SynthesisAmerican journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions2026
Antihypertensive Efficacy and Safety of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers (ARBs) with and without Inverse Agonism: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile not all angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) exhibit inverse agonistic activity, certain ARBs with this property may offer greater potential for blood pressure (BP) reduction compared with ARBs without inverse agonism. This study aimed to evaluate the antihypertensive efficacy and safety of ARBs with or without inverse agonism.
methodsA systematic literature review and network meta-analysis identified randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of first-line monotherapy for mild-to-moderate hypertension: azilsartan medoxomil (AZL-M), candesartan, olmesartan, losartan, valsartan, telmisartan, irbesartan, allisartan isoproxil, sacubitril/valsartan, sacubitril/allisartan, or placebo. Treatments were grouped as ARBs with or without inverse agonism, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs), and placebo. AZL-M was separately analyzed as part of ARBs with inverse agonism. BP changes and adverse events (AEs) were assessed.
resultsOf 2659 RCTs screened, 23 studies were analyzed. ARBs with inverse agonism demonstrated superior systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions compared with ARBs without inverse agonism, ARNIs, and placebo. When analyzed separately, AZL-M significantly outperformed ARBs without inverse agonism in systolic BP and diastolic BP reduction and was superior to other ARBs with inverse agonism in systolic BP reduction. Surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA) indicated AZL-M had the highest probability of being the best treatment for systolic BP (98%) and diastolic BP (95%) reduction.
conclusionsThis study supports that ARBs with inverse agonism, especially AZL-M, have a better BP-lowering efficacy compared with ARBs without inverse agonism and ARNIs, while maintaining favorable safety profiles. Future research is encouraged to explore the effects on long-term outcomes, combination therapies, and safety in diverse populations.
Identifiers
42570044What 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.