MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414068807 · doi:10.31083/rcm39555

Efficacy and Safety of Aldosterone Synthase Inhibitors for Resistant Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4414068807 on OpenAlexaff
Chuanying Huang, Lidi Liu, Miaomiao Wu, Haiqi Song, Yonglang Cheng, Xiaoyang Liao, Dongze Li

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews in Cardiovascular Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversitySichuan University
KeywordsAdverse effectSample size determinationClinical trialAldosterone synthaseAldosteroneLarge sampleCardiovascular event

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Compared to patients with controllable hypertension, those with resistant hypertension (RH) have a higher incidence of cardiovascular complications, including stroke, left ventricular hypertrophy, and congestive heart failure. Therefore, an urgent need exists for improved management and control, along with more effective medications. Aldosterone synthase inhibitors (ASIs) are newly emerging drugs that have gradually attracted an increasing amount of attention. Methods: The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched to identify all literature on ASIs and resistant hypertension. Additionally, the reference lists of the included articles were manually searched. The quality of the identified studies was assessed using the Cochrane Bias Risk Tool. Results: This study comprised four randomized controlled trials (RCTs), involving 776 participants. Different doses of ASIs were used, with treatment durations ranging from 7 to 12 weeks. The selected study population included individuals with resistant hypertension and healthy adults. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) had a pooled effect size of standardized mean difference (SMD) = –0.24, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of [–0.46, –0.03], indicating a statistically significant difference (p = 0.026); however, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) had a pooled effect size of SMD = –0.13, with a 95% CI of [–0.40, 0.15], indicating no significant difference (p = 0.359). Similarly, subgroup analyses yielded comparable results. Notably, the risk of adverse events in the ASI group was greater than that in the control group, with a risk ratio of 1.32 and a 95% CI of [1.04, 1.66], indicating a significant difference (p = 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference in severe adverse events between the treatment group and the control group (p = 0.532). Conclusions: ASIs have shown benefits in controlling SBP in patients with resistant hypertension, although their effects on DBP appear to be limited. Given the observation period of only 12 weeks, the potential for increased adverse event risks with their use warrants further attention. Considering the relatively small number of trials included and the limited sample size in this study, future research should focus on expanding the sample size and extending the follow-up duration to more precisely define the clinical role and value of ASIs. Additionally, further investigation into the underlying mechanisms of action of these inhibitors is necessary to provide theoretical support for optimizing treatment strategies for resistant hypertension and related conditions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0410.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews in Cardiovascular MedicineSame topicHormonal Regulation and HypertensionFrench-language works237,207