-
Cureus Jul 2023Recent studies have focused on treating heart failure, primarily mitigating symptoms and reducing the risk of mortality and other cardiovascular complications. A... (Review)
Review
Recent studies have focused on treating heart failure, primarily mitigating symptoms and reducing the risk of mortality and other cardiovascular complications. A promising new treatment approach involves using LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) comprising sacubitril and valsartan. This treatment is superior to the conventional drugs enalapril or valsartan in patients diagnosed with heart failure. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier's ScienceDirect databases to identify studies comparing sacubitril/valsartan with other drugs in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. The study's primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, congestive heart failure, and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical score. The pooled analysis showed that treatment with the sacubitril/valsartan combination was associated with a significantly decreased rate of first hospitalization for heart failure (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98, p: 0.03; I2: 57%) and significantly increased KCCQ clinical score (WMD: 2.20; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.06, p: 0.02; I2: 100%). However, the two groups had no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.01, p: 0.08; I2: 20%), death from cardiovascular causes (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.05, p: 0.34; I2: 0%), or congestive heart failure (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.25, p: 0.19; I2: 38%). The research findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces hospitalizations due to heart failure and improves KCCQ clinical scores. This treatment also reduces the decline in renal function and side effects associated with enalapril or valsartan. Nonetheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to assess other impacts of this therapy on heart failure patients. Overall, the use of LCZ696 represents a promising new approach to the treatment of heart failure.
PubMed: 37554618
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.41566 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2024Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers...
BACKGROUND
Guidelines suggest that adults with diabetes and kidney disease receive treatment with angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2006.
OBJECTIVES
We compared the efficacy and safety of ACEi and ARB therapy (either as monotherapy or in combination) on cardiovascular and kidney outcomes in adults with diabetes and kidney disease.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplants Register of Studies to 17 March 2024 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
We included studies evaluating ACEi or ARB alone or in combination, compared to each other, placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. Summary estimates of effect were obtained using a random-effects model, and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) 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
One hundred and nine studies (28,341 randomised participants) were eligible for inclusion. Overall, the risk of bias was high. Compared to placebo or no treatment, ACEi may make little or no difference to all-cause death (24 studies, 7413 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; I = 23%; low certainty) and with similar withdrawals from treatment (7 studies, 5306 participants: RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.19; I = 0%; low certainty). ACEi may prevent kidney failure (8 studies, 6643 participants: RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.94; I = 0%; low certainty). Compared to placebo or no treatment, ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause death (11 studies, 4260 participants: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.16; I = 0%; low certainty). ARB have uncertain effects on withdrawal from treatment (3 studies, 721 participants: RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.26; I = 2%; low certainty) and cardiovascular death (6 studies, 878 participants: RR 3.36, 95% CI 0.93 to 12.07; low certainty). ARB may prevent kidney failure (3 studies, 3227 participants: RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94; I = 0%; low certainty), doubling of serum creatinine (SCr) (4 studies, 3280 participants: RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97; I = 32%; low certainty), and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria (5 studies, 815 participants: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.85; I = 74%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi, ARB had uncertain effects on all-cause death (15 studies, 1739 participants: RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.88; I = 0%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (6 studies, 612 participants: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.28; I = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (13 studies, 1606 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.98; I = 0%; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 837 participants: RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.07; I = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 767 participants: RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.48; I = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ACEi alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (6 studies, 1166 participants: RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.40; I = 20%; low certainty), withdrawal from treatment (2 studies, 172 participants: RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.86; I = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 994 participants: RR 3.02, 95% CI 0.61 to 14.85; low certainty), kidney failure (3 studies, 880 participants: RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.32; I = 0%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (2 studies, 813 participants: RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.85; I = 0%; low certainty). Compared to ACEi plus ARB, ARB alone has uncertain effects on all-cause death (7 studies, 2607 participants: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.37; I = 0%; low certainty), withdrawn from treatment (3 studies, 1615 participants: RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.24; I = 0%; low certainty), cardiovascular death (4 studies, 992 participants: RR 3.03, 95% CI 0.62 to 14.93; low certainty), kidney failure (4 studies, 2321 participants: RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.95; I = 29%; low certainty), and doubling of SCr (3 studies, 2252 participants: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.64; I = 0%; low certainty). Comparative effects of different ACEi or ARB and low-dose versus high-dose ARB were rarely evaluated. No study compared different doses of ACEi. Adverse events of ACEi and ARB were rarely reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
