Dataset Information

Re-examining the efficacy of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: In a recently published meta-analysis, investigators asserted that beta-blockers should not be used to treat hypertension. Because the pathophysiology of hypertension differs in older and younger patients, we designed this meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of beta-blockers in different age groups. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction and death. METHODS: We identified randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of beta-blockers as first-line therapy for hypertension in preventing major cardiovascular outcomes. Both authors independently evaluated the eligibility of all trials. Trials enrolling older (mean age at baseline > or = 60 years) patients were separated from those enrolling younger (mean age < 60 years) patients. Data were pooled using a random effects model. RESULTS: Our analysis incorporated data from 145 811 participants in 21 hypertension trials. In placebo-controlled trials, beta-blockers reduced major cardiovascular outcomes in younger patients (risk ratio [RR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.74-0.99, based on 794 events in 19 414 patients) but not in older patients (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.05, based on 1115 events in 8019 patients). In active comparator trials, beta-blockers demonstrated similar efficacy to other antihypertensive agents in younger patients (1515 events in 30 412 patients, RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88-1.07) but not in older patients (7405 events in 79 775 patients, RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.10), with the excess risk being particularly marked for strokes (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.07-1.30). INTERPRETATION: beta-blockers should not be considered first-line therapy for older hypertensive patients without another indication for these agents; however, in younger patients beta-blockers are associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

SUBMITTER: Khan N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1471831 | biostudies-other | 2006 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Re-examining the efficacy of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis.

Khan Nadia N McAlister Finlay A FA

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20060601 12

<h4>Background</h4>In a recently published meta-analysis, investigators asserted that beta-blockers should not be used to treat hypertension. Because the pathophysiology of hypertension differs in older and younger patients, we designed this meta-analysis to clarify the efficacy of beta-blockers in different age groups. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction and death.<h4>Methods</h4>We identified randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of beta-bloc ...[more]

PMID: 16754904

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLeft ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is commonly present in patients with hypertension (HT). According to the expert consensus document from American, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) were recommended as 1st-line therapeutic drugs. However, none noticed the different efficacy between fat-soluble and selective β1-receptor blockers (FS-β-B) and other β-blockers on regression of LVH before. The aim of this analysis was to compare the efficacy of FS-β-B with the other 4 different classes of antihypertensive drugs (ACEI, ARBs, calcium channel blockers [CCBs], and diuretics) on regression of LVH.MethodsRelative trials were identified in the PubMed, Web of Science, OVID EBM Reviews and Cochrane databases, and the relevant papers were examined. We performed both traditional and Bayesian meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about the regression of LVH. Sensitivity analysis and regression analysis were performed to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Inconsistency analysis was performed to check whether the analysis of the trials in the network was indeed consistent.ResultsA total of 41 RCTs involving 2566 patients with HT and LVH were included in this analysis. Bayesian network meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant differences between these groups: FS-β-B and ACEI (MD, -7.09; 95% CI, -14.99, 1.27); FS-β-B and ARB (MD, -2.66; 95% Cl, -12.02, 6.31). Although FS-β-B showed greater efficacy when compared with diuretic (MD, 13.04; 95% CI, 3.38, 22.59) or CCB (MD, 10.90; 95% CI, 1.98, 19.49). The probabilities of being among the most efficacious treatments were: FS-β-B (72%), ARB (27%), ACEI (0.01%), CCB (0.00%), and diuretic (0.00%).ConclusionEvidence from our analysis reveals that FS-β-B have potential to become 1st-line therapeutic drugs in HT and LVH patients. However, the real efficacy of FS-β-B on regression of LVH should be confirmed by further large, high quality trials considering the limitation of the study number.

Project description:BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of topical β-blockers in the treatment of superficial infantile hemangiomas (SIH) and mixed infantile hemangiomas (MIH), respectively, and compare the efficacy and safety of topical β-blockers with other interventions.MethodsThe PRISMA guidelines were adhered to. We searched for randomized controlled trials in databases from 2010 to 2018 comparing topical β-blockers with other interventions for infantile hemangiomas. The outcomes evaluated were efficacy and adverse effects. Data analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3. Publication bias was assessed to account for bias in patient selection.ResultsEleven studies, involving 1,235 patients, were subjected to this meta-analysis. Six studies compared topical β-blockers with other interventions (propranolol, placebo, corticosteroids or pulsed dye laser) in treating SIH, and 5 studies evaluated the efficacy and safety of a topical β-blocker when it was combined with another intervention in treating MIH. A topical β-blocker was discovered to be as effective as oral propranolol in treating SIH (risk ratio, RR, 0.96, 95% confidence interval, CI, 0.91-1.02, p = 0.20, I2 = 0%), and topical β-blockers were more beneficial than placebo, corticosteroids or pulsed dye laser in treating SIH (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.66-3.05, p < 0.00001, I2 = 0%). Topical β-blockers combined with another intervention gave rise to a better clinical response in the treatment of MIH than intervention alone (RR 1.99, 95% CI 1.10-3.60, p = 0.02, I2 = 55%) (standard mean difference 0.80, 95% CI 0.28-1.31, p = 0.002, I2 = 0%). Compared with oral propranolol, topical β-blockers were associated with fewer incidences of adverse effects (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.39, p = 0.004, I2 = 0%). No significant difference in adverse effects was found when a topical β-blocker was combined with another intervention in treating MIH (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.58-1.74, p = 0.98, I2 = 0%).ConclusionsThis meta-analysis provided evidence that topical β-blockers may replace oral propranolol as first-line therapy for SIH and that they are of additive value in treating MIH.

Project description:BackgroundPreclinical and retrospective studies suggest that beta-blockers are active against breast cancer. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the impact of beta-blockers on the outcomes of patients with early-stage breast cancer.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed to identify studies comparing outcomes of patients with early-stage breast cancer according to beta-blocker use (yes versus no). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS), defined as the occurrence of breast cancer recurrence or death. Secondary objectives were pathologic complete response (pCR), breast cancer recurrence, breast cancer-specific mortality and overall survival (OS). Hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted from each study and a pooled analysis with the random-effect model was conducted. The Higgins' I-squared test was used to quantify heterogeneity. Egger's test was applied to assess publication bias. All P values were two-sided and considered significant if ≤0.05.ResultsOverall, 13 studies were included as follows: RFS (6), pCR (2), breast cancer recurrence (6), breast cancer-specific mortality (7) and OS (5). The use of beta-blockers was associated with a significant RFS improvement in the overall population (N = 21 570; HR 0.73; 95% CI, 0.56-0.96; P = 0.025) and in patients with triple-negative disease (N = 1212; HR 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.81; P = 0.003). No significant differences in terms of pCR (N = 1554; OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.44-1.36; P = 0.371), breast cancer recurrence (N = 37 957; OR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.42-1.03; P = 0.065), breast cancer-specific mortality (N = 64 830; HR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.56-1.08; P = 0.130) or OS (N = 103 065; HR 1.03; 95% CI, 0.87-1.23; P = 0.692) were observed according to beta-blocker use.DiscussionIn this meta-analysis, beta-blocker use was associated with a longer RFS in patients with early-stage breast cancer, with a more pronounced effect observed in those with triple-negative disease. Beta-blockers arise as an interesting option to be explored in prospective studies for patients with early-stage breast cancer.

Project description:IntroductionBeta-blockers are recommended by the European Society of Cardiology as first-line antianginal therapy for reducing heart rate (HR) and symptoms in patients with chronic coronary syndrome, despite a lack of data showing superiority to other antianginal agents. Most patients with angina pectoris require combination therapy to manage symptoms, with a second-line agent chosen to manage the predominant cardiovascular problem. Ivabradine, a selective sinus node If channel inhibitor shown to reduce HR and protect against anginal symptoms, has previously demonstrated noninferior anti-ischaemic and antianginal efficacy to beta-blockers.MethodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy and safety of ivabradine in patients with stable angina pectoris who remained symptomatic despite receiving beta-blockers. Keyword searches of PubMed, The Cochrane Central Library Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, The World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and Google Scholar identified studies comparing ivabradine plus beta-blockers with placebo or other first- or second-line antianginal agents in patients with stable angina pectoris. No date limits or language restrictions were applied. Outcomes were evaluated after 1 and 4 months of treatment, including changes in HR, angina attacks, use of short-acting nitrates, quality of life and safety. Risk of bias was evaluated on the basis of recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.ResultsSeven relevant studies were identified (N = 6821). Ivabradine plus a beta-blocker consistently reduced HR, anginal symptoms and short-acting nitrate consumption within 1 month of initiating therapy, with continued reductions for up to 4 months. Furthermore, ivabradine plus beta-blocker therapy was well tolerated, with bradycardia rarely reported (0.1% of patients overall). This study is limited by the inclusion of only two randomised studies, which may lead to result interpretation bias.ConclusionsIvabradine may be valuable for tailoring early antianginal treatment when used in combination with beta-blockers for chronic stable angina inadequately controlled by beta-blockers.

Dataset Information

Re-examining the efficacy of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis.

Publications

Re-examining the efficacy of beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension: a meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets