Proteasome inhibitors (PIs) are the backbone of combination treatments for patients with multiple myeloma and AL amyloidosis, while also indicated in Waldenström\'s macroglobulinemia and other malignancies. PIs act on proteasome peptidases, causing proteome instability due to accumulating aggregated, unfolded, and/or damaged polypeptides; sustained proteome instability then induces cell cycle arrest and/or apoptosis. Carfilzomib, an intravenous irreversible PI, exhibits a more severe cardiovascular toxicity profile as compared with the orally administered ixazomib or intravenous reversible PI such as bortezomib. Cardiovascular toxicity includes heart failure, hypertension, arrhythmias, and acute coronary syndromes. Because PIs are critical components of the treatment of hematological malignancies and amyloidosis, managing their cardiovascular toxicity involves identifying patients at risk, diagnosing toxicity early at the preclinical level, and offering cardioprotection if needed. Future research is required to elucidate underlying mechanisms, improve risk stratification, define the optimal management strategy, and develop new PIs with safe cardiovascular profiles.

Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDPs) are a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality worldwide. Unfortunately, accurate early clinical screening methods for the development of these disorders are lacking. Arterial stiffness (AS) is an important hemodynamic indicator of vascular health that has shown promising results for the prediction of HDP onset. Past systematic reviews in the field have reported an increase in AS indices in women who develop HDPs and have highlighted the potential of AS measurements as a predictive tool early in pregnancy. The most recent systematic review, including papers up to 2015, assessed the differences in AS parameters between women with and without pregnancy complications. Since then, there has been a substantial influx of published research on the topic and a growing interest in the incorporation of AS measurements into clinical practice. Thus, we propose a systematic review and meta-analysis that is more inclusive to all HDP subsets and various hemodynamic indices of vascular health to provide a comprehensive overview of the current state of evidence. Specifically, we aim to evaluate these measures in women who develop HDPs compared to normotensive pregnancies to determine which measures are most associated with and/or can predict the development of HDPs. Major databases (Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, and CINAHL), grey literature (Google Scholar) and clinical trials (clinicaltrials.gov) will be searched to identify studies that report AS and hemodynamic measurements in pregnant women with and without HDPs. No restrictions will be made on study type or year. Articles will be independently evaluated by three authors to determine eligibility based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Methodological quality of included studies will be assessed. Pooled analyses will be conducted using a random-effects model. Publication bias and between-study heterogeneity will also be assessed. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored by sensitivity, subgroup, and/or meta-regression analyses. Results from this study will be shared through scientific conferences and publications in scientific journals. The analysis of potential AS and hemodynamic markers for HDP onset will help inform the development of screening guidelines and clinically relevant cut-off values of AS and hemodynamic markers for HDP risk, guiding future research. There are no applicable ethical considerations to the writing of this protocol.