-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024This study aimed to synthesize the evidence of the comparative effectiveness and safety of () preparations combined with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) for...
preparations combined with the renin-angiotensin system inhibitor for diabetic kidney disease treatment: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and network meta-analysis.
AIMS
This study aimed to synthesize the evidence of the comparative effectiveness and safety of () preparations combined with renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) for diabetic kidney disease (DKD).
METHODS
Eight databases were searched from their inception to May 2023. Systematic reviews (SRs) of preparations combined with RASi for DKD were identified. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the included SRs and additional searching were performed for data pooling. Cochrane risk-of-bias 2 (RoB 2) tool and AMSTAR 2 were used to evaluate the methodological quality of RCTs and SRs, respectively. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to compare the add-on effect and safety of preparations for DKD. The certainty of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Fourteen SRs were included, whose methodological quality was assessed as high (1/14) or critically low (13/14). After combining additional searching, 157 RCTs were included, involving 13,143 participants. The quality of the RCTs showed some concerns (155/157) or high risk (2/157). Jinshuibao capsules and tablets, Bailing capsules and tablets, and Zhiling capsules were evaluated. Compared to RASi, adding either of the capsular preparations resulted in a decreased 24-h urinary total protein levels. preparations ranked differently in each outcome. Jinshuibao capsules plus RASi were beneficial in reducing urinary protein, serum creatinine, serum urea nitrogen, and blood glucose levels, with moderate-certainty evidence. No serious adverse events were observed after adding to RASi.
CONCLUSION
Combining capsular preparations with RASi appeared to be associated with decreased urinary total protein levels in DKD patients. Further high-quality studies are needed to confirm.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
INPASY202350066.
PubMed: 38716236
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1360633 -
BMC Cancer Apr 2024Hypertension is associated with the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) and its progression, however, it remains unclear whether antihypertensive medicines alter PCa risk or...
BACKGROUND
Hypertension is associated with the risk of prostate cancer (PCa) and its progression, however, it remains unclear whether antihypertensive medicines alter PCa risk or prognosis. This systematic review evaluated the role of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors in the risk and prognosis of PCa. This review was performed in line with PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
METHODS
Eligible studies comprised peer-reviewed observational studies which reported the role of CCBs and RAS inhibitors in PCa, had accessible full texts, and were written in English. Using a combination of keywords, 5 electronic bibliographic databases which included Web of Science, EMBASE, PubMed, Google Scholar and Scopus were searched.
RESULTS
A total of 1,346 studies were retrieved and 18 met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies reported reduced or no associated risk, improved prognosis, and survival with the use of RAS inhibitors. Studies on CCBs showed evidence of associated risk of PCa. Data extraction from retrieved studies focused on included study characteristics, setting, authors, year, outcomes of interest, and risk ratios. The quality assessment of included studies by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute study assessment tools, showed that all studies had good quality.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of RAS inhibitors was mostly associated with lower risks or improved prognosis of PCa. CCBs may also be associated with risks of PCa. This suggests that high-risk patients managed with CCBs should be actively monitored for PCa. However, there is need for further evidence from large-scale prospective, controlled cohort studies to determine any influence of CCBs on PCa.
Topics: Humans; Prostatic Neoplasms; Male; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Hypertension; Prognosis; Renin-Angiotensin System; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 38684963
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-024-12218-5 -
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 -
Current Reviews in Clinical and... Apr 2024Pancreatic Cancer (PC) is one of the most malignant tumors and highly invasive neoplasms around the world. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Pancreatic Cancer (PC) is one of the most malignant tumors and highly invasive neoplasms around the world.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to study the relationship between the use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and the incidence and mortality of PC.
METHODS
The electronic search was conducted systematically until October 10, 2023. in databases, including Scopus, Web of Science (WOS), PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The required data were extracted from the articles and were analyzed by Stata 15 using statistical tests (Chi-square and I2), Forest plots, and publication bias tests (Begg's and Egger's tests).
RESULTS
A total of four studies (2011-2019; n=314,856) investigated the relationship between RAS antagonists and PC risk. No significant associations were found between angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) (OR=0.94, 95% CI: 0.77-1.14, p=0.513), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) (OR=0.96, 95% CI: 0.84-1.09, p=0.505), or combination therapy (ARBs + ACEIs) (OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.87-1.09, p=0.627) and PC risk. Also, nine studies (2010-2023; n=20,483) examined the association between renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and PC mortality. Significant reductions in PC mortality were found for ARBs (OR=0.81, 95% CI: 0.66-0.98, p=0.032), ACEIs (OR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99, p=0.038), and combination therapy (OR=0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.97, p=0.022). No evidence of publication bias was found in the study results.
CONCLUSION
In summary, while renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors did not appear to impact PC risk, their use was associated with lower PC mortality based on this meta-analysis of the current evidence. More rigorous and well-designed studies are required to validate and support these findings.
PubMed: 38629353
DOI: 10.2174/0127724328291047240409062436 -
High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular... Mar 2024Resistant hypertension (RHT) is characterized by persistently high blood pressure (BP) levels above the widely recommended therapeutic targets of less than 140/90 mmHg...
Resistant hypertension (RHT) is characterized by persistently high blood pressure (BP) levels above the widely recommended therapeutic targets of less than 140/90 mmHg office BP, despite life-style measures and optimal medical therapies, including at least three antihypertensive drug classes at maximum tolerated dose (one should be a diuretic). This condition is strongly related to hypertension-mediated organ damage and, mostly, high risk of hospitalization due to hypertension emergencies or acute cardiovascular events. Hypertension guidelines proposed a triple combination therapy based on renin angiotensin system blocking agent, a thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic, and a dihydropyridinic calcium-channel blocker, to almost all patients with RHT, who should also receive either a beta-blocker or a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, or both, depending on concomitant conditions and contraindications. Several other drugs may be attempted, when elevated BP levels persist in these RHT patients, although their added efficacy in lowering BP levels on top of optimal medical therapy is uncertain. Also, renal denervation has demonstrated to be a valid therapeutic alternative in RHT patients. More recently, novel drug classes and molecules have been tested in phase 2 randomised controlled clinical trials in patients with RHT on top of optimal medical therapy with at least 2-3 antihypertensive drugs. These novel drugs, which are orally administered and are able to antagonize different pathophysiological pathways, are represented by non-steroid mineralocorticorticoid receptor antagonists, selective aldosterone synthase inhibitors, and dual endothelin receptor antagonists, all of which have proven to reduce seated office and 24-h ambulatory systolic/diastolic BP levels. The main findings of randomized clinical trials performed with these drugs as well as their potential indications for the clinical management of RHT patients are summarised in this systematic review article.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Drug Resistance; Drug Therapy, Combination; Hypertension; Precision Medicine; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 38616212
DOI: 10.1007/s40292-024-00634-4 -
Cardiology Apr 2024The use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) remains a subject of controversy.
INTRODUCTION
The use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in the treatment of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) remains a subject of controversy.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Web of Science databases until October 2023 to identify articles investigating the effects of ARBs in patients diagnosed with HCM. Predefined criteria were utilized for selecting data on study characteristics and results.
RESULTS
The study included a total of 387 patients from 6 randomized controlled trials, which were reported in 7 articles. The results of the meta-analysis revealed that the utilization of ARBs did not yield a reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass (p = 0.07) and maximum LV wall thickness (p = 0.25), nor did it demonstrate any improvement in LV fibrosis (p = 0.39). Furthermore, there was no significant impact observed on early diastolic mitral annular velocity (p = 0.19) and LV ejection fraction (p = 0.44).
CONCLUSIONS
The administration of ARBs does not appear to yield improvements in cardiac structure, function, and myocardial fibrosis in patients with HCM.
PubMed: 38599198
DOI: 10.1159/000538638 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024IgA nephropathy (IgAN), a condition posing a significant threat to public health, currently lacks a specific treatment protocol. Research has underscored the potential...
Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and their combinations in the treatment of IgA nephropathy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
IgA nephropathy (IgAN), a condition posing a significant threat to public health, currently lacks a specific treatment protocol. Research has underscored the potential benefits of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for treating IgAN. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of various intervention strategies, such as combining TCM with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), lacks a comprehensive systematic comparison. Therefore, this study aimed to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the clinical efficacy of ACEIs, ARBs, TCM, and their combinations in treating IgAN to offer novel insights and approaches for the clinical management of IgAN.
METHODS
A systematic review conducted until November 2023 included relevant literature from databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang. Two independent researchers screened and assessed the data for quality. Network and traditional meta-analyses were performed using Stata 18.0 and RevMan 5.3 software, respectively. Outcome measures included 24-h urinary protein quantification (24 hpro), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), serum creatinine (Scr), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), and adverse event incidence rates (ADRs). Forest plots, cumulative ranking probability curves (SUCRA), and funnel plots generated using Stata 18.0 facilitated a comprehensive analysis of intervention strategies' efficacy and safety.
RESULTS
This study included 72 randomized controlled trials, seven interventions, and 7,030 patients. Comparative analysis revealed that ACEI + TCM, ARB + TCM combination therapy, and TCM monotherapy significantly reduced the levels of 24 hpro, eGFR, Scr, and BUN compared to other treatment modalities ( < 0.05). TCM monotherapy demonstrated the most favorable efficacy in reducing eGFR levels (SUCRAs: 78%), whereas the combination of ARB + TCM reduced Scr, 24 hpro, and BUN levels (SUCRAs: 85.7%, 95.2%, and 87.6%, respectively), suggesting that ARB + TCM may represent the optimal intervention strategy. No statistically significant differences were observed among the various treatment strategies in terms of ADR ( > 0.05).
CONCLUSION
The combination of ACEI or ARB with TCM demonstrated superior efficacy compared to ACEI/ARB monotherapy in the treatment of IgAN without any significant ADRs. Therefore, combination therapies can be used to enhance therapeutic outcomes based on individual patient circumstances, highlighting the use of TCM as a widely applicable approach in clinical practice.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42023476674.
PubMed: 38576485
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1374377 -
Computers in Biology and Medicine May 2024SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped RNA virus that causes severe respiratory illness in humans and animals. It infects cells by binding the Spike protein to the host's... (Review)
Review
SARS-CoV-2 is an enveloped RNA virus that causes severe respiratory illness in humans and animals. It infects cells by binding the Spike protein to the host's angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). The bat is considered the natural host of the virus, and zoonotic transmission is a significant risk and can happen when humans come into close contact with infected animals. Therefore, understanding the interconnection between human, animal, and environmental health is important to prevent and control future coronavirus outbreaks. This work aimed to systematically review the literature to identify characteristics that make mammals suitable virus transmitters and raise the main computational methods used to evaluate SARS-CoV-2 in mammals. Based on this review, it was possible to identify the main factors related to transmissions mentioned in the literature, such as the expression of ACE2 and proximity to humans, in addition to identifying the computational methods used for its study, such as Machine Learning, Molecular Modeling, Computational Simulation, between others. The findings of the work contribute to the prevention and control of future outbreaks, provide information on transmission factors, and highlight the importance of advanced computational methods in the study of infectious diseases that allow a deeper understanding of transmission patterns and can help in the development of more effective control and intervention strategies.
Topics: Animals; Humans; SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2; Receptors, Virus; Protein Binding; Mammals
PubMed: 38564853
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108264 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Mar 2024: Sacubitril/valsartan improves heart failure (HF) outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, randomized controlled trials... (Review)
Review
The Efficacy and Safety of Sacubitril/Valsartan Compared to Valsartan in Patients with Heart Failure and Mildly Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fractions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
: Sacubitril/valsartan improves heart failure (HF) outcomes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have shown inconsistent results. We conducted this meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan within this specific patient population. : We searched the MEDLINE database and ClinicalTrials.gov and identified four RCTs that could be included in our analysis, with 3375 patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 3362 in the valsartan group. : Our study shows that, in patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan was superior to valsartan in some of the key HF outcomes, such as the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ CSS), with a small but significant mean difference of 1.13 (95% confidence interval or CI of 0.15 to 2.11, -value 0.024), an improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (odds ratio or OR of 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58, -value 0.002), and the composite outcome of hospitalizations for HF and cardiovascular death, with a relative risk (RR) of 0.86 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.99, -value 0.04). However, there was no additional benefit with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan for the outcomes of cardiovascular death and all-cause mortality. In terms of side effects, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a higher risk of hypotension when compared to valsartan (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.19, -value < 0.0001), but did not show an increased risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function. : In individuals with HFmrEF or HFpEF, sacubitril/valsartan can result in improvements in the HF outcomes of the KCCQ CSS, the NYHA class, and the composite outcome of hospitalization for HF and cardiovascular death when compared to valsartan. While there was a higher risk of hypotension with sacubitril/valsartan compared to valsartan, there was no corresponding increase in the risk of hyperkalemia or worsening renal function.
PubMed: 38541798
DOI: 10.3390/jcm13061572 -
European Journal of Vascular and... Mar 2024Whether angiotensin II blockade is an effective medical treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has not been established. This systematic review and... (Review)
Review
Systematic Review Examining the Association Between Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor or Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Prescription and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Growth and Events.
OBJECTIVE
Whether angiotensin II blockade is an effective medical treatment for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has not been established. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the association between angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) prescription and AAA growth and events.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to 4 January 2024, with no language restrictions.
REVIEW METHODS
The five databases were searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting the association between ACEi or ARB prescription and AAA growth, repair, or rupture. The primary outcome was AAA growth, with secondary outcomes of AAA rupture, AAA repair, and AAA related events (rupture and repair combined). Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool for RCTs and with a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale for observational studies. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Random effects models were used for meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Eleven studies (two RCTs, eight observational studies, and one meta-analysis of individual patient data from seven populations) involving 58 022 patients were included. ACEi prescription was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in AAA growth (standard mean difference 0.01 mm/year, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.26 - 0.28; p = .93; I = 98%) or AAA repair (odds ratio [OR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.50 - 1.09; p = .65; I = 61%), but was associated with a statistically significantly lower risk of AAA rupture (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81 - 0.93; p < .001; I = 26%) and AAA related events (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 - 0.95; p = .006; I = 80%). ARB prescription was not associated with significantly reduced AAA growth or a lower risk of AAA related events. The two RCTs had a low risk of bias, with one observational study having low, seven moderate, and one high risk of bias. All of the findings had a very low certainty of evidence based on the GRADE analysis.
CONCLUSION
There was no association between ACEi or ARB prescription and AAA growth, but ACEi prescription was associated with a reduced risk of AAA rupture and AAA related events with very low certainty of evidence.
PubMed: 38537880
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2024.03.034