Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 35
Filter
1.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(5): e36261, 2022 05 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1862513

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The LOVIT (Lessening Organ Dysfunction with Vitamin C) trial is a blinded multicenter randomized clinical trial comparing high-dose intravenous vitamin C to placebo in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with proven or suspected infection as the main diagnosis and receiving a vasopressor. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a prespecified statistical analysis plan (SAP) for the LOVIT trial prior to unblinding and locking of the trial database. METHODS: The SAP was designed by the LOVIT principal investigators and statisticians, and approved by the steering committee and coinvestigators. The SAP defines the primary and secondary outcomes, and describes the planned primary, secondary, and subgroup analyses. RESULTS: The SAP includes a draft participant flow diagram, tables, and planned figures. The primary outcome is a composite of mortality and persistent organ dysfunction (receipt of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or new renal replacement therapy) at 28 days, where day 1 is the day of randomization. All analyses will use a frequentist statistical framework. The analysis of the primary outcome will estimate the risk ratio and 95% CI in a generalized linear mixed model with binomial distribution and log link, with site as a random effect. We will perform a secondary analysis adjusting for prespecified baseline clinical variables. Subgroup analyses will include age, sex, frailty, severity of illness, Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock, baseline ascorbic acid level, and COVID-19 status. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an SAP for the LOVIT trial and will adhere to it in the analysis phase. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/36261.

2.
Crit Care Med ; 2022 May 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1860941

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are associated with improved outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to sex and to report sex-related differences in renin-angiotensin system (RAS) components. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study comparing the effects of ARB or ACE inhibitors versus no ARBs or ACE inhibitors in males versus females. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 downregulates ACE-2, potentially increasing angiotensin II (a pro-inflammatory vasoconstrictor). Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may explain sex-based differences in responses to ARBs because the ACE2 gene is on the X chromosome. We recorded baseline characteristics, comorbidities, prehospital ARBs or ACE inhibitor treatment, use of organ support and mortality, and measured RAS components at admission and days 2, 4, 7, and 14 in a subgroup (n = 46), recorded d-dimer (n = 967), comparing males with females. SETTING: ARBs CORONA I is a multicenter Canadian observational cohort of patients hospitalized with acute COVID-19. This analysis includes patients admitted to 10 large urban hospitals across the four most populated provinces. PATIENTS: One-thousand six-hundred eighty-six patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 (February 2020 to March 2021) for acute COVID-19 illness were included. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Males on ARBs before admission had decreased use of ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.52; p = 0.007) and vasopressors (aOR = 0.55; p = 0.011) compared with males not on ARBs or ACE inhibitors. No significant effects were observed in females for these outcomes. The test for interaction was significant for use of ventilation (p = 0.006) and vasopressors (p = 0.044) indicating significantly different responses to ARBs according to sex. Males had significantly higher plasma ACE-1 at baseline and angiotensin II at day 7 and 14 than females. CONCLUSIONS: ARBs use was associated with less ventilation and vasopressors in males but not females. Sex-based differences in RAS dysregulation may contribute to sex-based differences in outcomes and responses to ARBs in COVID-19.

3.
JAMA ; 327(13): 1247-1259, 2022 04 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1801957

ABSTRACT

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Critical Illness , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors , Venous Thromboembolism , Adult , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Aspirin/adverse effects , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/adverse effects , Purinergic P2Y Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Respiration, Artificial , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology
4.
CMAJ Open ; 10(2): E379-E389, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1798679

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: There have been multiple waves in the COVID-19 pandemic in many countries. We sought to compare mortality and respiratory, cardiovascular and renal dysfunction between waves in 3 Canadian provinces. METHODS: We conducted a substudy of the ARBs CORONA I study, a multicentre Canadian pragmatic observational cohort study that examined the association of pre-existing use of angiotensin receptor blockers with outcomes in adults admitted to hospital with acute COVID-19 up to April 2021 from 9 community and teaching hospitals in 3 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec). We excluded emergency department admissions without hospital admission, readmissions and admissions for another reason. We used logistic and 0-1-inflated ß regression models to compare 28-day and in-hospital mortality, and the use of invasive mechanical ventilation, vasopressors and renal replacement therapy (RRT) between the first 3 waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in these provinces. RESULTS: A total of 520, 572 and 245 patients in waves 1, 2 and 3, respectively, were included. Patients in wave 3 were on average younger and had fewer comorbidities than those in waves 1 and 2. The unadjusted 28-day mortality rate was significantly lower in wave 3 (7.8%) than in wave 1 (18.3%) (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.78) and wave 2 (16.3%) (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27-0.79). After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, the difference in 28-day mortality remained significant (adjusted OR wave 3 v. wave 1: 0.46, 95% CI 0.26-0.81; wave 3 v. wave 2: 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.91). In-hospital mortality findings were similar. Use of invasive mechanical ventilation or vasopressors was less common in waves 2 and 3 than in wave 1, and use of RRT was less common in wave 3 than in wave 1. INTERPRETATION: Severity of illness decreased (lower mortality and less use of organ support) across waves among patients admitted to hospital with acute COVID-19, possibly owing to changes in patient demographic characteristics and management, such as increased use of dexamethasone. Continued application of proven therapies may further improve outcomes. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04510623.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors , British Columbia , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Hospitals , Humans , Multiple Organ Failure , Ontario , Quebec/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
5.
EuropePMC; 2022.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-333040

ABSTRACT

Rationale: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted non-COVID critical care trials globally as intensive care units (ICUs) prioritized patient care and COVID-specific research. The international randomized controlled trial CYCLE (Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength) was forced to halt recruitment at all sites in March 2020, creating immediate challenges. We applied the CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstance) guidance to report the impact of the pandemic on CYCLE and describe our mitigation approaches. Methods On March 23, 2020, the CYCLE Methods Centre distributed a standardized email to determine the number of patients still in-hospital and those requiring imminent 90-day endpoint assessments. We assessed protocol fidelity by documenting attempts to provide the in-hospital randomized intervention (cycling or routine physiotherapy), collect the primary outcome (physical function 3-days post-ICU discharge), and 90-day outcomes. We advised sites to prioritize data for the study’s primary outcome. We sought feedback on pandemic barriers related to trial procedures. Results As of March 17, 2020, 197 patients (of 360 planned) had been randomized;26 (13.2%) remained in hospital or were pending 90-day assessments. From 15 active sites (12 Canada, 2 US, 1 Australia), we identified 5 patients still receiving the study intervention in ICUs, 6 requiring primary outcomes, and 17 requiring 90-day assessments. All ICU interventions (5/5, 100%), 5/6 (83%) of primary outcomes, and all (17/17, 100%) 90-day assessments were attempted. Out of the 6 primary outcomes, one site was unable to attempt due to a temporary institutional ban on direct patient contact for non-COVID research, 2 were attempted but not completed due to reasons unrelated to the pandemic, and 3 were completed. Our main mitigation strategies included identifying patients at risk for protocol deviations, communicating early and frequently with sites, monitoring patient progress, data entry, and validation, and providing guidance for conducting some research activities remotely. Conclusions We retained all enrolled patients with minimal missing data using several time-sensitive strategies. Although CONSERVE recommends reporting only major modifications incurred by extenuating circumstances, we suggest that there are other benefits to reporting mitigation strategies with the goal of improving research transparency and trial management. Trial Registration: NCT03471247

6.
CMAJ ; 194(7): E242-E251, 2022 02 22.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1714791

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of patients in hospital with COVID-19 remains ill defined in a global context. The World Health Organization Solidarity randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluated remdesivir in patients across many countries, with Canada enrolling patients using an expanded data collection format in the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) trial. We report on the Canadian findings, with additional demographics, characteristics and clinical outcomes, to explore the potential for differential effects across different health care systems. METHODS: We performed an open-label, pragmatic RCT in Canadian hospitals, in conjunction with the Solidarity trial. We randomized patients to 10 days of remdesivir (200 mg intravenously [IV] on day 0, followed by 100 mg IV daily), plus standard care, or standard care alone. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical severity, oxygen- and ventilator-free days (at 28 d), incidence of new oxygen or mechanical ventilation use, duration of hospital stay, and adverse event rates. We performed a priori subgroup analyses according to duration of symptoms before enrolment, age, sex and severity of symptoms on presentation. RESULTS: Across 52 Canadian hospitals, we randomized 1282 patients between Aug. 14, 2020, and Apr. 1, 2021, to remdesivir (n = 634) or standard of care (n = 648). Of these, 15 withdrew consent or were still in hospital, for a total sample of 1267 patients. Among patients assigned to receive remdesivir, in-hospital mortality was 18.7%, compared with 22.6% in the standard-of-care arm (relative risk [RR] 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.03), and 60-day mortality was 24.8% and 28.2%, respectively (95% CI 0.72 to 1.07). For patients not mechanically ventilated at baseline, the need for mechanical ventilation was 8.0% in those assigned remdesivir, and 15.0% in those receiving standard of care (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.75). Mean oxygen-free and ventilator-free days at day 28 were 15.9 (± standard deviation [SD] 10.5) and 21.4 (± SD 11.3) in those receiving remdesivir and 14.2 (± SD 11) and 19.5 (± SD 12.3) in those receiving standard of care (p = 0.006 and 0.007, respectively). There was no difference in safety events of new dialysis, change in creatinine, or new hepatic dysfunction between the 2 groups. INTERPRETATION: Remdesivir, when compared with standard of care, has a modest but significant effect on outcomes important to patients and health systems, such as the need for mechanical ventilation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT04330690.


Subject(s)
Adenosine Monophosphate/analogs & derivatives , Alanine/analogs & derivatives , Antiviral Agents/administration & dosage , COVID-19/drug therapy , Hospital Mortality , Length of Stay/statistics & numerical data , Adenosine Monophosphate/administration & dosage , Adenosine Monophosphate/adverse effects , Aged , Alanine/administration & dosage , Alanine/adverse effects , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/mortality , Canada/epidemiology , Comorbidity , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , SARS-CoV-2
7.
ERJ Open Res ; 8(1)2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1690978

ABSTRACT

Due to the large number of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), many were treated outside the traditional walls of the intensive care unit (ICU), and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium World Health Organization COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or noninvasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes or vasopressors. A logistic generalised additive model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted or not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median (interquartile range (IQR), 67 (55-78) years), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 (5-19) days and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those who were cared for outside the ICU (12 (6-23) days versus 8 (4-15) days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% (5797 out of 18 831) versus 39.0% (7532 out of 19 295), p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.65-0.75; p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside an ICU.

8.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-307500

ABSTRACT

SARS-CoV-2 enters cells by binding to angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), and COVID-19 infection may therefore induce changes in the renin-angiotensin system (RAS). To determine the effects of COVID-19 on plasma RAS components, we measured plasma ACE, ACE2, and angiotensins I, (1-7), and II in 46 adults with COVID-19 at hospital admission and on days 2, 4, 7 and 14, compared to 50 blood donors (controls). We compared survivors vs. non-survivors, males vs. females, ventilated vs. not ventilated, and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-exposed vs. not exposed. At admission, COVID-19 patients had higher plasma levels of ACE (p=0.012), ACE2 (p=0.001) and angiotensin-(1-7) (p<0.001) than controls. Plasma ACE and ACE2 remained elevated for 14 days in COVID-19 patients, while plasma angiotensin-(1-7) decreased after 7 days. In adjusted analyses, plasma ACE was higher in males vs. females (p=0.042), and plasma angiotensin I was significantly lower in ventilated vs. non-ventilated patients (p=0.001). In summary, plasma ACE and ACE2 are increased for at least 14 days in patients with COVID-19 infection. Angiotensin-(1-7) levels are also elevated, but decline after 7 days. The results indicate dysregulation of the RAS with COVID-19, with increased circulating ACE2 throughout the course of infection. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ Unique Identifier: NCT04510623

9.
J Proteome Res ; 21(4): 975-992, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1683912

ABSTRACT

The host response to COVID-19 pathophysiology over the first few days of infection remains largely unclear, especially the mechanisms in the blood compartment. We report on a longitudinal proteomic analysis of acute-phase COVID-19 patients, for which we used blood plasma, multiple reaction monitoring with internal standards, and data-independent acquisition. We measured samples on admission for 49 patients, of which 21 had additional samples on days 2, 4, 7, and 14 after admission. We also measured 30 externally obtained samples from healthy individuals for comparison at baseline. The 31 proteins differentiated in abundance between acute COVID-19 patients and healthy controls belonged to acute inflammatory response, complement activation, regulation of inflammatory response, and regulation of protein activation cascade. The longitudinal analysis showed distinct profiles revealing increased levels of multiple lipid-associated functions, a rapid decrease followed by recovery for complement activation, humoral immune response, and acute inflammatory response-related proteins, and level fluctuation in the regulation of smooth muscle cell proliferation, secretory mechanisms, and platelet degranulation. Three proteins were differentiated between survivors and nonsurvivors. Finally, increased levels of fructose-bisphosphate aldolase B were determined in patients with exposure to angiotensin receptor blockers versus decreased levels in those exposed to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Data are available via ProteomeXchange PXD029437.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Biomarkers , Humans , Plasma , Proteomics , Retrospective Studies
10.
ERJ open research ; 2021.
Article in English | EuropePMC | ID: covidwho-1610380

ABSTRACT

Due to the large number of patients with severe COVID-19, many were treated outside of the traditional walls of the ICU, and in many cases, by personnel who were not trained in critical care. The clinical characteristics and the relative impact of caring for severe COVID-19 patients outside of the ICU is unknown. This was a multinational, multicentre, prospective cohort study embedded in the ISARIC WHO COVID-19 platform. Severe COVID-19 patients were identified as those admitted to an ICU and/or those treated with one of the following treatments: invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, inotropes, and vasopressors. A logistic Generalised Additive Model was used to compare clinical outcomes among patients admitted and not to the ICU. A total of 40 440 patients from 43 countries and six continents were included in this analysis. Severe COVID-19 patients were frequently male (62.9%), older adults (median [IQR], 67 years [55, 78]), and with at least one comorbidity (63.2%). The overall median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 10 days (5–19) and was longer in patients admitted to an ICU than in those that were cared for outside of ICU (12 [6–23] versus 8 [4–15] days, p<0.0001). The 28-day fatality ratio was lower in ICU-admitted patients (30.7% [5797/18831] versus 39.0% [7532/19295], p<0.0001). Patients admitted to an ICU had a significantly lower probability of death than those who were not (adjusted OR:0.70, 95%CI: 0.65-0.75, p<0.0001). Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to an ICU had significantly lower 28-day fatality ratio than those cared for outside of an ICU.

11.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 11(1): e33989, 2022 Jan 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573631

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe infections are characterized by inflammation and oxidative damage. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) administration may attenuate oxidative damage and, in turn, reduce vascular endothelial injury in pulmonary and systemic vasculature. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a protocol for a living systematic review that will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parenteral vitamin C administration in adults with severe infections, including those with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 30, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating parenteral vitamin C versus no parenteral vitamin C in hospitalized adults with severe infection. Eligible studies will include at least 1 arm involving any dose of parenteral vitamin C alone or in combination with other cointerventions and at least 1 arm not involving parenteral vitamin C. The primary outcomes of interest will include in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation via a modified Risk of Bias 2.0 tool will be conducted independently and in pairs. We will perform random effects modeling for meta-analyses, in which study weights will be generated by using the inverse variance method. We will assess certainty in effect estimates by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses will be updated iteratively as new trial evidence becomes available. RESULTS: Among the 1386 citations identified as of March 30, 2021, a total of 17 eligible randomized controlled trials have been identified as of September 2021. We are in the process of updating the search strategy and associated data analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results will be of importance to critical care physicians and hospitalists who manage severe infection and COVID-19 in daily practice, and they may directly inform international clinical guidance. Although our systematic review will incorporate the most recent trial evidence, ongoing trials may change our confidence in the estimates of effects, thereby necessitating iterative updates in the form of a living review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020209187; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=209187. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/33989.

12.
Can J Anaesth ; 67(9): 1217-1248, 2020 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1536371

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We conducted two World Health Organization-commissioned reviews to inform use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) in patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). We synthesized the evidence regarding efficacy and safety (review 1), as well as risks of droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, and associated transmission (review 2) of viral products. SOURCE: Literature searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Chinese databases, and medRxiv. Review 1: we synthesized results from randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) in critically ill patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Review 2: we narratively summarized findings from studies evaluating droplet dispersion, aerosol generation, or infection transmission associated with HFNC. For both reviews, paired reviewers independently conducted screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE methodology. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No eligible studies included COVID-19 patients. Review 1: 12 RCTs (n = 1,989 patients) provided low-certainty evidence that HFNC may reduce invasive ventilation (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.99) and escalation of oxygen therapy (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98) in patients with respiratory failure. Results provided no support for differences in mortality (moderate certainty), or in-hospital or intensive care length of stay (moderate and low certainty, respectively). Review 2: four studies evaluating droplet dispersion and three evaluating aerosol generation and dispersion provided very low certainty evidence. Two simulation studies and a crossover study showed mixed findings regarding the effect of HFNC on droplet dispersion. Although two simulation studies reported no associated increase in aerosol dispersion, one reported that higher flow rates were associated with increased regions of aerosol density. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula may reduce the need for invasive ventilation and escalation of therapy compared with COT in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. This benefit must be balanced against the unknown risk of airborne transmission.


RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons réalisé deux comptes rendus sur commande de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé pour guider l'utilisation de canules nasales à haut débit (CNHD) chez les patients ayant contracté le coronavirus (COVID-19). Nous avons synthétisé les données probantes concernant leur efficacité et leur innocuité (compte rendu 1), ainsi que les risques de dispersion des gouttelettes, de génération d'aérosols, et de transmission associée d'éléments viraux (compte rendu 2). SOURCE: Des recherches de littérature ont été réalisées dans les bases de données Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, ainsi que dans les bases de données chinoises et medRxiv. Compte rendu 1 : nous avons synthétisé les résultats d'études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) comparant les CNHD à une oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez des patients en état critique atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Compte rendu 2 : nous avons résumé sous forme narrative les constatations d'études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes, la génération d'aérosols ou la transmission infectieuse associées aux CNHD. Pour les deux comptes rendus, des réviseurs appariés ont réalisé la sélection des études, l'extraction des données et l'évaluation du risque de biais de manière indépendante. Nous avons évalué la certitude des données probantes en nous fondant sur la méthodologie GRADE. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Aucune étude éligible n'incluait de patients atteints de COVID-19. Compte rendu 1 : 12 ERC (n = 1989 patients) ont fourni des données probantes de certitude faible selon lesquelles les CNHD réduiraient la ventilation invasive (risque relatif [RR], 0,85; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,74 à 0,99) et l'intensification de l'oxygénothérapie (RR, 0,71; IC 95 %, 0,51 à 0,98) chez les patients atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire. Les résultats n'ont pas démontré de différences en matière de mortalité (certitude modérée), ni de durée du séjour hospitalier ou à l'unité des soins intensifs (certitude modérée et faible, respectivement). Compte rendu 2 : quatre études évaluant la dispersion de gouttelettes et trois évaluant la génération et la dispersion d'aérosols ont fourni des données probantes de très faible certitude. Deux études de simulation et une étude croisée ont donné des résultats mitigés quant à l'effet des CNHD sur la dispersion des gouttelettes. Bien que deux études de simulation n'aient rapporté aucune augmentation associée concernant la dispersion d'aérosols, l'une a rapporté que des taux de débit plus élevés étaient associés à des régions à densité d'aérosols élevée plus grandes. CONCLUSION: Les canules nasales à haut débit pourraient réduire la nécessité de recourir à la ventilation invasive et l'escalade des traitements par rapport à l'oxygénothérapie conventionnelle chez les patients atteints de COVID-19 souffrant d'insuffisance respiratoire hypoxémique aiguë. Cet avantage doit être soupesé contre le risque inconnu de transmission atmosphérique.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aerosols , COVID-19 , Cannula , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/mortality , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/mortality , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology
13.
JAMA ; 326(17): 1690-1702, 2021 Nov 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1525402

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: The evidence for benefit of convalescent plasma for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is inconclusive. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether convalescent plasma would improve outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The ongoing Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial, Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia (REMAP-CAP) enrolled and randomized 4763 adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 between March 9, 2020, and January 18, 2021, within at least 1 domain; 2011 critically ill adults were randomized to open-label interventions in the immunoglobulin domain at 129 sites in 4 countries. Follow-up ended on April 19, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: The immunoglobulin domain randomized participants to receive 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma (total volume of 550 mL ± 150 mL) within 48 hours of randomization (n = 1084) or no convalescent plasma (n = 916). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary ordinal end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based organ support) up to day 21 (range, -1 to 21 days; patients who died were assigned -1 day). The primary analysis was an adjusted bayesian cumulative logistic model. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Futility was defined as the posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 (threshold for trial conclusion of futility >95%). An OR greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. The prespecified secondary outcomes included in-hospital survival; 28-day survival; 90-day survival; respiratory support-free days; cardiovascular support-free days; progression to invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal mechanical oxygenation, or death; intensive care unit length of stay; hospital length of stay; World Health Organization ordinal scale score at day 14; venous thromboembolic events at 90 days; and serious adverse events. RESULTS: Among the 2011 participants who were randomized (median age, 61 [IQR, 52 to 70] years and 645/1998 [32.3%] women), 1990 (99%) completed the trial. The convalescent plasma intervention was stopped after the prespecified criterion for futility was met. The median number of organ support-free days was 0 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the convalescent plasma group and 3 (IQR, -1 to 16) in the no convalescent plasma group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 37.3% (401/1075) for the convalescent plasma group and 38.4% (347/904) for the no convalescent plasma group and the median number of days alive and free of organ support was 14 (IQR, 3 to 18) and 14 (IQR, 7 to 18), respectively. The median-adjusted OR was 0.97 (95% credible interval, 0.83 to 1.15) and the posterior probability of futility (OR <1.2) was 99.4% for the convalescent plasma group compared with the no convalescent plasma group. The treatment effects were consistent across the primary outcome and the 11 secondary outcomes. Serious adverse events were reported in 3.0% (32/1075) of participants in the convalescent plasma group and in 1.3% (12/905) of participants in the no convalescent plasma group. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill adults with confirmed COVID-19, treatment with 2 units of high-titer, ABO-compatible convalescent plasma had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , ABO Blood-Group System , Adult , Aged , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Length of Stay , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Failure , Vasoconstrictor Agents/therapeutic use
14.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 139: 68-79, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1466592

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of Covid-19 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the association between trial characteristics and the likelihood of finding a significant effect. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review to identify RCTs (up to October 21, 2020) evaluating drugs or blood products to treat or prevent Covid-19. We extracted trial characteristics (number of centers, funding sources, and sample size) and assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. We performed logistic regressions to evaluate the association between RoB due to randomization, single vs. multicentre, funding source, and sample size, and finding a statistically significant effect. RESULTS: We included 91 RCTs (n = 46,802); 40 (44%) were single-center, 23 (25.3%) enrolled <50 patients, 28 (30.8%) received industry funding, and 75 (82.4%) had high or probably high RoB. Thirty-eight trials (41.8%) reported a statistically significant effect. RoB due to randomization and being a single-center trial were associated with increased odds of finding a statistically significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: There is high variability in RoB among Covid-19 trials. Researchers, funders, and knowledge-users should be cognizant of the impact of RoB due to randomization and single-center trial status in designing, evaluating, and interpreting the results of RCTs. REGISTRATION: CRD42020192095.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/prevention & control , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Research Design/standards , COVID-19/epidemiology , Epidemiologic Studies , Humans
15.
BMJ ; 374: n2231, 2021 09 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1438073

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of antiviral antibody therapies and blood products for the treatment of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis, with pairwise meta-analysis for outcomes with insufficient data. DATA SOURCES: WHO covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and six Chinese databases (up to 21 July 2021). STUDY SELECTION: Trials randomising people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 to antiviral antibody therapies, blood products, or standard care or placebo. Paired reviewers determined eligibility of trials independently and in duplicate. METHODS: After duplicate data abstraction, we performed random effects bayesian meta-analysis, including network meta-analysis for outcomes with sufficient data. We assessed risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. We meta-analysed interventions with ≥100 patients randomised or ≥20 events per treatment arm. RESULTS: As of 21 July 2021, we identified 47 trials evaluating convalescent plasma (21 trials), intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) (5 trials), umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cells (5 trials), bamlanivimab (4 trials), casirivimab-imdevimab (4 trials), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (2 trials), control plasma (2 trials), peripheral blood non-haematopoietic enriched stem cells (2 trials), sotrovimab (1 trial), anti-SARS-CoV-2 IVIg (1 trial), therapeutic plasma exchange (1 trial), XAV-19 polyclonal antibody (1 trial), CT-P59 monoclonal antibody (1 trial) and INM005 polyclonal antibody (1 trial) for the treatment of covid-19. Patients with non-severe disease randomised to antiviral monoclonal antibodies had lower risk of hospitalisation than those who received placebo: casirivimab-imdevimab (odds ratio (OR) 0.29 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.47); risk difference (RD) -4.2%; moderate certainty), bamlanivimab (OR 0.24 (0.06 to 0.86); RD -4.1%; low certainty), bamlanivimab-etesevimab (OR 0.31 (0.11 to 0.81); RD -3.8%; low certainty), and sotrovimab (OR 0.17 (0.04 to 0.57); RD -4.8%; low certainty). They did not have an important impact on any other outcome. There was no notable difference between monoclonal antibodies. No other intervention had any meaningful effect on any outcome in patients with non-severe covid-19. No intervention, including antiviral antibodies, had an important impact on any outcome in patients with severe or critical covid-19, except casirivimab-imdevimab, which may reduce mortality in patients who are seronegative. CONCLUSION: In patients with non-severe covid-19, casirivimab-imdevimab probably reduces hospitalisation; bamlanivimab-etesevimab, bamlanivimab, and sotrovimab may reduce hospitalisation. Convalescent plasma, IVIg, and other antibody and cellular interventions may not confer any meaningful benefit. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a data supplement. FUNDING: This study was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant CIHR- IRSC:0579001321). READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Interim updates and additional study data will be posted on our website (www.covid19lnma.com).


