UNASSIGNED: Non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NIDCM) is a form of heart failure with a poor prognosis and unclear optimal management. The aim of the study was to systematically review the literature and assess the efficacy and safety of beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in the management of chronic heart failure secondary to NIDCM and explore their putative mechanisms of action.
UNASSIGNED: Studies from 1990 to 2023 were reviewed using PubMed and EMBASE, focusing on their effects on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in NIDCM patients, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: Beta-blockers showed a significant beneficial effect on LVEF improvement in NIDCM, with an overall effect size of Cohen\'s d = 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.76, 1.84), high heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.90; Chi2 = 162.05, df = 13, P < 0.00001; I2 = 92%), and a significant overall effect (Z = 4.72, P < 0.00001). ACE inhibitors also showed a beneficial role, but with less heterogeneity (Tau2 = 0.02; Chi2 = 1.09, df = 1, P = 0.30; I2 = 8%) and a nonsignificant overall effect (Z = 1.36, P = 0.17), 95% CI (-0.24, 1.31).
UNASSIGNED: The study highlights the efficacy of carvedilol in improving LVEF in NIDCM patients over ACE inhibitors, recommends beta-blockers as first-line therapy, and advocates further research on ACE inhibitors.

Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) is a severe and potentially debilitating skin reaction frequently related to medication use. Allopurinol and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are commonly prescribed medications for prevalent health conditions worldwide, and their interaction associated with SJS warrants further investigation. A comprehensive literature search was performed to investigate cases as studies related to SJS occurring in patients with concomitant use of allopurinol and ACE inhibitors. We identified case reports and studies detailing hypersensitivity reactions, including SJS, attributed to a combination of allopurinol and ACE inhibitors. Despite the drug-drug interactions or lack thereof seen in patient populations, there is no definitive evidence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between allopurinol and ACE inhibitors. We were only able to find one case report specifically detailing SJS in a patient on combined ACE inhibitors and allopurinol. While the exact mechanism of the interaction is unclear, those reported cases of severe hypersensitivity reactions suggest a previous history of impaired renal function as a predisposing factor in the development of SJS. The potential risk of SJS with coadministration of ACE inhibitors and allopurinol is a drug-drug interaction that physicians should be aware of. This topic requires additional attention to determine if this drug combination should be avoided entirely in certain patients.

Coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is becoming increasingly recognized as an important contributor to the development of ischemic heart diseases. Without obstructive coronary artery disease, the physiological function of the coronary microcirculation can be altered by structural, functional, and molecular factors, leading to myocardial ischemia. CMD can significantly impact the quality of life and prognosis and imposes a huge financial burden on healthcare systems and people. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) for treating CMD. A systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ACEIs with placebo in CMD patients. Review Manager, 5.3 for Windows, was utilized. Using the Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) method, improvement in coronary flow reserve (CFR) and systolic blood pressure events was pooled as mean difference (MD) in a meta-analysis model with a fixed effect model, whereas the number of chest pain episodes was pooled as MD with a random effect model. Five randomized controlled trials involving 209 patients were included in the analysis. The analysis demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in CFR in the ACEIs group compared to the placebo group (MD -0.3, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.01, P = 0.05). However, there was no significant difference in the number of chest pain episodes between the ACEIs and placebo groups (MD 1.79, 95% CI -3.99 to 7.58, P = 0.54). Similarly, no significant difference in blood pressure change was observed between the two groups (MD 4.02, 95% CI -3.25 to 11.28, P = 0.28). In conclusion, the appropriate treatment for CMD is a source of contention because adequate data is lacking. Our findings suggest that ACEIs may have a positive effect on improving CFR in patients with microvascular angina. However, ACEIs did not demonstrate a significant impact on the number of chest pain episodes or systolic blood pressure in this patient population. Further research, including RCTs with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up durations, is warranted to provide more conclusive evidence on the role of ACEIs in CMD management.

Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient\'s comorbidity.

UNASSIGNED: To conduct a review of studies evaluating the influence of body size and weight (WT) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of drugs recommended for heart failure (HF) treatment.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic search of the MEDLINE (1946 to April 2023) and EMBASE (1974 to April 2023) databases was conducted for articles that focused on the impact of WT or body size on the PK of drugs of interest used in HF patients.
UNASSIGNED: Articles written in English or French related to the aim of our study were retained for analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Of 6493 articles, 20 were retained for analysis. Weight was associated with the clearance of digoxin, carvedilol, enalapril, and candesartan as well as the volume of distribution of eplerenone and bisoprolol. There was no documented direct impact of WT on the PK of furosemide, valsartan, and metoprolol, although these studies were limited or confounded by the small sample size, adjustment of PK factors by WT, or the use of the Cockroff-Gault equation for the evaluation of creatinine clearance, which includes WT.
UNASSIGNED: This review highlights and summarizes the available data on the importance of WT on the PK of HF treatment.
UNASSIGNED: Considering the significant impact of WT on most HF drugs in this review, it may be important to further investigate it in the context of personalized therapy, particularly in patients presenting extreme WTs.

