Clinical features of genetically characterized types of hereditary angioedema with normal C1 inhibitor: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

Background: Hereditary angioedema (HAE) with normal C1 inhibitor (C1-INH) (HAEnCI) is associated with skin swellings, abdominal attacks, and the risk of asphyxia due to upper airway obstruction. Several different gene mutations linked to the HAE phenotype have been identified. Our aim was to qualitatively assess and describe the clinical differentiators of these genetically identified HAEnCI types. To achieve this, we performed a systematic literature review of patients with angioedema symptoms and a genetically confirmed diagnosis of an HAEnCI type. Results: A systematic literature search, conducted in March 2020, returned 132 records, 43 of which describe patients with symptoms of angioedema and a genetically confirmed diagnosis of an HAEnCI type. Overall, this included 602 patient cases from 220 families. HAEnCI with a mutation in the coagulation factor XII gene (F12) (HAE-FXII) was diagnosed in 446 patients from 185 families (male:female ratio = 1:10). Estrogens (oral contraceptives, hormonal replacement therapy, and pregnancy) negatively impacted the course of disease in most female patients (252 of 277). Asphyxia occurred in 2 of 446 patients. On-demand and/or long-term prophylaxis treatment included C1-INH concentrates, icatibant, progestins, and tranexamic acid. HAEnCI with a specific mutation in the plasminogen gene (HAE-PLG) was diagnosed in 146 patients from 33 families (male:female ratio = 1:3). Estrogens had a negative influence on the course of disease in the minority of female patients (14 of 62). Tongue swelling was an important clinical feature. Asphyxia occurred in 3 of 146 patients. On-demand treatment with icatibant and C1-INH concentrate and long-term prophylaxis with progestins and tranexamic acid were effective. HAEnCI with a specific mutation in the angiopoietin-1 gene (HAE-ANGPT1) was diagnosed in 4 patients from 1 family and HAEnCI with a specific mutation in the kininogen-1 gene (HAE-KNG1) in 6 patients from 1 family. Conclusions: A number of clinical differentiators for the different types of HAEnCI have been identified which may support clinicians to narrow down the correct diagnosis of HAEnCI prior to genetic testing and thereby guide appropriate treatment and management decisions. However, confirmation of the causative gene mutation by genetic testing will always be required

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy