The effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on the risk of COVID-19 infection and disease progression are yet to be investigated. The relationship between ACEI/ ARB use and COVID-19 infection was systematically reviewed. To identify relevant studies that met predetermined inclusion criteria, unrestricted searches of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were conducted. The search strategy included clinical date published until May 9, 2020. Twelve articles involving more than 19,000 COVID-19 cases were included. To estimate overall risk, random-effects models were adopted. Our results showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with a higher risk of COVID-19 infection (OR = 0.99; 95 % CI, 0-1.04; P = 0.672). Among those with COVID-19 infection, ACEI/ARB exposure was also not associated with a higher risk of having severe infection (OR = 0.98; 95 % CI, 0.87-1.09; P = 0.69) or mortality (OR = 0.73, 95 %CI, 0.5-1.07; P = 0.111). However, ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with a lower risk of mortality compared to those on non-ACEI/ARB antihypertensive drugs (OR = 0.48, 95 % CI, 0.29−0.81; P = 0.006). In conclusion, current evidence did not confirm the concern that ACEI/ARB exposure is harmful in patientswith COVID-19 infection. This study supports the current guidelines that discourage discontinuation of ACEIs or ARBs in COVID-19 patients and the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Recently, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak started in Wuhan, China. Although the clinical features of have been reported previously, data regarding the risk factors associated with the clinical outcomes are lacking.Objectives: To summary and analyze the clinical characteristics and identify the predictors of disease severity and mortality. Methods:The PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, Embase, Cochrane and MedRxiv databases were searched through February 25, 2020. Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) recommendations were followed. We extracted and pooled data using random-e ects meta-analysis to summary the clinical feature of the confirmed COVID-19 patients, and further identify risk factors for disease severity and death. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² method and explained with subgroup analysis and meta-regression. Results:A total of 30 studies including 53000 patients with were included in this study, the mean age was 49.8 years (95% CI, 47.5-52.2 yrs) and 55.5% were male. The pooled incidence of severity and mortality were 20.2% (95% CI, 15.1-25.2%) and 3.1% (95% CI, 1.9-4.2%), respectively. The predictor for disease severity included old age (≥ 50 yrs, odds ratio [OR] = 2.61; 95% CI, 2.29-2.98), male (OR =1.348, 95% CI, 1.195-1.521), smoking (OR =1.734, 95% CI, All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. : medRxiv preprint 1.146-2.626) and any comorbidity (OR = 2.635, 95% CI, 2.098-3.309), especially chronic kidney disease (CKD, OR = 6.017; 95% CI, 2.192-16.514), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, OR = 5.323; 95% CI, 2.613-10.847) and cerebrovascular disease (OR = 3.219; 95% CI, 1.486-6.972). In terms of laboratory results, increased lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), C-reactive protein (CRP) and D-dimer and decreased blood platelet and lymphocytes count were highly associated with severe COVID-19 (all for P < 0.001). Meanwhile, old age (≥ 60 yrs, RR = 9.45; 95% CI, 8.09-11.04), followed by cardiovascular disease (RR = 6.75; 95% CI, 5.40-8.43) hypertension (RR = 4.48; 95% CI, and diabetes (RR = 4.43; 95% CI, 3.49-5.61) were found to be independent prognostic factors for the COVID-19 related death. Conclusions:To our knowledge, this is the first evidence-based medicine research to explore the risk factors of prognosis in patients with COVID-19, which is helpful to identify early-stage patients with poor prognosis and adapt effective treatment.Compared with two other types of coronaviruses, the present new coronavirus is spreading far more quickly and has higher contagiousness 5 .As of March 17, 2020, a total of 187, 361 COVID-19 cases in 151 countries have been confirmed, which almost 22.2 times the number of people infected by the SARS in 2003. Although COVID-19 has a relatively low mortality rate, it can be highly deadly and lethal, especially in high-risk patients 6 . The reported incidence of COVID-19 accompanied with underlying comorbidities in the literature were up to 26.0%, and most of them (65.3%) had cardiovascula...

BackgroundThe strategy of using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) for refractory ulcerative colitis (UC) remains unclear if single FMT failed to induce remission. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a designed step-up FMT strategy for the steroid-dependent UC.MethodsFifteen patients with steroid-dependent UC were enrolled, and treated with step-up FMT strategy. Follow-up clinical data was collected for a minimum of 3 months. Fecal microbiota composition before and post FMT of patients and related donors were analyzed by 16S rRNA sequencing.ResultsEight of fourteen (57.1 %) patients achieved clinical improvement and were able to discontinue steroids following step-up FMT. One patient was lost to follow-up. Among the 8 patients who responded, five (35.7 %) received one FMT therapy, one (7.1 %) received two FMTs, and two (14.2 %) received two FMTs plus a scheduled course of steroids. Four (28.6 %) of the 8 patients who responded maintained long-term remission during follow-up (3–18 months). Six patients (42.9 %) failed to meet the criteria of clinical improvement and maintained steroid dependence, though three experienced transient or partial improvement. Microbiota analysis showed that FMT altered the composition greatly, and a microbiota composition highly similar to that of the donor emerged in the patients with successful treatment. No severe adverse events occurred during treatment and follow-up.ConclusionsStep-up FMT strategy shows promise as a therapeutic strategy for patients with steroid-dependent UC, likely due to the successful restructuring of gut microbial composition.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, Number NCT01790061Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12967-015-0646-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundCigarette smoking is a known risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD), but the association between smoking and blood pressure is unclear. Thus, the current study examined the association between cigarette smoking and blood pressure in men.MethodsSystolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP) and pulse pressure (PP) were examined using digital blood pressure measuring device, and smoking status was determined with China National Health Survey.ResultsThe ANCOVA showed that the adjusted DBP and MAP were lower in current smokers versus nonsmokers and the adjusted SBP was lower in current smokers versus former smokers (P < 0.05). Additionally, the adjusted PP tend to be decreased steadily as the pack·years increased in current smokers. In a fully adjusted logistic regression model, former smokers had increased ORs (95% CI) of 1.48 (1.01, 2.18) of hypertension and current smokers had not increased ORs (95% CI) of 0.83 (0.61, 1.12), compared with never smokers.ConclusionsThe findings revealed that the adjusted blood pressure were lower in current smokers versus nonsmokers and former smokers. No significant dose-dependent effect of current smoking on blood pressure indices except PP was observed. Smoking cessation was significantly associated with an increased risk of hypertension. However, current smoking was not a risk factor of hypertension.