Effectiveness of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in preventing pneumonia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Tsunoda H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9249936 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3394697 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe 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.MethodsEligible 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).ResultsThirteen 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).ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC8084080 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7443275 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe association between the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and lung cancer risk remains controversial. This study evaluated the association between the use of ACEIs and lung cancer risk.MethodsRecords from five databases were searched from inception to 26 January 2022. Clinical studies involving persons aged ≥18 years with at least one year of follow-up and reporting adverse events, including lung cancer, were recorded with separate outcome reports supplied for the ACEIs and control groups. Data were extracted independently by three authors and pooled using a random-effects model. The primary outcome was lung cancer development. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and lung cancer-related morbidity were calculated.ResultsOf 2400 records screened, 13,061,226 patients were included from seven cohort studies and four case-control studies. Pooled results showed that ACEIs use was linked to increased lung cancer risk (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.05-1.36; P = 0.008), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 98%).ConclusionsACEI usage is a greater risk factor for lung carcinogenesis than angiotensin receptor blocker use, especially in Asian patients. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm the causal association between the use of ACEIs and lung cancer risk.
| S-EPMC9670057 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAnimal studies suggested that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARB) facilitate the inoculation of potentially leading to a higher risk of infection and/or disease severity. We aimed to systematically evaluate the risk of COVID-19 infection and the risk of severe COVID-19 disease associated with previous exposure to (ACEi) and/or ARB).MethodsMEDLINE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection were searched in June 2020 for controlled studies. Eligible studies were included and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. The estimates were expressed as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 test. The confidence in the pooled evidence was appraised using the GRADE framework.ResultsTwenty-seven studies were included in the review. ACEi/ARB exposure did not increase the risk of having a positive test for COVID-19 infection (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.89-1.11; I2 = 36%; 5 studies, GRADE confidence moderate). The exposure to ACEi/ARB did not increase the risk of all-cause mortality among patients with COVID-19 (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.74-1.11; I2 = 20%; 17 studies; GRADE confidence low) nor severe/critical COVID-19 disease (OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.74-1.11; I2 = 55%; 17 studies; GRADE confidence very low). Exploratory analyses in studies enrolling hypertensive patients showed a association of ACEi/ARB with a significant decrease of mortality risk.ConclusionsACEi/ARB exposure does not seem to increase the risk of having the SARS-CoV-2 infection or developing severe stages of the disease including mortality. The potential benefits observed in mortality of hypertensive patients reassure safety, but robust studies are required to increase the confidence in the results.
| S-EPMC7451091 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) are widely used in diseases, such as hypertension, congestive heart failure, and myocardial infarction. Although these drugs are well tolerated, one out of five patients discontinues ACE-I due to drug side effects, mainly chronic cough. However, the pathogenesis of ACE-I-induced cough remains controversial and requires further study. In this review, the mechanisms that are suggested in ACE-I-induced cough pathophysiology will be discussed in detail in light of the current literature.
| S-EPMC6340691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterest exists concerning the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) in patients with COVID-19 disease.ObjectivesThe aim of the study was to perform a systematic review on mortality associated to the use of ACEi in patients with COVID-19 disease.MethodsSearch in Medline (PubMed), in ISI Web of Knowledge and in medRxiv database; use of other sources.ResultsA total of 33 articles were evaluated. Concerning the papers used to produce the meta-analyses, 7 studies were selected, 5 of which were used. These 5 studies involved a total number of 944 patients treated with ACEi and 5173 not treated with ACEi. Increased mortality was seen in association to the use of ACEi in the context of COVID-19 disease (ACEi users vs nonusers; odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.15; P = .04). When compared to mortality in patients treated with angiotensin receptor blockers, mortality of patients treated with ACEi was not significantly different (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.21; P = .74). Concerning the remaining reports, different types of data adjustments were used by several authors, after which increased mortality was not seen in association to the use of ACEi in this context.ConclusionsACEi use could act as a marker of increased mortality risk in some but not all COVID-19 disease settings. The data now presented do not prove a causal relation but argue in favor of carrying out clinical trials studying ACEi in COVID-19 patients, to establish the safety of ACEi use in this context.
| S-EPMC7665268 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough 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.MethodsSystematic 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsWe 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.
| S-EPMC9324875 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNon-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.MethodsStudies 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.ResultsBeta-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).ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC11349132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) share their target receptor site with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, that may cause ACE2 receptor up-regulation which raised concerns regarding ACEI and ARB use in COVID-19 patients. However, many medical professional societies recommended their continued use given the paucity of clinical evidence, but there is a need for an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the latest clinical studies. METHODS AND RESULTS:A search was conducted on PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and various preprint servers for studies comparing clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients on ACEIs and/or ARBs, and a meta-analysis was performed. A total of 16 studies were included for the review and meta-analysis. There were conflicting findings reported in the rates of severity and mortality in several studies. In a pooled analysis of four studies, there was a statistically non-significant association of ACEI/ARB use with lower odds of developing severe disease vs. non-users [odds ratio (OR) = 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-1.58, I2=50.52, P-value = 0.53). In a pooled analysis of six studies, there was a statistically non-significant association of ACEI/ARB use with lower odds of mortality as compared with non-users (OR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.53-1.41, I2 = 79.12, P-value = 0.55). CONCLUSION:It is concluded that ACEIs and ARBs should be continued in COVID-19 patients, reinforcing the recommendations made by several medical societies. Additionally, the individual patient factors such as ACE2 polymorphisms which might confer higher risk of adverse outcomes need to be evaluated further.
| S-EPMC7314072 | biostudies-literature