Dataset Information

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of different antihypertensive drug classes for cardiovascular disease prevention: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Clinical practice guidelines differ in their recommendations on first-line antihypertensive drug classes. No adequately powered randomised controlled trial have assessed all major drug classes against each other, and previous meta-analyses have mainly relied on pairwise meta-analyses for treatment comparisons.

Methods and analysis

A systematic review and network meta-analysis will be carried out to assess the efficacy and acceptability of all major antihypertensive drug classes. PubMed and CENTRAL were searched on 21 February 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials with at least 1000 person-years of follow-up, assessing any antihypertensive agent against other agents or placebo. All trials fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be assessed for risk of bias using the second version of Cochrane's risk of bias assessment tool. The study selection process, risk of bias assessment and data extraction are done by two authors in duplicate. Relative risks from individual trials will be combined in pairwise meta-analyses; in the absence of important intransitivity, random-effects network meta-analysis will be performed. The primary outcome for efficacy will be major adverse cardiovascular events, whereas the primary acceptability outcome will be treatment discontinuation for any reason. Additional outcomes include all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure and acute renal failure. The impact of differences within drug classes will be explored through alternative networks, including analysing thiazide-like and thiazide-type diuretics separately.

Ethics and dissemination

This review will only process aggregated study level data and does not require ethical approval. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020205482.

SUBMITTER: Jussil H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8009235 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Major depression is a leading cause of disability and has been associated with adverse effects in older persons. While many pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions have been shown to be effective to address major depression in older persons, there has not been a meta-analysis that consolidates all the available interventions and compare the relative benefits of these available interventions. In this study, we aim to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and acceptability of all the known pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for major depression in older persons. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will search Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and references of other review articles for articles related to the keywords of 'randomised trial', 'major depression', 'older persons' and 'treatments'. Two reviewers will independently select the eligible articles. For each included article, the two reviewers will independently extract the data and assess the risk of bias using the Cochrane revised tool for risk of bias. Bayesian network meta-analyses will be conducted to pool the depression scores (based on standardised mean difference) and the all-cause discontinuation across all included studies. The ranking probabilities for all interventions will be estimated and the hierarchy of each intervention will be summarised as surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Meta-regression and sub-group analyses will also be performed to evaluate the effect of study-level covariates. The quality of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The results will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. They will provide the consolidated evidence to inform clinicians on the best choice of intervention to address major depression in older persons. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42017075756.

Project description:BackgroundWe conducted a systematic review of evidence from randomized controlled trials to answer the following research question: What are the relative effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease outcomes for healthy people at risk of cardiovascular disease?MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (up to February 2011) and CENTRAL (up to May 2009), and reference lists in recent systematic reviews. Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and those potentially fulfilling our inclusion criteria were then assessed in full text. Two reviewers made independent assessments at each step. We selected the following main outcomes: total mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. We also report on angina, heart failure and incidence of diabetes. We conducted a multiple treatments meta-analysis using random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE-instrument.ResultsWe included 25 trials. Overall, the results were mixed, with few significant differences, and with no drug-class standing out as superior across multiple outcomes. The only significant finding for total mortality based on moderate to high quality evidence was that beta-blockers (atenolol) were inferior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.02 to 1.28). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors came out inferior to calcium-channel blockers (CCB) regarding stroke-risk (RR 1.19; 1.03 to 1.38), but superior regarding risk of heart failure (RR 0.82; 0.69 to 0.94), both based on moderate quality evidence. Diuretics reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.82; 0.68 to 0.98), and lowered the risk of heart failure compared to CCB (RR 0.73; 0.62 to 0.84), beta-blockers (RR 0.73; 0.54 to 0.96), and alpha-blockers (RR 0.51; 0.40 to 0.64). The risk of diabetes increased with diuretics compared to ACE-inhibitors (RR 1.43; 1.12 to 1.83) and CCB (RR 1.27; 1.05 to 1.57).ConclusionBased on the available evidence, there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Beta-blockers (atenolol) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other, for any outcomes. Review registration: CRD database ("PROSPERO") CRD42011001066.

Project description:There is a lack of consensus regarding which type of antiplatelet agent should be used in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and little is known on the advantages and disadvantages of dual antiplatelet therapy. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing different antiplatelet drugs (Aspirin, Ticlopidine, Clopidogrel, Ticagrelor, Cilostazol, Picotamide and Vorapaxar as monotherapies or in combination with aspirin) in PAD patients (PROSPERO public database; CRD42014010299).We collated evidence from previous relevant meta-analyses and searched online databases. Primary efficacy endpoints were: (1) the composite rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; including vascular deaths, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke), and (2) the rate of major leg amputations. The primary safety endpoint was the rate of severe bleeding events. Bayesian models were employed for multiple treatment comparisons and risk-stratified hierarchies of comparative efficacy were produced to aid medical decision making. Number-Needed-to-Treat (NNT) and Number-Needed-to-Harm (NNH) are reported in case of significant results. We analyzed 49 RCTs comprising 34,518 patients with 88,358 person-years of follow-up with placebo as reference treatment. Aspirin, Cilostazol, Vorapaxar and Picotamide were ineffective in reducing MACE. A significant MACE reduction was noted with Ticagrelor plus aspirin (RR: 0.67; 95%CrI: 0.46-0.96, NNT = 66), Clopidogrel (RR: 0.72; 95%CrI: 0.58-0.91, NNT = 80), Ticlopidine (RR: 0.75; 95%CrI: 0.58-0.96, NNT = 87), and Clopidogrel plus aspirin (RR: 0.78; 95%CrI: 0.61-0.99, NNT = 98). Dual antiplatelet therapy with Clopidogrel plus aspirin significantly reduced major amputations following leg revascularization (RR: 0.68; 95%CrI: 0.46-0.99 compared to aspirin, NNT = 94). The risk of severe bleeding was significantly higher with Ticlopidine (RR: 5.03; 95%CrI: 1.23-39.6, NNH = 25), Vorapaxar (RR: 1.80; 95%CrI: 1.22-2.69, NNH = 130), and Clopidogrel plus aspirin (RR: 1.48; 95%CrI: 1.05-2.10, NNH = 215). Clopidogrel monotherapy showed the most favourable benefit-harm profile (79% cumulative rank probability best and 77% cumulative rank probability safest). In conclusion, Clopidogrel should be the indicated antiplatelet agent in PAD patients. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and Clopidogrel can reduce the rate of major leg amputations following revascularization, but carries a slightly higher risk of severe bleeding.

Project description:IntroductionDepressive disorder is common in children and adolescents, with important consequences and serious impairments in terms of personal and social functioning. While both pharmacological and psychological interventions have been shown to be effective, there is still uncertainty about the balance between these and what treatment strategy should be preferred in clinical practice. Therefore, we aim to compare and rank in a network meta-analysis (NMA) the commonly used psychological, pharmacological and combined interventions for depressive disorder in children and adolescents.Methods and analysisWe will update the literature search of two previous NMAs for the identification of trials of antidepressant and psychotherapy alone for depressive disorder in children and adolescents. For identification of trials of combination interventions, seven databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LiLACS) will be searched from date of inception. We will also search ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and check relevant reports on the US Food and Drug Administration website for unpublished data. Building on our previous findings in the field, we will include any commonly prescribed oral antidepressants and any manualised or structured psychotherapies, as well as their combinations. Randomised controlled trials assessing any active intervention against active comparator or pill placebo/psychological controls in acute treatment for depressive disorder in children and adolescents will be included. The primary outcomes will be efficacy (mean change in depressive symptoms), and acceptability of treatment (dropout rate due to any cause). The secondary outcomes will be remission rate, tolerability of treatment (dropouts for adverse events), as well as suicide-related outcomes (suicidal behaviour or ideation). We will perform Bayesian NMAs for all relative outcome measures. Subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings.DisseminationThis NMA will provide the most up to date and clinically useful information about the comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychological intervention and their combination in the acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder. This is the newest NMA and therefore these results are very important in terms of evidence-based medicine. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication.Protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD42015020841.

Project description:Background: With the growing importance of research about the association between neuroinflammation and major depressive disorder (MDD), anti-inflammatory agents have been used as a new antidepressant therapy in clinical practice. We conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) with up-to-date evidence to compare different anti-inflammatory agents for improving the treatment of MDD patients. Methods: To identify eligible randomized clinical trials, four databases (i.e, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed and Embase) were searched from inception date to May 31, 2020. Anti-inflammatory agents were defined as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids, cytokine inhibitors, statins, pioglitazone, minocycline, N-acetylcysteine (NAC) and omega-3 fatty acid (Omega-3 FA). The main outcomes of this NMA were efficacy, acceptability and remission rate. Risk ratio (RR) was adopted for dichotomous outcomes, and the confidence interval (CI) was set at 95%. STATA 14.0 and R 3.6.3 were used to conduct the NMA. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020182531). Results: A total of 39 studies, involving 2871 participants, were included in quantitative data synthesis. For efficacy, NSAIDs (RR=0.50, 95%CI: 0.26-0.73) and pioglitazone (RR=0.45, 95%CI: 0.20-0.84) were more favorable than placebo. With respect to acceptability, NSAIDs were more acceptable than placebo (RR=0.89, 95%CI: 0.77-0.99) and minocycline (RR=1.22, 95%CI: 1.03-1.49). For remission, NSAIDs were more superior than placebo (RR=0.48, 95%CI: 0.27-0.79) and Omega-3 FA (RR=2.01, 95%CI: 1.09-3.90), while NACs were more favorable than placebo (RR=0.39, 95%CI: 0.13-0.99). Based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value, corticosteroids (0.86) were the best anti-inflammatory agent for MDD patients in terms of efficacy, but the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents were not statistically significant. As for acceptability, NSAIDs (0.81) were much better than other anti-inflammatory agents. Besides, NAC (0.80) was the best anti-inflammatory agent in the terms of remission. Conclusions: In summary, we found that corticosteroids were more superior than other agents in terms of efficacy according to the SUCRA value. However, this result must be interpreted with caution because the head-to-head comparisons for the efficacy of glucocorticoids and other agents did not reach statistical significance. NSAIDs were recommended for acceptability and NAC for remission rate.