mechanism | treatment | Demonstrated benefit and harm | k | | | |
---|
angiotensin-receptor blockers | candesartan | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
TROPHY, 2006 | candesartan vs placebo | hypertension 0.84 [0.75; 0.95] | | cancer 1.32 [0.30; 5.84] death cancer ∞ [NaN; ∞] lung cancer 1.00 [0.14; 7.08] Serious adverse events 0.60 [0.31; 1.15] cardiovascular events 0.16 [0.02; 1.36] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
TROPHY, 2006 | candesartan during 2y followed by 2y
of placebo (n=409) vs. placebo (n=400) | subjects with repeated measurements of systolic pressure of 130 to 139 mm Hg
and diastolic pressure of 89 mm Hg or lower, or systolic pressure of 139 mm Hg or
lower and diastolic pressure of 85 to 89 mm Hg | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 409/400 Primary endpoint: new-onset hypertension FU duration: 4y |
|
anti hypertensive agents | amlodipine | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Tepel et al, 2008 | amlodipine vs placebo | | | all cause mortality 0.78 [0.42; 1.45] cardiovascular event 0.62 [0.37; 1.03] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Tepel et al, 2008 | Amlodipine 10 mg/day (n=123) vs. matched placebo (n=128) | hypertensive haemodialysis patients | double blind Sample size: 123/128 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 19 montsh median (8-30) |
|
anti hypertensive agents | candesartan | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Takahashi et al, 2006 | candesartan vs usual care | cardiovascular event 0.35 [0.17; 0.76] | | all cause mortality 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | Suzuki et al, 2008 | candesartan vs usual care | cardiovascular event 0.58 [0.40; 0.83] | | all cause mortality 0.66 [0.41; 1.04] Cardiovascular mortality 0.60 [0.30; 1.19] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Takahashi et al, 2006 | Candesartan 4-8mg/day (n=43) vs. Conventional treatment (n=37) | chronic haemodialysis patients | open Sample size: 43/37 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Suzuki et al, 2008 | Candesartan 12 mg/day, losartan 100 mg/day, or valsartan 160 mg/day (n=180) vs. Conventional treatment (n=180) | patients undergoing hemodialysis | open Sample size: 180/180 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1-5 years |
|
anti hypertensive agents | carvedilol | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Cice et al, 2003 | carvedilol vs placebo | Cardiovascular mortality 0.43 [0.28; 0.67] cardiovascular event 0.42 [0.27; 0.65] | | | Nakao et al, 2007 | carvedilol vs placebo | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Cice et al, 2003 | Carvedilol 50 mg/day (n=58) vs. matched placebo (n=56) | dialysis patients with dilated cardiomyopathy | Sample size: 58/56 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 12 months | Nakao et al, 2007 | Carvedilol 20 mg/day (n=57) vs. matched placebo (n=51) | | Sample size: 57/51 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
anti hypertensive agents | fosinopril | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Zannad et al, 2006 | fosinopril vs placebo | | | all cause mortality 1.09 [0.78; 1.52] Cardiovascular mortality 1.06 [0.67; 1.68] cardiovascular event 1.15 [0.86; 1.53] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Zannad et al, 2006 | Fosinopril 20 mg/day (n=196) vs. matched placebo (n=201) | chronic hemodialysis patients. | double blind Sample size: 196/201 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 24 months |
|
anti hypertensive agents | ramipril | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Li et al, 2003 | ramipril vs usual care | | | all cause mortality 1.00 [0.22; 4.56] Cardiovascular mortality 1.00 [0.15; 6.64] cardiovascular event 1.00 [0.32; 3.10] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Li et al, 2003 | Ramipril 5 mg/day (n=30) vs. Conventional treatment (n=30) | patients with end-stage renal failure treated with peritoneal dialysis | open Sample size: 30/30 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 12 months |
|
anti hypertensive agents | telmisartan | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Cice et al, 2006 | telmisartan vs placebo | all cause mortality 0.71 [0.53; 0.95] | | Cardiovascular mortality 0.79 [0.61; 1.02] cardiovascular event 0.79 [0.61; 1.02] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Cice et al, 2006 | Telmisartan 80 mg/day (n=151) vs. matched placebo (n=152) | | Sample size: 151/152 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | amlodipine | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
IDNT (amlodipine vs PBO), 2001 | amlodipine vs placebo | | | All deaths 0.88 [0.66; 1.18] Cardiovascular events 0.88 [0.69; 1.12] microvascular events 1.04 [0.86; 1.25] | IDNT (amlodipine vs pbo), 2001 | amlodipine vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.90 [0.68; 1.18] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
IDNT (amlodipine vs PBO), 2001 | Amlodipine 10 mg daily (n=567) vs. placebo (n=569) | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 567/569 Primary endpoint: renal death FU duration: 2.6 years | IDNT (amlodipine vs pbo), 2001 | Amlodipine 10mg/d (n=567) vs. placebo (n=569) | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 567/569 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2·6 |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | amlodipine | versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
FACET, 1997 | amlodipine vs fosinopril | Cardiovascular events 0.49 [0.26; 0.93] | | All deaths 0.81 [0.22; 2.99] Stroke 2.47 [0.79; 7.75] Fatal and nonfatal MI 1.29 [0.58; 2.86] | ALLHAT (CCB vs ACEI), 2002 | amlodipine vs lisinopril | stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.83 [0.72; 0.94] | | all cause death 0.96 [0.89; 1.03] coronary heart disease 1.00 [0.91; 1.10] cardiovascular death 0.97 [0.87; 1.09] fatal MI 1.07 [0.86; 1.33] Coronary revascularization 1.01 [0.92; 1.12] fatal stroke 0.79 [0.60; 1.03] Major cardiovascular events 0.97 [0.92; 1.02] Angina 0.93 [0.86; 1.01] Peripheral arterial disease 0.85 [0.73; 1.00] End stage renal disease 1.02 [0.80; 1.31] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
FACET, 1997 | amlodipine (long acting) 10 mg daily (n=191) vs. fosinopril 20 mg daily (n=189) if blood pressure was not controlled, the other study drug was added | hypertensive patients with NIDDM | open Parallel groups Sample size: 191/189 Primary endpoint: not defined FU duration: 3.5 y | ALLHAT (CCB vs ACEI), 2002 | Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d , Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d , Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d (n=9048) vs. lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/d (n=9054)
| participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor
| Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 9048/9054 Primary endpoint: fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction FU duration: 4.9y
|
|
first line antihypertensive agent | amlodipine | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ASCOT-BPLA, 2005 | amlodipine vs atenolol | all cause death 0.90 [0.82; 0.99] cardiovascular death 0.77 [0.66; 0.90] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.77 [0.67; 0.89] Major cardiovascular events 0.85 [0.77; 0.93] | | coronary heart disease 0.90 [0.79; 1.03] heart failure 0.84 [0.67; 1.06] | AASK (amlodipine vs metoprolol), 2002 | amlodipine vs metoprolol | | | all cause death 0.70 [0.38; 1.28] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ASCOT-BPLA, 2005 | amlodipine5–10 mg adding perindopril 4–8 mg as required (n=9639) vs. atenolol 50–100 mg adding bendroflumethiazide 1·25–2·5 mg and potassium as required (n=9618) | patients with hypertension who were aged 40–79 years and had at least three other cardiovascular risk factors.ÿ | open Parallel groups Sample size: 9639/9618 Primary endpoint: non-fatal myocardial infarction and fatal CHD FU duration: 5.5 y | AASK (amlodipine vs metoprolol), 2002 | Amlodipine 5-10 mg/d (n=217) vs. metoprolol 50-200 mg/d
(n=441) compare the effects of 2 levels of blood pressure (BP) control and 3 antihypertensive drug classe
| African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73m2)
| Sample size: 217/441 Primary endpoint: rate of change in GFR (GFR slope) FU duration: 3·0y
|
|
first line antihypertensive agent | amlodipine | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy amlodipine inferior to chlorthalidone in terms of heart failure in ALLHAT (CCB vs diu), 2002 amlodipine inferior to chlorthalidone in terms of Coronary revascularization in ALLHAT (CCB vs diu), 2002 | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ALLHAT (CCB vs diu), 2002 | amlodipine vs chlorthalidone | | heart failure 1.37 [1.24; 1.51] Coronary revascularization 1.10 [1.00; 1.20] | all cause death 0.96 [0.90; 1.03] coronary heart disease 0.99 [0.91; 1.07] cardiovascular death 1.01 [0.91; 1.11] fatal MI 0.95 [0.79; 1.15] fatal stroke 0.94 [0.73; 1.21] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.94 [0.83; 1.07] Major cardiovascular events 1.04 [1.00; 1.09] Angina 0.99 [0.90; 1.08] Peripheral arterial disease 0.88 [0.76; 1.01] End stage renal disease 1.13 [0.90; 1.41] | ACCOMPLISH, 2008 | amlodipine plus benazepril vs hydrochlorothiazide plus benazepril | coronary heart disease 0.79 [0.63; 0.99] Major cardiovascular events 0.82 [0.73; 0.91] | | all cause death 0.90 [0.76; 1.07] cardiovascular death 0.80 [0.62; 1.03] Coronary revascularization 0.87 [0.75; 1.00] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.84 [0.66; 1.08] | ALLHAT (amlodipine vs chlor, diabetic subgroup), 2002 | amlodipine vs chlorthalidone | | | All deaths 0.96 [0.87; 1.06] Stroke 0.89 [0.74; 1.07] Fatal and nonfatal MI 1.02 [0.93; 1.12] Cardiovascular events 1.06 [0.98; 1.14] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ALLHAT (CCB vs diu), 2002 | Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d , Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d , Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d
, Amlodipine 2.5 to 10g/d
(n=9048) vs. chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/d
(n=15255)
| participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor
| Double aveugle Sample size: 9048/15255 Primary endpoint: fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction FU duration: 4.9y
