Risks and Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers on SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults

BACKGROUND: The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19 disease susceptibility, severity, and treatment is unclear. PURPOSE: To evaluate, on an ongoing basis, whether use of ACEIs or ARBs either increases risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or is associated with worse COVID-19 disease outcomes, and to assess the efficacy of these medications for COVID-19 treatment. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2003 to 4 May 2020, with planned ongoing surveillance for 1 year; the World Health Organization database of COVID-19 publications and medRxiv.org through 17 April 2020; and ClinicalTrials.gov to 24 April 2020, with planned ongoing surveillance. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies and trials in adults that examined associations and effects of ACEIs or ARBs on risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction confirmed by another reviewer, independent evaluation by 2 reviewers of study quality, and collective assessment of certainty of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two retrospective cohort studies found that ACEI and ARB use was not associated with a higher likelihood of receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and 1 case-control study found no association with COVID-19 illness in a large community (moderate-certainty evidence). Fourteen observational studies, involving a total of 23 565 adults with COVID-19, showed consistent evidence that neither medication was associated with more severe COVID-19 illness (high-certainty evidence). Four registered randomized trials plan to evaluate ACEIs and ARBs for treatment of COVID-19. LIMITATION: Half the studies were small and did not adjust for important confounding variables. CONCLUSION: High-certainty evidence suggests that ACEI or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate-certainty evidence suggests no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: registration number pending).

Factors Associated with Health Inequalities in Infectious Disease Pandemics Predating COVID-19 in the United States: A Systematic Review.

Objective: Previous pandemics may offer evidence on mediating factors that contributed to disparities in infection and poor outcomes, which could inform the effort to mitigate potential unequal outcomes during the current COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review sought to examine those factors. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane to May 2020. We included studies examining health disparities in adult U.S. populations during infectious disease epidemics or pandemics. Two investigators screened abstracts and full text. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle/Ottawa Scale or the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist for Qualitative Studies. Results: Sixteen articles were included, of which 14 focused on health disparities during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Studies showed that disparities during the H1N1 pandemic were more related to differential exposure to the virus than to susceptibility or access to care. Overall, pandemic-related disparities emanate primarily from inequalities in social conditions that place racial and ethnic minorities and low socioeconomic status populations at greater risk of exposure and infection, rather than individual-level factors such as health behaviors and comorbidities. Conclusions: Policy- and systems-level interventions should acknowledge and address these social determinants of heightened risk, and future research should evaluate the effects of such interventions to avoid further exacerbation of health inequities during the current and future pandemics.

What Is the Antibody Response and Role in Conferring Natural Immunity After SARS-CoV-2 Infection? Rapid, Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

DESCRIPTION: The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the current best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. This is version 2 of the ACP practice points, which serves to update version 1, published on 16 March 2021. These practice points do not evaluate vaccine-acquired immunity or cellular immunity. METHODS: The SMPC developed this version of the living, rapid practice points based on an updated living, rapid, systematic review conducted by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. PRACTICE POINT 1: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 2: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to predict the degree or duration of natural immunity conferred by antibodies against reinfection, including natural immunity against different variants. RETIREMENT FROM LIVING STATUS: Although natural immunity remains a topic of scientific interest, this topic is being retired from living status given the availability of effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and widespread recommendations for and prevalence of their use. Currently, vaccination is the best clinical recommendation for preventing infection, reinfection, and serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.

Preventing Unequal Health Outcomes in COVID-19: A Systematic Review of Past Interventions.

Background: We sought to identify interventions that reduced disparities in health outcomes in infectious disease outbreaks or natural disasters in the United States to understand whether these interventions could reduce health disparities in the current COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and other databases to May 2020 to find studies that examined interventions to mitigate health inequalities in previous infectious disease pandemics or disasters. We assessed study quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) Checklist for Qualitative Studies. Results: We included 14 articles (12 studies) and 5 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stakeholder meeting articles on pandemic influenza preparedness in marginalized populations. Studies called for intervention and engagement before pandemic or disaster onset. Several studies included interventions that could be adapted to COVID-19, including harnessing technology to reach disadvantaged populations, partnering with trusted community liaisons to deliver important messaging around disease mitigation, and using culturally specific communication methods and messages to best reach marginalized groups. Discussion: To our knowledge this is the first systematic review to examine interventions to mitigate health inequities during an infectious disease pandemic. However, given that we identified very few disparities-focused infectious disease intervention studies, we also included studies from the disaster response literature, which may not be as generalizable to the current context of COVID-19. Overall, community outreach and tailored communication are essential in disease mitigation. More research is needed to evaluate systemic interventions that target the distal determinants of poor health outcomes among marginalized populations during pandemics and natural disasters.

