Background Concerns have been raised about the possibility that inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) could predispose individuals to severe COVID-19; however, epidemiological evidence is lacking. We report the results of a case-population study done in Madrid, Spain, since the outbreak of COVID-19.Methods In this case-population study, we consecutively selected patients aged 18 years or older with a PCRconfirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital from seven hospitals in Madrid, who had been admitted between March 1 and March 24, 2020. As a reference group, we randomly sampled ten patients per case, individually matched for age, sex, region (ie, Madrid), and date of admission to hospital (month and day; index date), from Base de datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria (BIFAP), a Spanish primary health-care database, in its last available year (2018). We extracted information on comorbidities and prescriptions up to the month before index date (ie, current use) from electronic clinical records of both cases and controls. The outcome of interest was admission to hospital of patients with COVID-19. To minimise confounding by indication, the main analysis focused on assessing the association between COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital and use of RAAS inhibitors compared with use of other antihypertensive drugs. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, adjusted for age, sex, and cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors, using conditional logistic regression. The protocol of the study was registered in the EU electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies, EUPAS34437.Findings We collected data for 1139 cases and 11 390 population controls. Among cases, 444 (39•0%) were female and the mean age was 69•1 years (SD 15•4), and despite being matched on sex and age, a significantly higher proportion of cases had pre-existing cardiovascular disease (OR 1•98, 95% CI 1•62-2•41) and risk factors (1•46, 1•23-1•73) than did controls. Compared with users of other antihypertensive drugs, users of RAAS inhibitors had an adjusted OR for COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital of 0•94 (95% CI 0•77-1•15). No increased risk was observed with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (adjusted OR 0•80, 0•64-1•00) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (1•10, 0•88-1•37). Sex, age, and background cardiovascular risk did not modify the adjusted OR between use of RAAS inhibitors and COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital, whereas a decreased risk of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital was found among patients with diabetes who were users of RAAS inhibitors (adjusted OR 0•53, 95% CI 0•34-0•80). The adjusted ORs were similar across severity degrees of COVID-19.Interpretation RAAS inhibitors do not increase the risk of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital, including fatal cases and those admitted to intensive care units, and should not be discontinued to prevent a severe case of COVID-19.Funding Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

Background In the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, the hypothesis that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) increased the risk and/or severity of the disease was widely spread. Consequently, in many hospitals, these drugs were discontinued as a “precautionary measure”. We aimed to assess whether the in-hospital discontinuation of ARBs or ACEIs, in real-life conditions, was associated with a reduced risk of death as compared to their continuation and also to compare head-to-head the continuation of ARBs with the continuation of ACEIs. Methods Adult patients with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 requiring admission during March 2020 were consecutively selected from 7 hospitals in Madrid, Spain. Among them, we identified outpatient users of ACEIs/ARBs and divided them in two cohorts depending on treatment discontinuation/continuation at admission. Then, they were followed-up until discharge or in-hospital death. An intention-to-treat survival analysis was carried out and hazard ratios (HRs), and their 95%CIs were computed through a Cox regression model adjusted for propensity scores of discontinuation and controlled by potential mediators. Results Out of 625 ACEI/ARB users, 340 (54.4%) discontinued treatment. The in-hospital mortality rates were 27.6% and 27.7% in discontinuation and continuation cohorts, respectively (HR=1.01; 95%CI 0.70–1.46). No difference in mortality was observed between ARB and ACEI discontinuation (28.6% vs. 27.1%, respectively), while a significantly lower mortality rate was found among patients who continued with ARBs (20.8%, N=125) as compared to those who continued with ACEIs (33.1%, N=136; p=0.03). The head-to-head comparison (ARB vs. ACEI continuation) yielded an adjusted HR of 0.52 (95%CI 0.29–0.93), being especially notorious among males (HR=0.34; 95%CI 0.12–0.93), subjects older than 74 years (HR=0.46; 95%CI 0.25–0.85), and patients with obesity (HR=0.22; 95%CI 0.05–0.94), diabetes (HR=0.36; 95%CI 0.13–0.97), and heart failure (HR=0.12; 95%CI 0.03–0.97). Conclusions The discontinuation of ACEIs/ARBs at admission did not improve the in-hospital survival. On the contrary, the continuation with ARBs was associated with a trend to a reduced mortality as compared to their discontinuation and to a significantly lower mortality risk as compared to the continuation with ACEIs, particularly in high-risk patients.

Objective To test the hypothesis that the use of chondroitin sulfate (CS) or glucosamine reduces the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Design Case-control study nested in a primary cohort of patients aged 40 to 99 years, using the database BIFAP during the 2002–2015 study period. From this cohort, we identified incident cases of AMI and randomly selected five controls per case, matched by exact age, gender, and index date. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were computed through a conditional logistic regression. Only new users of CS or glucosamine were considered. Results A total of 23,585 incident cases of AMI and 117,405 controls were included. Of them, 89 cases (0.38%) and 757 controls (0.64%) were current users of CS at index date, yielding an AOR of 0.57 (95%CI: 0.46–0.72). The reduced risk among current users was observed in both short-term (<365 days, AOR = 0.58; 95%CI: 0.45–0.75) and long-term users (>364 days AOR = 0.56; 95%CI:0.36–0.87), in both sexes (men, AOR = 0.52; 95%CI:0.38–0.70; women, AOR = 0.65; 95%CI:0.46–0.91), in individuals over or under 70 years of age (AOR = 0.54; 95%CI:0.38–0.77, and AOR = 0.61; 95%CI:0.45–0.82, respectively) and in individuals at intermediate (AOR = 0.65; 95%CI:0.48–0.91) and high cardiovascular risk (AOR = 0.48; 95%CI:0.27–0.83), but not in those at low risk (AOR = 1.11; 95%CI:0.48–2.56). In contrast, the current use of glucosamine was not associated with either increased or decreased risk of AMI (AOR = 0.86; 95%CI:0.66–1.08). Conclusions Our results support a cardioprotective effect of CS, while glucosamine seems to be neutral. The protection was remarkable among subgroups at high cardiovascular risk.