Dataset Information

Assessing the risk of angiotensin receptor blockers on major cardiovascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly used as a treatment for many cardiovascular diseases, but their safety has been called into question. The VALUE trial found an increased risk of myocardial infarction in participants receiving ARBs compared to other antihypertensive. The aim of the meta-analysis was to synthetize the available evidence of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and elucidate if ARBs increase the risk of cardiovascular events.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify RCTs that assessed the safety of ARBs. Titles and abstracts of all papers were independently screened by two authors. Data extraction and quality assessment were also performed independently. The relative risk (RR) of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were pooled using the IVhet model. Multiple sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the effect of ARBs by restricting the analysis to different participants' characteristics.

Results

Forty-five RCTs comprising of 170,794 participants were included in the analysis. The pooled estimates revealed that ARBs do not increase the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.00; 95%CI 0.97-1.04), myocardial infarction (RR 1.01; 95%CI 0.96-1.06), and stroke (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.83-1.01). The sensitivity analysis did not yield a particular group of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular events with ARBs. Risk of all-cause mortality and stroke decreased with ARB when the proportion of smokers in a population was ConclusionsARBs do not increase the risk of major cardiovascular events and are safe for use in patients.

SUBMITTER: Wanas Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7175553 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessing the risk of angiotensin receptor blockers on major cardiovascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Wanas Yara Y Bashir Rim R Islam Nazmul N Furuya-Kanamori Luis L

BMC cardiovascular disorders 20200421 1

<h4>Background</h4>Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are commonly used as a treatment for many cardiovascular diseases, but their safety has been called into question. The VALUE trial found an increased risk of myocardial infarction in participants receiving ARBs compared to other antihypertensive. The aim of the meta-analysis was to synthetize the available evidence of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and elucidate if ARBs increase the risk of cardiovascular events.<h4>Methods</h4>A compr ...[more]

PMID: 32316917

Similar Datasets

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: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: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.

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells (BM-MNCs) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) on myocardial function indices such as left ventricular ejection fraction has been widely studied. However, the effect of this intervention on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was not the principal purpose of most investigations and its role is unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible long-term clinical efficacy of BM-MNCs on MACE after AMI.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted through electronic databases for potentially eligible randomized trials investigating the impact of BM-MNC therapy following acute MI on clinical outcomes. Risk of bias of the eligible studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The effect of treatment was displayed by risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) using random-effects model.ResultsInitial database searching found 1540 records and 23 clinical trials with a total of 2286 participants eligible for meta-analysis. Injection of BM-MNCs was associated with lower risk of composite end points of hospitalization for congestive heart failure (CHF), re-infarction, and cardiac-related mortality (91/1191 vs. 111/812, RR = 0.643, 95% CI = 0.489 to 0.845, p = 0.002). This effect was derived from both reduction of CHF (47/1220 vs. 62/841, RR = 0.568, 95% CI = 0.382 to 0.844, p = 0.005) and re-infarction rate (23/1159 vs. 30/775, RR = 0.583, 95% CI = 0.343 to 0.991, p = 0.046), but not cardiac-related mortality (28/1290 vs. 31/871, RR = 0.722, 95% CI = 0.436 to 1.197, p = 0.207).ConclusionThis is the first meta-analysis focused on the cardiovascular outcomes of stem cell therapy after AMI and it revealed that transplantation of BM-MNCs may reduce composite endpoint of hospitalization for CHF, re-infarction, and cardiac related mortality driven mainly by reducing reinfarction and hospitalization for heart failure rates but not cardiovascular mortality.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Testosterone therapy is increasingly promoted. No randomized placebo-controlled trial has been implemented to assess the effect of testosterone therapy on cardiovascular events, although very high levels of androgens are thought to promote cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted of placebo-controlled randomized trials of testosterone therapy among men lasting 12+ weeks reporting cardiovascular-related events. We searched PubMed through the end of 2012 using "("testosterone" or "androgen") and trial and ("random*")" with the selection limited to studies of men in English, supplemented by a bibliographic search of the World Health Organization trial registry. Two reviewers independently searched, selected and assessed study quality with differences resolved by consensus. Two statisticians independently abstracted and analyzed data, using random or fixed effects models, as appropriate, with inverse variance weighting. RESULTS: Of 1,882 studies identified 27 trials were eligible including 2,994, mainly older, men who experienced 180 cardiovascular-related events. Testosterone therapy increased the risk of a cardiovascular-related event (odds ratio (OR) 1.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09 to 2.18). The effect of testosterone therapy varied with source of funding (P-value for interaction 0.03), but not with baseline testosterone level (P-value for interaction 0.70). In trials not funded by the pharmaceutical industry the risk of a cardiovascular-related event on testosterone therapy was greater (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.34 to 3.17) than in pharmaceutical industry funded trials (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.60). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of testosterone on cardiovascular-related events varied with source of funding. Nevertheless, overall and particularly in trials not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, exogenous testosterone increased the risk of cardiovascular-related events, with corresponding implications for the use of testosterone therapy.

Dataset Information

Assessing the risk of angiotensin receptor blockers on major cardiovascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

Assessing the risk of angiotensin receptor blockers on major cardiovascular events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets