-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2022This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.
OBJECTIVES
To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.
SEARCH METHODS
For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.
MAIN RESULTS
This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Humans; Hypertension; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 35000192
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003654.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018The optimal treatment of superficial thrombophlebitis (ST) of the legs remains poorly defined. While improving or relieving the local painful symptoms, treatment should... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal treatment of superficial thrombophlebitis (ST) of the legs remains poorly defined. While improving or relieving the local painful symptoms, treatment should aim at preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), which might complicate the natural history of ST. This is the third update of a review first published in 2007.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of topical, medical, and surgical treatments for ST of the leg in improving local symptoms and decreasing thromboembolic complications.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (March 2017), CENTRAL (2017, Issue 2), and trials registries (March 2017). We handsearched the reference lists of relevant papers and conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating topical, medical, and surgical treatments for ST of the legs that included people with a clinical diagnosis of ST of the legs or objective diagnosis of a thrombus in a superficial vein.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors assessed the trials for inclusion in the review, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the studies. Data were independently extracted from the included studies and any disagreements resolved by consensus. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three additional trials (613 participants), therefore this update considered 33 studies involving 7296 people with ST of the legs. Treatment included fondaparinux; rivaroxaban; low molecular weight heparin (LMWH); unfractionated heparin (UFH); non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs); compression stockings; and topical, intramuscular, or intravenous treatment to surgical interventions such as thrombectomy or ligation. Only a minority of trials compared treatment with placebo rather than an alternative treatment and many studies were small and of poor quality. Pooling of the data was possible for few outcomes, and none were part of a placebo-controlled trial. In one large, placebo-controlled RCT of 3002 participants, subcutaneous fondaparinux was associated with a significant reduction in symptomatic VTE (risk ratio (RR) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.50; moderate-quality evidence), ST extension (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22; moderate-quality evidence), and ST recurrence (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.54; moderate-quality evidence) relative to placebo. Major bleeding was infrequent in both groups with very wide CIs around risk estimate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.86; moderate-quality evidence). In one RCT on 472 high-risk participants with ST, fondaparinux was associated with a non-significant reduction of symptomatic VTE compared to rivaroxaban 10 mg (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.18; low-quality evidence). There were no major bleeding events in either group (low-quality evidence). In another placebo-controlled trial, both prophylactic and therapeutic doses of LMWH (prophylactic: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.74; therapeutic: RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.77) and NSAIDs (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78) reduced the extension (low-quality evidence) and recurrence of ST (low-quality evidence) in comparison to placebo, with no significant effects on symptomatic VTE (low-quality evidence) or major bleeding (low-quality evidence). Overall, topical treatments improved local symptoms compared with placebo, but no data were provided on the effects on VTE and ST extension. Surgical treatment combined with elastic stockings was associated with a lower VTE rate and ST progression compared with elastic stockings alone. However, the majority of studies that compared different oral treatments, topical treatments, or surgery did not report VTE, ST progression, adverse events, or treatment adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic dose fondaparinux given for 45 days appears to be a valid therapeutic option for ST of the legs for most people. The evidence on topical treatment or surgery is too limited and does not inform clinical practice about the effects of these treatments in terms of VTE. Further research is needed to assess the role of rivaroxaban and other direct oral factor-X or thrombin inhibitors, LMWH, and NSAIDs; the optimal doses and duration of treatment in people at various risk of recurrence; and whether a combination therapy may be more effective than single treatment. Adequately designed and conducted studies are required to clarify the role of topical and surgical treatments.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Anticoagulants; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Fondaparinux; Hemorrhage; Heparin, Low-Molecular-Weight; Humans; Polysaccharides; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rivaroxaban; Stockings, Compression; Thrombectomy; Thromboembolism; Thrombophlebitis; Venous Thromboembolism
PubMed: 29478266
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004982.pub6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2023Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a condition in which a clot forms in the deep veins, most commonly of the leg. It occurs in approximately one in 1000 people. If left untreated, the clot can travel up to the lungs and cause a potentially life-threatening pulmonary embolism (PE). Previously, a DVT was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. However, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and oral factor Xa inhibitors, which have characteristics that may be favourable compared to conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or dose adjustment and few known drug interactions. DOACs are now commonly being used for treating DVT: recent guidelines recommended DOACs over conventional anticoagulants for both DVT and PE treatment. This Cochrane Review was first published in 2015. It was the first systematic review to measure the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the treatment of DVT. This is an update of the 2015 review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors versus conventional anticoagulants for the long-term treatment of DVT.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 March 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which people with a DVT, confirmed by standard imaging techniques, were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor compared with conventional anticoagulation or compared with each other for the treatment of DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE), recurrent DVT and PE. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major bleeding, post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and quality of life (QoL). We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 10 new studies with 2950 participants for this update. In total, we included 21 RCTs involving 30,895 participants. Three studies investigated oral DTIs (two dabigatran and one ximelagatran), 17 investigated oral factor Xa inhibitors (eight rivaroxaban, five apixaban and four edoxaban) and one three-arm trial investigated both a DTI (dabigatran) and factor Xa inhibitor (rivaroxaban). Overall, the studies were of good methodological quality. Meta-analysis comparing DTIs to conventional anticoagulation showed no clear difference in the rate of recurrent VTE (odds ratio (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.65; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.66; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.02; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.59; 3 studies, 5994 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.08; 1 study, 2489 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). DTIs reduced the rate of major bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.89; 3 studies, 5994 participants; high-certainty evidence). For oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation, meta-analysis demonstrated no clear difference in recurrent VTE (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01; 13 studies, 17,505 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), recurrent DVT (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.01; 9 studies, 16,439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), fatal PE (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.02; 6 studies, 15,082 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), non-fatal PE (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.27; 7 studies, 15,166 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14; 9 studies, 10,770 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Meta-analysis showed a reduced rate of major bleeding with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with conventional anticoagulation (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89; 17 studies, 18,066 participants; high-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current review suggests that DOACs may be superior to conventional therapy in terms of safety (major bleeding), and are probably equivalent in terms of efficacy. There is probably little or no difference between DOACs and conventional anticoagulation in the prevention of recurrent VTE, recurrent DVT, pulmonary embolism and all-cause mortality. DOACs reduced the rate of major bleeding compared to conventional anticoagulation. The certainty of evidence was moderate or high.
Topics: Humans; Anticoagulants; Antithrombins; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Rivaroxaban; Dabigatran; Venous Thromboembolism; Neoplasm Recurrence, Local; Venous Thrombosis; Pulmonary Embolism; Hemorrhage
PubMed: 37058421
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010956.pub3 -
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism Aug 2018To assess the efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors plus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
To assess the efficacy and safety of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors plus a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 4828 patients. Compared with a DPP-4 inhibitor, SGLT2 inhibitor/DPP-4 inhibitor combination therapy was significantly associated with a decrease in glycaemic control (HbA1c, -0.71%; fasting plasma glucose [FPG], -25.62 mg/dL; postprandial plasma glucose, -44.00 mg/dL), body weight (-2.05 kg) and systolic blood pressure (-5.90 mm Hg), but an increase in total cholesterol (TC) of 3.24%, high-density lipoprotein of 6.15% and low-density lipoprotein of 2.55%. Adding a DPP-4 inhibitor to an SGLT2 inhibitor could reduce HbA1c by -0.31%, FPG by -8.94 mg/dL, TC by -1.48% and triglycerides by -3.25%. Interestingly, low doses of an SGLT2 inhibitor in the combination has similar or even better efficacy in some aspects than high doses. Similar adverse events were observed for the combination therapy, with the exception of genital infection vs DPP-4 inhibitor (risk ratio [RR], 5.31) and consistent genital infection vs an SGLT2 inhibitor (RR, 0.61). Further studies are warranted to confirm these results.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Drug Monitoring; Drug Therapy, Combination; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Hypoglycemia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors
PubMed: 29573110
DOI: 10.1111/dom.13294 -
Clinical Drug Investigation Apr 2021BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis patients... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis
UNLABELLED
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) or dialysis patients are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of DOACs and warfarin in patients with CKD requiring anticoagulation therapy.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of six randomized controlled trials and 19 observational studies, with the inclusion criteria being a comparative study between DOACs and warfarin in patients with CKD or dialysis patients from database inception until August 2020. The efficacy outcomes were stroke, systemic embolism (SE), or venous thromboembolism (VTE), and the safety outcome was major bleeding.