ACEi or ARB may make little or no difference to all-cause and cardiovascular death compared to placebo or no treatment in people with diabetes and kidney disease but may prevent kidney failure. ARB may prevent the doubling of SCr and the progression from microalbuminuria to macroalbuminuria compared with a placebo or no treatment. Despite the international guidelines suggesting not combining ACEi and ARB treatment, the effects of ACEi or ARB monotherapy compared to dual therapy have not been adequately assessed. The limited data availability and the low quality of the included studies prevented the assessment of the benefits and harms of ACEi or ARB in people with diabetes and kidney disease. Low and very low certainty evidence indicates that it is possible that further studies might provide different results.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Bias; Cause of Death; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Nephropathies; Disease Progression; Drug Therapy, Combination; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 38682786
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006257.pub2 -
American Journal of Ophthalmology Nov 2023We synthesized the literature on the association between systemic antihypertensive medications with intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma. Antihypertensive medications... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
We synthesized the literature on the association between systemic antihypertensive medications with intraocular pressure (IOP) and glaucoma. Antihypertensive medications included β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and diuretics.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS
Databases were searched for relevant articles until December 5, 2022. Studies were eligible if they examined (1) the association between systemic antihypertensive medications with glaucoma or (2) the association between systemic antihypertensive medications with IOP in those without glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; registration ID: CRD42022352028).
RESULTS
A total of 11 studies were included in the review and 10 studies in the meta-analysis. The 3 studies on IOP were cross-sectional, whereas the 8 studies on glaucoma were primarily longitudinal. In the meta-analysis, β-blockers were associated with a lower odds of glaucoma (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75-0.92, 7 studies, n = 219,535) and lower IOP (β: -0.53, 95% CI: -1.05 to -0.02, 3 studies, n = 28,683). Calcium channel blockers were associated with a higher odds of glaucoma (odds ratio: 1.13, 95% CI: 1.03-1.24, 7 studies, n = 219,535) but not with IOP (β: -0.11, 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.03, 2 studies, n = 20,620). There were no consistent associations between angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or diuretics with glaucoma or IOP.
CONCLUSIONS
Systemic antihypertensive medications have heterogeneous effects on glaucoma and IOP. Clinicians should be aware that systemic antihypertensive medications may mask elevated IOP or positively or negatively affect the risk of glaucoma.
PubMed: 36966883
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2023.03.014 -
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2023Despite recent advances in heart failure (HF) therapy, the risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality, morbidity, and HF hospitalization (HFH) are major challenges in HF... (Review)
Review
Despite recent advances in heart failure (HF) therapy, the risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality, morbidity, and HF hospitalization (HFH) are major challenges in HF treatment. We aimed to review the potential of vericiguat as a treatment option for HF. A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed database and ClinicalTrials.gov. Four randomized controlled trials were identified, which study the safety and efficacy of vericiguat in HF patients. Vericiguat activates soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) by binding to the beta-subunit, bypassing the requirement for NO-induced activation. The nitric oxide (NO)-sGC-cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) pathway plays an essential role in cardiovascular (CV) regulation and the protection of healthy cardiac function but is impaired in HF. Vericiguat reduced the risk of CV death and HFH in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but showed no therapeutic effect on HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The trials demonstrated a favorable safety profile with most common adverse events such as hypotension, syncope, and anemia. Therefore, vericiguat is recommended for patients with HFrEF and a minimum systolic blood pressure of 100 mmHg. Treatment with vericiguat is considered when the individual patient experiences decompensation despite being on guideline-recommended medication, e.g., angiotensin-converting inhibitor/AT1 receptor antagonist, beta-adrenoceptor antagonist, spironolactone, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors. Furthermore, larger studies are required to investigate any potential effect of vericiguat in HFpEF patients. Despite the limitations, vericiguat can be recommended for patients with HFrEF, where standard-of-care is insufficient, and the disease worsens.
