-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2023Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.
Topics: Humans; Warfarin; Carotid Stenosis; Metoprolol; Atorvastatin; Chlorthalidone; Fluvastatin; Pravastatin; Probucol; Rosuvastatin Calcium; Stroke; Hemorrhage; Aspirin; Ischemic Stroke; Atherosclerosis
PubMed: 37565307
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013573.pub2 -
Journal of Drugs in Dermatology : JDD Aug 2023Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is an inflammatory skin condition characterized by recurrent abscesses, nodules, and sinus tracts. Hormones are thought to play an...
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is an inflammatory skin condition characterized by recurrent abscesses, nodules, and sinus tracts. Hormones are thought to play an important role in HS pathophysiology, but there is a lack of an updated review on hormonal treatments in HS. Objective: Perform a systematic review of the literature on hormonal treatments in patients with HS. Methods: In April 2022, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for articles on hormonal treatments in HS. Non-English, duplicate, and irrelevant results were excluded. Data extraction was performed by two reviewers. Results: From 1952 to 2022, 30 articles (634 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Anti-androgen treatments discussed include finasteride (n=8), spironolactone (n=7), cyproterone acetate (CPA) (n=5), flutamide (n=1), leuprolide (n=1), and buserelin acetate (n=1). Metabolic treatments reported include metformin (n=8) and liraglutide (n=2). Three articles on hormonal contraceptives and 2 articles on testosterone were included. Of the articles which reported response rates, 62.8% (27/43) of patients improved with finasteride, 53.3% (32/60) with CPA mono/combination therapy, 50.5% (51/101) with spironolactone, and 46.0% (74/161) with metformin. Improvement in HS was also noted in case reports of patients treated with buserelin acetate, leuprolide, flutamide, and liraglutide. Conclusions: Hormonal treatments for HS, especially finasteride, spironolactone, and metformin, are efficacious and safe; but large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the patient populations which would benefit from these therapies. Masson R, Shih T, Jeong C, et al. Hormonal treatments in hidradenitis suppurativa: a systematic review. J Drugs Dermatol. 2023;22(8):785-794. doi:10.36849/JDD.7325.
Topics: Humans; Finasteride; Hidradenitis Suppurativa; Flutamide; Spironolactone; Liraglutide; Metformin
PubMed: 37556513
DOI: 10.36849/jdd.7325 -
Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia 2024Rapid correction of hyponatremia, especially when severe and chronic, can result in osmotic demyelination. The latest guideline for diagnosis and treatment of...
BACKGROUND
Rapid correction of hyponatremia, especially when severe and chronic, can result in osmotic demyelination. The latest guideline for diagnosis and treatment of hyponatremia (2014) recommends a correction limit of 10 mEq/L/day. Our aim was to summarize published cases of osmotic demyelination to assess the adequacy of this recommendation.
METHOD
Systematic review of case reports of osmotic demyelination. We included cases confirmed by imaging or pathology exam, in people over 18 years of age, published between 1997 and 2019, in English or Portuguese.
RESULTS
We evaluated 96 cases of osmotic demyelination, 58.3% female, with a mean age of 48.2 ± 12.9 years. Median admission serum sodium was 105 mEq/L and > 90% of patients had severe hyponatremia (<120 mEq/L). Reports of gastrointestinal tract disorders (38.5%), alcoholism (31.3%) and use of diuretics (27%) were common. Correction of hyponatremia was performed mainly with isotonic (46.9%) or hypertonic (33.7%) saline solution. Correction of associated hypokalemia occurred in 18.8%. In 66.6% of cases there was correction of natremia above 10 mEq/L on the first day of hospitalization; the rate was not reported in 22.9% and in only 10.4% was it less than 10 mEq/L/day.
CONCLUSION
The development of osmotic demyelination was predominant in women under 50 years of age, with severe hyponatremia and rapid correction. In 10.4% of cases, there was demyelination even with correction <10 mEq/L/day. These data reinforce the need for conservative targets for high-risk patients, such as 4-6 mEq/L/day, not exceeding the limit of 8 mEq/L/day.
Topics: Humans; Demyelinating Diseases; Diuretics; Hospitalization; Hypokalemia; Hyponatremia
PubMed: 37523718
DOI: 10.1590/2175-8239-JBN-2022-0114en -
International Journal of Molecular... Jul 2023Despite recent advances in heart failure (HF) therapy, the risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality, morbidity, and HF hospitalization (HFH) are major challenges in HF... (Review)
Review
Despite recent advances in heart failure (HF) therapy, the risk of cardiovascular (CV) mortality, morbidity, and HF hospitalization (HFH) are major challenges in HF treatment. We aimed to review the potential of vericiguat as a treatment option for HF. A systematic literature review was performed using the PubMed database and ClinicalTrials.gov. Four randomized controlled trials were identified, which study the safety and efficacy of vericiguat in HF patients. Vericiguat activates soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) by binding to the beta-subunit, bypassing the requirement for NO-induced activation. The nitric oxide (NO)-sGC-cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) pathway plays an essential role in cardiovascular (CV) regulation and the protection of healthy cardiac function but is impaired in HF. Vericiguat reduced the risk of CV death and HFH in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) but showed no therapeutic effect on HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The trials demonstrated a favorable safety profile with most common adverse events such as hypotension, syncope, and anemia. Therefore, vericiguat is recommended for patients with HFrEF and a minimum systolic blood pressure of 100 mmHg. Treatment with vericiguat is considered when the individual patient experiences decompensation despite being on guideline-recommended medication, e.g., angiotensin-converting inhibitor/AT1 receptor antagonist, beta-adrenoceptor antagonist, spironolactone, and sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitors. Furthermore, larger studies are required to investigate any potential effect of vericiguat in HFpEF patients. Despite the limitations, vericiguat can be recommended for patients with HFrEF, where standard-of-care is insufficient, and the disease worsens.
Topics: Humans; Heart Failure; Treatment Outcome; Stroke Volume; Soluble Guanylyl Cyclase; Cardiotonic Agents; Diuretics
PubMed: 37511587
DOI: 10.3390/ijms241411826 -
Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis :... Feb 2024Hospitalization for decompensated heart failure is a major public health issue. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Hospitalization for decompensated heart failure is a major public health issue.
METHODS
We performed a meta-analysis to summarize and analyze if there is a benefit in using ultrafiltration over diuretics in terms of reducing mortality or hospital readmissions, primarily and identified 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 941 patients.
RESULTS
Compared to diuretics, treatment with ultrafiltration was associated with a significant reduction in heart failure hospitalizations (risk ratio [RR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55-0.96, p = 0.02) and significant increase in weight and net fluid loss (mean difference [MD]: -1.55, CI: -2.36 to -0.74, p = 0.0002) and (MD: -2.10, CI: -3.32 to -0.89, p = 0.0007), respectively. There was no significant difference among treatments regarding the duration of hospitalization, the increase in serum creatinine levels, and mortality.
CONCLUSION
Among patients with decompensated heart failure, compared to diuretics, ultrafiltration is associated with reduced rehospitalizations and increased weight/net fluid loss.
Topics: Humans; Ultrafiltration; Diuretics; Heart Failure; Hospitalization; Weight Gain
PubMed: 37469222
DOI: 10.1111/1744-9987.14037 -
Cureus Jun 2023The purpose of the present systematic review was to synthesize evidence on associated risk factors of hearing loss (HL) in children. Evidence-based research articles on... (Review)
Review
The purpose of the present systematic review was to synthesize evidence on associated risk factors of hearing loss (HL) in children. Evidence-based research articles on HL published between January 2013 and December 2022 using PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched. The study included children between zero and three years of age who have permanent bilateral/unilateral HL (BHL/UHL) by employing case-control studies, randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized studies, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and studies with or without comparison groups. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal checklist for longitudinal and cross-sectional studies were used to rate the quality of the chosen studies. The studies that would be considered were reviewed by two independent authors, and a third author was contacted if there was a dispute. A preliminary literature search uncovered 505 articles from the electronic search and 41 studies by hand searching. Duplicate records were eliminated, leaving 432 records. The abstract and title were read, and 340 studies were eliminated. There were 92 articles in total that qualified for full-text screening. Among these, 75 articles were disregarded since they lacked information or failed to assess the risk factors for HL. The qualitative synthesis, therefore, included 17 articles. Most often, cross-sectional study designs were used in the studies that were reviewed, which were then followed by longitudinal studies. Three of the studies that were reviewed used a prospective cohort design. The quality of all the included studies was rated to be good. The current review revealed that the primary statistically significant risk factors for HL included ventilator support; craniofacial anomalies; low birth weight (LBW); forceps delivery; loop diuretics; meningitis; asphyxia; intensive care; consanguinity; sepsis; Apgar scores between 0 and 4 at one minute; toxoplasmosis, other agents, rubella, cytomegalovirus, and herpes (TORCH) infections; and hyperbilirubinemia.
