-
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Dec 2022There is a lack of sufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of amlodipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
There is a lack of sufficient evidence regarding efficacy and safety of amlodipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE
To compare antihypertensive efficacy, pregnancy outcome and safety of amlodipine with nifedipine on hypertension during pregnancy.
METHODS
A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database and China Biology Medicine disc of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to April l5, 2021 was conducted on RCTs comparing amlodipine to nifedipine for the treatment of hypertension during pregnancy. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were done by two independent reviewers. To estimate relative effects from all available evidence, a meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS
Seventeen RCTs were included. Amlodipine was found the efficacy is slightly superior to nifedipine on treating hypertension during pregnancy (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.10) with a decreased risk for maternal side effects (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.61). Subgroup analysis found amlodipine can get a better control on SBP (RR - 11.68, 95% CI - 17.98 to - 5.37) and DBP (RR - 7.44, 95% CI - 13.81 to - 1.06) compared with intermediate-/long-acting nifedipine. In addition, there was no difference between amlodipine and nifedipine on pregnancy outcomes including caesarean section, premature labour, placental abruption, FGR, fetal distress, neonatal asphyxia.
CONCLUSIONS
Given the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis, amlodipine can be effectively and safely used for hypertension during pregnancy.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Nifedipine; Amlodipine; Hypertension; Pregnancy Outcome; Obstetric Labor, Premature
PubMed: 35305140
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-022-06504-5 -
Clinical Cardiology Aug 2023This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive drugs in patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. Through Searching Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science collected only randomized controlled trials on the efficacy of single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs in people with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The search period is from the establishment of the database to July 2022. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment, and statistical analyses were performed using Review Manage 5.3 and Stata 15.1 software. This review ultimately included 32 references involving 16 273 patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that a total of 11 single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs were included, namely: Amlodipine/valsartan, Telmisartan/amlodipine, Losartan/HCTZ, Candesartan/HCTZ, Amlodipine/benazepril, Telmisartan/HCTZ, Valsartan/HCTZ, Irbesartan/amlodipine, Amlodipine/losartan, Irbesartan/HCTZ, and Perindopril/amlodipine. According to SUCRA, Irbesartan/amlodipine may rank first in reducing systolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 92.2%); Amlodipine/losartan may rank first in reducing diastolic blood pressure (SUCRA: 95.1%); Telmisartan/amlodipine may rank first in blood pressure control rates (SUCRA: 83.5%); Amlodipine/losartan probably ranks first in diastolic response rate (SUCRA: 84.5%). Based on Ranking Plot of the Network, we can conclude that single-pill combination antihypertensive drugs are superior to monotherapy, and ARB/CCB combination has better advantages than other SPC in terms of systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, blood pressure control rate, and diastolic response rate. However, due to the small number of some drug studies, the lack of relevant studies has led to not being included in this study, which may impact the results, and readers should interpret the results with caution.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Losartan; Hypertension; Telmisartan; Irbesartan; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Hydrochlorothiazide; Valine; Drug Therapy, Combination; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Amlodipine; Valsartan; Tetrazoles; Blood Pressure; Essential Hypertension
PubMed: 37432701
DOI: 10.1002/clc.24082 -
Clinical Toxicology (Philadelphia, Pa.) Oct 2020Beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist (beta-blocker) poisoning is a common overdose which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. To evaluate the effects of...
Beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist (beta-blocker) poisoning is a common overdose which can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. To evaluate the effects of treatments for beta-adrenoreceptor antagonist poisoning. Searches were conducted across MEDLINE (1946-26 November 2019, Ovid); Embase (1974-26 November 2019, Ovid); and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, to 26 November 2019) utilising a combination of subject headings and free text. The search strategy identified 15, 553 citations. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts prior to selecting 141 articles (Kappa on articles included = 0.982, 95% CI 0.980-0.985). Primary outcomes included mortality and improvement in haemodynamic parameters (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure or a composite measure able to quantitate a haemodynamic response). The risk of bias was high for all interventions. Fifteen case reports described the administration of activated charcoal and five detailed the use of gastric lavage. As there was concurrent utilisation of multiple interventions, it was difficult to draw definitive conclusions regarding the relative contribution of these interventions to mortality or survival. The use of catecholamines in treating beta-blocker toxicity was reported in 16 case reports, 3 case series and 2 animal studies. These agents most likely provided a survival benefit and improved haemodynamics. Multiple intravenous boluses of atropine were associated with improvement in heart rate and blood pressure in one case report. Intravenous calcium was associated with an improvement in haemodynamics in three out of six case reports but in association with multiple other therapies as well as in two animal studies. The use of this therapy was associated with mortality benefit in 10 case series. Two case reports showed clear haemodynamic improvement in a timeframe consistent with insulin administration (bolus then continuous infusion). Maintenance dosing ranged from 1 to 10 units/kg/h of insulin. However, it is unclear whether high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy improved haemodynamic response above catecholamines and other inotropic agents in humans. Hypoglycaemia and hypokalemia were commonly observed adverse effects. Glucagon was associated with minor improvements in haemodynamics through an increase in heart rate in two cases series, nine case reports and five animal studies. Four case reports reported an association with improvement in haemodynamics following administration of methylene blue but in the setting of co-ingestion with amlodipine. There was variable response to intravenous lipid emulsion therapy reported in 10 case series, 5 animal studies and 21 case reports. There were four case reports showing variable response to lignocaine in arrhythmias secondary to beta-blocker toxicity. Fructose diphosphate, levosimendan and amrinone did not provide a mortality or significant haemodynamic benefit in three animal studies and nine case reports. . Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was associated with improved survival in patients with severe cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest in an observational study and four cases series. The evidence of four case reports suggest haemodialysis may assist in the management of massive overdose of specific water-soluble beta-blockers (e.g., atenolol) by improving elimination; however, a survival or haemodynamic benefit was not established. One case series and a single case report showed the utility of temporary overdrive cardiac pacing to prevent arrhythmias in sotalol toxicity. Catecholamines, vasopressors, high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy and veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation were associated with reduced mortality. However, it must be acknowledged that multiple treatments were often given simultaneously. Haemodynamic improvements in blood pressure and cardiac output were seen with the use of catecholamines, vasopressin and high-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy. Evidence for treatment recommendations is almost entirely drawn from very low- to low-quality studies and subject to bias. However, it is reasonable to have a graduated response to cardiovascular instability beginning with intravenous fluids, commencement of a single or a combination of catecholamine inotropes and vasopressors depending upon the type of haemodynamic compromise (bradycardia, left ventricular dysfunction, vasodilation). High-dose insulin euglycaemic therapy can be introduced as an adjunctive inotrope and lastly, more invasive methods such as veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered in cases unresponsive to other therapies.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Animals; Atropine; Catecholamines; Drug Overdose; Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation; Fat Emulsions, Intravenous; Hemodynamics; Humans; Insulin; Practice Guidelines as Topic
PubMed: 32310006
DOI: 10.1080/15563650.2020.1752918 -
Journal of Clinical Hypertension... May 2022Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DHPCCBs) are widely used to treat hypertension and chronic coronary artery disease. One common adverse effect of DHPCCBs is peripheral edema, particularly of the lower limbs. The side effect could lead to dose reduction or discontinuation of the medication. The combination of DHPCCBs and renin-angiotensin system blockers has shown to reduce the risk of DHPCCBs-associated peripheral edema compared with DHPCCBs monotherapy. We performed the current systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the rate of peripheral edema with DHPCCBs as a class and with individual DHPCCBs and the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. The effects of renin-angiotensin system blockers on DHPCCBs network meta-analysis were created to analyze the ranking of the reduction of peripheral edema. A total of 3312 publications were identified and 71 studies with 56,283 patients were included. Nifedipine ranked highest in inducing peripheral edema (SUCRA 81.8%) and lacidipine (SUCRA 12.8%) ranked the least. All DHPCCBs except lacidipine resulted in higher relative risk (RR) of peripheral edema compared with placebo. Nifedipine plus angiotensin receptor blocker (SUCRA: 92.3%) did not mitigate peripheral edema and amlodipine plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (SUCRA: 16%) reduced peripheral edema the most. Nifedipine ranked the highest and lacidipine ranked the lowest amongst DHPCCBs for developing peripheral edema when used for cardiovascular indications. The second or higher generation of DHPCCBs combination with ACEIs or ARBs or diuretics lowered the chance of peripheral edema development compared to single DHPCCB treatment.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Dihydropyridines; Edema; Humans; Hypertension; Network Meta-Analysis; Nifedipine
PubMed: 35234349
DOI: 10.1111/jch.14436 -
Patient Preference and Adherence 2020Medication-induced oral hyperpigmentation is an oral condition that impacts patients' quality of life and has been linked to many systemic therapeutic agents. The exact... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Medication-induced oral hyperpigmentation is an oral condition that impacts patients' quality of life and has been linked to many systemic therapeutic agents. The exact pathogenesis of tissue pigmentation varies greatly and is not completely known. This systematic review aimed to present data on the causal association between medications and the development of oral/mucosal pigmentation as an adverse drug reaction.
