Objective To compare the effectiveness and safety of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) for coronary heart disease (CHD). Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on ARB vs. ACEI in treating CHD were collected in databases including MEDLINE, EMbase, BIOSIS Previews, The Cochrane Library, CBM, VIP, WanFang Data and CNKI from inception to July 2011, and the references of the included articles were also retrieved. In accordance with the Cochrane Handbook 5.0.1, two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of articles, and extracted and cross-checked the data. Then meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.1.1 software. Results A total of 18 RCTs (17 660 cases) were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between the ARB group and the ACEI group in all-cause mortality (RR=1.04, 95%CI 0.98 to 1.11, P=0.20), cardiovascular mortality (RR=1.04, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.12, P=0.26), myocardial infarction (RR=0.98, 95%CI 0.92 to 1.05, P=0.59), hospitalization for heart failure (RR=1.14, 95%CI 0.97 to 1.32, P=0.11) and stroke (RR=0.93, 95%CI 0.80 to 1.08, P=0.34). However, the risk of adverse events causing drug discontinuation was significantly lower in the ARB group compared with the ACEI group (RR=0.77, 95%CI 0.67 to 0.89, P=0.000 3). Conclusion Current evidence suggests that ARB is as effective as ACEI in reducing the risk of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for heart failure and stroke in patients with coronary heart disease. Moreover, it is much better in tolerance. Because of the quality limitation and sampling size of the induced studies, this conclusion still needs to be further proved by more large-scale, multicenter and perspective clinical trials.
Objective To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) used alone v.s. used in combination on the reversion of left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) in Chinese essential hypertension (EH) patients. Methods The following databases were searched, including, Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011), PubMed (1980 to 2011), EMbase (1990 to 2011), CBM (1978 to 2011), CNKI (1994 to 2011), VIP (1989 to 2011), and WanFang Data (1998 to 2011). The studies were screened, and the quality was evaluated according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and then Meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan 5.1 software. Results A total of 10 studies involving 859 patients were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that the CCBs plus ACEIs group (the combination group) was superior to the CCBs group in improving EH patients’ systolic pressure (SBP) (MD= –6.49, 95%CI –10.55 to –2.43), diastolic pressure (DBP) (MD= –4.48, 95%CI –6.76 to –2.21), left ventricular mass index (LVMI) (MD= –5.31, 95%CI –8.43 to –2.19), interventricular septal thickness (IVST) (MD= –1.33, 95%CI –2.00 to –0.66) and left ventricular posterior wall thickness (LVPWT) (MD= –0.87, 95%CI –1.41 to –0.33). In addition, compared with the ACEIs group, the combination group was greatly superior in decreasing LVMI (MD= –11.54, 95%CI –15.06 to –8.01), IVST (MD= –0.76, 95%CI –1.25 to –0.27) and LVPWT (MD= –0.80, 95%CI –1.01 to –0.59). But clinical effectiveness was similar between the combination group and the CCBs group or the ACEIs group in aspects of the left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD), fraction shortening (FS) and ejection fractions (EF) (Pgt;0.05). Conclusion The combination therapy of CCBs with ACEIs is superior to either the CCBs or the ACEIsmonothrepy in regression of left ventricular hypertrophy. Because of the low methodological quality and small sample, this conclusion needs to be proved by more high-quality, large-scale and multicenter randomized controlled trials in the future.
Objective To estimate the efficacy and tolerability of combination of Amlodipine and different angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in comparison with Amlodipine monotherapy in the treatment of hypertension. Methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Issue 2, 2009), PubMed, MEDLINE, EMbase, CBM, and CNKI (from their inception to August 2009) for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, assessed the methodological quality of included trials, and extracted data. Meta-analysis was performed by Stata 10.0 soft. Results Seventeen RCTs involving 3 291 patients were ultimately identified. The results of meta-analyses showed combination had a greater systolic blood pressure reduction (WMD=5.72, 95%CI 4.10 to 7.33, P=0.016) and diastolic blood pressure reduction (WMD=3.62, 95%CI 4.85 to 2.39, P=0.000) than monotherapy. Combination had fewer overall adverse events (RR=0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99) than that of monotherapy. Conclusion The results of meta-analyses indicate that combination provides a superior blood pressure control to that of monotherapy and has fewer adverse events and better tolerability in hypertensive patients.
