Background Use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) has been hypothesized to affect COVID-19 risk. Objective To examine the association between use of ACEI/ARB and household transmission of COVID-19. Methods We conducted a modified cohort study of household contacts of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 between March 4 and May 17, 2020 in a large Northeast US health system. Household members were identified by geocoding and full address matching with exclusion of addresses with >10 matched residents or known congregate living functions. Medication use, clinical conditions and sociodemographic characteristics were obtained from electronic medical record (EMR) data on cohort entry. Cohort members were followed for at least one month after exposure to determine who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Mixed effects logistic regression and propensity score analyses were used to assess adjusted associations between medication use and testing positive. Results 1,499 of the 9,101 household contacts were taking an ACEI or an ARB. Probability of COVID-19 diagnosis during the study period was slightly higher among ACEI/ARB users in unadjusted analyses. However, ACEI/ARB users were older and more likely to have clinical comorbidities so that use of ACEI/ARB was associated with a decreased risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19 in mixed effect models (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44–0.81) or propensity score analyses (predicted probability 18.6% in ACEI/ARB users vs. 24.5% in non-users, p = 0.03). These associations were similar within age and comorbidity subgroups, including patients with documented hypertension, diabetes or cardiovascular disease, as well as when including other medications in the models. Conclusions In this observational study of household transmission, use of ACEIs or ARBs was associated with a decreased risk of being diagnosed with COVID-19. While causality cannot be inferred from these observational data, our results support current recommendations to continue ACEI/ARB in individuals at risk of COVID-19 exposure.

ImportanceReproductive genetic carrier screening can be performed prior to or during pregnancy to assess a reproductive couple’s risk of having a child with a recessively inherited disorder. Although professional societies endorse preconception screening as preferable to prenatal screening to allow for greater reproductive choice, implementation of preconception screening is challenging.ObjectiveTo determine how carrier screening timing varies by multilevel factors associated with health care delivery including patient, clinician, and location across a large integrated health care system.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study used a mixed-methods approach including (1) quantitative analysis of multilevel factors associated with the timing of reproductive carrier screening and (2) qualitative analyses of data from interviews conducted with clinicians ordering carrier screenings. The setting was the Mass General Brigham, a large integrated health care system in the greater Boston, Massachusetts area. Participants included adult female patients who completed reproductive carrier screening performed by Myriad Women’s Health between October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019.ExposuresSite of care (ordering clinical location and hospital affiliate), ordering clinician specialty, and patient characteristics, including age at date of test collection, self-reported race and ethnicity, primary insurance payor, and number of comorbidities.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the timing of carrier screening (preconception vs prenatal). A series of 4 multilevel logistic regression models were fitted to measure the relative contribution of site, clinician, and patient-level factors on the timing of screening. Interviews with ordering clinicians (N = 9) were analyzed using a framework approach to explore barriers to preconception screening.ResultsAmong 6509 adult female patients who completed carrier screenings, 770 (12%) were Asian, 352 (5%) were Hispanic, 640 (10%) were non-Hispanic Black, 3844 (59%) were non-Hispanic White, 858 (13%) were other or multiple races and ethnicities, and 2611 (40%) were aged 31 to 35 years; 4701 (63%) had prenatal screening and 2438 (37%) had preconception screening; screenings were ordered by 161 distinct clinicians across 32 clinical locations affiliated with 4 hospitals. In model 1, adjusted for hospital (fixed effect), clinic and clinician (random effects), 49% of the variability in timing was associated with clinician-level effects (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.49) and 28% was associated with clinic-level effects (ICC, 0.28). Clinician specialty explained the greatest amount of variation in screening timing. Interviewed clinicians (N = 9) supported preconception screening but cited several barriers to offering population-based preconception screening.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study, multilevel factors were associated with carrier screening timing. These findings suggest that increasing access to preconception screening may involve engaging specific medical specialties.

These results suggest the need for education as to the importance of body mass index monitoring when prescribing second-generation antipsychotic medications to children.