The Development of Living, Rapid Practice Points: Summary of Methods From the Scientific Medical Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) began developing "practice points" to provide clinical advice based on the best available evidence for the public, patients, clinicians, and public health professionals. As one of the first organizations in the United States to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines, ACP continues to lead and advance the science of evidence-based medicine by implementing new methods to rapidly publish practice points and maintain them as living advice that regularly assesses and incorporates new evidence. The overarching aim of practice points is to answer targeted key questions for which there is a timely need to synthesize evidence for decision making. The SMPC believes these methods can potentially be adapted to address various clinical and public health topics beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. This article presents an overview of the SMPC's living, rapid practice points development process, which includes a rapid systematic review, use of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method, use of stringent policies on the disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest, incorporating a public (nonclinician) perspective, and maintenance of the documents as living through ongoing surveillance and synthesis of new evidence as it emerges.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19-Related Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ among U.S. racial/ethnic groups. PURPOSE: To evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rates and COVID-19 outcomes, factors contributing to disparities, and interventions to reduce them. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, searched from inception through 31 August 2020. Gray literature sources were searched through 2 November 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, or deaths by race/ethnicity in U.S. settings. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction confirmed by a second reviewer; independent dual-reviewer assessment of quality and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: 37 mostly fair-quality cohort and cross-sectional studies, 15 mostly good-quality ecological studies, and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and APM Research Lab were included. African American/Black and Hispanic populations experience disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and COVID-19-related mortality compared with non-Hispanic White populations, but not higher case-fatality rates (mostly reported as in-hospital mortality) (moderate- to high-strength evidence). Asian populations experience similar outcomes to non-Hispanic White populations (low-strength evidence). Outcomes for other racial/ethnic groups have been insufficiently studied. Health care access and exposure factors may underlie the observed disparities more than susceptibility due to comorbid conditions (low-strength evidence). LIMITATIONS: Selection bias, missing race/ethnicity data, and incomplete outcome assessments in cohort and cross-sectional studies must be considered. In addition, adjustment for key demographic covariates was lacking in ecological studies. CONCLUSION: African American/Black and Hispanic populations experience disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related mortality but similar rates of case fatality. Differences in health care access and exposure risk may be driving higher infection and mortality rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research & Development. (PROSPERO: CRD42020187078).

Disparities in H1N1 Vaccination Rates: a Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis to Inform COVID-19 Vaccination Efforts.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that there were disparities in H1N1 vaccine uptake, and these may inform COVID-19 vaccination efforts. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate disparities in H1N1 vaccine uptake, factors contributing to disparities, and interventions to reduce them. METHODS: We searched English-language articles in MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception through May 8, 2020. Observational studies examining H1N1 vaccine uptake by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, rurality, and disability status in US settings were included. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility. Single-reviewer data abstraction was confirmed by a second reviewer. We conducted independent dual quality assessment, and collective strength of evidence assessment. RESULTS: We included 21 studies. African American/Black, Latino, and low-socioeconomic status participants had disproportionately lower H1N1 vaccination rates (low- to moderate-strength evidence). However, Latinos were more likely than Whites to intend to be vaccinated, and African American/Blacks and participants with lower-socioeconomic status were just as likely to intend to be vaccinated as their White and higher-socioeconomic status counterparts (low-strength evidence). Vaccine uptake for other groups has been insufficiently studied. Factors potentially contributing to disparities in vaccine uptake included barriers to vaccine access, inadequate information, and concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. Studies were largely cross-sectional. Many of the studies are a decade old and were conducted in the context of a different pandemic. The categorization of racial and ethnic groups was not consistent across studies and not all groups were well-studied. DISCUSSION: Efforts to avoid disparities in COVID-19 vaccination uptake should prioritize vaccine accessibility and convenience in African American/Black, Latino, and low-SES communities; engage trusted stakeholders to share vaccine information; and address concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research & Development. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020187078.

What Is the Antibody Response and Role in Conferring Natural Immunity After SARS-CoV-2 Infection? Rapid, Living Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1).

DESCRIPTION: The widespread availability of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests raises important questions for clinicians, patients, and public health professionals related to the appropriate use and interpretation of these tests. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians developed these rapid, living practice points to summarize the current and best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody durability after initial infection with SARS-CoV-2, and antibody protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The SMPC developed these rapid, living practice points based on a rapid and living systematic evidence review done by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ongoing literature surveillance is planned through December 2021. When new studies are identified and a full update of the evidence review is published, the SMPC will assess the new evidence and any effect on the practice points. PRACTICE POINT 1: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 2: Antibody tests can be useful for the purpose of estimating community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 3: Current evidence is uncertain to predict presence, level, or durability of natural immunity conferred by SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against reinfection (after SARS-CoV-2 infection).

Risks and Impact of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers on SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Adults

BACKGROUND: The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) in COVID-19 disease susceptibility, severity, and treatment is unclear. PURPOSE: To evaluate, on an ongoing basis, whether use of ACEIs or ARBs either increases risk for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection or is associated with worse COVID-19 disease outcomes, and to assess the efficacy of these medications for COVID-19 treatment. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (Ovid) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2003 to 4 May 2020, with planned ongoing surveillance for 1 year; the World Health Organization database of COVID-19 publications and medRxiv.org through 17 April 2020; and ClinicalTrials.gov to 24 April 2020, with planned ongoing surveillance. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies and trials in adults that examined associations and effects of ACEIs or ARBs on risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease severity and mortality. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction confirmed by another reviewer, independent evaluation by 2 reviewers of study quality, and collective assessment of certainty of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two retrospective cohort studies found that ACEI and ARB use was not associated with a higher likelihood of receiving a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, and 1 case-control study found no association with COVID-19 illness in a large community (moderate-certainty evidence). Fourteen observational studies, involving a total of 23 565 adults with COVID-19, showed consistent evidence that neither medication was associated with more severe COVID-19 illness (high-certainty evidence). Four registered randomized trials plan to evaluate ACEIs and ARBs for treatment of COVID-19. LIMITATION: Half the studies were small and did not adjust for important confounding variables. CONCLUSION: High-certainty evidence suggests that ACEI or ARB use is not associated with more severe COVID-19 disease, and moderate-certainty evidence suggests no association between use of these medications and positive SARS-CoV-2 test results among symptomatic patients. Whether these medications increase the risk for mild or asymptomatic disease or are beneficial in COVID-19 treatment remains uncertain. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None. (PROSPERO: registration number pending).