Objective Animal studies suggested that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) facilitate the inoculation of potentially leading to a higher risk of infection and/or disease severity. We aimed to systematically evaluate the risk of COVID-19 infection and the risk of severe COVID-19 disease associated with previous exposure to (ACEi) and/or ARB). Methods MEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection were searched in June 2020 for controlled studies. Eligible studies were included and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. The estimates were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 test. The confidence in the pooled evidence was appraised using the GRADE framework. Results Twenty-seven studies were included in the review. ACEi/ARB exposure did not increase the risk of having a positive test for COVID-19 infection (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.89–1.11; I 2 = 36%; 5 studies, GRADE confidence moderate). The exposure to ACEi/ARB did not increase the risk of all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19 (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.74–1.11; I 2 = 20%; 17 studies; GRADE confidence low) nor severe/critical COVID-19 disease (OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.74–1.11; I 2 = 55%; 17 studies; GRADE confidence very low). Exploratory analyses in studies enrolling hypertensive patients showed a association of ACEi/ARB with a significant decrease of mortality risk. Conclusions ACEi/ARB exposure does not seem to increase the risk of having the SARS-CoV-2 infection or developing severe stages of the disease including mortality. The potential benefits observed in mortality of hypertensive patients reassure safety, but robust studies are required to increase the confidence in the results.

No abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage on, and clinical research has been promoted worldwide. We aimed to assess the clinical and methodological characteristics of treatment clinical trials that have been set forth as an early response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods First, we reviewed all registered clinical trials on COVID-19. The World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform and national trial registries were searched for COVID-19 trials through April 19th, 2020. For each record, independent researchers extracted interventions, participants, and methodological characteristics. Second, on September 14th, 2020 we evaluated the recruitment status and availability of the results of COVID-19 treatment trials previously identified. Results In April 2020, a total of 580 trials evaluating COVID-19 treatment were registered. Reporting quality was poor (core participant information was missing in 24.1 to 92.7%). Between 54.0 and 93.8% of the trials did not plan to include older people or those with a higher baseline risk. Most studies were randomised (67.9%), single-centre (58.3%), non-industry-funded (81.1%), to be conducted in China (47.6%), with a median duration of 184 days and a median sample size of 100 participants. Core endpoints (mortality, clinical status, and hospitalization length) were planned to be assessed in 5.2 to 13.1% of the trials. Five months later, 66 trials (11.4%) were reported as “Completed”, and only 46 (7.9%) had public results available. One hundred forty-four of 580 trials (24.8%) either had the status “Not yet recruiting” or “Suspended”, and 18 (3.1%) trials were prematurely stopped (“Terminated” or “Withdrawn”) The number of completed trials and trials with results are much lower than anticipated, considering the planned follow-up. Conclusions Our results raise concerns about the success of the initial global research effort on COVID-19 treatment. The clinical and methodological characteristics of early COVID-19 treatment trials limit their capability to produce clear answers to critical questions in the shortest possible time.

Non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were thought to increase the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) virus entrance into cells. Hence, it was suggested in the media that NSAIDs could lead to a higher risk of infection and/or disease severity. To determine the existence or absence of this association, we aimed to systematically evaluate the risk of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and mortality and the risk of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) associated with previous exposure to NSAIDs. MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE were searched in February 2021 for controlled studies. The results were calculated through random‐effect meta‐analyses and reported in terms of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I 2 test. Eleven studies were included, comprising a total of 683 715 patients. NSAID exposure did not increase the risk of having a positive test for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85–1.11, I 2 = 24%, five studies). The exposure to NSAIDs did not increase the risk of severe/critical COVID‐19 disease (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80–1.05, I 2 = 0%, 5 studies) nor all‐cause mortality among patients with COVID‐19 (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75–0.99, I 2 = 14%, four studies). Our data did not suggest that exposure to NSAIDs increases the risk of having SARS‐CoV‐2 infection or increases the severity of COVID‐19 disease. Also, the fragility of the studies included precludes definite conclusions and highlights the need for further robust data. Systematic review registration number : CRD42020216806 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Background: Depressive disorders are recognized as a common neuropsychiatric disorder of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Reported frequencies vary widely among studies and depend on the diagnostic criteria, the methods of ascertainment used, and the population sampled. Objective: We aimed to evaluate the frequency of depressive disorders in PD and to investigate the relationship with PD clinical variables. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (community-based, prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control, community-based, and cross-sectional studies) reporting the frequency of depressive disorders in PD patients. Results: Electronic database search wielded 3,536 articles; an additional 91 were identified through citation chaining. 163 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 49 met the inclusion criteria for our analysis. The pooled frequency of depressive disorders was 30.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.6 to 36.2; I2 = 95% ; 49 studies; combined n = 10,039). The pooled frequency of major depressive disorder was 14.0% (95% CI 10.5 to 18.5; I2 = 88% ; 23 studies; combined n = 5,218). Subgroup/meta-regression analyses were conducted to investigate the relationship between frequency and study inclusion criteria, methodology used for diagnosis, and study design. We found a statistically significant correlation between study design and depressive disorders frequency (ranging from 8% in the community-based study to 44% in the retrospective studies) and a statistically significant positive correlation between mean baseline PD duration and major depressive disorder frequency. Conclusion: The current meta-analysis found a global frequency of depressive disorders of 30.7% and major depressive disorder of 14.0% . Study design influenced the frequency of depressive disorders in PD. Mean baseline PD duration and major depressive disorder frequency were positively correlated.