Abstract
Introduction The effects of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors on the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) have been conflicting in different studies. This meta-analysis was undertaken to provide more conclusive evidence.
Methods A systematic search for published articles was performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 5 2020 till May 5 2020. Studies that reported the clinical outcomes of patients with COVID-19, stratified by the class of concomitant antihypertensive drug therapy, were included. The Mantel-Haenszel random effects model was used to estimate pooled odds ratio (OR).
Results A total of 6,997 patients with COVID-19 were included, and all of them had hypertension. The overall risk of poor patient outcomes (severe COVID-19 or death) was lower in patients taking RAAS inhibitors (OR=0.84, 95% CI: [0.73, 0.96]; P=0.017) compared with those receiving non-RAAS inhibitor antihypertensives. Patients taking angiotensin-I-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) were less likely to experience poor clinical outcomes (OR=0.73, 95% CI: [0.58-0.92]; P=0.01) compared with those receiving angiotensin-II receptor blockers (ARBs). In addition, comparison of ACEIs to the rest of non-ACEI antihypertensives gave a consistently decreased risk of poor COVID-19 outcome (OR=0.77, 95% CI: [0.63-0.93]; P=0.002). However, ARBs did not decrease the risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes compared to all other non-ARB antihypertensives (OR=1.13, 95% CI: [0.95-1.35]).
Conclusion The risk of developing severe illness or death from COVID-19 was lower in patients who received RAAS inhibitors compared with those who took non-RAAS inhibitors. ACEIs might be better in decreasing the severity and mortality of COVID-19 than ARBs.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research received no external funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This meta- analysis involved analysis of existing data that are already publicly available and hence individual patients cannot be identified. This research fulfils the criteria for an exemption from institutional review board (IRB) oversight.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.
