-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diuretics; Heart Failure; Hypertension; Stroke; Thiazides; Middle Aged
PubMed: 37439548
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008161.pub3 -
Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation :... Nov 2022While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
While it is well known that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) increase the risk of acute renal failure, the role of neprilysin inhibition (NEPi) is unclear and some physicians are reluctant to prescribe sacubitril/valsartan because of safety concerns. This meta-analysis aimed to examine the risk for renal events, progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD) or progression to dialysis on combined NEPi and ACEi/ARBs compared with ACEi or ARBs.
METHODS
We performed a systematic meta-analysis including 17 randomized controlled trials (study drug sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat), involving a total of 23 569 patients, after searching PubMed, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.org and Embase for eligible studies. From the included trials, all renal endpoints, including long- and short-term outcomes and hyperkalemia, were extracted. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using the DerSimonian and Laird method. The study was registered at PROSPERO.
RESULTS
Overall, treatment with sacubitril/valsartan or omapatrilat showed a slightly lower risk of any renal event [OR 0.82 (0.7-0.97)] compared with treatment with an ACEi or ARB alone. Also, there was a decreased risk of severe acute renal events [OR 0.8 (0.69-0.93)] and a decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate decline [mean difference -0.58 mL/min (-0.83 to -0.33 mL/min)]. There was no difference in chronic renal events [OR 0.92 (0.8-1.05)] or hyperkalemia [OR 1.02 (0.84-1.23)].
CONCLUSION
NEPi + ACEi/ARBs are safe in terms of renal adverse events. Longer trials focusing on CKD are needed to evaluate the effect of NEPi on decreasing progression of CKD.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Neprilysin; Hyperkalemia; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Valsartan; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35022763
DOI: 10.1093/ndt/gfac001 -
International Urology and Nephrology Jan 2024Sacubitril/valsartan, a new pharmacological class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, is beneficial to heart failure through blocking the degradation of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Sacubitril/valsartan, a new pharmacological class of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, is beneficial to heart failure through blocking the degradation of natriuretic peptides and inhibiting renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) activation which also relate to the pathophysiologic mechanisms of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, its effects on CKD remain unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan for patients with CKD, we performed this meta-analysis.
METHODS
The Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared sacubitril/valsartan with ACEI/ARBs in patients with CKD whose estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was below 60 mL/min/1.73 m. We adopted the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias. The effect size was estimated using the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Six trials with a total of 6217 patients with CKD were included. In terms of cardiovascular events, sacubitril/valsartan attenuated the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (OR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, P < 0.00001, I = 43%). With respect to renal function, sacubitril/valsartan prevented the incidence of serum creatinine (Scr) elevation among patients with CKD (OR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.95, P = 0.01, I = 0%). Subgroup analysis about eGFR demonstrated that with long follow-up, sacubitril/valsartan significantly decreased the number of patients with more than 50% reduction in eGFR compared with ACEI/ARBs (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.84, P = 0.008, I = 9%). In patients with CKD, the incidence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) was reduced with sacubitril/valsartan treatment, despite no statistically significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.29-1.20, P = 0.14, I = 0%). As for the safety, we found that sacubitril/valsartan was associated with the occurrence of hypotension (OR: 1.71, 95% CI 1.15-2.56, P = 0.008, I = 51%). However, there was no trend towards increasing the risk of hyperkalemia in patients who received sacubitril/valsartan (OR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.75-1.60, P = 0.64, I = 64%).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis indicated that sacubitril/valsartan improved renal function and conferred effective cardiovascular benefits in patients with CKD, without serious safety issues being observed. Thus, sacubitril/valsartan may be a promising option for patients with CKD. Certainly, further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these conclusions.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[ https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-4-0045/ ], identifier [INPLASY202240045].
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Drug Combinations; Heart Failure; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Stroke Volume; Tetrazoles; Valsartan; Aminobutyrates; Biphenyl Compounds
PubMed: 37195574
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-023-03599-w -
JACC. Heart Failure Apr 2024Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medical treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection (HFpEF) and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) has weaker evidence compared with reduced ejection fraction, despite recent trials with an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) and sodium glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2is).