| ACCOMPLISH, 2008 | benazepril 40mg plus amlodipine 5mg daily (n=5744) vs. benazepril 40mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg daily (n=5762) | patients with hypertension who were at high risk for cardiovascular events | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 5744/5762 Primary endpoint: CV death, MI, stroke, hospitalization for angina, resuscitation, coronary revascularization FU duration: 36 months | ALLHAT (amlodipine vs chlor, diabetic subgroup), 2002 | amlodipine (n=2664) vs. chlorthalidone (n=4498) | diabetic (subgroup) participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 2664/4498 Primary endpoint: fatal CHD or nonfatal MI FU duration: 4.9 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | atenolol | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 6 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
MRC I (vs placebo), 1985 | atenolol vs placebo | cardiovascular events 0.82 [0.67; 0.99] | | all cause death 0.93 [0.75; 1.15] cardiovascular death 0.92 [0.69; 1.23] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.76 [0.53; 1.08] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 0.87 [0.69; 1.09] | Coope, 1986 | atenolol vs control | stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.57 [0.34; 0.96] | | all cause death 0.97 [0.70; 1.33] cardiovascular death 0.78 [0.51; 1.17] heart failure 0.68 [0.41; 1.13] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 1.02 [0.66; 1.59] | MRC old (vs placebo), 1992 | atenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.06 [0.90; 1.27] cardiovascular death 1.06 [0.84; 1.34] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.84 [0.62; 1.14] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 1.01 [0.78; 1.31] cardiovascular events 0.98 [0.82; 1.18] | Dutch TIA, 1993 | atenolol vs placebo | cardiovascular death 0.48 [0.33; 0.68] | | all cause death 1.12 [0.79; 1.57] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.85 [0.60; 1.21] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 1.14 [0.75; 1.72] cardiovascular events 1.03 [0.79; 1.35] | TEST, 1995 | atenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.80 [0.56; 1.12] cardiovascular death 0.82 [0.53; 1.26] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.01 [0.77; 1.33] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 0.75 [0.47; 1.20] cardiovascular events 0.99 [0.77; 1.26] | Coope (subgroup ), 1986 | atenolol vs control | | | All cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] coronary death NaN [NaN; NaN] coronary event NaN [NaN; NaN] cardiovascular death NaN [NaN; NaN] Heart failure NaN [NaN; NaN] fatla stroke NaN [NaN; NaN] Stroke 0.00 [0.00; NaN] cardiovascular event 0.00 [0.00; NaN] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
MRC I (vs placebo), 1985 | Propranolol (n=4403) vs. Placebo (n=8654) | men and women aged 35-64 yearswith mild hypertension (diastolic pressure 90-109 mm Hg | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 4403/8654 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5.5y | Coope, 1986 | atenolol and bendrofluazide , Atenolol (n=419) vs. Open control (n=465) | patients aged 60 to 79 years
| open Parallel groups Sample size: 419/465 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4·4y
| MRC old (vs placebo), 1992 | Atenolol (n=1102) vs. Placebo (n=2213) | patients aged 65-74 | double blind Sample size: 1102/2213 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5.8y | Dutch TIA, 1993 | Atenolol 50mg/d (n=732) vs. Placebo (n=741) | aspirin-treated patients with transient ischemic attack or nondisabling ischemic stroke | double blind Sample size: 732/741 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2·6y | TEST, 1995 | Atenolol (n=372) vs. Placebo (n=348) | post stroke | Sample size: 372/348 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2·6y | Coope (subgroup ), 1986 | atenolol and bendrofluazide (n=3) vs. control (n=4) | patients aged 60 to 79 years | double-blind Sample size: 3/4 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3·8y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | atenolol | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy atenolol inferior to bendroflumethiazide in terms of Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) in MRC I (vs diuretics), 1985 atenolol inferior to hydrochlorothiazide+amiloride in terms of cardiovascular death in MRC old (vs diuretics), 1992 atenolol inferior to hydrochlorothiazide+amiloride in terms of Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) in MRC old (vs diuretics), 1992 atenolol inferior to hydrochlorothiazide+amiloride in terms of cardiovascular events in MRC old (vs diuretics), 1992 | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
MRC I (vs diuretics), 1985 | atenolol vs bendroflumethiazide | | Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 1.63 [1.15; 2.32] | all cause death 1.22 [0.99; 1.51] cardiovascular death 0.92 [0.66; 1.29] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.22 [0.83; 1.79] cardiovascular events 1.02 [0.81; 1.28] | MRC old (vs diuretics), 1992 | atenolol vs hydrochlorothiazide+amiloride | | cardiovascular death 1.41 [1.04; 1.91] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 6.96 [4.90; 9.90] cardiovascular events 1.38 [1.10; 1.75] | all cause death 1.22 [0.99; 1.51] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.22 [0.83; 1.79] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
MRC I (vs diuretics), 1985 | Propranolol (n=4403) vs. Bendroflumethiazide. (n=4297) | men and women aged 35-64 years with mild hypertension (diastolic pressure 90-109 mm Hg | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 4403/4297 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5·5y | MRC old (vs diuretics), 1992 | Atenolol (n=1102) vs. Hydrochlorothiazide/amiloride (n=1081) | hypertensive patients aged 65-74 | double blind Sample size: 1102/1081 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5·8y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | candesartan | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 7 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
HSCS, 1974 | deserpidine +methylclothiazide vs placebo | | | cardiovascular death 0.74 [0.39; 1.42] All-cause death 1.02 [0.60; 1.72] Coronary event 0.94 [0.31; 2.87] Cardiovascular death 0.74 [0.39; 1.42] Heart failure 0.00 [0.00; NaN] Stroke 0.83 [0.55; 1.24] cardiovascular event 0.73 [0.51; 1.03] | SCOPE, 2003 | candesartan vs placebo | | | cardiovascular death 0.95 [0.76; 1.18] all cause death 0.97 [0.82; 1.14] coronary event 1.10 [0.79; 1.54] Cardiovascular death 0.95 [0.76; 1.18] cancer 1.08 [0.89; 1.31] stroke (fatal and non fatal) 0.77 [0.59; 1.01] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 1.10 [0.79; 1.54] cardiac death 0.99 [0.52; 1.90] cardiovascular event 0.90 [0.76; 1.06] New onset diabetes 0.80 [0.63; 1.03] | SCOPE (diabetic subgroup), 2003 | candesartan vs control | | | Stroke 0.91 [0.48; 1.76] Cardiovascular events 0.82 [0.57; 1.19] | E-COST, 2005 | candesartan vs conventional treatment | stroke (fatal and non fatal) 0.58 [0.41; 0.82] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 0.41 [0.20; 0.86] | | all cause death 0.94 [0.24; 3.77] Cardiovascular death ∞ [NaN; ∞] Heart failure 0.81 [0.52; 1.26] | E-COST-R, 2005 | candesartan vs conventional treatment | | | all cause death 1.04 [0.27; 4.01] Cardiovascular death 1.04 [0.27; 4.01] Heart failure 0.68 [0.34; 1.34] stroke (fatal and non fatal) 0.89 [0.51; 1.55] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 2.09 [0.39; 11.03] | HIJ-CREATE, 2009 | candesartan vs conventional treatment | New onset diabetes 0.39 [0.16; 0.93] | | all cause death 1.17 [0.84; 1.64] Cardiovascular death 1.12 [0.66; 1.91] Heart failure 0.91 [0.60; 1.38] stroke (fatal and non fatal) 0.92 [0.62; 1.36] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 1.12 [0.66; 1.88] | Takahashi, 2006 | candesartan vs control | | | all cause death 0.00 [0.00; NaN] Heart failure 0.39 [0.15; 1.02] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
HSCS, 1974 | deserpidine 1mg/d + methylclothiazide 10mg/d (n=233) vs. placebo (n=219) | stroke | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 233/219 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2.3y | SCOPE, 2003 | candesartan, 8–16 mg once daily (target 160/90) (n=2477) vs. placebo (n=2460) | patients aged 70–89 years, with systolic blood pressure 160– 179 mmHg, and/or diastolic blood pressure 90–99 mmHg, and a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test score > 24 | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 2477/2460 Primary endpoint: major cardiovascular events FU duration: 3.7 y (mean) | SCOPE (diabetic subgroup), 2003 | candesartan (n=313) vs. control (n=284) | sub group of diabetic patients aged 70-89 years, with systolic blood pressure 160-179 mmHg, and/or diastolic blood pressure 90-99 mmHg, and a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) test score >or= 24 | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 313/284 Primary endpoint: not defined FU duration: 3.7 years | E-COST, 2005 | candesartan, 2 to 12 mg daily (n=1053) vs. conventional antihypertensive drugs other than angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or ARBs (n=995) | Japanese essential hypertensive subjects (sitting blood pressure 140-180/90-110 mmHg) aged 35-79 years | single-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1053/995 Primary endpoint: CV hospitalization FU duration: | E-COST-R, 2005 | candesartan (n=69) vs. conventional treatment (n=72) | hypertensive subjects 60 to 75 years old with non-diabetic chronic renal insufficiency | open Parallel groups Sample size: 69/72 Primary endpoint: cardiovascular event FU duration: | HIJ-CREATE, 2009 | angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy (n=1024) vs. non-angiotensin II receptor blocker-based therapy (n=1025) | patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease and hypertension | open Parallel groups Sample size: 1024/1025 Primary endpoint: CV events FU duration: 4.2 y (median) | Takahashi, 2006 | candesartan (n=43) vs. control (n=37) | patients on chronic haemodialysis in stable condition and with no clinical evidence of cardiac disorders | open Parallel groups Sample size: 43/37 Primary endpoint: cardiovascular events FU duration: 19.4 months |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | candesartan | versus calcium-channel blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CASE-J, 2008 | candesartan vs amlodipine | New onset diabetes 0.64 [0.42; 0.96] | | all cause death 0.85 [0.62; 1.15] Heart failure 1.25 [0.65; 2.40] stroke (fatal and non fatal) 1.27 [0.87; 1.86] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 0.94 [0.49; 1.82] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CASE-J, 2008 | candesartan-based regimen (n=2354) vs. amlodipine-based regimen (n=2349) | high-risk Japanese hypertensive patients | open (blinded assessment) Parallel groups Sample size: 2354/2349 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3.2 years |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | candesartan | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ALPINE, 2003 | candesartan vs hydrochlorothiazide | New onset diabetes 0.12 [0.02; 0.99] | | cardiovascular death NaN [NaN; NaN] all cause death NaN [NaN; NaN] coronary event 0.99 [0.06; 15.80] Cardiovascular death NaN [NaN; NaN] stroke (fatal and non fatal) NaN [NaN; NaN] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 0.99 [0.06; 15.80] cardiovascular event 0.99 [0.06; 15.80] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ALPINE, 2003 | candesartan (n=197) vs. hydrochlorothiazide (n=196) | newly detected hypertensives | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 197/196 Primary endpoint: diabetes FU duration: 1 year |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | captopril | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
UKPDS 38, 1998 | captopril or atenolol vs control | Stroke 0.58 [0.37; 0.90] microvascular events 0.65 [0.46; 0.91] | | All deaths 0.83 [0.65; 1.06] Fatal and nonfatal MI 0.80 [0.60; 1.05] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
UKPDS 38, 1998 | tight control of blood pressure aiming at a BP <150/85 (with the use of captopril or atenolol as main treatment, other treatment were added if the control criteria were not met) (n=758) vs. less tight control aiming at a blood pressure of <180/105 (avoiding treatment with ACE inhibitors or beta-blockers) (n=390)
| hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes
| open Parallel groups Sample size: 758/390 Primary endpoint: not unique (3) FU duration: 8.4y (median)
|
|
first line antihypertensive agent | captopril | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
UKPDS 39, 1998 | captopril vs atenolol | | | All deaths 1.14 [0.83; 1.55] Stroke 1.38 [0.74; 2.57] Fatal and nonfatal MI 1.19 [0.83; 1.69] microvascular events 1.28 [0.81; 2.03] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
UKPDS 39, 1998 | captopril 25 mg/d aiming at a BP <150/85 (n=400) vs. atenolol 50mg/d aiming at a BP <150/85 (n=358) | hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes | open Parallel groups Sample size: 400/358 Primary endpoint: not unique (3) FU duration: ND |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | captopril | versus diuretic and/or beta-blocker No demonstrated result for efficacy captopril inferior to diuretic and/or beta-blockers in terms of Fatal and nonfatal MI in CAPP (diabetic subgroup), 1999 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CAPP (diabetic subgroup), 1999 | captopril vs diuretic and/or beta-blockers | All deaths 0.54 [0.31; 0.95] Cardiovascular events 0.59 [0.38; 0.91] | Fatal and nonfatal MI 0.38 [0.20; 0.73] | Cardiovascular death 0.48 [0.21; 1.10] Stroke 1.03 [0.57; 1.85] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CAPP (diabetic subgroup), 1999 | Captopril initial dose of 50 mg daily given in one or two doses (n=309) vs. thiazide diuretic or beta-blocker (n=263) | Patients aged 25-66 years with a measured diastolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or more on two occasions; subgroup of diabetic patients | open with blinded assessment Parallel groups Sample size: 309/263 Primary endpoint: CV events FU duration: 6.1 year |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | captopril | versus diuretic or beta-blocker No demonstrated result for efficacy captopril inferior to diuretic or beta-blocker in terms of stroke (fatal & non fatal) in CAPPP, 1999 | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
UKPDS-HDS, 1998 | captopril vs diuretic or beta-blocker | | | microvascular disease 1.28 [0.81; 2.03] all cause death 1.14 [0.83; 1.55] coronary heart disease 1.19 [0.83; 1.69] cardiovascular death 1.34 [0.88; 2.05] fatal MI 1.31 [0.79; 2.15] heart failure 1.19 [0.51; 2.80] fatal stroke 0.72 [0.19; 2.65] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.11 [0.59; 2.06] Peripheral arterial disease 1.49 [0.36; 6.20] end stage renal disease 0.90 [0.23; 3.55] | CAPPP, 1999 | captopril vs diuretic or beta-blocker | | stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.28 [1.03; 1.58] | all cause death 0.97 [0.79; 1.18] coronary heart disease 0.96 [0.78; 1.18] cardiovascular death 0.80 [0.59; 1.08] heart failure 1.14 [0.82; 1.58] Major cardiovascular events 1.08 [0.94; 1.24] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
UKPDS-HDS, 1998 | captopril started at 25mg twice daily up to 50 mg twice dialy (target blood pressure of <150/<85 mmHG) (n=400) vs. atenolol started at 50mg daily up to 100mg if required(target blood pressure of <150/<85 mmHG) (n=358) | HBP+DM | Open Parallel groups Sample size: 400/358 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 8·4 y | CAPPP, 1999 | captopril 50mg/d (n=5492) vs. beta-blocker (not specified) or diuretic (not specified) (n=5493) | Patients aged 25–66 years with a measured diastolic bloodpressure of 100 mm Hg or more on two occasions | Open Parallel groups Sample size: 5492/5493 Primary endpoint: fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and other cardiovascular deaths FU duration: 6.1 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | chlorthalidone | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy chlorthalidone inferior to placebo in terms of Coronary event in SHEP, 1991 chlorthalidone inferior to placebo in terms of Heart failure in SHEP, 1991 chlorthalidone inferior to placebo in terms of Stroke in SHEP, 1991 chlorthalidone inferior to placebo in terms of Fatal and nonfatal MI in SHEP (diabetic subgroup), 1996 | 6 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
VA-NHLBI, 1977 | chlorthalidone vs placebo | | | cardiovascular death ∞ [NaN; ∞] All-cause death ∞ [NaN; ∞] Coronary event 1.59 [0.52; 4.82] Cardiovascular death ∞ [NaN; ∞] Heart failure 1.59 [0.52; 4.82] Stroke NaN [NaN; NaN] cardiovascular event 1.59 [0.52; 4.82] | SHEP, 1991 | chlorthalidone vs placebo | cardiovascular event 0.70 [0.61; 0.80] | Coronary event 0.74 [0.58; 0.95] Heart failure 0.52 [0.38; 0.71] Stroke 0.65 [0.51; 0.83] | cardiovascular death 0.81 [0.61; 1.06] All-cause death 0.88 [0.74; 1.05] Cardiovascular death 0.81 [0.61; 1.06] | SHEP-pilot, 1989 | chlorthalidone vs placebo | | | cardiovascular death 0.68 [0.25; 1.85] cardiovascular event 0.65 [0.35; 1.22] | SHEP (diabetic subgroup), 1996 | chlorthalidone vs placebo | Cardiovascular events 0.66 [0.46; 0.94] | Fatal and nonfatal MI 0.56 [0.32; 0.97] | All deaths 0.74 [0.46; 1.19] Stroke 0.74 [0.45; 1.19] | SHEP-P (subgroup ), 1989 | chlorthalidone vs placebo | Stroke 0.21 [0.05; 0.96] | | All cause death ∞ [NaN; ∞] coronary death ∞ [NaN; ∞] coronary event ∞ [NaN; ∞] cardiovascular death ∞ [NaN; ∞] Heart failure ∞ [NaN; ∞] fatla stroke NaN [NaN; NaN] cardiovascular event 0.64 [0.20; 2.10] | SHEP (subgroup ), 1991 | chlorthalidone vs placebo | Heart failure 0.35 [0.18; 0.67] Stroke 0.53 [0.32; 0.89] cardiovascular event 0.67 [0.47; 0.94] | | All cause death 0.93 [0.67; 1.30] coronary death 0.75 [0.38; 1.48] coronary event 0.70 [0.40; 1.25] cardiovascular death 0.83 [0.50; 1.39] fatla stroke 0.72 [0.16; 3.20] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
VA-NHLBI, 1977 | chlorthalidone 50mg/d (n=508) vs. placebo (n=504) | patients aged 21 to 50 years with diastolic BP between 85 to 105 mm Hg | Double aveugle Sample size: 508/504 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1.4 y | SHEP, 1991 | chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d , chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d , chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d (n=2365) vs. placebo (n=2371)
| patients aged 60 years and above with Systolic BP between 160 and 219 mm Hg and diastolic BP less than 90 mm Hg
| Double blind Sample size: 2365/2371 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4.4 y
| SHEP-pilot, 1989 | chlorthalidone (n=443) vs. placebo (n=108) | elderly participants with untreated blood pressures of greater than 160/less than 90 mm Hg | double blind Sample size: 443/108 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2.8y | SHEP (diabetic subgroup), 1996 | low dose of chlorthalidone (12.5-25.0 mg/d) with a step-up to atenolol (25.0-50.0 mg/d) or reserpine (0.05-0.10 mg/d) if needed (n=283) vs. placebo (n=300) | men and women aged 60 years and older , non-insulin-treated diabetic (sub group) patients with isolated systolic hypertension (systolic BP >= 160 mm Hg; diastolic BP, <90 mm Hg) | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 283/300 Primary endpoint: not defined FU duration: 5 year | SHEP-P (subgroup ), 1989 | chlorthalidone (n=70) vs. placebo (n=15) | elderly participants with untreated blood pressures of greater than 160/less than 90 mm Hg | double-blind Sample size: 70/15 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2·8y | SHEP (subgroup ), 1991 | chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg/d for step 1 (n=331) vs. placebo (n=319) | patients aged 60 years and above | double blind Sample size: 331/319 Primary endpoint: Nonfatal and fatal (total) stroke FU duration: 4·2y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | diltiazem | versus diuretic or beta-blocker No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
NORDIL, 2000 | diltiazem vs diuretic or beta-blocker | non fatal stroke 0.80 [0.64; 1.00] | | all cause death 1.02 [0.86; 1.23] coronary heart disease 1.14 [0.95; 1.37] cardiovascular death 1.15 [0.90; 1.48] fatal MI 1.13 [0.66; 1.94] heart failure 1.18 [0.82; 1.69] fatal stroke 0.97 [0.53; 1.75] non fatal MI 1.19 [0.94; 1.49] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.82 [0.67; 1.01] Major cardiovascular events 1.04 [0.92; 1.18] Diabetes onset 0.87 [0.73; 1.04] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
NORDIL, 2000 | diltiazem 180-360 daily (n=5410) vs. beta-blocker (not specified) or diuretic (not specified) (n=5471) | hypertensive patients, aged 50–74 years | Open Parallel groups Sample size: 5410/5471 Primary endpoint: Stroke, MI, all CV deaths FU duration: up to 5 years |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | enalapril | versus calcium-channel blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ABCD (H), 1998 | enalapril vs nisoldipine | coronary heart disease 0.35 [0.19; 0.66] Major cardiovascular events 0.60 [0.39; 0.92] | | all cause death 0.78 [0.40; 1.53] cardiovascular death 0.55 [0.21; 1.45] heart failure 1.25 [0.50; 3.11] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.64 [0.25; 1.61] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ABCD (H), 1998 | enalapril (n=235) vs. nisoldipine (n=235) | patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension | double blind Sample size: 235/235 Primary endpoint: complications of diabetes FU duration: 5·3 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | enalapril | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ANBP2, 2003 | enalapril vs diuretics | | | all cause death 0.93 [0.77; 1.12] coronary heart disease 0.89 [0.73; 1.08] heart failure 0.88 [0.64; 1.22] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.05 [0.81; 1.36] Major cardiovascular events 0.92 [0.83; 1.03] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ANBP2, 2003 | enalapril (n=3044) vs. hydrochlorothiazide (n=3039) The ACE inhibitor
enalapril and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide
were recommended as initial therapy; however, the
choice of the specific agent and dose was made by
the family practitioner | subjects with hypertension 65 to 84 years
| open Parallel groups Sample size: 3044/3039 Primary endpoint: all cardiovascular events or death from any cause FU duration: 4.1 y
|
|
first line antihypertensive agent | hydrochlorothiazide | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Kuramoto, 1981 | hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene vs placebo | | | cardiovascular death 1.07 [0.23; 5.02] cardiovascular event 0.47 [0.16; 1.43] | EWPHE, 1985 | hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene vs placebo | cardiovascular death 0.73 [0.55; 0.97] cardiovascular event 0.73 [0.55; 0.97] | | | EWPHE (subgroup ), 1985 | hydrochlorothiazide vs placebo | | | All cause death 1.17 [0.99; 1.40] coronary death 1.37 [0.56; 3.35] cardiovascular death 1.21 [0.85; 1.73] fatla stroke 1.48 [0.65; 3.38] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Kuramoto, 1981 | hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene (n=44) vs. placebo (n=47) | patients over the age of 60 with sitting diastolic blood pressure on placebo treatment in the range 90-119 mm Hg and a systolic pressure in the range 160-239 mm Hg | double blind Sample size: 44/47 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4.0y | EWPHE, 1985 | hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene , hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene (n=416) vs. placebo (n=424)
| patients over the age of 60 with sitting diastolic blood pressure on placebo treatment in the range 90-119 mm Hg and a systolic pressure in the range 160-239 mm Hg
| Double blind Sample size: 416/424 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4.3 y
| EWPHE (subgroup ), 1985 | hydrochlorothiazide + triamterene (n=70) vs. placebo (n=85) | patients over the age of 60 | double-blind Sample size: 70/85 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3·1y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | indapamide | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
HYVET pilot, 2003 | vs | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
HYVET pilot, 2003 | bendroflumethiazide (n=426) vs. no treatment (n=426) | patients older than 80 years and with a sustained blood pressure of 160-219/90-109 mmHg | Open Parallel groups Sample size: 426/426 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1.1y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | indapamide | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy indapamide inferior to placebo in terms of Stroke in PATS, 1995 indapamide inferior to placebo in terms of cardiovascular event in PATS, 1995 indapamide inferior to placebo in terms of All-cause death in HYVET, 2008 indapamide inferior to placebo in terms of Heart failure in HYVET, 2008 | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
PATS, 1995 | indapamide vs placebo | | Stroke 0.73 [0.60; 0.89] cardiovascular event 1.27 [1.06; 1.53] | fatal stroke 0.78 [0.56; 1.09] coronary death 1.31 [0.64; 2.69] cardiovascular death 0.86 [0.65; 1.14] All-cause death 0.92 [0.74; 1.15] Coronary event 1.19 [0.67; 2.12] Cardiovascular death 0.86 [0.65; 1.14] | HYVET, 2008 | indapamide vs placebo | cardiovascular event 0.71 [0.57; 0.87] | All-cause death 0.82 [0.69; 0.99] Heart failure 0.38 [0.23; 0.62] | fatal stroke 0.64 [0.39; 1.03] coronary death 0.75 [0.45; 1.26] cardiovascular death 0.81 [0.63; 1.05] Coronary event 0.74 [0.31; 1.76] Cardiovascular death 0.81 [0.63; 1.05] Stroke 0.73 [0.51; 1.04] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
PATS, 1995 | indapamide 2.5 mg/d (n=2841) vs. placebo (n=2841) | | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 2841/2841 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2y | HYVET, 2008 | indapamide sustained release 1.5 mg/d + perindopril 2-4mg/d to obtain SBP<150 and DBP<80 (n=1933) vs. placebo (n=1912) | patients 80 years or older with persistent hypertension defined as a sustained systolic BP of 160 mm Hg or higher | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1933/1912 Primary endpoint: fatal and non fatal stroke FU duration: 1.8y (median) |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | indapamide | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
HAPPY, 1987 | vs | | | cardiovascular death 1.06 [0.74; 1.52] cardiovascular event 0.98 [0.81; 1.19] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
HAPPY, 1987 | diuretic (n=3272) vs. beta-blocker (n=3297) | Men aged 40-64 years with mild to moderate hypertension [diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 100-130 mmHg] | open Sample size: 3272/3297 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3.8y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | irbesartan | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
IPDM (150mg), 2001 | irbesartan vs placebo | microvascular events 0.30 [0.14; 0.64] | | | IDNT (irbesartan vs pbo), 2001 | irbesartan vs placebo | microvascular events 0.80 [0.66; 0.97] | | All deaths 0.92 [0.69; 1.23] Cardiovascular events 0.91 [0.72; 1.15] | IDNT (irbesartan vs pbo), 2001 | irbesartan vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.92 [0.70; 1.20] coronary event 0.91 [0.72; 1.15] Cardiovascular death 1.11 [0.76; 1.62] Heart failure 0.82 [0.59; 1.13] stroke (fatal and non fatal) 1.06 [0.63; 1.78] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 0.94 [0.63; 1.40] | IRMA 2, 2001 | irbesartan vs placebo | | | all cause death 1.13 [0.40; 3.20] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 0.51 [0.15; 1.75] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
IPDM (150mg), 2001 | irbesartan 150 mg daily (n=195) vs. placebo (n=201) 3 arms trial: irbesartan 150 and 300 mg daily, placebo | hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 195/201 Primary endpoint: diabetic nephropathy FU duration: 2 years | IDNT (irbesartan vs pbo), 2001 | Irbesartan 300 mg daily (n=579) vs. placebo (n=569)
| hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes
| double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 579/569 Primary endpoint: renal death FU duration: 2.6 years
| IDNT (irbesartan vs pbo), 2001 | Irbesartan 300mg/d (target 135/85) (n=579) vs. placebo (n=569) | hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 579/569 Primary endpoint: doubling of the base-line serum creatinine concentration, end-stage renal disease, or death FU duration: 2.6 y | IRMA 2, 2001 | irbesartan 150 mg daily or 300 mg daily (n=404) vs. placebo (n=207) | hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes and microalbuminuria | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 404/207 Primary endpoint: onset of diabetic nephropathy FU duration: 2 years |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | irbesartan | versus calcium-channel blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
IDNT (irbesartan vs amlodipine), 2001 | irbesartan vs amlodipine | microvascular events 0.77 [0.63; 0.94] | | All deaths 1.04 [0.77; 1.40] Cardiovascular events 1.03 [0.81; 1.31] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
IDNT (irbesartan vs amlodipine), 2001 | Irbesartan 300 mg daily (n=579) vs. amlodipine 10 mg daily (n=567)
| hypertensive patients with nephropathy due to type 2 diabetes
| double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 579/567 Primary endpoint: renal death FU duration: 2.6 years
|
|
first line antihypertensive agent | isradipine | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
MIDAS, 1996 | isradipine vs hydrochlorothiazide | | | all cause death 0.89 [0.35; 2.28] coronary heart disease 1.20 [0.37; 3.89] heart failure ∞ [NaN; ∞] non fatal MI 1.20 [0.37; 3.89] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 2.00 [0.50; 7.93] Major cardiovascular events 1.54 [0.73; 3.25] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
MIDAS, 1996 | isradipine 2.5-5.0 mg twice daily (n=442) vs. hydrochlorothiazide 12.5-25 mg Twice daily (n=441) | HBP | Sample size: 442/441 Primary endpoint: intimal-medial thickness FU duration: 3y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | lacidipine | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ELSA, 2002 | lacidipine vs atenolol | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ELSA, 2002 | Lacidipine (n=1177) vs. atenolol (n=1157) | patients with hypertension | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 1177/1157 Primary endpoint: intima-media thicknesses FU duration: 4·0y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | lacidipine | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
SHELL, 2003 | lacidipine vs chlorthalidone | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
SHELL, 2003 | lacidipine 4 mg/d (n=-9) vs. chlorthalidone 12.5 mg/d (n=-9)
| elderly patients with isolated systolic hypertension > or = 60 years
| Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events FU duration: 3·6?y
|
|
first line antihypertensive agent | lisinopril | versus calcium-channel blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy lisinopril inferior to amlodipine in terms of stroke (fatal & non fatal) in ALLHAT (ACEI vs amlodipine), 2002 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ALLHAT (ACEI vs amlodipine), 2002 | lisinopril vs amlodipine | heart failure 0.87 [0.78; 0.96] | stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.21 [1.06; 1.38] | all cause death 1.05 [0.97; 1.12] coronary heart disease 1.00 [0.91; 1.09] cardiovascular death 1.03 [0.92; 1.15] fatal MI 0.93 [0.75; 1.16] fatal stroke 1.27 [0.97; 1.67] Major cardiovascular events 1.03 [0.99; 1.08] end stage renal disease 0.98 [0.76; 1.25] non cardiovascular death 1.08 [0.97; 1.21] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ALLHAT (ACEI vs amlodipine), 2002 | Lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/d (n=9054) vs. amlodipine 2.5 to 10 mg/d (n=9048) | participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk fact | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 9054/9048 Primary endpoint: fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction FU duration: 4.9 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | lisinopril | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy lisinopril inferior to diuretics in terms of heart failure in ALLHAT (ACEI vs chlorthalidone), 2002 lisinopril inferior to diuretics in terms of stroke (fatal & non fatal) in ALLHAT (ACEI vs chlorthalidone), 2002 lisinopril inferior to diuretics in terms of Major cardiovascular events in ALLHAT (ACEI vs chlorthalidone), 2002 | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ALLHAT (ACEI vs chlorthalidone), 2002 | lisinopril vs diuretics | | heart failure 1.19 [1.07; 1.31] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.14 [1.02; 1.28] Major cardiovascular events 1.07 [1.03; 1.12] | all cause death 1.00 [0.94; 1.07] coronary heart disease 0.98 [0.91; 1.07] cardiovascular death 1.03 [0.94; 1.14] fatal MI 0.89 [0.73; 1.08] fatal stroke 1.20 [0.95; 1.52] end stage renal disease 1.10 [0.88; 1.37] non cardiovascular death 0.97 [0.88; 1.06] | ALLHAT (lisi vs chlor, diabetic subgroup), 2002 | lisinopril vs chlorthalidone | | | All deaths 0.99 [0.89; 1.10] Stroke 1.06 [0.89; 1.26] Fatal and nonfatal MI 1.03 [0.94; 1.13] Cardiovascular events 1.07 [0.99; 1.15] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ALLHAT (ACEI vs chlorthalidone), 2002 | lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/d (n=9054) vs. chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/d (n=15255) | participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension and at least 1 other CHD risk factor | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 9054/15255 Primary endpoint: fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction FU duration: 4·9 y | ALLHAT (lisi vs chlor, diabetic subgroup), 2002 | lisinopril 10 to 40 mg/d (n=2431) vs. chlorthalidone 12.5 to 25 mg/d (n=4498) | diabetic (subgroup) participants aged 55 years or older with hypertension | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 2431/4498 Primary endpoint: fatal CHD or nonfatal MI FU duration: 4.9 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | losartan | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
RENAAL, 2001 | losartan vs placebo | microvascular events 0.79 [0.66; 0.95] | | All deaths 1.02 [0.80; 1.30] | RENAAL, 2001 | losartan vs placebo | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
RENAAL, 2001 | losartan 50 to 100 mg once daily (n=751) vs. placebo (n=762) | patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 751/762 Primary endpoint: doubling of the creatinine, end-stage renal disease, death FU duration: 3.4 y | RENAAL, 2001 | lLosartan 50 to 100 mg once daily (n=751) vs. placebo (n=762) | patients with type 2 diabetes and nephropathy | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 751/762 Primary endpoint: doubling of the base-line serum creatinine concentration, end-stage renal disease, or death FU duration: 3.4 years |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | losartan | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy losartan inferior to atenolol in terms of PAD inférieure à 90 in LIFE, 2002 losartan inferior to atenolol in terms of lung cancer in LIFE, 2002 | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
LIFE, 2002 | losartan vs atenolol | apparition d'un premier évènement cardiovasculaire 0.86 [0.77; 0.96] PAS inférieure à 140 1.08 [1.03; 1.12] PA inférieure à140/90 1.07 [1.02; 1.11] stroke (fatal and non fatal) 0.75 [0.63; 0.88] cardiovascular event 0.86 [0.77; 0.96] New onset diabetes 0.75 [0.64; 0.89] | PAD inférieure à 90 0.98 [0.97; 1.00] lung cancer 2.41 [1.23; 4.71] | cardiovascular death 0.87 [0.72; 1.04] cancer occurence(prespecified endpoint) 1.11 [0.96; 1.29] cancer occurence 1.11 [0.96; 1.29] all cause death 0.89 [0.78; 1.01] coronary event 1.05 [0.86; 1.28] Cardiovascular death 0.87 [0.72; 1.04] Heart failure 0.95 [0.76; 1.18] cancer 1.11 [0.96; 1.29] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 1.05 [0.86; 1.28] cancer death 1.03 [0.80; 1.34] | LIFE (diabetic subgroup), 2002 | losartan vs atenolol | All deaths 0.61 [0.45; 0.83] Cardiovascular death 0.65 [0.44; 0.96] Cardiovascular events 0.76 [0.58; 0.99] | | Stroke 0.82 [0.58; 1.16] Fatal and nonfatal MI 0.85 [0.57; 1.27] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
LIFE, 2002 | losartan (n=4605) vs. atenolol (n=4588) | patients aged 55–80 years, with previously treated or untreated hypertension (sitting blood pressure 160–200/95–115 mm Hg) and ECG signs of LVH. | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 4605/4588 Primary endpoint: Cardiovascular mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction FU duration: 4.8 y (mean) | LIFE (diabetic subgroup), 2002 | losartan 50mg daily at step 1 (n=586) vs. atenolol 50mg daily at step 1 (n=609) | patients with diabetes (subgroup) , hypertension, and signs of left-ventricular hypertrophy on electrocardiograms of all 9193 patients included in the trial, 1195 had diabetes | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 586/609 Primary endpoint: CV events FU duration: 4.7 years |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | metoprolol | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
MERIT-HF, 2005 | metoprolol vs placebo | | | All deaths 0.81 [0.57; 1.15] Fatal and nonfatal MI 1.30 [0.69; 2.46] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
MERIT-HF, 2005 | metoprolol CR/XL (n=495) vs. placebo (n=490) | patients with CHF NYHA classe 2 to 4 and EF<=40% sub group of diabetic patients | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 495/490 Primary endpoint: all-cause death FU duration: 1y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | nicardipine | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
NICS-EH, 1999 | nicardipine vs trichlormethiazide | | | all cause death 1.00 [0.14; 7.00] coronary heart disease 1.00 [0.14; 7.00] cardiovascular death ∞ [NaN; ∞] fatal MI NaN [NaN; NaN] heart failure 0.00 [0.00; NaN] fatal stroke ∞ [NaN; ∞] non fatal stroke 1.03 [0.39; 2.69] non fatal MI 1.03 [0.15; 7.24] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.75 [0.26; 2.12] Major cardiovascular events 0.69 [0.30; 1.58] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
NICS-EH, 1999 | Nicardipine SR 20mg twice daily (n=215) vs. trichlormethiazide 2mg once daily (n=214)
| >=60 years of age with systolic blood pressure of 160 to 220 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure <115 mm Hg
| Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 215/214 Primary endpoint: CV events FU duration: 4.5 years
|
|
first line antihypertensive agent | nidrendipine | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 3 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
SYST-EUR, 1997 | nitrendipine vs placebo | stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.59 [0.41; 0.83] Major cardiovascular events 0.71 [0.57; 0.87] | | all cause death 0.86 [0.68; 1.09] coronary heart disease 0.75 [0.50; 1.13] cardiovascular death 0.73 [0.53; 1.03] fatal MI 0.45 [0.18; 1.09] heart failure 0.75 [0.50; 1.13] fatal stroke 0.73 [0.38; 1.40] | Syst-Eur (diabetic subgroup), 1999 | nitrendipine vs placebo | Cardiovascular death 0.30 [0.11; 0.80] Stroke 0.32 [0.12; 0.86] Cardiovascular events 0.38 [0.19; 0.76] | | All deaths 0.59 [0.31; 1.11] Fatal and nonfatal MI 0.44 [0.18; 1.07] | Syst-Eur (subgroup ), 1997 | nidrendipine vs placebo | | | All cause death 1.23 [0.91; 1.67] coronary death 1.16 [0.54; 2.49] coronary event 1.10 [0.56; 2.18] cardiovascular death 1.08 [0.67; 1.74] Heart failure 0.85 [0.42; 1.72] fatla stroke 1.01 [0.42; 2.44] Stroke 0.77 [0.42; 1.43] cardiovascular event 0.95 [0.65; 1.41] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
SYST-EUR, 1997 | nitrendipine 10-40 mg daily , nitrendipine 10-40 mg daily (n=2398) vs. placebo (n=2297)
| HBP, >=60 years
| Double aveugle Parallel groups Sample size: 2398/2297 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2·6y
| Syst-Eur (diabetic subgroup), 1999 | Calcium-channel blocker (n=252) vs. placebo (n=240) | subgroup of diabetic patients, age, >=60 years) with systolic blood pressure of 160 to 219 mm Hg and diastolic pressure below 95 mm Hg of all 4695 patients included in the study, 492 had diabetes | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 252/240 Primary endpoint: persisting neurologic deficit FU duration: 2 years | Syst-Eur (subgroup ), 1997 | nitrendipine 10-40 mg daily in first step (n=231) vs. placebo (n=210) | patients aged 60 years or older | double blind Sample size: 231/210 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2·9 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | nifedipine | versus diuretic + beta-blocker No demonstrated result for efficacy nifedipine inferior to atenolol+chlorthalidone in terms of all cause death in Castel, 1994 nifedipine inferior to atenolol+chlorthalidone in terms of heart failure in Castel, 1994 nifedipine inferior to atenolol+chlorthalidone in terms of Major cardiovascular events in Castel, 1994 | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Castel, 1994 | nifedipine vs atenolol+chlorthalidone | | all cause death 1.72 [1.20; 2.46] heart failure 3.16 [1.41; 7.07] Major cardiovascular events 1.73 [1.08; 2.77] | coronary heart disease 1.09 [0.42; 2.87] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.40 [0.41; 4.76] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Castel, 1994 | Nifedipine 20mg/d (n=146) vs. Clonidine 0.15mg/d (n=61) or atenolol 100mg/d + chlorthalidone 25mg/d (n=205) | | Sample size: 146/205 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | nifedipine | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy nifedipine inferior to hydrochlorothiazide+amiloride in terms of fatal MI in INSIGHT, 2000 | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
