Comparative efficacy and safety of six angiotensin II receptor blockers in hypertensive patients: a network meta-analysis.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Zhiyong Zhang, Hongxin Yang, Hao Guo
{"title":"Comparative efficacy and safety of six angiotensin II receptor blockers in hypertensive patients: a network meta-analysis.","authors":"Zhiyong Zhang, Hongxin Yang, Hao Guo","doi":"10.1007/s11096-024-01755-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The antihypertensive effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are well recognized. However, conventional meta-analyses have reported inconsistent results on their efficacy and safety.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of six ARBs (losartan, valsartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, candesartan, and olmesartan) commonly used to treat hypertension, using a network meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We retrieved randomized controlled trials on hypertension treatment using ARBs from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. The efficacy outcomes included absolute changes in office systolic and diastolic blood pressure from baseline, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure. Safety outcomes were assessed by the total number of adverse events (AEs) during treatment. We conducted the network meta-analysis using the 'bugsnet' and 'gemtc' packages in R.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 193 studies were included. Olmesartan had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking in reducing office systolic (91.4%) and diastolic blood pressure (87.2%). Candesartan has the highest ranking in lowering 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (95.4%), while telmisartan reduced 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (83.4%). Olmesartan also ranked highest in safety (70.8%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Valsartan and losartan were less effective in lowering blood pressure than other drugs, with no significant differences. Olmesartan and telmisartan were associated with fewer AEs than losartan, although the incidence of adverse events was similar between the other blockers. Olmesartan and telmisartan demonstrated the best balance of antihypertensive efficacy and minimal adverse events. More research is needed to confirm whether telmisartan and olmesartan are optimal choices for controlling blood pressure in patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":13828,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-024-01755-5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The antihypertensive effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are well recognized. However, conventional meta-analyses have reported inconsistent results on their efficacy and safety.

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of six ARBs (losartan, valsartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, candesartan, and olmesartan) commonly used to treat hypertension, using a network meta-analysis.

Method: We retrieved randomized controlled trials on hypertension treatment using ARBs from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. The efficacy outcomes included absolute changes in office systolic and diastolic blood pressure from baseline, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure. Safety outcomes were assessed by the total number of adverse events (AEs) during treatment. We conducted the network meta-analysis using the 'bugsnet' and 'gemtc' packages in R.

Results: A total of 193 studies were included. Olmesartan had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking in reducing office systolic (91.4%) and diastolic blood pressure (87.2%). Candesartan has the highest ranking in lowering 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (95.4%), while telmisartan reduced 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (83.4%). Olmesartan also ranked highest in safety (70.8%).

Conclusion: Valsartan and losartan were less effective in lowering blood pressure than other drugs, with no significant differences. Olmesartan and telmisartan were associated with fewer AEs than losartan, although the incidence of adverse events was similar between the other blockers. Olmesartan and telmisartan demonstrated the best balance of antihypertensive efficacy and minimal adverse events. More research is needed to confirm whether telmisartan and olmesartan are optimal choices for controlling blood pressure in patients.

Abstract Image

六种血管紧张素 II 受体阻滞剂对高血压患者的疗效和安全性比较:网络荟萃分析。
背景:血管紧张素 II 受体阻滞剂(ARBs)的降压作用已得到广泛认可。目的:本研究旨在通过网络荟萃分析评估六种常用于治疗高血压的 ARBs(洛沙坦、缬沙坦、厄贝沙坦、替米沙坦、坎地沙坦和奥美沙坦)的疗效和安全性:我们从 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、CNKI 和万方数据库中检索了使用 ARB 治疗高血压的随机对照试验。疗效结果包括办公室收缩压和舒张压与基线相比的绝对变化,以及 24 小时非卧床血压。安全性结果通过治疗期间的不良事件(AEs)总数进行评估。我们使用 R 软件包 "bugsnet "和 "gemtc "进行了网络荟萃分析:结果:共纳入了 193 项研究。在降低诊室收缩压(91.4%)和舒张压(87.2%)方面,奥美沙坦的累积表面积排名最高。坎地沙坦在降低 24 小时非卧床收缩压(95.4%)方面排名最高,而替米沙坦可降低 24 小时非卧床舒张压(83.4%)。奥美沙坦在安全性方面也名列前茅(70.8%):结论:与其他药物相比,缬沙坦和洛沙坦的降压效果较差,差异不显著。与洛沙坦相比,奥美沙坦和替米沙坦的不良反应较少,但其他阻滞剂的不良反应发生率相似。奥美沙坦和替米沙坦在降压疗效和最小不良反应之间实现了最佳平衡。要确认替米沙坦和奥美沙坦是否是控制患者血压的最佳选择,还需要更多的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
131
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (IJCP) offers a platform for articles on research in Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Care and related practice-oriented subjects in the pharmaceutical sciences. IJCP is a bi-monthly, international, peer-reviewed journal that publishes original research data, new ideas and discussions on pharmacotherapy and outcome research, clinical pharmacy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, the clinical use of medicines, medical devices and laboratory tests, information on medicines and medical devices information, pharmacy services research, medication management, other clinical aspects of pharmacy. IJCP publishes original Research articles, Review articles , Short research reports, Commentaries, book reviews, and Letters to the Editor. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy is affiliated with the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP). ESCP promotes practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy, especially in Europe. The general aim of the society is to advance education, practice and research in Clinical Pharmacy . Until 2010 the journal was called Pharmacy World & Science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信