ReviewOpen heart
Angiotensin receptor blockers for prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand?
Review in Open heart. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of chlorthalidone/amiloride versus losartan in patients with stage I hypertension and diabetes mellitus: results from the PREVER-treatment randomized controlled trial.Acta diabetologica · 2021Trial
- MicroRNA-155 mediates endogenous angiotensin II type 1 receptor regulation: implications for innovative type 2 diabetes mellitus management.World journal of diabetes · 2023Review
- Regression of the Left Ventricular Hypertrophy in Patients with Essential Hypertension on Standard Drug Therapy.Discoveries (Craiova, Romania) · 2020Article
- Angiotensin II receptor blockers and gastrointestinal adverse events of resembling sprue-like enteropathy: a systematic review.Gastroenterology report · 2019Review
- Management of Hypertension Using Olmesartan Alone or in Combination.Cardiology and therapy · 2017Review
- The reduction in CVD outcomes with antihypertensives: A mandatory goal.Indian heart journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) are the most commonly used among blood pressure-lowering drugs worldwide, despite the absence of sound evidence of effectiveness in large and unbiased clinical trials. Meta-analyses published in recent years and reviewed here have not given support to this preference, suggesting that ARBs may be ineffective in the prevention of all cause mortality and major cardiovascular events (particularly myocardial infarction). There is evidence that ARB can be harmful for the kidney, particularly in patients with diabetes and in the elderly. It may be time to call for a moratorium on the preference for ARB in the management of hypertension and in patients with high cardiovascular risk.
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.