-
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Losartan; Hypertension; Telmisartan; Irbesartan; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrochlorothiazide; Valine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Amlodipine; Valsartan; Tetrazoles; Blood Pressure; Essential Hypertension
PubMed: 37432701
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24082 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diuretics; Heart Failure; Hypertension; Stroke; Thiazides; Middle Aged
PubMed: 37439548
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008161.pub3 -
International Urology and Nephrology Jan 2024Sacubitril/valsartan, a new pharmacological class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, is beneficial to heart failure through blocking the degradation of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sacubitril/valsartan, a new pharmacological class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, is beneficial to heart failure through blocking the degradation of natriuretic peptides and inhibiting renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation which also relate to the pathophysiologic mechanisms of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, its effects on CKD remain unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with CKD, we performed this meta-analysis.
METHODS
The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sacubitril/valsartan with ACEI/ARBs in patients with CKD whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was below 60 mL/min/1.73 m. We adopted the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias. The effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Six trials with a total of 6217 patients with CKD were included. In terms of cardiovascular events, sacubitril/valsartan attenuated the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, P < 0.00001, I = 43%). With respect to renal function, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the incidence of serum creatinine (Scr) elevation among patients with CKD (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.95, P = 0.01, I = 0%). Subgroup analysis about eGFR demonstrated that with long follow-up, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the number of patients with more than 50% reduction in eGFR compared with ACEI/ARBs (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84, P = 0.008, I = 9%). In patients with CKD, the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was reduced with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, despite no statistically significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-1.20, P = 0.14, I = 0%). As for the safety, we found that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with the occurrence of hypotension (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.56, P = 0.008, I = 51%). However, there was no trend towards increasing the risk of hyperkalemia in patients who received sacubitril/valsartan (OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.75-1.60, P = 0.64, I = 64%).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicated that sacubitril/valsartan improved renal function and conferred effective cardiovascular benefits in patients with CKD, without serious safety issues being observed. Thus, sacubitril/valsartan may be a promising option for patients with CKD. Certainly, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[ https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0045/ ], identifier [INPLASY202240045].
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Drug Combinations; Heart Failure; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Stroke Volume; Tetrazoles; Valsartan; Aminobutyrates; Biphenyl Compounds
PubMed: 37195574
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-023-03599-w -
JACC. Heart Failure Apr 2024Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with reduced ejection fraction, despite recent trials with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is).
OBJECTIVES
The authors aimed to estimate the aggregate therapeutic benefit of drugs for HFmrEF and HFpEF.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized trials including patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%, treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (analyzed together as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors [RASi]), beta-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, ARNI, and SGLT2i. An additive component network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and first hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); secondary outcomes were CV death, total HHF, and all-cause mortality.
RESULTS
The authors identified 13 studies with a total of 29,875 patients and a mean LVEF of 56.3% ± 8.7%. ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i separately, but not RASi, BB, or digoxin, reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo. The combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was the most effective (HR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.70]); this was largely explained by the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i (HR: 0.56 [95% CI 0.43-0.71]). Results were similar for CV death (HR: 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.91] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) or total HHF (HR: 0.49 [95% CI 0.33-0.71] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) alone. In a subgroup analysis, only SGLT2i had a consistent benefit among all LVEF subgroups, whereas the triple combination had the greatest benefit in HFmrEF, robust benefit in patients with LVEF 50% to 59%, and a statistically marginal benefit in patients with LVEF ≥60%.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with HF and LVEF>40%, the quadruple combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i provides the largest reduction in the risk of CV death and HHF; driven by the robust effect of the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i. The benefit was more pronounced in HFmrEF patients.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Digoxin; Heart Failure; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Function, Left; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37656079
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2023.07.014 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Sep 2023There are an increasing number of reports of autoantibodies (AAbs) against host proteins such as G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and the renin-angiotensin system... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
There are an increasing number of reports of autoantibodies (AAbs) against host proteins such as G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in COVID-19 disease. Here we have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of all reports of AAbs against GPCRs and RAS in COVID-19 patients including those with long-COVID or post-COVID symptoms.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched to find papers on the role of GPCR and RAS AAbs in the presence and severity of COVID-19 or post- COVID symptoms available through March 21, 2023. Data on the prevalence of AngII or ACE, comparing AngII or ACE between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, or comparing AngII or ACE between COVID-19 patients with different disease stages were pooled and a meta-analysed using random- or fixed-effects models were undertaken.
RESULTS
The search yielded a total of 1042 articles, of which 68 studies were included in this systematic review and nine in the meta-analysis. Among 18 studies that investigated GPCRs and COVID-19 severity, 18 distinct AAbs were detected. In addition, nine AAbs were found in case reports that assessed post- COVID, and 19 AAbs were found in other studies that assessed post- COVID or long- COVID symptoms. Meta-analysis revealed a significantly higher number of seropositive ACE2 AAbs in COVID-19 patients (odds ratio = 7.766 [2.056, 29.208], p = 0.002) and particularly in severe disease (odds ratio = 11.49 [1.04, 126.86], p = 0.046), whereas AngII-AAbs seropositivity was no different between COVID-19 and control subjects (odds ratio = 2.890 [0.546-15.283], p = 0.21).
CONCLUSIONS
GPCR and RAS AAbs may play an important role in COVID-19 severity, the development of disease progression, long-term symptoms COVID and post- COVID symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Renin-Angiotensin System; Autoantibodies; COVID-19; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled
PubMed: 37490975
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2023.103402 -
PloS One 2023Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a health burden of rising importance. Slowing progression to end stage kidney disease is the main goal of drug treatment. The aim of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a health burden of rising importance. Slowing progression to end stage kidney disease is the main goal of drug treatment. The aim of this analysis is to compare drug treatments of DKD by means of a systemic review and a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched Medline, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized, controlled studies including adults with DKD treated with the following drugs of interest: single angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor-blocker (single ACEi/ARB), angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitor and angiotensin-receptor-blocker combination (ACEi+ARB combination), aldosterone antagonists, direct renin inhibitors, non-steroidal mineralocorticoid-receptor-antagonists (nsMRA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). As primary endpoints, we defined: overall mortality and end-stage kidney disease, as secondary endpoints: renal composite outcome and albuminuria and as safety endpoints: acute kidney injury, hyperkalemia and hypotension. Under the use of a random effects model, we computed the overall effect estimates using the statistic program R4.1 and the corresponding package "netmeta". Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool and the quality of evidence of each pairwise comparison was rated according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
RESULTS
Of initial 3489 publications, 38 clinical trials were found eligible, in total including 42346 patients. Concerning the primary endpoints overall mortality and end stage kidney disease, SGLT2i on top of single ACEi/ARB compared to single ACEi/ARB was the only intervention significantly reducing the odds of mortality (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.70-0.95) and end-stage kidney disease (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88). The indirect comparison of nsMRA vs SGLT2i in our composite endpoint suggests a superiority of SGLT2i (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.47-0.76). Concerning safety endpoints, nsMRA and SGLT2i showed benefits compared to the others.
CONCLUSIONS
As the only drug class, SGLT2i showed in our analysis beneficial effects on top of ACEi/ARB treatment regarding mortality and end stage kidney disease and by that reconfirmed its position as treatment option for diabetic kidney disease. nsMRA reduced the odds for a combined renal endpoint and did not raise any safety concerns, justifying its application.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Diabetic Nephropathies; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Angiotensins; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37917640
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293183 -
Journal of Clinical Hypertension... Aug 2023Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Cough; Hypertension; Calcium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 37417783
DOI: 10.1111/jch.14695 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Stroke survivors are at significantly increased risk of cognitive impairment, which affects patients' independence of activities of daily living (ADLs), social...
Stroke survivors are at significantly increased risk of cognitive impairment, which affects patients' independence of activities of daily living (ADLs), social engagement, and neurological function deficit. Many studies have been done to evaluate the efficacy and safety of post-stroke cognitive impairment (PSCI) treatment, and due to the largely inconsistent clinical data, there is a need to summarize and analyze the published clinical research data in this area. An umbrella review was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PSCI therapies. Three independent authors searched for meta-analyses and systematic reviews on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science to address this issue. We examined ADL and Barthel index (BI), Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), neurological function deficit as efficacy endpoints, and the incidence of adverse events as safety profiles. In all, 312 studies from 19 eligible publications were included in the umbrella review. The results showed that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists, cell therapies, acupuncture, and EGB76 can improve the MoCA and ADL, and the adverse effects were mild for the treatment of PSCI. Moreover, Vinpocetine, Oxiracetam, Citicoline, thrombolytic therapy, Actovegin, DL-3-n-Butylphthalide, and Nimodipine showed adverse events or low article quality in patients with PSCI. However, the research evidence is not exact and further research is needed. Our study demonstrated that ACEI inhibitors (Donepezil) and NMDA antagonists (Memantine), EGB761, and acupuncture are the ADL and BI, MoCA, and neurological function deficit medication/therapy, respectively, for patients with PSCI. https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-11-0139/; Identifier: INPLASY2022110139.
PubMed: 37693907
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1207075 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition that occurs as a result of damage to the kidneys. Early recognition of CKD is becoming increasingly common due to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition that occurs as a result of damage to the kidneys. Early recognition of CKD is becoming increasingly common due to widespread laboratory estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting, raised clinical awareness, and international adoption of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classifications. Early recognition and management of CKD affords the opportunity to prepare for progressive kidney impairment and impending kidney replacement therapy and for intervention to reduce the risk of progression and cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are two classes of antihypertensive drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Beneficial effects of ACEi and ARB on kidney outcomes and survival in people with a wide range of severity of kidney impairment have been reported; however, their effectiveness in the subgroup of people with early CKD (stage 1 to 3) is less certain. This is an update of a review that was last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of ACEi and ARB or both in the management of people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who do not have diabetes mellitus (DM).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 6 July 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effect of ACEi or ARB in people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who did not have DM were selected for inclusion. Only studies of at least four weeks duration were selected. Authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction was carried out by two authors independently, using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. When more than one study reported similar outcomes, data were pooled using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was analysed using a Chi² test and the I² test. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach MAIN RESULTS: Six studies randomising 9379 participants with CKD stages 1 to 3 (without DM) met our inclusion criteria. Participants were adults with hypertension; 79% were male from China, Europe, Japan, and the USA. Treatment periods ranged from 12 weeks to three years. Overall, studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias across all domains, and the quality of the evidence was poor, with GRADE rated as low or very low certainty. In low certainty evidence, ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo may make little or no difference to death (any cause) (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.26 to 15.37; I² = 76%), total cardiovascular events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05; I² = 0%), cardiovascular-related death (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 11.66; I² = 54%), stroke (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.03; I² = 0%), myocardial infarction (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; I² = 0%), and adverse events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.41; I² = 0%). It is uncertain whether ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo reduces congestive heart failure (1 study, 8290 participants): RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) or transient ischaemic attack (1 study, 583 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.01; I² = 0%) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ARB (losartan 50 mg) compared to placebo (1 study, 226 participants) reduces: death (any-cause) (no events), adverse events (RR 19.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 328.30), eGFR rate of decline (MD 5.00 mL/min/1.73 m, 95% CI 3.03 to 6.97), presence of proteinuria (MD -0.65 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.52), systolic blood pressure (MD -0.80 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.89 to 2.29), or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.10 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.29 to 1.09) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ACEi (enalapril 20 mg, perindopril 2 mg or trandolapril 1 mg) compared to ARB (olmesartan 20 mg, losartan 25 mg or candesartan 4 mg) (1 study, 26 participants) reduces: proteinuria (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.20), systolic blood pressure (MD -3.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.08 to 0.08) or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.31 to 1.31) because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ACEi or ARB in patients with stage 1 to 3 CKD who do not have DM. The available evidence is overall of very low certainty and high risk of bias. We have identified an area of large uncertainty for a group of patients who account for most of those diagnosed as having CKD.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Female; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Losartan; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Diabetes Mellitus; Proteinuria; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 37466151
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007751.pub3 -
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and... Jul 2023Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is affecting 1-4% of women who conceive approximately, and no cause could be found in more than 50% of women suffering from RPL. Inherited... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is affecting 1-4% of women who conceive approximately, and no cause could be found in more than 50% of women suffering from RPL. Inherited thrombophilias have got increasing attention in women with unexplained RPL, so we aim to explore the relationship among these most common thrombophilic polymorphisms and RPL through a literature review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Observational studies from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science from 1997 to 7 April 2022 were searched. For each genetic variant, a fixed or random-effect model was used according to the heterogeneity test to calculate pooled ORs and 95% CIs for both dominant and recessive genetic models. Egger's line regression test was used to assess publication bias. The quality of the included articles was assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa scale.
RESULTS
A total of 124 articles comprising 17,278 RPL patients and 16,021 controls were included. Results showed that hyperhomocysteinemia (MTHFR) C677T (dominant model: OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.25-1.64; recessive model: OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.36-1.87), MTHFR A1298C (dominant model: OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.26-2.18; recessive model: OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.42-2.26), PAI-1 4G/5G (dominant model: OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.36-2.06; recessive model: OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.39-2.32), angiotensin-converting enzyme I/D (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00-1.53), Factor XIII V34L (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.02-1.87), and β-fibrinogen-455G/A (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.02-2.51) were significantly associated with RPL.
CONCLUSION
This study provides potentially useful clinical markers to evaluate the risk of RPL or to help unexplained RPL patients identify possible causes, which may allow for targeted treatment.
Topics: Pregnancy; Humans; Female; Genetic Predisposition to Disease; Polymorphism, Genetic; Thrombophilia; Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor 1; Abortion, Habitual; Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase (NADPH2); Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 37248348
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-023-02823-x