ReviewInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2024
Comparative efficacy and safety of six angiotensin II receptor blockers in hypertensive patients: a network meta-analysis.
Review in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2024. 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.
- Antihypertensive Efficacy and Safety of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) with and without Inverse Agonism: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions · 2026Pooled it
- Present and Future Options for Pharmacotherapy in Cardiovascular Disease: Hemodynamic and Mechanistic Therapeutic Targets.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The application of telmisartan in central nervous system disorders.Pharmacological reports : PR · 2025Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers for Primary Hypertension: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.Current hypertension reviews · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe antihypertensive effects of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are well recognized. However, conventional meta-analyses have reported inconsistent results on their efficacy and safety.
aimThis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of six ARBs (losartan, valsartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, candesartan, and olmesartan) commonly used to treat hypertension, using a network meta-analysis.
methodWe retrieved randomized controlled trials on hypertension treatment using ARBs from the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang databases. The efficacy outcomes included absolute changes in office systolic and diastolic blood pressure from baseline, and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure. Safety outcomes were assessed by the total number of adverse events (AEs) during treatment. We conducted the network meta-analysis using the 'bugsnet' and 'gemtc' packages in R.
resultsA total of 193 studies were included. Olmesartan had the highest surface under the cumulative ranking in reducing office systolic (91.4%) and diastolic blood pressure (87.2%). Candesartan has the highest ranking in lowering 24 h ambulatory systolic blood pressure (95.4%), while telmisartan reduced 24 h ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (83.4%). Olmesartan also ranked highest in safety (70.8%).
conclusionValsartan and losartan were less effective in lowering blood pressure than other drugs, with no significant differences. Olmesartan and telmisartan were associated with fewer AEs than losartan, although the incidence of adverse events was similar between the other blockers. Olmesartan and telmisartan demonstrated the best balance of antihypertensive efficacy and minimal adverse events. More research is needed to confirm whether telmisartan and olmesartan are optimal choices for controlling blood pressure in patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38861046What 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.