-
Lancet (London, England) Mar 2016The benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, the extent to which these effects differ by... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The benefits of blood pressure lowering treatment for prevention of cardiovascular disease are well established. However, the extent to which these effects differ by baseline blood pressure, presence of comorbidities, or drug class is less clear. We therefore performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to clarify these differences.
METHOD
For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE for large-scale blood pressure lowering trials, published between Jan 1, 1966, and July 7, 2015, and we searched the medical literature to identify trials up to Nov 9, 2015. All randomised controlled trials of blood pressure lowering treatment were eligible for inclusion if they included a minimum of 1000 patient-years of follow-up in each study arm. No trials were excluded because of presence of baseline comorbidities, and trials of antihypertensive drugs for indications other than hypertension were eligible. We extracted summary-level data about study characteristics and the outcomes of major cardiovascular disease events, coronary heart disease, stroke, heart failure, renal failure, and all-cause mortality. We used inverse variance weighted fixed-effects meta-analyses to pool the estimates.
RESULTS
We identified 123 studies with 613,815 participants for the tabular meta-analysis. Meta-regression analyses showed relative risk reductions proportional to the magnitude of the blood pressure reductions achieved. Every 10 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure significantly reduced the risk of major cardiovascular disease events (relative risk [RR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·77-0·83), coronary heart disease (0·83, 0·78-0·88), stroke (0·73, 0·68-0·77), and heart failure (0·72, 0·67-0·78), which, in the populations studied, led to a significant 13% reduction in all-cause mortality (0·87, 0·84-0·91). However, the effect on renal failure was not significant (0·95, 0·84-1·07). Similar proportional risk reductions (per 10 mm Hg lower systolic blood pressure) were noted in trials with higher mean baseline systolic blood pressure and trials with lower mean baseline systolic blood pressure (all ptrend>0·05). There was no clear evidence that proportional risk reductions in major cardiovascular disease differed by baseline disease history, except for diabetes and chronic kidney disease, for which smaller, but significant, risk reductions were detected. β blockers were inferior to other drugs for the prevention of major cardiovascular disease events, stroke, and renal failure. Calcium channel blockers were superior to other drugs for the prevention of stroke. For the prevention of heart failure, calcium channel blockers were inferior and diuretics were superior to other drug classes. Risk of bias was judged to be low for 113 trials and unclear for 10 trials. Heterogeneity for outcomes was low to moderate; the I(2) statistic for heterogeneity for major cardiovascular disease events was 41%, for coronary heart disease 25%, for stroke 26%, for heart failure 37%, for renal failure 28%, and for all-cause mortality 35%.
INTERPRETATION
Blood pressure lowering significantly reduces vascular risk across various baseline blood pressure levels and comorbidities. Our results provide strong support for lowering blood pressure to systolic blood pressures less than 130 mm Hg and providing blood pressure lowering treatment to individuals with a history of cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke, diabetes, heart failure, and chronic kidney disease.
FUNDING
National Institute for Health Research and Oxford Martin School.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Hypertension
PubMed: 26724178
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01225-8 -
Medicine Jan 2017Hypertension drives the global burden of cardiovascular disease and its prevalence is estimated to increase by 30% by the year 2025. Nonadherence to chronic medication... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertension drives the global burden of cardiovascular disease and its prevalence is estimated to increase by 30% by the year 2025. Nonadherence to chronic medication regimens is common; approximately 43% to 65.5% of patients who fail to adhere to prescribed regimens are hypertensive patients. Nonadherence to medications is a potential contributing factor to the occurrence of concomitant diseases.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review applied a meta-analytic procedure to investigate the medication nonadherence in adult hypertensive patients.
METHODS
Original research studies, conducted on adult hypertensive patients, using the 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS-8) to assess the medication adherence between January 2009 and March 2016 were included. Comprehensive search strategies of 3 databases and MeSH keywords were used to locate eligible literature. Study characteristics, participant demographics, and medication adherence outcomes were recorded. Effect sizes for outcomes were calculated as standardized mean differences using random-effect model to estimate overall mean effects.
RESULTS
A total of 28 studies from 15 countries were identified, in total comprising of 13,688 hypertensive patients, were reviewed. Of 25 studies included in the meta-analysis involving 12,603 subjects, a significant number (45.2%) of the hypertensive patients and one-third (31.2%) of the hypertensive patients with comorbidities were nonadherent to medications. However, a higher proportion (83.7%) of medication nonadherence was noticed in uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) patients. Although a higher percentage (54%) of nonadherence to antihypertensive medications was noticed in females (P < 0.001), the risk of nonadherence was 1.3 times higher in males, with a relative risk of 0.883. Overall, nearly two-thirds (62.5%) of the medication nonadherence was noticed in Africans and Asians (43.5%).
