Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: More than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness. RESULTS: After screening 22 414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, n = 1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70; 1.04, n = 2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77; 1.13, n = 5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid-modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial). CONCLUSION: Moderate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.

Cardiovascular drugs and COVID-19 clinical outcomes: A living systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to continually evaluate the association between cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes (susceptibility to infection, disease severity, hospitalization, hospitalization length, and all-cause mortality) in patients at risk of/with confirmed COVID-19. METHODS: Eligible publications were identified from more than 500 databases on 1 November 2020. One reviewer extracted data with 20% of the records independently extracted/evaluated by a second reviewer. RESULTS: Of 52 735 screened records, 429 and 390 studies were included in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most-reported drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) with ACEI/ARB exposure having borderline association with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.00-1.31). Among COVID-19 patients, unadjusted estimates showed that ACEI/ARB exposure was associated with hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.32), disease severity (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.26-1.55) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.12-1.33) but not hospitalization length (mean difference -0.27, 95% CI -1.36-0.82 days). After adjustment, ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.19), hospitalization (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.70-1.24), disease severity (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.81-1.38) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00). Similarly, subgroup analyses involving only hypertensive patients revealed that ACEI/ARB exposure was not associated with confirmed COVID-19 infection (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.79-1.09), hospitalization (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58-1.22), hospitalization length (mean difference -0.14, 95% CI -1.65-1.36 days), disease severity (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76-1.11) while it decreased the odds of dying (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88). A similar trend was observed for other cardiovascular drugs. However, the validity of these findings is limited by a high level of heterogeneity and serious risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Cardiovascular drugs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes in adjusted analyses. Patients should continue taking these drugs as prescribed.

Warfarin dosing algorithms: A systematic review.

AIMS: Numerous algorithms have been developed to guide warfarin dosing and improve clinical outcomes. We reviewed the algorithms available for various populations and the covariates, performances and risk of bias of these algorithms. METHODS: We systematically searched MEDLINE up to 20 May 2020 and selected studies describing the development, external validation or clinical utility of a multivariable warfarin dosing algorithm. Two investigators conducted data extraction and quality assessment. RESULTS: Of 10 035 screened records, 266 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 433 dosing algorithms, 481 external validations and 52 clinical utility assessments. Most developed algorithms were for dose initiation (86%), developed by multiple linear regression (65%) and mostly applicable to Asians (49%) or Whites (43%). The most common demographic/clinical/environmental covariates were age (included in 401 algorithms), concomitant medications (270 algorithms) and weight (229 algorithms) while CYP2C9 (329 algorithms), VKORC1 (319 algorithms) and CYP4F2 (92 algorithms) variants were the most common genetic covariates. Only 26% and 7% algorithms were externally validated and evaluated for clinical utility, respectively, with <2% of algorithm developments and external validations being rated as having a low risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Most warfarin dosing algorithms have been developed in Asians and Whites and may not be applicable to under-served populations. Few algorithms have been externally validated, assessed for clinical utility, and/or have a low risk of bias which makes them unreliable for clinical use. Algorithm development and assessment should follow current methodological recommendations to improve reliability and applicability, and under-represented populations should be prioritized.

Genetic Determinants of Thiazide-Induced Hyperuricemia, Hyperglycemia, and Urinary Electrolyte Disturbances - A Genome-Wide Evaluation of the UK Biobank.

Thiazide diuretics, widely used in hypertension, cause a variety of adverse reactions, including hyperglycemia, hyperuricemia, and electrolyte abnormalities. In this study, we aimed to identify genetic variants that interact with thiazide-use to increase the risk of these adverse reactions. Using UK Biobank data, we first performed genomewide variance quantitative trait locus (vQTL) analysis of ~ 6.2 million SNPs on 95,493 unrelated hypertensive White British participants (24,313 on self-reported bendroflumethiazide treatment at recruitment) for 2 blood (glucose and urate) and 2 urine (potassium and sodium) biomarkers. Second, we conducted direct gene-environment interaction (GEI) tests on the significant (P < 2.5 × 10-9) vQTLs, included a second UK Biobank cohort comprising 13,647 unrelated hypertensive White British participants (3,478 on thiazides other than bendroflumethiazide) and set significance at P = 0.05 divided by the number of vQTL SNPs tested for GEIs. The vQTL analysis identified eight statistically significant SNPs for blood glucose (5 SNPs) and serum urate (3 SNPs), with none being identified for the urinary biomarkers. Two of the SNPs (1 glucose SNP: CDKAL1 intron rs35612982, GEI P = 6.24 × 10-3; and 1 serum urate SNP: SLC2A9 intron rs938564, GEI P = 4.51 × 10-4) demonstrated significant GEI effects in the first, but not the second, cohort. Both genes are biologically plausible candidates, with the SLC2A9-mediated interaction having been previously reported. In conclusion, we used a two-stage approach to detect two biologically plausible genetic loci that can interact with thiazides to increase the risk of thiazide-associated biochemical abnormalities. Understanding how environmental exposures (including medications such as thiazides) and genetics interact, is an important step toward precision medicine and improved patient outcomes.

