-
Archivio Italiano Di Urologia,... Jun 2022Alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists or alpha-blockers are used in the treatment of hypertension, in the therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia and in medical expulsive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Alpha-adrenoreceptor antagonists or alpha-blockers are used in the treatment of hypertension, in the therapy of benign prostatic hyperplasia and in medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones. These agents may affect the sexual function, with differences between drugs within the same class, depending on their selectivity for receptor subtypes. The aim of this review was to analyze the effects of alpha-blockers on sexual function.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE and other databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting sexual adverse effects in patients treated with alpha-blockers. Odds ratios for sexual dysfunction were calculated using random effects Mantel-Haenszel statistics.
RESULTS
Out of 608 records retrieved, 75 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, alphablockers were associated with increased odds of ejaculatory disorders both in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) associated to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) (OR: 7.53, 95% CI: 3.77-15.02, Z = 5.73, p < 0.00001, I2 = 55%) and in patients with ureteral stones (OR: 2.88, 95% CI: 1.50-5.44, Z = 3.19, p < 0.001, I2 = 31%). Uroselective alpha-blockers showed higher odds of ejaculatory disorders. Conversely, nonselective alpha-blockers were not associated with higher odds of ejaculatory dysfunction. Silodosin was associated with increased odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared with tamsulosin (OR: 3.52, 95% CI: 2.18-5.68, 15 series, 1512 participants, Z = 5.15, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Naftopidil and alfuzosin showed lower odds of ejaculatory dysfunction compared to uroselective alpha-blockers.No statistically significant differences in the odds of erectile dysfunction were observed when alpha-blockers were compared to placebo.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-Antagonists; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35775356
DOI: 10.4081/aiua.2022.2.252 -
PloS One 2019Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend titrating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers (BBs)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Higher versus lower doses of ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-2 receptor blockers and beta-blockers in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Current heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend titrating angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and beta-blockers (BBs) to target doses used in pivotal placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a number of RCTs comparing different doses (i.e. higher versus lower doses) of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs, the effects of higher versus lower doses on efficacy and safety remains unclear. For this reason, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs and BBs in patients with HFrEF.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via Ovid from inception to April 25th, 2018 and opentrials.net and clinicaltrials.gov for relevant trials that compared different doses of medications in heart failure. We analyzed trials by drug class (ACEIs, ARBs, and BBs) for efficacy outcomes (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, all-cause hospitalizations, HF hospitalizations, HF worsening). For safety outcomes, we pooled trials within and across drug classes.
RESULTS
Our meta-analysis consisted of 14 RCTs. Using GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence for ACEIs and ARBs was assessed as generally moderate for efficacy and high for adverse effects, whereas overall quality for BBs was very low to low. Over ~2-4 years higher versus lower doses of ACEIs, ARBs or BBs did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.87-1.02)], ARBs RR 0.96 (0.87-1.04), BBs RR 0.25 (0.06-1.01)] or all cause hospitalizations [ACEIs relative risk (RR) 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.86-1.02)], ARBs RR 0.98 (0.93-1.04), BBs RR 0.93 (0.39-2.24)]. However, all point estimates favoured higher doses. Higher doses of ARBs significantly reduced hospitalization for HF [RR 0.89 (0.80-0.99)- 2.8% ARR], and higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs significantly reduced HF worsening [RR 0.85 (0.79-0.92)- 5.1% ARR and 0.91 (0.84-0.99)- 3.2% ARR, respectively] compared to lower doses. None of the differences between higher versus lower doses of BBs were significant; however, precision was low. Higher doses of these medications compared to lower doses increased the risk of discontinuation due to adverse events, hypotension, dizziness, and for ACEIs and ARBs, increased hyperkalemia and elevations in serum creatinine. Absolute increase in harms for adverse effects ranged from ~ 3 to 14%.
