-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Beta-blockers refer to a mixed group of drugs with diverse pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties. They have shown long-term beneficial effects on mortality and cardiovascular disease (CVD) when used in people with heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers were thought to have similar beneficial effects when used as first-line therapy for hypertension. However, the benefit of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension without compelling indications is controversial. This review is an update of a Cochrane Review initially published in 2007 and updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of beta-blockers on morbidity and mortality endpoints in adults with hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to June 2016: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), and ClinicalTrials.gov. We checked reference lists of relevant reviews, and reference lists of studies potentially eligible for inclusion in this review, and also searched the the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 06 July 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least one year of duration, which assessed the effects of beta-blockers compared to placebo or other drugs, as first-line therapy for hypertension, on mortality and morbidity in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected studies and extracted data in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus. We expressed study results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and conducted fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analyses, as appropriate. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. GRADE classifies the certainty of evidence as high (if we are confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of effect), moderate (if the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of effect), low (if the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of effect), and very low (if we are very uncertain about the estimate of effect).
MAIN RESULTS
Thirteen RCTs met inclusion criteria. They compared beta-blockers to placebo (4 RCTs, 23,613 participants), diuretics (5 RCTs, 18,241 participants), calcium-channel blockers (CCBs: 4 RCTs, 44,825 participants), and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors (3 RCTs, 10,828 participants). These RCTs were conducted between the 1970s and 2000s and most of them had a high risk of bias resulting from limitations in study design, conduct, and data analysis. There were 40,245 participants taking beta-blockers, three-quarters of them taking atenolol. We found no outcome trials involving the newer vasodilating beta-blockers (e.g. nebivolol).There was no difference in all-cause mortality between beta-blockers and placebo (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.11), diuretics or RAS inhibitors, but it was higher for beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.14). The evidence on mortality was of moderate-certainty for all comparisons.Total CVD was lower for beta-blockers compared to placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.97; low-certainty evidence), a reflection of the decrease in stroke (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.96; low-certainty evidence) since there was no difference in coronary heart disease (CHD: RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect of beta-blockers on CVD was worse than that of CCBs (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence), but was not different from that of diuretics (moderate-certainty) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty). In addition, there was an increase in stroke in beta-blockers compared to CCBs (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.40; moderate-certainty evidence) and RAS inhibitors (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.53; moderate-certainty evidence). However, there was little or no difference in CHD between beta-blockers and diuretics (low-certainty evidence), CCBs (moderate-certainty evidence) or RAS inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). In the single trial involving participants aged 65 years and older, atenolol was associated with an increased CHD incidence compared to diuretics (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.32). Participants taking beta-blockers were more likely to discontinue treatment due to adverse events than participants taking RAS inhibitors (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.54; moderate-certainty evidence), but there was little or no difference with placebo, diuretics or CCBs (low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Most outcome RCTs on beta-blockers as initial therapy for hypertension have high risk of bias. Atenolol was the beta-blocker most used. Current evidence suggests that initiating treatment of hypertension with beta-blockers leads to modest CVD reductions and little or no effects on mortality. These beta-blocker effects are inferior to those of other antihypertensive drugs. Further research should be of high quality and should explore whether there are differences between different subtypes of beta-blockers or whether beta-blockers have differential effects on younger and older people.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Antihypertensive Agents; Atenolol; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Diuretics; Heart Arrest; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 28107561
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub5 -
World Journal of Critical Care Medicine May 2022In patients with respiratory failure, loop diuretics remain the cornerstone of the treatment to maintain fluid balance, but resistance is common.
BACKGROUND
In patients with respiratory failure, loop diuretics remain the cornerstone of the treatment to maintain fluid balance, but resistance is common.
AIM
To determine the efficacy and safety of common diuretic combinations in critically ill patients with respiratory failure.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and PROSPERO for studies reporting the effects of a combination of a loop diuretic with another class of diuretic. A meta-analysis using mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was performed for the 24-h fluid balance (primary outcome) and the 24-h urine output, while descriptive statistics were used for safety events.
RESULTS
Nine studies totalling 440 patients from a total of 6510 citations were included. When compared to loop diuretics alone, the addition of a second diuretic is associated with an improved negative fluid balance at 24 h [MD: -1.06 L (95%CI: -1.46; -0.65)], driven by the combination of a thiazide plus furosemide [MD: -1.25 L (95%CI: -1.68; -0.82)], while no difference was observed with the combination of a loop-diuretic plus acetazolamide [MD: -0.40 L (95%CI: -0.96; 0.16)] or spironolactone [MD: -0.65 L (95%CI: -1.66; 0.36)]. Heterogeneity was high and the report of clinical and safety endpoints varied across studies.
CONCLUSION
Based on limited evidence, the addition of a second diuretic to a loop diuretic may promote diuresis and negative fluid balance in patients with respiratory failure, but only when using a thiazide. Further larger trials to evaluate the safety and efficacy of such interventions in patients with respiratory failure are required.
PubMed: 36331969
DOI: 10.5492/wjccm.v11.i3.178 -
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 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Mar 2012Among people with diabetes, about 40% of those aged 45 years, and more than 60% of those aged 75 years or over, will have a blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg. Major... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Among people with diabetes, about 40% of those aged 45 years, and more than 60% of those aged 75 years or over, will have a blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg. Major cardiac events occur in approximately 5% of people with diabetes and untreated hypertension each year, and the risk is higher in those with other risk factors, such as diabetic nephropathy.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of antihypertensives in people with diabetes and hypertension? What are the effects of different blood pressure targets in people with diabetes and hypertension? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to April 2011 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically; please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 24 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review, we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: alpha-blockers, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, beta-blockers, blood pressure targets (lower or higher), calcium-channel blockers, and diuretics.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Hypertension
PubMed: 22456232
DOI: No ID Found -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2023Due to its high heterogenicity and unclear etiology, there is currently no specific treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Metformin, as an insulin sensitizer,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Due to its high heterogenicity and unclear etiology, there is currently no specific treatment for polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Metformin, as an insulin sensitizer, combined with spironolactone, an antiandrogen medication, may exert complementary effects on PCOS. We therefore performed a meta-analysis of trials in which metformin combined with spironolactone was applied to treat PCOS to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination therapy.
METHODS
We retrieved the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wangfang, and VIP databases for literatures published from their inception to December 16, 2022 on the effects of metformin combined with spironolactone in the treatment of PCOS. Inclusion criteria according to P.I.C.O.S criteria were: PCOS patients, metformin combined with spironolactone interventions, metformin alone control group, and randomized controlled trials with the following outcome data: body mass index (BMI), hirsutism score, luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), total testosterone (TT), fasting blood glucose (FBG), Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR), and side effects including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and drug withdrawal.
RESULTS
Our results revealed that metformin combined with spironolactone significantly reduced BMI and TT, but that it exerted no significant effects on hirsutism score, or on FSH or LH concentrations. Combined treatment also resulted in a significant diminution in FBG and insulin resistance using the HOMA-IR when the interventional time was greater than 6 months. In addition, the combination did not have a higher occurrence of adverse reactions than metformin alone.
CONCLUSION
Compared with metformin alone, metformin combined with spironolactone therapy may be more effective in reducing BMI and serum androgen levels, but the combination showed no significant effect on the hirsutism score or gonadotropin hormone levels, and was not associated with an elevation in side-effects. Moreover, when the treatment course was greater than 6 months, combination therapy reduced FBG and improved insulin resistance more effectively than metformin alone. However, more research is needed to determine the most effective course of treatment.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42022355515.
Topics: Female; Humans; Hirsutism; Insulin Resistance; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Spironolactone; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Human; Luteinizing Hormone
PubMed: 37635987
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1223768 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2017Eplerenone is an aldosterone receptor blocker that is chemically derived from spironolactone. In Canada, it is indicated for use as adjunctive therapy to reduce... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Eplerenone is an aldosterone receptor blocker that is chemically derived from spironolactone. In Canada, it is indicated for use as adjunctive therapy to reduce mortality for heart failure patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II systolic chronic heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. It is also used as adjunctive therapy for patients with heart failure following myocardial infarction. Additionally, it is indicated for the treatment of mild and moderate essential hypertension for patients who cannot be treated adequately with other agents. It is important to determine the clinical impact of all antihypertensive medications, including aldosterone antagonists, to support their continued use in essential hypertension. No previous systematic reviews have evaluated the effect of eplerenone on cardiovascular morbidity, mortality, and magnitude of blood pressure lowering in patients with hypertension.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of eplerenone monotherapy versus placebo for primary hypertension in adults. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events (fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction), cerebrovascular events (fatal or non fatal strokes), adverse events or withdrawals due to adverse events, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 3 March 2016. We handsearched references from retrieved studies to identify any studies missed in the initial search. We also searched for unpublished data by contacting the corresponding authors of the included studies and pharmaceutical companies involved in conducting studies on eplerenone monotherapy in primary hypertension. The search had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomized placebo-controlled trials studying adult patients with primary hypertension. We excluded studies in people with secondary or gestational hypertension and studies where participants were receiving multiple antihypertensives.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently reviewed the search results for studies meeting our criteria. Three review authors independently extracted data and assessed trial quality using a standardized data extraction form. A fourth independent review author resolved discrepancies or disagreements. We performed data extraction and synthesis using a standardized format on Covidence. We conducted data analysis using Review Manager 5.
MAIN RESULTS
A total of 1437 adult patients participated in the five randomized parallel group studies, with treatment durations ranging from 8 to 16 weeks. The daily doses of eplerenone ranged from 25 mg to 400 mg daily. Meta-analysis of these studies showed a reduction in systolic blood pressure of 9.21 mmHg (95% CI -11.08 to -7.34; I = 58%) and a reduction of diastolic pressure of 4.18 mmHg (95% CI -5.03 to -3.33; I = 0%) (moderate quality evidence).There may be a dose response effect for eplerenone in the reduction in systolic blood pressure at doses of 400 mg/day. However, this finding is uncertain, as it is based on a single included study with low quality evidence. Overall there does not appear to be a clinically important dose response in lowering systolic or diastolic blood pressure at eplerenone doses of 50 mg to 400 mg daily. There did not appear to be any differences in the number of patients who withdrew due to adverse events or the number of patients with at least one adverse event in the eplerenone group compared to placebo. However, only three of the five included studies reported adverse events. Most of the included studies were of moderate quality, as we judged multiple domains as being at unclear risk in the 'Risk of bias' assessment.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Eplerenone 50 to 200 mg/day lowers blood pressure in people with primary hypertension by 9.21 mmHg systolic and 4.18 mmHg diastolic compared to placebo, with no difference of effect between doses of 50 mg/day to 200 mg/day. A dose of 25 mg/day did not produce a statistically significant reduction in systolic or diastolic blood pressure and there is insufficient evidence for doses above 200 mg/day. There is currently no available evidence to determine the effect of eplerenone on clinically meaningful outcomes such as mortality or morbidity in hypertensive patients. The evidence available on side effects is insufficient and of low quality, which makes it impossible to draw conclusions about potential harm associated with eplerenone treatment in hypertensive patients.
Topics: Adult; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Eplerenone; Essential Hypertension; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Patient Dropouts; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spironolactone
PubMed: 28245343
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008996.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2023Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC),... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a common problem. Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome. Combined oral contraceptives (COC), which provide both progestin and oestrogen, have been examined for their ability to relieve premenstrual symptoms. A combined oral contraceptive containing drospirenone and a low oestrogen dose has been approved for treating PMDD in women who choose combined oral contraceptives for contraception.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COCs containing drospirenone in women with PMS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trial register, CENTRAL (now containing output from two trials registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos on 29 June 2022. We checked included studies' reference lists and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) that compared COCs containing drospirenone with placebo or with another COC for treatment of women with PMS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were effects on premenstrual symptoms that were prospectively recorded, and withdrawal due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes included effects on mood, adverse events, and response rate to study medications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs (858 women analysed, most diagnosed with PMDD). The evidence was very low to moderate quality; the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious inconsistency and imprecision. COCs containing drospirenone and ethinylestradiol (EE) versus placebo COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve overall premenstrual symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to -0.24; 2 RCTs, N = 514; I = 64%; low-quality evidence); and functional impairment due to premenstrual symptoms in terms of productivity (mean difference (MD) -0.31, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.08; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 47%; low-quality evidence), social activities (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.04; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 53%; low-quality evidence), and relationships (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.06; 2 RCTs, N = 432; I = 45%; low-quality evidence). The effects from COCs containing drospirenone may be small to moderate. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may increase withdrawal from trials due to adverse effects (odds ratio (OR) 3.41, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.78; 4 RCT, N = 776; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of withdrawal due to adverse effects from placebo is 3%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 6% and 16%. We are uncertain of the effect of drospirenone plus EE on premenstrual mood symptoms, when measured by validated tools that were not developed to assess premenstrual symptoms. COCs containing drospirenone may lead to more adverse effects in total (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.71 to 3.11; 3 RCT, N = 739; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the risk of having adverse effects from placebo is 28%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 40% and 54%. It probably leads to more breast pain, and may lead to more nausea, intermenstrual bleeding, and menstrual disorder. Its effect on nervousness, headache, asthenia, and pain is uncertain. There was no report of any rare but serious adverse effects, such as venous thromboembolism in any of the included studies. COCs containing drospirenone may improve response rate (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.40; 1 RCT, N = 449; I not applicable; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if you assume the response rate from placebo is 36%, the risk from drospirenone plus EE will be between 39% and 58%. We did not identify any studies that compared COCs containing drospirenone with other COCs.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
COCs containing drospirenone and EE may improve premenstrual symptoms that result in functional impairments in women with PMDD. The placebo also had a significant effect. COCs containing drospirenone and EE may lead to more adverse effects compared to placebo. We do not know whether it works after three cycles, helps women with less severe symptoms, or is better than other combined oral contraceptives that contain a different progestogen.
Topics: Female; Humans; Contraceptives, Oral, Combined; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Estrogens; Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder; Premenstrual Syndrome; Progestins
PubMed: 37365881
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006586.pub5 -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023The incidence and risk factors of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with malignancies receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are being extensively reported... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The incidence and risk factors of acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with malignancies receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are being extensively reported with their widespread application.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to quantify the incidence and identify risk factors of AKI in cancer patients treated with ICIs.
METHODS
We searched the electronic databases of PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase before 1 February 2023 on the incidence and risk factors of AKI in patients receiving ICIs and registered the protocol in PROSPERO (CRD42023391939). A random-effect meta-analysis was performed to quantify the pooled incidence estimate of AKI, identify risk factors with pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and investigate the median latency period of ICI-AKI in patients treated with ICIs. Assessment of study quality, meta-regression, and sensitivity and publication bias analyses were conducted.
RESULTS
In total, 27 studies consisting of 24048 participants were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The overall pooled incidence of AKI secondary to ICIs was 5.7% (95% CI: 3.7%-8.2%). Significant risk factors were older age (OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 1.00-1.03), preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD) (OR: 2.90, 95% CI: 1.65-5.11), ipilimumab (OR: 2.66, 95% CI: 1.42-4.98), combination of ICIs (OR: 2.45, 95% CI: 1.40-4.31), extrarenal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) (OR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.53-3.59), and proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (OR: 2.23, 95% CI: 1.88-2.64), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) (OR: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.90-3.57), fluindione (OR: 6.48, 95% CI: 2.72-15.46), diuretic (OR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.32-2.40) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) (pooled OR: 1.76, 95% CI: 1.15-2.68) use. Median time from ICIs initiation to AKI was 108.07 days. Sensitivity and publication bias analyses indicated robust results for this study.
CONCLUSION
The occurrence of AKI following ICIs was not uncommon, with an incidence of 5.7% and a median time interval of 108.07 days after ICIs initiation. Older age, preexisting chronic kidney disease (CKD), ipilimumab, combined use of ICIs, extrarenal irAEs, and PPI, NSAID, fluindione, diuretics and ACEI/ARB use are risk factors for AKI in patients receiving ICIs.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023391939.
Topics: Humans; Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors; Ipilimumab; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Incidence; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Neoplasms; Acute Kidney Injury; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal
PubMed: 37313406
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1173952 -
Cureus Sep 2023Heart failure (HF) is a notable public health issue, and intravenous loop diuretics are frequently employed to address acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and... (Review)
Review
Heart failure (HF) is a notable public health issue, and intravenous loop diuretics are frequently employed to address acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) and alleviate symptoms of congestion. However, prolonged use of loop diuretics can lead to drug resistance, and some patients experience refractory volume overload that does not respond to treatment. Sequential nephron blockade, which involves combining loop and thiazide diuretics, has been proposed as a strategy to overcome diuretic resistance and improve fluid overload management. This systematic review aims to critically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of this combination diuretic therapy. Following the directives detailed in the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted. Eligibility criteria were established to select relevant studies, including the requirement for studies to be conducted on human subjects and published as free full-text papers in English within the last 10 years. Several databases were searched using a combination of Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) phrases and keywords related to heart failure, loop diuretics, and thiazide diuretics. The search yielded 948 references, and after screening titles, abstracts, and full-text papers, eight final studies (five observational studies and three randomized control trials) were included in the review. Based on the findings of this systematic review, there is substantial evidence to endorse the efficacy of combination diuretic therapy of loop and thiazide diuretics in augmenting diuresis and enhancing outcomes for patients who exhibit insufficient responses to single-agent diuretics. Additionally, the review provides valuable insights about the timing and type of diuretics to use, helping clinicians make informed therapeutic decisions. However, to ensure patient safety and well-being, it is imperative to take into account the potential for electrolyte disturbances and impacts on renal function, necessitating diligent and vigilant monitoring as well as effective management strategies. In light of these findings, further research is warranted to optimize the dosing regimens and to delve deeper into the long-term safety and efficacy of combination therapy. Such research endeavors will undoubtedly contribute to refining treatment approaches and advancing patient care in the field of HF management.
PubMed: 37720125
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.44624 -
Renal Failure Dec 2023Thiazide diuretics are first-line drugs for the treatment of hypertension, but hypertension treatment guidelines have systematically discouraged their use in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
Thiazide diuretics are first-line drugs for the treatment of hypertension, but hypertension treatment guidelines have systematically discouraged their use in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). For the first time, a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis were performed to assess the effectiveness of thiazides and thiazide-like diuretics to treat hypertension in patients with stages 3b, 4, and 5 CKD.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis that included a literature search using the following databases were performed: MEDLINE through PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ISI - Web of Science (all databases). Prospective studies that evaluated the effectiveness of thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics in individuals with a GFR < 45 mL/min/1.73 m were included.
RESULTS
Five clinical trials, totaling 214 participants, were included, and the mean GFR ranged from 13.0 ± 5.9 mL/min/1.73 m to 26.8 ± 8.8 mL/min/1.73 m. There was evidence of a reduction in mean blood pressure and in GFR, as well as in fractional sodium excretion and fractional chloride excretion.
CONCLUSION
Thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics seem to maintain their effectiveness in lowering blood pressure in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. These findings should spur new prospective randomized trials and spark discussions, particularly about upcoming hypertension guidelines.
Topics: Humans; Diuretics; Thiazides; Prospective Studies; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Hypertension; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
PubMed: 36637019
DOI: 10.1080/0886022X.2022.2163903