Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
, 11 (11), CD008170

First-line Drugs Inhibiting the Renin Angiotensin System Versus Other First-Line Antihypertensive Drug Classes for Hypertension

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

First-line Drugs Inhibiting the Renin Angiotensin System Versus Other First-Line Antihypertensive Drug Classes for Hypertension

Yu Jie Chen et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.

Abstract

Background: This is the first update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2015. Renin angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitors include angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors. They are widely prescribed for treatment of hypertension, especially for people with diabetes because of postulated advantages for reducing diabetic nephropathy and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widespread use for hypertension, the efficacy and safety of RAS inhibitors compared to other antihypertensive drug classes remains unclear.

Objectives: To evaluate the benefits and harms of first-line RAS inhibitors compared to other first-line antihypertensive drugs in people with hypertension.

Search methods: The Cochrane Hypertension Group Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomized controlled trials up to November 2017: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1946), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. The searches had no language restrictions.

Selection criteria: We included randomized, active-controlled, double-blinded studies (RCTs) with at least six months follow-up in people with elevated blood pressure (≥ 130/85 mmHg), which compared first-line RAS inhibitors with other first-line antihypertensive drug classes and reported morbidity and mortality or blood pressure outcomes. We excluded people with proven secondary hypertension.

Data collection and analysis: Two authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risks of bias and entered the data for analysis.

Main results: This update includes three new RCTs, totaling 45 in all, involving 66,625 participants, with a mean age of 66 years. Much of the evidence for our key outcomes is dominated by a small number of large RCTs at low risk for most sources of bias. Imbalances in the added second-line antihypertensive drugs in some of the studies were important enough for us to downgrade the quality of the evidence.Primary outcomes were all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), fatal and non-fatal congestive heart failure (CHF) requiring hospitalizations, total cardiovascular (CV) events (fatal and non-fatal stroke, fatal and non-fatal MI and fatal and non-fatal CHF requiring hospitalization), and end-stage renal failure (ESRF). Secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and heart rate (HR).Compared with first-line calcium channel blockers (CCBs), we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased heart failure (HF) (35,143 participants in 5 RCTs, risk ratio (RR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77 to 0.90, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1.2%), and that they increased stroke (34,673 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32, absolute risk increase (ARI) 0.7%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs did not differ for all-cause death (35,226 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.09); total CV events (35,223 participants in 6 RCTs, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.02); and total MI (35,043 participants in 5 RCTs, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.09). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (19,551 participants in 4 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05).Compared with first-line thiazides, we found moderate-certainty evidence that first-line RAS inhibitors increased HF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.31, ARI 1.0%), and increased stroke (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.28, ARI 0.6%). Moderate-certainty evidence showed that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line thiazides did not differ for all-cause death (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.07); total CV events (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.11); and total MI (24,379 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01). Low-certainty evidence suggests they did not differ for ESRF (24,309 participants in 1 RCT, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.37).Compared with first-line beta-blockers, low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors decreased total CV events (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, ARR 1.7%), and decreased stroke (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88, ARR 1.7% ). Low-certainty evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line beta-blockers did not differ for all-cause death (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.01); HF (9193 participants in 1 RCT, RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.18); and total MI (9239 participants in 2 RCTs, RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27).Blood pressure comparisons between first-line RAS inhibitors and other first-line classes showed either no differences or small differences that did not necessarily correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.There is no information about non-fatal serious adverse events, as none of the trials reported this outcome.

Authors' conclusions: All-cause death is similar for first-line RAS inhibitors and first-line CCBs, thiazides and beta-blockers. There are, however, differences for some morbidity outcomes. First-line thiazides caused less HF and stroke than first-line RAS inhibitors. First-line CCBs increased HF but decreased stroke compared to first-line RAS inhibitors. The magnitude of the increase in HF exceeded the decrease in stroke. Low-quality evidence suggests that first-line RAS inhibitors reduced stroke and total CV events compared to first-line beta-blockers. The small differences in effect on blood pressure between the different classes of drugs did not correlate with the differences in the morbidity outcomes.

Conflict of interest statement

Yu Jie Chen: nothing to declare

Liang Jin Li: nothing to declare

Wen Lu Tang: nothing to declare

Jia Yang Song: nothing to declare

Ru Qiu: nothing to declare

Qian Li: nothing to declare

Hao Xue: nothing to declare

James M Wright: nothing to declare

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA Study flow diagram
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included citations
Figure 3
Figure 3
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included citations
Analysis 1.1
Analysis 1.1
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 1 All‐cause death.
Analysis 1.2
Analysis 1.2
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 2 Total CV events.
Analysis 1.3
Analysis 1.3
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 3 Total HF.
Analysis 1.4
Analysis 1.4
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 4 Total MI.
Analysis 1.5
Analysis 1.5
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 5 Total stroke.
Analysis 1.6
Analysis 1.6
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 6 ESRF.
Analysis 1.7
Analysis 1.7
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 7 SBP.
Analysis 1.8
Analysis 1.8
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 8 DBP.
Analysis 1.9
Analysis 1.9
Comparison 1 RAS inhibitors vs CCBs, Outcome 9 HR.
Analysis 2.1
Analysis 2.1
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 1 All‐cause death.
Analysis 2.2
Analysis 2.2
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 2 Total CV events.
Analysis 2.3
Analysis 2.3
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 3 Total HF.
Analysis 2.4
Analysis 2.4
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 4 Total MI.
Analysis 2.5
Analysis 2.5
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 5 Total stroke.
Analysis 2.6
Analysis 2.6
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 6 ESRF.
Analysis 2.7
Analysis 2.7
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 7 SBP.
Analysis 2.8
Analysis 2.8
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 8 DBP.
Analysis 2.9
Analysis 2.9
Comparison 2 RAS inhibitors vs thiazides, Outcome 9 HR.
Analysis 3.1
Analysis 3.1
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 1 All‐cause death.
Analysis 3.2
Analysis 3.2
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 2 Total CV events.
Analysis 3.3
Analysis 3.3
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 3 Total HF.
Analysis 3.4
Analysis 3.4
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 4 Total MI.
Analysis 3.5
Analysis 3.5
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 5 Total stroke.
Analysis 3.6
Analysis 3.6
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 6 ESRF.
Analysis 3.7
Analysis 3.7
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 7 SBP.
Analysis 3.8
Analysis 3.8
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 8 DBP.
Analysis 3.9
Analysis 3.9
Comparison 3 RAS inhibitors vs beta‐blockers (β‐blockers), Outcome 9 HR.
Analysis 4.1
Analysis 4.1
Comparison 4 RAS inhibitors vs alpha‐blockers (α‐blockers), Outcome 1 SBP.
Analysis 4.2
Analysis 4.2
Comparison 4 RAS inhibitors vs alpha‐blockers (α‐blockers), Outcome 2 DBP.
Analysis 4.3
Analysis 4.3
Comparison 4 RAS inhibitors vs alpha‐blockers (α‐blockers), Outcome 3 HR.
Analysis 5.1
Analysis 5.1
Comparison 5 RAS inhibitors vs CNS active drug, Outcome 1 SBP.
Analysis 5.2
Analysis 5.2
Comparison 5 RAS inhibitors vs CNS active drug, Outcome 2 DBP.
Analysis 5.3
Analysis 5.3
Comparison 5 RAS inhibitors vs CNS active drug, Outcome 3 HR.

Update of

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 2 articles

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

Feedback