CONCLUSION
Nonadherence to antihypertensive medications was noticed in 45% of the subjects studied and a higher proportion of uncontrolled BP (83.7%) was nonadherent to medication. Intervention models aiming to improve adherence should be emphasized.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Medication Adherence; Middle Aged; Sex Factors
PubMed: 28121920
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000005641 -
High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular... Jan 2022Acute increases of blood pressure values are common causes of patients' presentation to emergency departments, and their management represents a clinical challenge. They... (Review)
Review
Acute increases of blood pressure values are common causes of patients' presentation to emergency departments, and their management represents a clinical challenge. They are usually described as 'hypertensive crises', 'hypertensive urgencies', terms that should be abandoned because they are misleading and inappropriate according to a recent task force of the European Society of Cardiology, which recommended to focus only on 'hypertensive emergencies'. The latter can be esasily identified by using the Brain, Arteries, Retina, Kidney, and/or Heart (BARKH) strategy as herein described. Although current guidelines recommendations/suggestions for treatment of these patients are not evidence-based, owing to the lack of randomized clinical trials, improved understanding of the underlying pathophysiology has changed the approach to management of the patients presenting with hypertensive emergencies in recent years. Starting from these premises and a systematic review of the available studies graded by their quality, using the AHA class of recommendation/level of evidence grading, whenever possible, we herein present a novel a streamlined symptoms- and evidence-based algorithm for the assessment and management of patients with hypertensive emergencies.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Emergencies; Emergency Service, Hospital; Heart Failure; Humans; Hypertension
PubMed: 34813055
DOI: 10.1007/s40292-021-00487-1 -
Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) Jul 2023The timing of antihypertensive drugs administration is controversial. The aim was to compare the efficacy of dosing of antihypertensive drugs in the morning versus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The timing of antihypertensive drugs administration is controversial. The aim was to compare the efficacy of dosing of antihypertensive drugs in the morning versus evening.
METHODS
A PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases search for randomized clinical trials of antihypertensive therapies where patients were randomized to morning versus evening dosing. The outcomes were ambulatory blood pressure (BP) parameters (day-time, night-time, and 24/48-hour systolic blood pressure [SBP] and diastolic blood pressure [DBP]) and cardiovascular outcomes.
RESULTS
Of 72 randomized controlled trials included, evening dosing significantly reduced ambulatory BP parameters: 24/48-hour SBP (mean difference [MD]=1.41 mm Hg; [95% CI, 0.48-2.34]), DBP (MD=0.60 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.12-1.08]), night-time SBP (MD=4.09 mm Hg [95% CI, 3.01-5.16]), DBP (MD, 2.57 mm Hg [95% CI, 1.92-3.22]), with a smaller reduction in day-time SBP (MD=0.94 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.01-1.87]), and DBP (MD=0.87 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.10-1.63]), and numerically lower cardiovascular events compared with morning dosing. However, when controversial data by Hermida (23 trials, 25 734 patients) were omitted (<0.05 for most outcomes), the above effect of evening dosing attenuated with no significant effect on 24/48-hour ambulatory blood pressure, day-time BP, and major adverse cardiac event and smaller reduction in night-time ambulatory SBP and DBP.
CONCLUSIONS
Evening dosing of antihypertensive drugs significantly reduced ambulatory BP parameters and lowered cardiovascular events but the effect was mainly driven by trials by Hermida group. Unless the intention is to specifically lower night-time BP, antihypertensive drugs should be taken at a time of day that is convenient, optimizes adherence, and minimizes undesirable effects.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Hypertension; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Blood Pressure; Hypotension
PubMed: 37212152
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.122.20862 -
Ophthalmology Jan 2016Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a highly prevalent condition worldwide and the most common cause of irreversible sight loss. The objective is to assess the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
TOPIC
Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is a highly prevalent condition worldwide and the most common cause of irreversible sight loss. The objective is to assess the comparative effectiveness of first-line medical treatments in patients with POAG or ocular hypertension through a systematic review and network meta-analysis, and to provide relative rankings of these treatments.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Treatment for POAG currently relies completely on lowering the intraocular pressure (IOP). Although topical drops, lasers, and surgeries can be considered in the initial treatment of glaucoma, most patients elect to start treatment with eye drops.
METHODS
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared a single active topical medication with no treatment/placebo or another single topical medication. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Food and Drug Administration's website. Two individuals independently assessed trial eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. We performed Bayesian network meta-analyses.
RESULTS
We included 114 RCTs with data from 20 275 participants. The overall risk of bias of the included trials is mixed. The mean reductions (95% credible intervals) in IOP in millimeters of mercury at 3 months ordered from the most to least effective drugs were as follows: bimatoprost 5.61 (4.94; 6.29), latanoprost 4.85 (4.24; 5.46), travoprost 4.83 (4.12; 5.54), levobunolol 4.51 (3.85; 5.24), tafluprost 4.37 (2.94; 5.83), timolol 3.70 (3.16; 4.24), brimonidine 3.59 (2.89; 4.29), carteolol 3.44 (2.42; 4.46), levobetaxolol 2.56 (1.52; 3.62), apraclonidine 2.52 (0.94; 4.11), dorzolamide 2.49 (1.85; 3.13), brinzolamide 2.42 (1.62; 3.23), betaxolol 2.24 (1.59; 2.88), and unoprostone 1.91 (1.15; 2.67).
CONCLUSIONS
All active first-line drugs are effective compared with placebo in reducing IOP at 3 months. Bimatoprost, latanoprost, and travoprost are among the most efficacious drugs, although the within-class differences were small and may not be clinically meaningful. All factors, including adverse effects, patient preferences, and cost, should be considered in selecting a drug for a given patient.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Glaucoma, Open-Angle; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26526633
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.09.005 -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Feb 2021To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up.
INFORMATION SOURCES
Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
The primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (τ).
RESULTS
Of 15 023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280 638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, τ=0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, τ=0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, τ=0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, τ=0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, τ=0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction.
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function.
REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42018116860.
Topics: Acute Kidney Injury; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Causality; Gout; Humans; Hyperkalemia; Hypokalemia; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33568342
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n189 -
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 -
Revista de Saude Publica Dec 2016To verify the effects of antihypertensive treatment (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) on the health-related quality of life of individuals with hypertension. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To verify the effects of antihypertensive treatment (pharmacological and non-pharmacological) on the health-related quality of life of individuals with hypertension.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis using the following databases: IBECS, LILACS, SciELO, Medline, Cochrane, Science Direct, Scopus and the Brazilian Capes Theses and Dissertations Database. The statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager, version 5.2. The average difference was used for the summarization of meta-analytic effect by the fixed-effect model. Twenty studies were included.
RESULTS
The summarization of the effect showed an average increase of 2.45 points (95%CI 1.02-3.87; p < 0.0008) in the quality of life of individuals adhering to non-pharmacological treatment for arterial hypertension. Adherence to pharmacological treatment indicated an average increase of 9.24 points (95%CI 8.16-10.33; p < 0.00001) in the quality of life of individuals with arterial hypertension.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-pharmacological treatment improves the overall quality of life and physical domain of people with arterial hypertension. Adherence to pharmacological treatment has a positive impact on the mental and physical domains of patients, as it did on the overall quality of life score.
OBJETIVO
Verificar os efeitos do tratamento anti-hipertensivo (farmacológico e não-farmacológico) na qualidade de vida relacionada à saúde de pessoas com hipertensão arterial.
MÉTODOS
Foi conduzida revisão sistemática com metanálise utilizando as bases de dados IBECS, Lilacs, SciELO, Medline, Cochrane, Science Direct, Scopus e o banco de teses da Capes. A análise estatística foi realizada pelo Review Manager versão 5.2. Foi utilizada a diferença da média na sumarização do efeito metanalítico pelo modelo de efeito fixo. Vinte estudos foram incluídos.
RESULTADOS
A sumarização do efeito mostrou incremento de 2,45 pontos na média (IC95% 1,02-3,87; p < 0,0008) da qualidade de vida em pessoas com adesão ao tratamento não farmacológico para hipertensão arterial. A adesão ao tratamento farmacológico indicou aumento de 9,24 pontos na média (IC95% 8,16-10,33; p < 0,00001) da qualidade de vida em pessoas com hipertensão arterial.
CONCLUSÕES
O tratamento não-farmacológico melhora a qualidade de vida global e o domínio físico de pessoas com hipertensão arterial. A adesão ao tratamento farmacológico impacta positivamente nos domínios mental, físico e escore total da qualidade de vida.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Brazil; Humans; Hypertension; Medication Adherence; Patient Compliance; Quality of Life
PubMed: 28099657
DOI: 10.1590/S1518-8787.2016050006415 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is the first update of a review published in 2009. Sustained moderate to severe elevations in resting blood pressure leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review attempted to answer that question.
OBJECTIVES
To quantify the mortality and morbidity effects from different first-line antihypertensive drug classes: thiazides (low-dose and high-dose), beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), and alpha-blockers, compared to placebo or no treatment.Secondary objectives: when different antihypertensive drug classes are used as the first-line drug, to quantify the blood pressure lowering effect and the rate of withdrawal due to adverse drug effects, compared to placebo or no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials (RCT) of at least one year duration, comparing one of six major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment, in adult patients with blood pressure over 140/90 mmHg at baseline. The majority (over 70%) of the patients in the treatment group were taking the drug class of interest after one year. We included trials with both hypertensive and normotensive patients in this review if the majority (over 70%) of patients had elevated blood pressure, or the trial separately reported outcome data on patients with elevated blood pressure.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), total cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. We used a fixed-effect model to to combine dichotomous outcomes across trials and calculate risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We presented blood pressure data as mean difference (MD) with 99% CI.
