-
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156655.].
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156655.].
PubMed: 38903988
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1426608 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition that occurs as a result of damage to the kidneys. Early recognition of CKD is becoming increasingly common due to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a long-term condition that occurs as a result of damage to the kidneys. Early recognition of CKD is becoming increasingly common due to widespread laboratory estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) reporting, raised clinical awareness, and international adoption of the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classifications. Early recognition and management of CKD affords the opportunity to prepare for progressive kidney impairment and impending kidney replacement therapy and for intervention to reduce the risk of progression and cardiovascular disease. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) are two classes of antihypertensive drugs that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system. Beneficial effects of ACEi and ARB on kidney outcomes and survival in people with a wide range of severity of kidney impairment have been reported; however, their effectiveness in the subgroup of people with early CKD (stage 1 to 3) is less certain. This is an update of a review that was last published in 2011.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the benefits and harms of ACEi and ARB or both in the management of people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who do not have diabetes mellitus (DM).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Register of Studies up to 6 July 2023 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies in the Register are identified through searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effect of ACEi or ARB in people with early (stage 1 to 3) CKD who did not have DM were selected for inclusion. Only studies of at least four weeks duration were selected. Authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts and, where necessary, the full text to determine which satisfied the inclusion criteria.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data extraction was carried out by two authors independently, using a standard data extraction form. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Data entry was carried out by one author and cross-checked by another. When more than one study reported similar outcomes, data were pooled using the random-effects model. Heterogeneity was analysed using a Chi² test and the I² test. Results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach MAIN RESULTS: Six studies randomising 9379 participants with CKD stages 1 to 3 (without DM) met our inclusion criteria. Participants were adults with hypertension; 79% were male from China, Europe, Japan, and the USA. Treatment periods ranged from 12 weeks to three years. Overall, studies were judged to be at unclear or high risk of bias across all domains, and the quality of the evidence was poor, with GRADE rated as low or very low certainty. In low certainty evidence, ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo may make little or no difference to death (any cause) (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.26 to 15.37; I² = 76%), total cardiovascular events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.05; I² = 0%), cardiovascular-related death (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 11.66; I² = 54%), stroke (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.03; I² = 0%), myocardial infarction (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20; I² = 0%), and adverse events (2 studies, 8873 participants): RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.41; I² = 0%). It is uncertain whether ACEi (benazepril 10 mg or trandolapril 2 mg) compared to placebo reduces congestive heart failure (1 study, 8290 participants): RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.95) or transient ischaemic attack (1 study, 583 participants): RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.01; I² = 0%) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ARB (losartan 50 mg) compared to placebo (1 study, 226 participants) reduces: death (any-cause) (no events), adverse events (RR 19.34, 95% CI 1.14 to 328.30), eGFR rate of decline (MD 5.00 mL/min/1.73 m, 95% CI 3.03 to 6.97), presence of proteinuria (MD -0.65 g/24 hours, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.52), systolic blood pressure (MD -0.80 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.89 to 2.29), or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.10 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.29 to 1.09) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. It is uncertain whether ACEi (enalapril 20 mg, perindopril 2 mg or trandolapril 1 mg) compared to ARB (olmesartan 20 mg, losartan 25 mg or candesartan 4 mg) (1 study, 26 participants) reduces: proteinuria (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.20), systolic blood pressure (MD -3.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -6.08 to 0.08) or diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.00 mm Hg, 95% CI -3.31 to 1.31) because the certainty of the evidence is very low.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of ACEi or ARB in patients with stage 1 to 3 CKD who do not have DM. The available evidence is overall of very low certainty and high risk of bias. We have identified an area of large uncertainty for a group of patients who account for most of those diagnosed as having CKD.
