Renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), are commonly used in the management of hypertension. High blood pressure is a vital risk factor for cardiovascular disease. This study aims to establish any significant difference in using ACEIs and ARBs in managing hypertension. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to conduct this systematic review. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and ScienceDirect for articles published in the last 20 years (2003 to 2023). Our search was last done on the 27th of June, 2023. Following the initial search, 8,313 articles were found on PubMed. After screening the articles selected from the databases, 10 articles examining 1,621,445 patients were selected for the final study. Three articles were identified that compared ACEI and ARB in their capacity to lower blood pressure. Six articles compared both medications\' capacity to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality. Five articles were identified that compared both classes of drugs for adverse effects. This study was made to determine whether or not there is a difference between the use of ACEIs and ARBs in the treatment of hypertension. The study showed that both ACEIs and ARBs are similar in their efficacy in lowering blood pressure. However, ACEI was revealed to be superior to ARB in reducing cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. ARB was shown to be better tolerated by patients than ACEI.

Plasma renin activity (PRA) has gained relevance as prognostic marker in adults with heart failure. The use of PRA as a clinically meaningful parameter in children and children with heart failure requires a thorough knowledge of the factors that influence PRA to correctly assess PRA levels. We aim to evaluate the influence of age, heart failure and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) on PRA levels in children.
We conducted a systematic literature search to identify studies on PRA levels in healthy children and in children with heart failure. In addition, we analysed PRA data measured before (n = 35, aged 25 days-2.1 years), 4 hours after (n = 34) and within the first 8 days of enalapril treatment (n = 29) in children with heart failure from the European project Labeling of Enalapril from Neonates up to Adolescents (LENA).
Age has a profound effect on PRA levels in healthy children, as PRA levels in the literature are up to about 7 times higher in neonates than in older children. Children with heart failure younger than 6 months showed 3-4 times higher PRA levels than healthy peers in both the literature and the LENA studies. In the LENA studies, the ACEi enalapril significantly increased median predose PRA by a factor of 4.5 in children with heart failure after 4.7 ± 1.6 days of treatment (n = 29, p < 0.01). Prior to treatment with enalapril, LENA subjects with symptomatic heart failure (Ross score ≥3) had a significantly higher PRA than LENA subjects with asymptomatic heart failure of comparable age (Ross score ≤2, p < 0.05).
Age, heart failure and ACEi treatment have a notable influence on PRA and must be considered when assessing PRA as a clinically meaningful parameter.
The trials are registered on the EU Clinical Trials Register (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu).
EudraCT 2015-002335-17, EudraCT 2015-002396-18.

In Cuba, there is neither a registry of ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI), nor are analysis of performance measures widely reported.
A review of Cuban studies of patients with STEMI was carried out to describe quality of medical care.
Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and SciELO, as well as archives of national journals, were all searched for articles on STEMI in Cuba, from 2000 to March 2020. They were included if they reported number or percentage of application of reperfusion therapy; administration of aspirin, enalapril-captopril (ACEI) or beta-blockers; status of patients at discharge; and patient or system delay times. Finally, 17 reports with 7823 patients were included.
Thrombolytic therapy was administered to 3991 patients (51%), and 695 patients (8.9%) died. Only four studies, with 880 patients, presented data about prescription of ACEI, aspirin, and beta-blockers, which were administered to 381 (45.3%), 824 (93.6%), 464 (52.7%) patients, respectively. Coronary intervention was reported in 5 studies with 3422 patients, being performed in 661 (19.3%).  Conclusions: Quality of care of patients with STEMI seems to be poorer than reported in similar scenarios. Thrombolytic administration is still low, although mortality decreases in this period. Other pharmacological treatments were insufficiently fulfilled.

The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare outcomes between sacubitril/valsartan and enalapril in patients with heart failure. We performed this meta-analysis according to the guidelines reported in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Two independent authors systematically searched online databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science from inception till September 15, 2023. Outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cardiovascular-related hospitalization. A total of nine studies were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed that the risk of all-cause mortality was higher in patients receiving enalapril compared to patients receiving sacubitril/valsartan (risk ratio [RR]: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.31 to 1.04). Risk of cardiovascular mortality was significantly higher in the enalapril group compared to the sacubitril/valsartan group (RR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.91). The risk of cardiovascular hospitalization was significantly higher in the enalapril group compared to the sacubitril/valsartan group (RR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.86). In conclusion, our meta-analysis of nine studies underscores the superior clinical performance of sacubitril/valsartan compared to enalapril in managing patients with heart failure.

Recent studies have focused on treating heart failure, primarily mitigating symptoms and reducing the risk of mortality and other cardiovascular complications. A promising new treatment approach involves using LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) comprising sacubitril and valsartan. This treatment is superior to the conventional drugs enalapril or valsartan in patients diagnosed with heart failure. A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Elsevier\'s ScienceDirect databases to identify studies comparing sacubitril/valsartan with other drugs in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The analyses were conducted using the random-effects model. The study\'s primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, first hospitalization for heart failure, congestive heart failure, and changes in the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) clinical score. The pooled analysis showed that treatment with the sacubitril/valsartan combination was associated with a significantly decreased rate of first hospitalization for heart failure (RR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.98, p: 0.03; I2: 57%) and significantly increased KCCQ clinical score (WMD: 2.20; 95% CI: 0.33, 4.06, p: 0.02; I2: 100%). However, the two groups had no significant difference in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80, 1.01, p: 0.08; I2: 20%), death from cardiovascular causes (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.87, 1.05, p: 0.34; I2: 0%), or congestive heart failure (RR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75, 1.25, p: 0.19; I2: 38%). The research findings suggest that sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) reduces hospitalizations due to heart failure and improves KCCQ clinical scores. This treatment also reduces the decline in renal function and side effects associated with enalapril or valsartan. Nonetheless, further high-quality randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are needed to assess other impacts of this therapy on heart failure patients. Overall, the use of LCZ696 represents a promising new approach to the treatment of heart failure.

To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Tanshinone Ⅱ_A Sodium Sulfonate Injection combined with enalapril in the treatment of patients with acute exacerbation of pulmonary heart disease. The randomized controlled trial(RCT) on Tanshinone Ⅱ_A Sodium Sulfonate Injection combined with enalapril for acute exacerbation of pulmonary heart disease was screened from EMbase, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, VIP, CNKI, and Wanfang from inception to March 20, 2022. Meta-analysis of each index was performed in RevMan 5.3 and TSA 0.9. Finally, 41 RCTs involving 3 865 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the observation group had higher total response rate(RR=1.21, 95%CI[1.18, 1.24], P<0.000 01), lower plasma viscosity(MD=-0.25, 95%CI[-0.34,-0.16], P<0.000 01), lower whole blood viscosity(MD=-0.99, 95%CI[-1.14,-0.85], P<0.000 01), and lower hematokrit(MD=-9.03, 95%CI[-10.57,-7.50], P<0.000 01) than the control group. The incidence of adverse effects showed no significant difference between groups(RR=1.42, 95%CI[0.82, 2.45], P=0.21). Sequential analysis showed that Tanshinone Ⅱ_A Sodium Sulfonate Injection combined with enalapril exerted definite efficacy in the treatment of acute exacerbation of pulmonary heart disease, and the possibility of false positives was excluded. Based on the existing evidence, Tanshinone Ⅱ_A Sodium Sulfonate Injection combined with enalapril can improve the total response rate and reduce plasma viscosity, whole blood viscosity, and hematocrit, demonstrating good safety in patients with acute exacerbation of pulmonary heart disease. In the future, more RCT with large sample size, rigorous design, and in accordance with international norms are needed to further validate the results.

To synthesize more conclusive evidence on the anti-inflammatory effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).
PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception until March 1, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of ACEIs or ARBs, compared with placebo, on any of the following markers: C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), or tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α). Mean changes in the levels of these markers were pooled as a weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% CI.
Thirty-two RCTs (n=3489 patients) were included in the final analysis. Overall pooled analysis suggested that ACEIs significantly reduced plasma levels of CRP (WMD, -0.54 [95% CI, -0.88 to -0.21]; P=.002; I2=96%), IL-6 (WMD, -0.84 [95% CI, -1.03 to -0.64]; P<.001; I2=0%), and TNF-α (WMD, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.20 to -8.29]; P<.001; I2=99%). Moreover, ARBs showed a significant reduction only in IL-6 (WMD, -1.34 [95% CI, -2.65 to -0.04]; P=.04; I2=85%) and did not significantly affect CRP (P=.15) or TNF-α (P=.97) levels. The lowering effect of ACEIs on CRP levels remained significant with enalapril (P=.006) and perindopril (P=.01) as well as with a treatment duration of less than 24 weeks (WMD, -0.67 [95% CI, -1.07 to -0.27]; P=.001; I2=94%) and in patients with coronary artery disease (WMD, -0.75 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.33]; P<.001; I2=96%).
Based on this meta-analysis, ACEIs showed a beneficial lowering effect on CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α, whereas ARBs were effective as a class in reduction of IL-6 only.

