Risk of SARS-CoV-2 Infection and COVID-19 Severity Associated With Exposure to Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were thought to increase the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus entrance into cells. Hence, it was suggested in the media that NSAIDs could lead to a higher risk of infection and/or disease severity. To determine the existence or absence of this association, we aimed to systematically evaluate the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and mortality and the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated with previous exposure to NSAIDs. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE were searched in February 2021 for controlled studies. The results were calculated through random-effect meta-analyses and reported in terms of odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 test. Eleven studies were included, comprising a total of 683 715 patients. NSAID exposure did not increase the risk of having a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR, 0.97; 95%CI, 0.85-1.11, I2 = 24%; 5 studies). The exposure to NSAIDs did not increase the risk of severe/critical COVID-19 disease (OR, 0.92; 95%CI, 0.80-1.05; I2 = 0%; 5 studies) nor all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19 (OR, 0.86; 95%CI, 0.75-0.99; I2 = 14%, 4 studies). Our data did not suggest that exposure to NSAIDs increases the risk of having SARS-CoV-2 infection or increases the severity of COVID-19 disease. Also, the fragility of the studies included precludes definite conclusions and highlights the need for further robust data.

Analysis of clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment clinical trials: so much work, so many lost opportunities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage on, and clinical research has been promoted worldwide. We aimed to assess the clinical and methodological characteristics of treatment clinical trials that have been set forth as an early response to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: First, we reviewed all registered clinical trials on COVID-19. The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform and national trial registries were searched for COVID-19 trials through April 19th, 2020. For each record, independent researchers extracted interventions, participants, and methodological characteristics. Second, on September 14th, 2020 we evaluated the recruitment status and availability of the results of COVID-19 treatment trials previously identified. RESULTS: In April 2020, a total of 580 trials evaluating COVID-19 treatment were registered. Reporting quality was poor (core participant information was missing in 24.1 to 92.7%). Between 54.0 and 93.8% of the trials did not plan to include older people or those with a higher baseline risk. Most studies were randomised (67.9%), single-centre (58.3%), non-industry-funded (81.1%), to be conducted in China (47.6%), with a median duration of 184 days and a median sample size of 100 participants. Core endpoints (mortality, clinical status, and hospitalization length) were planned to be assessed in 5.2 to 13.1% of the trials. Five months later, 66 trials (11.4%) were reported as "Completed", and only 46 (7.9%) had public results available. One hundred forty-four of 580 trials (24.8%) either had the status "Not yet recruiting" or "Suspended", and 18 (3.1%) trials were prematurely stopped ("Terminated" or "Withdrawn") The number of completed trials and trials with results are much lower than anticipated, considering the planned follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Our results raise concerns about the success of the initial global research effort on COVID-19 treatment. The clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment trials limit their capability to produce clear answers to critical questions in the shortest possible time.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers and the risk of COVID-19 infection or severe disease: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Animal studies suggested that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) facilitate the inoculation of potentially leading to a higher risk of infection and/or disease severity. We aimed to systematically evaluate the risk of COVID-19 infection and the risk of severe COVID-19 disease associated with previous exposure to (ACEi) and/or ARB). METHODS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection were searched in June 2020 for controlled studies. Eligible studies were included and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. The estimates were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 test. The confidence in the pooled evidence was appraised using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included in the review. ACEi/ARB exposure did not increase the risk of having a positive test for COVID-19 infection (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.89-1.11; I2 = 36%; 5 studies, GRADE confidence moderate). The exposure to ACEi/ARB did not increase the risk of all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19 (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.74-1.11; I2 = 20%; 17 studies; GRADE confidence low) nor severe/critical COVID-19 disease (OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.74-1.11; I2 = 55%; 17 studies; GRADE confidence very low). Exploratory analyses in studies enrolling hypertensive patients showed a association of ACEi/ARB with a significant decrease of mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: ACEi/ARB exposure does not seem to increase the risk of having the SARS-CoV-2 infection or developing severe stages of the disease including mortality. The potential benefits observed in mortality of hypertensive patients reassure safety, but robust studies are required to increase the confidence in the results.