Incidence of angioedema in randomised controlled trials of angiotensin receptor blockers: a meta-analysis

Background: In a meta-analysis, we investigated the effects of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in comparison to placebo or other classes of antihypertensive drugs on endothelial function, which was measured by brachial flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD). Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials that compared ARBs with placebo or other classes of antihypertensive drugs in improving FMD. A random-effect model was used to compute pooled estimates. Results: In 13 trials (n = 529), ARBs were more efficacious in improving brachial FMD than placebo [pooled weighted mean change difference (WMD) 1.34%, 95% CI, 0.93-1.75%, p < 0.001]. In 15 trials (n = 918), treatment with ARBs had a significant effect on brachial FMD when compared with other antihypertensive drugs (pooled WMD 0.59%, 95% CI, 0.20-0.98%, p = 0.003 with significant heterogeneity). ARBs were also more efficacious in improving brachial FMD than calcium channel blockers (CCBs; pooled WMD 1.61%, 95% CI, 0.72-2.49%, p < 0.001) but not the other classes of drugs (p ≥ 0.072). Conclusions: This meta-analysis shows that ARBs improve brachial FMD, a marker of endothelial function, and that they are superior to placebo and CCBs. There was no significant difference in the effect on brachial FMD between ARBs and the other antihypertensive drugs.

Download Full-text

Clinical Efficacy of Jinshuibao Capsules Combined with Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients with Early Diabetic Nephropathy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2018/6806943 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 2018 ◽

pp. 1-14 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Qiang Lu ◽

Cailan Li ◽

Weiwen Chen ◽

Zhongfeng Shi ◽

Ruoting Zhan ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Diabetic Nephropathy ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Angiotensin Receptor ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Specific Effects ◽

Receptor Blockers ◽

Early Diabetic Nephropathy

Background. Jinshuibao capsules (JSB) have been widely used to treat early diabetic nephropathy (DN), but the specific effects are still inconsistent. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy of JSB for early DN. Methods. Four international databases and four Chinese databases were searched from publication dates to March 1, 2018. The RCTs reporting the results of JSB’s specific effects were included, and comparisons were between JSB combined with Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) as experimental intervention and ARBs as the control. Included studies’ quality was evaluated and the extracted data were analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. Results. Twenty-six RCTs including 2198 early DN participants were adopted in the meta-analysis. The results showed that, compared with the ARBs alone, JSB could remarkably improve the ORR (OR = 3.84; 95% CI: 2.37~6.24; P<0.00001) and decrease 24 h UTP (MD = −93.32; 95% CI: −128.60 ~-58.04; P<0.00001), UAER (MD = −24.02; 95% CI: −30.93 ~-17.11; P<0.00001), BUN (MD = −0.26; 95%: −0.44 ~-0.08; P=0.005), Scr (MD = −9.07; 95% CI: −14.26 ~-3.88; P=0.0006), ACR (MD = −17.55; 95% CI: −22.81 ~-12.29; P<0.00001), Cys-C (MD = −0.60; 95% CI: −0.88 ~-0.32; P<0.00001), SBP (MD = −3.08; 95% CI: −4.65 ~-1.52; P=0.0001), DBP (MD = −2.09; 95% CI: −4.00 ~-0.19; P=0.03), and TG (MD = −0.36; 95% CI: −0.50 ~-0.21; P<0.00001). However, it showed no significant differences in TC (MD = −0.32; 95% CI: −0.69~0.04; P=0.08), FBG (MD = 0.04; 95% CI: −0.39~0.47; P=0.87), HbA1c (MD = −0.26; 95% CI: −0.59~0.06; P=0.11), and β2-MG (MD = −15.61; 95% CI: −32.95~1.73; P=0.08). Conclusions. This study indicates that JSB is an effective accessory therapeutic medicine for patients with early DN. It contributes to decreasing blood pressure and the content of triglyceride and improving the renal function of early DN patients. However, there is still a need to further verify the auxiliary therapeutic effect of JSB with more strictly designed RCTs with large sample and multiple centers in the future.

Download Full-text

Effects of adding Rheum officinale to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers on renal function in patients with chronic renal failure: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Clinical Nephrology ◽

10.5414/cn109193 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 89 (6) ◽

pp. 445-454 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Yue Yang ◽

Ye-ping Ma ◽

Zheng Zhang ◽

Pei-lin Dai ◽

Ping Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Enzyme Inhibitors ◽

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Converting Enzyme ◽

Angiotensin Receptor ◽

Converting Enzyme Inhibitors ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Receptor Blockers

Download Full-text

The Effects of LCZ696 in Patients With Hypertension Compared With Angiotensin Receptor Blockers

Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics ◽

10.1177/1074248417693379 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (5) ◽

pp. 447-457 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Yang Zhao ◽

Heng Yu ◽

Xu Zhao ◽

Ruixin Ma ◽

Ningyin Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Tolerability Profile ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Cochrane Central Register ◽

Angiotensin Receptor ◽

Serious Adverse Events ◽

Neprilysin Inhibitor ◽

Receptor Blockers

LCZ696, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, has been demonstrated to have greater advantages in the treatment of heart failure compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, enalapril, or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). However, studies that compared the efficacy and safety of LCZ696 against valsartan in patients with hypertension are limited. To provide further evidence for the benefits of LCZ696 and to make this assessment, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs. Twelve studies involving 3816 patients were eligible for inclusion. Seven studies compared LCZ696 with valsartan, and 5 studies compared LCZ696 with olmesartan. LCZ696 showed a significantly greater reduction in systolic blood pressure (BP; mean difference [MD] = −5.43 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −6.36 to −4.49 mm Hg; P < .001), diastolic BP (MD = −2.34 mm Hg; 95% CI: −2.67 to −2.01 mm Hg; P < .001), 24-hour ambulatory systolic BP (MD = −3.57 mm Hg, 95% CI: −4.29 to −2.85 mm Hg; P < .001), and 24-hour ambulatory diastolic BP (MD = −1.32 mm Hg, 95% CI: −1.77 to −0.78 mm Hg; P < .001) from the baseline than ARBs. LCZ696 was more effective in reducing BP (odds ratio [OR] = 5.34; 95% CI: 4.49-6.36; P < .01) and had a higher rate of BP control compared with ARBs (OR = 1.52; 95% CI: 1.37-1.69; P < .01). LCZ696 had no difference in the incidence of adverse events (OR = 1.05; 95% CI: 0.94-1.18; P = .38) or serious adverse events (OR = 0.80; 95% CI: 0.51-1.24; P = .31) compared to ARBs. This meta-analysis revealed that LCZ696 has a greater antihypertensive efficacy and an equal tolerability profile.

Download Full-text