Candesartan, an ARB, improves EPC dysfunction and increases cardiac c-kit expression through the anti-oxidative mechanism in hypertension. The local RAS induces oxidative stress and regulates the EPC functions.

As the current treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is limited, it is necessary to seek more effective and safer treatment methods, such as Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs). In order to clarify the modern theoretical basis and molecular mechanisms of CHMs, we reviewed the knowledge based on publications in peer-reviewed English-language journals, focusing on the anti-inflammatory, antioxidative, anti-apoptotic, autophagy-mediated and antifibrotic effects of CHMs commonly used in kidney disease. We also discussed recently published clinical trials and meta-analyses in this field. Based on recent studies regarding the mechanisms of kidney disease in vivo and in vitro, CHMs have anti-inflammatory, antioxidative, anti-apoptotic, autophagy-mediated, and antifibrotic effects. Several well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses demonstrated that the use of CHMs as an adjuvant to conventional medicines may benefit patients with CKD. Unknown active ingredients, low quality and small sample sizes of some clinical trials, and the safety of CHMs have restricted the development of CHMs. CHMs is a potential method in the treatment of CKD. Further study on the mechanism and well-conducted RCTs are urgently needed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CHMs.

Cronkhite-Canada syndrome (CCS) is a rare nongenetic polyposis syndrome first reported by Cronkhite and Canada in 1955.1 Up to the present time, the literature consists of ∼400 cases of CCS with the majority being reported from Japan2 although 49 cases have been described in China.3CCS is characterized by diffuse polyposis of the digestive tract in association with ectodermal changes, such as onychomadesis, alopecia, and cutaneous hyperpigmentation. The principal symptoms of CCS are diarrhea, weight loss, abdominal pain, and other gastrointestinal complications, such as protein-losing enteropathy and malnutrition.It has been traditional to consider that CCS is associated with a poor prognosis. This paper describes a relatively mild case and reviews the literature, which more recently, suggests that it may be a more benign condition that might actually be reversible with treatment.There is some evidence that infection or disturbed immunity may be involved in the pathophysiology and that targeting such abnormalities could have therapeutic potential.A strong case could be made for establishing an international case registry for this disease so that the pathophysiology, treatment, and prognosis could become much better understood.

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the controversy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in combination with angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) in the treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on dose.Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to March 2020. The random effects model was used to calculate the effect sizes. Potential sources of heterogeneity were detected using sensitivity analysis and meta-regression.Results: This meta-analysis of 53 RCTs with 6,375 patients demonstrated that in patients with CKD, ACEI in combination with ARB was superior to low-dose ACEI or ARB in reducing urine albumin excretion (SMD, −0.43; 95% CI, −0.67 to −0.19; p = 0.001), urine protein excretion (SMD, −0.22; 95% CI, −0.33 to −0.11; p < 0.001), and blood pressure (BP), including systolic BP (WMD, −2.89; 95% CI, −3.88 to −1.89; p < 0.001) and diastolic BP (WMD, −3.02; 95% CI, −4.46 to −1.58; p < 0.001). However, it was associated with decreased glomerular filtration rate (GFR) (SMD, −0.13; 95% CI, −0.24 to −0.02; p = 0.02) and increased rates of hyperkalemia (RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.55 to 2.76; p < 0.001) and hypotension (RR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.35 to 3.54; p = 0.001). ACEI in combination with ARB was more effective than high-dose ACEI or ARB in reducing urine albumin excretion (SMD, −0.84; 95% CI, −1.26 to −0.43; p < 0.001) and urine protein excretion (SMD, −0.24; 95% CI, −0.39 to −0.09; p = 0.002), without decrease in GFR (SMD, 0.02; 95% CI, −0.12 to 0.15; p = 0.78) and increase in rate of hyperkalemia (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.37; p = 0.76). Nonetheless, the combination did not decrease the BP and increased the rate of hypotension (RR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.13 to 13.84; p = 0.03) compared with high-dose ACEI or ARB.Conclusion: ACEI in combination with ARB is superior in reducing urine albumin excretion and urine protein excretion. The combination is more effective than high-dose ACEI or ARB without decreasing GFR and increasing the incidence of hyperkalemia. Despite the risk of hypotension, ACEI in combination with ARB is a better choice for CKD patients who need to increase the dose of ACEI or ARB (PROSPERO CRD42020179398).

Background: To lower albuminuria and to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, dual renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are sometimes used in clinical practice for the treatment of CKD. However, the efficacy and safety of dual RAAS blockade therapy remains controversial. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched, and random effects model was used to calculate the effect sizes of eligible studies. Potential sources of heterogeneity were detected by meta-regression and subgroup analysis. Results: The present meta-analysis of 72 randomized controlled trials with 10,296 patients demonstrated that dual RAAS blockade therapy was superior to monotherapy in reducing the urine albumin excretion, urine protein excretion, and BP. These beneficial effects were related to the decrease of glomerular filtration rate, the increase of serum potassium level, and higher rates of hyperkalemia and hypotension. Meanwhile, these effects did not lead to improvements in short-term or long-term outcomes, including doubling of serum creatinine, acute kidney injury, end-stage renal disease, mortality, and hospitalization. Compared with the single therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) in combination with angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) was a better dual therapy than ACEI or ARB in combination with renin inhibitor or aldosterone receptor antagonist in decreasing urine albumin excretion, urine protein excretion and BP, and the combination was not associated with a lower glomerular filtration rate. Conclusion: Compared with the single therapy, ACEI in combination with ARB was a better dual therapy than ACEI or ARB in combination with renin inhibitor or aldosterone receptor antagonist. Although ACEI in combination with ARB was associated with higher incidences of hyperkalemia and hypotension, careful individualized management and potassium binders may further expand its application (PROSPERO number CRD42020179398).

Background: It is unclear whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in combination with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are superior to ACEIs or ARBs alone in the treatment of nondiabetic chronic kidney disease (CKD). The present meta-analysis was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of ACEIs in combination with ARBs in nondiabetic CKD. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published prior to March 2020. A random-effects model was used to calculate the effect sizes of eligible studies. Results: The present meta-analysis of 20 RCTs encompassing 1,398 patients with nondiabetic CKD demonstrated that ACEIs in combination with ARBs were superior to ACEIs or ARBs alone in reducing urine albumin excretion (SMD, -0.69; 95% CI, -1.13 to -0.25; P=0.002), urine protein excretion (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.46 to -0.23; P<0.001) and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure: WMD, -1.43; 95% CI, -2.42 to -0.44; P=0.005; diastolic blood pressure: WMD, -1.85; 95% CI, -2.67 to -1.04; P<0.001) without decreased glomerular filtration rate (SMD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.06; P=0.30) or increased incidences of hyperkalaemia (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.47 to RR=0.80; P=0.20 to 0.06; P=0.30). Conclusion: Compared with ACEIs or ARBs alone, ACEIs in combination with ARBs are effective and safe in the treatment of nondiabetic CKD. ACEIs combined with ARBs may be a better choice to reduce proteinuria as long as it can be tolerated. (PROSPERO number: CRD42020179398).

Background The effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on the mortality of patients with sepsis is not well characterized. The aim of this study was to elucidate the association between prior ACEI or ARB exposure and mortality in sepsis. Methods The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for all studies of premorbid ACEI or ARB use and sepsis mortality until November 30 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed, selected, and abstracted data from studies reporting ACEIs or ARBs, sepsis, and mortality. The primary extracted data consisted of premorbid ACEI or ARB exposure, mortality, and general patient data. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias and quality of evidence. Results A total of six studies comprising 281,238 patients with sepsis, including 49,799 cases with premorbid ACEI or ARB exposure were eligible for analysis. Premorbid ACEIs or ARBs exposure decreased the 30-day mortality in patients with sepsis. Moreover, the use of ACEIs or ARBs was associated with approximately a 6% decreased risk of 30-day mortality. Conclusions The results of this systematic review suggest that ACEI or ARB exposure prior to sepsis may be associated with reduced mortality. Further high-quality cohort studies and molecular mechanism experiments are required to confirm our results.

Background: Enteral nutrition is a major pathway of nutrition for patients requiring critical care. However, whether intermittent or continuous feeding is better is not yet known clearly, especially after nasogastric enteral nutrition via gastric tube. Therefore, this randomized controlled clinical study was designed to observe the effects of different methods on critically ill patients.Methods: The different feeding method on gastrointestinal function of critical patients (DFM-GFC) was a randomized, single-blind, clinical study assessing the effects of three feeding methods on critically ill patients. A total of 90 critical patients were equally randomized to three groups: continuous feeding, cycling feeding, and intermittent feeding. The patients were pumped with gastrointestinal nutrition preparation via gastric tube in 24 h or in 16 h via intermittent pump. The primary outcome is the mean duration that reached to the caloric goal in every group. The secondary outcome included the rate of onset of gastric residua, abdominal pressure, the rate of onset pneumonia, and the proportion of individuals achieving the caloric goal. Also, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay and mortality rate at 28 days post-enrollment was evaluated.Discussion: This study observes the effects of different feeding methods on parameters, such as energy target and gastrointestinal motility in critically ill patients, in order to improve the prognosis of, quality of life and reduce the case fatality rate.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT04224883. Registered on January 9, 2020.