MAIN RESULTS
The 2017 updated search failed to identify any new trials. The original review identified 24 trials with 28 active treatment arms, including 58,040 patients. We found no RCTs for ARBs or alpha-blockers. These results are mostly applicable to adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. The mean age of participants was 56 years, and mean duration of follow-up was three to five years.High-quality evidence showed that first-line low-dose thiazides reduced mortality (11.0% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97); total CVS (12.9% with control versus 9.0% with treatment; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.76), stroke (6.2% with control versus 4.2% with treatment; RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.77), and coronary heart disease (3.9% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line high-dose thiazides reduced stroke (1.9% with control versus 0.9% with treatment; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.61) and total CVS (5.1% with control versus 3.7% with treatment; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), but did not reduce mortality (3.1% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05), or coronary heart disease (2.7% with control versus 2.7% with treatment; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.20).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line beta-blockers did not reduce mortality (6.2% with control versus 6.0% with treatment; RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07) or coronary heart disease (4.4% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.03), but reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 2.8% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.97) and total CVS (7.6% with control versus 6.8% with treatment; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98).Low- to moderate-quality evidence showed that first-line ACE inhibitors reduced mortality (13.6% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.95), stroke (6.0% with control versus 3.9% with treatment; RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82), coronary heart disease (13.5% with control versus 11.0% with treatment; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.94), and total CVS (20.1% with control versus 15.3% with treatment; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.85).Low-quality evidence showed that first-line calcium channel blockers reduced stroke (3.4% with control versus 1.9% with treatment; RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.84) and total CVS (8.0% with control versus 5.7% with treatment; RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87), but not coronary heart disease (3.1% with control versus 2.4% with treatment; RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.09), or mortality (6.0% with control versus 5.1% with treatment; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09).There was low-quality evidence that withdrawals due to adverse effects were increased with first-line low-dose thiazides (5.0% with control versus 11.3% with treatment; RR 2.38, 95% CI 2.06 to 2.75), high-dose thiazides (2.2% with control versus 9.8% with treatment; RR 4.48, 95% CI 3.83 to 5.24), and beta-blockers (3.1% with control versus 14.4% with treatment; RR 4.59, 95% CI 4.11 to 5.13). No data for these outcomes were available for first-line ACE inhibitors or calcium channel blockers. The blood pressure data were not used to assess the effect of the different classes of drugs as the data were heterogeneous, and the number of drugs used in the trials differed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
First-line low-dose thiazides reduced all morbidity and mortality outcomes in adult patients with moderate to severe primary hypertension. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective, but the evidence was of lower quality. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers were inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Humans; Hypertension; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors; Stroke; Thiazides
PubMed: 29667175
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001841.pub3 -
Journal of the American Heart... Jun 2020Background Epidemiologic studies, including trials, suggest an association between potassium intake and blood pressure (BP). However, the strength and shape of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Background Epidemiologic studies, including trials, suggest an association between potassium intake and blood pressure (BP). However, the strength and shape of this relationship is uncertain. Methods and Results We performed a meta-analysis to explore the dose-response relationship between potassium supplementation and BP in randomized-controlled trials with a duration ≥4 weeks using the recently developed 1-stage cubic spline regression model. This model allows use of trials with at least 2 exposure categories. We identified 32 eligible trials. Most were conducted in adults with hypertension using a crossover design and potassium supplementation doses that ranged from 30 to 140 mmol/d. We observed a U-shaped relationship between 24-hour active and control arm differences in potassium excretion and BP levels, with weakening of the BP reduction effect above differences of 30 mmol/d and a BP increase above differences ≈80 mmol/d. Achieved potassium excretion analysis also identified a U-shaped relationship. The BP-lowering effects of potassium supplementation were stronger in participants with hypertension and at higher levels of sodium intake. The BP increase with high potassium excretion was noted in participants with antihypertensive drug-treated hypertension but not in their untreated counterparts. Conclusions We identified a nonlinear relationship between potassium intake and both systolic and diastolic BP, although estimates for BP effects of high potassium intakes should be interpreted with caution because of limited availability of trials. Our findings indicate an adequate intake of potassium is desirable to achieve a lower BP level but suggest excessive potassium supplementation should be avoided, particularly in specific subgroups.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Dietary Supplements; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Potassium Deficiency; Potassium, Dietary; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recommended Dietary Allowances; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32500831
DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.119.015719