Dataset Information

Valsartan vs. other angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analytical approach.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the efficacy of valsartan in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction with other angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in essential hypertension.

Methods

Systematic literature search of databases between October 1997 and May 2008. Meta-analysis of short-term, double-blind, parallel group, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for treatment of adult hypertension (DBP: 90-115 mmHg). Random-effects meta-regression adjusting for baseline blood pressure (BP) was used to analyse the data. Mean change in SBP and DBP was estimated for each individual drug and dose combination.

Results

In all, 31 RCTs (n = 13,110 patients) were included in the analysis. Six studies include trial arms with candesartan, six irbesartan, 13 losartan, two olmesartan, five telmisartan and 12 valsartan. The weighted average reduction in mean SBP and DBP for valsartan 160 mg was -15.32 mmHg (95% CI: -17.09, -13.63) and -11.3 mmHg (95% CI: -12.15, -10.52) and for 320 mg was -15.85 mmHg (95% CI: -17.60, -14.12) and -11.97 mmHg (95% CI: -12.81, -11.16); these are statistically significantly greater reductions compared with losartan 100 mg, which was -12.01 mmHg (95% CI: -13.78, -10.25) and -9.37 mmHg (95% CI: -10.18, -8.54) for SBP and DBP respectively. There is evidence that valsartan 160 mg reduces SBP and DBP more than irbesartan 150 mg and reduced DBP more than candesartan 16 mg. No other statistically significant difference in efficacy is demonstrated.

Conclusion

Valsartan administered at 160 or 320 mg is more effective at lowering BP than losartan 100 mg and shows comparable efficacy to other ARBs in patients with essential hypertension.

SUBMITTER: Nixon RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2779985 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAnimal and human studies have suggested that the use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may be associated with a lower risk of incident epilepsy compared with other antihypertensive medications. However, observational data from the US are lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between ARB use and epilepsy incidence in subgroups of US patients with hypertension.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used data from a national health administrative database from January 2010 to December 2017 with propensity score (PS) matching. The eligible cohort included privately insured individuals aged 18 years or older with diagnosis of primary hypertension and dispensed at least 1 ARB, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), β-blocker, or calcium channel blocker (CCB) from 2010 to 2017. Patients with a diagnosis of epilepsy at or before the index date or dispensed an antiseizure medication 12 months before or 90 days after initiating the study medications were excluded. The data analysis for this project was conducted from April 2022 to April 2024.ExposuresPropensity scores were generated based on baseline covariates and used to match patients who received ARBs with those who received either ACEIs, β-blockers, CCBs, or a combination of these antihypertensive medications.Main outcomes and measuresCox regression analyses were used to evaluate epilepsy incidence during follow-up comparing the ARB cohort with other antihypertensive classes. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the association between ARB use and epilepsy incidence in various subgroups.ResultsOf 2 261 964 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.7 [13.9] years; 1 120 630 [49.5%] female) included, 309 978 received ARBs, 807 510 received ACEIs, 695 887 received β-blockers, and 448 589 received CCBs. Demographic and clinical characteristics differed across the 4 comparison groups prior to PS matching. Compared with ARB users, patients receiving ACEIs were predominantly male and had diabetes, CCB users were generally older (eg, >65 years), and β-blocker users had more comorbidities and concurrent medications. The 1:1 PS-matched subgroups included 619 858 patients for ARB vs ACEI, 619 828 patients for ARB vs β-blocker, and 601 002 patients for ARB vs CCB. Baseline characteristics were equally distributed between comparison groups after matching with propensity scores. Use of ARBs was associated with a decreased incidence of epilepsy compared with ACEIs (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.96), β-blockers (aHR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.90), and a combination of other antihypertensive classes (aHR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.56-0.95). Subgroup analyses revealed a significant association between ARB use (primarily losartan) and epilepsy incidence in patients with no preexisting history of stroke or cardiovascular disease.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that ARBs, mainly losartan, were associated with a lower incidence of epilepsy compared with other antihypertensive agents in hypertensive patients with no preexisting stroke or cardiovascular disease. Further studies, such as randomized clinical trials, are warranted to confirm the comparative antiepileptogenic properties of antihypertensive medications.

Project description:RationaleUse of ACEIs (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors) and ARBs (angiotensin II receptor blockers) is a major concern for clinicians treating coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with hypertension.ObjectiveTo determine the association between in-hospital use of ACEI/ARB and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension and hospitalized due to COVID-19.Methods and resultsThis retrospective, multi-center study included 1128 adult patients with hypertension diagnosed with COVID-19, including 188 taking ACEI/ARB (ACEI/ARB group; median age 64 [interquartile range, 55-68] years; 53.2% men) and 940 without using ACEI/ARB (non-ACEI/ARB group; median age 64 [interquartile range 57-69]; 53.5% men), who were admitted to 9 hospitals in Hubei Province, China from December 31, 2019 to February 20, 2020. In mixed-effect Cox model treating site as a random effect, after adjusting for age, gender, comorbidities, and in-hospital medications, the detected risk for all-cause mortality was lower in the ACEI/ARB group versus the non-ACEI/ARB group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.19-0.92]; P=0.03). In a propensity score-matched analysis followed by adjusting imbalanced variables in mixed-effect Cox model, the results consistently demonstrated lower risk of COVID-19 mortality in patients who received ACEI/ARB versus those who did not receive ACEI/ARB (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.15-0.89]; P=0.03). Further subgroup propensity score-matched analysis indicated that, compared with use of other antihypertensive drugs, ACEI/ARB was also associated with decreased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.12-0.70]; P=0.01) in patients with COVID-19 and coexisting hypertension.ConclusionsAmong hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and coexisting hypertension, inpatient use of ACEI/ARB was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with ACEI/ARB nonusers. While study interpretation needs to consider the potential for residual confounders, it is unlikely that in-hospital use of ACEI/ARB was associated with an increased mortality risk.

Project description:IntroductionThis meta-analysis aimed to summarize the available evidence to compare angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on improving insulin sensitivity in hypertensive patients.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ACE inhibitors versus ARBs published with outcomes on homeostasis model assessment of IR (HOMA-IR), glucose infusion rate (GIR), the quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI), insulin sensitivity index (ISI) composite, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), fasting plasma insulin (FPI), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were searched through 5 databases. Data were searched from their inception to July 5, 2020. Stata 14.0 was used to perform the meta-analysis.ResultsEleven RCTs (n = 1015) were included in this meta-analysis. Pooled analysis of studies showed no significant difference in HOMA-IR between ARBs and ACE inhibitors (WMD = -0.09, 95% CI: -0.69 to 0.50, P = 0.755); however, subgroup analysis of therapeutic duration showed a significant difference in HOMA-IR between ARBs and ACE inhibitors among the long-term intervention subgroup (>12 weeks) (WMD = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.76, P = 0.022) and hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus subgroup (WMD = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.61, P < 0.001); results showed no significant difference between ARBs and ACE inhibitors on QUICKI score (WMD = -0.00, 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.03, P = 0.953) in hypertensive patients; however, the efficacy of ACE inhibitors on improving GIR and ISI composite was significantly better than that of ARBs (WMD = -1.09, 95% CI: -1.34 to -0.85, P < 0.001; WMD = -0.80, 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.36, P < 0.001, respectively). Furthermore, no significant differences were noted on FPG (WMD = 0.72, 95% CI: -1.39 to 2.83, P = 0.505), FPI (WMD = -0.48, 95% CI: -1.60 to 0.64, P = 0.398), SBP (WMD = -0.65, 95% CI: -1.76 to 0.46, P = 0.254), and DBP (WMD = -0.30, 95% CI: -1.70 to 1.10, P = 0.675) between ARBs and ACE inhibitors.ConclusionResults from this meta-analysis showed that ACE inhibitors resulted in more effective improvement of HOMA-IR compared with ARBs among the long-term intervention and hypertensive patients with DM subgroup; furthermore, the efficacy of ACE inhibitors on improving GIR and ISI composite was significantly better than that of ARBs in hypertensive patients. However, ARBs had no significant difference in QUICKI score, FPG, FPI, SBP, and DBP compared with ACE inhibitors. Larger and better-designed studies are needed to further verify this conclusion.