Drug-induced orthostatic hypotension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bhanu C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8577726 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background and purposeManagement of antihypertensive therapy is challenging in patients with symptomatic orthostatic hypotension, a population often excluded from randomised controlled trials of antihypertensive therapy. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we sought to determine whether the association of antihypertensive therapy and adverse events (e.g. falls, syncope), differed among trials that included or excluded patients with orthostatic hypotension.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing blood pressure lowering medications to placebo, or different blood pressure targets on falls or syncope outcomes and cardiovascular events. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate a pooled treatment-effect overall in subgroups of trials that excluded patients with orthostatic hypotension and trials that did not exclude patients with orthostatic hypotension, and tested P for interaction. The primary outcome was fall events.Results46 trials were included, of which 18 trials excluded orthostatic hypotension and 28 trials did not. The incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in trials that excluded participants with orthostatic hypotension (1.3% versus 6.2%, P < 0.001) but not incidences of falls (4.8% versus 8.8%; P = 0.40) or syncope (1.5% versus 1.8%; P = 0.67). Antihypertensive therapy was not associated with an increased risk of falls in trials that excluded (OR 1.00, 95% CI; 0.89-1.13) or included (OR 1.02, 95% CI; 0.88-1.18) participants with orthostatic hypotension (P for interaction = 0.90).ConclusionsThe exclusion of patients with orthostatic hypotension does not appear to affect the relative risk estimates for falls and syncope in antihypertensive trials.
| S-EPMC10883139 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of midodrine in orthostatic hypotension (OH).MethodsWe searched major databases and related conference proceedings through June 30, 2012. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the outcome measures across studies.ResultsSeven trials were included in the efficacy analysis (enrolling 325 patients, mean age 53 years) and two additional trials were included in the safety analysis. Compared to placebo, the mean change in systolic blood pressure was 4.9 mmHg (p = 0.65) and the mean change in mean arterial pressure from supine to standing was -1.7 mmHg (p = 0.45). The change in standing systolic blood pressure before and after giving midodrine was 21.5 mmHg (p < 0.001). A significant improvement was seen in patients' and investigators' global assessment symptoms scale (a mean difference of 0.70 [95 % CI 0.30-1.09; p < 0.001] and 0.80 [95 % CI 0.76-0.85; p < 0.001], respectively). There was a significant increase in risk of piloerection, scalp pruritis, urinary hesitancy/retention, supine hypertension and scalp paresthesia after giving midodrine. The quality of evidence was limited by imprecision, heterogeneity and increased risk of bias.ConclusionThere is insufficient and low quality evidence to support the use of midodrine for OH.
| S-EPMC3797331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is associated with increased risk of falls, cognitive impairment and death, as well as a reduced quality of life. Although it is presumed to be common in older people, estimates of its prevalence vary widely. This study aims to address this by pooling the results of epidemiological studies. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and ProQuest were searched. Studies were included if participants were more than 60 years, were set within the community or within long-term care and diagnosis was based on a postural drop in systolic blood pressure (BP) ?20 mmHg or diastolic BP ?10 mmHg. Data were extracted independently by two reviewers. Random and quality effects models were used for pooled analysis. RESULTS:Of 23,090 identified records, 20 studies were included for community-dwelling older people (n = 24,967) and six were included for older people in long-term settings (n = 2,694). There was substantial variation in methods used to identify OH with differing supine rest duration, frequency and timing of standing BP, measurement device, use of standing and tilt-tables and interpretation of the diagnostic drop in BP. The pooled prevalence of OH in community-dwelling older people was 22.2% (95% CI = 17, 28) and 23.9% (95% CI = 18.2, 30.1) in long-term settings. There was significant heterogeneity in both pooled results (I2 > 90%). CONCLUSIONS:OH is very common, affecting one in five community-dwelling older people and almost one in four older people in long-term care. There is great variability in methods used to identify OH.
| S-EPMC6909901 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although orthostatic hypotension (OH) is recognized as one of the main non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease (PD), there is inconsistent evidence about the prevalence of OH in PD. To estimate the prevalence of OH in PD more precisely we conducted a systematic review of the literature. METHODS:From PubMed and Embase searches with predefined inclusion criteria, we identified studies published up till December 2009. Prevalence numbers from studies were pooled using a non-linear random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:We found 25 studies from which the prevalence of OH could be calculated. The pooled estimate of the point prevalence of OH in PD was 30.1% (95% CI: 22.9% to 38.4%). We found a large statistical heterogeneity between studies which could not be reduced by several subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS:The estimated prevalence of OH in PD is 30%. However, due to the large heterogeneity between studies this pooled estimate should be interpreted with caution. More data from unselected population-based cohorts are needed.
| S-EPMC5199613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Orthostatic hypotension, defined as a decrease in blood pressure on standing, is associated with an increased risk of mortality and cardiovascular events in the general population. In addition, it has recently been suggested that arterial stiffness is independently associated with orthostatic hypotension, which may be due to a loss of the buffering effect of the ascending aorta and an early return of pressure waves. However, the specific mechanisms underlying this association remain unclear. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the association between orthostatic hypotension and arterial stiffness in the adult population. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from inception to 31 January 2022. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to calculate pooled odds ratio (OR) estimates and their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the association between orthostatic hypotension and arterial stiffness. Results: Overall, 11 studies were included, with a total of 10,611 subjects. Our results showed that increased arterial stiffness raises the risk of orthostatic hypotension (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.28-1.54), with a stronger association at central arterial stiffness (OR: 1.50, 95% CI: 1.34-1.68) than at peripheral arterial stiffness (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.17-1.43). Conclusion: Our findings showed that increased arterial stiffness raises the risk of orthostatic hypotension by 40% among the adult population. Considering that orthostatic hypotension, which is usually a consequence of antihypertensive treatment, has been widely associated with the risk of cardiovascular events, appropriate control of arterial stiffness could be a clinical strategy to prevent cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
| S-EPMC10210150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.
| S-EPMC6797441 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundInitial orthostatic hypotension (OH) is a clinical syndrome of exaggerated transient orthostasis associated with higher risks of falls, frailty and syncope in older adults.ObjectiveTo provide a prevalence estimate of initial OH in adults aged 65 years or older.MethodsLiterature search of MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1947) and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed until 6 December 2019, using the terms 'initial orthostatic hypotension', 'postural hypotension' and 'older adults'. Articles were included if published in English and participants were 65 years or older. Random effects models were used for pooled analysis.ResultsOf 5,136 articles screened, 13 articles (10 cross-sectional; 3 longitudinal) reporting data of 5,465 individuals (54.5% female) from the general (n = 4,157), geriatric outpatient (n = 1,136), institutionalised (n = 55) and mixed (n = 117) population were included. Blood pressure was measured continuously and intermittently in 11 and 2 studies, respectively. Pooled prevalence of continuously measured initial OH was 29.0% (95% CI: 22.1-36.9%, I2 = 94.6%); 27.8% in the general population (95% CI: 17.9-40.5%, I2 = 96.1%), 35.2% in geriatric outpatients (95% CI: 24.2-48.1%, I2 = 95.3%), 10.0% in institutionalised individuals (95% CI: 2.4-33.1%, I2 = 0%) and 21.4% in the mixed population (95% CI: 7.0-49.6, I2 = 0%). Pooled prevalence of intermittently measured initial OH was 5.6% (95% CI: 1.5-18.9%, I2 = 81.1%); 1.0% in the general population (95% CI: 0.0-23.9%, I2 = 0%) and 7.7% in geriatric outpatients (95% CI: 1.8-27.0%, I2 = 86.7%).ConclusionThe prevalence of initial OH is high in older adults, especially in geriatric outpatients. Proper assessment of initial OH requires continuous blood pressure measurements.
| S-EPMC8437071 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInitial orthostatic hypotension is a clinically relevant syndrome in older adults which has been associated with symptoms of orthostatic intolerance. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of orthostatic intolerance symptoms in older adults with initial orthostatic hypotension.MethodsMEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and Cochrane were searched to December 6th, 2019 using the terms "initial orthostatic hypotension", "postural hypotension" and "older adults". Study selection involved the following criteria: published in English; mean or median age ≥ 65 years and diagnosis of initial orthostatic hypotension encompassed a decrease in systolic blood pressure by ≥ 40 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure by ≥ 20 mmHg within a maximum of 1 min following a postural change.ResultsOf 8311 articles, 12 articles reporting initial orthostatic hypotension prevalence in 3446 participants with a mean age of 75 (6 SD) years (56.5% female) were included. Five initial orthostatic hypotension definition variations were utilised and symptoms were reported in six articles (968 participants, mean age 73.4 (6.1 SD) years, 56% female). The prevalence of symptoms in older adults with initial orthostatic hypotension ranged from 24 to 100% and was dependent on variations in timing or the inclusion of symptoms in the initial orthostatic hypotension definition.ConclusionsWhere orthostatic intolerance symptoms were reported, a large proportion of older adults with a diagnosis of initial orthostatic hypotension were symptomatic. However, the literature on initial orthostatic hypotension and orthostatic intolerance symptoms is scarce and a variety of definitions of initial orthostatic hypotension are utilised.
| S-EPMC7803043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the association between sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitors and the risk of orthostatic hypotension (OH) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodA systematic literature retrieval was performed using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception up to 16 October 2019. Data for study characteristics and outcomes of interest were extracted from each eligible study. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for OH were calculated using a random-effects model.ResultA total of 16 studies (n?=?12,749) were included in our meta-analysis, with a result of 44 incident OH cases (29 in the SGLT2 inhibitor group, and 15 in the control group). The pooled RR was 1.17 (95% CI: 0.65-2.09). There was no evidence that receiving SGLT2 inhibitors increased the risk of OH, when stratified by age, duration of T2DM, or placebo-control or active-control and baseline blood pressure.ConclusionThis meta-analysis suggested that, in general, SGLPT2 inhibitors did not increase the risk of OH in patients with T2DM. The possibility of OH should be, therefore, considered on an individual basis, especially in patients with a history of OH, long duration of T2DM, or comorbidities.
| S-EPMC7919209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: A rigorous and focused systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of individualised homeopathic treatment has not previously been undertaken. We tested the hypothesis that the outcome of an individualised homeopathic treatment approach using homeopathic medicines is distinguishable from that of placebos. METHODS: The review's methods, including literature search strategy, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias and statistical analysis, were strictly protocol-based. Judgment in seven assessment domains enabled a trial's risk of bias to be designated as low, unclear or high. A trial was judged to comprise 'reliable evidence' if its risk of bias was low or was unclear in one specified domain. 'Effect size' was reported as odds ratio (OR), with arithmetic transformation for continuous data carried out as required; OR > 1 signified an effect favouring homeopathy. RESULTS: Thirty-two eligible RCTs studied 24 different medical conditions in total. Twelve trials were classed 'uncertain risk of bias', three of which displayed relatively minor uncertainty and were designated reliable evidence; 20 trials were classed 'high risk of bias'. Twenty-two trials had extractable data and were subjected to meta-analysis; OR = 1.53 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.91). For the three trials with reliable evidence, sensitivity analysis revealed OR = 1.98 (95% CI 1.16 to 3.38). CONCLUSIONS: Medicines prescribed in individualised homeopathy may have small, specific treatment effects. Findings are consistent with sub-group data available in a previous 'global' systematic review. The low or unclear overall quality of the evidence prompts caution in interpreting the findings. New high-quality RCT research is necessary to enable more decisive interpretation.
| S-EPMC4326322 | biostudies-literature