-
The Journal of Heart and Lung... May 2024Current monitoring after heart transplantation (HT) employs repeated invasive endomyocardial biopsies (EMB). Although positive EMB confirms rejection, EMB fails to...
BACKGROUND
Current monitoring after heart transplantation (HT) employs repeated invasive endomyocardial biopsies (EMB). Although positive EMB confirms rejection, EMB fails to predict impending, subclinical, or EMB-negative rejection events. While non-human leukocyte antigen (non-HLA) antibodies have emerged as important risk factors for antibody-mediated rejection after HT, their use in clinical risk stratification has been limited. A systematic review of the role of non-HLA antibodies in rejection pathologies has the potential to guide efforts to overcome deficiencies of EMB in rejection monitoring.
METHODS
Databases were searched to include studies on non-HLA antibodies in HT recipients. Data collected included the number of patients, type of rejection, non-HLA antigen studied, association of non-HLA antibodies with rejection, and evidence for synergistic interaction between non-HLA antibodies and donor-specific anti-human leukocyte antigen antibody (HLA-DSA) responses.
RESULTS
A total of 56 studies met the inclusion criteria. Strength of evidence for each non-HLA antibody was evaluated based on the number of articles and patients in support versus against their role in mediating rejection. Importantly, despite previous intense focus on the role of anti-major histocompatibility complex class I chain-related gene A (MICA) and anti-angiotensin II type I receptor antibodies (AT1R) in HT rejection, evidence for their involvement was equivocal. Conversely, the strength of evidence for other non-HLA antibodies supports that differing rejection pathologies are driven by differing non-HLA antibodies.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review underscores the importance of identifying peri-HT non-HLA antibodies. Current evidence supports the role of non-HLA antibodies in all forms of HT rejection. Further investigations are required to define the mechanisms of action of non-HLA antibodies in HT rejection.
PubMed: 38796046
DOI: 10.1016/j.healun.2024.05.012 -
Lung Cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) Jun 2024Crizotinib was approved to treat patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) gene fusion in 2016. We conducted a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of crizotinib in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer with ROS1 gene fusion: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of real-world evidence.
BACKGROUND
Crizotinib was approved to treat patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) with ROS proto-oncogene 1 (ROS1) gene fusion in 2016. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify real-world evidence (RWE) studies and estimated the efficacy and safety of crizotinib using meta-analyses (MA) for objective response rate (ORR), real-world progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE®, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from January 2016 to March 2023 using Ovid® for published single-arm or comparative RWE studies evaluating patients (N ≥ 20) receiving crizotinib monotherapy for aNSCLC with ROS1 gene fusion. Pooled estimates for ORR and grade 3/4 adverse events (AEs) were derived using the metafor package in R while pooled estimates for median real-world PFS (rwPFS) and OS were derived using reconstructed individual patient data from published Kaplan-Meier curves. The primary analysis included all studies regardless of crizotinib line of therapy; a subgroup analysis (SA) was conducted using studies evaluating patients receiving first-line crizotinib.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were considered feasible for MA. For the primary analysis, the pooled ORR (N = 9 studies) was 70.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 57.0, 81.3), median rwPFS was 14.5 months (N = 11 studies), and OS was 40.2 months (N = 9 studies). In the SA, the pooled ORR (N = 4 studies) was 81.1 % (95 % CI: 76.1, 85.2) and the median rwPFS (N = 4 studies) and OS (N = 2 studies) were 18.1 and 60 months, respectively. All MAs were associated with significant heterogeneity (I > 25 %). Grade 3/4 AEs occurred in 18.7 % of patients (pooled estimate).
CONCLUSION
The results from this study are consistent with clinical trial data and, taken collectively, supports crizotinib as a safe and effective treatment across different lines of therapy in patients with ROS1 aNSCLC in the real-world setting.
Topics: Crizotinib; Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Proto-Oncogene Mas; Proto-Oncogene Proteins; Protein-Tyrosine Kinases; Protein Kinase Inhibitors; Oncogene Proteins, Fusion; Treatment Outcome; Antineoplastic Agents; Gene Fusion
PubMed: 38749072
DOI: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2024.107816 -
Kardiologiia Apr 2024The article discusses current issues of the treatment of arterial hypertension. According to presented data, so-called therapeutic nihilism is becoming one of the main... (Review)
Review
The article discusses current issues of the treatment of arterial hypertension. According to presented data, so-called therapeutic nihilism is becoming one of the main barriers to achieving target blood pressure (BP). This nihilism is that despite evidence of the effectiveness of achieving lower BP values, practitioners do not intensify antihypertensive therapy sufficiently to achieve such values. The article specially addresses new criteria for the effectiveness of antihypertensive therapy, which reflect the therapy sustainability. The most commonly used indicator is the duration of the period, during which systolic BP remains in the therapeutic range. The prognostic significance of such indicators is discussed. In these conditions, it is very important to use the most effective antihypertensive drugs for initial antihypertensive therapy, including as a part of combination therapy. This tactic provides more frequent achievement of BP goals without the need for dose adjustment. In this regard, a systematic review was performed, which included sufficiently large randomized studies of the antihypertensive effectiveness of azilsartan medoxomil. This systematic review will provide comprehensive information on a possible role of using the angiotensin II receptor blocker azilsartan as a basic drug for the treatment of a wide range of patients with high BP. Most of the studies included in the systematic review assessed the effectiveness of combination therapy including azilsartan.
Topics: Humans; Oxadiazoles; Hypertension; Antihypertensive Agents; Benzimidazoles; Blood Pressure; Drug Therapy, Combination
PubMed: 38742517
DOI: 10.18087/cardio.2024.4.n2646 -
Medicine May 2024Heart failure is a common and severe condition, often complicated by diastolic dysfunction. Current standard therapies such as ACEIs and ARBs have limited efficacy in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Heart failure is a common and severe condition, often complicated by diastolic dysfunction. Current standard therapies such as ACEIs and ARBs have limited efficacy in managing diastolic function. Sacubitril/Valsartan, an emerging therapy, warrants rigorous investigation to elucidate its impact on diastolic function in heart failure patients.
METHODS
This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and utilized the PICO schema. Searches were performed on 4 databases-PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library-without temporal restrictions. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were strictly defined, and quality assessments were conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. Both fixed-effects and random-effects models were used for statistical analysis, depending on inter-study heterogeneity assessed by I2 statistics and Chi-square tests.
RESULTS
Out of 1129 identified publications, 8 studies met the criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. These studies consisted of both randomized controlled trials and cohort studies and featured diverse global populations. Significant reductions were found in the echocardiographic parameter E/e' ratio and LAVi upon treatment with Sacubitril/Valsartan compared to standard therapies, with mean differences of -1.38 and -4.62, respectively, both with P values < .01.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis demonstrates that Sacubitril/Valsartan significantly improves diastolic function parameters in heart failure patients compared to standard treatments. These findings underscore the potential benefits of Sacubitril/Valsartan in the management of heart failure, particularly for patients with diastolic dysfunction.
Topics: Humans; Valsartan; Aminobutyrates; Drug Combinations; Biphenyl Compounds; Heart Failure; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Tetrazoles; Diastole
PubMed: 38728489
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000037965 -
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) Jul 2024Increased arterial stiffness and pulse wave velocity (PWV) of the aorta and large arteries impose adverse hemodynamic effects on the heart and other organs.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Comparative Study
BACKGROUND
Increased arterial stiffness and pulse wave velocity (PWV) of the aorta and large arteries impose adverse hemodynamic effects on the heart and other organs. Antihypertensive treatment reduces PWV, but it is unknown whether this results from an unloading of stiffer elements in the arterial wall or is due to an alternate functional or structural change that might differ according to class of antihypertensive drug.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of different antihypertensive drug classes and duration of treatment on PWV with and without adjustment for change in mean arterial blood pressure (BP; study 1) and compared this to the change in PWV after an acute change in transmural pressure, simulating an acute change in BP (study 2).
RESULTS
A total of 83 studies involving 6200 subjects were identified. For all drug classes combined, the reduction of PWV was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46-0.83) m/s per 10 mm Hg reduction in mean arterial BP, a change similar to that induced by an acute change in transmural pressure in a group of hypertensive subjects. When adjusted for change in mean arterial BP, the reduction in PWV after treatment with beta-blockers or diuretics was less than that after treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor antagonists or calcium channel antagonists.
CONCLUSIONS
Reduction in PWV after antihypertensive treatment is largely explained by the reduction in BP, but there are some BP-independent effects. These might increase over time and contribute to better outcomes over the long term, but this remains to be demonstrated in long-term clinical trials.
Topics: Humans; Pulse Wave Analysis; Hypertension; Antihypertensive Agents; Vascular Stiffness; Blood Pressure
PubMed: 38721709
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.123.22436 -
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