After initial concerns regarding the association of statins with increased incidences of cancer and elevated cancer-related mortality, there are now plenty of data on the antitumor, cytostatic and cytotoxic effectiveness of this class of drugs. Here, we present a short review of possible mechanisms of antineoplastic activity obtained from preclinical research and the influence of statins on cancer treatment. In the second part of the article, we focus on the most recent data from observational clinical trials, as well as meta-analyses regarding cancer incidence and mortality in patients treated with statins.

Aims To assess the proportion of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who are eligible for sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) based on the European Medicines Agency/Food and Drug Administration (EMA/FDA) label, the PARADIGM‐HF trial and the 2016 ESC guidelines, and the association between eligibility and outcomes. Methods and results Outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA Long‐Term Heart Failure (HF‐LT) Registry between March 2011 and November 2013 were considered. Criteria for LCZ696 based on EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and ESC guidelines were applied. Of 5443 patients, 2197 and 2373 had complete information for trial and guideline eligibility assessment, and 84%, 12% and 12% met EMA/FDA label, PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria, respectively. Absent PARADIGM‐HF criteria were low natriuretic peptides (21%), hyperkalemia (4%), hypotension (7%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (74%); absent Guidelines criteria were LVEF>35% (23%), insufficient NP levels (30%) and sub‐optimal pharmacotherapy (82%); absent label criteria were absence of symptoms (New York Heart Association class I). When a daily requirement of ACEi/ARB ≥ 10 mg enalapril (instead of ≥ 20 mg) was used, eligibility rose from 12% to 28% based on both PARADIGM‐HF and guidelines. One‐year heart failure hospitalization was higher (12% and 17% vs. 12%) and all‐cause mortality lower (5.3% and 6.5% vs. 7.7%) in registry eligible patients compared to the enalapril arm of PARADIGM‐HF. Conclusions Among outpatients with HFrEF in the ESC‐EORP‐HFA HF‐LT Registry, 84% met label criteria, while only 12% and 28% met PARADIGM‐HF and guideline criteria for LCZ696 if requiring ≥ 20 mg and ≥ 10 mg enalapril, respectively. Registry patients eligible for LCZ696 had greater heart failure hospitalization but lower mortality rates than the PARADIGM‐HF enalapril group.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring provides information about the day-night blood pressure profile, which can be divided into dipping and non-dipping pattern. Non-dipping hypertension is recently thought to have increased cardiovascular risk and outcomes than dipping hypertension. The dipping pattern is explained by physiological changes in circadian rhythm, while the pathomechanism of non-dipping hypertension is not fully understood. Is it considered to be a result of many factors, such as: sympathetic nervous system overactivation, which can be accompanied by impaired parasympathetic nervous system response, obesity, concurrent diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome. Moreover abnormalities of hormones levels such as melatonin, catecholamines, thyroid and parathyroid hormones are connected to occurrence of non-dipping hypertension. Other widely discussed problem is obstructive sleep apnoea and its influence on circadian rhythm changes. Also dysfunction in activity of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone axis is thought to cause non-dipping pattern. There are some studies that indicate on role of inappropriate sodium intake in mentioned pathology. The chronic kidney disease and relationship with non-dipping hypertension will be also described. The last considered factor is influence of age on the development of non-dipping hypertension. key words: circadian blood pressure profile, blood pressure regulation, chronobiology, nocturnal hypertension, non-dipping pathomechanism

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs, originally termed “carcinoids”) create a relatively rare group of neoplasms with an approximate incidence rate of 2.5 to 5 cases per 100 000 persons. Roughly 30% to 40% of subjects with NETs develop carcinoid syndrome (CS), and 20% to 50% of subjects with CS are diagnosed with carcinoid heart disease (CaHD). The long-standing exposure to high serum serotonin concentration is one of the crucial factors in CaHD development. White plaque-like deposits on the endocardial surface of heart structures with valve leaflets and subvalvular apparatus thickening (fused and shortened chordae; thickened papillary muscles) are characteristic for CaHD. NT pro-BNP and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid are the 2 most useful screening markers. Long-acting somatostatin analogs are the standard of care in symptoms control. They are also the first-line treatment for tumor control in subjects with a metastatic somatostatin receptor avid disease. In cases refractory to somatostatin analogs, several options are available. We can increase a somatostatin analog to off-label doses, add telotristat ethyl or administer peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Cardiac surgery, which mainly involves valve replacement, is presently the most efficient strategy in subjects with advanced CaHD and can relieve unmanageable symptoms or be partly responsible for better prognosis.