You will be provided with the titles and abstracts of a collection of medical RCT reports studying a clinical question -- for instance, the efficacy of an intervention on some medical outcome. Please write a few sentences synthesizing the findings of these reports, which could serve as a conclusion section for a systematic review article. Your response should not include any other text. The RCT reports are below.



Title 1:
Enalapril to prevent cardiac function decline in long-term survivors of pediatric cancer exposed to anthracyclines.
Abstract 1:
To determine whether an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, enalapril, prevents cardiac function deterioration (defined using maximal cardiac index [MCI] on exercise testing or increase in left ventricular end-systolic wall stress [LVESWS]) in long-term survivors of pediatric cancer.
                This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial comparing enalapril to placebo in 135 long-term survivors of pediatric cancer who had at least one cardiac abnormality identified at any time after anthracycline exposure.
                There was no difference in the rate of change in MCI per year between enalapril and placebo groups (0.30 v 0.18 L/min/m(2); P =.55). However, during the first year of treatment, the rate of change in LVESWS was greater in the enalapril group than in the placebo group (-8.59 v 1.85 g/cm(2); P =.033) and this difference was maintained over the study period, resulting in a 9% reduction in estimated LVESWS by year 5 in the enalapril group. Six of seven patients removed from random assignment to treatment because of cardiac deterioration were initially treated with placebo (P =.11), and one has died as a result of heart failure. Side effects from enalapril included dizziness or hypotension (22% v 3% in the placebo group; P =.0003) and fatigue (10% v 0%; P =.013).
                Enalapril treatment did not influence exercise performance, but did reduce LVESWS in the first year; this reduction was maintained over the study period. Any theoretical benefits of LVESWS reduction in this anthracycline-exposed population must be weighed against potential side effects from ACE inhibitors when making treatment decisions.
For the effect of enalapril in childhood cancer survivors with asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction, only one RCT is available. Although there is some evidence that enalapril temporarily improves one parameter of cardiac function (LVESWS), it is unclear whether it improves clinical outcomes. Enalapril was associated with a higher risk of dizziness or hypotension and fatigue. Clinicians should weigh the possible benefits with the known side-effects of enalapril in childhood cancer survivors with asymptomatic anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity.
For the effect of phosphocreatine in childhood cancer patients with anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity, only one RCT is available. Limited data with a high risk of bias showed no significant difference between phosphocreatine and control treatment on echocardiographic function and clinical outcomes.
We did not identify any RCTs or CCTs studying other medical interventions for symptomatic or asymptomatic cardiotoxicity in childhood cancer patients or survivors.
High-quality studies should be performed.