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Viral/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Cell- and Tissue-Based Therapy/methods , SARS-CoV-2/immunology , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/immunology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Humans , Immunization, Passive , Network Meta-Analysis , Treatment Outcome
16.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 867-886, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305144

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ritonavir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Drug Combinations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
17.
J Med Case Rep ; 15(1): 297, 2021 May 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1238733

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: High-dose vitamin C is increasingly used for sepsis and more recently for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections. Proponents argue that the low cost and near perfect safety profile of vitamin C support its early adoption. Yet, adverse events might be underreported and underappreciated. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a 73-year-old non-diabetic white man with end-stage renal disease on peritoneal dialysis admitted to the intensive care unit with septic shock that was suspected to be due to peritonitis. The patient was enrolled in LOVIT (Lessening Organ Dysfunction with VITamin C; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03680274), a randomized placebo-controlled trial of high-dose intravenous vitamin C. He developed factitious hyperglycemia, as measured with a point-of-care glucometer, that persisted for 6 days after discontinuation of the study drug, confirmed to be vitamin C after unblinding. He also had short-lived iatrogenic coma because of hypoglycemia secondary to insulin administration. These events triggered a protocol amendment. CONCLUSIONS: Although factitious hyperglycemia has been reported before using certain glucometers in patients treated with high-dose vitamin C, the persistence of this phenomenon for 6 days after the discontinuation of the therapy is a distinguishing feature. This case highlights the importance of monitoring glucose with a core laboratory assay for up to a week in specific populations, such as patients on peritoneal dialysis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Hyperglycemia , Peritoneal Dialysis , Aged , Humans , Hyperglycemia/chemically induced , Male , Peritoneal Dialysis/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2 , Vitamins
18.
BMJ ; 373: n949, 2021 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1203960

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the effects of drug prophylaxis on SARS-CoV-2 infection and covid-19. DESIGN: Living systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature to 25 March 2021, and six additional Chinese databases to 20 February 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised trials of people at risk of covid-19 who were assigned to receive prophylaxis or no prophylaxis (standard care or placebo). Pairs of reviewers independently screened potentially eligible articles. METHODS: Random effects bayesian network meta-analysis was performed after duplicate data abstraction. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modification of the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: The first iteration of this living network meta-analysis includes nine randomised trials-six of hydroxychloroquine (n=6059 participants), one of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan (n=234), and two of ivermectin alone (n=540), all compared with standard care or placebo. Two trials (one of ramipril and one of bromhexine hydrochloride) did not meet the sample size requirements for network meta-analysis. Hydroxychloroquine has trivial to no effect on admission to hospital (risk difference 1 fewer per 1000 participants, 95% credible interval 3 fewer to 4 more; high certainty evidence) or mortality (1 fewer per 1000, 2 fewer to 3 more; high certainty). Hydroxychloroquine probably does not reduce the risk of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (2 more per 1000, 18 fewer to 28 more; moderate certainty), probably increases adverse effects leading to drug discontinuation (19 more per 1000, 1 fewer to 70 more; moderate certainty), and may have trivial to no effect on suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 fewer per 1000, 64 fewer to 41 more; low certainty). Owing to serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, and thus very low certainty of evidence, the effects of ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan on laboratory confirmed covid-19 (52 fewer per 1000, 58 fewer to 37 fewer), ivermectin alone on laboratory confirmed infection (50 fewer per 1000, 59 fewer to 16 fewer) and suspected, probable, or laboratory confirmed infection (159 fewer per 1000, 165 fewer to 144 fewer) remain very uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis has trivial to no effect on hospital admission and mortality, probably increases adverse effects, and probably does not reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Because of serious risk of bias and very serious imprecision, it is highly uncertain whether ivermectin combined with iota-carrageenan and ivermectin alone reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review was not registered. The protocol established a priori is included as a supplement. READERS' NOTE: This article is a living systematic review that will be updated to reflect emerging evidence. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Carrageenan/pharmacology , Global Health/statistics & numerical data , Hydroxychloroquine/pharmacology , Ivermectin/pharmacology , Anti-Infective Agents/pharmacology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Chemoprevention/methods , Chemoprevention/statistics & numerical data , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Uncertainty
19.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(5): 521-537, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1193132

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Corticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS. METHODS: The protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality. RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2-12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course. CONCLUSION: The use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , Adult , Humans , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , SARS-CoV-2
20.
CJC Open ; 3(7): 965-975, 2021 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1174145

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and/or angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors could alter mortality from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but existing meta-analyses that combined crude and adjusted results may be confounded by the fact that comorbidities are more common in ARB/ACE inhibitor users. METHODS: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE/Embase for cohort studies and meta-analyses reporting mortality by preexisting ARB/ACE inhibitor treatment in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. Random effects meta-regression was used to compute pooled odds ratios for mortality adjusted for imbalance in age, sex, and prevalence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease between users and nonusers of ARBs/ACE inhibitors at the study level during data synthesis. RESULTS: In 30 included studies of 17,281 patients, 22%, 68%, 25%, and 11% had cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and chronic kidney disease. ARB/ACE inhibitor use was associated with significantly lower mortality after controlling for potential confounding factors (odds ratio 0.77 [95% confidence interval: 0.62, 0.96]). In contrast, meta-analysis of ARB/ACE inhibitor use was not significantly associated with mortality when all studies were combined with no adjustment made for confounders (0.87 [95% confidence interval: 0.71, 1.08]). CONCLUSIONS: ARB/ACE inhibitor use was associated with decreased mortality in cohorts of COVID-19 patients after adjusting for age, sex, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. Unadjusted meta-analyses may not be appropriate for determining whether ARBs/ACE inhibitors are associated with mortality from COVID-19 because of indication bias.


INTRODUCTION: Les antagonistes des récepteurs de l'angiotensine (ARA) et/ou les inhibiteurs de l'enzyme de conversion de l'angiotensine (IECA) feraient varier la mortalité liée à la COVID-19, mais il est possible que les méta-analyses actuelles qui combinaient les résultats bruts et ajustés soient invalidées du fait que les comorbidités sont plus fréquentes chez les utilisateurs d'ARA/IECA. MÉTHODES: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données PubMed/MEDLINE/Embase pour trouver des études de cohorte et des méta-analyses qui portent sur la mortalité associée à un traitement préexistant par ARA/IECA chez les patients hospitalisés atteints de la COVID-19. Nous avons utilisé la métarégression à effets aléatoires pour calculer les rapports de cotes regroupés de mortalité ajustés en fonction du déséquilibre de l'âge, du sexe, et de la prévalence des maladies cardiovasculaires, de l'hypertension, du diabète sucré et de l'insuffisance rénale chronique entre les utilisateurs et les non-utilisateurs d'ARA/IECA dans le cadre de l'étude durant la synthèse des données. RÉSULTATS: Dans les 30 études portant sur 17 281 patients, 22 %, 68 %, 25 % et 11 % avaient respectivement une maladie cardiovasculaire, de l'hypertension, le diabète sucré et de l'insuffisance rénale chronique. L'utilisation des ARA/IECA a été associée à une mortalité significativement plus faible après avoir tenu compte des facteurs confusionnels potentiels (rapport de cotes 0,77 [intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 0,62, 0,96]). En revanche, la méta-analyse sur l'utilisation des ARA/IECA n'a pas été associée de façon significative à la mortalité lorsque toutes les études ont été combinées sans ajustement sur les facteurs confusionnels (0,87 [intervalle de confiance à 95 % : 0,71, 1,08]). CONCLUSIONS: L'utilisation des ARA/IECA a été associée à la diminution de la mortalité au sein des cohortes de patients atteints de la COVID-19 après l'ajustement en fonction de l'âge, du sexe, des maladies cardiovasculaires, de l'hypertension, du diabète et de l'insuffisance rénale chronique. Les méta-analyses non ajustées peuvent ne pas permettre de déterminer si les ARA/IECA sont associés à la mortalité liée à la COVID-19 en raison du biais d'indication.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL