肾素-血管紧张素醛固酮系统抑制剂与 COVID-19:系统回顾和荟萃分析揭示观察性研究中的关键偏差

Jordan Loader, Frances C Taylor, Erik Lampa, Johan Sundström
{"title":"肾素-血管紧张素醛固酮系统抑制剂与 COVID-19:系统回顾和荟萃分析揭示观察性研究中的关键偏差","authors":"Jordan Loader, Frances C Taylor, Erik Lampa, Johan Sundström","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.122.025289","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background Renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor-COVID-19 studies, observational in design, appear to use biased methods that can distort the interaction between RAAS inhibitor use and COVID-19 risk. This study assessed the extent of bias in that research and reevaluated RAAS inhibitor-COVID-19 associations in studies without critical risk of bias. Methods and Results Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases (December 1, 2019 to October 21, 2021) identifying studies that compared the risk of infection and/or severe COVID-19 outcomes between those using or not using RAAS inhibitors (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers). Weighted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were extracted and pooled in fixed-effects meta-analyses, only from studies without critical risk of bias that assessed severe COVID-19 outcomes. Of 169 relevant studies, 164 had critical risks of bias and were excluded. Ultimately, only two studies presented data relevant to the meta-analysis. In 1 351 633 people with uncomplicated hypertension using a RAAS inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide diuretic in monotherapy, the risk of hospitalization (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87; <i>P</i><0.001; angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; <i>P</i>=0.015) and intubation or death (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.85; <i>P</i>=0.002; angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95; <i>P</i>=0.019) with COVID-19 was lower in those using a RAAS inhibitor. However, these protective effects are probably not clinically relevant. Conclusions This study reveals the critical risk of bias that exists across almost an entire body of COVID-19 research, raising an important question: Were research methods and/or peer-review processes temporarily weakened during the surge of COVID-19 research or is this lack of rigor a systemic problem that also exists outside pandemic-based research? Registration URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42021237859.</p>","PeriodicalId":17189,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9238740/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Renin-Angiotensin Aldosterone System Inhibitors and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Revealing Critical Bias Across a Body of Observational Research.\",\"authors\":\"Jordan Loader, Frances C Taylor, Erik Lampa, Johan Sundström\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/JAHA.122.025289\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Background Renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor-COVID-19 studies, observational in design, appear to use biased methods that can distort the interaction between RAAS inhibitor use and COVID-19 risk. This study assessed the extent of bias in that research and reevaluated RAAS inhibitor-COVID-19 associations in studies without critical risk of bias. Methods and Results Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases (December 1, 2019 to October 21, 2021) identifying studies that compared the risk of infection and/or severe COVID-19 outcomes between those using or not using RAAS inhibitors (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers). Weighted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were extracted and pooled in fixed-effects meta-analyses, only from studies without critical risk of bias that assessed severe COVID-19 outcomes. Of 169 relevant studies, 164 had critical risks of bias and were excluded. Ultimately, only two studies presented data relevant to the meta-analysis. In 1 351 633 people with uncomplicated hypertension using a RAAS inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide diuretic in monotherapy, the risk of hospitalization (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87; <i>P</i><0.001; angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; <i>P</i>=0.015) and intubation or death (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.85; <i>P</i>=0.002; angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95; <i>P</i>=0.019) with COVID-19 was lower in those using a RAAS inhibitor. However, these protective effects are probably not clinically relevant. Conclusions This study reveals the critical risk of bias that exists across almost an entire body of COVID-19 research, raising an important question: Were research methods and/or peer-review processes temporarily weakened during the surge of COVID-19 research or is this lack of rigor a systemic problem that also exists outside pandemic-based research? Registration URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42021237859.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9238740/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025289\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/5/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association: Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.025289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/5/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 肾素-血管紧张素-醛固酮系统(RAAS)抑制剂-COVID-19 研究在设计上属于观察性研究,似乎使用了有偏差的方法,这可能会扭曲 RAAS 抑制剂的使用与 COVID-19 风险之间的相互作用。本研究评估了该研究的偏倚程度,并在无严重偏倚风险的研究中重新评估了 RAAS 抑制剂与 COVID-19 的关联。方法和结果 在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 CINAHL 数据库中进行检索(2019 年 12 月 1 日至 2021 年 10 月 21 日),确定比较使用或不使用 RAAS 抑制剂(即血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂或血管紧张素 II-I 型受体阻滞剂)的患者感染风险和/或严重 COVID-19 结果的研究。在固定效应荟萃分析中,仅从评估严重 COVID-19 结果的无严重偏倚风险的研究中提取并汇总加权危险比 (HR) 和 95% CI。在 169 项相关研究中,164 项存在严重的偏倚风险,因此被排除在外。最终,只有两项研究提供了与荟萃分析相关的数据。在 1 351 633 名单药使用 RAAS 抑制剂、钙通道阻滞剂或噻嗪类利尿剂的无并发症高血压患者中,住院风险(血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂:HR,0.76;95% CI,0.66-0.87;PP=0.015)和插管或死亡的风险(血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂:HR,0.64;95% CI,0.48-0.85;P=0.002;血管紧张素 II-I 型受体阻滞剂:HR,0.74;95% CI,0.48-0.85;P=0.015):在使用 RAAS 抑制剂的患者中,使用 COVID-19 的 HR 值较低。不过,这些保护作用可能与临床无关。结论 本研究揭示了几乎所有 COVID-19 研究中存在的严重偏倚风险,并提出了一个重要问题:是研究方法和/或同行评审程序在 COVID-19 研究激增期间被暂时削弱了,还是这种缺乏严谨性是一个系统性问题,在基于流行病的研究之外同样存在?注册网址:www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/;唯一标识符:CRD42021237859。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Renin-Angiotensin Aldosterone System Inhibitors and COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Revealing Critical Bias Across a Body of Observational Research.

Background Renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitor-COVID-19 studies, observational in design, appear to use biased methods that can distort the interaction between RAAS inhibitor use and COVID-19 risk. This study assessed the extent of bias in that research and reevaluated RAAS inhibitor-COVID-19 associations in studies without critical risk of bias. Methods and Results Searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases (December 1, 2019 to October 21, 2021) identifying studies that compared the risk of infection and/or severe COVID-19 outcomes between those using or not using RAAS inhibitors (ie, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers). Weighted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CIs were extracted and pooled in fixed-effects meta-analyses, only from studies without critical risk of bias that assessed severe COVID-19 outcomes. Of 169 relevant studies, 164 had critical risks of bias and were excluded. Ultimately, only two studies presented data relevant to the meta-analysis. In 1 351 633 people with uncomplicated hypertension using a RAAS inhibitor, calcium channel blocker, or thiazide diuretic in monotherapy, the risk of hospitalization (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66-0.87; P<0.001; angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; P=0.015) and intubation or death (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor: HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48-0.85; P=0.002; angiotensin II type-I receptor blockers: HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95; P=0.019) with COVID-19 was lower in those using a RAAS inhibitor. However, these protective effects are probably not clinically relevant. Conclusions This study reveals the critical risk of bias that exists across almost an entire body of COVID-19 research, raising an important question: Were research methods and/or peer-review processes temporarily weakened during the surge of COVID-19 research or is this lack of rigor a systemic problem that also exists outside pandemic-based research? Registration URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42021237859.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Predictors of Survival in Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Active Cancer: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study Treatment of Slow‐Flow After Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Flow‐Mediated Hyperemia: The Randomized RAIN‐FLOW Study Predicting Arterial Thrombotic Events Following Peripheral Revascularization Using Objective Viscoelastic Data Safety of Catheter Ablation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Cardiac Amyloidosis Corin Missense Variants, Blood Pressure, and Hypertension in 11 322 Black Individuals: Insights From REGARDS and the Jackson Heart Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1