scholarly journals Effects of LCZ696 (Sacubitril/Valsartan) on Blood Pressure in Patients with Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Cardiology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 145 (9) ◽  
pp. 589-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiang Geng ◽  
Rongqiang Yan ◽  
Zhengzhong Wang ◽  
Fangjie Hou
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor ◽  
Blood Pressure Lowering Effect ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Neprilysin Inhibitor

Background: LCZ696 (sacubitril/valsartan), a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor, can significantly reduce blood pressure in patients with heart failure. We performed this meta-analysis to determine the antihypertensive effect of LCZ696 in patients with hypertension. Methods: Randomized controlled trials were searched in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Twelve studies with a total of 6,064 participants were included. Results: Compared with angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), LCZ696 100 mg caused a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) (mean difference [MD] –1.58 mm Hg, 95% confidence interval [CI] –2.09 to –1.07, p < 0.05) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (MD –0.66 mm Hg, 95% CI –0.98 to –0.33, p < 0.05). LCZ696 200 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD –4.94 mm Hg, 95% CI –6.54 to –3.35, p < 0.05), DBP (MD –2.24 mm Hg, 95% CI –2.74 to –1.75, p < 0.05), 24-h ambulatory SBP (24 h ASBP; MD –3.69 mm Hg, 95% CI –4.80 to –2.58, p < 0.05), and 24-h ADBP (MD –1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI –2.13 to –1.28, p < 0.05). LCZ696 400 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD –6.25 mm Hg, 95% CI –7.90 to –4.61, p < 0.05), DBP (MD -2.30 mm Hg, 95% CI –2.80 to –1.80, p < 0.05), 24-h ASBP (MD –4.31 mm Hg, 95% CI –6.56 to –2.07, p < 0.05), and 24 h ADBP (MD –1.69 mm Hg, 95% CI –2.59 to –0.79, p < 0.05). Compared with LCZ696 200 mg, LCZ696 400 mg caused a significant reduction in SBP (MD 1.71 mm Hg, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.27, p < 0.05), DBP (MD 0.90 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.16, p < 0.05), 24-h ASBP (MD 1.50 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.17, p < 0.05), and 24-h ADBP (MD 0.76 mm Hg, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.06, p < 0.05). Conclusions: The blood pressure-lowering effect of LCZ696 is dose-related. This meta-analysis confirms the antihypertensive effects of LCZ696.

scholarly journals Effects of Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors on Arterial Stiffness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiuli Li ◽  
Peng Chang ◽  
Qiongying Wang ◽  
Hao Hu ◽  
Feng Bai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Arterial Stiffness ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
And Control

To determine the effects of ACEIs on arterial stiffness, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted. Relevant articles that investigated the effects of ACEIs on arterial stiffness from PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library from inception to September 2018 were systematically retrieved. The investigated outcomes included brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (ba-PWV) and carotid-femoral PWV (cf-PWV) by using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the random-effects model. A total of 17 RCTs including 1,458 individuals were included. The summary results indicated no significant differences between ACEIs and control for ba-PWV and cf-PWV. Also, no significant differences between ACEI and control for ba-PWV and cf-PWV were observed in hypertensive patients, while the therapeutic effects of ACEI versus placebo showed statistically significant difference. Moreover, subgroup analysis indicated that the levels of ba-PWV were significantly associated if the study was conducted in Western countries, mean age <60.0 years, percentage male ≥60.0%, compared with ARBs, baseline PWV <10.0, and high-quality study. Furthermore, the significant levels of cf-PWV in patients who received ACEIs were observed when percentage male was ≥60.0% and the studies were of high-quality. Finally, no significant differences were observed between ACEIs and other antihypertensive drugs regarding the changes of systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The overall analysis suggested no significant differences between ACEIs and other antihypertensive drugs for ba-PWV and cf-PWV levels, whereas ACEIs versus placebo showed lower levels of ba-PWV and cf-PWV.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of nebivolol in hypertensive patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (10) ◽  
pp. 030006052093162
Author(s):  
Jun-Ying Liu ◽  
Li-Na Guo ◽  
Wan-Zhong Peng ◽  
Yang Jiang ◽  
Ai-Li Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Second Generation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Hypertensive Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Β Blockers

Purpose Our meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy and safety of nebivolol compared with other second-generation β blockers for hypertensive patients. Methods We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Clinical Trials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The efficacy endpoints included systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), reduction of SBP and DBP, heart rate (HR), and adverse events (AEs). Findings Eight RCTs with 1514 patients met the inclusion criteria. HR was significantly lower in patients receiving other second-generation β blockers compared with patients receiving nebivolol. There was no difference the reduction of blood pressure (SBP and DBP) or the reduction of SBP or DBP between the groups. The incidence of AEs was lower in patients taking nebivolol compared with patients taking other second-generation β blockers. Conclusions No significant difference was demonstrated between nebivolol and other second-generation β blockers in the reduction of blood pressure, SBP, and DBP. The tolerability of nebivolol was significantly better compared with other second-generation β blockers, and nebivolol was also associated with a stable HR and a lower risk of AEs compared with other second-generation β blockers.

scholarly journals Clinical Efficacy of Jinshuibao Capsules Combined with Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients with Early Diabetic Nephropathy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qiang Lu ◽  
Cailan Li ◽  
Weiwen Chen ◽  
Zhongfeng Shi ◽  
Ruoting Zhan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Nephropathy ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor Blockers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Angiotensin Receptor ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Specific Effects ◽  
Receptor Blockers ◽  
Early Diabetic Nephropathy

Background. Jinshuibao capsules (JSB) have been widely used to treat early diabetic nephropathy (DN), but the specific effects are still inconsistent. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy of JSB for early DN. Methods. Four international databases and four Chinese databases were searched from publication dates to March 1, 2018. The RCTs reporting the results of JSB’s specific effects were included, and comparisons were between JSB combined with Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) as experimental intervention and ARBs as the control. Included studies’ quality was evaluated and the extracted data were analyzed with RevMan 5.3 software. Results. Twenty-six RCTs including 2198 early DN participants were adopted in the meta-analysis. The results showed that, compared with the ARBs alone, JSB could remarkably improve the ORR (OR = 3.84; 95% CI: 2.37~6.24; P<0.00001) and decrease 24 h UTP (MD = −93.32; 95% CI: −128.60 ~-58.04; P<0.00001), UAER (MD = −24.02; 95% CI: −30.93 ~-17.11; P<0.00001), BUN (MD = −0.26; 95%: −0.44 ~-0.08; P=0.005), Scr (MD = −9.07; 95% CI: −14.26 ~-3.88; P=0.0006), ACR (MD = −17.55; 95% CI: −22.81 ~-12.29; P<0.00001), Cys-C (MD = −0.60; 95% CI: −0.88 ~-0.32; P<0.00001), SBP (MD = −3.08; 95% CI: −4.65 ~-1.52; P=0.0001), DBP (MD = −2.09; 95% CI: −4.00 ~-0.19; P=0.03), and TG (MD = −0.36; 95% CI: −0.50 ~-0.21; P<0.00001). However, it showed no significant differences in TC (MD = −0.32; 95% CI: −0.69~0.04; P=0.08), FBG (MD = 0.04; 95% CI: −0.39~0.47; P=0.87), HbA1c (MD = −0.26; 95% CI: −0.59~0.06; P=0.11), and β2-MG (MD = −15.61; 95% CI: −32.95~1.73; P=0.08). Conclusions. This study indicates that JSB is an effective accessory therapeutic medicine for patients with early DN. It contributes to decreasing blood pressure and the content of triglyceride and improving the renal function of early DN patients. However, there is still a need to further verify the auxiliary therapeutic effect of JSB with more strictly designed RCTs with large sample and multiple centers in the future.

scholarly journals Effects of Multivitamin and Multimineral Supplementation on Blood Pressure: A Meta-Analysis of 12 Randomized Controlled Trials

Nutrients ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 1018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelei Li ◽  
Chunxiao Liu ◽  
Xiaotong Kuang ◽  
Qingxue Deng ◽  
Feng Zhao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Chronic Disease ◽  
Systolic Blood Pressure ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Lowering Effect ◽  
Normotensive Subjects

Previous studies have not drawn a consistent conclusion about effect of multivitamin and multimineral supplementation (MVMS) on blood pressure. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library (up to May 2018) and references of relevant articles was undertaken. The present meta-analysis included 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), of which eight RCTs in 2011 subjects evaluated the effect of MVMS on blood pressure and four RCTs in 21,196 subjects evaluated the effect of MVMS on the risk of hypertension. MVMS had a lowering effect on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP): the weighted mean difference (WMD) was −1.31 mmHg (95% CI, −2.48 to −0.14 mmHg) and −0.71 mmHg (95% CI, −1.43 to 0.00 mmHg), respectively. Subgroup analysis indicated that the lowering effect of MVMS on blood pressure was only significant in 134 subjects with chronic disease but not in 1580 healthy subjects, and the WMD for systolic blood pressure (SBP) and DBP in subjects with chronic disease was −6.29 mmHg (95% CI, −11.09 to −1.50 mmHg) and −2.32 mmHg (95% CI, −4.50 to −0.13 mmHg), respectively. The effect size of MVMS on SBP in 58 hypertensive subjects (WMD, −7.98 mmHg; 95% CI, −14.95 to −1.02 mmHg) was more than six times of that in 1656 normotensive subjects (WMD, −1.25 mmHg; 95% CI, −2.48 to −0.02 mmHg). However, no significant effect on DBP was observed in both hypertensive and normotensive subgroups. There was no significant effect of MVMS on risk of hypertension in 22,852 subjects with a normal blood pressure at baseline. In conclusion, although MVMS had a significant lowering effect on blood pressure in normotensive subjects, the lowering effect was too small to effectively prevent future hypertension. MVMS may be an effective method for blood pressure control in subjects with chronic disease including hypertension, but the sample size of subjects with hypertension or other chronic disease was too small, and more well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm this result.

Effects of Melatonin Supplementation On Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (03) ◽  
pp. 157-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amir Hadi ◽  
Ehsan Ghaedi ◽  
Sajjad Moradi ◽  
Makan Pourmasoumi ◽  
Abed Ghavami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Favorable Effect ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

AbstractMelatonin is a physiological indoleamine secreted from the pineal gland into the bloodstream. This hormone has antioxidant effects in cardiovascular disease, but the evidence regarding its effects on blood pressure (BP) has not been conclusive. Therefore, we assessed the impact of melatonin supplementation on systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) through a systematic review and meta—analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Google scholar (until May 2018) were searched to identify potential RCTs with information on melatonin supplementation and BP. Mean Differences (MD) were pooled using a random-effects model. Standard methods were used for assessment of heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias. Pooling 5 RCTs (6 treatment arms) together identified significant reduction for SBP (MD: −3.43 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): −5.76 to −1.09, p=0.004) and DBP (MD: −3.33 mmHg, 95% CI: −4.57 to −2.08, p<0.001) after supplementation with melatonin compared with control treatment. The sensitivity analysis indicated that the results were robust. We did not observe any evidence regarding publication bias. The findings of this meta-analysis support the overall favorable effect of melatonin supplementation on BP regulation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document