首页> 外文期刊>International Journal of Hypertension >Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Amlodipine in Asian Hypertensive Patients
【24h】

Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis: Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy with Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers and Amlodipine in Asian Hypertensive Patients

机译:网络元分析系统综述:血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂和亚洲高血压患者中联合治疗的比较疗效和安全性

获取原文
           

摘要

Background. Hypertension (HTN) is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular mortality globally. The WHO estimates a 60% increase in Asian HTN patients between 2000 and 2025. Numerous studies have compared safety and efficacy between antihypertensive classes, but in-class comparisons of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in combination therapy (CT) (fixed-dose combination or dual combination) with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) are lacking in Asia. Objective. To compare the efficacy and safety of the various ARB-amlodipine CTs and amlodipine (AML) monotherapy for treatment of HTN in Asian population. Methods. A systematic literature review sourced Asian randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed and Cochrane Libraries to inform a network meta-analysis (NMA). We considered the ARB-AML CT. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were short-term (8–12 weeks) treatment response and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), respectively. AML monotherapy was used as a comparator to allow for indirect treatment effect estimation in the absence of direct RCTs evidence comparing the different ARB-AML CTs. Results. The analysis included 1198 Asian HTN patients from seven studies involving six ARB-AML CTs: azilsartan (AZL), candesartan (CAN), fimasartan (FIM), losartan (LOS), olmesartan (OLM), and telmisartan (TEL). Compared to AML monotherapy, CT of AZL-AML had five times greater odds of prompting a treatment response (OR 5.2, 95% CI: 2.5, 11.2), while CAN-AML had 3.9 (95% CI: 2.5, 6.4), FIM-AML had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4, 8.5), TEL-AML had 3.3 (95% CI: 1.6, 7.1), OLM-AML had 2.7 (95% CI: 1.6, 5.0), and LOS-AML had 2.0 (95% CI: 0.6, 7.3). All ARB-AML CTs had safety profiles comparable to AML monotherapy except TEL-AML, which had significantly lower odds of TEAEs (0.26 (95% CI: 0.087, 0.70)). Conclusion. This study suggests that all ARB-AML CTs compared favorably to AML monotherapy regarding short-term treatment response in uncomplicated HTN patients of Asian origin. AZL-AML prompted the most favorable treatment response. Safety profiles among the ARB-AML CTs were largely comparable. Due to the limited study size and small number of trials (direct evidence), our findings should best be interpreted as an exploratory effort importance to inform future research direction.
机译:背景。高血压(HTN)是全球心血管死亡率的主要风险因素。估计2000年至2025年期间亚洲HTN患者的60%增加了60%。众多研究已经比较了抗高血压类别之间的安全性和功效,但在联合治疗(CT)中血管紧张素II受体阻滞剂(ARB)的课堂比较(固定剂量亚洲缺乏钙通道阻滞剂(CCB)的组合或双组合。客观的。比较各种Arb-amlodipine CTS和氨氯地平(AML)单疗法治疗亚洲人群HTN的疗效和安全性。方法。系统文献从Pubmed和Cochrane库中审查源性亚洲随机对照试验(RCT),以通知网络元分析(NMA)。我们考虑了ARB-AML CT。主要疗效和安全终点分别是短期(8-12周)治疗响应和治疗 - 紧急不良事件(茶叶)。 AML单疗法用作比较器,以允许在没有直接RCT证据的情况下进行间接治疗效果估计,从而比较不同的ARB-AML CTS。结果。分析包括来自七项研究的1198名亚洲HTN患者,涉及六个ARB-AML CTS:Azilsartan(AZL),Candesartan(Can),Fimasartan(FIM),洛萨坦(LOS),Olmesartan(OLM)和Telmisartan(电话)。与AML单疗法相比,AZL-AML的CT促使治疗响应的可能性较大了5倍(或5.2,95%CI:2.5,11.2),而CAN-AML具有3.9(95%CI:2.5,6.4),FIM -Aml具有3.4(95%CI:1.4,8.5),Tel-AML具有3.3(95%CI:1.6,7.1),OLM-AML具有2.7(95%CI:1.6,5.0),LOS-AML具有2.0 (95%CI:0.6,7.3)。所有ARB-AML CTS都有与AML单一疗法相当的安全性曲线,除了TEL-AML,茶的几率明显较低(0.26(95%CI:0.087,0.70))。结论。该研究表明,所有ARB-AML CTS对AML单一的亚洲血症患者在亚洲起源不复杂的HTN患者中的短期治疗反应进行了良好比较。 AZL-AML促使最有利的治疗响应。 ARB-AML CTS之间的安全概况在很大程度上是可比的。由于研究规模有限,少数试验(直接证据),我们的调查结果应最佳解释为通知未来研究方向的探索性努力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号