OBJECTIVES
The authors aimed to estimate the aggregate therapeutic benefit of drugs for HFmrEF and HFpEF.
METHODS
The authors performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science for randomized trials including patients with heart failure (HF) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >40%, treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (analyzed together as renin-angiotensin system inhibitors [RASi]), beta-blockers (BBs), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), digoxin, ARNI, and SGLT2i. An additive component network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death and first hospitalization for heart failure (HHF); secondary outcomes were CV death, total HHF, and all-cause mortality.
RESULTS
The authors identified 13 studies with a total of 29,875 patients and a mean LVEF of 56.3% ± 8.7%. ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i separately, but not RASi, BB, or digoxin, reduced the primary composite outcome compared with placebo. The combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i was the most effective (HR: 0.47 [95% CI: 0.31-0.70]); this was largely explained by the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i (HR: 0.56 [95% CI 0.43-0.71]). Results were similar for CV death (HR: 0.63 [95% CI 0.43-0.91] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) or total HHF (HR: 0.49 [95% CI 0.33-0.71] for ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i) alone. In a subgroup analysis, only SGLT2i had a consistent benefit among all LVEF subgroups, whereas the triple combination had the greatest benefit in HFmrEF, robust benefit in patients with LVEF 50% to 59%, and a statistically marginal benefit in patients with LVEF ≥60%.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with HF and LVEF>40%, the quadruple combination of ARNI, BB, MRA, and SGLT2i provides the largest reduction in the risk of CV death and HHF; driven by the robust effect of the triple combination of ARNI, MRA, and SGLT2i. The benefit was more pronounced in HFmrEF patients.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Digoxin; Heart Failure; Network Meta-Analysis; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Ventricular Function, Left; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37656079
DOI: 10.1016/j.jchf.2023.07.014 -
European Journal of Pharmacology Oct 2020Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is recommended for ejection fraction reduction in heart failure. However, studies comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Sacubitril/valsartan (LCZ696) is recommended for ejection fraction reduction in heart failure. However, studies comparing the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and chronic kidney disease (CKD) with the inhibitor of renal angiotensin system (RAS) are limited. To further demonstrate the benefits of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with both heart failure and CKD, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs. A total of 3460 individuals with heart failure and CKD were included in this meta-analysis. Sacubitril/valsartan was compared with irbesartan, valsartan and enalapril. It was found that sacubitril/valsartan significantly increased estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR, MD = 1.90, 95% CI (0.30, 3.50), P = 0.02]. However, sacubitril/valsartan had no difference in urinary albumin/creatinine ratio [UACR, MD = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.38, 0.78), P = 0.59] compared to the control group. Sacubitril/valsartan showed dramatically decrease in systolic blood pressure [SBP, MD = -4.39, 95% CI (-6.11, -2.68), P < 0.001], diastolic blood pressure [DBP, MD = -2.69, 95% CI (-4.04, -1.35), P < 0.001], and N-terminal prohormone brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP, MD = -45.34, 95% CI (-46.63, -44.06), P < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse reactions between sacubitril/valsartan and the control group. Compared with the RAS inhibitor, sacubitril/valsartan significantly increased eGFR and decreased BP and NT-proBNP, which indicates that it might have cardiovascular and renal benefits in patients with heart failure and CKD.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Aminobutyrates; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Biphenyl Compounds; Drug Combinations; Female; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Heart Failure; Humans; Kidney; Male; Middle Aged; Neprilysin; Protease Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome; Valsartan
PubMed: 32739172
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173444 -
The American Journal of Emergency... Apr 2023Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent times, there is increasing interest in the role of angiotensin II in CS. We sought to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent times, there is increasing interest in the role of angiotensin II in CS. We sought to systematically review the current literature on the use of angiotensin II in CS.
METHODS
PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, PubMed Central, and CINAHL databases were systematically searched for studies that evaluated the efficacy of angiotensin II in patients with CS during 01/01/2010-07/07/2022. Outcomes of interest included change in mean arterial pressure (MAP), vasoactive medication requirements (percent change in norepinephrine equivalent [NEE] dose), all-cause mortality, and adverse events.
RESULTS
Of the total 2,402 search results, 15 studies comprising 195 patients were included of which 156 (80%) received angiotensin II. Eleven patients (84.6%) in case reports and case series with reported MAP data at hour 12 noted an increase in MAP. Two studies noted a positive hemodynamic response (defined a priori) in eight (88.9%) and five (35.7%) patients. Eight studies reported a reduction in NEE dose at hour 12 after angiotensin II administration and one study noted a 100% reduction in NEE dose. Out of 47 patients with documented information, 13 patients had adverse outcomes which included hepatic injury (2), digital ischemia (1), ischemic optic neuropathy (1), ischemic colitis (2), agitated delirium (1), and thrombotic events (2).
CONCLUSIONS
In this first systematic review of angiotensin II in CS, we note the early clinical experience. Angiotensin II was associated with improvements in MAP, decrease in vasopressor requirements, and minimal reported adverse events.
Topics: Humans; Shock, Cardiogenic; Angiotensin II; Vasoconstrictor Agents; Norepinephrine; Arterial Pressure; Peptide Hormones; Shock
PubMed: 36753927
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2023.01.050 -
Autoimmunity Reviews Sep 2023There are an increasing number of reports of autoantibodies (AAbs) against host proteins such as G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and the renin-angiotensin system... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
There are an increasing number of reports of autoantibodies (AAbs) against host proteins such as G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) in COVID-19 disease. Here we have undertaken a systematic review and meta-analysis of all reports of AAbs against GPCRs and RAS in COVID-19 patients including those with long-COVID or post-COVID symptoms.
METHODS
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched to find papers on the role of GPCR and RAS AAbs in the presence and severity of COVID-19 or post- COVID symptoms available through March 21, 2023. Data on the prevalence of AngII or ACE, comparing AngII or ACE between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19, or comparing AngII or ACE between COVID-19 patients with different disease stages were pooled and a meta-analysed using random- or fixed-effects models were undertaken.
RESULTS
The search yielded a total of 1042 articles, of which 68 studies were included in this systematic review and nine in the meta-analysis. Among 18 studies that investigated GPCRs and COVID-19 severity, 18 distinct AAbs were detected. In addition, nine AAbs were found in case reports that assessed post- COVID, and 19 AAbs were found in other studies that assessed post- COVID or long- COVID symptoms. Meta-analysis revealed a significantly higher number of seropositive ACE2 AAbs in COVID-19 patients (odds ratio = 7.766 [2.056, 29.208], p = 0.002) and particularly in severe disease (odds ratio = 11.49 [1.04, 126.86], p = 0.046), whereas AngII-AAbs seropositivity was no different between COVID-19 and control subjects (odds ratio = 2.890 [0.546-15.283], p = 0.21).
CONCLUSIONS
GPCR and RAS AAbs may play an important role in COVID-19 severity, the development of disease progression, long-term symptoms COVID and post- COVID symptoms.
Topics: Humans; Renin-Angiotensin System; Autoantibodies; COVID-19; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; Receptors, G-Protein-Coupled
PubMed: 37490975
DOI: 10.1016/j.autrev.2023.103402 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is used to reduce proteinuria and retard the progression of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is used to reduce proteinuria and retard the progression of chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, resolution of proteinuria may be incomplete with these therapies and the addition of an aldosterone antagonist may be added to further prevent progression of CKD. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009 and updated in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of aldosterone antagonists (selective (eplerenone), non-selective (spironolactone or canrenone), or non-steroidal mineralocorticoid antagonists (finerenone)) in adults who have CKD with proteinuria (nephrotic and non-nephrotic range) on: patient-centred endpoints including kidney failure (previously know as end-stage kidney disease (ESKD)), major cardiovascular events, and death (any cause); kidney function (proteinuria, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and doubling of serum creatinine); blood pressure; and adverse events (including hyperkalaemia, acute kidney injury, and gynaecomastia).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 13 January 2020 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared aldosterone antagonists in combination with ACEi or ARB (or both) to other anti-hypertensive strategies or placebo in participants with proteinuric CKD.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Data were summarised using random effects meta-analysis. We expressed summary treatment estimates as a risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were used together with their 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of bias were assessed using the Cochrane tool. Evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Forty-four studies (5745 participants) were included. Risk of bias in the evaluated methodological domains were unclear or high risk in most studies. Adequate random sequence generation was present in 12 studies, allocation concealment in five studies, blinding of participant and investigators in 18 studies, blinding of outcome assessment in 15 studies, and complete outcome reporting in 24 studies. All studies comparing aldosterone antagonists to placebo or standard care were used in addition to an ACEi or ARB (or both). None of the studies were powered to detect differences in patient-level outcomes including kidney failure, major cardiovascular events or death. Aldosterone antagonists had uncertain effects on kidney failure (2 studies, 84 participants: RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 27.65, I² = 0%; very low certainty evidence), death (3 studies, 421 participants: RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.10 to 3.50, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence), and cardiovascular events (3 studies, 1067 participants: RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.56; I² = 42%; low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Aldosterone antagonists may reduce protein excretion (14 studies, 1193 participants: SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.20, I² = 82%; very low certainty evidence), eGFR (13 studies, 1165 participants, MD -3.00 mL/min/1.73 m², 95% CI -5.51 to -0.49, I² = 0%, low certainty evidence) and systolic blood pressure (14 studies, 911 participants: MD -4.98 mmHg, 95% CI -8.22 to -1.75, I² = 87%; very low certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Aldosterone antagonists probably increase the risk of hyperkalaemia (17 studies, 3001 participants: RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.47 to 3.22, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), acute kidney injury (5 studies, 1446 participants: RR 2.04, 95% CI 1.05 to 3.97, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence), and gynaecomastia (4 studies, 281 participants: RR 5.14, 95% CI 1.14 to 23.23, I² = 0%; moderate certainty evidence) compared to placebo or standard care. Non-selective aldosterone antagonists plus ACEi or ARB had uncertain effects on protein excretion (2 studies, 139 participants: SMD -1.59, 95% CI -3.80 to 0.62, I² = 93%; very low certainty evidence) but may increase serum potassium (2 studies, 121 participants: MD 0.31 mEq/L, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.45, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) compared to diuretics plus ACEi or ARB. Selective aldosterone antagonists may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia (2 studies, 500 participants: RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.95, I² = 0%; low certainty evidence) compared ACEi or ARB (or both). There were insufficient studies to perform meta-analyses for the comparison between non-selective aldosterone antagonists and calcium channel blockers, selective aldosterone antagonists plus ACEi or ARB (or both) and nitrate plus ACEi or ARB (or both), and non-steroidal mineralocorticoid antagonists and selective aldosterone antagonists.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The effects of aldosterone antagonists when added to ACEi or ARB (or both) on the risks of death, major cardiovascular events, and kidney failure in people with proteinuric CKD are uncertain. Aldosterone antagonists may reduce proteinuria, eGFR, and systolic blood pressure in adults who have mild to moderate CKD but may increase the risk of hyperkalaemia, acute kidney injury and gynaecomastia when added to ACEi and/or ARB.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Bias; Calcium Channel Blockers; Canrenone; Disease Progression; Eplerenone; Humans; Hyperkalemia; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists; Naphthyridines; Proteinuria; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Spironolactone
PubMed: 33107592
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007004.pub4 -
PloS One 2023Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a health burden of rising importance. Slowing progression to end stage kidney disease is the main goal of drug treatment. The aim of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is a health burden of rising importance. Slowing progression to end stage kidney disease is the main goal of drug treatment. The aim of this analysis is to compare drug treatments of DKD by means of a systemic review and a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched Medline, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov for randomized, controlled studies including adults with DKD treated with the following drugs of interest: single angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor-blocker (single ACEi/ARB), angiotensin-converting-enzyme-inhibitor and angiotensin-receptor-blocker combination (ACEi+ARB combination), aldosterone antagonists, direct renin inhibitors, non-steroidal mineralocorticoid-receptor-antagonists (nsMRA) and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i). As primary endpoints, we defined: overall mortality and end-stage kidney disease, as secondary endpoints: renal composite outcome and albuminuria and as safety endpoints: acute kidney injury, hyperkalemia and hypotension. Under the use of a random effects model, we computed the overall effect estimates using the statistic program R4.1 and the corresponding package "netmeta". Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool and the quality of evidence of each pairwise comparison was rated according to GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
RESULTS
Of initial 3489 publications, 38 clinical trials were found eligible, in total including 42346 patients. Concerning the primary endpoints overall mortality and end stage kidney disease, SGLT2i on top of single ACEi/ARB compared to single ACEi/ARB was the only intervention significantly reducing the odds of mortality (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.70-0.95) and end-stage kidney disease (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.54-0.88). The indirect comparison of nsMRA vs SGLT2i in our composite endpoint suggests a superiority of SGLT2i (OR 0.60, 95%CI 0.47-0.76). Concerning safety endpoints, nsMRA and SGLT2i showed benefits compared to the others.
