Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 12 de 12
Filter
1.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract ; 2022 Jan 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1620780

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: In addition to their proinflammatory effect, eosinophils have anti-viral properties. Similarly, inhaled corticosteroids (iCS) were found to suppress coronavirus replication in-vitro and were associated with improved outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). However, the interplay between the two and its effect on COVID-19 needs further evaluation. OBJECTIVE: Determine the association between pre-existing blood absolute eosinophil counts (AEC), iCS and COVID-19-related outcomes. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Cleveland Clinic COVID-19 Research Registry (April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021). Of the 82,096 individuals who tested positive, 46,397 had blood differential cell counts obtained before SARS-CoV-2 testing dates. Our endpoints included need for hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and in-hospital mortality. The effect of eosinophilia on outcomes was estimated after propensity weighting and adjustment. RESULTS: Of the 46,397 patients included in the final analyses, 19,506 had pre-existing eosinophilia (>0.15 x103 cells/µL), 5,011 received iCS, 9,096 (19.6%) were hospitalized, 2,129 (4.6%) required ICU admission, and 1,402 (3.0%) died during index hospitalization. Adjusted analysis associated eosinophilia with lower odds for hospitalization (OR [95% CI]: 0.86 [0.79; 0.93]), ICU admission (OR [95% CI]: 0.79 [0.69; 0.90]), and mortality (OR [95% CI]: 0.80 [0.68; 0.95]) among iCS-treated, but not in untreated patients. The correlation between AEC and the estimated probability of hospitalization, ICU admission and death was non-linear (U-shaped) among patients not treated with iCS, and negative in treated patients. CONCLUSION: The association between eosinophilia and improved COVID-19 outcomes depends on iCS. Future randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the role of iCS and its interaction with eosinophilia in COVID-19 therapy.

2.
J Urol ; 207(1): 183-189, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612716

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has a disproportionately severe effect on men, suggesting that the androgen pathway plays a role in the disease. Studies on the effect of castration and androgen receptor blockade have been mixed, while 5α-reductase inhibitor (5ARI) use in men with COVID-19 (2019 novel coronavirus) have shown potential benefits. We assessed the association of 5ARI use on risk of community acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60,474 males in a prospective registry of people tested for SARS-CoV-2 between March 8, 2020 and February 15, 2021 were included. Using a matched cohort design, men using 5ARIs were matched 1:1 to non5ARI users. Independent analysis using unconditional multivariable logistic regression on the entire unmatched data set was completed for validation. Primary outcome measures were the association of 5ARI use on rates of SARS-Cov-2 positivity and disease severity. RESULTS: Of the men 1,079 (1.8%) reported 5ARI use and 55,100 were available for matching. The final matched cohorts included 944 men each. Mean duration of use was 60.4 months (IQR 17-84 months). Absolute risk for infection was significantly lower in 5ARI users compared to nonusers, 42.3% (399/944) vs 47.2% (446/944), respectively (absolute risk reduction [ARR] 4.9%, OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.97, p=0.026). Unconditional multivariable logistic regression analysis of the entire study cohort of 55,100 men confirmed the protective association of 5ARI use (ARR 5.3%, OR=0.877, 95% CI 0.774-0.995, p=0.042). Use of 5ARIs was not associated with disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Use of 5ARIs in men without prostate cancer was associated with a reduction in community acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , COVID-19/prevention & control , Cohort Studies , Humans , Male , Registries , SARS-CoV-2
3.
JAMA Surg ; 2021 Dec 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1591201

ABSTRACT

Importance: Obesity is an established risk factor for severe COVID-19 infection. However, it is not known whether losing weight is associated with reduced adverse outcomes of COVID-19 infection. Objective: To investigate the association between a successful weight loss intervention and improved risk and severity of COVID-19 infection in patients with obesity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study involved adult patients with a body mass index of 35 or higher (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) who underwent weight loss surgery between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2017, at the Cleveland Clinic Health System (CCHS). Patients in the surgical group were matched 1:3 to patients who did not have surgical intervention for their obesity (control group). The source of data was the CCHS electronic health record. Follow-up was conducted through March 1, 2021. Exposures: Weight loss surgery including Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Distinct outcomes were examined before and after COVID-19 outbreak on March 1, 2020. Weight loss and all-cause mortality were assessed between the enrollment date and March 1, 2020. Four COVID-19-related outcomes were analyzed in patients with COVID-19 diagnosis between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2021: positive SARS-CoV-2 test result, hospitalization, need for supplemental oxygen, and severe COVID-19 infection (a composite of intensive care unit admission, need for mechanical ventilation, or death). Results: A total of 20 212 patients (median [IQR] age, 46 [35-57] years; 77.6% female individuals [15 690]) with a median (IQR) body mass index of 45 (41-51) were enrolled. The overall median (IQR) follow-up duration was 6.1 (3.8-9.0) years. Before the COVID-19 outbreak, patients in the surgical group compared with control patients lost more weight (mean difference at 10 years from baseline: 18.6 [95% CI, 18.4-18.7] percentage points; P < .001) and had a 53% lower 10-year cumulative incidence of all-cause non-COVID-19 mortality (4.7% [95% CI, 3.7%-5.7%] vs 9.4% [95% CI, 8.7%-10.1%]; P < .001). Of the 20 212 enrolled patients, 11 809 were available on March 1, 2020, for an assessment of COVID-19-related outcomes. The rates of positive SARS-CoV-2 test results were comparable in the surgical and control groups (9.1% [95% CI, 7.9%-10.3%] vs 8.7% [95% CI, 8.0%-9.3%]; P = .71). However, undergoing weight loss surgery was associated with a lower risk of hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35-0.76; P < .001), need for supplemental oxygen (adjusted HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23-0.61; P < .001), and severe COVID-19 infection (adjusted HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18-0.86; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that, among patients with obesity, substantial weight loss achieved with surgery was associated with improved outcomes of COVID-19 infection. The findings suggest that obesity can be a modifiable risk factor for the severity of COVID-19 infection.

4.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(11): e2134241, 2021 11 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1508587

ABSTRACT

Importance: The influence of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and sleep-related hypoxemia in SARS-CoV-2 viral infection and COVID-19 outcomes remains unknown. Controversy exists regarding whether to continue treatment for SDB with positive airway pressure given concern for aerosolization with limited data to inform professional society recommendations. Objective: To investigate the association of SDB (identified via polysomnogram) and sleep-related hypoxia with (1) SARS-CoV-2 positivity and (2) World Health Organization (WHO)-designated COVID-19 clinical outcomes while accounting for confounding including obesity, underlying cardiopulmonary disease, cancer, and smoking history. Design, Setting, and Participants: This case-control study was conducted within the Cleveland Clinic Health System (Ohio and Florida) and included all patients who were tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and November 30, 2020, and who had an available sleep study record. Sleep indices and SARS-CoV-2 positivity were assessed with overlap propensity score weighting, and COVID-19 clinical outcomes were assessed using the institutional registry. Exposures: Sleep study-identified SDB (defined by frequency of apneas and hypopneas using the Apnea-Hypopnea Index [AHI]) and sleep-related hypoxemia (percentage of total sleep time at <90% oxygen saturation [TST <90]). Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infection and WHO-designated COVID-19 clinical outcomes (hospitalization, use of supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and death). Results: Of 350 710 individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2, 5402 (mean [SD] age, 56.4 [14.5] years; 3005 women [55.6%]) had a prior sleep study, of whom 1935 (35.8%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of the 5402 participants, 1696 were Black (31.4%), 3259 were White (60.3%), and 822 were of other race or ethnicity (15.2%). Patients who were positive vs negative for SARS-CoV-2 had a higher AHI score (median, 16.2 events/h [IQR, 6.1-39.5 events/h] vs 13.6 events/h [IQR, 5.5-33.6 events/h]; P < .001) and increased TST <90 (median, 1.8% sleep time [IQR, 0.10%-12.8% sleep time] vs 1.4% sleep time [IQR, 0.10%-10.8% sleep time]; P = .02). After overlap propensity score-weighted logistic regression, no SDB measures were associated with SARS-CoV-2 positivity. Median TST <90 was associated with the WHO-designated COVID-19 ordinal clinical outcome scale (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74; P = .005). Time-to-event analyses showed sleep-related hypoxia associated with a 31% higher rate of hospitalization and mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.08-1.57; P = .005). Conclusions and Relevance: In this case-control study, SDB and sleep-related hypoxia were not associated with increased SARS-CoV-2 positivity; however, once patients were infected with SARS-CoV-2, sleep-related hypoxia was an associated risk factor for detrimental COVID-19 outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Cause of Death , Hospitalization , Severity of Illness Index , Sleep Apnea Syndromes/complications , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Case-Control Studies , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Female , Florida , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Ohio , Respiration, Artificial , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Sleep , Sleep Apnea Syndromes/pathology , Sleep Apnea Syndromes/therapy
5.
J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract ; 9(11): 3934-3940.e9, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1504841

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sites of entry for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells; however, little is known about the impact of intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between baseline INCS use and COVID-19-related outcomes. METHODS: Using the Cleveland Clinic COVID-19 Research Registry, we performed a propensity score matching for treatment with INCS before SARS-CoV-2 infection (April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021). Of the 82,096 individuals who tested positive, 72,147 met inclusion criteria. Our endpoints included the need for hospitalization, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), or in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 12,608 (17.5%) who were hospitalized, 2935 (4.1%) required ICU admission and 1880 (2.6%) died during hospitalization. A significant proportion (n = 10,187; 14.1%) were using INCS before SARS-CoV-2 infection. Compared with nonusers, INCS users demonstrated lower risk for hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.78 [0.72; 0.85]), ICU admission (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 0.77 [0.65; 0.92]), and in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR [95% CI]: 0.76 [0.61; 0.94]). These findings were replicated in sensitivity analyses where patients on inhaled corticosteroids and those with allergic rhinitis were excluded. The beneficial effect of INCS was significant after adjustment for baseline blood eosinophil count (measured before SARS-CoV-2 testing) in a subset of 30,289 individuals. CONCLUSION: INCS therapy is associated with a lower risk for COVID-19-related hospitalization, ICU admission, or death. Future randomized control trials are needed to determine if INCS reduces the risk for severe outcomes related to COVID-19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adrenal Cortex Hormones/therapeutic use , COVID-19 Testing , Humans , Intensive Care Units , SARS-CoV-2
6.
Crit Care Explor ; 2(12): e0300, 2020 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-998494

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To develop an algorithm that predicts an individualized risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 illness (i.e., ICU admission or death) upon testing positive for coronavirus disease 2019. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Setting: Cleveland Clinic Health System. Patients: Those hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between March 8, 2020, and July 13, 2020. Interventions: A temporal coronavirus disease 2019 test positive cut point of June 1 was used to separate the development from validation cohorts. Fine and Gray competing risk regression modeling was performed. Measurements and Main Results: The development set contained 4,520 patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 between March 8, 2020, and May 31, 2020. The validation set contained 3,150 patients who tested positive between June 1 and July 13. Approximately 9% of patients were admitted to the ICU or died of coronavirus disease 2019 within 2 weeks of testing positive. A prediction cut point of 15% was proposed. Those who exceed the cutoff have a 21% chance of future severe coronavirus disease 2019, whereas those who do not have a 96% chance of avoiding the severe coronavirus disease 2019. In addition, application of this decision rule identifies 89% of the population at the very low risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (< 4%). Conclusions: We have developed and internally validated an algorithm to assess whether someone is at high risk of admission to the ICU or dying from coronavirus disease 2019, should he or she test positive for coronavirus disease 2019. This risk should be a factor in determining resource allocation, protection from less safe working conditions, and prioritization for vaccination.

7.
J Urol ; 205(2): 441-443, 2021 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-967503

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: TMPRSS2 is a host co-receptor for cell entry of SARS-CoV-2. A prior report suggested that use of androgen deprivation therapy, which downregulates TMPRSS2, may protect men with prostate cancer from infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cohort study of a prospective registry of all patients tested for SARS-CoV-2 between March 12 and June 10, 2020 with complete followup until disease recovery or death. The main exposure examined was the use of androgen deprivation therapy, and the outcome measures were the rate of SARS-CoV-2 positivity and disease severity as a function of androgen deprivation therapy use. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 1,779 men with prostate cancer from a total tested population of 74,787, of whom 4,885 (6.5%) were positive for SARS-CoV-2. Of those with prostate cancer 102 (5.7%) were SARS-CoV-2 positive and 304 (17.1%) were on androgen deprivation therapy. Among those on androgen deprivation therapy 5.6% were positive as compared to 5.8% not on androgen deprivation therapy. Men on androgen deprivation therapy were slightly older (75.5 vs 73.8 years, p=0.009), more likely to have smoked (68.1% vs 59.3%, p=0.005) and more likely to report taking steroids (43.8% vs 23.3%, p <0.001). Other factors known to increase risk of infection and disease severity were equally distributed (asthma, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary artery disease, heart failure and immune suppressive disease). Multivariable analysis did not indicate a difference in infection risk for those with prostate cancer on androgen deprivation therapy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.54-1.61, p=0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Androgen deprivation therapy does not appear to be protective against SARS-CoV-2 infection.


Subject(s)
Androgen Antagonists/therapeutic use , COVID-19/epidemiology , Prostatic Neoplasms/drug therapy , Serine Endopeptidases/metabolism , Aged , Down-Regulation , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Registries , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Chest ; 158(4): 1364-1375, 2020 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-805083

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is sweeping the globe. Despite multiple case-series, actionable knowledge to tailor decision-making proactively is missing. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a statistical model accurately predict infection with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We developed a prospective registry of all patients tested for COVID-19 in Cleveland Clinic to create individualized risk prediction models. We focus here on the likelihood of a positive nasal or oropharyngeal COVID-19 test. A least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression algorithm was constructed that removed variables that were not contributing to the model's cross-validated concordance index. After external validation in a temporally and geographically distinct cohort, the statistical prediction model was illustrated as a nomogram and deployed in an online risk calculator. RESULTS: In the development cohort, 11,672 patients fulfilled study criteria, including 818 patients (7.0%) who tested positive for COVID-19; in the validation cohort, 2295 patients fulfilled criteria, including 290 patients who tested positive for COVID-19. Male, African American, older patients, and those with known COVID-19 exposure were at higher risk of being positive for COVID-19. Risk was reduced in those who had pneumococcal polysaccharide or influenza vaccine or who were on melatonin, paroxetine, or carvedilol. Our model had favorable discrimination (c-statistic = 0.863 in the development cohort and 0.840 in the validation cohort) and calibration. We present sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value at different prediction cutoff points. The calculator is freely available at https://riskcalc.org/COVID19. INTERPRETATION: Prediction of a COVID-19 positive test is possible and could help direct health-care resources. We demonstrate relevance of age, race, sex, and socioeconomic characteristics in COVID-19 susceptibility and suggest a potential modifying role of certain common vaccinations and drugs that have been identified in drug-repurposing studies.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Adult , Aged , Algorithms , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Middle Aged , Models, Statistical , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Predictive Value of Tests , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
10.
J Gen Intern Med ; 35(11): 3293-3301, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-746846

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare workers (HCW) is crucial. OBJECTIVE: Utilizing a health system COVID-19 research registry, we assessed HCW risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection in a large academic healthcare system (N = 72,909) from March 8-June 9, 2020, stratified by HCW and patient-facing status. MAIN MEASURES: SARS-CoV-2 test result, hospitalization, and ICU admission for COVID-19 infection. KEY RESULTS: Of 72,909 individuals tested, 9.0% (551) of 6145 HCW tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 compared to 6.5% (4353) of 66,764 non-HCW. The HCW were younger than the non-HCW (median age 39.7 vs. 57.5, p < 0.001) with more females (proportion of males 21.5 vs. 44.9%, p < 0.001), higher reporting of COVID-19 exposure (72 vs. 17%, p < 0.001), and fewer comorbidities. However, the overlap propensity score weighted proportions were 8.9 vs. 7.7 for HCW vs. non-HCW having a positive test with weighted odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.38. Among those testing positive, weighted proportions for hospitalization were 7.4 vs. 15.9 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.42 (CI 0.26-0.66) and for ICU admission: 2.2 vs. 4.5 for HCW vs. non-HCW with OR of 0.48 (CI 0.20-1.04). Those HCW identified as patient facing compared to not had increased odds of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test (OR 1.60, CI 1.08-2.39, proportions 8.6 vs. 5.5), but no statistically significant increase in hospitalization (OR 0.88, CI 0.20-3.66, proportions 10.2 vs. 11.4) and ICU admission (OR 0.34, CI 0.01-3.97, proportions 1.8 vs. 5.2). CONCLUSIONS: In a large healthcare system, HCW had similar odds for testing SARS-CoV-2 positive, but lower odds of hospitalization compared to non-HCW. Patient-facing HCW had higher odds of a positive test. These results are key to understanding HCW risk mitigation during the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/methods , Health Personnel/statistics & numerical data , COVID-19/prevention & control , Case-Control Studies , Female , Florida/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Ohio/epidemiology , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2
11.
PLoS One ; 15(8): e0237419, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-709138

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus Disease 2019 is a pandemic that is straining healthcare resources, mainly hospital beds. Multiple risk factors of disease progression requiring hospitalization have been identified, but medical decision-making remains complex. OBJECTIVE: To characterize a large cohort of patients hospitalized with COVID-19, their outcomes, develop and validate a statistical model that allows individualized prediction of future hospitalization risk for a patient newly diagnosed with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of patients with COVID-19 applying a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) logistic regression algorithm to retain the most predictive features for hospitalization risk, followed by validation in a temporally distinct patient cohort. The final model was displayed as a nomogram and programmed into an online risk calculator. SETTING: One healthcare system in Ohio and Florida. PARTICIPANTS: All patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 between March 8, 2020 and June 5, 2020. Those tested before May 1 were included in the development cohort, while those tested May 1 and later comprised the validation cohort. MEASUREMENTS: Demographic, clinical, social influencers of health, exposure risk, medical co-morbidities, vaccination history, presenting symptoms, medications, and laboratory values were collected on all patients, and considered in our model development. RESULTS: 4,536 patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the study period. Of those, 958 (21.1%) required hospitalization. By day 3 of hospitalization, 24% of patients were transferred to the intensive care unit, and around half of the remaining patients were discharged home. Ten patients died. Hospitalization risk was increased with older age, black race, male sex, former smoking history, diabetes, hypertension, chronic lung disease, poor socioeconomic status, shortness of breath, diarrhea, and certain medications (NSAIDs, immunosuppressive treatment). Hospitalization risk was reduced with prior flu vaccination. Model discrimination was excellent with an area under the curve of 0.900 (95% confidence interval of 0.886-0.914) in the development cohort, and 0.813 (0.786, 0.839) in the validation cohort. The scaled Brier score was 42.6% (95% CI 37.8%, 47.4%) in the development cohort and 25.6% (19.9%, 31.3%) in the validation cohort. Calibration was very good. The online risk calculator is freely available and found at https://riskcalc.org/COVID19Hospitalization/. LIMITATION: Retrospective cohort design. CONCLUSION: Our study crystallizes published risk factors of COVID-19 progression, but also provides new data on the role of social influencers of health, race, and influenza vaccination. In a context of a pandemic and limited healthcare resources, individualized outcome prediction through this nomogram or online risk calculator can facilitate complex medical decision-making.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/genetics , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Forecasting/methods , Hospitalization/trends , Models, Statistical , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Adult , Aged , COVID-19 , Clinical Decision-Making , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Nomograms , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Reverse Transcriptase Polymerase Chain Reaction , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
12.
JAMA Cardiol ; 5(9): 1020-1026, 2020 09 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-175932

ABSTRACT

Importance: The role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) in the setting of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is hotly debated. There have been recommendations to discontinue these medications, which are essential in the treatment of several chronic disease conditions, while, in the absence of clinical evidence, professional societies have advocated their continued use. Objective: To study the association between use of ACEIs/ARBs with the likelihood of testing positive for COVID-19 and to study outcome data in subsets of patients taking ACEIs/ARBs who tested positive with severity of clinical outcomes of COVID-19 (eg, hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, and requirement for mechanical ventilation). Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study with overlap propensity score weighting was conducted at the Cleveland Clinic Health System in Ohio and Florida. All patients tested for COVID-19 between March 8 and April 12, 2020, were included. Exposures: History of taking ACEIs or ARBs at the time of COVID-19 testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Results of COVID-19 testing in the entire cohort, number of patients requiring hospitalizations, intensive care unit admissions, and mechanical ventilation among those who tested positive. Results: A total of 18 472 patients tested for COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 49 (21) years, 7384 (40%) were male, and 12 725 (69%) were white. Of 18 472 patients who underwent COVID-19 testing, 2285 (12.4%) were taking either ACEIs or ARBs. A positive COVID-19 test result was observed in 1735 of 18 472 patients (9.4%). Among patients who tested positive, 421 (24.3%) were admitted to the hospital, 161 (9.3%) were admitted to an intensive care unit, and 111 (6.4%) required mechanical ventilation. Overlap propensity score weighting showed no significant association of ACEI and/or ARB use with COVID-19 test positivity (overlap propensity score-weighted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81-1.15). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no association between ACEI or ARB use and COVID-19 test positivity. These clinical data support current professional society guidelines to not discontinue ACEIs or ARBs in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, further study in larger numbers of hospitalized patients receiving ACEI and ARB therapy is needed to determine the association with clinical measures of COVID-19 severity.


Subject(s)
Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists/therapeutic use , Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Betacoronavirus , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Adult , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Critical Care , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Hypertension/complications , Hypertension/drug therapy , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...