Topics: Humans; Heart Failure; Treatment Outcome; Stroke Volume; Soluble Guanylyl Cyclase; Cardiotonic Agents; Diuretics
PubMed: 37511587
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241411826 -
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation :... Oct 2023Dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade involves dual therapy with a combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis),... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The association between dual RAAS inhibition and risk of acute kidney injury and hyperkalemia in patients with diabetic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Dual renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade involves dual therapy with a combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis), angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), direct renin inhibitors (DRIs), or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs). It is hypothesized that dual RAAS blockade would result in a more complete inhibition of the RAAS cascade. However, large clinical trials on dual RAAS inhibition have shown increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) and hyperkalemia without additional benefit on mortality, cardiovascular events, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression compared to RAAS inhibitor monotherapy in patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD). The development of newer, more selective non-steroidal MRAs as cardiorenal protective therapies has created a new opportunity for dual RAAS inhibition. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the risks of AKI and hyperkalemia with dual RAAS blockade in patients with DKD.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS
This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCT) published from 1 January 2006 to 30 May 2022. The study population included adult patients with DKD receiving dual RAAS blockade. A total of 31 RCTs and 33 048 patients were included in the systematic review. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects.
RESULTS
There were 208 AKI events in 2690 patients on ACEi + ARB versus 170 in 4264 patients with ACEi or ARB monotherapy (pooled RR 1.48, 95% CI: 1.23-1.39). There were 304 hyperkalemia events in 2818 patients on ACEi + ARB versus 208 in 4396 patients with ACEi or ARB monotherapy (pooled RR 1.97, 95% CI: 1.32-2.94). A non-steroidal MRA + ACEi or ARB showed no increase in the risk of AKI (pooled RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.81-1.16) compared to ACEi or ARB monotherapy but had a 2-fold higher risk of hyperkalemia with 953 events in 7837 patients in dual therapy versus 454 events in 6895 patients in monotherapy (pooled RR 2.05, 95% CI: 1.84-2.28). A steroidal MRA + ACEi or ARB had a 5-fold higher risk of hyperkalemia with 28 events in 245 at risk in dual therapy versus five events in 248 at risk in monotherapy (pooled RR 5.42 95% CI: 2.15-13.67).
CONCLUSION
Dual therapy with RAASi is associated with an increased risk of AKI and hyperkalemia compared to RAASi monotherapy. Conversely, dual therapy with RAAS inhibitors and non-steroidal MRAs have no additional risk of AKI but a similar risk of hyperkalemia, which is lower than dual therapy with RAAS inhibitors and steroidal MRAs.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Renin-Angiotensin System; Diabetic Nephropathies; Hyperkalemia; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Acute Kidney Injury; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37309038
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfad101 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Feb 2024Although enteropathy due to angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) has been known for over 10 years, clinicians' awareness of this condition is still low. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Although enteropathy due to angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) has been known for over 10 years, clinicians' awareness of this condition is still low.
AIMS
To systematically review the literature about clinical phenotypes, distribution of mucosal changes throughout the gastrointestinal tract and prognosis of enteropathy due to ARBs.
METHODS
According to PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed and Embase for relevant articles up to November 6, 2023. We included full-text papers, letters, case reports and case series describing enteropathy due to ARBs. Patients were classified into subgroups based on endoscopic and histological findings of different regions of the gastrointestinal tract. The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/TK67C).
RESULTS
We included 94 articles reporting 183 cases (101 female, mean age at diagnosis 69 ± 10 years). The clinical picture at diagnosis was characterised by severe diarrhoea (97%) and weight loss (84%, median -13 kg), leading to hospital admission in 167 (95%) patients. Olmesartan (90%) was most frequently implicated. Villous atrophy (VA) was reported in 164/183 (89%) patients. One hundred and nine had only VA, 12 had pan-gastrointestinal involvement, 23 had VA and gastric involvement and 19 had VA and colon involvement (predominantly microscopic colitis). Outcomes were reported for 178/183 (97%) patients, who all recovered clinically on ARBs withdrawal. Histological recovery occurred in all 96 patients with VA at baseline who underwent follow-up duodenal biopsy.
CONCLUSIONS
Enteropathy due to ARBs is characterised by severe malabsorption often requiring hospital admission and can involve the entire gastrointestinal tract. Clinician awareness can lead to prompt diagnosis and excellent prognosis.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Middle Aged; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Intestinal Diseases; Prognosis; Tetrazoles
PubMed: 38185985
DOI: 10.1111/apt.17855 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common primary glomerular disease, with approximately 20% to 40% of patients progressing to kidney failure within 25 years.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
IgA nephropathy (IgAN) is the most common primary glomerular disease, with approximately 20% to 40% of patients progressing to kidney failure within 25 years. Non-immunosuppressive treatment has become a mainstay in the management of IgAN by improving blood pressure (BP) management, decreasing proteinuria, and avoiding the risks of long-term immunosuppressive management. Due to the slowly progressive nature of the disease, clinical trials are often underpowered, and conflicting information about management with non-immunosuppressive treatment is common. This is an update of a Cochrane review, first published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of non-immunosuppressive treatment for treating IgAN in adults and children. We aimed to examine all non-immunosuppressive therapies (e.g. anticoagulants, antihypertensives, dietary restriction and supplementation, tonsillectomy, and herbal medicines) in the management of IgAN.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to December 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, EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of non-immunosuppressive agents in adults and children with biopsy-proven IgAN were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently reviewed search results, extracted data and assessed study quality. Results were expressed as mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects meta-analysis. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 80 studies (4856 participants), of which 24 new studies (2018 participants) were included in this review update. The risk of bias within the included studies was mostly high or unclear for many of the assessed methodological domains, with poor reporting of important key clinical trial methods in most studies. Antihypertensive therapies were the most examined non-immunosuppressive therapy (37 studies, 1799 participants). Compared to placebo or no treatment, renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition probably decreases proteinuria (3 studies, 199 participants: MD - 0.71 g/24 h, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.39; moderate certainty evidence) but may result in little or no difference to kidney failure or doubling of serum creatinine (SCr), or complete remission of proteinuria (low certainty evidence). Death, remission of haematuria, relapse of proteinuria or > 50% increase in SCr were not reported. Compared to symptomatic treatment, RAS inhibition (3 studies, 168 participants) probably decreases proteinuria (MD -1.16 g/24 h, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.81) and SCr (MD -9.37 µmol/L, 95% CI -71.95 to -6.80) and probably increases creatinine clearance (2 studies, 127 participants: MD 23.26 mL/min, 95% CI 10.40 to 36.12) (all moderate certainty evidence); however, the risk of kidney failure is uncertain (1 study, 34 participants: RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.88; very low certainty evidence). Death, remission of proteinuria or haematuria, or relapse of proteinuria were not reported. The risk of adverse events may be no different with RAS inhibition compared to either placebo or symptomatic treatment (low certainty evidence). In low certainty evidence, tonsillectomy in people with IgAN in addition to standard care may increase remission of proteinuria compared to standard care alone (2 studies, 143 participants: RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47) and remission of microscopic haematuria (2 studies, 143 participants: RR 1.93, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.53) and may decrease relapse of proteinuria (1 study, 73 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.85) and relapse of haematuria (1 study, 72 participants: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98). Death, kidney failure and a > 50% increase in SCr were not reported. These trials have only been conducted in Japanese people with IgAN, and the findings' generalisability is unclear. Anticoagulant therapy, fish oil, and traditional Chinese medicines exhibited small benefits to kidney function in patients with IgAN when compared to placebo or no treatment. However, compared to standard care, the kidney function benefits are no longer evident. Antimalarial therapy compared to placebo in one study reported an increase in a > 50% reduction of proteinuria (53 participants: RR 3.13 g/24 h, 95% CI 1.17 to 8.36; low certainty evidence). Although, there was uncertainty regarding adverse events from this study due to very few events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Available