the lipid control of the patients that start PCSK9 inhibitors Impacto de la pandemia por COVID-19 en el control lipídico de pacientes que inician inhibidores de la PCSK9

Objectives MEMOGAL study (NCT04319081) is aimed at evaluating changes in cognitive function in patients treated with PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i). This is the first analysis: (1) discussion about the role of the Hospital Pharmacists during the pandemic, and also the assessment of the impact of COVID-19 in the lipid control;(2) descriptive analysis;(3) effectiveness in LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) reduction of alirocumab and evolocumab;(4) communicate PCSK9i safety. Material and methods It is a prospective Real-World Evidence analysis of patients that take PCSK9i for the first time in the usual clinical practice, and they are included after the first dispensation in the public pharmacy consultations of 12 Hospitals in Galicia from May 2020 to April 2021. Baseline values of LDL-c are the previous values before taking PCSK9 and the follow-up values are in 6 months time. Results 89 patients were included. 86.5% with cardiovascular disease and 53.9% with statin intolerances. 78.8% of the patients were treated with high intensity statins. Statins most used were rosuvastatin (34.1%) and atorvastatin (20.5%). Baseline value of LDL-c was 148 mg/dL and the follow-up value was 71 mg/dL. The baseline value of patients treated with alirocumab (N = 43) was 144 mg/dL and 73 mg/dL in the follow-up. With evolocumab (N = 46) was 151 mg/dL in basaline and 69 mg/dL in follow-up. The LDLc- reduction was 51.21% with evolocumab and 51.05% with alirocumab. 43.1% of the patients showed values >70 mg/dL in six month time;19.4% between 69 mg/dl and 55 mg/dL and 37.5% <55 mg/dL. 58.3% of the patients achieved a reduction >50% of LDL-c. The adverse events were: injection point reaction (N = 2), myalgias (N = 1), flu-like symptoms (N = 1) and neurocognitive worsening (N = 1). Conclusions (1) Despite the number of prescriptions was reduced because of the pandemic, the lipid control was not affected. (2) Half of the patients treated with PSCK9i is due to statins intolerance and the 86% is for secondary prevention. (2) The reduction results were similar to pivotal clinical trials. Despite this, 39% of the total of the patients and 60% of patients with dual teraphy did not reach the goal of ESC/EAS guidelines (< 55 mg/dL and/or reduction > 50%). There were not significant differences between evolocumab and alirocumab: 51.21% vs 51.05% (P = .972). (3) There were not any adverse events of special interest. The possible neurocognitive worsening will be studied as the primary endpoint once the MEMOGAL study has been completed.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the lipid control of the patients that start PCSK9 inhibitors

