SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2012
Antihypertensive effects and safety of eprosartan: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- CHINESE HERBAL DECOCTION AS A COMPLEMENTARY THERAPY FOR ATROPHIC GASTRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.African journal of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicines : AJTCAM · 2017Pooled it
- Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in Patients With Hypertension in Japan - Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Circulation reports · 2020Article
- Identification of novel antifungal agents: antimicrobial evaluation, SAR, ADME-Tox and molecular docking studies of a series of imidazole derivatives.BMC chemistry · 2019Article
- Effect of eprosartan-based therapy on systolic blood pressure and total cardiovascular risk in a large international population: preliminary report of the observational POWER study.Vascular health and risk management · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe benefits of reducing blood pressure (BP) have been well established, but uncertainty remains about the comparative effects of different BP-lowering regimens. We aimed to estimate the efficacy and the tolerability of eprosartan compared with other agents as monotherapy.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting the criteria was performed using Review Manager and Stata/SE.
resultsTwenty-two articles were ultimately included out of 78 studies, involving 6,460 patients. Eprosartan had a greater systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction than placebo [weighted mean difference (WMD): 6.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.86-8.25] and losartan (WMD: 2.24, 95% CI 0.08-4.40) and a greater diastolic blood pressure (DBP) reduction than placebo (WMD 3.95, 95% CI 2.77-5.13). Therapeutic response rate of BP favored eprosartan [risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% CI 1.03-1.24] compared with enalapril. There were no statistical differences in SBP or DBP reductions comparing eprosartan with enalapril or telmisartan. Original RCTs included comparing eprosartan with valsartan and nitrendipine reported no differences in BP-lowering efficacy.
conclusionsEprosartan monotherapy is equivalent to many first-line antihypertensive agents and is effective for the treatment of essential hypertension, especially for isolated systolic hypertension. The favorable efficacy and tolerability make eprosartan worthwhile to be taken into consideration by physicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.