Background: The effects of allopurinol in patients with cardiovascular disease are not well defined; therefore, the latest evidence is summarized in this study. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of allopurinol in patients with cardiovascular disease published up to 11 February 2023. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death. Results: We combined the results of 21 RCTs that included 22,806 patients. Compared to placebo/usual care, allopurinol treatment was not associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular death (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33–1.11) or all-cause death (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.72–1.12). However, evidence from earlier trials and studies with small sample sizes indicated that allopurinol might confer a protective effect in decreasing cardiovascular death (RR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15–0.76) across patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or having acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In comparisons between allopurinol and febuxostat, we observed no difference in cardiovascular death (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.69–1.24) or all-cause death (RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.75–1.38). Conclusion: Allopurinol could not reduce cardiovascular (CV) death or major adverse CV outcomes significantly in patients with existing cardiovascular diseases. Given the limitations of the original studies, the potential advantages of allopurinol observed in patients undergoing CABG or presenting with ACS necessitate further confirmation through subsequent RCTs. In the comparisons between allopurinol and febuxostat, our analysis failed to uncover any marked superiority of allopurinol in reducing the risk of adverse cardiovascular incidents.

Background: The accurate selection of patients likely to respond to renal denervation (RDN) is crucial for optimizing treatment outcomes in patients with hypertension. This systematic review was designed to evaluate patient‐specific factors predicting the RDN response. Methods and Results: We focused on individuals with hypertension who underwent RDN. Patients were categorized based on their baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was blood pressure (BP) reduction after RDN. Both randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies were included. We assessed the risk of bias using corresponding tools and further employed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the overall quality of evidence. A total of 50 studies were ultimately included in this systematic review, among which 17 studies were for meta‐analysis. Higher baseline heart rate and lower pulse wave velocity were shown to be associated with significant antihypertensive efficacy of RDN on 24‐hour systolic BP reduction (weighted mean difference, −4.05 [95% CI, −7.33 to −0.77]; weighted mean difference, −7.20 [95% CI, −9.79 to −4.62], respectively). In addition, based on qualitative analysis, higher baseline BP, orthostatic hypertension, impaired baroreflex sensitivity, and several biomarkers are also reported to be associated with significant BP reduction after RDN. Conclusions: In patients with hypertension treated with the RDN, higher heart rate, and lower pulse wave velocity were associated with significant BP reduction after RDN. Other factors, including higher baseline BP, hypertensive patients with orthostatic hypertension, BP variability, impaired cardiac baroreflex sensitivity, and some biomarkers are also reported to be associated with a better BP response to RDN.

Background and Aims: The benefits and safety of antidyslipidemia pharmacotherapy in patients with chronic kidney disease were not well defined so the latest evidence was summarized by this work. Methods: This systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) included searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to 28 February 2022, for randomized controlled trials of any antilipidaemic medications administered to adults with chronic kidney disease [CKD: defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤ 60 mL/min/1.73 m² not undergoing transplantation], using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results: 55 trials and 30 works of them were included in our systematic review and NMA, respectively. In comparisons with no antidyslipidemia therapy or placebo, proprotein convertase subtilisin/Kexin type 9 inhibitors plus statin (PS) was the most effective drug regimen for reducing all-cause mortality (OR 0.62, 95% CI [0.40, 0.93]; GRADE: moderate), followed by moderate-high intensity statin (HS, OR 0.76, 95% CI [0.60, 0.93]; I² = 66.9%; GRADE: moderate). PS, HS, low-moderate statin (LS), ezetimibe plus statin (ES), and fibrates (F) significantly decreased the composite cardiovascular events. The subgroup analysis revealed the null effect of statins on death (OR 0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.04]) and composite cardiovascular events (OR 0.94, 95% CI [0.82, 1.07]) in dialysis patients. Conclusion: In nondialysis CKD patients, statin-based therapies could significantly and safely reduce all-cause death and major composite cardiovascular events despite the presence of arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL-c levels. Aggressive medication regimens, PS and HS, appeared to be more effective, especially in patients with established CAD.