Antihypertensive and renoprotective effects of trandolapril/verapamil combination: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PAIT-Survey Follow-Up: Changes in Albuminuria in Hypertensive Diabetic Patients with Mild-Moderate Chronic Kidney Disease

INTRODUCTION

Albuminuria is an early marker of kidney disease and reduction of albuminuria translates into a decreased occurrence of cardiovascular and renal outcomes.

AIMS

To evaluate the changes in the prevalence of albuminuria in diabetic hypertensive patients treated with several combinations of renin-angiotensin aldosterone system with calcium channel blockers.

METHODS

We analysed data from 668 unselected patients from the PAIT survey (mean age 60.4 ± 10.2 years, prevalence of males 38%), with and without albuminuria, maintained for 6 months with the previous treatment with amlodipine-valsartan, amlodipine perindopril, lercanidipine-enalapril, verapamil-trandolapril, nitrendipine-enalapril and felodipine-ramipril Albuminuria was assessed, as urinary albumin-creatinine ratio, using a Multistic-Clinitek device analyzer. Microalbuminuria was defined as a loss of 3.4-33.9 mg albumin/mmol creatinine (30-300 mg/g) and macroalbuminuria as a loss of > 33.9 mg albumin/mmol creatinine (> 300 mg/g). Blood pressure was measured with a validated digital device.

RESULTS

At baseline, albuminuria was present in 310 subjects (46.4%) (microalbuminuria in 263 (84.8%), macroalbuminuria in 15.2%), and normoalbuminuria in 53.6% 358. After 6 months, the prevalence of subjects with albuminuria was significantly lowered (p < 0.01) by 23.5% (microalbuminuria - 23.9%, p < 0.01 and macroalbuminuria - 21.3%). The prevalence of subjects with microalbuminuria was reduced with all treatments: amlodipine-valsartan - 15.6%, amlodipine-perindopril - 11.8%, lercanidipine-enalapril - 41.3% and verapamil-trandolapril - 19.2%. Data with nitrendipine-enalapril and felodipine-ramipril were not analyzed, due to the low number of patients. The frequency of patients with normoalbuminuria was significantly higher (p < 0.01) with lercanidipine-enalapril compared with any other treatment. Blood pressure was significantly (p < 0.01) reduced, with a similar effect between treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatments decrease the prevalence of subjects with albuminuria, showing a significant difference among the different drug combinations, favoring the use of new dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, such as lercanidipine, combined with RAAS inhibitors, to control albuminuria in diabetic hypertensive patients.

CHINESE HERBAL DECOCTION AS A COMPLEMENTARY THERAPY FOR ATROPHIC GASTRITIS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Background:

Chinese herbal decoction (CHD) has been extensively used in the treatment of atrophic gastritis (AG) in China and other Far Eastern countries. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the efficacy and safety of CHD in AG.

Materials and Methods:

Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane central register of controlled trials (central), VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Sinomed, Wanfang data were searched (up to December 2015). Randomized controlled trials recruiting patients with AG comparing CHD (alone or with western medicine (WM)) with WM were eligible. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain relative risk (RR), with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results:

Forty-two articles including 3,874 patients were identified. CHD, used alone or with WM, had beneficial effect over WM in the improvement of clinical manifestations (RR=1.28; 95% CI 1.22-1.34) and pathological change (RR=1.42; 95% CI 1.30-1.54) for AG patients. However, the H. pylori eradication effect of CHD was not supported by the existing clinical evidence, because of the significant study heterogeneity (I²>50%) and inconsistency between the primary results and sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions:

CHD, if prescribed as a complementary therapy to WM, may improve the clinical manifestations and pathological change for AG patients. But its monotherapy for H. pylori eradication is not supported by enough clinical evidence.

Antihypertensive effects of olmesartan compared with other angiotensin receptor blockers: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonists (angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs]) have been shown to be effective and well tolerated in hypertensive patients. Olmesartan is the seventh angiotensin receptor blocker licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy and tolerability of olmesartan medoxomil in comparison with other ARBs.

DATA SOURCES

Reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of olmesartan versus other ARBs were identified through a systematic search of PubMed (up to July 2010), EMBASE (1980 to July 2010), SinoMed (up to July 2010), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 7, 2010).

REVIEW METHODS

Pertinent studies were selected through extensive searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and SinoMed. Two of the authors abstracted data from the identified studies independently. Criteria for inclusion in our meta-analyses were randomized clinical trials in which patients were receiving an ARB and outcome data for blood pressure reduction or the incidence of adverse events were available. Quantitative and qualitative analyses of data from all RCTs meeting the criteria were performed. Our meta-analysis was undertaken according to the Quality of Reporting Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies with data from 4892 patients were considered for analyses. Olmesartan provided greater diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reductions compared with losartan (DBP: 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59, 2.62; SBP: 95% CI 0.46, 5.92). Olmesartan provided greater SBP reductions compared with valsartan (95% CI 0.29, 3.16). Similar blood pressure response rates and incidence of adverse events were found with losartan, valsartan, candesartan, and irbesartan.

CONCLUSION

Olmesartan provides better antihypertensive efficacy than losartan and valsartan and has no association with an increased risk of adverse events in comparison with losartan, valsartan, candesartan, and irbesartan.