Search

Background: Data about the safety of ACEI/ARB use in early (<3 months) posttransplant period are restricted and remain controversial. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included searches of PubMed, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 31 November 2023, for studies to compare the safety (transplant outcomes and postoperative complications) of ACEI/ARB with non-ACEI/ARB (other antihypertensive medications) initiation in early post kidney transplant period. Results: Of 1,247 citations identified, 13 eligible studies involving 1919 patients were enrolled for analyses. In short- or long-term observations, there were no differences on pooled serum creatinine between ACEI/ARB and non-ACEI/ARB groups whether initiated within 1 or 1–3 months posttransplant, however, initiation of ACEI/ARB within the first month posttransplant had an advantage effect on the mean creatinine clearance. Early initiation of ACEI/ARB posttransplant reduced the risks of patient death (RR 0.60, p = 0.009) and graft loss (RR 0.54, p = 0.0002). For postoperative complications, there were no significant differences in acute rejection risk (RR 0.87, p = 0.58), delayed graft function risk (RR 1.00, p = 0.93), hemoglobin level (MD -0.32 mg/Dl, p = 0.46) or urinary protein excretion (MD -0.10 g/24 h, p = 0.16) between two groups. However, the ACEI/ARB group had higher incidence of hyperkalemia (RR 2.43, p = 0.02). Conclusion: Early initiation of ACEI/ARB within 3 months posttransplant proved to be basically safe and has renal function recovery benefits, however, hyperkalemia needs to be noted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundData about the safety of ACEI/ARB use in early (

Background: Surgical patients with aortic dissection often require multiple antihypertensive drugs to control blood pressure. However, the prescription pattern and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs for these patients are unclear. We aimed to investigate the prescription pattern and effectiveness of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in surgical patients with aortic dissection. Methods: Newly diagnosed aortic dissection patients who underwent surgery, aged >20 years, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017 were identified. Patients with missing data, in-hospital mortality, aortic aneurysms, or congenital connective tissue disorders, such as Marfan syndrome, were excluded. Prescription patterns of antihypertensive drugs were identified from medical records of outpatient visits within 90 days after discharge. Antihypertensive drugs were classified into four classes: 1) β-blockers, 2) calcium channel blockers (CCBs), 3) renin-angiotensin system, and 4) other antihypertensive drugs. Patients were classified according to the number of classes of antihypertensive drugs as follows: 1) class 0, no exposure to antihypertensive drugs; 2) class 1, antihypertensive drugs of the same class; 3) class 2, antihypertensive drugs of two classes; 4) class 3, antihypertensive drugs of three classes; or 5) class 4, antihypertensive drugs of four classes. The primary composite outcomes included rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection, death due to aortic dissection, and all-cause mortality. Results: Most patients were prescribed two (28.87%) or three classes (28.01%) of antihypertensive drugs. In class 1, β-blockers were most commonly used (8.79%), followed by CCBs (5.95%). In class 2, β-blockers+CCB (10.66%) and CCB+RAS (5.18%) were the most common drug combinations. In class 3, β-blockers + CCB+RAS (14.84%) was the most prescribed combination. Class 0 had a significantly higher hazard of the composite outcome (HR, 2.1; CI, 1.46-3.02; p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR, 2.34; CI, 1.56-3.51; p < 0.001) than class 1. There were no significant differences in hazards for rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection among classes. Conclusion: Among operated patients with type A aortic dissection, no specific type of antihypertensive drug was associated with a better outcome, whereas among those with type B aortic dissection, the use of β-blockers and CCBs was related to a significantly lower risk of the composite outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical patients with aortic dissection often require multiple antihypertensive drugs to control blood pressure. However, the prescription pattern and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs for these patients are unclear. We aimed to investigate the prescription pattern and effectiveness of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in surgical patients with aortic dissection. Methods: Newly diagnosed aortic dissection patients who underwent surgery, aged >20 years, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017 were identified. Patients with missing data, in-hospital mortality, aortic aneurysms, or congenital connective tissue disorders, such as Marfan syndrome, were excluded. Prescription patterns of antihypertensive drugs were identified from medical records of outpatient visits within 90 days after discharge. Antihypertensive drugs were classified into four classes: 1) ß-blockers, 2) calcium channel blockers (CCBs), 3) renin-angiotensin system, and 4) other antihypertensive drugs. Patients were classified according to the number of classes of antihypertensive drugs as follows: 1) class 0, no exposure to antihypertensive drugs; 2) class 1, antihypertensive drugs of the same class; 3) class 2, antihypertensive drugs of two classes; 4) class 3, antihypertensive drugs of three classes; or 5) class 4, antihypertensive drugs of four classes. The primary composite outcomes included rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection, death due to aortic dissection, and all-cause mortality. Results: Most patients were prescribed two (28.87%) or three classes (28.01%) of antihypertensive drugs. In class 1, ß-blockers were most commonly used (8.79%), followed by CCBs (5.95%). In class 2, ß-blockers+CCB (10.66%) and CCB+RAS (5.18%) were the most common drug combinations. In class 3, ß-blockers + CCB+RAS (14.84%) was the most prescribed combination. Class 0 had a significantly higher hazard of the composite outcome (HR, 2.1; CI, 1.46-3.02; p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR, 2.34; CI, 1.56-3.51; p < 0.001) than class 1. There were no significant differences in hazards for rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection among classes. Conclusion: Among operated patients with type A aortic dissection, no specific type of antihypertensive drug was associated with a better outcome, whereas among those with type B aortic dissection, the use of ß-blockers and CCBs was related to a significantly lower risk of the composite outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Surgical patients with aortic dissection often require multiple antihypertensive drugs to control blood pressure. However, the prescription pattern and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs for these patients are unclear. We aimed to investigate the prescription pattern and effectiveness of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in surgical patients with aortic dissection.Methods: Newly diagnosed aortic dissection patients who underwent surgery, aged >20 years, from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2017 were identified. Patients with missing data, in-hospital mortality, aortic aneurysms, or congenital connective tissue disorders, such as Marfan syndrome, were excluded. Prescription patterns of antihypertensive drugs were identified from medical records of outpatient visits within 90 days after discharge. Antihypertensive drugs were classified into four classes: 1) β-blockers, 2) calcium channel blockers (CCBs), 3) renin–angiotensin system, and 4) other antihypertensive drugs. Patients were classified according to the number of classes of antihypertensive drugs as follows: 1) class 0, no exposure to antihypertensive drugs; 2) class 1, antihypertensive drugs of the same class; 3) class 2, antihypertensive drugs of two classes; 4) class 3, antihypertensive drugs of three classes; or 5) class 4, antihypertensive drugs of four classes. The primary composite outcomes included rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection, death due to aortic dissection, and all-cause mortality.Results: Most patients were prescribed two (28.87%) or three classes (28.01%) of antihypertensive drugs. In class 1, β-blockers were most commonly used (8.79%), followed by CCBs (5.95%). In class 2, β-blockers+CCB (10.66%) and CCB+RAS (5.18%) were the most common drug combinations. In class 3, β-blockers + CCB+RAS (14.84%) was the most prescribed combination. Class 0 had a significantly higher hazard of the composite outcome (HR, 2.1; CI, 1.46–3.02; p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR, 2.34; CI, 1.56–3.51; p < 0.001) than class 1. There were no significant differences in hazards for rehospitalization associated with aortic dissection among classes.Conclusion: Among operated patients with type A aortic dissection, no specific type of antihypertensive drug was associated with a better outcome, whereas among those with type B aortic dissection, the use of β-blockers and CCBs was related to a significantly lower risk of the composite outcome.

Purpose: To systematically assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan (SV) by comparison with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) for the treatment of heart failure caused by acute myocardial infarction (HF-AMI) based on current randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Several electronic databases were searched up to 27 May 2023. Primary endpoints were the efficacy including the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and 6-min walk test (6MWT) and secondary endpoints were the safety including the major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and adverse reaction (AE). Results: A total of 14 RCTs were included and all patients were from China. Among included 1,991 patients, 997 patients received SVs and 994 patients received ACEIs/ARBs. The pooled results demonstrated that patients in the SV group showed significantly better efficacy representing as increased LVEF [weighted mean difference (WMD): 4.43%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.84%-6.02%, p < 0.001] and 6MWT (WMD: 30.84 m, 95% CI: 25.65 m-36.03 m, p < 0.001) and decreased LVEDD (WMD: -3.24 mm, 95% CI: -4.96 mm ~ -1.52 mm, p < 0.001) and NT-proBNP (WMD: -188.12 pg/mL, 95% CI: -246.75 pg/mL ~ 129.49 pg/mL, p < 0.001), which was also verified by subgroup analysis based on the history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Besides, the SV group showed significantly lower incidence rate of MACE [relative risk (RR): 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47-0.75, p < 0.001] and patients receiving SVs in the non-PCI group also showed lower incidence of AE (RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20-0.71, p = 0.002). Conclusion: For the treatment of HF-AMI, SV is more effective and safer than ACEI/ARB based on current evidence, but more high-quality RCTs are still needed to verify above findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The safety of prescribing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) during acute kidney injury (AKI) remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the associations of ACEI/ARB therapy in AKI with the risk of mortality, acute kidney disease (AKD), and hyperkalemia. Methods: We conducted a retrospective monocentric study, which included patients in Massachusetts between 2008 and 2019 from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV (MIMIC-IV) database. Propensity score matching was performed for the endpoint analysis. The association between ACEI/ARB therapy and mortality was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Logistic regression was used to assess the risk of AKD and hyperkalemia. Results: Among the 19,074 individuals with AKI admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), 3,244 (17.0%) received ACEI/ARBs, while 15,830 (83.0%) did not. In the propensity score-matched sample of 6,358 individuals, we found a decreased risk of mortality in those who received ACEI/ARBs compared to those who did not (hazard ratio [HR] for ICU mortality: 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.27-0.42); HR for in-hospital mortality: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.39-0.56; HR for 30-day mortality: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.40-0.56; HR for 180-day mortality: 0.53, 95% CI: 0.45-0.62). However, the use of ACEI/ARBs was associated with a higher risk of AKD (risk ratio [RR]: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.55-2.12). There was no significant association between ACEI/ARBs and an increased risk of hyperkalemia (RR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.96-1.51). Conclusions: ACEI/ARB treatment during an episode of AKI may decrease all-cause mortality, but increases the risk of AKD. Future randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Single-lung ventilation (SLV) associated acute lung injury is similar to ischemia reperfusion (IR) injury which is usually occurred during lung surgery. Olmesartan (Olm), a novel angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), has been reported to ameliorate organ IR injury. Several recent studies have shown that lung microbiota may be involved in pulmonary diseases, but the effect of pulmonary microbiota in SLV-induced lung injury has not been reported. This study aims to determine the mechanism of how Olm attenuates SLV induced lung injury. Our data showed that 7 days Olm treatment before modeling markedly alleviated SLV-induced lung injury by suppressing inflammation and reactive oxygen species. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from the injured side were collected for 16S rRNA gene-based sequencing analysis and 53 different bacteria at the genus and species levels were identified. Furthermore, the injured lung samples were collected for metabolomics analysis using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses to explore differential metabolites. The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) was applied to analyze the correlation between differential metabolites and lung microbiota. A total of 38 pathways were identified according to differential metabolites and 275 relevant pathways were enriched via analyzing the microbial community, 24 pathways were both identified by analyzing either metabolites or microbiota, including pyrimidine metabolism, purine metabolism, aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis and ATP-binding cassette transporter. Besides classical blockage of the renin-angiotensin II system, Olm could also alleviate SLV-induced lung injury by rewiring the interaction between pulmonary microbiota and metabolites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the established cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2. However, it is unclear whether ACE1 inhibitors (e.g., lisinopril) or angiotensin receptor blockers (e.g., losartan) alter tissue ACE2 expression. This study sought to determine whether lisinopril or losartan, as monotherapies or in combination, changes tissue levels of ACE2 in healthy male and female mice. Mice received lisinopril (10 mg/kg/day), losartan (10 mg/kg/day), or both for 21 days via drinking water. A control group received water without drug. The ACE2 protein index (ACE2 protein/total protein) was determined on the small intestine, lung, kidney, and brain. Oral lisinopril increased the ACE2 protein index across all tissues (p < 0.0001 vs. control). In contrast, the combination of lisinopril plus losartan did not increase ACE2 levels in any tissue (p = 0.89 vs. control) and even decreased tissue expression of the Ace2 gene (p < 0.001 vs. control). Tissue ACE2 remained elevated in the mice 21 days after cessation of lisinopril (p = 0.02). Plasma ACE2 did not correlate with the ACE2 protein index in any tissue. A sex difference was observed: kidney ACE2 levels were higher in male than in female mice (p < 0.0001). Oral lisinopril increases ACE2, the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2, in tissues that are relevant to the transmission and pathogenesis of COVID-19. Remarkably, the addition of losartan prevented lisinopril-induced increases in ACE2 across tissues. These results suggest that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers interact to determine tissue levels of ACE2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical use of the combination therapy of the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker valsartan is known to be associated with albuminuria. Albuminuria is both a risk factor for and an indicator of kidney injury. Earlier work from our laboratory reported that the agonist of angiotensin II type 2 receptor Compound 21 (C21) prevents proteinuria, albuminuria, and is reno-protective in obese Zucker rats fed high salt diet (HSD). Thus, we hypothesized that sacubitril/C21 combination provides superior reno-protection compared to sacubitril/valsartan. Male obese Zucker rats 10–11 weeks old were treated daily with vehicle, sacubitril + C21, or sacubitril + valsartan while fed HSD for 16 days. HSD-feeding caused kidney dysfunction, evident by significant increases in urinary protein, osteopontin, and cystatin C. HSD-feeding lowered plasma cystatin C and creatinine concentrations suggestive of hyperfiltration, which was not affected by either treatment. Unlike sacubitril/valsartan, sacubitril/C21 treatment significantly decreases proteinuria, albuminuria, the expression of nephrin, and kidney weight, independent of hyperfiltration, compared with HSD alone. Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan therapy increased plasma renin and did not prevent HSD-induced increases in renal angiotensin II, while sacubitril/C21 completely prevented these changes. Together, this study suggests that sacubitril/C21 afforded superior reno-protection compared to sacubitril/valsartan therapy in high salt-fed obese Zucker rats. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is the established cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2. However, it is unclear whether ACE1 inhibitors (e.g., lisinopril) or angiotensin receptor blockers (e.g., losartan) alter tissue ACE2 expression. This study sought to determine whether lisinopril or losartan, as monotherapies or in combination, changes tissue levels of ACE2 in healthy male and female mice. Mice received lisinopril (10 mg/kg/day), losartan (10 mg/kg/day), or both for 21 days via drinking water. A control group received water without drug. The ACE2 protein index (ACE2 protein/total protein) was determined on the small intestine, lung, kidney, and brain. Oral lisinopril increased the ACE2 protein index across all tissues (p < 0.0001 vs. control). In contrast, the combination of lisinopril plus losartan did not increase ACE2 levels in any tissue (p = 0.89 vs. control) and even decreased tissue expression of the Ace2 gene (p < 0.001 vs. control). Tissue ACE2 remained elevated in the mice 21 days after cessation of lisinopril (p = 0.02). Plasma ACE2 did not correlate with the ACE2 protein index in any tissue. A sex difference was observed: kidney ACE2 levels were higher in male than in female mice (p < 0.0001). Oral lisinopril increases ACE2, the cellular receptor for SARS-CoV-2, in tissues that are relevant to the transmission and pathogenesis of COVID-19. Remarkably, the addition of losartan prevented lisinopril-induced increases in ACE2 across tissues. These results suggest that ACE inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers interact to determine tissue levels of ACE2.

Single-lung ventilation (SLV) associated acute lung injury is similar to ischemia reperfusion (IR) injury which is usually occurred during lung surgery. Olmesartan (Olm), a novel angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), has been reported to ameliorate organ IR injury. Several recent studies have shown that lung microbiota may be involved in pulmonary diseases, but the effect of pulmonary microbiota in SLV-induced lung injury has not been reported. This study aims to determine the mechanism of how Olm attenuates SLV induced lung injury. Our data showed that 7 days Olm treatment before modeling markedly alleviated SLV-induced lung injury by suppressing inflammation and reactive oxygen species. Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid samples from the injured side were collected for 16S rRNA gene-based sequencing analysis and 53 different bacteria at the genus and species levels were identified. Furthermore, the injured lung samples were collected for metabolomics analysis using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analyses to explore differential metabolites. The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) was applied to analyze the correlation between differential metabolites and lung microbiota. A total of 38 pathways were identified according to differential metabolites and 275 relevant pathways were enriched via analyzing the microbial community, 24 pathways were both identified by analyzing either metabolites or microbiota, including pyrimidine metabolism, purine metabolism, aminoacyl-tRNA biosynthesis and ATP-binding cassette transporter. Besides classical blockage of the renin-angiotensin II system, Olm could also alleviate SLV-induced lung injury by rewiring the interaction between pulmonary microbiota and metabolites.

Clinical use of the combination therapy of the neprilysin inhibitor sacubitril and angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker valsartan is known to be associated with albuminuria. Albuminuria is both a risk factor for and an indicator of kidney injury. Earlier work from our laboratory reported that the agonist of angiotensin II type 2 receptor Compound 21 (C21) prevents proteinuria, albuminuria, and is reno-protective in obese Zucker rats fed high salt diet (HSD). Thus, we hypothesized that sacubitril/C21 combination provides superior reno-protection compared to sacubitril/valsartan. Male obese Zucker rats 10–11 weeks old were treated daily with vehicle, sacubitril + C21, or sacubitril + valsartan while fed HSD for 16 days. HSD-feeding caused kidney dysfunction, evident by significant increases in urinary protein, osteopontin, and cystatin C. HSD-feeding lowered plasma cystatin C and creatinine concentrations suggestive of hyperfiltration, which was not affected by either treatment. Unlike sacubitril/valsartan, sacubitril/C21 treatment significantly decreases proteinuria, albuminuria, the expression of nephrin, and kidney weight, independent of hyperfiltration, compared with HSD alone. Moreover, sacubitril/valsartan therapy increased plasma renin and did not prevent HSD-induced increases in renal angiotensin II, while sacubitril/C21 completely prevented these changes. Together, this study suggests that sacubitril/C21 afforded superior reno-protection compared to sacubitril/valsartan therapy in high salt-fed obese Zucker rats.

This document is a corrigendum published in the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology. It corrects an error in the spelling of an author's name in a previously published article titled "Prescription pattern and effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs in patients with aortic dissection who underwent surgery." The correct spelling of the author's name is "Kuang-Ming Liao." The authors apologize for the error and state that it does not affect the scientific conclusions of the article. The corrigendum also includes contact information for correspondence and copyright information. [Extracted from the article]

Reduced or absent compliance to anti-hypertensive treatment is a major obstacle to the achievement of blood pressure target in patients with arterial hypertension. Current available methods for therapeutic adherence assessment display low accuracy, limited applicability in clinical practice and/or high costs. We designed a prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of serial measurement of ARR to assess the therapeutic compliance to RAAS inhibitors. We prospectively enrolled 80 subjects: 40 patients with arterial hypertension and 40 normotensive controls. The ARR was evaluated at baseline and 2 and 8 week after initiation of a RAAS inhibitor in patients with hypertension, and at baseline and 2 weeks for the control group. Adherence to the prescribed therapy was confirmed by therapeutic drug monitoring. We observed a significant increase of renin levels and reduction of aldosterone levels after RAAS inhibitors initiation, with consequent reduction of ARR. Delta ARR (ΔARR), defined as relative change in ARR before and after treatment initiation, provided high accuracy for determination of therapeutic compliance, with an AUC of 0.900 at 2 weeks and 0.886 at 8 weeks. A cut-off of −48% of ΔARR provided 90% sensitivity and 75% specificity, at 2 and 8 weeks. In conclusion, the measurement of ΔARR is a powerful test, cheap and widely available to accurately identify the non-adherence to RAAS inhibitors treatment. Herein we propose the implementation of ΔARR in clinical practice through a multi-step flow-chart for the management of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure, with identification of those suspected of non-adherence, reserving therapeutic drug monitoring for non-adherence confirmation.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), the pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), caused the outbreak escalated to pandemic. Reports suggested that near 1–3% of COVID‐19 cases have a fatal outcome. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used in hypertension, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. These drugs have been reported to upregulate angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) which produces Ang (1–7), the main counter-regulatory mediator of angiotensin II. This enzyme is also known as the receptor of SARS‐CoV‐2 promoting the cellular uptake of the virus in the airways, however, ACE2 itself proved to be protective in several experimental models of lung injury. The present study aimed to systematically review the relationship between ACEI/ARB administration and ACE2 expression in experimental models. After a comprehensive search and selection, 27 animal studies investigating ACE2 expression in the context of ACEI and ARB were identified. The majority of these papers reported increased ACE2 levels in response to ACEI/ARB treatment. This result should be interpreted in the light of the dual role of ACE2 being a promoter of viral entry to cells and a protective factor against oxidative damage in the lungs.

COVID-19 pandemic demands a swift response to find therapeutic tools that effectively reduce morbidity and mortality. Despite initial fears, evidence from retrospective observational studies supports the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system as an emerging pathway to delay or moderate angiotensin II-driven lung inflammation. This has triggered several prospective clinical trials. In this commentary we provide an overview and analysis of current ongoing clinical trials aimed at evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use in COVID-19. The relevance of the results of these trials will have to be interpreted depending on the stage and severity of the disease and in light of the start time of their prescription related to the time of diagnosis of COVID-19 as well as the administered doses.

Reduced or absent compliance to anti-hypertensive treatment is a major obstacle to the achievement of blood pressure target in patients with arterial hypertension. Current available methods for therapeutic adherence assessment display low accuracy, limited applicability in clinical practice and/or high costs. We designed a prospective study to evaluate the accuracy of serial measurement of ARR to assess the therapeutic compliance to RAAS inhibitors. We prospectively enrolled 80 subjects: 40 patients with arterial hypertension and 40 normotensive controls. The ARR was evaluated at baseline and 2 and 8 week after initiation of a RAAS inhibitor in patients with hypertension, and at baseline and 2 weeks for the control group. Adherence to the prescribed therapy was confirmed by therapeutic drug monitoring. We observed a significant increase of renin levels and reduction of aldosterone levels after RAAS inhibitors initiation, with consequent reduction of ARR. Delta ARR (ΔARR), defined as relative change in ARR before and after treatment initiation, provided high accuracy for determination of therapeutic compliance, with an AUC of 0.900 at 2 weeks and 0.886 at 8 weeks. A cut-off of −48% of ΔARR provided 90% sensitivity and 75% specificity, at 2 and 8 weeks. In conclusion, the measurement of ΔARR is a powerful test, cheap and widely available to accurately identify the non-adherence to RAAS inhibitors treatment. Herein we propose the implementation of ΔARR in clinical practice through a multi-step flow-chart for the management of patients with uncontrolled blood pressure, with identification of those suspected of non-adherence, reserving therapeutic drug monitoring for non-adherence confirmation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 pandemic demands a swift response to find therapeutic tools that effectively reduce morbidity and mortality. Despite initial fears, evidence from retrospective observational studies supports the inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system as an emerging pathway to delay or moderate angiotensin II-driven lung inflammation. This has triggered several prospective clinical trials. In this commentary we provide an overview and analysis of current ongoing clinical trials aimed at evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use in COVID-19. The relevance of the results of these trials will have to be interpreted depending on the stage and severity of the disease and in light of the start time of their prescription related to the time of diagnosis of COVID-19 as well as the administered doses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2), the pathogen of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19), caused the outbreak escalated to pandemic. Reports suggested that near 1–3% of COVID‐19 cases have a fatal outcome. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used in hypertension, heart failure and chronic kidney disease. These drugs have been reported to upregulate angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) which produces Ang (1–7), the main counter-regulatory mediator of angiotensin II. This enzyme is also known as the receptor of SARS‐CoV‐2 promoting the cellular uptake of the virus in the airways, however, ACE2 itself proved to be protective in several experimental models of lung injury. The present study aimed to systematically review the relationship between ACEI/ARB administration and ACE2 expression in experimental models. After a comprehensive search and selection, 27 animal studies investigating ACE2 expression in the context of ACEI and ARB were identified. The majority of these papers reported increased ACE2 levels in response to ACEI/ARB treatment. This result should be interpreted in the light of the dual role of ACE2 being a promoter of viral entry to cells and a protective factor against oxidative damage in the lungs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]