-
Current Pharmaceutical Design 2020There are controversial results available about using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and the development of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are controversial results available about using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and the development of cancers or improvement of clinical outcomes. Studies reported that using ACEI/ARB may enhance the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVE
This meta-analysis aimed to assess the relationship between ACEI/ARB therapy and the development of HCC.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library were reviewed to identify clinical studies investigating the association between ACEI/ARB therapy and the risk of HCC development. The pooled risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals collected for the association between using ACEIs/ARBs and HCC development.
RESULTS
Patients with HCC benefit from the treatment with both ACEIs and ARBs (RR 0.704, 95% CI 0.526- 0.944, p = 0.019). However, only using ARBs was related to HCC risk (0.545 95% CI 0.470-0.632, P<0.0001). Moreover, the study types were significantly related to the observed effects of using both ARBs and ACEIs. Only cohort studies were significantly related to achieving better results (RR=0.513, 95% CI= 0.442-0.597, P<0.0001).
CONCLUSION
Despite the small number and heterogeneity of the studies evaluating the relationship between treatment with ARBs and ACEIs and the development of HCC, our meta-analysis demonstrates that they may reduce the risk of HCC.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Humans; Liver Neoplasms; Renin-Angiotensin System
PubMed: 32660400
DOI: 10.2174/1381612826666200713165018 -
Critical Care Medicine Aug 2017Angiotensin II is an endogenous hormone with vasopressor and endocrine activities. This is a systematic review of the safety of IV angiotensin II. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Angiotensin II is an endogenous hormone with vasopressor and endocrine activities. This is a systematic review of the safety of IV angiotensin II.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Cochrane.
STUDY SELECTION
Studies in which human subjects received IV angiotensin II were selected whether or not safety was discussed.
DATA EXTRACTION
In total, 18,468 studies were screened by two reviewers and one arbiter. One thousand one hundred twenty-four studies, in which 31,281 participants received angiotensin II (0.5-3,780 ng/kg/min), were selected. Data recorded included number of subjects, comorbidities, angiotensin II dose and duration, pressor effects, other physiologic and side effects, and adverse events.
DATA SYNTHESIS
The most common nonpressor effects included changes in plasma aldosterone, renal function, cardiac variables, and electrolytes. Adverse events were infrequent and included headache, chest pressure, and orthostatic symptoms. The most serious side effects were exacerbation of left ventricular failure in patients with congestive heart failure and bronchoconstriction. One patient with congestive heart failure died from refractory left ventricular failure. Refractory hypotensive shock was fatal in 55 of 115 patients treated with angiotensin II in case studies, cohort studies, and one placebo-controlled study. One healthy subject died after a pressor dose of angiotensin II was infused continuously for 6 days. No other serious adverse events attributable to angiotensin II were reported. Heterogeneity in study design prevented meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Adverse events associated with angiotensin II were infrequent; however, exacerbation of asthma and congestive heart failure and one fatal cerebral hemorrhage were reported. This systematic review supports the notion that angiotensin II has an acceptable safety profile for use in humans.
Topics: Angiotensin II; Humans; Injections, Intravenous
PubMed: 28489648
DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002441 -
Thorax May 2021The association of ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) with disease severity of patients with COVID-19 is still unclear. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The association of ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) with disease severity of patients with COVID-19 is still unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate if ACEI/ARB use is associated with the risk of mortality and severe disease in patients with COVID-19.
METHODS
We searched all available clinical studies that included patients with confirmed COVID-19 who could be classified into an ACEI/ARB group and a non-ACEI/ARB group up until 4 May 2020. A meta-analysis was performed, and primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and severe disease.
RESULTS
ACEI/ARB use did not increase the risk of all-cause mortality both in meta-analysis for 11 studies with 12 601 patients reporting ORs (OR=0.52 (95% CI=0.37 to 0.72), moderate certainty of evidence) and in 2 studies with 8577 patients presenting HRs. For 12 848 patients in 13 studies, ACEI/ARB use was not related to an increased risk of severe disease in COVID-19 (OR=0.68 (95% CI=0.44 to 1.07); I=95%, low certainty of evidence).
CONCLUSIONS
ACEI/ARB therapy was not associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality or severe manifestations in patients with COVID-19. ACEI/ARB therapy can be continued without concern of drug-related worsening in patients with COVID-19.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; COVID-19; Humans; Pandemics; Renin-Angiotensin System; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 33504565
DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-215322 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Feb 2024IgA nephropathy (IgAN) represents the most prevalent form of primary glomerulonephritis, and, on a global scale, it ranks among the leading culprits behind end-stage...
IgA nephropathy (IgAN) represents the most prevalent form of primary glomerulonephritis, and, on a global scale, it ranks among the leading culprits behind end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). Presently, the primary strategy for managing IgAN revolves around optimizing blood pressure and mitigating proteinuria. This is achieved through the utilization of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors, namely, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). As outlined by the KDIGO guidelines, individuals who continue to show a persistent high risk of progressive ESKD, even with comprehensive supportive care, are candidates for glucocorticoid therapy. Despite these therapies, some patients have a disease refractory to treatment, defined as individuals that present a 24 h urinary protein persistently >1 g after at least two rounds of regular steroids (methylprednisolone or prednisone) and/or immunosuppressant therapy (e.g., mycophenolate mofetil), or who do not tolerate regular steroids and/or immunosuppressant therapy. The aim of this Systematic Review is to revise the current literature, using the biomedical database PubMed, to investigate possible therapeutic strategies, including SGLT2 inhibitors, endothelin receptor blockers, targeted-release budesonide, B cell proliferation and differentiation inhibitors, fecal microbiota transplantation, as well as blockade of complement components.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Glomerulonephritis, IGA; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Nephrologists; Antihypertensive Agents; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Steroids; Immunosuppressive Agents
PubMed: 38399561
DOI: 10.3390/medicina60020274 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Jun 2023To review the literature and synthesize evidence on pathophysiological interactions attributed to the simultaneous occurrence of COVID-19 and preeclampsia.
OBJECTIVE
To review the literature and synthesize evidence on pathophysiological interactions attributed to the simultaneous occurrence of COVID-19 and preeclampsia.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted from November (2021) to January (2022) to retrieve observational studies published on the PubMed, LILACS, SciELO Brazil and Google Scholar databases. The search was based on the descriptors [(eclampsia OR preeclampsia) AND (COVID-19)]. Quantitative studies that pointed to pathophysiological interactions were included. Literature reviews, studies with HIV participants, or with clinical approach only were excluded. The selection of studies was standardized and the evaluation was performed by pairs of researchers.
RESULTS
In this review, 155 publications were retrieved; 16 met the inclusion criteria. In summary, the physiological expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptors is physiologically increased in pregnant women, especially at the placental site. Studies suggest that the coronavirus binds to ACE-2 to enter the human cell, causing deregulation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and in the ratio between angiotensin-II and angiotensin-1-7, inducing manifestations suggestive of preeclampsia. Furthermore, the cytokine storm leads to endothelial dysfunction, vasculopathy and thrombus formation, also present in preeclampsia.
CONCLUSION
The studies retrieved in this review suggest that there is a possible overlap of pathophysiological interactions between COVID-19 and preeclampsia, which mainly involve ACE-2 and endothelial dysfunction. Given that preeclampsia courses with progressive clinical and laboratory alterations, a highly quality prenatal care may be able to detect specific clinical and laboratory parameters to differentiate a true preeclampsia superimposed by covid-19, as well as cases with hypertensive manifestations resulting from viral infection.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Pre-Eclampsia; Placenta; COVID-19; Renin-Angiotensin System; Hypertension
PubMed: 37494578
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770091 -
The Journal of Small Animal Practice May 2022To determine the efficacy and adverse events of the administration of angiotensin--converting enzyme inhibitors for the management of preclinical myxomatous mitral valve... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the efficacy and adverse events of the administration of angiotensin--converting enzyme inhibitors for the management of preclinical myxomatous mitral valve disease in dogs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A compre- hensive search using Pubmed/MEDLINE, LILACS and CAB abstracts databases was performed. Ran- domised clinical trials that assessed efficacy and adverse events of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for the management of preclinical myxomatous mitral valve disease in dogs were included. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE methods.
RESULTS
Four randomised clinical trials were included. While safe, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors administration to dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease and cardiomegaly results in little to no difference in the risk of development congestive heart failure (high certainty of evidence; relative risk: 1.03; 95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 1.23) and may result in little to no difference in cardiovascular-related (low certainty of evidence; relative risk: 1.01; 95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 1.89) and all-cause mortality (low certainty of evidence; relative risk: 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.63 to 1.36). Administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors to dogs with myxomatous mitral valve disease without cardiomegaly may result in a reduced risk of congestive heart failure development. However, the range in which the actual effect for this outcome may be, the "margin of error," indicates it might also increase the risk of congestive heart failure development (low certainty of evidence; relative risk: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.54 to 1.35).
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Administration of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors to dogs with -preclinical myxoma- tous mitral valve disease and cardiomegaly results in little to no difference in the risk of the develop- ment of congestive heart failure and may result in little to no difference in -cardiovascular-related and all-cause mortality. The certainty of evidence of the efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibi- tors administration to dogs without cardiomegaly was low.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensins; Animals; Cardiomegaly; Dog Diseases; Dogs; Heart Failure; Mitral Valve
PubMed: 34905219
DOI: 10.1111/jsap.13461 -
Heart Failure Reviews Jul 2023Several guidelines have recommended the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) as replacement for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety profile of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors in the management of heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Several guidelines have recommended the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) as replacement for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in the management of heart failure. Till date, there are no reviews done that comprehensively cover different aspects of efficacy and safety parameters. Hence, we have performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis on role of ARNIs for the management of heart failure patients. Searches were done in Embase, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, ScienceDirect and Clinicaltrials.gov until June 2022. Risk of bias assessment was done with Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects model. Pooled standardized mean difference (SMD)/mean difference (MD) and/or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was reported. In total, we analysed 34 studies, with almost all of them had a high risk of bias. Pooled RR was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.82-0.95) for all-cause mortality, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77-0.92) for cardiovascular mortality and 0.78 (95% CI: 0.70-0.87) for hospitalization. Pooled MD was 3.74 (95% CI: 1.93-5.55) for left ventricular ejection fraction, -2.16 (95% CI: -3.58 to -0.74) for left atrial volume index, -3.80 (95% CI: -6.60 to -1.00) for left ventricular end-diastolic dimension and -1.16 (95% CI: -1.98 to -0.35) for E/E' ratio. Regarding adverse events, pooled RR was 1.55 (95% CI: 1.31-1.85) for symptomatic hypotension, 0.93 (95% CI: 0.78-1.11) for worsening renal function, 1.09 (95% CI: 0.94-1.26) for hyperkalaemia and 1.29 (95% CI: 0.67-2.50) for angioedema. ARNIs had beneficial efficacy and safety profile on the management of heart failure especially patients with reduced ejection fraction.
Topics: Humans; Neprilysin; Stroke Volume; Ventricular Function, Left; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Heart Failure; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 36184714
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-022-10273-3 -
The American Journal of Cardiology Oct 2023Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) associated with a decreased risk of death and hospitalization for selected patients with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Sacubitril-valsartan is an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) associated with a decreased risk of death and hospitalization for selected patients with heart failure (HF). However, its association with improved atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the association of ARNI with ASCVD events in patients with HF. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies comparing ARNIs with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in terms of myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, peripheral artery disease, and the composite end point in patients with HF. A total of 8 randomized controlled trials were included, with 17,541 patients assigned to either the ARNI (8,764 patients) or ACEi/ARB (8,777 patients) groups. The incidence of composite end point (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.13, p = 0.63), myocardial infarction (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.30, p = 0.85), angina pectoris (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.17, p = 0.70), and stroke (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16, p = 0.93) were not statistically different between the ARNI and ACEi/ARB groups. However, ARNI was associated with a higher incidence of peripheral artery disease (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.52, p = 0.03). In conclusion, this meta-analysis found no association between ARNI therapy and improved ASCVD events in patients with HF.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Neprilysin; Cardiovascular Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Atherosclerosis; Antihypertensive Agents; Peripheral Arterial Disease; Angina Pectoris; Myocardial Infarction; Stroke; Heart Failure; Antiviral Agents
PubMed: 37619492
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.07.154 -
ESC Heart Failure Nov 2017Studies with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Studies with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have yielded inconsistent results. To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all evidence for ACE-I and ARBs in patients with HFpEF, we searched PubMed, Ovid SP, Embase, and Cochrane database to identify randomized trials and observational studies that compared ACE-I or ARBs against placebo or standard therapy in HFpEF patients. Random-effect models were used to pool the data, and I testing was performed to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies. A total of 13 studies (treatment arm = 8676 and control arm = 8608) were analysed. Pooled analysis of randomized trials for ACE-I and ARBs (n = 6) did not show any effect on all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.93-1.11, P = 0.68, I = 0%], while results from observational studies showed a significant improvement (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.87-0.95, P = 0.005, I = 81.5%). In pooled analyses of all studies, ACE-I showed a reduction of all-cause mortality (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.87-0.95, P = 0.01). There was no reduction in cardiovascular mortality seen, but in pooled analysis of randomized trials, there was a trend towards reduced HF hospitalization risk (RR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.83-1.01, I = 0%, P = 0.074). These data suggest that ACE-I and ARBs may have a role in improving outcomes of patients with HFpEF, underscoring the need for future research with careful patient selection, and trial design and conduct.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Heart Failure; Humans; Renin-Angiotensin System; Stroke Volume
PubMed: 28869332
DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.12204 -
Cureus Feb 2024Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), are commonly... (Review)
Review
A Comparative Study of the Safety and Efficacy Between Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin Receptor Blockers on the Management of Hypertension: A Systematic Review.
Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), are commonly used in the management of hypertension. High blood pressure is a vital risk factor for cardiovascular disease. This study aims to establish any significant difference in using ACEIs and ARBs in managing hypertension. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct this systematic review. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect for articles published in the last 20 years (2003 to 2023). Our search was last done on the 27th of June, 2023. Following the initial search, 8,313 articles were found on PubMed. After screening the articles selected from the databases, 10 articles examining 1,621,445 patients were selected for the final study. Three articles were identified that compared ACEI and ARB in their capacity to lower blood pressure. Six articles compared both medications' capacity to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality. Five articles were identified that compared both classes of drugs for adverse effects. This study was made to determine whether or not there is a difference between the use of ACEIs and ARBs in the treatment of hypertension. The study showed that both ACEIs and ARBs are similar in their efficacy in lowering blood pressure. However, ACEI was revealed to be superior to ARB in reducing cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. ARB was shown to be better tolerated by patients than ACEI.
PubMed: 38496070
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54311