Dataset Information

Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and risk of lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a consistent relationship exists between the use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and the risk of lung cancer. Accordingly, we summarized and reviewed previously published quantitative studies.

Methods

Eligible studies with reference lists published before June 1st, 2019 were obtained from searching several databases. Random effects' models were used to summarize the overall estimate of the multivariate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Thirteen observational studies involving 458,686 ACEI users were included in the analysis, Overall, pooled risk ratios indicate that ACEIs use was not a risk factor for lung cancer (RR 0.982, 95% C.I. 0.873 - 1.104; P = .76). There was significant heterogeneity between the studies (Q = 52.54; P < .001; I2 = 86.07). There was no significant association between ACEIs use and lung cancer in studies with over five years of ACEIs exposure (RR 0.95, 95% C.I. 0.75 - 1.20; P = .70); and ≤ 5years of exposure to ACEIs (RR 0.98, 95% C.I. 0.83 - 1.15; P = .77). There were no statistically significant differences in the pooled risk ratio obtained according to the study design (Q = 0.65; P = .723) and the comparator regimen (Q = 3.37; P = .19).

Conclusions

The use of ACEIs was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. Nevertheless, well-designed observational studies with different ethnic populations are still needed to evaluate the long-term (over 10 years) association between ACEIs use and lung cancer.

SUBMITTER: Batais M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8084080 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review longitudinal studies evaluating use of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and risk of pneumonia.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline through PubMed, Web of Science with conference proceedings (inception to June 2011), and US Food and Drug Administration website (June 2011). Systematic reviews and references of retrieved articles were also searched.Study selectionTwo reviewers independently selected randomised controlled trials and cohort and case-control studies evaluating the use of ACE inhibitors or ARBs and risk of pneumonia and retrieved characteristics of the studies and data estimates.Data synthesisThe primary outcome was incidence of pneumonia and the secondary outcome was pneumonia related mortality. Subgroup analyses were carried according to baseline morbidities (stroke, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease) and patients' characteristics (Asian and non-Asian). Pooled estimates of odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived by random effects meta-analysis. Adjusted frequentist indirect comparisons between ACE inhibitors and ARBs were estimated and combined with direct evidence whenever available. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) test.Results37 eligible studies were included. ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia compared with control treatment (19 studies: odds ratio 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 0.80; I(2) = 79%) and ARBs (combined direct and indirect odds ratio estimate 0.69, 0.56 to 0.85). In patients with stroke, the risk of pneumonia was also lower in those treated with ACE inhibitors compared with control treatment (odds ratio 0.46, 0.34 to 0.62) and ARBs (0.42, 0.22 to 0.80). ACE inhibitors were associated with a significantly reduced risk of pneumonia among Asian patients (0.43, 0.34 to 0.54) compared with non-Asian patients (0.82, 0.67 to 1.00; P<0.001). Compared with control treatments, both ACE inhibitors (seven studies: odds ratio 0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; I(2)=51%) and ARBs (one randomised controlled trial: 0.63, 0.40 to 1.00) were associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, without differences between interventions.ConclusionsThe best evidence available points towards a putative protective role of ACE inhibitors but not ARBs in risk of pneumonia. Patient populations that may benefit most are those with previous stroke and Asian patients. ACE inhibitors were also associated with a decrease in pneumonia related mortality, but the data lacked strength.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To systematically review evidence comparing the effect of low-dose versus high-dose ACE inhibitors (ACEIs) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality and hospitalisation, functional capacity and side effects in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL and LILACS up to January 2019. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing low-dose versus high-dose ACEIs in adults with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF). Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed with RoB 2.0, and quality of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We conducted random effects meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. RESULTS:We included eight RCTs (5829 patients with HF). In comparison with low-dose ACEIs, high-dose ACEIs showed a non-significant effect on all-cause mortality (8 RCTs, n=5828, relative risk (RR) 0.95, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.02; moderate quality of evidence), cardiovascular mortality (6 RCTs, n=4048, RR 0.93, 95%?CI 0.85 to 1.01; moderate quality of evidence), all-cause hospitalisation (5 RCTs, n=5394, RR 0.95, 95%?CI 0.82 to 1.10; moderate quality of evidence) and cardiovascular hospitalisation (4 RCTs, n=5242, RR 0.98, 95%?CI 0.83 to 1.17; low quality of evidence). High-dose ACEI increased functional capacity (4 studies, n=555, standardised mean difference 0.38, 95%?CI 0.20 to 0.55; low quality of evidence) and the risk of hypotension (4 RCTs, n=3783, RR 1.64, 95%?CI 1.30 to 2.05; moderate quality of evidence). High-dose ACEI had no effect on dizziness (3 RCTs, n=4994, RR 1.37, 95%?CI 0.97 to 1.93; low quality of evidence), but decreased the risk of cough (4 RCTs, n=5146, RR 0.85, 95%?CI 0.73 to 0.98; moderate quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS:The magnitude of benefit of using high dose versus low to intermediate doses of ACEIs might be less than traditionally suggested in clinical guidelines. These findings might help clinicians address the complex task of HF management in a more rational and timely fashion, saving efforts to implement strategies with the greatest net clinical benefit.