MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2157868850 · doi:10.1002/ebch.1975

Cochrane in context: Pharmacological interventions for hypertension in children

2014· review· en· W2157868850 sur OpenAlexaff
Swasti Chaturvedi, Deborah Lipszyc, Christoph Licht, Jonathan C. Craig, Rulan S. Parekh

Notice bibliographique

RevueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review Journal · 2014
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Établissements canadiensHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychological interventionMedicineCochrane collaborationAlternative medicineSystematic reviewContext (archaeology)Family medicineMEDLINEIntensive care medicineNursingPathologyCochrane Library

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major risk factor for stroke, coronary artery disease and kidney damage in adults. There is a paucity of data on the long-term sequelae of persistent hypertension in children, but it is known that children with hypertension have evidence of end-organ damage and are at risk of hypertension into adulthood. The prevalence of hypertension in children is increasing, most likely owing to a concurrent rise in obesity. In children with hypertension, nonpharmacological measures are often recommended as first-line therapy, but a significant proportion of children will eventually require pharmacological treatment to reduce blood pressure, especially those with evidence of end-organ damage at presentation or during follow-up. A systematic review of the effects of antihypertensive agents in children has not previously been conducted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the dose-related effects of different classes of antihypertensive medications, as monotherapy compared with placebo; as combination therapy compared with placebo or as a single medication; or in comparisons of various doses within the same class on systolic or diastolic blood pressure (or both) in children with hypertension. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013,Issue 9), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to October 2013), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to October 2013) and bibliographic citations. SELECTION CRITERIA: The selection criteria were deliberately broad as there are only few clinical trials in children. We included randomized controlled trials of at least 2 weeks duration comparing antihypertensive agents either as monotherapy or as combination therapy with either placebo or another medication, or comparing different doses of the same medication, in children with hypertension. Hypertension was defined as an average (over a minimum of three readings) systolic or diastolic blood pressure (or both) on the 95th percentile or above for age, height and gender. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected relevant studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We summarized data, where possible, using a random-effects model. Formal assessment of heterogeneity was not possible because of insufficient data. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 21 trials evaluated antihypertensive medications of various drug classes in 3454 hypertensive children with periods of follow-up ranging from 3 to 24 weeks. There were five randomized controlled trials comparing an antihypertensive drug directly with placebo, 12 dose-finding trials, two trials comparing calcium channel blockers with angiotensin receptor blockers, one trial comparing a centrally acting ..-blocker with a diuretic and one trial comparing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor with an angiotensin receptor blocker. No randomized trial was identified that evaluated the effectiveness of antihypertensive medications on target end-organ damage. The trials were of variable quality and most were funded by pharmaceutical companies. Among the angiotensin receptor blockers, candesartan (one trial, n=240), when compared with placebo, reduced systolic blood pressure by 6.50 mmHg (95% confidence interval .9.44 to .3.56) and diastolic blood pressure by 5.50 mmHg (95% confidence interval .9.62 to .1.38) (low-quality evidence). High dose telmisartan (one trial, n=76), when compared with placebo, reduced systolic blood pressure by .8.50 (95% confidence interval .13.79 to .3.21) but not diastolic blood pressure (.4.80, 95% . .9.50 to 0.10) (low-quality evidence). ..-Blocker (metoprolol, one trial, n=140), when compared with placebo, significantly reduced systolic blood pressure by 4.20 mmHg (95% confidence interval .8.12 to .0.28) but not diastolic blood pressure (.3.20 mmHg 95% confidence interval .7.12 to 0.72) (low-quality evidence). ..-Blocker-diuretic combination (bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide, one trial, n=94) when compared with placebo did not result in a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (.4.0 mmHg, 95% confidence interval .8.99 to .0.19), but did have an effect on diastolic blood pressure (.4.50 mmHg, 95% confidence interval .8.26 to .0.74) (low-quality evidence). Calcium channel blocker (extended-release felodipine, one trial, n=133) was not effective in reducing systolic blood pressure (.0.62 mmHg, 95% confidence interval .2.97 to 1.73) or diastolic blood pressure (.1.86 mmHg, 95% confidence interval .5.23 to 1.51) when compared with placebo. Further, there was no consistent dose-response observed among any of the drug classes. The adverse events associated with the antihypertensive agents were mostly minor and included headaches, dizziness and upper respiratory infections. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there are sparse data informing the use of antihypertensive agents in children, with outcomes reported limited to blood pressure and not end-organ damage. Most data are available for candesartan, for which there is low-quality evidence of a modest lowering effect on blood pressure. We did not find evidence of a consistent dose–response relationship for escalating doses of angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. All agents appear safe, at least in the short term.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,633
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0130,004
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,166
Tête enseignante GPT0,464
Écart entre enseignants0,299 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueEvidence-Based Child Health A Cochrane Review JournalMême sujetBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesTravaux en français237 207