Use of sedative-hypnotic medications and risk of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Growing evidence suggests an association between the use of sedative-hypnotic medications and risk of dementia. The aim of this study is to examine this association using a meta-analysis approach. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed) and Scopus were systematically searched for studies published in English only. The quality of studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and an overall odds ratio was pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 35 articles were included in the analysis. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) for dementia from all records were (OR; 1.33, 95% CI 1.19-1.49) for benzodiazepine (BZD) combined use (Subgroup-1), (OR: 1.46, 95% CI 1.23-1.73) for short-acting BZD use (Subgroup-2), (OR: 1.72, 95% CI 1.48-1.99) for long-acting BZD use (Subgroup-3), (OR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.97-1.32) for BZDs without specification of duration of action (Subgroup-4), (OR: 1.64, 95% CI 1.13-2.38) for the combined BZDs and Z-drugs, (OR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.17-1.74) for Z-drugs only, (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.88-1.46) for antidepressant use, (OR: 0.97, 95% CI 0.68-1.39) for antipsychotic use and (OR: 0.98, 95% CI 0.85-1.13) for anticonvulsant use. When sensitivity analysis was performed, association between overall use of BZDs and short-acting BZDs with the increased risk of dementia disappeared after exclusion of studies that were not adjusted for age covariate (OR: 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.44) and (OR: 1.22, 95% CI 0.75-2.01), respectively. Adjustment for protopathic bias by introduction of a lag period showed no evidence of increased risk of dementia with the use of BZDs (Subgroup-1) (OR: 1.14, 95% CI 0.82-1.58), Z-drugs (OR: 1.29, 95% CI 0.78-2.13), and combined BZDs and Z-drugs (OR: 1.51, 95% CI 0.91-2.53). Combined use of BZDs and Z-drugs showed more positive association when only studies of non-user design were analysed (OR: 2.75, 95% CI 2.23-3.39). CONCLUSIONS: All the investigated sedative-hypnotics showed no association with increased risk of dementia except for BZDs. However, the observed association with BZDs did not persist after exclusion of studies with potential reverse causation and confounding by indication. Therefore, this association needs to be assessed carefully in future research.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of renin-angiotensin system drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: What is the evidence so far?

Conflicting evidence exists about the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 clinical outcomes. We aimed to provide a comprehensive/updated evaluation of the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes, including exploration of interclass differences between ACEIs and ARBs, using a systematic review/meta-analysis approach conducted in Medline (OVID), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library, and medRxiv from inception to 22 May 2020. English studies that evaluated the effect of ACEIs/ARBs among patients with COVID-19 were included. Studies' quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Data were analyzed using the random-effects modeling stratified by exposure (ACEIs/ARBs, ACEIs, and ARBs). Heterogeneiity was assessed using I2 statistic. Several subgroup analyses were conducted to explore the impact of potential confounders. Overall, 27 studies were eligible. The pooled analyses showed nonsignificant associations between ACEIs/ARBs and death (OR:0.97, 95%CI:0.75,1.27), ICU admission (OR:1.09;95%CI:0.65,1.81), death/ICU admission (OR:0.67; 95%CI:0.52,0.86), risk of COVID-19 infection (OR:1.01; 95%CI:0.93,1.10), severe infection (OR:0.78; 95%CI:0.53,1.15), and hospitalization (OR:1.15; 95%CI:0.81,1.65). However, the subgroup analyses indicated significant association between ACEIs/ARBs and hospitalization among USA studies (OR:1.59; 95%CI:1.03,2.44), peer-reviewed (OR:1.93, 95%CI:1.38,2.71), good quality and studies which reported adjusted measure of effect (OR:1.30, 95%CI:1.10,1.50). Significant differences were found between ACEIs and ARBs with the latter being significantly associated with lower risk of acquiring COVID-19 infection (OR:0.24; 95%CI: 0.17,0.34). In conclusion, high-quality evidence exists for the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on some COVID-19 clinical outcomes. For the first time, we provided evidence, albeit of low quality, on interclass differences between ACEIs and ARBs for some of the reported clinical outcomes.