RESULTS
Compared with warfarin, DOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke/SE/VTE by 22% (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.64-0.95) and major bleeding by 17% (HR = 0.83, 95% CI 0.71-0.97). On comparing factor Xa inhibitors and dabigatran with warfarin separately, factor Xa inhibitors significantly reduced the risk of stroke/SE/VTE (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98) and major bleeding (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91) overall in patients. Comparing each DOACs with warfarin separately, apixaban was associated with a significantly better risk reduction of stroke/SE/VTE (25% risk reduction) and major bleeding (35% risk reduction) than warfarin. Compared with warfarin, DOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke, SE, or VTE by 19% (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97) in patients with CKD stage 3 and significantly lowered the risk of major bleeding by 31% (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85) in patients with CKD stages 4-5.
CONCLUSIONS
In pooled, analyzed randomized controlled trials and observational studies, DOACs were associated with better efficacy in early CKD, as well as similar efficacy and safety outcomes to warfarin in patients with CKD stages 4-5 or dialysis patients. The results of patients with CKD stages 4-5 and dialysis patients were from observational studies. Well-designed randomized controlled trials focused on DOAC use in patients with CKD and dialysis patients are needed. PROSPERO register number: CRD42020150599, 6 February, 2020.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Atrial Fibrillation; Dabigatran; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Hemorrhage; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renal Dialysis; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Stroke; Venous Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 33709339
DOI: 10.1007/s40261-021-01016-7 -
Phytomedicine : International Journal... Jul 2022Chronic glomerulonephritis (CGN) is a relatively common primary glomerular disease. Huangkui capsule (HKC) combined with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for CGN is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic glomerulonephritis (CGN) is a relatively common primary glomerular disease. Huangkui capsule (HKC) combined with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for CGN is frequently used in clinical practice, however, there is still lack of high-quality evidence-based evidence and network pharmacology to clarify the therapeutic efficacy and pharmacological mechanisms.
PURPOSE
Integrating evidence-based medicine and network pharmacology to explain the therapeutic efficacy and pharmacological mechanisms of ARB combined with HKC for CGN.
METHODS
Studies matching the topic were searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase database, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, CBM databases, the VIP medicine information system and the Wanfang database and screened according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data of the included studies were meta-analyzed by blood urea nitrogen (BUN), serum creatinine (SCR), 24-h urine protein (24hUP) and effective rate (ER). A meta-analysis of the data from the included studies was performed. Then, based on the network pharmacology, the chemical ingredients in HKC and their targets of action, disease targets, common targets and other relevant information were screened, and the key pathways were relevantly annotated based on bioinformatics technology to explore the potential mechanisms of HKC and ARB for CGN.
RESULTS
The results showed that SCR index (p < 0.05), 24hUP index (p < 0.001) in the group treated with HKC and ARB were significantly lower than those in the control group. BUN index in the group treated with HKC and VAL were significantly lower than those in the control group (p < 0.001). Effective rate index in the group treated with HKC and ARB was significantly higher than those in the control group (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in BUN treated with IRB, LOS, and TEL (p = 0.181; p = 0.811; p = 0.067). Based on network pharmacology, the results were as follows: The PPI network indicated that STAT3, AKT1, MAPK1, TP53 and JUN were key target proteins. The results of KEGG analysis suggested that the pharmacological mechanisms were mainly associated with AGE-RAGE signaling pathway in diabetic complications.
CONCLUSION
The combination of ARB and HKC can achieve better therapeutic effects in the treatment of CGN, meanwhile, ARB and HKC have a significant improved effectiveness in the treatment of CGN compared with ARB or HKC alone. In addition, HKC and ARB synergistically treated CGN through a multi-pathway network.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Animals; Drugs, Chinese Herbal; Glomerulonephritis; Network Pharmacology; Rats; Rats, Sprague-Dawley
PubMed: 35617887
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2022.154189 -
JAMA Nov 2020Incidence rates for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) range from 88 to 112 per 100 000 person-years and increase with age. Rates of recurrent VTE range from...
IMPORTANCE
Incidence rates for lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) range from 88 to 112 per 100 000 person-years and increase with age. Rates of recurrent VTE range from 20% to 36% during the 10 years after an initial event.
OBSERVATIONS
PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched for English-language studies published from January 2015 through June 2020 for randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, and observational studies. Risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE), such as older age, malignancy (cumulative incidence of 7.4% after a median of 19 months), inflammatory disorders (VTE risk is 4.7% in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 2.5% in those without), and inherited thrombophilia (factor V Leiden carriers with a 10-year cumulative incidence of 10.9%), are associated with higher risk of VTE. Patients with signs or symptoms of lower extremity DVT, such as swelling (71%) or a cramping or pulling discomfort in the thigh or calf (53%), should undergo assessment of pretest probability followed by D-dimer testing and imaging with venous ultrasonography. A normal D-dimer level (ie, D-dimer <500 ng/mL) excludes acute VTE when combined with a low pretest probability (ie, Wells DVT score ≤1). In patients with a high pretest probability, the negative predictive value of a D-dimer less than 500 ng/mL is 92%. Consequently, D-dimer cannot be used to exclude DVT without an assessment of pretest probability. Postthrombotic syndrome, defined as persistent symptoms, signs of chronic venous insufficiency, or both, occurs in 25% to 50% of patients 3 to 6 months after DVT diagnosis. Catheter-directed fibrinolysis with or without mechanical thrombectomy is appropriate in those with iliofemoral obstruction, severe symptoms, and a low risk of bleeding. The efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants-rivaroxaban, apixaban, dabigatran, and edoxaban-is noninferior to warfarin (absolute rate of recurrent VTE or VTE-related death, 2.0% vs 2.2%). Major bleeding occurs in 1.1% of patients treated with direct oral anticoagulants vs 1.8% treated with warfarin.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Greater recognition of VTE risk factors and advances in anticoagulation have facilitated the clinical evaluation and treatment of patients with DVT. Direct oral anticoagulants are noninferior to warfarin with regard to efficacy and are associated with lower rates of bleeding, but costs limit use for some patients.
Topics: Age Factors; Biomarkers; Factor Xa Inhibitors; Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products; Humans; Life Style; Lower Extremity; Medical Illustration; Postthrombotic Syndrome; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Factors; Sex Factors; Symptom Assessment; Thrombectomy; Thrombophilia; Ultrasonography; Vena Cava Filters; Venous Thromboembolism; Warfarin
PubMed: 33141212
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.17272 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2014Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely prescribed for primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure > 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure > 90 mmHg). However, while ACE inhibitors have been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in placebo-controlled trials, ARBs have not. Therefore, a comparison of the efficacies of these two drug classes in primary hypertension for preventing total mortality and cardiovascular events is important.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs on total mortality and cardiovascular events, and their rates of withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs), in people with primary hypertension.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the ISI Web of Science up to July 2014. We contacted study authors for missing and unpublished information, and also searched the reference lists of relevant reviews for eligible studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials enrolling people with uncontrolled or controlled primary hypertension with or without other risk factors. Included trials must have compared an ACE inhibitor and an ARB in a head-to-head manner, and lasted for a duration of at least one year. If background blood pressure lowering agents were continued or added during the study, the protocol to do so must have been the same in both study arms.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine studies with 11,007 participants were included. Of the included studies, five reported data on total mortality, three reported data on total cardiovascular events, and four reported data on cardiovascular mortality. No study separately reported cardiovascular morbidity. In contrast, eight studies contributed data on WDAE. Included studies were of good to moderate quality. There was no evidence of a difference between ACE inhibitors and ARBs for total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.10), total cardiovascular events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96 to 1.19), or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13). Conversely, a high level of evidence indicated a slightly lower incidence of WDAE for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.93; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.8%, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 55 over 4.1 years), mainly attributable to a higher incidence of dry cough with ACE inhibitors. The quality of the evidence for mortality and cardiovascular outcomes was limited by possible publication bias, in that several studies were initially eligible for inclusion in this review, but had no extractable data available for the hypertension subgroup. To this end, the evidence for total mortality was judged to be moderate, while the evidence for total cardiovascular events was judged to be low by the GRADE approach.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our analyses found no evidence of a difference in total mortality or cardiovascular outcomes for ARBs as compared with ACE inhibitors, while ARBs caused slightly fewer WDAEs than ACE inhibitors. Although ACE inhibitors have shown efficacy in these outcomes over placebo, our results cannot be used to extrapolate the same conclusion for ARBs directly, which have not been studied in placebo-controlled trials for hypertension. Thus, the substitution of an ARB for an ACE inhibitor, while supported by evidence on grounds of tolerability, must be made in consideration of the weaker evidence for the efficacy of ARBs regarding mortality and morbidity outcomes compared with ACE inhibitors. Additionally, our data mostly derives from participants with existing clinical sequelae of hypertension, and it would be useful to have data from asymptomatic people to increase the generalizability of this review. Unpublished subgroup data of hypertensive participants in existing trials comparing ACE inhibitors and ARBs needs to be made available for this purpose.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Essential Hypertension; Heart Diseases; Humans; Hypertension; Hypotension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 25148386
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009096.pub2 -
Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy Oct 2020Hypertension is a major and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Its prevalence is rising as the result of population aging. Isolated systolic hypertension...
INTRODUCTION
Hypertension is a major and modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Its prevalence is rising as the result of population aging. Isolated systolic hypertension mostly occurs in older patients accounting for up to 80% of cases.
AREAS COVERED
The authors systematically review published studies to appraise the scientific and clinical evidence supporting the role of blood pressure control in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, and to assess the influence of different drug treatment regimens on outcomes.
EXPERT OPINION
Antihypertensive treatment of isolated systolic hypertension significantly reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality in elderly patients. Thiazide diuretics and dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers are the primary compounds used in randomized clinical trials. These drugs can be considered as first-line agents for the management of isolated systolic hypertension. Free or fixed combination therapy with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium-channel blockers or thiazide-like diuretics should also be considered, particularly when compelling indications such as coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and congestive heart failure coexist. There is also hot scientific debate on the optimal blood pressure target to be achieved in elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension, but current recommendations are scarcely supported by evidence.
Topics: Aged; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Diabetes Mellitus; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hypertension; Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors
PubMed: 32584617
DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2020.1781092 -
Diabetes & Metabolism Nov 2018This review evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy comprising a sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
This review evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination therapy comprising a sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor (SGLT2i) and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor (DPP4i) in type 2 diabetes.
METHODS
A literature search through to May 2017 was carried out of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SGLT2i plus DPP4i (SGLT2i/DPP4i) against DPP4i±placebo or SGLT2i±placebo and published in English. The primary outcome was change in HbA from baseline.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs comparing SGLT2i/DPP4i and DPP4i, and five RCTs comparing SGLT2i/DPP4i and SGLT2i, with three RCTs involving both comparisons, were included in the present review. SGLT2i/DPP4i resulted in a greater mean HbA reduction [weighted mean difference (WMD]): -0.62%] than did DPP4i alone, which was a much less marked reduction (WMD: -0.35%) than with SGLT2i alone. Also, significant differences in body weight loss from baseline were observed only with SGLT2i/DPP4i vs. DPP4i, but not vs. SGLT2i. The risk of hypoglycaemic events was low and similar between treatment groups. When subjects were stratified based on baseline HbA, any reduction by SGLT2i/DPP4i in relation to DPP4i was proportional to baseline HbA levels. However, compared with SGLT2i, HbA reductions with SGLT2i/DPP4i were modest regardless of baseline HbA.
CONCLUSION
Combination therapy with SGLT2i and DPP4i is both efficacious and safe. In particular, a marked additional glucose-lowering effect is evident when SGLT2i is combined with or added to DPP4i, and not vice versa. However, baseline HbA determined the additional glucose-lowering effects of SGLT2i in combined treatment with DPP4i.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Dipeptidyl-Peptidase IV Inhibitors; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Hypoglycemic Agents; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29449146
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2018.01.011