Topics: Male; Adult; Humans; Female; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Losartan; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic; Diabetes Mellitus; Proteinuria; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists
PubMed: 37466151
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007751.pub3 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Hypertension... Aug 2023Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Studies have shown that angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are superior in primary and secondary prevention for cardiac mortality and morbidity to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARBs). One of the common side effects from ACEI is dry cough. The aims of this systematic review, and network meta-analysis are to rank the risk of cough induced by different ACEIs and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or calcium channel blockers (CCB). We performed a systematic review, and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to rank the risk of cough induced by each ACEI and between ACEI and placebo, ARB or CCB. A total of 135 RCTs with 45,420 patients treated with eleven ACEIs were included in the analyses. The pooled estimated relative risk (RR) between ACEI and placebo was 2.21 (95% CI: 2.05-2.39). ACEI had more incidences of cough than ARB (RR 3.2; 95% CI: 2.91, 3.51), and pooled estimated of RR between ACEI and CCB was 5.30 (95% CI: 4.32-6.50) Moexipril ranked as number one for inducing cough (SUCRA 80.4%) and spirapril ranked the least (SUCRA 12.3%). The order for the rest of the ACEIs are as follows: ramipril (SUCRA 76.4%), fosinopril (SUCRA 72.5%), lisinopril (SUCRA 64.7%), benazepril (SUCRA 58.6%), quinapril (SUCRA 56.5%), perindopril (SUCRA 54.1%), enalapril (SUCRA 49.7%), trandolapril (SUCRA 44.6%) and, captopril (SUCRA 13.7%). All ACEI has the similar risk of developing a cough. ACEI should be avoided in patients who have risk of developing cough, and an ARB or CCB is an alternative based on the patient's comorbidity.
Topics: Humans; Antihypertensive Agents; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Network Meta-Analysis; Cough; Hypertension; Calcium Channel Blockers
PubMed: 37417783
DOI: 10.1111/jch.14695 -
High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular... Nov 2022Hypertension represent the commonest cause of death in 2017. Hypertension is classified into two types which are primary or essential hypertension and secondary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Hypertension represent the commonest cause of death in 2017. Hypertension is classified into two types which are primary or essential hypertension and secondary hypertension. The perindopril-amlodipine combination showed a significant effect in reduction of the elevated BP and the cardiovascular complications.
AIM
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose single-pill combination of perindopril-amlodipine in hypertensive patients.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Medline, SCOPUS, and Web of Science for relevant clinical trials. Quality appraisal was evaluated according to GRADE and we assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We included the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean blood pressure, heart rate, cough, dizziness, headache, and peripheral edema. We performed the analysis of homogeneous data under the fixed-effects model, while analysis of heterogeneous data was analyzed under the random-effects model. We conducted a meta-regression according to the dose.
RESULTS
We included ten clinical trials. The pooled analysis showed that there was a significant reduction of the systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse plessure, mean blood pressure, and heart rate after the the perindopril-amlodipine combination (MD = 18.96 [14.32, 23.60], P < 0.0001), (MD = 11.90 [8.45, 15.35], P < 0.0001), (MD = 8.44 [6.91, 9.97], P = 0.0001), (MD = 13.07 [5.86, 20.29], P = 0.0004), and (MD = 2.93 [0.89, 4.96], P = 0.005), respectively. The results of the meta-regression revealed that the efficacy is increased by increasing the dose (P < 0.001) CONCLUSION: The use of the perindopril-amlodipine combination had a significant effect on the reduction of SBP, DBP, mean blood pressure, pulse pressure, and HR.
Topics: Humans; Perindopril; Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Drug Combinations; Hypertension; Blood Pressure; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36287359
DOI: 10.1007/s40292-022-00544-3 -
Mayo Clinic Proceedings Oct 2022To synthesize more conclusive evidence on the anti-inflammatory effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To synthesize more conclusive evidence on the anti-inflammatory effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs).
METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception until March 1, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of ACEIs or ARBs, compared with placebo, on any of the following markers: C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin 6 (IL-6), or tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α). Mean changes in the levels of these markers were pooled as a weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% CI.
RESULTS
Thirty-two RCTs (n=3489 patients) were included in the final analysis. Overall pooled analysis suggested that ACEIs significantly reduced plasma levels of CRP (WMD, -0.54 [95% CI, -0.88 to -0.21]; P=.002; I=96%), IL-6 (WMD, -0.84 [95% CI, -1.03 to -0.64]; P<.001; I=0%), and TNF-α (WMD, -12.75 [95% CI, -17.20 to -8.29]; P<.001; I=99%). Moreover, ARBs showed a significant reduction only in IL-6 (WMD, -1.34 [95% CI, -2.65 to -0.04]; P=.04; I=85%) and did not significantly affect CRP (P=.15) or TNF-α (P=.97) levels. The lowering effect of ACEIs on CRP levels remained significant with enalapril (P=.006) and perindopril (P=.01) as well as with a treatment duration of less than 24 weeks (WMD, -0.67 [95% CI, -1.07 to -0.27]; P=.001; I=94%) and in patients with coronary artery disease (WMD, -0.75 [95% CI, -1.17 to -0.33]; P<.001; I=96%).
CONCLUSION
Based on this meta-analysis, ACEIs showed a beneficial lowering effect on CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α, whereas ARBs were effective as a class in reduction of IL-6 only.
Topics: Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antihypertensive Agents; Biomarkers; C-Reactive Protein; Enalapril; Humans; Interleukin-6; Perindopril; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Renin-Angiotensin System; Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha
PubMed: 36202494
DOI: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2022.06.036 -
High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular... May 2022Systemic arterial hypertension is the most common preventable risk factor for all causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with a prevalence of 35-40% of the adults.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Systemic arterial hypertension is the most common preventable risk factor for all causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide with a prevalence of 35-40% of the adults. Despite the wide variety of effective antihypertensive medications, most hypertensive patients remain uncontrolled. However, the combination of ACE inhibitor, diuretics, and calcium antagonist for the triple therapy in a single Pill Combination (SPC) is an efficient regimen in hypertension management. It is recommended by the ESH 2018 guideline, which offers better efficacy and compliance to treatment.
AIM
To evaluate the efficacy of perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill combination in patients with uncontrolled hypertension.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL for relevant clinical trials. We conducted the risk of bias assessment using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We performed the analysis of continuous data using mean difference (MD) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI), while dichotomous data were analyzed using risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% CI. We included the analysis of the following outcomes: systolic blood pressure (SBP), Diastolic blood pressure (DBP), Heart rate (HR), 24 h Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) for SBP, and 24 h ABPM for DBP.
RESULTS
We included six clinical trials. We found that the triple therapy significantly reduces SBP by 24 mmHg (MD = - 24.65 [22.41, 26.89], (P < 0.01)), DBP by 12 mmHg (MD = 12.41 [11.53, 13.29], (P < 0.01)), 24-h ABPM for SBP by 14 mmHg (MD = 14.08 [9.10, 19.05], (P < 0.01)), and ABPM 24 h DBP by 7 mmHg (MD = 7.01 [5.37, 8.65], (P < 0.01)). We noted no significant difference of the single pill on heart rate (MD = 0.81 [- 0.04, 1.67], (P = 0.06).
CONCLUSION
perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine is effective in reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 24 and 12 mmHg respectively. Over 24 h, the combination reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressures by 14 and 7 mmHg respectively.
Topics: Adult; Amlodipine; Antihypertensive Agents; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Drug Combinations; Humans; Hypertension; Indapamide; Perindopril
PubMed: 35325410
DOI: 10.1007/s40292-022-00511-y -
Pharmacological Research Jan 2020Although previous clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the effect of a variety of cardioprotective agents on cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Although previous clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested the effect of a variety of cardioprotective agents on cancer therapy-induced cardiotoxicity, the number of included patients was limited, and the results remained controversial. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the preventive or therapeutic effects of cardioprotective agents on heart failure (HF) caused by cardiotoxicity induced by cancer therapy.
METHODS
We included trials of the following cardioprotective drugs: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, beta-blockers, aldosterone antagonists and stains. We extracted the relevant information with predefined data extraction forms, and assessed the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was the left ventricular ejection fraction of patients after chemotherapy. We used the random-effects model to carry out pair-wise meta-analysis, and then carry out the random-effects network meta-analysis within the Bayesian framework.
RESULTS
Twenty-two relevant RCTs, including 1 916 patients (79.6 % women) with a mean age of 48.4 years, were included. Based on the evaluation of all drug species from 20 studies (26 comparisons), the analysis found that 4 therapies, aldosterone antagonists (MD, 12.78 [95 % CI, 2.87-22.69] and MD, 13.75 [95 % CI, 2.21-25.30]), ACEIs (MD, 6.79 [95 % CI, 2.11-11.48] and MD, 7.76 [95 % CI, 2.64-12.88]), statin (MD, 8.35 [95 % CI, 1.11-15.59]), and beta-blockers (MD, 4.00 [95 % CI, 0.87-7.14]), had a higher efficacy than placebo and/or control, suggesting an LVEF protective effect of cardioprotective therapy. In the analysis classified by single drug or drug combination, based on 22 studies (31 comparisons), spironolactone (MD, 12.77 [95 % CI, 1.76-23.79] and MD, 14.62 [95 % CI, 1.70-27.55]), a combination of candesartan and carvedilol (MD, 12.40 [95 % CI, 0.99-23.81]), enalapril (MD, 7.35 [95 % CI, 1.16-13.54] and MD, 9.20 [95 % CI, 2.61-15.79]), and statin (MD, 8.36 [95 % CI, 0.36-16.36]) showed significant benefits in protecting left ventricular (LV) systolic function compared with the placebo and/or control.
CONCLUSION
When classified according to drug type, aldosterone antagonists, ACEIs, statins, and beta-blockers could substantially improve the LV systolic function. In the analysis classified by single drug or drug combination, spironolactone, enalapril, and statin have a significant cardioprotective effect. However, ARBs have no cardioprotective effect and fail to improve the LVEF.
Topics: Antineoplastic Agents; Cardiotonic Agents; Heart; Heart Failure; Humans; Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31790821
DOI: 10.1016/j.phrs.2019.104577 -
Current Pain and Headache Reports Sep 2019Systematic review of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in the prophylactic treatment of adults with...
PURPOSE OF REVIEW
Systematic review of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in the prophylactic treatment of adults with migraine. To identify gaps in research and provide guidance for future clinical trials.
RECENT FINDINGS
A search was completed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library January 1, 1990 through December 31, 2017. The following are keywords used in the search: migraine, migraine prophylaxis/prevention, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, RAAS, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: quinapril, perindopril, ramipril, captopril, enalapril, lisinopril, benazepril, fosinopril. Angiotensin receptor blockers, ARB, angiotensin II receptor antagonists: candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, olmesartan, valsartan, losartan, azilsartan medoxomil, telmisartan, and eprosartan. The search included randomized controlled trials (RCT), systemic reviews and open-label studies of ACE inhibitors and ARB for the prevention of migraine attacks in adults 18-70 years old. Of 2461 retrieved articles, 18 included RCT, meta-analysis, systemic reviews, or guidelines published on ACE inhibitors or ARB in the prevention of migraine. Three RCT with telmisartan 80 mg, candesartan 16 mg, and enalapril 10 mg, and two open-label trials with lisinopril 5 mg and ramipril 5 mg found a high number of responders with greater than 50 % reduction in migraine attack frequency when compared to a 4-week baseline period. Candesartan was superior to placebo while telmisartan and enalapril were not. Lipophilic ACE inhibitors and ARBs can be effective prophylactic agents for reduction of migraine frequency in adults. Based on the limited number of published trials and small sample size, they are not recommended as first-line prophylactic agents. However, in populations with co-morbidities such as hypertension, they may be useful as first- or second-line prophylactics. Additional trials following the International Headache Society's guidelines on RCT are warranted.
Topics: Adult; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Female; Humans; Male; Migraine Disorders
PubMed: 31515634
DOI: 10.1007/s11916-019-0823-8