Evidence Hub

Comparative effectiveness of renin-angiotensin system blockers and other antihypertensive drugs in patients with diabetes: systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis

Wu HY, Huang JW, Lin HJ, Liao WC, Peng YS, Hung KY, Wu KD, Tu YK et al.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2013

36,917 participants

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of different classes of antihypertensive treatments, including monotherapy and combination therapy, on survival and major renal outcomes in patients with diabetes.

DESIGN: Systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature search of PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for studies published up to December 2011.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomised clinical trials of antihypertensive therapy (angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), α blockers, β blockers, calcium channel blockers, diuretics, and their combinations) in patients with diabetes with a follow-up of at least 12 months, reporting all cause mortality, requirement for dialysis, or doubling of serum creatinine levels.

DATA EXTRACTION: Bayesian network meta-analysis combined direct and indirect evidence to estimate the relative effects between treatments as well as the probabilities of ranking for treatments based on their protective effects.

RESULTS: 63 trials with 36,917 participants were identified, including 2400 deaths, 766 patients who required dialysis, and 1099 patients whose serum creatinine level had doubled. Compared with placebo, only ACE inhibitors significantly reduced the doubling of serum creatinine levels (odds ratio 0.58, 95% credible interval 0.32 to 0.90), and only β blockers showed a significant difference in mortality (odds ratio 7.13, 95% credible…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 36,917 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free