Objectives MEMOGAL study (NCT04319081) is aimed at evaluating changes in cognitive function in patients treated with PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i). This is the first analysis: (1) discussion about the role of the Hospital Pharmacists during the pandemic, and also the assessment of the impact of COVID-19 in the lipid control;(2) descriptive analysis;(3) effectiveness in LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) reduction of alirocumab and evolocumab;(4) communicate PCSK9i safety. Material and methods It is a prospective Real-World Evidence analysis of patients that take PCSK9i for the first time in the usual clinical practice, and they are included after the first dispensation in the public pharmacy consultations of 12 Hospitals in Galicia from May 2020 to April 2021. Baseline values of LDL-c are the previous values before taking PCSK9 and the follow-up values are in 6 months time. Results 89 patients were included. 86.5% with cardiovascular disease and 53.9% with statin intolerances. 78.8% of the patients were treated with high intensity statins. Statins most used were rosuvastatin (34.1%) and atorvastatin (20.5%). Baseline value of LDL-c was 148 mg/dL and the follow-up value was 71 mg/dL. The baseline value of patients treated with alirocumab (N = 43) was 144 mg/dL and 73 mg/dL in the follow-up. With evolocumab (N = 46) was 151 mg/dL in basaline and 69 mg/dL in follow-up. The LDLc- reduction was 51.21% with evolocumab and 51.05% with alirocumab. 43.1% of the patients showed values >70 mg/dL in six month time;19.4% between 69 mg/dl and 55 mg/dL and 37.5% <55 mg/dL. 58.3% of the patients achieved a reduction >50% of LDL-c. The adverse events were: injection point reaction (N = 2), myalgias (N = 1), flu-like symptoms (N = 1) and neurocognitive worsening (N = 1). Conclusions (1) Despite the number of prescriptions was reduced because of the pandemic, the lipid control was not affected. (2) Half of the patients treated with PSCK9i is due to statins intolerance and the 86% is for secondary prevention. (2) The reduction results were similar to pivotal clinical trials. Despite this, 39% of the total of the patients and 60% of patients with dual teraphy did not reach the goal of ESC/EAS guidelines (< 55 mg/dL and/or reduction > 50%). There were not significant differences between evolocumab and alirocumab: 51.21% vs 51.05% (P = .972). (3) There were not any adverse events of special interest. The possible neurocognitive worsening will be studied as the primary endpoint once the MEMOGAL study has been completed. Resumen Objetivos El estudio MEMOGAL (NCT04319081) está dirigido a evaluar cambios en la función cognitiva en pacientes tratados con inhibidores de la PCSK9 (iPCSK9). Se realiza primer análisis: 1) discutir el papel de los farmacéuticos hospitalarios durante de la pandemia, así como evaluar el impacto de la misma en el control lipídico;2) análisis descriptivo;3) eficacia en reducción de colesterol-LDL (c-LDL) de alirocumab y v;y 4) reportar seguridad de los iPCSK9. Material y métodos Se trata de un análisis prospectivo en vida real de pacientes tratados por primera vez con iPCSK9 en la práctica clínica habitual e incluidos en su primera dispensación en las consultas de farmacia de 12 hospitales de Galicia desde mayo de 2020-abril de 2021. Los valores basales de c-LDL son los previos al inicio del tratamiento con iPCSK9 y como seguimiento los valores a los 6 meses. Resultados Se incluyeron 89 pacientes. El 86,5% con enfermedad cardiovascular y un 53,9% intolerancia a las estatinas. Un 78,8% de los pacientes fueron tratados con estatinas de alta intensidad. Las estatinas más usadas fueron rosuvastatina (34,1%) y atorvastatina (20,5%). El nivel basal de c-LDL fue 148 mg/dl y de 71 mg/dl al seguimiento. Los pacientes tratados con alirocumab (n = 43) presentaban valores basales de 144 mg/dl y de 73 mg/dl al seguimiento y con evolocumab (n = 46) de 151 mg/dl basal y 69 mg/dl al seguimiento. La reducción de c-LDL fue para evolocumab 51,21% y alirocumab 51,05%. El 43,1% presentaba a los 6 meses valores > 70 mg/dl, el 19,4% entre 55 y 69 mg/dl y el 37,5% < 55 mg/dl. Los pacientes que obtuvieron una reducción > 50% de c-LDL fueron el 58,3%. Los eventos adversos presentados fueron: reacción en el lugar de inyección (n = 2), mialgias (n = 1), síntomas pseudogripales (n = 1) y deterioro neurocognitivo (n = 1). Conclusiones 1) A pesar de haber disminuido el número de prescripciones de iPCSK9 durante la pandemia, el control lipídico de estos pacientes no se ha visto afectado;2) la mitad de los pacientes tratados con iPSCK9 se debe a intolerancia a estatinas y el 86% es en prevención secundaria;3) se presentaron valores de reducción similares a los ensayos clínicos pivotales. A pesar de esto, un 39% del total y un 60% en doble terapia no alcanzaron las recomendaciones de las guías ESC/EAS (< 55 mg/dl y/o reducción > 50%). No hubo diferencias significativas entre evolocumab y alirocumab: 51,21% vs. 51,05% (p = 0,972);y 4) no se observaron eventos de especial interés con el uso de estos fármacos. El posible deterioro cognitivo será analizado como variable principal una vez completado el estudio MEMOGAL.

Chronic use of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients: Results from a Spanish registry and meta-analysis Uso crónico de los inhibidores del sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona en pacientes con COVID-19 e hipertensión arterial: Resultados de un registro español y metaanálisis

Background Hypertension is a prevalent condition among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Whether renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are beneficial or harmful is controversial. Methods We have performed a national retrospective, nonexperimental comparative study from two tertiary hospitals to evaluate the impact of chronic use of RAAS inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis was performed to strengthen our findings. Results Of 849 patients, 422 (49.7%) patients were hypertensive and 310 (73.5%) were taking RAAS inhibitors at baseline. Hypertensive patients were older, had more comorbidities, and a greater incidence of respiratory failure (−0.151 [95% CI −0.218, −0.084]). Overall mortality in hypertensive patients was 28.4%, but smaller among those with prescribed RAAS inhibitors before (−0.167 [95% CI −0.220, −0.114]) and during hospitalization (0.090 [−0.008,0.188]). Similar findings were observed after two propensity score matches that evaluated the benefit of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers among hypertensive patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of hypertensive patients found that age, diabetes mellitus, C-reactive protein, and renal failure were independently associated with all-cause mortality. On the contrary, ACEIs decreased the risk of death (OR 0.444 [95% CI 0.224–0.881]). Meta-analysis suggested a protective benefit of RAAS inhibitors (OR 0.6 [95% CI 0.42–0.8]) among hypertensive COVID-19. Conclusion Our data suggest that RAAS inhibitors may play a protective role in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. This finding was supported by a meta-analysis of the current evidence. Maintaining these medications during hospital stay may not negatively affect COVID-19 outcomes.

Chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients: Results from a Spanish registry and meta-analysis.

Background: Hypertension is a prevalent condition among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Whether renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are beneficial or harmful is controversial. Methods: We have performed a national retrospective, nonexperimental comparative study from two tertiary hospitals to evaluate the impact of chronic use of RAAS inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis was performed to strengthen our findings. Results: Of 849 patients, 422 (49.7%) patients were hypertensive and 310 (73.5%) were taking RAAS inhibitors at baseline. Hypertensive patients were older, had more comorbidities, and a greater incidence of respiratory failure (-0.151 [95% CI -0.218, -0.084]). Overall mortality in hypertensive patients was 28.4%, but smaller among those with prescribed RAAS inhibitors before (-0.167 [95% CI -0.220, -0.114]) and during hospitalization (0.090 [-0.008,0.188]). Similar findings were observed after two propensity score matches that evaluated the benefit of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers among hypertensive patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of hypertensive patients found that age, diabetes mellitus, C-reactive protein, and renal failure were independently associated with all-cause mortality. On the contrary, ACEIs decreased the risk of death (OR 0.444 [95% CI 0.224-0.881]). Meta-analysis suggested a protective benefit of RAAS inhibitors (OR 0.6 [95% CI 0.42-0.8]) among hypertensive COVID-19. Conclusion: Our data suggest that RAAS inhibitors may play a protective role in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. This finding was supported by a meta-analysis of the current evidence. Maintaining these medications during hospital stay may not negatively affect COVID-19 outcomes.

Introducción: La hipertensión es una condición prevalente entre los pacientes infectados por el SARS-CoV-2. Es controvertido si los inhibidores del sistema renina-angiotensina-aldosterona (SRAA) son beneficiosos o perjudiciales. Métodos: Hemos desarrollado un estudio comparativo nacional retrospectivo y no experimental en 2 hospitales terciarios para evaluar el impacto del uso crónico de inhibidores del SRAA en pacientes hipertensos con COVID-19. Se realizó un metaanálisis para reforzar los hallazgos. Resultados: De 849 pacientes, 422 (49,7%) eran hipertensos y 310 (73,5%) tomaban inhibidores del SRAA al inicio del estudio. Los pacientes hipertensos eran mayores, tenían más comorbilidades y una mayor incidencia de insuficiencia respiratoria (−0,151; IC 95%: [−0,218; −0,084]). La mortalidad global en los pacientes hipertensos fue del 28,4%, pero fue menor entre los que tenían prescritos inhibidores del SRAA antes (−0,167; IC 95%: [−0,220; −0,114]) y durante la hospitalización (0,090; [−0,008; 0,188]). Se observaron hallazgos similares tras 2 emparejamientos de puntuación de propensión que evaluaron el beneficio de los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina y los bloqueadores de los receptores de angiotensina entre los pacientes hipertensos. El análisis de regresión logística multivariante de los pacientes hipertensos reveló que la edad, la diabetes mellitus, la proteína C reactiva y la insuficiencia renal se asociaban de forma independiente con la mortalidad por todas las causas. Por el contrario, los inhibidores de la enzima convertidora de angiotensina disminuyeron el riesgo de muerte (OR 0,444; IC 95%: 0,224-0,881). El metaanálisis indicó un beneficio protector de los inhibidores del SRAA (OR 0,6; IC 95%: 0,42-0,8) entre los hipertensos con COVID-19. Conclusión: Nuestros datos indican que los inhibidores del SRAA pueden desempeñar un papel protector en los pacientes hipertensos con COVID-19. Este hallazgo fue apoyado por un metaanálisis de la evidencia actual. Su mantenimiento durante la estancia hospitalaria puede no afectar negativamente a los resultados de la COVID-19.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic in the lipid control of the patients that start PCSK9 inhibitors. / Impacto de la pandemia por COVID-19 en el control lipídico de pacientes que inician inhibidores de la PCSK9.

OBJECTIVES: MEMOGAL study (NCT04319081) is aimed at evaluating changes in cognitive function in patients treated with PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i). This is the first analysis: (1) discussion about the role of the Hospital Pharmacists during the pandemic, and also the assessment of the impact of COVID-19 in the lipid control; (2) descriptive analysis; (3) effectiveness in LDL cholesterol (LDL-c) reduction of alirocumab and evolocumab; (4) communicate PCSK9i safety. MATERIAL AND METHODS: It is a prospective Real-World Evidence analysis of patients that take PCSK9i for the first time in the usual clinical practice, and they are included after the first dispensation in the public pharmacy consultations of 12 Hospitals in Galicia from May 2020 to April 2021. Baseline values of LDL-c are the previous values before taking PCSK9 and the follow-up values are in 6 months time. RESULTS: 89 patients were included. 86.5% with cardiovascular disease and 53.9% with statin intolerances. 78.8% of the patients were treated with high intensity statins. Statins most used were rosuvastatin (34.1%) and atorvastatin (20.5%). Baseline value of LDL-c was 148mg/dL and the follow-up value was 71mg/dL. The baseline value of patients treated with alirocumab (N=43) was 144mg/dL and 73mg/dL in the follow-up. With evolocumab (N=46) was 151mg/dL in basaline and 69mg/dL in follow-up. The LDLc- reduction was 51.21% with evolocumab and 51.05% with alirocumab. 43.1% of the patients showed values >70mg/dL in six month time; 19.4% between 69mg/dl and 55mg/dL and 37.5% <55mg/dL. 58.3% of the patients achieved a reduction >50% of LDL-c. The adverse events were: injection point reaction (N=2), myalgias (N=1), flu-like symptoms (N=1) and neurocognitive worsening (N=1). CONCLUSIONS: (1) Despite the number of prescriptions was reduced because of the pandemic, the lipid control was not affected. (2) Half of the patients treated with PSCK9i is due to statins intolerance and the 86% is for secondary prevention. (2) The reduction results were similar to pivotal clinical trials. Despite this, 39% of the total of the patients and 60% of patients with dual teraphy did not reach the goal of ESC/EAS guidelines (<55mg/dL and/or reduction>50%). There were not significant differences between evolocumab and alirocumab: 51.21% vs 51.05% (P=.972). (3) There were not any adverse events of special interest. The possible neurocognitive worsening will be studied as the primary endpoint once the MEMOGAL study has been completed.

Chronic use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients: Results from a Spanish registry and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a prevalent condition among SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Whether renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are beneficial or harmful is controversial. METHODS: We have performed a national retrospective, nonexperimental comparative study from two tertiary hospitals to evaluate the impact of chronic use of RAAS inhibitors in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. A meta-analysis was performed to strengthen our findings. RESULTS: Of 849 patients, 422 (49.7%) patients were hypertensive and 310 (73.5%) were taking RAAS inhibitors at baseline. Hypertensive patients were older, had more comorbidities, and a greater incidence of respiratory failure (-0.151 [95% CI -0.218, -0.084]). Overall mortality in hypertensive patients was 28.4%, but smaller among those with prescribed RAAS inhibitors before (-0.167 [95% CI -0.220, -0.114]) and during hospitalization (0.090 [-0.008,0.188]). Similar findings were observed after two propensity score matches that evaluated the benefit of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers among hypertensive patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of hypertensive patients found that age, diabetes mellitus, C-reactive protein, and renal failure were independently associated with all-cause mortality. On the contrary, ACEIs decreased the risk of death (OR 0.444 [95% CI 0.224-0.881]). Meta-analysis suggested a protective benefit of RAAS inhibitors (OR 0.6 [95% CI 0.42-0.8]) among hypertensive COVID-19. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that RAAS inhibitors may play a protective role in hypertensive COVID-19 patients. This finding was supported by a meta-analysis of the current evidence. Maintaining these medications during hospital stay may not negatively affect COVID-19 outcomes.

Impact of the presence of heart disease, cardiovascular medications and cardiac events on outcome in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk factors and usage of cardiovascular medication are prevalent among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Little is known about the cardiovascular implications of COVID-19. The goal herein, was to evaluate the prognostic impact of having heart disease (HD) and taking cardiovascular medications in a population diagnosed of COVID-19 who required hospitalization. Also, we studied the development of cardiovascular events during hospitalization. METHODS: Consecutive patients with definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 made by a positive real time- -polymerase chain reaction of nasopharyngeal swabs who were admitted to the hospital from March 15 to April 14 were included in a retrospective registry. The association of HD with mortality and with mortality or respiratory failure were the primary and secondary objectives, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 859 patients were included in the present analysis. Cardiovascular risk factors were related to death, particularly diabetes mellitus (hazard ratio in the multivariate analysis: 1.810 [1.159- -2.827], p = 0.009). A total of 113 (13.1%) patients had HD. The presence of HD identified a group of patients with higher mortality (35.4% vs. 18.2%, p < 0.001) but HD was not independently related to prognosis; renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, diuretics and beta-blockers did not worsen prognosis. Statins were independently associated with decreased mortality (0.551 [0.329-0.921], p = 0.023). Cardiovascular events during hospitalization identified a group of patients with poor outcome (mortality 31.8% vs. 19.3% without cardiovascular events, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of HD is related to higher mortality. Cardiovascular medications taken before admission are not harmful, statins being protective. The development of cardiovascular events during the course of the disease is related to poor outcome.

Fast track triage for COVID-19 based on a population study: The soda score.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are under prominent stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic. A fast and simple triage is mandatory to screen patients who will benefit from early hospitalization, from those that can be managed as outpatients. There is a lack of all-comers scores, and no score has been proposed for western-world population. AIMS: To develop a fast-track risk score valid for every COVID-19 patient at diagnosis. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study based on all the inhabitants of a healthcare area. Logistic regression was used to identify simple and wide-available risk factors for adverse events (death, intensive care admission, invasive mechanical ventilation, bleeding > BARC3, acute renal injury, respiratory insufficiency, myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, pulmonary emboli, or stroke). RESULTS: Of the total healthcare area population, 447.979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%), were diagnosed with COVID-19. A total of 124 patients (12.85%) experienced adverse events. The novel SODA score (based on sex, peripheral O2 saturation, presence of diabetes, and age) demonstrated good accuracy for adverse events prediction (area under ROC curve 0.858, CI: 0.82-0.98). A cut-off value of ≤2 points identifies patients with low risk (positive predictive value [PPV] for absence of events: 98.9%) and a cut-off of ≥5 points, high-risk patients (PPV 58.8% for adverse events). CONCLUSIONS: This quick and easy score allows fast-track triage at the moment of diagnosis for COVID-19 using four simple variables: age, sex, SpO2, and diabetes. SODA score could improve preventive measures taken at diagnosis in high-risk patients and also relieve resources by identifying very low-risk patients.

[Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry]. / Impacto de los inhibidores de la enzima de conversión de la angiotensina y los antagonistas del receptor de la angiotensina II en la COVID-19 en una población occidental. Registro CARDIOVID.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. RESULTS: Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P = .486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P = .622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P = .638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P = .798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P = .915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies.

Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on COVID-19 in a western population. CARDIOVID registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has been designated a global pandemic by the World Health Organization. It is unclear whether previous treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) affects the prognosis of COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical implications of previous treatment with ACEI/ARB on the prognosis of patients with COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Single-center, retrospective, observational cohort study based on all the inhabitants of our health area. Analyses of main outcomes (mortality, heart failure, hospitalization, intensive care unit [ICU] admission, and major acute cardiovascular events [a composite of mortality and heart failure]) were adjusted by multivariate logistic regression and propensity score matching models. RESULTS: Of the total population, 447 979 inhabitants, 965 patients (0.22%) were diagnosed with COVID-19 infection, and 210 (21.8%) were under ACEI or ARB treatment at the time of diagnosis. Treatment with ACEI/ARB (combined and individually) had no effect on mortality (OR, 0.62; 95%CI, 0.17-2.26; P=.486), heart failure (OR, 1.37; 95%CI, 0.39-4.77; P=.622), hospitalization rate (OR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.45-1.64; P=.638), ICU admission (OR, 0.87; 95%CI, 0.30-2.50; P=.798), or major acute cardiovascular events (OR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.39-2.83; P=.915). This neutral effect remained in a subgroup analysis of patients requiring hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Previous treatment with ACEI/ARB in patients with COVID-19 had no effect on mortality, heart failure, requirement for hospitalization, or ICU admission. Withdrawal of ACEI/ARB in patients testing positive for COVID-19 would not be justified, in line with current recommendations of scientific societies and government agencies.