MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293171339 · doi:10.1161/jaha.122.026143

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

2022· review· en· W4293171339 on OpenAlexafffund
Sonali R. Gnanenthiran, Claudio Borghi, Dylan Burger, Bruno Caramelli, Fadi J. Charchar, Julio A. Chirinos, Jordana B. Cohen, Antoine Crémer, Gian Luca Di Tanna, Alexandre Duvignaud, Daniel Freilich, D.H. Frank Gommans, Abraham Edgar Gracia‐Ramos, Thomas A. Murray, Facundo Pelorosso, Neil R Poulter, Michael A. Puskarich, Konstantinos D. Rizas, Rodolfo Pedro Rothlin, Markus P. Schlaich, Michael Schreinlecher, U. Muscha Steckelings, Abhinav Sharma, George S. Stergiou, Christopher J. Tignanelli, Maciej Tomaszewski, Thomas Unger, Roland R.J. van Kimmenade, Richard D. Wainford, Bryan Williams, Anthony Rodgers, Aletta E. Schutte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 Clinical Research Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersPerelman School of Medicine, University of PennsylvaniaRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumUniversidade de São PauloInstituto Mexicano del Seguro SocialAustrian Science FundCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de BordeauxAgence Nationale de la RechercheFederation University AustraliaUniversity of MinnesotaNetherlands Heart InstituteUniversity of OttawaMcGill UniversityRadboud UniversiteitUniversity of Pennsylvania
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineMeta-analysisRelative riskMyocardial infarctionPlaceboCochrane LibraryHeart failureDialysisConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.050
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCOVID-19 Clinical Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207