CONCLUSIONS
As the only drug class, SGLT2i showed in our analysis beneficial effects on top of ACEi/ARB treatment regarding mortality and end stage kidney disease and by that reconfirmed its position as treatment option for diabetic kidney disease. nsMRA reduced the odds for a combined renal endpoint and did not raise any safety concerns, justifying its application.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Diabetic Nephropathies; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Angiotensins; Diabetes Mellitus
PubMed: 37917640
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293183 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2018Elevated blood pressure (hypertension) affects about one billion people worldwide. It is important as it is a major risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Elevated blood pressure (hypertension) affects about one billion people worldwide. It is important as it is a major risk factor for stroke and myocardial infarction. However, it remains a challenge for the medical profession as many people with hypertension have blood pressure (BP) that is not well controlled. According to Traditional Chinese Medicine theory, acupuncture has the potential to lower BP.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for lowering blood pressure in adults with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register (February 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2017, Issue 2; MEDLINE (February 2017); Embase (February 2017), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (January 2015), VIP Database (January 2015), the World Health Organisation Clinical Trials Registry Platform (February 2017)and ClinicalTrials.gov (February 2017). There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the clinical effects of an acupuncture intervention (acupuncture used alone or add-on) with no treatment, a sham acupuncture or an antihypertensive drug in adults with primary hypertension.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. They extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each trial, and telephoned or emailed the authors of the studies to ask for missing information. A third review author resolved disagreements. Outcomes included change in systolic blood pressure (SBP), change in diastolic blood pressure (DBP), withdrawal due to adverse effects, and any adverse events. We calculated pooled mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous outcomes using a fixed-effect or random-effects model where appropriate.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-two RCTs (1744 people) met our inclusion criteria. The RCTs were of variable methodological quality (most at high risk of bias because of lack of blinding). There was no evidence for a sustained BP lowering effect of acupuncture; only one trial investigated a sustained effect and found no BP lowering effect at three and six months after acupuncture. Four sham acupuncture controlled trials provided very low quality evidence that acupuncture had a short-term (one to 24 hours) effect on SBP (change) -3.4 mmHg (-6.0 to -0.9) and DBP -1.9 mmHg (95% CI -3.6 to -0.3). Pooled analysis of eight trials comparing acupuncture with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and seven trials comparing acupuncture to calcium antagonists suggested that acupuncture lowered short-term BP better than the antihypertensive drugs. However, because of the very high risk of bias in these trials, we think that this is most likely a reflection of bias and not a true effect. As a result, we did not report these results in the 'Summary of findings' table. Safety of acupuncture could not be assessed as only eight trials reported adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
At present, there is no evidence for the sustained BP lowering effect of acupuncture that is required for the management of chronically elevated BP. The short-term effects of acupuncture are uncertain due to the very low quality of evidence. The larger effect shown in non-sham acupuncture controlled trials most likely reflects bias and is not a true effect. Future RCTs must use sham acupuncture controls and assess whether there is a BP lowering effect of acupuncture that lasts at least seven days.
Topics: Acupuncture Therapy; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Hypertension; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30480757
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008821.pub2