CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Randomized study of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy regimens, with and without sildenafil, with analysis of intermediate cardiac markers Short-Term Oral Anticoagulation Versus Antiplatelet Therapy Following Transcatheter Left Atrial Appendage Closure Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases Among Older Breast Cancer Survivors in the United States: A Matched Cohort Study 2020 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Solution Set Oversight Committee High Coronary Shear Stress in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease Predicts Myocardial Infarction Mathematical modelling of endovascular drug delivery: balloons versus stents Thirty-Day Outcomes Following Transfemoral Transseptal Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement: Intrepid TMVR Early Feasibility Study Results MITRA-FR vs. COAPT: Lessons from two trials with diametrically opposed results Ablation Versus Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure Results From the CABANA Trial Treatment Effects of Pulmonary Artery Denervation for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Stratified by REVEAL Risk Score: Results from PADN-CFDA Trial

Review Article2019 Oct 24. [Epub ahead of print]

JOURNAL:Lancet. Article Link

Comprehensive comparative effectiveness and safety of first-line antihypertensive drug classes: a systematic, multinational, large-scale analysis

Suchard MA, Schuemie MJ, Krumholz HM et al. Keywords: first-line antihypertensive drug; effectiveness; safety

ABSTRACT


BACKGROUND - Uncertainty remains about the optimal monotherapy for hypertension, with current guidelines recommending any primary agent among the first-line drug classes thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, and non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers, in the absence of comorbid indications. Randomised trials have not further refined this choice.

 

METHODS - We developed a comprehensive framework for real-world evidence that enablescomparativeeffectivenessandsafetyevaluation across many drugs and outcomes from observational data encompassing millions of patients, while minimising inherent bias. Using this framework, we did asystematic,large-scale study under a new-user cohort design to estimate the relative risks of three primary (acute myocardial infarction, hospitalisation for heart failure, and stroke) and six secondary effectivenes sand 46safetyoutcomes comparing all first-line classes across a global network of six administrative claims and three electronic health record databases. The framework addressed residual confounding, publication bias, and p-hacking using large-scale propensity adjustment, a large set of control outcomes, and full disclosure of hypotheses tested.

 

FINDINGS - Using 4·9 million patients, we generated 22 000 calibrated, propensity-score-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing all classes and outcomes across databases. Most estimates revealed no effectiveness differences between classes; however, thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics showed better primary effectiveness than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors: acute myocardial infarction (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75-0·95), hospitalisation for heart failure (0·83, 0·74-0·95), and stroke (0·83, 0·74-0·95) risk while on initial treatment.Safetyprofiles also favoured thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics over angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers were significantly inferior to the other fourclasses.

 

INTERPRETATION - This comprehensive framework introduces a new way of doing observational health-care science at scale. The approach supports equivalence between drug classes for initiating monotherapy for hypertension-in keeping with current guidelines, with the exception of thiazide or thiazide-like diuretics superiority to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and the inferiority of non-dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers.

 

FUNDING - US National Science Foundation, US National Institutes of Health, Janssen Research & Development, IQVIA, South Korean Ministry of Health & Welfare, Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

 

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.