RCTs focused on a diverse range of interventions. They were few, small, and of insufficient duration to determine potential long-term benefits on important kidney and cardiovascular outcomes and harms of treatment. Antihypertensive agents appear to be the most beneficial non-immunosuppressive intervention for IgAN. The antihypertensives examined were predominantly angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. The benefits of RAS inhibition appear to outweigh the harms in patients with IgAN. The certainty of the evidence of RCTs demonstrating a benefit of tonsillectomy to patients with Japanese patients with IgAN was low. In addition, these findings are inconsistent across observational studies in people with IgAN of other ethnicities; hence, tonsillectomy is not widely recommended, given the potential harm of therapy. The RCT evidence is insufficiently robust to demonstrate efficacy for the other non-immunosuppressive treatments evaluated here.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; East Asian People; Glomerulonephritis, IGA; Hematuria; Proteinuria; Recurrence; Renal Insufficiency
PubMed: 38299639
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003962.pub3 -
Heart Failure Reviews Nov 2023The aim of this study was to assess whether angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) decreases ventricular arrhythmic burden compared to angiotensin-converting... (Review)
Review
The aim of this study was to assess whether angiotensin receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) decreases ventricular arrhythmic burden compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor antagonist (ACE-I/ARB) treatment in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients. Further, we assessed if ARNI influenced the percentage of biventricular pacing. A systematic review of studies (both RCTs and observational studies) including HFrEF patients and those receiving ARNI after ACE-I/ARB treatment was conducted using Medline and Embase up to February 2023. Initial search found 617 articles. After duplicate removal and text check, 1 RCT and 3 non-RCTs with a total of 8837 patients were included in the final analysis. ARNI was associated with a significative reduction of ventricular arrhythmias both in RCT (RR 0.78 (95% CI 0.63-0.96); p = 0.02) and observational studies (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.53-0.72; p < 0.001). Furthermore, in non-RCTs, ARNI also reduced sustained (RR 0.36 (95% CI 0.2-0.63); p < 0.001), non-sustained VT (RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.57-0.80; p = 0.007), ICD shock (RR 0.24 (95% CI 0.12-0.48; p < 0.001), and increased biventricular pacing (2.96% (95% CI 2.25-3.67), p < 0.001). In patients with chronic HFrEF, switching from ACE-I/ARB to ARNI treatment was associated with a consistent reduction of ventricular arrhythmic burden. This association could be related to a direct pharmacological effect of ARNI on cardiac remodeling.Trial registration: CRD42021257977.
PubMed: 37380925
DOI: 10.1007/s10741-023-10326-1 -
International Journal of Molecular... Aug 2023The pharmacological treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is unsatisfactory, and there is a clinical need for new approaches. Several drugs under advanced clinical...
The pharmacological treatment of postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) is unsatisfactory, and there is a clinical need for new approaches. Several drugs under advanced clinical development are addressed in this review. A systematic literature search was conducted in three electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, Scopus) and in the ClinicalTrials.gov register from 1 January 2016 to 1 June 2023 to identify Phase II, III and IV clinical trials evaluating drugs for the treatment of PHN. A total of 18 clinical trials were selected evaluating 15 molecules with pharmacological actions on nine different molecular targets: Angiotensin Type 2 Receptor (AT2R) antagonism (olodanrigan), Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel (VGCC) α2δ subunit inhibition (crisugabalin, mirogabalin and pregabalin), Voltage-Gated Sodium Channel (VGSC) blockade (funapide and lidocaine), Cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1) inhibition (TRK-700), Adaptor-Associated Kinase 1 (AAK1) inhibition (LX9211), Lanthionine Synthetase C-Like Protein (LANCL) activation (LAT8881), N-Methyl-D-Aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonism (esketamine), mu opioid receptor agonism (tramadol, oxycodone and hydromorphone) and Nerve Growth Factor (NGF) inhibition (fulranumab). In brief, there are several drugs in advanced clinical development for treating PHN with some of them reporting promising results. AT2R antagonism, AAK1 inhibition, LANCL activation and NGF inhibition are considered first-in-class analgesics. Hopefully, these trials will result in a better clinical management of PHN.
Topics: Humans; Drugs, Investigational; Nerve Growth Factor; Neuralgia, Postherpetic; Pregabalin; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37629168
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241612987 -
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