-
Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology Jun 2018Non-hereditary angioedema (AE) with normal C1 esterase inhibitor (C1INH) can be presumably bradykinin- or mast cell-mediated, or of unknown cause. In this systematic... (Review)
Review
Non-hereditary angioedema (AE) with normal C1 esterase inhibitor (C1INH) can be presumably bradykinin- or mast cell-mediated, or of unknown cause. In this systematic review, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus to provide an overview of the efficacy of different treatment options for the abovementioned subtypes of refractory non-hereditary AE with or without wheals and with normal C1INH. After study selection and risk of bias assessment, 61 articles were included for data extraction and analysis. Therapies were described for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor-induced AE (ACEi-AE), for idiopathic AE, and for AE with wheals. Described treatments consisted of ecallantide, icatibant, C1INH, fresh frozen plasma (FFP), tranexamic acid (TA), and omalizumab. Additionally, individual studies for anti-vitamin K, progestin, and methotrexate were found. Safety information was available in 26 articles. Most therapies were used off-label and in few patients. There is a need for additional studies with a high level of evidence. In conclusion, in acute attacks of ACEi-AE and idiopathic AE, treatment with icatibant, C1INH, TA, and FFP often leads to symptom relief within 2 h, with limited side effects. For prophylactic treatment of idiopathic AE and AE with wheals, omalizumab, TA, and C1INH were effective and safe in the majority of patients.
Topics: Angioedema; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Bradykinin; Humans; Omalizumab; Progestins; Tranexamic Acid; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27672078
DOI: 10.1007/s12016-016-8585-0 -
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth Jan 2023About 1.3 million pregnant women lived with HIV and were eligible to receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) worldwide in 2021. The World Health Organization recommends... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Adverse perinatal outcomes associated with prenatal exposure to protease-inhibitor-based versus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral combinations in pregnant women with HIV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
About 1.3 million pregnant women lived with HIV and were eligible to receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) worldwide in 2021. The World Health Organization recommends protease inhibitors (PI)-based regimen as second or third-line during pregnancy. With remaining pregnant women exposed to PIs, there is still an interest to assess whether this treatment affects perinatal outcomes. Adverse perinatal outcomes after prenatal exposure to PI-based ART remain conflicting: some studies report an increased risk of preterm birth (PTB) and low-birth-weight (LBW), while others do not find these results. We assessed adverse perinatal outcomes associated with prenatal exposure to PI-based compared with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI)-based ART.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review searching PubMed, Reprotox, Clinical Trial Registry (clinicaltrials.gov) and abstracts of HIV conferences between 01/01/2002 and 29/10/2021. We used Oxford and Newcastle-Ottawa scales to assess the methodological quality. Studied perinatal outcomes were spontaneous abortion, stillbirth, congenital abnormalities, PTB (< 37 weeks of gestation), very preterm birth (VPTB, < 32 weeks of gestation), LBW (< 2500 grs), very low-birth-weight (VLBW, < 1500 g), small for gestational age (SGA) and very small for gestational age (VSGA). The association between prenatal exposure to PI-based compared to NNRTI-based ART was measured for each adverse perinatal outcome using random-effect meta-analysis to estimate pooled relative risks (RR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Pre-specified analyses were stratified according to country income and study quality assessment, and summarized when homogeneous.
RESULTS
Out of the 49,171 citations identified, our systematic review included 32 published studies, assessing 45,427 pregnant women. There was no significant association between prenatal exposure to PIs compared to NNRTIs for VPTB, LBW, SGA, stillbirth, and congenital abnormalities. However, it was inconclusive for PTB, and PI-based ART is significantly associated with an increased risk of VSGA (sRR 1.41 [1.08-1.84]; I = 0%) compared to NNRTIs.
CONCLUSIONS
We did not report any significant association between prenatal exposure to PIs vs NNRTIs-based regimens for most of the adverse perinatal outcomes, except for VSGA significantly increased (+ 41%). The evaluation of antiretroviral exposure on pregnancy outcomes remains crucial to fully assess the benefice-risk balance, when prescribing ART in women of reproductive potential with HIV.
PROSPERO NUMBER
CRD42022306896.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Anti-Retroviral Agents; HIV Infections; Peptide Hydrolases; Pregnancy Outcome; Premature Birth; Prenatal Exposure Delayed Effects; Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors; Stillbirth; Infant, Low Birth Weight; Abortion, Spontaneous; Congenital Abnormalities; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 36717801
DOI: 10.1186/s12884-023-05347-5 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021Protease inhibitors (PIs) are believed to affect insulin sensitivity. We aimed to analyze the effect of PIs on insulin sensitivity and the onset of diabetes mellitus... (Review)
Review
Protease inhibitors (PIs) are believed to affect insulin sensitivity. We aimed to analyze the effect of PIs on insulin sensitivity and the onset of diabetes mellitus (DM) in patients with HIV. We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrals.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform till November 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that studied the effects of PIs on insulin sensitivity and DM in patients with HIV. We followed the PRISMA and PICOS frameworks to develop the search strategy. We used the random-effects meta-analysis model to estimate the mean difference (MD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and risk ratios for our outcomes, using Stata 14 software. We included nine RCTs that enrolled 1,000 participants, with their ages ranging from 18 to 69 years. The parameters and investigations used in the studies to determine insulin sensitivity were glucose disposal rates, hyperglycemia, and mean glucose uptake. The majority of results showed an association between PIs and insulin sensitivity. The pooled analysis showed no statistically significant difference in insulin sensitivity with atazanavir, whether the study was performed on healthy individuals for a short term or long term in combination with other drugs like tenofovir or emtricitabine [SMD = 0.375, 95% CI (0.035, 0.714)]. The analysis showed reduced glucose disposal rates and hence reduced insulin sensitivity with lopinavir (heterogeneity chi-squared = 0.68, I-squared [variation in SMD attributable to heterogeneity] = 0.0%, = 0.031). The heterogeneity with chi-squared was substantial (61-80%), while with I-squared was not significant (0-40%), = 0.031). Less adverse events were observed with atazanavir than with lopinavir [RR = 0.987, 95% CI (0.849, 1.124)]. Darunavir and indinavir did not demonstrate any significant changes in insulin sensitivity. Most of the studies were found to have a low risk of bias. There are significant variations in the effects of PIs on insulin sensitivity and onsets of DM. Atazanavir, fosamprenavir, and darunavir did not demonstrate any significant changes in insulin sensitivity, compared to the rest of the group. There is a need to assess the benefits of PIs against the long-term risk of impaired insulin sensitivity. All patients newly diagnosed with HIV should have DM investigations before the start of ARVs and routinely. RCTs should focus on sub-Saharan Africa as the region is worst affected by HIV, but limited studies have been documented.
PubMed: 34790115
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2021.635089 -
Respiratory Research Dec 2017The role of neutrophil elastase (NE) is poorly understood in bronchiectasis because of the lack of preclinical data and so most of the assumptions made about NE... (Review)
Review
The role of neutrophil elastase (NE) is poorly understood in bronchiectasis because of the lack of preclinical data and so most of the assumptions made about NE inhibitor potential benefit is based on data from CF. In this context, NE seems to be a predictor of long-term clinical outcomes and a possible target of treatment. In order to better evaluate the role of NE in bronchiectasis, a systematic search of scientific evidence was performed.Two investigators independently performed the search on PubMed and included studies published up to May 15, 2017 according to predefined criteria. A final pool of 31 studies was included in the systematic review, with a total of 2679 patients. For each paper data of interest were extracted and reported in table.In this review sputum NE has proved useful as an inflammatory marker both in stable state bronchiectasis and during exacerbations and local or systemic antibiotic treatment. NE has also been associated with risk of exacerbation, time to next exacerbation and all-cause mortality. This study reviews also the role of NE as a specific target of treatment in bronchiectasis. Inhibition of NE is at a very early stage and future interventional studies should evaluate safety and efficacy for new molecules and formulations.
Topics: Biomarkers; Bronchiectasis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Leukocyte Elastase; Sputum
PubMed: 29258516
DOI: 10.1186/s12931-017-0691-x -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jul 2008Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) usually leads to 8-10 years of asymptomatic infection before immune function deteriorates and AIDS develops.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Infection with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) usually leads to 8-10 years of asymptomatic infection before immune function deteriorates and AIDS develops. Without treatment, about 50% of infected people will die of AIDS over 10 years. With treatment, prognosis depends on age, CD4 cell count, and initial viral load.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of preventive interventions? What are the effects of different antiretroviral drug treatment regimens in HIV infection? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2007 (BMJ 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 17 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: combination treatments containing either CCR5 inhibitors or fusion inhibitors; early diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs); early and delayed antiretroviral treatment using triple antiretroviral regimens; non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) based triple regimens; nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and protease inhibitor-based triple regimens (standard, and boosted); post-exposure prophylaxis in healthcare workers; and presumptive mass treatment of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
Topics: CD4 Lymphocyte Count; HIV Infections; Humans; Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
PubMed: 19445740
DOI: No ID Found -
Scientific Reports May 2021Although a considerable volume of data supporting induction or aggravation of psoriasis because of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use exists, it remains... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Although a considerable volume of data supporting induction or aggravation of psoriasis because of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor use exists, it remains insufficient for definitive conclusions. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the association between ACE inhibitor use and psoriasis incidence through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. We searched for qualifying studies across PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to evaluate the strength of the association between ACE inhibitor use and psoriasis incidence. Eight studies with a total of 54,509 patients with a psoriasis diagnosis were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled OR for psoriasis incidence among ACE inhibitor users was 1.52 (95% CI, 1.16-2.00) compared to that among non-users. From subgroup analysis by continent, the OR for ACE inhibitor users versus non-users was 2.37 (95% CI 1.28-4.37) in Asia. Per the subgroup analysis by climate, the OR for ACE inhibitor users vs non-users in dry climate was 3.45 (95% CI: 2.05-5.79) vs 1.32 (95% CI 1.01-1.73) in temperate climate. Our results reveal a significant association between ACE inhibitor use and psoriasis incidence.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Humans; Incidence; Psoriasis
PubMed: 33976340
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-89490-z -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jan 2009Up to a third of people with type 1 or 2 diabetes will develop microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria after 20 years. (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Up to a third of people with type 1 or 2 diabetes will develop microalbuminuria or macroalbuminuria after 20 years.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical questions: What are the effects of treatments in people with type 1 diabetes and early nephropathy? What are the effects of treatments in people with type 1 diabetes and late nephropathy? What are the effects of treatments in people with type 2 diabetes and early nephropathy? What are the effects of treatments in people with type 2 diabetes and late nephropathy? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to June 2008 (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 15 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, captopril, glycaemic control, protein restriction, and tight control of blood pressure.
Topics: Albuminuria; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Blood Pressure; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diabetic Nephropathies; Humans
PubMed: 19445773
DOI: No ID Found -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2021Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors for people with cardiovascular disease: a network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally. Recently, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) were approved for treating people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although metformin remains the first-line pharmacotherapy for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus, a body of evidence has recently emerged indicating that DPP4i, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may exert positive effects on patients with known CVD.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the available evidence on the benefits and harms of DPP4i, GLP-1RA, and SGLT2i in people with established CVD, using network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index on 16 July 2020. We also searched clinical trials registers on 22 August 2020. We did not restrict by language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating DPP4i, GLP-1RA, or SGLT2i that included participants with established CVD. Outcome measures of interest were CVD mortality, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal and non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation for heart failure (HF), and safety outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently screened the results of searches to identify eligible studies and extracted study data. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted standard pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analyses by pooling studies that we assessed to be of substantial homogeneity; subgroup and sensitivity analyses were also pursued to explore how study characteristics and potential effect modifiers could affect the robustness of our review findings. We analysed study data using the odds ratios (ORs) and log odds ratios (LORs) with their respective 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and credible intervals (Crls), where appropriate. We also performed narrative synthesis for included studies that were of substantial heterogeneity and that did not report quantitative data in a usable format, in order to discuss their individual findings and relevance to our review scope.