-
Journal of Clinical Hypertension... May 2021Angiotensin-receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin-receptor blockers may be more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Is the newest angiotensin-receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil more efficacious in lowering blood pressure than the older ones? A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Angiotensin-receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin-receptor blockers may be more effective than the older ones. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of various angiotensin-receptor blockers in reducing office and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Relevant literature was searched from English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials involving angiotensin-receptor blockers in hypertension. Efficacy variables included systolic and diastolic blood pressure either in the office or on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Absolute blood pressure reductions at 6-12 weeks of treatment and their credible intervals were reported. A total of 34 publications provided adequate data for analysis (n = 14 859). In 28 studies on office systolic blood pressure (n = 12 731), against the common comparator valsartan 80 mg, the differences in systolic blood pressure were in favor of azilsartan medoxomil (20-80 mg), irbesartan (300 mg), olmesartan (20-40 mg), telmisartan (80 mg), and valsartan (160-320 mg), but not candesartan (8-16 mg), losartan (50-100 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), olmesartan (10 mg), and telmisartan (40 mg). The ranking plot shows that azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg had a possibility of 99% being the best in the class. Similar results were observed for office diastolic blood pressure and from 13 studies for 24-hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, angiotensin-receptor blockers had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest angiotensin-receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement.
Topics: Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensins; Antihypertensive Agents; Benzimidazoles; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Humans; Hypertension; Network Meta-Analysis; Olmesartan Medoxomil; Oxadiazoles; Tetrazoles
PubMed: 33609077
DOI: 10.1111/jch.14227 -
Circulation Reports Sep 2020Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used for the management of hypertension in Japan; however, comparative efficacy data within the ARB drug class remain...
Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are widely used for the management of hypertension in Japan; however, comparative efficacy data within the ARB drug class remain limited. This systematic literature review identified randomized controlled trials (RCT) indexed in PubMed and Ichushi in Japanese patients with hypertension receiving ARB monotherapy (azilsartan, candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, valsartan) in at least 1 arm. Of 763 RCTs identified, 77 met the eligibility criteria; of which, 37 reported mean change in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from baseline in the office setting and were used to construct the network. A fixed-effects model (FEM) showed the effect of each drug vs. the reference, azilsartan. Using the FEM, the mean (95% credible interval) change from baseline in SBP/DBP for candesartan cilexetil, irbesartan, losartan potassium, olmesartan medoxomil, telmisartan, and valsartan was 3.8 (2.9-4.8)/2.6 (2.0-3.1), 4.8 (2.0-7.5)/3.7 (1.8-5.6), 3.0 (0.8-5.1)/1.9 (0.5-3.3), 3.2 (1.2-5.1)/2.7 (1.3-4.1), 3.2 (0.8-5.6)/2.0 (0.3-3.6), and 3.1 (1.1-5.1)/2.4 (1.1-3.8) mmHg, respectively. The results of this meta-analysis provide evidence that azilsartan has a more favorable efficacy profile than the other ARBs in reducing SBP and DBP.
PubMed: 33693183
DOI: 10.1253/circrep.CR-20-0076