PubMed: 37456446
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.40464 -
Current Problems in Cardiology Nov 2023Despite potential advantages of torsemide over furosemide, <10% of the patients with heart failure (HF) are on torsemide in clinical practice. Prior studies comparing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Despite potential advantages of torsemide over furosemide, <10% of the patients with heart failure (HF) are on torsemide in clinical practice. Prior studies comparing furosemide to torsemide in patients with HF have shown conflicting findings, regarding hospitalizations and mortality. We aimed to pool all the studies conducted to date and provide the most updated and comprehensive evidence, regarding the effect of furosemide vs torsemide in reducing mortality and hospitalizations in patients with HF. We conducted a comprehensive literature search of the PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library and Scopus from inception till June 2023, for randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing furosemide to torsemide in adult patients (>18 years) with acute or chronic HF. Data about all-cause mortality, HF-related hospitalizations and all-cause hospitalizations was extracted, pooled, and analyzed. Forest plots were created based on the random effects model. A total of 17 studies (n = 11,996 patients) were included in our analysis with a median follow-up time of 8 months. Our pooled analysis demonstrated no difference in all-cause mortality between furosemide and torsemide groups in HF patients (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.75-1.29, P = 0.89). However, torsemide was associated with a significantly lesser incidence of HF-related hospitalizations (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, P = 0.04), and all-cause hospitalizations (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.73-0.98, P = 0.03), as compared to furosemide. Torsemide significantly reduces HF-related and all-cause hospitalizations as compared to furosemide, with no difference in mortality. We recommend transitioning from furosemide to torsemide in HF patients who are not attaining symptomatic control.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Furosemide; Torsemide; Sodium Potassium Chloride Symporter Inhibitors; Heart Failure; Hospitalization
PubMed: 37453532
DOI: 10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2023.101927 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Different first-line drug classes for patients with hypertension are often assumed to have similar effectiveness with respect to reducing mortality and morbidity outcomes, and lowering blood pressure. First-line low-dose thiazide diuretics have been previously shown to have the best mortality and morbidity evidence when compared with placebo or no treatment. Head-to-head comparisons of thiazides with other blood pressure-lowering drug classes would demonstrate whether there are important differences.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effects of first-line diuretic drugs with other individual first-line classes of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity, and withdrawals due to adverse effects in patients with hypertension. Secondary objectives included assessments of the need for added drugs, drug switching, and blood pressure-lowering.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Hypertension's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Hypertension Specialized Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registers to March 2021. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. A top-up search of the Specialized Register was carried out in June 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized active comparator trials of at least one year's duration were included. Trials had a clearly defined intervention arm of a first-line diuretic (thiazide, thiazide-like, or loop diuretic) compared to another first-line drug class: beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, alpha adrenergic blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, direct renin inhibitors, or other antihypertensive drug classes. Studies had to include clearly defined mortality and morbidity outcomes (serious adverse events, total cardiovascular events, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), congestive heart failure, and withdrawals due to adverse effects).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 trials with 26 comparator arms randomizing over 90,000 participants. The findings are relevant to first-line use of drug classes in older male and female hypertensive patients (aged 50 to 75) with multiple co-morbidities, including type 2 diabetes. First-line thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics were compared with beta-blockers (six trials), calcium channel blockers (eight trials), ACE inhibitors (five trials), and alpha-adrenergic blockers (three trials); other comparators included angiotensin II receptor blockers, aliskiren (a direct renin inhibitor), and clonidine (a centrally acting drug). Only three studies reported data for total serious adverse events: two studies compared diuretics with calcium channel blockers and one with a direct renin inhibitor. Compared to first-line beta-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.10; 5 trials, 18,241 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (5.4% versus 4.8%; RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.00; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 0.6%, moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.09; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), CHD (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07; 4 trials, 18,135 participants; low-certainty), or heart failure (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.19; 1 trial, 6569 participants; low-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (10.1% versus 7.9%; RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.85; 5 trials, 18,501 participants; ARR 2.2%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line calcium channel blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 7 trials, 35,417 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in serious adverse events (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.24; 2 trials, 7204 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (14.3% versus 13.3%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in stroke (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.18; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty) or CHD (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.08; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (4.4% versus 3.2%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.82; 6 trials, 35,217 participants; ARR 1.2%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (7.6% versus 6.2%; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.88; 7 trials, 33,908 participants; ARR 1.4%; low-certainty). Compared to first-line ACE inhibitors, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.07; 3 trials, 30,961 participants; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in total cardiovascular events (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.02; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce stroke slightly (4.7% versus 4.1%; RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; ARR 0.6%; moderate-certainty), probably result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.12; 3 trials, 30,900 participants; moderate-certainty) or heart failure (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 2 trials, 30,392 participants; moderate-certainty), and probably reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (3.9% versus 2.9%; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; 3 trials, 25,254 participants; ARR 1.0%; moderate-certainty). Compared to first-line alpha-blockers, first-line thiazides probably result in little to no difference in total mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; moderate-certainty), probably reduce total cardiovascular events (12.1% versus 9.0%; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.80; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 3.1%; moderate-certainty) and stroke (2.7% versus 2.3%; RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.01; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; ARR 0.4%; moderate-certainty), may result in little to no difference in CHD (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.11; 2 trials, 24,396 participants; low-certainty), probably reduce heart failure (5.4% versus 2.8%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.58; 1 trial, 24,316 participants; ARR 2.6%; moderate-certainty), and may reduce withdrawals due to adverse effects (1.3% versus 0.9%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89; 3 trials, 24,772 participants; ARR 0.4%; low-certainty). For the other drug classes, data were insufficient. No antihypertensive drug class demonstrated any clinically important advantages over first-line thiazides.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
When used as first-line agents for the treatment of hypertension, thiazides and thiazide-like drugs likely do not change total mortality and likely decrease some morbidity outcomes such as cardiovascular events and withdrawals due to adverse effects, when compared to beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and alpha-blockers.
Topics: Aged; Female; Humans; Male; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Coronary Disease; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Diuretics; Heart Failure; Hypertension; Stroke; Thiazides; Middle Aged
PubMed: 37439548
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008161.pub3 -
Diabetes, Obesity & Metabolism Oct 2023To explore whether the beneficial cardiovascular (CV) effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors is consistent with or without concurrent use of CV... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To explore whether the beneficial cardiovascular (CV) effect of sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors is consistent with or without concurrent use of CV medications in patients with type 2 diabetes, heart failure (HF) or chronic kidney disease.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Embase up to September 2022 for CV outcomes trials. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for HF. Secondary outcomes included the individual components of CV death, hospitalization for HF, death from any cause, major adverse CV events or renal events, volume depletion and hyperkalaemia. We pooled hazard ratios (HRs) and risk ratios alongside 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
RESULTS
We included 12 trials comprising 83 804 patients. SGLT-2 inhibitors reduced the risk of CV death or hospitalization for HF regardless of background use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), b-blockers, diuretics, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs), or triple combination therapy of either an ACEI/ARB plus b-blocker plus MRA, or an ARNI plus b-blocker plus MRA (HRs ranged from 0.61 to 0.83; P > .1 for each subgroup interaction). Similarly, no subgroup differences were evident for most analyses for the secondary outcomes of CV death, hospitalization for HF, all-cause mortality, major adverse CV or renal events, hyperkalaemia and volume depletion rate.
CONCLUSIONS
The benefit of SGLT-2 inhibitors seems to be additive to background use of CV medications in a broad population of patients. These findings should be interpreted as hypothesis generating because most of the subgroups analysed were not prespecified.
Topics: Humans; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Sodium-Glucose Transporter 2 Inhibitors; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Hyperkalemia; Heart Failure; Symporters; Glucose; Sodium; Cardiovascular Diseases
PubMed: 37435776
DOI: 10.1111/dom.15200 -
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