不是一线降压药,但仍然有效-咪唑啉受体激动剂的疗效和安全性:网络荟萃分析。

IF 2.9 4区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
András Érszegi, Réka Viola, Muh Akbar Bahar, Barbara Tóth, Imola Fejes, Anna Vágvölgyi, Dezső Csupor
{"title":"不是一线降压药,但仍然有效-咪唑啉受体激动剂的疗效和安全性:网络荟萃分析。","authors":"András Érszegi, Réka Viola, Muh Akbar Bahar, Barbara Tóth, Imola Fejes, Anna Vágvölgyi, Dezső Csupor","doi":"10.1002/prp2.1215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cardiovascular disorders are the leading cause of death in the world. Many organ diseases (kidney, heart, and brain) are substantially more prone to develop in people with hypertension. In the treatment of hypertension, first-line medications are recommended, while imidazoline receptor agonists are not first-line antihypertensives. Our goal was to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists. The meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines using the PICOS format, considering the CONSORT recommendations. Studies were collected from four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. A total of 5960 articles were found. After filtering, 27 studies remained eligible for network meta-analysis. Moxonidine reduced blood pressure in sitting position statistically significantly after 8 weeks of treatment (SBP MD: 23.80; 95% CI: 17.45-30.15; DBP MD: 10.90; 95% CI: 8.45-13.35) compared to placebo. Moreover, moxonidine reduced blood pressure more effectively than enalapril; however, this difference was not significant (SBP MD: 3.10; 95% CI: -2.60-8.80; DBP MD: 1.30; 95% CI: -1.25-3.85). Dry mouth was experienced as a side effect in the case of all imidazoline receptor agonists. After 8 weeks of treatment, the appearance of dry mouth was highest with clonidine (OR: 9.27 95% CI: 4.70-18.29) and lowest with rilmenidine (OR: 6.46 95% CI: 0.85-49.13) compared to placebo. Somnolence was less frequent with moxonidine compared to rilmenidine (OR: 0.63 95% CI: 0.17-2.31). Imidazoline receptor agonists were nearly as effective as the first-line drugs in the examined studies. However, their utility as antihypertensives is limited due to their side effects. As a result, they are not first-line antihypertensives and should not be used in monotherapy. However, in the case of resistant hypertension, they are a viable option. According to our findings, from the point of view of safety and efficacy, moxonidine appears to be the best choice among imidazoline receptor agonists.</p>","PeriodicalId":19948,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11133783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Not first-line antihypertensive agents, but still effective-The efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists: A network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"András Érszegi, Réka Viola, Muh Akbar Bahar, Barbara Tóth, Imola Fejes, Anna Vágvölgyi, Dezső Csupor\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/prp2.1215\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Cardiovascular disorders are the leading cause of death in the world. Many organ diseases (kidney, heart, and brain) are substantially more prone to develop in people with hypertension. In the treatment of hypertension, first-line medications are recommended, while imidazoline receptor agonists are not first-line antihypertensives. Our goal was to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists. The meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines using the PICOS format, considering the CONSORT recommendations. Studies were collected from four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. A total of 5960 articles were found. After filtering, 27 studies remained eligible for network meta-analysis. Moxonidine reduced blood pressure in sitting position statistically significantly after 8 weeks of treatment (SBP MD: 23.80; 95% CI: 17.45-30.15; DBP MD: 10.90; 95% CI: 8.45-13.35) compared to placebo. Moreover, moxonidine reduced blood pressure more effectively than enalapril; however, this difference was not significant (SBP MD: 3.10; 95% CI: -2.60-8.80; DBP MD: 1.30; 95% CI: -1.25-3.85). Dry mouth was experienced as a side effect in the case of all imidazoline receptor agonists. After 8 weeks of treatment, the appearance of dry mouth was highest with clonidine (OR: 9.27 95% CI: 4.70-18.29) and lowest with rilmenidine (OR: 6.46 95% CI: 0.85-49.13) compared to placebo. Somnolence was less frequent with moxonidine compared to rilmenidine (OR: 0.63 95% CI: 0.17-2.31). Imidazoline receptor agonists were nearly as effective as the first-line drugs in the examined studies. However, their utility as antihypertensives is limited due to their side effects. As a result, they are not first-line antihypertensives and should not be used in monotherapy. However, in the case of resistant hypertension, they are a viable option. According to our findings, from the point of view of safety and efficacy, moxonidine appears to be the best choice among imidazoline receptor agonists.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11133783/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.1215\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.1215","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

心血管疾病是世界上最主要的死亡原因。许多器官疾病(肾脏、心脏和大脑)在高血压患者身上更容易发生。在高血压的治疗中,推荐使用一线药物,而咪唑啉受体激动剂并非一线降压药。我们的目标是进行网络荟萃分析,评估咪唑啉受体激动剂的疗效和安全性。荟萃分析遵循 PRISMA 指南,采用 PICOS 格式,并考虑了 CONSORT 建议。研究收集自四个数据库:PubMed、Cochrane Library、Web of Science 和 Embase。共找到 5960 篇文章。经过筛选,仍有 27 项研究符合网络荟萃分析的条件。与安慰剂相比,莫索尼定在治疗 8 周后显著降低了坐位血压(SBP MD:23.80;95% CI:17.45-30.15;DBP MD:10.90;95% CI:8.45-13.35)。此外,莫索尼定比依那普利更有效地降低血压,但差异并不显著(SBP MD:3.10;95% CI:-2.60-8.80;DBP MD:1.30;95% CI:-1.25-3.85)。所有咪唑啉受体激动剂都有口干的副作用。治疗 8 周后,与安慰剂相比,氯硝柳胺的口干发生率最高(OR:9.27 95% CI:4.70-18.29),利美尼定的口干发生率最低(OR:6.46 95% CI:0.85-49.13)。与利美尼啶相比,莫索尼定的嗜睡发生率较低(OR:0.63 95% CI:0.17-2.31)。在所考察的研究中,咪唑啉受体激动剂与一线药物几乎同样有效。然而,由于其副作用,它们作为降压药的作用有限。因此,它们不是一线降压药,不应作为单一疗法使用。然而,在耐药性高血压的情况下,它们是一种可行的选择。根据我们的研究结果,从安全性和有效性的角度来看,莫索尼定似乎是咪唑啉受体激动剂中的最佳选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Not first-line antihypertensive agents, but still effective-The efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists: A network meta-analysis.

Cardiovascular disorders are the leading cause of death in the world. Many organ diseases (kidney, heart, and brain) are substantially more prone to develop in people with hypertension. In the treatment of hypertension, first-line medications are recommended, while imidazoline receptor agonists are not first-line antihypertensives. Our goal was to conduct a network meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of imidazoline receptor agonists. The meta-analysis was performed following the PRISMA guidelines using the PICOS format, considering the CONSORT recommendations. Studies were collected from four databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase. A total of 5960 articles were found. After filtering, 27 studies remained eligible for network meta-analysis. Moxonidine reduced blood pressure in sitting position statistically significantly after 8 weeks of treatment (SBP MD: 23.80; 95% CI: 17.45-30.15; DBP MD: 10.90; 95% CI: 8.45-13.35) compared to placebo. Moreover, moxonidine reduced blood pressure more effectively than enalapril; however, this difference was not significant (SBP MD: 3.10; 95% CI: -2.60-8.80; DBP MD: 1.30; 95% CI: -1.25-3.85). Dry mouth was experienced as a side effect in the case of all imidazoline receptor agonists. After 8 weeks of treatment, the appearance of dry mouth was highest with clonidine (OR: 9.27 95% CI: 4.70-18.29) and lowest with rilmenidine (OR: 6.46 95% CI: 0.85-49.13) compared to placebo. Somnolence was less frequent with moxonidine compared to rilmenidine (OR: 0.63 95% CI: 0.17-2.31). Imidazoline receptor agonists were nearly as effective as the first-line drugs in the examined studies. However, their utility as antihypertensives is limited due to their side effects. As a result, they are not first-line antihypertensives and should not be used in monotherapy. However, in the case of resistant hypertension, they are a viable option. According to our findings, from the point of view of safety and efficacy, moxonidine appears to be the best choice among imidazoline receptor agonists.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives
Pharmacology Research & Perspectives Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: PR&P is jointly published by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), the British Pharmacological Society (BPS), and Wiley. PR&P is a bi-monthly open access journal that publishes a range of article types, including: target validation (preclinical papers that show a hypothesis is incorrect or papers on drugs that have failed in early clinical development); drug discovery reviews (strategy, hypotheses, and data resulting in a successful therapeutic drug); frontiers in translational medicine (drug and target validation for an unmet therapeutic need); pharmacological hypotheses (reviews that are oriented to inform a novel hypothesis); and replication studies (work that refutes key findings [failed replication] and work that validates key findings). PR&P publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from the journals of ASPET and the BPS
×
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