METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was done in two Saudi public specialty hospitals designated as COVID-19 referral facilities. We included 354 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 between April and June 2020, of which 146 were ACEI/ARB users and 208 were non-ACEI/ARB users. Controlling for confounders, we conducted multivariate logistic regression and sensitivity analyses using propensity score matching (PSM) and Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) for high-risk patient subsets.
RESULTS: Compared to non-ACEI/ARB users, ACEI/ARB users had an eight-fold higher risk of developing critical or severe COVID-19 (OR = 8.25, 95%CI = 3.32-20.53); a nearly 7-fold higher risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (OR = 6.76, 95%CI = 2.88-15.89) and a nearly 5-fold higher risk of requiring noninvasive ventilation (OR = 4.77,95%CI = 2.15-10.55). Patients with diabetes, hypertension, and/or renal disease had a five-fold higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease (OR = 5.40,95%CI = 2.0-14.54]. These results were confirmed in the PSM and IPSW analyses.
CONCLUSION: In general, but especially among patients with hypertension, diabetes, and/or renal disease, ACEI/ARB use is associated with a significantly higher risk of severe or critical COVID-19 disease, and ICU care.
METHODS: A systematic search of English articles and gray literature, published from January 2010, was performed on databases including MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, NHSEED, health technology assessment, Cochrane Library, etc. The included studies were EEs with DAMs that compared the costs and outcomes of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, mineralocorticoid-receptor agonists, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. The study quality was evaluated using the Bias in Economic Evaluation (ECOBIAS) 2015 checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 checklists.
RESULTS: A total of 59 EEs were included. Markov model, with a lifetime horizon and a monthly cycle length, was most commonly used in evaluating GDMTs for HFrEF. Most EEs conducted in the high-income countries demonstrated that novel GDMTs for HFrEF were cost-effective compared with the standard of care, with the standardized median incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $21 361/quality-adjusted life-year. The key factors influencing ICERs and study conclusions included model structures, input parameters, clinical heterogeneity, and country-specific willingness-to-pay threshold.
CONCLUSIONS: Novel GDMTs were cost-effective compared with the standard of care. Given the heterogeneity of the DAMs and ICERs, alongside variations in willingness-to-pay thresholds across countries, there is a need to conduct country-specific EEs, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, using model structures that are coherent with the local decision context.
METHODS: First, the starting point was ACE2 inhibitors and their structure-activity relationship (SAR). Next, chemical similarity (or diversity) and PubMed searches made it possible to repurpose and assess approved or experimental drugs for COVID-19. Parallel, at all stages, the authors performed bioactivity scoring to assess potential repurposed inhibitors at ACE2. Finally, investigators performed molecular docking and modeling of the identified drug candidate to host ACE2 with nCoV spike protein.
RESULTS: Carnosine emerged as the best-known drug candidate to match ACE2 inhibitor structure. Preliminary docking was more optimal to ACE2 than the known typical angiotensin-converting enzyme 1 (ACE1) inhibitor (enalapril) and quite comparable to known or presumed ACE2 inhibitors. Viral spike protein elements binding to ACE2 were retained in the best carnosine pose in SwissDock at 1.75 Angstroms. Out of the three main areas of attachment expected to the protein-protein structure, carnosine bound with higher affinity to two compared to the known ACE2 active site. LibDock score was 92.40 for site 3, 90.88 for site 1, and inside the active site 85.49.
CONCLUSION: Carnosine has promising inhibitory interactions with host ACE2 and nCoV spike protein and hence could offer a potential mitigating effect against the current COVID-19 pandemic.