INSIGHT, 2000 | nifedipine vs hydrochlorothiazide+amiloride | Diabetes onset 0.70 [0.54; 0.91] | fatal MI 3.21 [1.18; 8.74] | all cause death 1.03 [0.84; 1.26] coronary heart disease 1.10 [0.83; 1.46] cardiovascular death 1.17 [0.84; 1.63] heart failure 1.75 [0.95; 3.24] fatal stroke 1.09 [0.48; 2.47] non fatal stroke 0.87 [0.61; 1.25] non fatal MI 1.09 [0.76; 1.56] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.94 [0.70; 1.28] Major cardiovascular events 1.07 [0.89; 1.29] | INSIGHT (diabetic subgroup), 2000 | nifedipine vs coamilozide | | | All deaths 0.75 [0.52; 1.09] Cardiovascular death 1.01 [0.54; 1.88] Stroke 0.90 [0.47; 1.72] Fatal and nonfatal MI 1.13 [0.66; 1.91] Cardiovascular events 0.99 [0.69; 1.42] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
INSIGHT, 2000 | nifedipine GITS 30mg/d (n=3157) vs. hydrochlorothiazide 25mg/d + amiloride 2.5mg/d (n=3164) | HBP + RF | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 3157/3164 Primary endpoint: Total CV morbidity FU duration: at least 3 years | INSIGHT (diabetic subgroup), 2000 | Nifedipine GITS 30 mg daily (n=649) vs. co-amilozide hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg plus amiloride 2.5 mg (n=653) | diabetic (subgroup) patients aged 55-80 years with hypertension (blood pressure >= 150/95 mm Hg, or >= 160 mmHg systolic) | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 649/653 Primary endpoint: CV events FU duration: 4 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | nisoldipine | versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ABCD (hypertension), 1998 | nisoldipine vs enalapril | Fatal and nonfatal MI 5.00 [1.95; 12.84] Cardiovascular events 0.43 [0.25; 0.73] | | All deaths 0.77 [0.36; 1.65] Cardiovascular death 2.00 [0.69; 5.76] Stroke 1.57 [0.62; 3.98] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ABCD (hypertension), 1998 | nisoldipine (long acting) (n=235) vs. enalapril (n=235) | patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension | Double blind Factorial plan Sample size: 235/235 Primary endpoint: 24-hour creatinine clearance FU duration: 5 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | oxprenolol | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
IPPPSH, 1985 | oxprenolol vs placebo | | | all cause death 0.94 [0.73; 1.22] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.97 [0.65; 1.47] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 0.92 [0.70; 1.21] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
IPPPSH, 1985 | Oxprenolol (n=3185) vs. Placebo (n=3172) | men and women aged 40-64 years with uncomplicated essential hypertension (diastolic blood pressures 100-125 mmHg) | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 3185/3172 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4·0y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | propranolol | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Berglund, 1986 | propranolol vs bendroflumethiazide | | | all cause death 1.25 [0.36; 4.40] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Berglund, 1986 | Propranolol (n=-9) vs. Bendroflumethiazide. (n=-9) | patients 21 to 70 years with essential hypertension (sitting diastolic blood pressures 100-120 mm Hg) | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 10y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | ramipril | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
DIABHYCAR, 2004 | ramipril vs placebo | | | All deaths 1.04 [0.90; 1.20] Cardiovascular death 1.07 [0.85; 1.35] non fatal stroke 1.07 [0.80; 1.44] non fatal MI 0.89 [0.62; 1.29] Stroke 1.03 [0.80; 1.32] Fatal and nonfatal MI 0.79 [0.57; 1.10] Cardiovascular events 0.97 [0.85; 1.11] | DREAM, 2008 | ramipril vs placebo | | | All deaths 0.98 [0.60; 1.60] Cardiovascular death 1.21 [0.52; 2.80] Stroke 0.50 [0.15; 1.67] Fatal and nonfatal MI 1.28 [0.58; 2.82] Cardiovascular events 0.94 [0.56; 1.58] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
DIABHYCAR, 2004 | ramipril 1.25 mg/day (n=2443) vs. placebo (n=2469) | patients with type 2 diabetes who have microalbuminuria or proteinuria | double-blind Parallel groups Sample size: 2443/2469 Primary endpoint: cardiovascular death, non-fatal MI, stroke, HF, end-stage renal failure FU duration: median 4 years conducted mostly
by general practitioners in 16 countries | DREAM, 2008 | ramipril(up to 15 mg per day) (n=2623) vs. placebo (n=2646) factorial design with 2nd randomization between rosiglytazone vs placebo | people aged >=30 years, with
Impaired glucose tolerance and/or impaired fasting glucose without known CVD or renal insufficiency | open Factorial plan Sample size: 2623/2646 Primary endpoint: development of diabetes or death FU duration: 3 years |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | ramipril | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
AASK (ramipril vs metoprolol), 2002 | ramipril vs metoprolol | | | all cause death 0.77 [0.48; 1.23] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
AASK (ramipril vs metoprolol), 2002 | ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d (n=436) vs. metoprolol 50-200 mg/d (n=441) | African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 436/441 Primary endpoint: glomerular filtration rate (GFR) decline FU duration: 4·1 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | ramipril | versus calcium-channel blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
AASK (ramipril vs amlodipine), 2002 | ramipril vs amlodipine | | | all cause death 1.11 [0.59; 2.09] cardiovascular death 0.50 [0.07; 3.51] Major cardiovascular events 1.37 [0.44; 4.25] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
AASK (ramipril vs amlodipine), 2002 | ramipril 2.5-10 mg/d (n=436) vs. amlodipine 5-10 mg/d (n=217) | African Americans aged 18 to 70 years with hypertensive renal disease (GFR, 20-65 mL/min per 1.73 m(2)) | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 436/217 Primary endpoint: Rate of change in GFR FU duration: 3·0 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | telmisartan | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
PROPHESS, 2008 | telmisartan vs placebo | | | cardiovascular death 0.85 [0.71; 1.02] cancer occurence 0.96 [0.83; 1.12] all cause death 1.02 [0.93; 1.13] Cardiovascular death 0.85 [0.71; 1.02] cancer 0.96 [0.83; 1.12] stroke (fatal and non fatal) 0.95 [0.87; 1.03] Myocardial infarction ( fatal and non fatal) 1.00 [0.81; 1.23] cardiovascular event 0.94 [0.88; 1.01] New onset diabetes 0.83 [0.66; 1.05] lung cancer 1.24 [0.77; 2.00] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
PROPHESS, 2008 | telmisartan 80 mg daily (n=10146) vs. placebo (n=10186) | patients who recently had an ischemic stroke | double blind Factorial plan Sample size: 10146/10186 Primary endpoint: recurrent stroke FU duration: 2.5 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | thiazid diuretic | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy thiazide diuretics inferior to control in terms of Stroke in ANBPS (Australian ), 1980 thiazide diuretics inferior to placebo in terms of Stroke in MCR 35-64 (diuretics vs pbo), 1985 thiazide diuretics inferior to control in terms of Stroke in Carter, 1970 | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ANBPS (Australian ), 1980 | thiazide diuretics vs control | | Stroke 0.45 [0.21; 0.95] | cardiovascular death 0.44 [0.19; 1.01] All-cause death 0.71 [0.43; 1.18] Coronary event 0.99 [0.61; 1.60] Cardiovascular death 0.44 [0.19; 1.01] Heart failure 0.99 [0.61; 1.60] cardiovascular event 0.84 [0.58; 1.22] | Oslo (Hegeland), 1980 | thiazide diuretics vs control | | | cardiovascular death 1.09 [0.37; 3.21] All-cause death 1.04 [0.43; 2.52] Coronary event 1.31 [0.59; 2.91] Cardiovascular death 1.09 [0.37; 3.21] Heart failure 0.00 [0.00; NaN] Stroke 0.00 [0.00; NaN] cardiovascular event 0.73 [0.37; 1.44] | MCR 35-64 (diuretics vs pbo), 1985 | thiazide diuretics vs placebo | cardiovascular event 0.80 [0.66; 0.97] | Stroke 0.33 [0.20; 0.55] | cardiovascular death 1.00 [0.75; 1.33] All-cause death 1.02 [0.83; 1.26] Coronary event 1.02 [0.82; 1.27] | Carter, 1970 | thiazide diuretics vs control | cardiovascular event 0.54 [0.33; 0.89] | Stroke 0.47 [0.25; 0.89] | cardiovascular death 0.61 [0.31; 1.21] All-cause death 0.58 [0.33; 1.01] Coronary event 0.98 [0.14; 6.68] Cardiovascular death 0.61 [0.31; 1.21] Heart failure 0.74 [0.17; 3.12] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ANBPS (Australian ), 1980 | step 1:chlorothiazide 500 mg/d, step 2: chlorothoazide 500mg x2/d or methyldopa, propranolol, pindolol added, step 3: hydralazine or clonidine added (n=1721) vs. placebo (without adjustement according to the BP!) (n=1706) | | Double blind parallel group Sample size: 1721/1706 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4 y | Oslo (Hegeland), 1980 | step 1: hydrochlorothiazide 50mg/d, step 2: alpha methyldopa 250-500mg x2/d or propranolol 40-160mg x2/d, (n=406) vs. no treatment (n=379) | men, aged 40 to 49 years, without target organ damage, with systolic blood pressures between 150 and 179 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure below 110 mm Hg | Open parallel group Sample size: 406/379 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5.5 y | MCR 35-64 (diuretics vs pbo), 1985 | bendrofluazide 10 mg/d (step 2: methyldopa) (n=-9) vs. placebo (n=8654) | mild hypertension | single blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/8654 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4.9y | Carter, 1970 | thiazide (n=50) vs. ? (n=49) | | Open NA Sample size: 50/49 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3.6 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | various ACEI | versus calcium-channel blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
STOP-2 (ACEI vs felodipine or isradipine), 1999 | various ACEI vs calcium-channel blocker | heart failure 0.80 [0.65; 0.98] | | all cause death 1.05 [0.92; 1.19] coronary heart disease 0.87 [0.73; 1.05] cardiovascular death 1.06 [0.89; 1.27] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.03 [0.86; 1.24] Major cardiovascular events 0.94 [0.85; 1.04] | JMIC-B, 2002 | various ACEI vs nifedipine | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
STOP-2 (ACEI vs felodipine or isradipine), 1999 | Enalapril or lisinopril
, enalapril 10 mg or lisinopril 10 mg daily
(n=2205) vs. felodipine 2.5 mg or isradipine 2-5 mg daily
(n=2196)
| patients aged 70-84 years with hypertension (blood pressure > or = 180 mm Hg systolic, > or = 105 mm Hg diastolic, or both)
| Open Parallel groups Sample size: 2205/2196 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5·0 y
| JMIC-B, 2002 | ACE inhibitor (n=-9) vs. nifedipine (n=-9) | HBP+CHD | Open Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3·0 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | various ACEI | versus diuretic or beta-blocker No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
STOP 2 (ACEI vs diurectic or beta-blocker), 1999 | various ACEI vs diuretic or beta-blocker | heart failure 0.63 [0.52; 0.77] | | all cause death 1.02 [0.77; 1.35] coronary heart disease 0.90 [0.74; 1.09] cardiovascular death 1.01 [0.72; 1.42] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.90 [0.74; 1.09] MI (all) 0.90 [0.74; 1.09] Major cardiovascular events 0.94 [0.71; 1.24] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
STOP 2 (ACEI vs diurectic or beta-blocker), 1999 | enalapril 10 mg or lisinopril10 mg daily (n=2205) vs. conventional antihypertensive drugs (atenolol 50 mg, metoprolol 100 mg, pindolol 5 mg, or hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg plus amiloride 2·5 mg daily) (n=2213) | patients aged 70–84 years with hypertension (blood pressure >180 mm Hg systolic, >105 mm Hg diastolic, or both). | Open Parallel groups Sample size: 2205/2213 Primary endpoint: fatal stroke, fatal MI, other cardiovascular death FU duration: 5.0 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | various beta blockers | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
STOP, 1991 | various beta-blockers vs placebo | cardiovascular death 0.42 [0.24; 0.73] heart failure 0.49 [0.29; 0.84] cardiovascular events 0.62 [0.45; 0.85] | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
STOP, 1991 | active antihypertensive therapy (Thiazide and amiloride or beta-blocker) , Atenolol, Metoprolol, Pindolol, HCTZ/Ami (n=812) vs. Placebo (n=815)
| hypertensive men and women aged 70-84 years
| Double blind Sample size: 812/815 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2·1y
|
|
first line antihypertensive agent | various beta blockers | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 2 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
HAPPHY, 1988 | various beta-blockers vs diuretics | | | all cause death 0.94 [0.72; 1.24] cardiovascular death 0.94 [0.66; 1.35] heart failure 1.44 [0.84; 2.48] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.77 [0.49; 1.23] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 1.13 [0.88; 1.44] cardiovascular events 1.02 [0.84; 1.23] | Yurenev, 1992 | various beta-blockers vs diuretics | | | all cause death 0.15 [0.02; 1.18] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.56 [0.21; 1.48] Myocardial infarction (fatal & non fatal) 1.20 [0.41; 3.48] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
HAPPHY, 1988 | Atenolol, Metoprolol, Propranolol (n=3297) vs. Hydrochlorothiazide, Bendroflumethiazide (n=3272) | Men aged 40-64 years with mild to moderate hypertension (diastolic blood pressure 100-130 mmHg) without previous CHD, stroke | open Sample size: 3297/3272 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3·8y | Yurenev, 1992 | hypotensive drugs including beta-blockers (n=150) vs. same combination of drugs including diuretics (n=154) | hypertensive patients with different degrees of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) | Sample size: 150/154 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4·0y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | various diuretics | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy High-dose diuretics inferior to placebo in terms of Cardiovascular death in VA II, 1970 High-dose diuretics inferior to placebo in terms of Stroke in VA II, 1970 | 4 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
VA-I, 1967 | High-dose diuretics vs placebo | cardiovascular event 0.08 [0.01; 0.60] | | cardiovascular death 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | VA II, 1970 | High-dose diuretics vs placebo | cardiovascular death 0.44 [0.20; 0.98] cardiovascular event 0.38 [0.22; 0.65] | Cardiovascular death 0.44 [0.20; 0.98] Stroke 0.26 [0.10; 0.68] | All-cause death 0.50 [0.24; 1.03] Coronary event 0.88 [0.41; 1.92] Heart failure 0.00 [0.00; NaN] | HDFP, 1979 | High-dose diuretics vs control | cardiovascular death 0.81 [0.67; 0.97] cardiovascular event 0.78 [0.67; 0.91] | | | Barraclough, 1973 | High-dose diuretics vs placebo | | | cardiovascular death 0.00 [0.00; NaN] cardiovascular event 0.33 [0.04; 3.11] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
VA-I, 1967 | High-dose diuretics (n=73) vs. Placebo (n=70) | | Sample size: 73/70 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 1.5y | VA II, 1970 | High-dose diuretics (n=186) vs. Placebo (n=194) | male hypertensive patients with diastolic blood pressures averaging 90 to 114 mm Hg | Sample size: 186/194 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3.3y | HDFP, 1979 | High-dose diuretics (n=5485) vs. Usual careb (n=5455) | persons with high blood pressure aged 30 to 69 years | Sample size: 5485/5455 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5 y | Barraclough, 1973 | High-dose diuretics (n=58) vs. Placebo (n=58) | | Sample size: 58/58 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2.0 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | various diuretics | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
MRC (diu vs BB), 1985 | High-dose diuretics vs beta-blockers | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
MRC (diu vs BB), 1985 | High-dose diuretics (n=4297) vs. ß-Blockers (n=4402) | | Sample size: 4297/4402 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4.9y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | verapamil | versus beta-blockers No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
INVEST (Pepine), 2003 | verapamil vs atenolol | | | all cause death 0.98 [0.90; 1.07] non fatal stroke 0.89 [0.70; 1.12] non fatal MI 0.99 [0.79; 1.24] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
INVEST (Pepine), 2003 | verapamil sustained release 240mg/d (n=11267) vs. atenolol 50mg/d (n=11309) | patients with hypertension and CAD | Sample size: 11267/11309 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2.7 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | verapamil | versus diuretic or beta-blocker No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
CONVINCE, 2003 | verapamil vs diuretic or beta-blocker | | | all cause death 1.07 [0.92; 1.25] coronary heart disease 0.81 [0.65; 1.02] cardiovascular death 1.08 [0.86; 1.35] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 0.81 [0.65; 1.02] Major cardiovascular events 1.01 [0.88; 1.17] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
CONVINCE, 2003 | controlled-onset extendedrelease(COER) verapamil 180mg/d (n=8241) vs. hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg/d or atenolol 50 mg/d(investigator choice prior to randomization) (n=8361) | hypertension with 1 or more additional risk factors for cardiovascular disease | Double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 8241/8361 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3 y |
|
first line antihypertensive agent | verapamil | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
VHAS, 1998 | verapamil vs chlorthalidone | | | all cause death 1.25 [0.34; 4.64] coronary heart disease 0.90 [0.37; 2.20] cardiovascular death 1.25 [0.34; 4.64] fatal MI 0.75 [0.17; 3.34] heart failure ∞ [NaN; ∞] fatal stroke ∞ [NaN; ∞] non fatal stroke 0.75 [0.17; 3.34] non fatal MI 1.00 [0.29; 3.44] stroke (fatal & non fatal) 1.25 [0.34; 4.64] Major cardiovascular events 1.07 [0.52; 2.20] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
VHAS, 1998 | verapamil SR 240 mg/d (n=707) vs. chlorthalidone 25mg/d (n=707) | HBP | Open Parallel groups Sample size: 707/707 Primary endpoint: Not given FU duration: 2 years |
|
intensive blood pressure control | intensive blood pressure lowering strategies | versus standard target No demonstrated result for efficacy more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie inferior to less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie in terms of Total serious adverse events in ACCORD blood pressure, 2008 | 17 trials | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
MDRD, 1994 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | End-stage renal disease 0.77 [0.65; 0.91] | | | HOT, 1994 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality 1.07 [0.90; 1.27] Cardiovascular mortality 1.07 [0.83; 1.38] Congestive heart failure 0.76 [0.44; 1.32] stroke 1.06 [0.83; 1.36] Major CV events 0.95 [0.82; 1.11] non cardiovascular mortality 1.06 [0.84; 1.35] | ABCD target (H) , 2000 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | Total Mortality 0.45 [0.22; 0.92] | | Cardiovascular mortality 0.54 [0.20; 1.43] Congestive heart failure 0.98 [0.40; 2.43] stroke 0.98 [0.40; 2.43] MI 1.12 [0.56; 2.25] Major CV events 0.91 [0.60; 1.37] non cardiovascular mortality 0.36 [0.12; 1.11] | AASK, 2002 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality 0.88 [0.58; 1.35] Cardiovascular mortality 0.96 [0.48; 1.93] Major CV events 0.87 [0.61; 1.24] End-stage renal disease 0.92 [0.70; 1.22] non cardiovascular mortality 0.87 [0.51; 1.50] | REIN-2, 2005 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality 0.67 [0.11; 3.94] Cardiovascular mortality 0.50 [0.05; 5.46] Total serious adverse events 1.39 [0.90; 2.15] End-stage renal disease 1.12 [0.74; 1.69] non cardiovascular mortality 1.00 [0.06; 15.86] | ABCD target (N) , 2002 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | stroke 0.32 [0.10; 0.95] | | Total Mortality 0.92 [0.50; 1.70] Cardiovascular mortality 1.48 [0.65; 3.40] Congestive heart failure 1.12 [0.50; 2.49] MI 1.30 [0.68; 2.50] Major CV events 0.97 [0.64; 1.47] non cardiovascular mortality 0.47 [0.16; 1.32] | Toto, 1995 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality ∞ [NaN; ∞] End-stage renal disease 2.92 [0.65; 13.15] | ACCORD blood pressure, 2008 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | stroke 0.58 [0.39; 0.88] | Total serious adverse events 2.58 [1.70; 3.91] | Total Mortality 1.05 [0.84; 1.30] Cardiovascular mortality 1.04 [0.73; 1.48] Congestive heart failure 0.93 [0.69; 1.24] MI 0.87 [0.69; 1.09] Major CV events 0.88 [0.74; 1.05] End-stage renal disease 1.02 [0.71; 1.46] | Cardio-Sis, 2009 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | Major CV events 0.53 [0.30; 0.94] left ventricular hypertrophy 0.67 [0.49; 0.92] | | Total Mortality 0.79 [0.21; 2.94] Congestive heart failure 0.42 [0.11; 1.62] stroke 0.44 [0.14; 1.40] MI 0.66 [0.19; 2.31] | SPRINT, 2015 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | Total Mortality 0.73 [0.60; 0.89] Cardiovascular mortality 0.57 [0.38; 0.85] Congestive heart failure 0.62 [0.45; 0.85] Major CV events 0.75 [0.64; 0.88] | | stroke 0.89 [0.63; 1.25] MI 0.83 [0.64; 1.08] End-stage renal disease 0.89 [0.42; 1.88] | UKPDS-HDS, 1998 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | Cardiovascular mortality 0.71 [0.52; 0.97] Congestive heart failure 0.45 [0.25; 0.80] stroke 0.58 [0.37; 0.90] Major CV events 0.69 [0.55; 0.86] | | Total Mortality 0.83 [0.65; 1.06] MI 0.80 [0.60; 1.06] | JATOS, 2008 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality 1.12 [0.43; 2.91] Cardiovascular mortality 1.28 [0.48; 3.43] Congestive heart failure 1.14 [0.41; 3.15] stroke 1.04 [0.69; 1.58] MI 1.00 [0.32; 3.11] Major CV events 1.05 [0.73; 1.52] | VANLISH, 2010 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality 0.80 [0.47; 1.37] Cardiovascular mortality 1.00 [0.44; 2.29] stroke 0.70 [0.37; 1.32] MI 1.25 [0.34; 4.63] Major CV events 0.87 [0.54; 1.40] | HOMED-BP, 2012 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality 0.87 [0.52; 1.45] Cardiovascular mortality 0.66 [0.16; 2.79] stroke 1.25 [0.65; 2.40] MI 0.71 [0.23; 2.22] | SPS3, 2013 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality 1.06 [0.82; 1.38] Cardiovascular mortality 0.89 [0.57; 1.38] Major CV events 0.86 [0.71; 1.05] | Wei, 2013 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | Total Mortality 0.58 [0.43; 0.79] Cardiovascular mortality 0.50 [0.31; 0.80] Congestive heart failure 0.38 [0.15; 0.96] stroke 0.58 [0.35; 0.97] Major CV events 0.59 [0.41; 0.85] | | MI 0.99 [0.40; 2.47] | PAST-BP, 2015 | more intensive blood pressure lowering strategie vs less intensive blood pressure lowering strategie | | | Total Mortality 2.16 [0.20; 23.50] Major CV events 0.22 [0.03; 1.72] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
MDRD, 1994 | low target blood pressure (mean arterial pressure < 92 mm Hg) (n=840) vs. usual target blood pressure (mean arterial pressure < 107 mm Hg) (n=0) | patients with predominantly nondiabetic kidney disease and a glomerular filtration rate of 13 to 55 mL/min per 1.73 m2 | open Sample size: 840/0 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 2.2 y | HOT, 1994 | less or equal than 85 mmHg, or less or equal than 80 mmHg (n=12526) vs. less or equal than 90 mmHg (n=6264) factorial design: acetylsalicylic acid 75 mg daily vs placebo | patients with diastolic blood pressure between 100 mmHg and 115 mmHg | open Factorial plan Sample size: 12526/6264 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3.8 y | ABCD target (H) , 2000 | intensive treatment with a diastolic blood pressure
goal of 75 mmHg (n=237) vs. moderate treatment with a diastolic blood pressure goal of 80-89 mmHg (n=233) factorial design: nisoldipine or enalapril as the initial antihypertensive | diabetes patients with DBP >=90 mmHg | open Parallel groups Sample size: 237/233 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 5 year | AASK, 2002 | arterial pressure goal of 92 mm Hg or lower (n=540) vs. usual mean arterial pressure goal of 102 to 107 mm Hg/pj (n=554) 3 x 2 factorial trial: 2 mean arterial pressure goals and initial treatment with a beta-blocker, an ACE inhibitor or a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker | African-Americans,with diastolic blood pressure higher than 94mmHg and a glomerular filtration rate between 20 and 65 ml/min per 1.73 m2 | open Parallel groups Sample size: 540/554 Primary endpoint: FU duration: (range 3-6.4y) | REIN-2, 2005 | intensified (systolic/diastolic <130/80 mm Hg) blood-pressure control (n=169) vs. conventional (diastolic <90 mm Hg) blood-pressure control (n=169) | patients with non-diabetic proteinuric nephropathies receiving background treatment with the ACE inhibitor ramipril | open Sample size: 169/169 Primary endpoint: end-stage renal disease FU duration: 36 months | ABCD target (N) , 2002 | intensive treatment (diastolic blood pressure decrease
of 10 mmHg below baseline DBP) (n=237) vs. moderate treatment (diastolic blood pressure goal of 80-89 mmHg) (n=243) patients randomized to intensive therapy received either nisoldipine or enalapril in a blinded
manner as the initial antihypertensive medication | diabetes patients with diastolic
blood pressure between 80 and 89mmHg | open Parallel groups Sample size: 237/243 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Toto, 1995 | strict blood pressure control (DBP 65 to 80 mm Hg) (n=42) vs. usual blood pressure control (DBP 85 to 95 mm Hg) (n=35) | non-diabetic patients (age 25 to 73) with long-standing hypertension (DBP > or = 95 mm Hg), chronic renal insufficiency (GFR < or = 70 m/min/1.73 m2) and a normal urine sediment | open Sample size: 42/35 Primary endpoint: GFR slope FU duration: | ACCORD blood pressure, 2008 | intensive therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 120 mm Hg (n=2362) vs. standard therapy, targeting a systolic pressure of less than 140 mm Hg (n=2371) | patients with a median glycated hemoglobin level of 8.1% at high risk for cardiovascular events | open Factorial plan Sample size: 2362/2371 Primary endpoint: cardiovascular events FU duration: 4.7y | Cardio-Sis, 2009 | tighter control of systolic BP with a goal of <130 mm Hg (n=558) vs. usual control, with a goal of <140 mm Hg (n=553) | nondiabetic patients with hypertension and with SBP of 150 mm Hg or higher confirmed at two different times | open Parallel groups Sample size: 558/553 Primary endpoint: ECG evidence of LVH FU duration: 2 years | SPRINT, 2015 | target of 120 mm Hg (n=4678) vs. target of 140 mm Hg (n=4683) | high-risk hypertensive adults 50 years of age and older with one additional cardiovascular risk factor or preexisting kidney disease | open Parallel groups Sample size: 4678/4683 Primary endpoint: MI, ACS, stroke, HF, CV death FU duration: | UKPDS-HDS, 1998 | blood pressure of <150/85 mm Hg (with the use of an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor captopril or a beta blocker atenolol as main treatment) (n=758) vs. less tight control aiming at a blood pressure of <180/105 mm Hg (n=390) | patients with type 2 diabetes | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 758/390 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 8.4 years | JATOS, 2008 | strict treatment to maintain systolic blood pressure below 140 mmHg (n=2212) vs. mild treatment to maintain systolic blood pressure below 160 but at or above 140 mmHg (n=2206) | elderly hypertensive patients with essential hypertension (65-85 years old, with a pretreatment systolic blood pressure of above 160 mmHg) | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: 2212/2206 Primary endpoint: CV and renal events FU duration: | VANLISH, 2010 | strict blood pressure control (<140 mm Hg) (n=-9) vs. moderate blood pressure control (> or =140 mm Hg to <150 mm Hg) (n=-9) | patients aged 70 to 84 years with isolated systolic hypertension (sitting blood pressure 160 to 199 mm Hg) | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 3.07 years (median) | HOMED-BP, 2012 | tight control (<125/<80 mm Hg (TC)) of HBP (n=-9) vs. usual control (125-134/80-84 mm Hg (UC)) (n=-9) | with an untreated systolic/diastolic HBP of 135-179/85-119 mm Hg | Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: CV events FU duration: 5.3 years (median) | SPS3, 2013 | less than 130 mm Hg (n=-9) vs. 130-149 mm Hg (n=-9) | patients lived in North America, Latin America, and Spain and had recent, MRI-defined symptomatic lacunar infarctions | open-label Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: | Wei, 2013 | BP <=140/90 mm Hg (n=-9) vs. BP <=150/90 mm Hg (n=-9) | Chinese hypertensive patients older than 70 years | Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: 4 years (mean) | PAST-BP, 2015 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renin inhibitor | aliskiren | versus No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ACCELERATE, 2011 | aliskiren vs amlodipine | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ACCELERATE, 2011 | (n=-9) vs. (n=-9) | essential hypertension, were aged 18 years or older, and had systolic blood pressure between 150 and 180 mm Hg | Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: FU duration: |
|
renin inhibitor | aliskiren | versus placebo or control No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
AVOID, 2008 | aliskiren vs placebo | | | death 0.00 [0.00; NaN] Any serious adverse event 0.95 [0.58; 1.58] Any adverse event 0.99 [0.89; 1.11] Discontinuation due to adverse event 0.89 [0.47; 1.67] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
AVOID, 2008 | aliskiren (150 mg daily for 3 months, followed by an increase in dosage to 300 mg daily for another 3 months (n=301) vs. placebo (n=298) | patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes with nephropathy | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 301/298 Primary endpoint: ratio of albumin to creatinine FU duration: 6 months |
|
renin inhibitor | aliskiren | versus angiotensin receptor blocker No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
ALLAY, 2009 | aliskiren vs losartan | | | death NaN [NaN; NaN] Any serious adverse event 0.76 [0.34; 1.68] Any adverse event 1.10 [0.90; 1.33] Discontinuation due to adverse event 0.39 [0.13; 1.23] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
ALLAY, 2009 | aliskiren 300 mg (n=154) vs. losartan 100 mg (n=152) 3rd arms with combination | patients with hypertension, increased ventricular wall thickness, and body mass index >25 kg/m2 | open Parallel groups Sample size: 154/152 Primary endpoint: LV mass index FU duration: 9 months |
|
renin inhibitor | aliskiren | versus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Andersen, 2008 | aliskiren vs ramipril | | | |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Andersen, 2008 | aliskiren 150 mg (up to 300mg) daily (n=-9) vs. ramipril 5 mg (up to 10mg) daily (n=-9) Dose titration (to aliskiren 300 mg/ramipril 10 mg) and subsequent hydrochlorothiazide addition (12.5 mg, titrated to 25 mg if required) were permitted at weeks 6, 12, 18 and 21 for inadequate blood pressure control | | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: -9/-9 Primary endpoint: BP change FU duration: 26 weeks |
|
renin inhibitor | aliskiren | versus diuretics No demonstrated result for efficacy | 1 trial | meta-analysis | | Trial | control | p<0.05 | harm | NS |
---|
Schmieder (vs HCTZ), 2009 | aliskiren vs hydrochlorothiazide | | | Any serious adverse event 1.17 [0.67; 2.03] Any adverse event 1.06 [0.97; 1.16] Discontinuation due to adverse event 0.70 [0.44; 1.11] |
Trial | Treatments | Patients | Method |
---|
Schmieder (vs HCTZ), 2009 | aliskiren 300 mg (n=567) vs. hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg (n=557) | patients with essential hypertension | double blind Parallel groups Sample size: 567/557 Primary endpoint: BP reduction FU duration: 20 weeks |
|