Losartan in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in North America: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have been hypothesized to benefit patients with COVID-19 via the inhibition of viral entry and other mechanisms. We conducted an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis assessing the effect of starting the ARB losartan in recently hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in January 2021 for U.S./Canada-based trials where an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/ARB was a treatment arm, targeted outcomes could be extrapolated, and data sharing was allowed. Our primary outcome was a 7-point COVID-19 ordinal score measured 13 to 16 days post-enrollment. We analyzed data by fitting multilevel Bayesian ordinal regression models and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: 325 participants (156 losartan vs 169 control) from 4 studies contributed IPD. Three were randomized trials; one used non-randomized concurrent and historical controls. Baseline covariates were reasonably balanced for the randomized trials. All studies evaluated losartan. We found equivocal evidence of a difference in ordinal scores 13-16 days post-enrollment (model-standardized odds ratio [OR] 1.10, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.76-1.71; adjusted OR 1.15, 95% CrI 0.15-3.59) and no compelling evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Losartan had worse effects for those taking corticosteroids at baseline after adjusting for covariates (ratio of adjusted ORs 0.29, 95% CrI 0.08-0.99). Hypotension serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with losartan. CONCLUSIONS: In this IPD meta-analysis of hospitalized COVID-19 patients, we found no convincing evidence for the benefit of losartan versus control treatment, but a higher rate of hypotension adverse events with losartan.

Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19: An individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data, including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables more detailed investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ among subgroups of hospitalized patients. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in May and June 2020 for US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients in which the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. The primary outcome was a 7-point ordinal scale measured between day 28 and 35 post enrollment; comparisons used proportional odds ratios. Harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator. The data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. RESULTS: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We did not find evidence of a difference in COVID-19 ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and found no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this individual participant data meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Comparison of antibody response durability of mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, and Ad26.COV2.S SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVES: There are limited comparative immunologic durability data post COVID-19 vaccinations. METHODS: Approximately 8.4 months after primary COVID-19 vaccination, 647 healthcare workers completed surveys about COVID-19 vaccinations/infections and blood draws. The groups included participants vaccinated with mRNA-1273 (n = 387), BNT162b2 (n = 212), or Ad26.COV2.S (n = 10) vaccines; unvaccinated participants (n = 10); and participants who received a booster dose (n = 28). The primary outcome was immunoglobin anti-spike titer. Secondary/tertiary outcomes included neutralizing antibodies (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based pseudoneutralization) and vaccine effectiveness (VE). Antibody levels were compared using analysis of variance and linear regression. RESULTS: Mean age was 49.7 and 75.3% of the participants were female. Baseline variables were balanced except for immunosuppression, previous COVID-19 infection, and post-primary vaccination time. Unadjusted median (interquartile range [IQR]) anti-spike titers (AU/ml) were 1539.5 (876.7-2626.7) for mRNA-1273, 751.2 (422.0-1381.5) for BNT162b2, 451.6 (103.0-2396.7) for Ad26.COV2.S, 113.4 (3.7-194.0) for unvaccinated participants, and 31898.8 (21347.1-45820.1) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.006; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). Unadjusted median (IQR) pseudoneutralization was as follows: 90.9% (80.1-95.0) for mRNA-1273, 77.2% (59.1-89.9) for BNT162b2, 57.9% (36.6-95.8) for Ad26.COV2.S, 40.1% (21.7-60.6) for unvaccinated, and 96.4% (96.1-96.6) for participants administered with booster dose (mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2, P <.001; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, or boosted vs unvaccinated, P <.028; mRNA-1273, BNT162b2, Ad26.COV2.S, or unvaccinated vs boosted, P <.001). VE was 87-89% for participants administered mRNA-1273 vaccine, BNT162b2 vaccine, and booster dose, and 33% for Ad26.COV2.S (none significantly different). CONCLUSION: Antibody responses 8.4 months after primary vaccination were significantly higher with mRNA-1273 than those observed with BNT162b2.

Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors in Patients With COVID-19: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Led by the International Society of Hypertension.

Background Published randomized controlled trials are underpowered for binary clinical end points to assess the safety and efficacy of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) in adults with COVID-19. We therefore performed a meta-analysis to assess the safety and efficacy of RASi in adults with COVID-19. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register were searched for randomized controlled trials that randomly assigned patients with COVID-19 to RASi continuation/commencement versus no RASi therapy. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at ≤30 days. A total of 14 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and enrolled 1838 participants (aged 59 years, 58% men, mean follow-up 26 days). Of the trials, 11 contributed data. We found no effect of RASi versus control on all-cause mortality (7.2% versus 7.5%; relative risk [RR], 0.95; [95% CI, 0.69-1.30]) either overall or in subgroups defined by COVID-19 severity or trial type. Network meta-analysis identified no difference between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors versus angiotensin II receptor blockers. RASi users had a nonsignificant reduction in acute myocardial infarction (2.1% versus 3.6%; RR, 0.59; [95% CI, 0.33-1.06]), but increased risk of acute kidney injury (7.0% versus 3.6%; RR, 1.82; [95% CI, 1.05-3.16]), in trials that initiated and continued RASi. There was no increase in need for dialysis or differences in congestive cardiac failure, cerebrovascular events, venous thromboembolism, hospitalization, intensive care admission, inotropes, or mechanical ventilation. Conclusions This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers versus control in patients with COVID-19 found no difference in all-cause mortality, a borderline decrease in myocardial infarction, and an increased risk of acute kidney injury with RASi. Our findings provide strong evidence that RASi can be used safely in patients with COVID-19.

COVIDMED - An early pandemic randomized clinical trial of losartan treatment for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of losartan for COVID-19 patients. Methods: COVIDMED was a double-blinded, placebo-controlled platform RCT. Enrollees were randomized to standard care plus hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, losartan, or placebo. Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir arms were discontinued early. We report losartan data vs. combined (lopinavir-ritonavir and placebo) and prespecified placebo-only controls. The primary endpoint was the mean COVID-19 Ordinal Severity Score (COSS) slope of change. Slow enrollment prompted early termination. Results: Fourteen patients were included in our final analysis (losartan [N = 9] vs. control [N = 5] [lopinavir/ritonavir [N = 2], placebo [N = 3]]). Most baseline parameters were balanced. Losartan treatment was not associated with a difference in mean COSS slope of change vs. combined (p = 0.4) or placebo-only control (p = 0.05) (trend favoring placebo). 60-day mortality and overall AE/SAE rates were insignificantly higher with losartan. Conclusion: In this small RCT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, losartan did not improve outcome and was associated with adverse safety signals.