Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19

Abstract Continued receipt of Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 has shown potential in producing better clinical outcomes. However, superiority between ACEi (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and ARB (angiotensin II receptor blockers) regarding clinical outco...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Seiji Hamada, Tomoharu Suzuki, Yasuharu Tokuda, Kiyosu Taniguchi, Kenji Shibuya
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Nature Portfolio 2023-07-01
Series:Scientific Reports
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38838-8
_version_ 1797774234526679040
author Seiji Hamada
Tomoharu Suzuki
Yasuharu Tokuda
Kiyosu Taniguchi
Kenji Shibuya
author_facet Seiji Hamada
Tomoharu Suzuki
Yasuharu Tokuda
Kiyosu Taniguchi
Kenji Shibuya
author_sort Seiji Hamada
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Continued receipt of Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 has shown potential in producing better clinical outcomes. However, superiority between ACEi (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and ARB (angiotensin II receptor blockers) regarding clinical outcomes in this setting remains unknown. We retrospectively collected data on patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19 using the nationwide administrative database (Diagnosis and Procedure Combinations, DPC). The DPC data covered around 25% of all acute care hospitals in Japan. Patient outcomes, with focus on inpatient mortality, were compared between patients previously prescribed ACEi and those prescribed ARB. Comparisons based on crude, multivariate and propensity-score adjusted analysis were conducted. We examined a total of 7613 patients (ARB group, 6903; ACEi group 710). The ARB group showed lower crude in-hospital mortality, compared to the ACEi group (5% vs 8%; odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI 0.48–0.87), however not in the multivariate-adjusted model (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI 0.69–1.3) or propensity-score adjusted models (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI 0.63–1.2). ARB shows potential in reducing hospital stay duration over ACEi in patients admitted for COVID-19, but does not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality. Further prospective studies are needed to draw a definitive conclusion, but continuation of either of these medications is warranted to improve clinical outcomes.
first_indexed 2024-03-12T22:17:04Z
format Article
id doaj.art-9a6a27cc003445149da635875c408ccf
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2045-2322
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-12T22:17:04Z
publishDate 2023-07-01
publisher Nature Portfolio
record_format Article
series Scientific Reports
spelling doaj.art-9a6a27cc003445149da635875c408ccf2023-07-23T11:14:36ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222023-07-011311710.1038/s41598-023-38838-8Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19Seiji Hamada0Tomoharu Suzuki1Yasuharu Tokuda2Kiyosu Taniguchi3Kenji Shibuya4Urasoe General HospitalUrasoe General HospitalThe Tokyo Foundation for Policy ResearchNational Hospital Organization Mie National HospitalThe Tokyo Foundation for Policy ResearchAbstract Continued receipt of Renin–Angiotensin–Aldosterone inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 has shown potential in producing better clinical outcomes. However, superiority between ACEi (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and ARB (angiotensin II receptor blockers) regarding clinical outcomes in this setting remains unknown. We retrospectively collected data on patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19 using the nationwide administrative database (Diagnosis and Procedure Combinations, DPC). The DPC data covered around 25% of all acute care hospitals in Japan. Patient outcomes, with focus on inpatient mortality, were compared between patients previously prescribed ACEi and those prescribed ARB. Comparisons based on crude, multivariate and propensity-score adjusted analysis were conducted. We examined a total of 7613 patients (ARB group, 6903; ACEi group 710). The ARB group showed lower crude in-hospital mortality, compared to the ACEi group (5% vs 8%; odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI 0.48–0.87), however not in the multivariate-adjusted model (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI 0.69–1.3) or propensity-score adjusted models (odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI 0.63–1.2). ARB shows potential in reducing hospital stay duration over ACEi in patients admitted for COVID-19, but does not significantly reduce in-hospital mortality. Further prospective studies are needed to draw a definitive conclusion, but continuation of either of these medications is warranted to improve clinical outcomes.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38838-8
spellingShingle Seiji Hamada
Tomoharu Suzuki
Yasuharu Tokuda
Kiyosu Taniguchi
Kenji Shibuya
Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19
Scientific Reports
title Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19
title_full Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19
title_fullStr Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19
title_full_unstemmed Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19
title_short Comparing clinical outcomes of ARB and ACEi in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19
title_sort comparing clinical outcomes of arb and acei in patients hospitalized for acute covid 19
url https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38838-8
work_keys_str_mv AT seijihamada comparingclinicaloutcomesofarbandaceiinpatientshospitalizedforacutecovid19
AT tomoharusuzuki comparingclinicaloutcomesofarbandaceiinpatientshospitalizedforacutecovid19
AT yasuharutokuda comparingclinicaloutcomesofarbandaceiinpatientshospitalizedforacutecovid19
AT kiyosutaniguchi comparingclinicaloutcomesofarbandaceiinpatientshospitalizedforacutecovid19
AT kenjishibuya comparingclinicaloutcomesofarbandaceiinpatientshospitalizedforacutecovid19