A "Bundle of Care" to Improve Anticoagulation Control in Patients Receiving Warfarin in Uganda and South Africa: Protocol for an Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: The quality of warfarin anticoagulation among Sub-Saharan African patients is suboptimal. This is due to several factors, including a lack of standardized dosing algorithms, difficulty in providing timely international normalized ratio (INR) results, a lack of patient feedback on their experiences with treatment, a lack of education on adherence, and inadequate knowledge and training of health care workers. Low quality of warfarin anticoagulation, expressed as time in therapeutic range (TTR), is associated with higher adverse event rates, including bleeding and thrombosis, and ultimately, increased morbidity and mortality. Processes and interventions that improve this situation are urgently needed. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the implementation of the "warfarin bundle," a package of interventions to improve the quality of anticoagulation and thereby clinical outcomes. The primary outcome for this study is TTR over the initial 3 months of warfarin therapy. METHODS: Patients aged 18 years or older who are newly initiated on warfarin for venous thromboembolism, atrial fibrillation, or valvular heart disease will be enrolled and followed up for 3 months at clinics in Cape Town, South Africa, and Kampala, Uganda, where the warfarin bundle is implemented. A retrospective review of the clinical records of patients on warfarin treatment before implementation (controls) will be used for comparison. This study uses a mixed methods approach of the implementation of patient- and process-centered activities to improve the quality of anticoagulation. Patient-centered activities include the use of clinical dosing algorithms, adherence support, and root cause analysis, whereas process-centered activities include point-of-care INR testing, staff training, and patient education and training. We will assess the impact of these interventions by comparing the TTR and safety outcomes across the 2 groups, as well as the cost-effectiveness and acceptability of the package. RESULTS: We started recruitment in June 2021 and stopped in August 2022, having recruited 167 participants. We obtained ethics approval from the University of Cape Town Faculty of Health Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee, the Provincial Health Research Committees in South Africa, the Joint Clinical Research Centre Institutional Review Board, Kampala, and the University of Liverpool Research Ethics Committee. As of February 2023, data cleaning and formal analysis are underway. We expect to publish the full results by December 2023. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that the "bundle of care," which includes a clinical algorithm to guide individualized dosing of warfarin, will improve INR control and TTR of patients in Uganda and South Africa. We will use these findings to design a larger, multisite clinical trial across several Sub-Saharan African countries. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/46710.

Ethnic Diversity and Warfarin Pharmacogenomics.

Warfarin has remained the most commonly prescribed vitamin K oral anticoagulant worldwide since its approval in 1954. Dosing challenges including having a narrow therapeutic window and a wide interpatient variability in dosing requirements have contributed to making it the most studied drug in terms of genotype-phenotype relationships. However, most of these studies have been conducted in Whites or Asians which means the current pharmacogenomics evidence-base does not reflect ethnic diversity. Due to differences in minor allele frequencies of key genetic variants, studies conducted in Whites/Asians may not be applicable to underrepresented populations such as Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, American Indians/Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians/other Pacific Islanders. This may exacerbate health inequalities when Whites/Asians have better anticoagulation profiles due to the existence of validated pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms which fail to perform similarly in the underrepresented populations. To examine the extent to which individual races/ethnicities are represented in the existing body of pharmacogenomic evidence, we review evidence pertaining to published pharmacogenomic dosing algorithms, including clinical utility studies, cost-effectiveness studies and clinical implementation guidelines that have been published in the warfarin field.

Drug-Drug-Gene Interactions in Cardiovascular Medicine.

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of both morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is widely accepted that both concomitant medications (drug-drug interactions, DDIs) and genomic factors (drug-gene interactions, DGIs) can influence cardiovascular drug-related efficacy and safety outcomes. Although thousands of DDI and DGI (aka pharmacogenomic) studies have been published to date, the literature on drug-drug-gene interactions (DDGIs, cumulative effects of DDIs and DGIs) remains scarce. Moreover, multimorbidity is common in cardiovascular disease patients and is often associated with polypharmacy, which increases the likelihood of clinically relevant drug-related interactions. These, in turn, can lead to reduced drug efficacy, medication-related harm (adverse drug reactions, longer hospitalizations, mortality) and increased healthcare costs. To examine the extent to which DDGIs and other interactions influence efficacy and safety outcomes in the field of cardiovascular medicine, we review current evidence in the field. We describe the different categories of DDIs and DGIs before illustrating how these two interact to produce DDGIs and other complex interactions. We provide examples of studies that have reported the prevalence of clinically relevant interactions and the most implicated cardiovascular medicines before outlining the challenges associated with dealing with these interactions in clinical practice. Finally, we provide recommendations on how to manage the challenges including but not limited to expanding the scope of drug information compendia, interaction databases and clinical implementation guidelines (to include clinically relevant DDGIs and other complex interactions) and work towards their harmonization; better use of electronic decision support tools; using big data and novel computational techniques; using clinically relevant endpoints, preemptive genotyping; ensuring ethnic diversity; and upskilling of clinicians in pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine.

A genome-wide association study of plasma concentrations of warfarin enantiomers and metabolites in sub-Saharan black-African patients.

Diversity in pharmacogenomic studies is poor, especially in relation to the inclusion of black African patients. Lack of funding and difficulties in recruitment, together with the requirement for large sample sizes because of the extensive genetic diversity in Africa, are amongst the factors which have hampered pharmacogenomic studies in Africa. Warfarin is widely used in sub-Saharan Africa, but as in other populations, dosing is highly variable due to genetic and non-genetic factors. In order to identify genetic factors determining warfarin response variability, we have conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of plasma concentrations of warfarin enantiomers/metabolites in sub-Saharan black-Africans. This overcomes the issue of non-adherence and may have greater sensitivity at genome-wide level, to identify pharmacokinetic gene variants than focusing on mean weekly dose, the usual end-point used in previous studies. Participants recruited at 12 outpatient sites in Uganda and South Africa on stable warfarin dose were genotyped using the Illumina Infinium H3Africa Consortium Array v2. Imputation was conducted using the 1,000 Genomes Project phase III reference panel. Warfarin/metabolite plasma concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Multivariable linear regression was undertaken, with adjustment made for five non-genetic covariates and ten principal components of genetic ancestry. After quality control procedures, 548 participants and 17,268,054 SNPs were retained. CYP2C9*8, CYP2C9*9, CYP2C9*11, and the CYP2C cluster SNP rs12777823 passed the Bonferroni-adjusted replication significance threshold (p < 3.21E-04) for warfarin/metabolite ratios. In an exploratory GWAS analysis, 373 unique SNPs in 13 genes, including CYP2C9*8, passed the Bonferroni-adjusted genome-wide significance threshold (p < 3.846E-9), with 325 (87%, all located on chromosome 10) SNPs being associated with the S-warfarin/R-warfarin outcome (top SNP rs11188082, CYP2C19 intron variant, p = 1.55E-17). Approximately 69% of these SNPs were in linkage disequilibrium (r 2 > 0.8) with CYP2C9*8 (n = 216) and rs12777823 (n = 8). Using a pharmacokinetic approach, we have shown that variants other than CYP2C9*2 and CYP2C9*3 are more important in sub-Saharan black-Africans, mainly due to the allele frequencies. In exploratory work, we conducted the first warfarin pharmacokinetics-related GWAS in sub-Saharan Africans and identified novel SNPs that will require external replication and functional characterization before they can be considered for inclusion in warfarin dosing algorithms.

Stable warfarin dose prediction in sub-Saharan African patients: A machine-learning approach and external validation of a clinical dose-initiation algorithm.

Warfarin remains the most widely prescribed oral anticoagulant in sub-Saharan Africa. However, because of its narrow therapeutic index, dosing can be challenging. We have therefore (a) evaluated and compared the performance of 21 machine-learning techniques in predicting stable warfarin dose in sub-Saharan Black-African patients and (b) externally validated a previously developed Warfarin Anticoagulation in Patients in Sub-Saharan Africa (War-PATH) clinical dose-initiation algorithm. The development cohort included 364 patients recruited from eight outpatient clinics and hospital departments in Uganda and South Africa (June 2018-July 2019). Validation was conducted using an external validation cohort (270 patients recruited from August 2019 to March 2020 in 12 outpatient clinics and hospital departments). Based on the mean absolute error (MAE; mean of absolute differences between the actual and predicted doses), random forest regression (12.07 mg/week; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.39-13.76) was the best performing machine-learning technique in the external validation cohort, whereas the worst performing technique was model trees (17.59 mg/week; 95% CI, 15.75-19.43). By comparison, the simple, commonly used regression technique (ordinary least squares) performed similarly to more complex supervised machine-learning techniques and achieved an MAE of 13.01 mg/week (95% CI, 11.45-14.58). In summary, we have demonstrated that simpler regression techniques perform similarly to more complex supervised machine-learning techniques. We have also externally validated our previously developed clinical dose-initiation algorithm, which is being prospectively tested for clinical utility.

Developing and Validating a Clinical Warfarin Dose-Initiation Model for Black-African Patients in South Africa and Uganda.

Warfarin remains the oral anticoagulant of choice in sub-Saharan Africa. However, dosing is challenging due to a highly variable clinical response for a given dose. This study aimed to develop and validate a clinical warfarin dose-initiation model in sub-Saharan Black-African patients. For the development cohort, we used data from 364 patients who were recruited from 8 outpatient clinics and hospital departments in Uganda and South Africa (June 2018-July 2019). Validation was undertaken using the International Warfarin Pharmacogenetics Consortium (IWPC) dataset (690 black patients). Four predictors (age, weight, target International Normalized Ratio range, and HIV status) were included in the final model, which achieved mean absolute errors (MAEs; mean of absolute differences between true dose and dose predicted by the model) of 11.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 10.4-12.8) and 12.5 (95% CI 11.6-13.4) mg/week in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Two other clinical models, IWPC and Gage, respectively, obtained MAEs of 12.5 (95% CI 11.3-13.7) and 12.7 (95% CI 11.5-13.8) mg/week in the development cohort, and 12.1 (95% CI 11.2-13.0) and 12.2 (95% CI 11.4-13.1) mg/week in the validation cohort. Compared with fixed dose-initiation, our model decreased the percentage of patients at high risk of suboptimal anticoagulation by 7.5% (1.5-13.7%) and 11.9% (7.1-16.8%) in the development and validation cohorts, respectively. The clinical utility of this model will be tested in a prospective study. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? ☑ Warfarin dosing remains challenging due to a highly variable clinical response for a given dose. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? ☑ Can a clinical dose-initiation model be developed and validated for sub-Saharan Black-African patients? WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? ☑ We have developed the first warfarin dose-initiation clinical model for Black-African patients in Uganda and South Africa. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? ☑ We will be implementing and validating this model in a prospective cohort to inform future large-scale implementation. More optimized dosing should improve the quality of warfarin anticoagulation in these two developing countries.

Genetic Factors Influencing Warfarin Dose in Black-African Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Warfarin is the most commonly used oral anticoagulant in sub-Saharan Africa. Dosing is challenging due to a narrow therapeutic index and high interindividual variability in dose requirements. To evaluate the genetic factors affecting warfarin dosing in black-Africans, we performed a meta-analysis of 48 studies (2,336 patients). Significant predictors for CYP2C9 and stable dose included rs1799853 (CYP2C9*2), rs1057910 (CYP2C9*3), rs28371686 (CYP2C9*5), rs9332131 (CYP2C9*6), and rs28371685 (CYP2C9*11) reducing dose by 6.8, 12.5, 13.4, 8.1, and 5.3 mg/week, respectively. VKORC1 variants rs9923231 (-1639G>A), rs9934438 (1173C>T), rs2359612 (2255C>T), rs8050894 (1542G>C), and rs2884737 (497T>G) decreased dose by 18.1, 21.6, 17.3, 11.7, and 19.6 mg/week, respectively, whereas rs7294 (3730G>A) increased dose by 6.9 mg/week. Finally, rs12777823 (CYP2C gene cluster) was associated with a dose reduction of 12.7 mg/week. Few studies were conducted in Africa, and patient numbers were small, highlighting the need for further work in black-Africans to evaluate genetic factors determining warfarin response.