The free-living, non-parasitic nematode Caenorhabditis elegans is a premier model organism for the study of aging and longevity due to its short lifespan, powerful genetic tools, and conservation of fundamental mechanisms with mammals. Approximately 70 percent of human genes have homologs in C. elegans, including many that encode proteins in pathways that influence aging. Numerous genetic pathways have been identified in C. elegans that affect lifespan, including the dietary restriction pathway, the insulin/insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signaling pathway, and the disruption of components of the mitochondrial electron transport chain. C. elegans is also a powerful system for performing drug screens, and many lifespan-extending compounds have been reported; notably, several FDA-approved medications extend the lifespan in C. elegans, raising the possibility that they can also extend the lifespan in humans. The renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in mammals is an endocrine system that regulates blood pressure and a paracrine system that acts in a wide range of tissues to control physiological processes; it is a popular target for drugs that reduce blood pressure, including angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Emerging evidence indicates that this system influences aging. In C. elegans, decreasing the activity of the ACE homolog acn-1 or treatment with the ACE-inhibitor Captopril significantly extends the lifespan. In Drosophila, treatment with ACE inhibitors extends the lifespan. In rodents, manipulating the RAS with genetic or pharmacological interventions can extend the lifespan. In humans, polymorphisms in the ACE gene are associated with extreme longevity. These results suggest the RAS plays a conserved role in controlling longevity. Here, we review studies of the RAS and aging, emphasizing the potential of C. elegans as a model for understanding the mechanism of lifespan control.

Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are often coexisting. They have common risk factors and pathophysiologic mechanisms. Sacubitril/valsartan has shown efficacy and tolerability in patients with HF. Thus, the study was performed to evaluate the impact of sacubitril/valsartan on AF occurrence in patients with HF.
The Embase and PubMed were searched from their inception date to June 2021 for all relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in HF. The outcome of interest was the AF occurrence during the follow-up. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model.
Six trials involving a total of 15,512 patients were included (7,750 randomized to sacubitril/valsartan and 7,762 to control). All trials were randomized, double-blind, and active-control. There was no significant difference in the prevention of AF occurrence between the sacubitril/valsartan group and the control group (enalapril or valsartan) in patients with HF (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.95 to 1.19; I2 4%).
Sacubitril/valsartan was similar to either enalapril or valsartan in preventing the occurrence of AF in patients with HF.

Purpose: Enalapril has an established safety and efficacy in adults and is used in hypertension, heart failure, and renal failure. In pediatric patients, enalapril is labeled for children with hypertension and used off label in children with heart failure. The systematic literature search aims to assess the current knowledge about enalapril and its active metabolite enalaprilat pharmacokinetics in children as a basis for dose delineation for pediatric patients with heart failure. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed in the PubMed database using relevant keywords. Dose normalization of relevant pharmacokinetic parameters of the identified studies was done for comparison between different diseases and pediatric age groups. Results: The literature search has resulted in three pediatric pharmacokinetic studies of enalapril out of which Wells et al. reported about children with hypertension and Nakamura et al., and Llyod et al. presented data for pediatric heart failure patients. The area under the curve values of enalaprilat in hypertensive pediatric patients increased with respect to the age groups and showed maturation of body functions with increasing age. Dose normalized comparison with the heart failure studies revealed that although the pediatric heart failure patients of > 20 days of age showed the area under the curve a similar to that of hypertensive patients, two pediatric patients of very early age (<20 days) were presented with 5-6-fold higher area under the curve values. Conclusion: Data related to the pharmacokinetics of enalapril and enalaprilat in hypertensive patients and few data for young heart failure children are available. Comparison of dose normalized exposition of the active metabolite enalaprilat indicated similarities between heart failure and hypertensive patients and a potentially high exposition of premature patients but substantially more pharmacokinetic studies are required to have reliable and robust enalapril as well as enalaprilat exposures especially in pediatric patients with heart failure as a basis for any dose delineation.