Dataset Information

Angiotensin II receptor blockers improve peripheral endothelial function: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective(s)

Several studies have assessed the effect of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on peripheral endothelial dysfunction as measured by flow-mediated vasodilatation (FMD), a widely-used indicator for endothelial function. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the effect in comparison to placebo or no treatment and other antihypertensives.

Methods

MEDLINE, Cochrane library and EMBASE were searched to September 2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the effect of ARBs versus placebo or no treatment and other antihypertensives (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), calcium channel blockers (CCBs), ?-blockers, diuretics) by forearm FMD. Furthermore, we also use meta-regression to analyze the relationship between the endothelial function and the duration of ARBs treatments.

Results

In 11 trials including 590 patients, ARBs (n?=?315) significantly improved FMD (1.36%, 95% confidence internal [CI]:1.28 to 1.44) versus placebo or no treatment (n?=?275). In 16 trials that included 1028 patients, ARBs (n?=?486) had a significant effect (0.59%, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.94) on FMD when compared with other antihypertensives (n?=?542). In 8 trials, ARBs (n?=?174) had no significant effect (-0.14%, 95% CI: -0.32 to 0.03) compared with ACEI (n?=?173). Compared with others, the benefits of ARBs, respectively, were 1.67% (95% CI: 0.65 to 0.93) in 7 trials with CCBs, 0.79% (95% CI: 0.42 to 1.01) with ?-blockers in 3 trials and 0.9% (95% CI: 0.77 to 1.03) with diuretics in 3 trials. Importantly, we found ARBs were less effective in a long time span (95% CI: -1.990 to -0.622) than the first 6 months (95% CI: -0.484 to 0.360).

Conclusions

This study shows that ARBs improve peripheral endothelial function and are superior to CCBs, ?-blockers and diuretics. However, the effect couldn't be maintained for a long time. In addition, there was no significant difference between ARBs and ACEI.

SUBMITTER: Li S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3940822 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Angiotensin II receptor blockers improve peripheral endothelial function: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Li Shuang S Wu Yan Y Yu Ge G Xia Qing Q Xu Yawei Y

PloS one 20140303 3

<h4>Objective(s)</h4>Several studies have assessed the effect of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on peripheral endothelial dysfunction as measured by flow-mediated vasodilatation (FMD), a widely-used indicator for endothelial function. We conducted a meta-analysis to investigate the effect in comparison to placebo or no treatment and other antihypertensives.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, Cochrane library and EMBASE were searched to September 2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that as ...[more]

PMID: 24595033

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundThe role of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) reducing risk of cardiovascular events (CVEs) and preserving kidney function in patients with chronic kidney disease is well-documented. However, the efficacy and safety of these agents in dialysis patients is still a controversial issue.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and Wanfang for randomized trials. The relative risk (RR) reductions were calculated with a random-effects model. Major cardiovascular events, changes in GFR and drug-related adverse events were analyzed.ResultsEleven trials included 1856 participants who were receiving dialysis therapy. Compared with placebo or other active agents groups, ARB therapy reduced the risk of heart failure events by 33% (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.93) with similar decrement in blood pressure in dialysis patients. Indirect comparison suggested that fewer cardiovascular events happened during treatment with ARB (0.77, 0.63 to 0.94). The results indicated no significant differences between the two treatment regimens with regard to frequency of myocardial infarction (1.0, 0.45 to 2.22), stroke (1.16, 0.69 to 1.96), cardiovascular death (0.89, 0.64 to 1.26) and all-cause mortality (0.94, 0.75 to 1.17). Five studies reported the renoprotective effect and revealed that ACEI/ARB therapy significantly slowed the rate of decline in both residual renal function (MD 0.93 mL/min/1.73 m2, 0.38 to 1.47 mL/min/1.73 m2) and urine volume (MD 167 ml, 95% CI 21 ml to 357 ml). No difference in drug-related adverse events was observed in both treatment groups.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that ACE-Is/ARBs therapy decreases the loss of residual renal function, mainly for patients with peritoneal dialysis. Overall, ACE-Is and ARBs do not reduce cardiovascular events in dialysis patients, however, treatment with ARB seems to reduce cardiovascular events including heart failure. ACE-Is and ARBs do not induce an extra risk of side effects.

Project description:BackgroundAngiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and β blockers are widely used in the treatment of Marfan syndrome to try to reduce the rate of progressive aortic root enlargement characteristic of this condition, but their separate and joint effects are uncertain. We aimed to determine these effects in a collaborative individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials of these treatments.MethodsIn this meta-analysis, we identified relevant trials of patients with Marfan syndrome by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from database inception to Nov 2, 2021. Trials were eligible if they involved a randomised comparison of an ARB versus control or an ARB versus β blocker. We used individual patient data from patients with no prior aortic surgery to estimate the effects of: ARB versus control (placebo or open control); ARB versus β blocker; and indirectly, β blocker versus control. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of change of body surface area-adjusted aortic root dimension Z score, measured at the sinuses of Valsalva.FindingsWe identified ten potentially eligible trials including 1836 patients from our search, from which seven trials and 1442 patients were eligible for inclusion in our main analyses. Four trials involving 676 eligible participants compared ARB with control. During a median follow-up of 3 years, allocation to ARB approximately halved the annual rate of change in the aortic root Z score (mean annual increase 0·07 [SE 0·02] ARB vs 0·13 [SE 0·02] control; absolute difference -0·07 [95% CI -0·12 to -0·01]; p=0·012). Prespecified secondary subgroup analyses showed that the effects of ARB were particularly large in those with pathogenic variants in fibrillin-1, compared with those without such variants (heterogeneity p=0·0050), and there was no evidence to suggest that the effect of ARB varied with β-blocker use (heterogeneity p=0·54). Three trials involving 766 eligible participants compared ARBs with β blockers. During a median follow-up of 3 years, the annual change in the aortic root Z score was similar in the two groups (annual increase -0·08 [SE 0·03] in ARB groups vs -0·11 [SE 0·02] in β-blocker groups; absolute difference 0·03 [95% CI -0·05 to 0·10]; p=0·48). Thus, indirectly, the difference in the annual change in the aortic root Z score between β blockers and control was -0·09 (95% CI -0·18 to 0·00; p=0·042).InterpretationIn people with Marfan syndrome and no previous aortic surgery, ARBs reduced the rate of increase of the aortic root Z score by about one half, including among those taking a β blocker. The effects of β blockers were similar to those of ARBs. Assuming additivity, combination therapy with both ARBs and β blockers from the time of diagnosis would provide even greater reductions in the rate of aortic enlargement than either treatment alone, which, if maintained over a number of years, would be expected to lead to a delay in the need for aortic surgery.FundingMarfan Foundation, the Oxford British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence, and the UK Medical Research Council.

Project description:Background and aimsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed the effects of renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers in adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This meta-analysis provides estimates of the safety and efficacy of treatment with (vs. without) RAS blockers from these trials.MethodsPubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched (1 March-12 April 2023). Event/patient numbers were extracted, comparing angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) treatment with no treatment, for the outcomes: intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, acute kidney injury (AKI), renal replacement therapy (RRT), acute myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and all-cause death. Fixed-effects meta-analysis estimates were pooled.ResultsSixteen RCTs including 3492 patients were analysed. Compared with discontinuation of RAS blockers, continuation was not associated with increased risk of ICU [risk ratio (RR) 0.96, 0.66-1.41], ventilation (RR 0.77, 0.55-1.09), vasopressors (RR 0.92, 0.58-1.44), AKI (RR 1.01, 0.40-2.56), RRT (RR 1.01, 0.46-2.21), or thromboembolic events (RR 1.07, 0.36-3.19). RAS blocker initiation was not associated with increased risk of ICU (RR 0.71, 0.47-1.08), ventilation (RR 1.12, 0.91-1.38), AKI (RR 1.28, 0.89-1.86), RRT (RR 1.66, 0.89-3.12), or thromboembolic events (RR 1.20, 0.06-23.70), although vasopressor use increased (RR 1.27, 1.02-1.57). The RR for all-cause death in the continuation/discontinuation trials was 1.24 (0.80-1.92), and 1.22 (0.96-1.55) in the initiation trials. In patients with severe/critical COVID-19, RAS blocker initiation increased the risk of all-cause death (RR 1.31, 1.01-1.72).ConclusionACE inhibitors and ARBs may be continued in non-severe COVID-19 infection, where indicated. Conversely, initiation of RAS blockers may be harmful in critically ill patients.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023408926.

Dataset Information

Angiotensin II receptor blockers improve peripheral endothelial function: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Objective(s)

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Angiotensin II receptor blockers improve peripheral endothelial function: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets