Dataset Information

LCZ696, a promising novel agent in treating hypertension (a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials).

ABSTRACT: To determine the effectiveness and safety of LCZ696 for the clinical treatment of hypertension, we performed a meta-analysis of the previous clinical trials.Relevant English articles and randomized controlled trials were searched in Pubmed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane base and ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search date was July 20th, 2017.Compared with 20mg olmesartan, 200mg and 400mg LCZ696 outperformed olmesartan in terms of reducing mean sitting systolic blood pressure, mean ambulatory systolic blood pressure, mean sitting diastolic blood pressure and mean ambulatory diastolic blood pressure. Compared with 20mg olmesartan, 200mg and 400mg LCZ696 was better than olmesartan in terms of reducing mean sitting pulse pressure. And these studies showed that 400mg LCZ696 was better than 20mg olmesartan in terms of reducing mean ambulatory pulse pressure, however, there was no significant difference between 200mg LCZ696 and 20mg olmesartan in terms of redducing mean ambulatory pulse pressure. In addition, 200mg and 400mg LCZ696 was better than placebo in terms of reducing blood pressure parameters mentioned above. Compared with placebo or 20 mg olmesartan, LCZ696 showed no superiority in terms of reducing adverse events or serious adverse events.LCZ696 at 200 mg or 400 mg was better at reducing most of blood pressure parameters than 20 mg olmesartan or placebo. Compared with placebo or 20 mg olmesartan, 200 mg or 400 mg LCZ696 do not result in more adverse events in treating hypertension.

SUBMITTER: Ye L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5746120 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

LCZ696, a promising novel agent in treating hypertension (a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials).

Ye Liwen L Wang Jian J Chen Qingwei Q Yang Xixi X

Oncotarget 20171114 64

<h4>Background</h4>To determine the effectiveness and safety of LCZ696 for the clinical treatment of hypertension, we performed a meta-analysis of the previous clinical trials.<h4>Methods</h4>Relevant English articles and randomized controlled trials were searched in Pubmed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane base and ClinicalTrials.gov. The last search date was July 20th, 2017.<h4>Results</h4>Compared with 20mg olmesartan, 200mg and 400mg LCZ696 outperformed olmesartan in terms of reducing mean sitting sy ...[more]

PMID: 29296218

Similar Datasets

Project description:AIMS:Several antihypertensive drugs are used in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. The present study is a network meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of these drugs. METHODS:Electronic databases were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing drugs used in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. The number of women achieving the target blood pressure (BP) was the primary outcome. Doses required and time taken for achieving the target BP, failure rate, and incidences of maternal tachycardia, palpitation, hypotension, headache, and neonatal death and stillbirth were the secondary outcomes. Mixed treatment comparison pooled estimates were generated using a random-effects model. Odds ratios for the categorical and mean difference for the numerical outcomes were the effect estimates. RESULTS:Fifty-one studies were included in the systematic review and 46 in the meta-analysis. No significant differences in the number of patients achieving target BP was observed between any of the drugs. Diazoxide [-15 (-20.6, -9.4)], nicardipine [-11.8 (-22.3, -1.2)], nifedipine/celastrol [-19.3 (-27.4, -11.1)], nifedipine/vitamin D [-17.1 (-25.7, -9.7)], nifedipine/resveratrol [-13.9 (-22.6, -5.2)] and glyceryl trinitrate [-33.8 (-36.7, -31)] were observed to achieve the target BP (in minutes) more rapidly than hydralazine. Nifedipine required fewer doses than hydralazine for achieving the target BP. Glyceryl trinitrate and labetalol were associated with fewer incidences of tachycardia and palpitation respectively than hydralazine. Trial sequential analysis concluded adequate evidence for hydralazine and nifedipine compared with labetalol. Moderate quality of evidence was observed for direct comparison estimate between labetalol and hydralazine but was either low or very low for other comparisons. CONCLUSION:The present evidence suggests similar efficacy between nifedipine, hydralazine and labetalol in the treatment of severe hypertension in pregnancy. Subtle differences may exist in their safety profile. The evidence is inadequate for other drugs.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The studies on the effectiveness of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) in treating liver fibrosis (LF) were not consistent. This study aims to systematically review the effectiveness of CHM on treating LF patients. METHODS: Databases including MEDLINE, AMED, EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, TCMOnline, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Chinese Medical Current Contents were searched up to March 2011. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving LF patients receiving CHM, Western medicine, combined CHM and Western medicine compared with placebo, Western medicine or no intervention were included. LF markers including serum hyaluronic acid (HA), laminin (LN), procollagen type III (PC-III), type IV collagen (IV-C), matrix metalloproteinase (MMP), and tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinase (TIMP) were measured as primary outcomes. Liver biochemistry, including alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartarte aminotransferase (AST), and improvement of related clinical symptoms were measured as secondary outcomes. Risk of bias of allocation sequence, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other biases were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs with 2123 participants were analyzed in subgroups of types of comparison and study quality. Fifteen studies were graded as good quality. CHM alone and combined with Western medicine showed significant improvements in HA, LN, PC-III and IV-C compared with Western medicine alone. However, there were no significant differences observed between CHM and placebo treatments. CONCLUSION: The current inconclusive results in determining the effectiveness of CHM treatment on LF, due to the poor methodological quality and high heterogeneity of the studies, suggests that large RCTs using standardized Chinese medicine syndrome diagnosis and CHM formulae with longer follow-up are required for further evaluation.

Project description:Background and purposeThe findings of clinical studies exploring essential oils (EOs) for anxiety remain disputed, and no studies have yet clarified the differences in the efficacy of EOs. The purpose of the study was to directly or indirectly compare the efficacy of different types of EOs on anxiety by pooling the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).MethodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched from inception to November 2022. Only full texts of RCTs that investigated the effects of EOs on anxiety were included. The trial data were extracted and the risk of bias was assessed by two reviewers independently. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were performed by Stata 15.1 or R 4.1.2 software.ResultsForty-four RCTs (fifty study arms) involving 10 kinds of EOs and 3419 anxiety patients (1815 patients in EOs group and 1604 patients in control group) were included. Pairwise meta-analyses showed that EOs were effective in reducing State Anxiety Inventory scores (SAIS) [WMD = -6.63, 95% CI-8.17, -5.08] and Trait Anxiety Inventory scores (TAIS) [WMD = -4.97, 95% CI-6.73, -3.20]. Additionally, EOs could decrease systolic blood pressure (SBP) [WMD = -6.83, (95% CI -10.53, -3.12), P < 0.001] and heart rate (HR) [WMD = -3.43, (95% CI -5.51, -1.36), P < 0.001]. Network meta-analyses demonstrated that regarding the outcome of SAIS, Jasminum sambac (L.)Ait. (jasmine) was the most effective with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of-13.61 (95% CrI-24.79, -2.48). Followed by Citrus (citrus aurantium L.), which had a WMD of-9.62 (95% CrI-13.32, -5.93). Moderate effect sizes were observed for Rosa rugosa Thunb. (damask rose) (WMD = -6.78, 95% CrI-10.14, -3.49) and Lavandula angustifolia Mill. (lavender) (WMD = -5.41, 95% CrI-7.86, -2.98). Regarding the results of TAIS, citrus aurantium L. was the best ranked intervention with a WMD of-9.62 (95% CrI-15.62, -3.7). Moderate-to-large effect sizes were observed for Citrus limon (L.) Burm. F. (lemon) (WMD:-8.48; 95% CrI-16.67, -0.33) and lavender (WMD:-5.5; 95% CrI-8.7, -2.46).ConclusionAccording to the comprehensive analysis, EOs are effective in reducing both state anxiety and trait anxiety, and citrus aurantium L. essential oil seems to be the most recommended type of EO for treating anxiety because of its significant effects in reducing SAIS and TAIS.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022331319.

Dataset Information

LCZ696, a promising novel agent in treating hypertension (a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials).

Publications

LCZ696, a promising novel agent in treating hypertension (a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets