Meta-analyses of antihypertensive therapy: Are some of them misleading?

Current Hypertension Reports

Volumn 3, Issue 5, 2001, Pages 381-386

  Grossman, Ehud ^a   Goldbourt, Uri ^a  

^a SHEBA MEDICAL CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; DIURETIC AGENT;

CLINICAL TRIAL; HEART LEFT VENTRICLE HYPERTROPHY; HUMAN; HYPERTENSION; META ANALYSIS; REVIEW;

ADRENERGIC BETA-ANTAGONISTS; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENTS; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKERS; DIURETICS; HUMANS; HYPERTENSION; HYPERTROPHY, LEFT VENTRICULAR;

EID: 0035489540     PISSN: 15226417     EISSN: 15343111     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11906-001-0054-2     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. LeLorier J, Gregoire G, Benhaddad A., et al.: Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1997, 337:536-542.
2. Biljana M, Jelena M, Branislav J., Milorad R: Bias in meta-analysis and funnel plot asymmetry. Stud Health Technol Inform 1999, 68:323-328.
3. Duval S, Tweedie R: Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000, 56:455-463.
4. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C: Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315:629-634.
5. Simes RJ: Prospective meta-analysis of cholesterol-lowering studies: the Prospective Pravastatin Pooling (PPP) Project and the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) Collaboration. Am J Cardiol 1995, 76:122C-126C.
6. Furberg CD, Psaty BM, Meyer JV: Nifedipine. Dose-related increase in mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Circulation 1995, 92:1326-1331.
7. Kloner RA: Nifedipine in ischemic heart disease. Circulation 1995, 92:1074-1078.
8. Opie LH, Messerli FH: Nifedipine and mortality. Grave defects in the dossier. Circulation 1995, 92:1068-1073.
9. Muller JE, Morrison J, Stone P.H., et al.: Nifedipine therapy for patients with threatened and acute myocardial infarction: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison. Circulation 1984, 69:740-747.
10. Muller JE, Turi ZG, Pearle D.L., et al.: Nifedipine and conventional therapy for unstable angina pectoris: a randomized, double-blind comparison. Circulation 1984, 69:728-739.
11. Lichtlen PR, Hugenholtz PG, Rafflenbeul W, et al: Retardation of angiographic progression of coronary artery disease by nifedipine. Results of the International Nifedipine Trial on Antiatherosclerotic Therapy (INTACT). INTACT Group Investigators. Lancet 1990, 335:1109-1113.
12. Secondary prevention reinfarction Israeli nifedipine trial (SPRINT). A randomized intervention trial of nifedipine in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The Israeli Sprint Study Group. Eur Heart J 1988, 9:354-964.
13. Goldbourt U, Behar S, Reicher-Reiss H, et al.: Early administration of nifedipine in suspected acute myocardial infarction. The Secondary Prevention Reinfarction Israel Nifedipine Trial 2 Study. Arch Intern Med 1993, 153:345-353.
14. Aursnes I, Litleskare I, Froyland H., Abdelnoor M: Association between various drugs used for hypertension and risk of acute myocardial infarction. Blood Press 1995, 4:157-163.
15. Braun S, Boyko V, Behar S., et al.: Calcium antagonists and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease: a cohort study of 11,575 patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 1996, 28:7-11.
16. Jick H, Derby LE, Gurewich V, Vasilakis C: The risk of myocar-dial infarction associated with antihypertensive drug treatment in persons with uncomplicated essential hypertension. Pharmacotherapy 1996, 16:321-326.
17. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Ekbom T, et al: Randomised trial of old and new antihypertensive drugs in elderly patients: cardiovascular mortality and morbidity the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension-2 study. Lancet 1999, 354:1751-1756.
18. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, et al: Effect of angio-tensin- converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet 1999, 353:611-616.
19. Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al.: Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet 2000, 356:359-365.
20. Psaty BM, Smith NL, Siscovick D.S., et al.: Health outcomes associated with antihypertensive therapies used as firstline agents. A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 1997, 277:739-745.
21. Dahlof B, Lindholm LH, Hansson L, et al: Morbidity and mortality in the Swedish Trial in Old Patients with Hypertension (STOP-Hypertension). Lancet 1991, 338:1281-1285.
22. Messerli FH, Grossman E, Goldbourt U: Are beta-blockers efficacious as first-line therapy for hypertension in the elderly? A systematic review. JAMA 1998, 279:1903-1907.
23. Ekbom T, Dahlof B, Hansson L., et al.: Antihypertensive efficacy and side effects of three beta-blockers and a diuretic in elderly hypertensives: a report from the STOP-Hypertension study. J Hypertens 1992, 10: 1525-1530.
24. Coope J, Warrender TS: Randomised trial of treatment of hypertension in elderly patients in primary care. BM J (Clin Res Ed) 1986, 293:1145-1151.
25. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group. JAMA 1991, 265:3255-3264.
26. Kostis JB, Berge KG, Davis B.R., et al.: Effect of atenolol and reser-pine on selected events in the systolic hypertension in the elderly program (SHEP). Am J Hypertens 1995, 8:1147-1153.
27. Pahor M, Psaty BM, Alderman M.H., et al.: Health outcomes associated with calcium antagonists compared with other first-line antihypertensive therapies: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2000, 356:1949-1954.
28. Randomized double-blind comparison of a calcium antagonist and a diuretic in elderly hypertensives. National Intervention Cooperative Study in Elderly Hypertensives Study Group. Hypertension 1999, 34:1129-1133.
29. Neal B, MacMahon S, Chapman N: Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood - pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration. Lancet 2000, 356:1955-1964.
30. Levy D, Garrison RJ, Savage D.D., et al.: Prognostic implications of echocardiographically determined left ventricular mass in the Framingham Heart Study. N Engl J Med 1990, 322:1561-1566.
31. Dahlof B, Pennert K, Hansson L: Reversal of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients. A meta-analysis of 109 treatment studies. Am J Hypertens 1992, 5:95-110.
32. Schmieder RE, Martus P, Klingbeil A: Reversal of left ventricular hypertrophy in essential hypertension. A meta-analysis of randomized double-blind studies. JAMA 1996, 275:1507-1513.
33. Neaton JD, Grimm RH Jr, Prineas RJ, et al.: Treatment of mild hypertension study. Final results. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study Research Group. JAMA 1993, 270:713-724.
34. Gosse P, Sheridan DJ, Zannad F, et al: Regression of left ventricular hypertrophy in hypertensive patients treated with indapamide SR 1.5 mg versus enalapril 20 mg: the LIVE study. J Hypertens 2000, 18:1465-1475.
35. Gottdiener JS, Reda DJ, Massie B.M., et al.: Effect of single-drug therapy on reduction of left ventricular mass in mild to moderate hypertension: comparison of six antihypertensive agents. The Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Circulation 1997, 95:2007-2014.
36. Conlin PR, Spence JD, Williams B, et al: Angiotensin II antagonists for hypertension: are there differences in efficacy? Am J Hypertens 2000, 13:418-426.
37. Lacourciere Y, Asmar R: A comparison of the efficacy and duration of action of candesartan cilexetil and losartan as assessed by clinic and ambulatory blood pressure after a missed dose, in truly hypertensive patients: a placebo - controlled, forced titration study. Candesartan/Losartan study investigators. Am J Hypertens 1999, 12:1181-1187.
38. Oparil S, Guthrie R, Lewin A.J., et al.: An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-recep-tor blockers, irbesartan and losartan. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. Clin Ther 1998, 20:398-409.
39. Kassler-Taub K., Littlejohn T, Elliott W., et al.: Comparative efficacy of two angiotensin II receptor antagonists, irbesartan and losartan in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. Am J Hypertens 1998, 11: 445-453.
40. Andersson OK, Neldam S. The antihypertensive effect and tolerabil-ity of candesartan cilexetil, a new generation angiotensin II antagonist, in comparison with losartan. Blood Press 1998, 7:53-59.
41. MacMahon S, Peto R, Cutler J., et al.: Blood pressure, stroke, and coronary heart disease. Part 1, Prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilution bias. Lancet 1990, 335:765-774.
42. Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers S.G., et al.: Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. HOT Study Group. Lancet 1998, 351:1755-1762.