ArticleCurrent hypertension reviews2025
Efficacy and Safety of Dihydropyridine Calcium Channel Blockers for Primary Hypertension: A Bayesian Network Meta-analysis.
Article in Current hypertension reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Calcium Antagonists in Hypertension Treatment: When Heterogeneity is Important.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDihydropyridine-calcium channel blockers (DHP-CCBs) are effective first-line blood pressure-lowering agents for primary hypertension. However, data comparing the variations in efficacy and safety between different types of DHP-CCBs are scarce. AIMS AND
objectivesThis study aimed to summarize the latest evidence on the benefits and harms of seven DHP-CCBs (amlodipine, levamlodipine, felodipine, lacidipine, nitrendipine, nifedipine, and benidipine).
methodsA meta-analysis of DHP-CCBs was carried out to explore differences in efficacy and safety. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP databases from inception to September, 2023, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DHP-CCBs. The main outcomes were blood pressure lowering and adverse events (AEs) during treatment.
resultsWe included 181 RCTs (21,383 patients) in this analysis. In terms of efficacy, levamlodipine ranked highest in reducing office blood pressure (surface under the cumulative ranking systolic blood pressure = 80.81%, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) = 82.42%) and 24-h ambulatory DBP (98.07%). Felodipine had the highest probability of reducing 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (80.65%). Regarding safety, levamlodipine had the least impact on heart rate (85.71%). In terms of AEs, benidipine had the highest rate for cardiovascular (86.58%) and digestive system (93.57%) AEs. Nifedipine and amlodipine had the highest rates of central (80.65%) and peripheral nervous system (83.28%) AEs, respectively. Levamlodipine exhibited significantly lower rates of total AEs (1.24%), central nervous system AEs (1.28%), and cardiovascular system AEs (3.62%) than the other interventions.
conclusionIn the office setting, levamlodipine may be the best treatment for primary hypertension, and lacidipine shows good safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39995131What 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.