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) on the left ventricular texture parameters, blood kinetics parameters, degree of cardiac function and rate of side effects of patients with heart failure when compared to angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). Methods We searched MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), EMBASE (1989 to 2000), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2004), IPA (1970 to 2004), and Chinese Biomedicine Database (1980 to 2003). The quality of included studies such as randomization, blinding, allocation concealment and loss of follow up was evaluated and meta-analysis was performd by RevMan 4.2 software. Results Eighteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The meta-analysis of efficacy didn’t show statistical significance when comparing the pooled effect size of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), cardiac output (CO), heart rate (HR), degree of cardiac function. The pooled RR rate of side effects was 2.17, 95%CI 1.53 to 3.07, P＜0.000 01. Conclusions No evidence shows significant difference of ACEI group from ARB group in the improvement of cardiac function and left ventricle remodeling. The rate of side effects of ACEI is statistically higher than that of ARB.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) and/or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in the treatment of patients with diastolic heart failure (DHF). MethodsPubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2014), CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and CBM were electronically searched from inception to November 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ACEI/ARB for DHF patients. References of included studies were also retrieved. Two reviewers independently screened literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Then, meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.2 software. ResultsA total of 22 RCTs involving 9 557 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis indicated that, compared with the control group, the ACEI/ARB group had significant improvements in exercise capacity (6-minute walk distance:SMD=0.02, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38, P=0.01; Exercise time:MD=40.58, 95% CI 14.06 to 67.10, P=0.003) and diastolic function (E/A ratio:MD=0.20, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.31, P=0.000 4; E/E' ratio:MD=-1.69, 95% CI -2.11 to -1.27, P<0.000 01). In addition, compared with the control treatment, ACEI/ARB could significantly decrease the serum BNP level (SMD=-0.44, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.16, P=0.002) and NT-proBNP level (SMD=-0.68, 95% CI -1.24 to -0.12, P=0.02). ConclusionCurrent evidence shows that ACEI/ARB can improve the exercise capacity and diastolic function, and reduce the levels of serum BNP and NT-proBNP in DHF patients. Due to the limited quality of the included studies and discrepancies in the diagnostic criteria of DHF, more high-quality studies are needed to verify the above conclusion.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the efficacy of different rennin-angiotensin system blockers in prevention of stroke recurrence and reduction of major vascular events in patients with prior stroke.MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library, EMbase, CNKI, CBM and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy of ACEIs and ARBs for stroke secondary prevention from inception to November 1st, 2018. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Network meta-analysis was then performed by using Stata 15.1 software.ResultsA total of 6 RCTs involving 25 620 patients were included. The results of network meta-analysis showed that: in prevention of stroke recurrence, candesartan (RR=0.40, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.99) and valsartan (RR=0.22, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.76) were significantly lower than placebo; valsartan was lower than telmisartan (RR=0.24, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.81), ramipril (RR=0.26, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.93) and perindopril (RR=0.23, 95%CI 0.07 to 0.81). For reducing the major vascular events after stroke, candesartan (RR=0.39, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.74), valsartan (RR=0.27, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.64) and ramipril (RR=0.76, 95%CI 0.60 to 0.95) were significantly lower than placebo; valsartan was lower than telmisartan (RR=0.29, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.69), ramipril (RR=0.36, 95%CI 0.15 to 0.88) and perindopril (RR=0.28, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.68); candesartan was lower than telmisartan (RR=0.42, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.79) and perindopril (RR=0.41, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.79).ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that valsartan and candesartan can reduce the stroke recurrence and major vascular events after stroke. Ramipril can reduce the major vascular event in patients with prior stroke. Valsartan might be the best option in both outcomes. Due to limited quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.