CONCLUSIONS
Higher doses of ACEIs and ARBs reduce the risk of HF worsening compared to lower doses, and higher doses of ARBs also reduce the risk of HF hospitalization but the evidence is sparse and imprecise. Higher doses increase the chance of adverse effects compared to lower doses. Evidence for BBs is inconclusive. These results support initially always starting at low doses of ACEIs/ARBs and only titrating the dose up if the patient tolerates dose increases.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Female; Heart Failure; Humans; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Safety; Stroke Volume; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30817783
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212907 -
Annals of Medicine and Surgery (2012) Jun 2024Recent studies have tried to establish an association between the use of alpha-1-adrenergic receptor antagonists (A1ARAs) used in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and...
BACKGROUND
Recent studies have tried to establish an association between the use of alpha-1-adrenergic receptor antagonists (A1ARAs) used in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and the risk of PD. The objective of the study is to compare the risk of Parkinson's disease (PD) between terazosin/alfuzosin/doxazosin (TZ/AZ/DZ) users and tamsulosin users.
METHODS
PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase were systematically searched from inception to April 2023. Observational studies comparing the risk of PD among patients using different types of A1ARAs were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% CI for the risk of occurrence of PD among A1ARAs users of two different classes.
RESULTS
This study was based on a total of 678 433 BPH patients, out of which 287 080 patients belonged to the TZ/AZ/DZ cohort and 391 353 patients belonged to the tamsulosin cohort. The pooled incidence of PD was higher in tamsulosin users (1.28%, 95% CI: 1.04-1.55%) than in TZ/AZ/DZ drug users (1.11%, 95% CI: 0.83-1.42%). The risk of occurrence of PD was significantly lower in patients taking TZ/AZ/DZ than tamsulosin (= 610,363, HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.71-0.94, = 0.01; I = 87.4%).
CONCLUSION
This meta-analysis demonstrated that patients with BPH who take TZ/AZ/DZ have a lower risk for developing PD than those who take tamsulosin.
PubMed: 38846867
DOI: 10.1097/MS9.0000000000002117 -
Clinical Immunology (Orlando, Fla.) Apr 2022A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in patients with asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) was conducted. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
PURPOSE
A systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) in patients with asthma-COPD overlap (ACO) was conducted.
METHODS
A systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on treatment of ACO with LAMA, compared with placebo or blank, were reviewed.
RESULTS
Six RCTs (enrolling 1151 participants) met the inclusion criteria. LAMA showed significant effects on forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV) (WMD 98.31 mL, 95% CI 94.32 to 102.30 mL), forced vital capacity (FVC) (WMD 128.00 mL, 95% CI 121.89 to 134.12 mL), peak expiratory flow (PEF) (WMD 20.60 L/min, 95% CI 19.90 to 21.29 L/min), and rescue medicine use (WMD -0.67 puffs/day, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.23 puffs/day).
CONCLUSIONS
The addition of LAMA significantly improved lung function and rescue medicine use in patients with asthma-COPD overlap.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Asthma; Humans; Muscarinic Antagonists; Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
PubMed: 35346865
DOI: 10.1016/j.clim.2022.108986 -
Neurourology and Urodynamics Aug 2018To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the urodynamic outcomes of alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists (ABs), 5-alpha reductase inhibitors... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists, 5-alpha reductase inhibitors, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors, and phytotherapic compounds in men with lower urinary tract symptoms suggestive of benign prostatic obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of urodynamic studies.
AIMS
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating the urodynamic outcomes of alpha-1 adrenergic antagonists (ABs), 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs), phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is), and phytotherapic compounds in patients with lower urinary tract symptoms related to benign prostatic obstruction (LUTS/BPO).
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed/Medline, ISI Web of Knowledge, and Scopus databases was performed in June 2017. We included full papers that met the following criteria: original research; English language; human studies; enrolling LUTS/BPO patients; reporting maximum urinary flow (Qmax), and detrusor pressure at maximum urinary flow (PdetQmax). The primary endpoint was variation in bladder outlet obstruction index (BOOI). Secondary endpoints were variations in Qmax and PdetQmax.
RESULTS
Twenty-three studies involving 1044 patients were included in the final analysis. Eighteen, three, two, and one study evaluated the urodynamic outcomes of ABs, 5-ARIs, PDE5is, and phytotherapic compounds, respectively. BOOI, PdetQmax, and Qmax improved in a statistically significant manner in patients receiving ABs and in those receiving 5-ARIs. The overall pooled data showed a mean BOOI change of -15.40 (P < 0.00001) and of -10.55 (P = 0,004) for ABs and 5-ARIs, respectively. Mean PdetQmax and Qmax changes were:12.30 cm H O (P < 0.00001) and +2.27 ml/s (P < 0.00001) for ABs and -9.63 cm H O (P = 0.05), and +1.18 mL/s (P = 0.04) for 5-ARIs. PDE5is and phytotherapic compounds had no significant effects on urodynamic parameters.
CONCLUSIONS
ABs and 5-ARIs efficiently improve BOOI in men with LUTS/BPO. Both treatments are associated with a clinically significant decrease in PdetQmax but only marginal improvements in Qmax.
Topics: 5-alpha Reductase Inhibitors; Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor Antagonists; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Drug Therapy, Combination; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Middle Aged; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Phytotherapy; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Urinary Bladder Neck Obstruction; Urodynamics
PubMed: 29603785
DOI: 10.1002/nau.23554 -
Journal of Clinical Anesthesia May 2017A place for clonidine has been suggested for many indications in perioperative medicine. The aim of this systematic review and these meta-analyses is to systematically,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STUDY OBJECTIVE
A place for clonidine has been suggested for many indications in perioperative medicine. The aim of this systematic review and these meta-analyses is to systematically, and quantitatively, evaluate these potential indications of clonidine.
DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS
We selected and analyzed (qualitatively and, when possible, quantitatively) the available literature published on PubMed/Medline and on the Cochrane database. Inclusion criteria included: human randomized controlled trials involving adults who received perioperative systemic (oral, intramuscular, transdermal and intravenous) clonidine for every type of surgery.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
We identified 775 trials and thereafter excluded 718 and analyzed 57 trials concerning, in total, 14,790 patients of whom 7408 received clonidine and 6836 received placebo. Most important results shows that, in qualitative and quantitative analyses, clonidine vs placebo reduces analgesics consumption in, respectively, (159 vs 154 patients: 24%, 95%CI[16%-32%]; p<0.001), reduces nausea and vomiting (risk ratio, in 180 vs 181 patients: 0.35, 95%CI[0.25-0.51]; p<0.001), improves hemodynamic stability (reduction of HR: 14.9bpm, 95%CI[10.4-19.5]; p<0.001; reduction of the MAP: 12.5mmHg, 95%CI[7.14-17.86]; p<0.001); 1min after tracheal intubation, in 67 vs 68 patients), prevents postoperative shivering (risk ratio, in 140 vs 140 patients: 0.17, 95%CI[0.10-0.29]; p<0.001). On the other hand, clonidine does not have any influence on renal and cardiac outcomes (adverse events rates, in 5873 vs 5533 patients: 0.00, 95%CI[-0.10-0.11]; p=0.96) and does not prolong awakening time.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, these systematic review and meta-analyses of 57 trials confirm that clonidine improves pain control, reduces PONV, improves hemodynamic and sympathetic stability, with no adverse consequences on renal function or awakening time, but does not influence cardiac outcome in the general population, after non-cardiac surgery. Nevertheless, given the high heterogeneity between the studies, this does not exclude different results in patient subgroups or specific procedures.
Topics: Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Analgesics; Anesthesia; Clonidine; Heart; Hemodynamics; Humans; Kidney; Oxygen Consumption; Pain Management; Pain, Postoperative; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Shivering; Time Factors
PubMed: 28372656
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2017.02.003 -
Current Medical Research and Opinion Apr 2012To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review of evidence supporting the safety profiles of frequently used oral H(1)-antihistamines (AHs) for the treatment of patients with histamine-release related allergic diseases, e.g. allergic rhinitis and urticaria, and to compare them to the safety profiles of other medications, mostly topical corticosteroids and leukotriene antagonists (LTRA).
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Systematic search of the published literature (PubMed) and of the regulatory authorities databases (EMA and FDA) for oral AHs.
