Is the newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil more efficacious in lowering blood pressure than the older ones? A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

• Published in: The Journal of Clinical Hypertension Vol. 23; no. 5; pp. 901 - 914
• Main Authors: Wang, Ji‐Guang, Zhang, Miao, Feng, Ying‐Qing, Ma, Chang‐Sheng, Wang, Tzung‐Dau, Zhu, Zhi‐Ming, Kario, Kazuomi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Wiley 01.05.2021; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; John Wiley and Sons Inc
• Subjects: ambulatory; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers; Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor Blockers - pharmacology; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists; Angiotensin Receptor Antagonists - pharmacology; Angiotensins; Angiotensins - pharmacology; angiotensin‐receptor blocker; Antihypertensive Agents; Antihypertensive Agents - therapeutic use; Antihypertensives; Benzimidazoles; Bias; Blood Pressure; Blood Pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory; Collaboration; Diseases of the circulatory (Cardiovascular) system; Drug dosages; efficacy; Humans; Hypertension; Hypertension - drug therapy; Markov analysis; Meta-analysis; Network Meta-Analysis; Olmesartan Medoxomil; Olmesartan Medoxomil - pharmacology; Original Paper; Oxadiazoles; RC666-701; Search strategies; Subject heading schemes; Systematic review; Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses; Tetrazoles; Tetrazoles - pharmacology; France; China; Germany; blood pressure; angiotensin-receptor blocker; ambulatory; network meta-analysis; systematic review; efficacy
• ISSN: 1524-6175; 1751-7176; 1751-7176
• DOI: 10.1111/jch.14227

Angiotensin‐receptor blockers are often considered insufficiently efficacious in reducing blood pressure. However, newer angiotensin‐receptor blockers may be more effective than the older ones. A network meta‐analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of various angiotensin‐receptor blockers in reducing office and ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive patients. Relevant literature was searched from English and Chinese databases for randomized controlled trials involving angiotensin‐receptor blockers in hypertension. Efficacy variables included systolic and diastolic blood pressure either in the office or on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Absolute blood pressure reductions at 6‐12 weeks of treatment and their credible intervals were reported. A total of 34 publications provided adequate data for analysis (n = 14 859). In 28 studies on office systolic blood pressure (n = 12 731), against the common comparator valsartan 80 mg, the differences in systolic blood pressure were in favor of azilsartan medoxomil (20‐80 mg), irbesartan (300 mg), olmesartan (20‐40 mg), telmisartan (80 mg), and valsartan (160‐320 mg), but not candesartan (8‐16 mg), losartan (50‐100 mg), irbesartan (150 mg), olmesartan (10 mg), and telmisartan (40 mg). The ranking plot shows that azilsartan medoxomil 80 mg had a possibility of 99% being the best in the class. Similar results were observed for office diastolic blood pressure and from 13 studies for 24‐hour ambulatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure. In conclusion, angiotensin‐receptor blockers had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest angiotensin‐receptor blocker azilsartan medoxomil at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement. We performed a network meta‐analysis of 34 studies on the office or ambulatory blood pressure lowering efficacy of various angiotensin‐receptor blockers. We found that these drugs had different blood pressure lowering efficacy. The newest one, azilsartan medoxomil, at the dose of 80 mg seemed to be most efficacious in reducing both systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the office and on ambulatory measurement.