Suppr超能文献

用于治疗高血压的一线肾素-血管紧张素系统抑制剂与其他一线抗高血压药物类别对比

First-line drugs inhibiting the renin angiotensin system versus other first-line antihypertensive drug classes for hypertension.

作者信息

Chen Yu Jie, Li Liang Jin, Tang Wen Lu, Song Jia Yang, Qiu Ru, Li Qian, Xue Hao, Wright James M

机构信息

Department of Pharmacology, School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Room 605, Building 18, Lane 280, Cai Lun Road, Pudong New District, Shanghai, Shanghai, China, 201203.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Nov 14;11(11):CD008170. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008170.pub3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

摘要

背景

这是对2015年首次发表的Cochrane系统评价的首次更新。肾素血管紧张素系统(RAS)抑制剂包括血管紧张素转换酶(ACE)抑制剂、血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARB)和肾素抑制剂。它们被广泛用于治疗高血压,尤其是糖尿病患者,因为据推测其在降低糖尿病肾病以及心血管疾病发病率和死亡率方面具有优势。尽管RAS抑制剂被广泛用于治疗高血压,但其与其他抗高血压药物类别的疗效和安全性仍不明确。

目的

评估一线RAS抑制剂与其他一线抗高血压药物相比,对高血压患者的益处和危害。

检索方法

Cochrane高血压组信息专家检索了以下数据库,以获取截至2017年11月的随机对照试验:Cochrane高血压专业注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE(从1946年起)、Embase(从1974年起)、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台以及ClinicalTrials.gov。我们还联系了相关论文的作者,询问进一步发表和未发表的研究。检索无语言限制。

选择标准

我们纳入了对血压升高(≥130/85 mmHg)的人群进行至少六个月随访的随机、活性药物对照、双盲研究(RCT),这些研究比较了一线RAS抑制剂与其他一线抗高血压药物类别,并报告了发病率、死亡率或血压结果。我们排除了已证实为继发性高血压的患者。

数据收集与分析

两位作者独立选择纳入的试验,评估偏倚风险并录入数据进行分析。

主要结果

本次更新纳入了三项新的RCT,共计45项,涉及66625名参与者,平均年龄为66岁。我们关键结局的许多证据主要来自少数低偏倚风险的大型RCT。一些研究中添加的二线抗高血压药物存在不均衡情况,严重到足以使我们降低证据质量。主要结局包括全因死亡、致命和非致命性卒中、致命和非致命性心肌梗死(MI)、需要住院治疗的致命和非致命性充血性心力衰竭(CHF)、总心血管(CV)事件(致命和非致命性卒中、致命和非致命性MI以及需要住院治疗的致命和非致命性CHF)以及终末期肾衰竭(ESRF)。次要结局包括收缩压(SBP)、舒张压(DBP)和心率(HR)。与一线钙通道阻滞剂(CCB)相比,我们发现中等确定性证据表明一线RAS抑制剂可降低心力衰竭(HF)(5项RCT中的35143名参与者,风险比(RR)0.83,95%置信区间(CI)0.77至0.90,绝对风险降低(ARR)1.2%),但会增加卒中(4项RCT中的34673名参与者,RR 1.19,95% CI 1.08至1.32,绝对风险增加(ARI)0.7%)。中等确定性证据表明一线RAS抑制剂与一线CCB在全因死亡方面无差异(5项RCT中的35226名参与者,RR 1.03,95% CI 0.98至1.09);总CV事件方面无差异(6项RCT中的35223名参与者,RR 0.98,95% CI 0.93至1.02);总MI方面无差异(5项RCT中的35043名参与者,RR 1.01,95% CI 0.93至1.09)。低确定性证据表明在ESRF方面无差异(4项RCT中的19551名参与者,RR 0.88,95% CI 0.74至1.05)。与一线噻嗪类药物相比,我们发现中等确定性证据表明一线RAS抑制剂会增加HF(1项RCT中的24309名参与者,RR 1.19,95% CI 1.07至1.31,ARI 1.0%),并增加卒中(1项RCT中的24309名参与者,RR 1.14,95% CI 1.02至1.28,ARI 0.6%)。中等确定性证据表明一线RAS抑制剂与一线噻嗪类药物在全因死亡方面无差异(1项RCT中的24309名参与者,RR 1.00,95% CI 0.94至1.07);总CV事件方面无差异(2项RCT中的24379名参与者,RR 1.05,95% CI 1.00至1.11);总MI方面无差异(2项RCT中的24379名参与者,RR 0.93,95% CI 0.86至1.01)。低确定性证据表明在ESRF方面无差异(1项RCT中的24309名参与者,RR 1.10,95% CI 0.88至1.37)。与一线β受体阻滞剂相比,低确定性证据表明一线RAS抑制剂可降低总CV事件(2项RCT中的9239名参与者,RR 0.88,95% CI 0.80至0.98,ARR 1.7%),并降低卒中(1项RCT中的9193名参与者,RR 0.75,95% CI 0.63至0.88,ARR 1.7%)。低确定性证据表明一线RAS抑制剂与一线β受体阻滞剂在全因死亡方面无差异(1项RCT中的9193名参与者,RR 0.89,95% CI 0.78至1.01);HF方面无差异(1项RCT中的9193名参与者,RR 0.95,95% CI 0.76至1.18);总MI方面无差异(2项RCT中的9239名参与者,RR 1.05,95% CI 0.86至1.27)。一线RAS抑制剂与其他一线药物类别之间的血压比较显示无差异或差异较小,且这些差异不一定与发病率结局的差异相关。没有关于非致命性严重不良事件的信息,因为没有试验报告此结局。

作者结论

一线RAS抑制剂与一线CCB、噻嗪类药物和β受体阻滞剂的全因死亡相似。然而,在一些发病率结局方面存在差异。一线噻嗪类药物导致的HF和卒中比一线RAS抑制剂少。与一线RAS抑制剂相比,一线CCB增加了HF但降低了卒中。HF增加的幅度超过了卒中降低的幅度。低质量证据表明,与一线β受体阻滞剂相比,一线RAS抑制剂可降低卒中和总CV事件。不同药物类别对血压的影响差异较小,且与发病率结局的差异无关。

相似文献

3
First-line drugs for hypertension.高血压一线用药。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 18;4(4):CD001841. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001841.pub3.
5
Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension.钙通道阻滞剂与其他降压药物的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 17;10(10):CD003654. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003654.pub5.
6
Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension.钙通道阻滞剂与其他类药物治疗高血压的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jan 9;1(1):CD003654. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003654.pub6.
8
Beta-blockers for hypertension.用于治疗高血压的β受体阻滞剂。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 20;1(1):CD002003. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub5.
9
Blood pressure targets in adults with hypertension.高血压成人的血压目标。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 17;12(12):CD004349. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004349.pub3.
10
Antihypertensive treatment for kidney transplant recipients.肾移植受者的降压治疗。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jul 31;7(7):CD003598. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003598.pub3.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Beta-blockers for hypertension.用于治疗高血压的β受体阻滞剂。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jan 20;1(1):CD002003. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002003.pub5.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验