RESULTS
Similarly to histamine, antihistamines (AHs) have organ-specific efficacy and adverse effects. The peripheral H(1)-receptor (PrH1R) stimulation leads to allergic symptoms while the brain H(1)-receptor (BrH1R) blockade leads to somnolence, fatigue, increased appetite, decreased cognitive functions (impaired memory and learning), seizures, aggressive behaviour, etc. First-generation oral AHs (FGAHs) inhibit the effects of histamine not only peripherally but also in the brain, and additionally have potent antimuscarinic, anti-α-adrenergic and antiserotonin effects leading to symptoms such as visual disturbances (mydriasis, photophobia, and diplopia), dry mouth, tachycardia, constipation, urinary retention, agitation, and confusion. The somnolence caused by FGAHs interferes with the natural circadian sleep-wake cycle and therefore FGAHs are not suitable to be used as sleeping pills. Second-generation oral AHs (SGAHs) have proven better safety and tolerability profiles, much lower proportional impairment ratios, with at least similar if not better efficacy, than their predecessors. Only SGAHs, and especially those with a proven long-term (e.g., ≥12 months) clinical safety, should be prescribed for young children. Evidence exist that intranasally applied medications, like intranasal antihistamines, have the potential to reach the brain and cause somnolence.
CONCLUSIONS
Second-generation oral antihistamines are the preferred first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis and urticaria. Patients taking SGAHs report relatively little and mild adverse events even after long-term continuous treatments. An antihistamine should ideally possess high selectivity for the H(1)-receptor, high PrH1R occupancy and low to no BrH1R occupancy.
Topics: Administration, Oral; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Histamine H1 Antagonists; Humans; Hypersensitivity; Leukotriene Antagonists; Safety
PubMed: 22455874
DOI: 10.1185/03007995.2012.672405 -
Clinical Journal of the American... Oct 2021AKI is a common complication after pediatric cardiac surgery and has been associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare the efficacy of available... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
AKI is a common complication after pediatric cardiac surgery and has been associated with higher morbidity and mortality. We aimed to compare the efficacy of available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies to prevent AKI after pediatric cardiac surgery.
DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS
PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for randomized controlled trials from inception until August 2020. Random effects traditional pairwise, Bayesian network meta-analyses, and trial sequential analyses were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty randomized controlled trials including 2339 patients and 11 preventive strategies met the eligibility criteria. No overall significant differences were observed compared with control for corticosteroids, fenoldopam, hydroxyethyl starch, or remote ischemic preconditioning in traditional pairwise meta-analysis. In contrast, trial sequential analysis suggested a 80% relative risk reduction with dexmedetomidine and evidence of <57% relative risk reduction with remote ischemic preconditioning. Nonetheless, the network meta-analysis was unable to demonstrate any significant differences among the examined treatments, including also acetaminophen, aminophylline, levosimendan, milrinone, and normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve probabilities showed that milrinone (76%) was most likely to result in the lowest risk of AKI, followed by dexmedetomidine (70%), levosimendan (70%), aminophylline (59%), normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass (57%), and remote ischemic preconditioning (55%), although all showing important overlap.
CONCLUSIONS
Current evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the efficacy of most strategies to prevent AKI in the pediatric population, apart from limited evidence for dexmedetomidine and remote ischemic preconditioning.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists; Age Factors; Bayes Theorem; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cardiopulmonary Bypass; Child, Preschool; Dexmedetomidine; Female; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Ischemic Preconditioning; Male; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 34620647
DOI: 10.2215/CJN.05800421 -
Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) Jan 2011Inhaled β₂-agonists are commonly used as bronchodilators in the treatment of asthma. Their use in athletes, however, is restricted by anti-doping regulations.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Inhaled β₂-agonists are commonly used as bronchodilators in the treatment of asthma. Their use in athletes, however, is restricted by anti-doping regulations. Controversies remain as to whether healthy elite athletes who use bronchodilators may gain a competitive advantage. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effects of inhaled and systemic β₂-agonists on physical performance in healthy, non-asthmatic subjects. To this end, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to August 2009. Reference lists were searched for additional relevant studies. The search criteria were for randomized controlled trials examining the effect of inhaled or systemic β₂-agonists on physical performance in healthy, non-asthmatic subjects. Two authors independently performed the selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Parallel-group and crossover trials were analysed separately. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for continuous data and, where possible, data were pooled using a fixed effects model. Twenty-six studies involving 403 participants (age range 7-30 years) compared inhaled β₂-agonists with placebo. No significant effect could be detected for inhaled β₂-agonists on maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂(max)) [MD -0.14 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹; 95% CI -1.07, 0.78; 16 studies], endurance time to exhaustion at 105-110% VO₂(max) (MD -1.5 s; 95% CI -15.6, 12.6; four studies), 20-km time trial duration (MD -4.4 s; 95% CI -23.5, 14.7; two studies), peak power (MD -0.14 W · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -0.54, 0.27; four studies) and total work during a 30-second Wingate test (MD 0.80 J · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -2.44, 4.05; five studies). Thirteen studies involving 172 participants (age range 7-22 years) compared systemic β₂-agonists with placebo, with 12 studies involving oral and one study involving intravenous salbutamol. A significant effect was detected for systemic β₂-agonists on endurance time to exhaustion at 80-85% VO₂(max) (MD 402 s; 95% CI 34, 770; two studies), but not for VO₂(max) (placebo 42.5 ± 1.7 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹, salbutamol 42.1 ± 2.9 mL · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹, one study), endurance time to exhaustion at 70% VO₂(max) (MD 400 s; 95% CI -408, 1208; one study) or power output at 90% VO₂(max) (placebo 234.9 ± 16 W, salbutamol 235.5 ± 18.1 W, one study). A significant effect was shown for systemic β₂-agonists on peak power (MD 0.91 W · kg⁻¹; 95% CI 0.25, 1.57; four studies), but not on total work (MD 7.8 J · kg⁻¹; 95% CI -3.3, 18.9; four studies) during a 30-second Wingate test. There were no randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of systemic formoterol, salmeterol or terbutaline on physical performance. In conclusion, no significant effects were detected for inhaled β₂-agonists on endurance, strength or sprint performance in healthy athletes. There is some evidence indicating that systemic β₂-agonists may have a positive effect on physical performance in healthy subjects, but the evidence base is weak.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-2 Receptor Agonists; Asthma; Athletic Performance; Bronchodilator Agents; Doping in Sports; Female; Humans; Male; Oxygen Consumption; Physical Exertion; Psychomotor Performance; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 21142283
DOI: 10.2165/11537540-000000000-00000 -
Cardiology in the Young Aug 2013Marfan syndrome causes aortic dilation leading to dissection and death. This systematic review examined the use of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Marfan syndrome causes aortic dilation leading to dissection and death. This systematic review examined the use of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers in the management of aortic dilation in this disease.
METHODS
We searched four databases--Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials--two conference proceedings, references of retrieved articles, and a web-based trial registry. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were aortic dissection, need for elective surgical repair, change in aortic dilation, and adverse events. Two reviewers selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses were not performed because of study heterogeneity.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies were included--12 completed and six in progress. Of the completed studies, three before-and-after treatment, one prospective cohort, three retrospective cohorts, and two randomised control trials examined beta-blockers; one randomised and one non-randomised trial examined angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors; and one retrospective cohort study examined angiotensin II receptor blockers. Studies in progress are all randomised trials. Mortality was not impacted by drug therapy, although studies were underpowered with respect to this outcome. All drug classes were associated with a decrease in the rate of aortic dilation (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers >beta-blockers); none had an impact on other secondary outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
On the basis of existing evidence, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and angiotensin II receptor blockers slow the progression of aortic dilation in Marfan syndrome. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers may have more effect than beta-blockers; however, more methodologically rigorous studies currently in progress are needed to evaluate the impact of drug therapy on clinical outcomes.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Aortic Aneurysm; Aortic Diseases; Dilatation, Pathologic; Humans; Marfan Syndrome; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 23083542
DOI: 10.1017/S1047951112001412