4.5 Review

Association between antihypertensive treatment and adverse events: systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 372, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n189

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Royal Society through a Sir Henry Dale fellowship [211182/Z/18/Z]
  3. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care [430]
  4. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) senior fellowship
  5. NIHR senior investigator award
  6. NIHR SPCR
  7. NIHR CLAHRC Oxford
  8. NIHR Oxford BRC
  9. Fonds de recherche du Quebec - Sante Postdoctoral Training Fellowship
  10. NIHR School for Primary Care Research launching fellowship
  11. NIHR Applied Research Collaborations Oxford and Thames Valley [C55650/A21464]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found no evidence of an association between antihypertensive treatment and falls, but did find evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These findings can be used to guide shared decision making between doctors and patients, especially in high-risk patients with previous adverse events or poor renal function.
OBJECTIVE To examine the association between antihypertensive treatment and specific adverse events. DESIGN Systematic review and meta-analysis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials of adults receiving antihypertensives compared with placebo or no treatment, more antihypertensive drugs compared with fewer antihypertensive drugs, or higher blood pressure targets compared with lower targets. To avoid small early phase trials, studies were required to have at least 650 patient years of follow-up. INFORMATION SOURCES Searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, CENTRAL, and the Science Citation Index databases from inception until 14 April 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was falls during trial follow-up. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, fractures, gout, hyperkalaemia, hypokalaemia, hypotension, and syncope. Additional outcomes related to death and major cardiovascular events were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and random effects meta-analysis was used to pool rate ratios, odds ratios, and hazard ratios across studies, allowing for between study heterogeneity (tau(2)). RESULTS Of 15 023 articles screened for inclusion, 58 randomised controlled trials were identified, including 280 638 participants followed up for a median of 3 (interquartile range 2-4) years. Most of the trials (n=40, 69%) had a low risk of bias. Among seven trials reporting data for falls, no evidence was found of an association with antihypertensive treatment (summary risk ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.24, tau(2)=0.009). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of acute kidney injury (1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.39, tau(2)=0.037, n=15), hyperkalaemia (1.89, 1.56 to 2.30, tau(2)=0.122, n=26), hypotension (1.97, 1.67 to 2.32, tau(2)=0.132, n=35), and syncope (1.28, 1.03 to 1.59, tau(2)=0.050, n=16). The heterogeneity between studies assessing acute kidney injury and hyperkalaemia events was reduced when focusing on drugs that affect the renin angiotensin-aldosterone system. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses focusing on adverse events leading to withdrawal from each trial. Antihypertensive treatment was associated with a reduced risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular death, and stroke, but not of myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis found no evidence to suggest that antihypertensive treatment is associated with falls but found evidence of an association with mild (hyperkalaemia, hypotension) and severe adverse events (acute kidney injury, syncope). These data could be used to inform shared decision making between doctors and patients about initiation and continuation of antihypertensive treatment, especially in patients at high risk of harm because of previous adverse events or poor renal function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据