Many people with type 2 diabetes progress to end-stage diabetic kidney disease (DKD) despite blockade of the renin-angiotensin system, suggesting the need for innovative treatment options for DKD. To capture the findings of recent studies, we performed an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of sodium glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors combined with standard care involving angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and/or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on the development and progression of DKD in people with type 2 diabetes compared with standard care alone.
The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and clinical trials registers were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials published before 1 September 2022. Primary outcomes were urine albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Secondary outcomes were glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and systolic blood pressure (SBP). Relative risk was calculated for adverse events.
Eight studies enrolling 5512 participants were included. In the meta-analysis (n = 1327), SGLT2 inhibitors were associated with a statistically significant reduction in UACR (weighted mean difference [WMD] -105.61 mg/g, 95 % CI -197.25 to -13.98, I2 = 99 %, p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in relation to eGFR (n = 1375; WMD -0.23 mL/min/1.73m2, 95 % CI -4.34 to 3.89, I2 = 94 %, p = 0.91).
SGLT2 inhibitors in addition to standard care including ACE inhibitors and/or ARBs significantly reduced albuminuria, HbA1c and SBP when compared to standard care alone, supporting their routine use in people with type 2 diabetes.

UNASSIGNED: Our prior analysis demonstrated no significant difference in risk of mortality or disease progression among patients with COVID-19. With the availability of findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), we provide an updated review of RCTs which explored the outcomes among hospitalized patients with COVID-19 treated with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitor (ACEis)/Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) versus control.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review and meta-analysis covers RCTs exploring mortality, intensive care unit admission, and mechanical ventilation outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with ACEi/ARBs.
UNASSIGNED: Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis. For mortality with ACEi/ARB utilization among hospitalized COVID-19 patients, the pooled risk ratio (RR) was 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.47, p = 0.89) with heterogeneity of 26%. Further, the pooled RR for ACEi/ARB use on ICU admission and mechanical ventilation were 0.55 (0.55-1.08, p = 0.13) with a heterogeneity of 0% and 1.02 (0.78-1.32, p = 0.91) with a heterogeneity of 0%, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: Among hospitalized patients with COVID-19, the use of ACEi/ARB was not associated with increased risk of mortality, ICU admission, or mechanical ventilation compared to control. These findings support continuation of ACEi/ARB for whom baseline clinical indications for these agents exist.

Angioedema (AE) is a condition that is frequently encountered in the emergency department (ED). It is a rare condition with localized, asymmetrical swelling of the skin and/or mucosa that is frequently nonpruritic and primarily affects locations with loose connective tissue. Physicians must have a thorough understanding of this condition since it can cause fatal airway compromise, which might be the presenting symptom. Histamine-mediated AE is the most common type of AE seen in EDs. However, ED physicians must be on the lookout for the less common bradykinin-mediated types of AE as these do not respond to the same therapy as histamine-mediated AE. Hospitals may lack specialized drugs or protocols, and many ED staff may be unable to identify or treat bradykinin-mediated AE. It is crucial to understand the pathophysiology of the various kinds of AE in order to optimize treatment. The goal of this review paper is to provide an overview of the pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, and treatment options for bradykinin and histamine-induced AE in the ED.

Background: Although angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are among the most-prescribed medications in the world, the extent to which they increase the risk of adverse effects remains uncertain. This study aimed to systematically determine the adverse effects of ACE inhibitors versus placebo across a wide range of therapeutic settings. Methods: Systematic searches were conducted on PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing an ACE inhibitor to a placebo were retrieved. The relative risk (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were utilized as a summary effect measure. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled-effect estimates. Results: A total of 378 RCTs fulfilled the eligibility criteria, with 257 RCTs included in the meta-analysis. Compared with a placebo, ACE inhibitors were associated with an significantly increased risk of dry cough (RR = 2.66, 95% CI = 2.20 to 3.20, p < 0.001), hypotension (RR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.35, p < 0.001), dizziness (RR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.26 to 1.70, p < 0.001), and hyperkalemia (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.52, p = 0.037). The risk difference was quantified to be 0.037, 0.030, 0.017, and 0.009, respectively. Conclusions: We quantified the relative risk of numerous adverse events associated with the use of ACE inhibitors in a variety of demographics. This information can help healthcare providers be fully informed about any potential adverse consequences and make appropriate suggestions for their patients requiring ACE inhibitor therapy.

Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is peripheral edema, particularly of the lower limbs. The side effect could lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of the medication. The combination of DHPCCBs and renin-angiotensin system blockers has shown to reduce the risk of DHPCCBs-associated peripheral edema compared with DHPCCBs monotherapy. We performed the current systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the rate of peripheral edema with DHPCCBs as a class and with individual DHPCCBs and the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. The effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on DHPCCBs network meta-analysis were created to analyze the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. A total of 3312 publications were identified and 71 studies with 56,283 patients were included. Nifedipine ranked highest in inducing peripheral edema (SUCRA 81.8%) and lacidipine (SUCRA 12.8%) ranked the least. All DHPCCBs except lacidipine resulted in higher relative risk (RR) of peripheral edema compared with placebo. Nifedipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (SUCRA: 92.3%) did not mitigate peripheral edema and amlodipine plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (SUCRA: 16%) reduced peripheral edema the most. Nifedipine ranked the highest and lacidipine ranked the lowest amongst DHPCCBs for developing peripheral edema when used for cardiovascular indications. The second or higher generation of DHPCCBs combination with ACEIs or ARBs or diuretics lowered the chance of peripheral edema development compared to single DHPCCB treatment.