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 31 studies (287 records), of which we pooled data from 20 studies (129,465 participants) for our meta-analysis. The majority of the included studies were at low risk of bias, using Cochrane's tool for assessing risk of bias. Among the 20 pooled studies, six investigated DPP4i, seven studied GLP-1RA, and the remaining seven trials evaluated SGLT2i. All outcome data described below were reported at the longest follow-up duration. 1. DPP4i versus placebo Our review suggests that DPP4i do not reduce any risk of efficacy outcomes: CVD mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; high-certainty evidence), myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08; high-certainty evidence), stroke (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.14; high-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.11; high-certainty evidence). DPP4i probably do not reduce hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; moderate-certainty evidence). DPP4i may not increase the likelihood of worsening renal function (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; low-certainty evidence) and probably do not increase the risk of bone fracture (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; moderate-certainty evidence) or hypoglycaemia (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.29; moderate-certainty evidence). They are likely to increase the risk of pancreatitis (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.37; moderate-certainty evidence). 2. GLP-1RA versus placebo Our findings indicate that GLP-1RA reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; high-certainty evidence), and stroke (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA probably do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01; moderate-certainty evidence), and hospitalisation for HF (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.06; high-certainty evidence). GLP-1RA may reduce the risk of worsening renal function (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; low-certainty evidence), but may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of GLP-1RA on hypoglycaemia and bone fractures. 3. SGLT2i versus placebo This review shows that SGLT2i probably reduce the risk of CV mortality (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.96; moderate-certainty evidence), and reduce the risk of HF hospitalisation (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71; high-certainty evidence); they do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.12; high-certainty evidence) and probably do not reduce the risk of stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36; moderate-certainty evidence). In terms of treatment safety, SGLT2i probably reduce the incidence of worsening renal function (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.82; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably have no effect on hypoglycaemia (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.07; moderate-certainty evidence) or bone fracture (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.18; high-certainty evidence), and may have no impact on pancreatitis (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.86; low-certainty evidence). 4. Network meta-analysis Because we failed to identify direct comparisons between each class of the agents, findings from our network meta-analysis provided limited novel insights. Almost all findings from our network meta-analysis agree with those from the standard meta-analysis. GLP-1RA may not reduce the risk of stroke compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CrI 0.75 to 1.0; moderate-certainty evidence), which showed similar odds estimates and wider 95% Crl compared with standard pairwise meta-analysis. Indirect estimates also supported comparison across all three classes. SGLT2i was ranked the best for CVD and all-cause mortality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings from both standard and network meta-analyses of moderate- to high-certainty evidence suggest that GLP-1RA and SGLT2i are likely to reduce the risk of CVD mortality and all-cause mortality in people with established CVD; high-certainty evidence demonstrates that treatment with SGLT2i reduce the risk of hospitalisation for HF, while moderate-certainty evidence likely supports the use of GLP-1RA to reduce fatal and non-fatal stroke. Future studies conducted in the non-diabetic CVD population will reveal the mechanisms behind how these agents improve clinical outcomes irrespective of their glucose-lowering effects.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Dipeptidyl-Peptidases and Tripeptidyl-Peptidases; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucose; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Sodium; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Symporters
PubMed: 34693515
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013650.pub2 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2022Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor used in preventing thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and several other conditions. Routine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dabigatran etexilate is an oral direct thrombin inhibitor used in preventing thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation and several other conditions. Routine dabigatran concentration monitoring is not recommended in clinical practice; however, measurement of dabigatran concentration may be required in several conditions. This study aims to pool the peak and trough dabigatran concentration from real-world studies. A systematic review was performed to identify studies that measured the peak and trough dabigatran concentrations. Observational studies reporting dabigatran peak or trough concentrations and patients' clinical characteristics of either sex, age or weight were included. Random-effect meta-analyses and metaregression were conducted to pool dabigatran concentrations and to identify the correlation between factors affecting dabigatran concentrations. Fifteen studies with a total of 1226 patients were included. The pooled peak dabigatran concentration was 133 ng/mL (95% CI: 113-154, I = 86%, n = 655), while the pooled dabigatran trough concentration was 80 ng/mL (95% CI: 69-91, I = 93%, n = 1010). Metaregression analyses suggested that age is significantly correlated to trough concentration, while body weight and creatinine clearance significantly correlated to peak concentration. Subgroup results revealed that dabigatran concentration when measured with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry was higher than haemoclot thrombin inhibitor assay. Several guidelines have proposed dabigatran concentrations target range and the pooled dabigatran concentrations were in line with the suggested range. Further studies to correlate dabigatran concentrations and clinical outcomes is warranted to improve the safety and efficacy monitoring of dabigatran therapy.
Topics: Adult; Antithrombins; Atrial Fibrillation; Blood Coagulation Tests; Chromatography, Liquid; Dabigatran; Humans
PubMed: 35665523
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15431 -
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