Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22480336›Full record

SynthesisBMC medicine2012

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive medication for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review and multiple treatments meta-analysis.

Atle Fretheim, Jan Odgaard-Jensen, Odd Brørs, Steinar Madsen, Inger Njølstad, Ole F Norheim, Arne Svilaas, Ivar S Kristiansen, Hanne Thürmer, Signe Flottorp

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Atencion primaria · 2018
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Impact of Antihypertensive Drug Class on Outcomes in SPRINT.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2022
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Blood pressure in heart failure management and prevention.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2023
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. GPs' mindlines on deprescribing antihypertensives in older patients with multimorbidity: a qualitative study in English general practice.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Atle FretheimGlobal Health Unit, Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services, Oslo, Norway. atle.fretheim@nokc.no
Jan Odgaard-Jensen
Odd Brørs
Steinar Madsen
Inger Njølstad
Ole F Norheim
Arne Svilaas
Ivar S Kristiansen
Hanne Thürmer
Signe Flottorp
Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten · NOOslo University Hospital · NOHaukeland University Hospital · NONorwegian Medicines Agency · NOTelemark Hospital · NOUiT The Arctic University of Norway · NOUniversity of Bergen · NOUniversity of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWe conducted a systematic review of evidence from randomized controlled trials to answer the following research question: What are the relative effects of different classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease outcomes for healthy people at risk of cardiovascular disease?

methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (up to February 2011) and CENTRAL (up to May 2009), and reference lists in recent systematic reviews. Titles and abstracts were assessed for relevance and those potentially fulfilling our inclusion criteria were then assessed in full text. Two reviewers made independent assessments at each step. We selected the following main outcomes: total mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke. We also report on angina, heart failure and incidence of diabetes. We conducted a multiple treatments meta-analysis using random-effects models. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE-instrument.

resultsWe included 25 trials. Overall, the results were mixed, with few significant differences, and with no drug-class standing out as superior across multiple outcomes. The only significant finding for total mortality based on moderate to high quality evidence was that beta-blockers (atenolol) were inferior to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (relative risk (RR) 1.14; 95% credibility interval (CrI) 1.02 to 1.28). Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors came out inferior to calcium-channel blockers (CCB) regarding stroke-risk (RR 1.19; 1.03 to 1.38), but superior regarding risk of heart failure (RR 0.82; 0.69 to 0.94), both based on moderate quality evidence. Diuretics reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared to beta-blockers (RR 0.82; 0.68 to 0.98), and lowered the risk of heart failure compared to CCB (RR 0.73; 0.62 to 0.84), beta-blockers (RR 0.73; 0.54 to 0.96), and alpha-blockers (RR 0.51; 0.40 to 0.64). The risk of diabetes increased with diuretics compared to ACE-inhibitors (RR 1.43; 1.12 to 1.83) and CCB (RR 1.27; 1.05 to 1.57).

conclusionBased on the available evidence, there seems to be little or no difference between commonly used blood pressure lowering medications for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Beta-blockers (atenolol) and alpha-blockers may not be first-choice drugs as they were the only drug-classes that were not significantly superior to any other, for any outcomes. Review registration: CRD database ("PROSPERO") CRD42011001066.

Indexed as

Antihypertensive AgentsChemopreventionHumansIncidenceMyocardial InfarctionPrimary PreventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStrokeSurvival AnalysisTreatment OutcomeAntihypertensive Agents

Identifiers

PMID22480336
PMCPMC3354999
OpenAlexW2162271484

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.