ReviewResearch in heart yield and translational medicine2026
Antihypertensive Treatment and Cancer: Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.
Review in Research in heart yield and translational medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Highlights: These findings support the continued use of antihypertensive drugs for cardiovascular benefits while highlighting the need for long-term studies to clarify any potential cancer risks. Background: Data on the link between use of antihypertensive medications and the risk of developing or dying from cancer have uncertain credibility and certainty. Objectives: We sought to evaluate the credibility of evidence from observational studies and the certainty of evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the association between antihypertensive medication use and cancer risk, mortality, or survival outcomes. Methods: Comprehensive searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from their creation through July 2024. The study included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological research investigating the relationships between antihypertensive therapies and cancer risk, mortality, or survival outcomes. The credibility of evidence from observational studies was categorized as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or nonsignificant. Through the GRADE framework, the certainty of evidence from RCTs was categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results: A total of 109 meta-analyses were identified, with 90 originating from observational studies and 23 from RCTs. The observational studies provided highly suggestive evidence that calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and diuretics were associated with an increased cancer risk (equivalent odds ratio [eOR], 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.10; and eOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.20, respectively). Evidence suggests that β-blockers are associated with an increase in cancer-specific survival (eOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.89). No association satisfied the standards for convincing evidence. Pooled analyses of RCTs determined that CCB use was associated with an increased cancer risk (eOR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.12; moderate certainty). Conclusions: No strong or consistent evidence was found to support a causal relationship between antihypertensive medications and cancer outcomes. The observed associations were of very small magnitude, suggesting limited clinical relevance.
Indexed as
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.