METHODS
A systematic review and analysis of literature were conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Science Direct, ProQuest, Web of Science, and Scopus. The systematic review included original articles written in English and published between January 1982 and June 2020. Following the PRISMA statement, eligible articles were systematically reviewed, and data were extracted from eligible studies and analyzed.
RESULTS
A total of 235 articles were identified, of which 57 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The mean age of included patients was 46.2±16.38 years (range: 10-90 years) with a male to female ratio of 1:1.45. Oral mucosal hyperpigmentation was reported following the use of several classes of medications such as antiviral (eg, zidovudine), antibiotic (eg, minocycline), antimalarial (eg, chloroquine), anti-fungal (eg, ketoconazole), antileprotic (eg, clofazimine), antihypertensive (eg, amlodipine), chemotherapeutic, and antineoplastic drugs. The risk of developing oral pigmentation was significantly higher with antimalarial medications, antibiotics, antineoplastic and chemotherapeutic agents. Medication-induced oral hyperpigmentation was most frequent among women and in the hard palate.
CONCLUSION
Future research is warranted to better understand the pathogenesis and risk factors for medication-induced oral hyperpigmentation in order to reassure patients during prescription and management.
PubMed: 33116439
DOI: 10.2147/PPA.S275783 -
Cardiology and Therapy Dec 2021Hypertension is a progressive cardiovascular condition arising from complex aetiologies. Progression is strongly associated with functional and structural abnormalities... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Hypertension is a progressive cardiovascular condition arising from complex aetiologies. Progression is strongly associated with functional and structural abnormalities that lead to multi-organ dysfunction. Stroke and myocardial infarction are two of the major complications of hypertension in India. Various anti-hypertensive drugs, such as calcium channel blockers (CCBs), beta-blockers, diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers, have been the medications of choice for disease management and are known to be effective in reducing the complications of hypertension. CCBs, such as amlodipine, are also currently being used and proven to be effective, although their beneficial effects in the management of complications of hypertension like stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) have yet to be proven. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effect of amlodipine on stroke and MI in hypertensive patients.
METHODS
A systematic search of English electronic databases was performed for studies with sufficient statistical power that were published between 2000 andl 30 August 2020, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. A total of 676 papers were screened, and 13 were found eligible to be included in the meta-analysis. Studies that included patients who suffered from MI or stroke and were under amlodipine treatment were included in the analysis. The odds ratio and the risk ratio of amlodipine compared to active control/placebo were noted from the studies and statistically analyzed.
RESULTS
Amlodipine had a significant effect in reducing stroke and MI in hypertensive patients. Similar to results published in reports, this systematic review proved that the hazard ratio for amlodipine was < 1 for stroke (0.69-1.04) and MI (0.77-0.98), showing that amlodipine accounted for better prevention of stroke and MI.
CONCLUSION
In the pooled analysis of data from 12 randomised controlled trials and one double-blinded cohort study measuring the effect of CCBs, we found that the CCB amlodipine reduced the risk of stroke and MI in hypertensive patients. Superior results for amlodipine were found in ten of the 13 studies included in this meta-analysis.
PubMed: 34480745
DOI: 10.1007/s40119-021-00239-1 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2023Uncontrolled blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy offers a promising approach to addressing this... (Review)
Review
Uncontrolled blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy offers a promising approach to addressing this challenge by providing a convenient single-tablet solution that enhances the effectiveness of blood pressure control. In our systematic review, we assess the effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC in managing blood pressure. We conducted a comprehensive search across four primary electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Global Health Library (GHL), and Google Scholar, as of 8 February 2022. Additionally, we performed a manual search to find relevant articles. The quality of the selected articles was evaluated using the Study Quality Assessment Tools (SQAT) checklist from the National Institute of Health and the ROB2 tool from Cochrane. Our systematic review included 17 eligible articles. The findings show that the use of perindopril/amlodipine FDC significantly lowers blood pressure and enhances the quality of blood pressure control. Compared to the comparison group, the perindopril/amlodipine combination tablet resulted in a higher rate of blood pressure response and normalization. Importantly, perindopril/amlodipine FDC contributes to improved patient adherence with minimal side effects. However, studies conducted to date have not provided assessments of the cost-effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC. In summary, our analysis confirms the effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC in lowering blood pressure, with combination therapy outperforming monotherapy and placebo. Although mild adverse reactions were observed in a small subset of participants, cost-effectiveness assessments for this treatment remain lacking in the literature.
PubMed: 38410524
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156655 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Aug 2022To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To update our previously reported systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies on cardiovascular drug exposure and COVID-19 clinical outcomes by focusing on newly published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS
More than 500 databases were searched between 1 November 2020 and 2 October 2021 to identify RCTs that were published after our baseline review. One reviewer extracted data with other reviewers verifying the extracted data for accuracy and completeness.
RESULTS
After screening 22 414 records, we included 24 and 21 RCTs in the qualitative and quantitative syntheses, respectively. The most investigated drug classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs) and anticoagulants, investigated by 10 and 11 studies respectively. In meta-analyses, ACEI/ARBs did not affect hospitalization length (mean difference -0.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.83; 0.98 d, n = 1183), COVID-19 severity (risk ratio/RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.71; 1.15, n = 1661) or mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.92, 95% CI 0.58; 1.47, n = 1646). Therapeutic anticoagulation also had no effect (hospitalization length mean difference -0.29, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.56 d, n = 1449; severity RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.70; 1.04, n = 2696; and, mortality RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.77; 1.13, n = 5689). Other investigated drug classes were antiplatelets (aspirin, 2 trials), antithrombotics (sulodexide, 1 trial), calcium channel blockers (amlodipine, 1 trial) and lipid-modifying drugs (atorvastatin, 1 trial).
CONCLUSION
Moderate- to high-certainty RCT evidence suggests that cardiovascular drugs such as ACEIs/ARBs are not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes, and should therefore not be discontinued. These cardiovascular drugs should also not be initiated to treat or prevent COVID-19 unless they are needed for an underlying currently approved therapeutic indication.
Topics: Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiovascular Agents; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; COVID-19 Drug Treatment
PubMed: 35322889
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.15331 -
High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular... Sep 2023Azelnidipine is one of the newer Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) approved in China, Japan, and India. Some studies have found that the blood pressure-lowering effect of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Azelnidipine is one of the newer Calcium Channel Blockers (CCB) approved in China, Japan, and India. Some studies have found that the blood pressure-lowering effect of azelnidipine is more than amlodipine, and others found the effect similar.
AIM
This meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of azelnidipine in managing hypertensive patients by lowering Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP), Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP), and Heart Rate (HR) as compared to amlodipine.
METHODS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, PROQUEST, and International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for published articles to evaluate the clinical efficacy of azelnidipine in the management of hypertension patients. Data were extracted from the selected 11 randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The risk of bias 2 (RoB2) tool was used for the quality assessment of the included studies, and the random-effects model was used to estimate the effect size.
RESULTS
There were no statistically significant differences in the reduction of SBP (Mean Difference, MD: - 1.07; 95% CI: - 4.10, 1.95, p-value: 0.49) and DBP (MD: 0.27; 95% CI: - 2.66, 3.20, p-value: 0.86) between both the drugs. In terms of HR reduction, there was a statistically significant difference (MD: - 3.63; 95% CI: - 5.27, - 2.00, p-value: < 0.0001) between both drugs. Egger's test excluded any publication bias for the included studies (p = 0.21). Meta-regression excluded the effect of the duration of treatment on outcome parameters.
CONCLUSION
Though no significant difference between azelnidipine and amlodipine was found, in terms of reduction in SBP and DBP, azelnidipine reduced heart rate significantly compared to amlodipine.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42023390361.
Topics: Humans; Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Dihydropyridines; Calcium Channel Blockers; Hypertension; Blood Pressure
PubMed: 37768510
DOI: 10.1007/s40292-023-00601-5 -
High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular... Dec 2020Benidipine and amlodipine are two well-known drugs used in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Benidipine and amlodipine are two well-known drugs used in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).
AIM
In this systematic review we aimed to compare benidipine and amlodipine in terms of efficacy in the management of hypertensive patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials and excluded observational studies. Quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE and we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio. Data were pooled as mean differences (MD) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI).
RESULTS
Eight studies were eligible for our meta-analysis. We found no significant difference between both drugs regarding systolic (MD = - 0.21 [- 1.48, 1.89], (P = 0.81) and diastolic (MD = 0.01[- 0.51, 0.53], (P = 0.97)) blood pressure measurements. The overall heart rate did not differ as well (MD = - 0.03 [- 1.63, 1.57], (P = 0.97)). We found that benidipine was statistically better than amlodipine in terms of eGFR (MD = 1.07 [0.43, 1.71], (P = 0.001)), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (MD = - 43.41 [- 53.53, - 33.29], (P < 0.00001)).
CONCLUSIONS
Finally we conclude that benidipine seems to show more positive and promising results in the management of hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Calcium Channel Blockers; Dihydropyridines; Female; Glomerular Filtration Rate; Humans; Hypertension; Kidney; Male; Middle Aged; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 33001356
DOI: 10.1007/s40292-020-00412-y