The flipside of hydralazine in pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The present systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the effects of hydralazine compared with other antihypertensive drugs in maternal, perinatal and neonatal outcomes of pregnant women with hypertensive disorders. Twenty studies with 1283 participants were included. Of them, 626 received hydralazine and 657 other antihypertensive treatments, such as labetalol, nifedipine, ketanserin, diazoxide, urapidil, isradipine and epoprostenol. Women receiving hydralazine had higher heart rate (WMD: 13.4, 95%CI: 0.1 to 26.8 beats/min), increased number of adverse effects (RR: 1.21, 95%CI: 1.01 to 1.45) and gave birth to neonates of lower birthweight (WMD: 13.4, 95%CI: 0.1 to 26.8 beats/min) compared with other antihypertensive treatments at the end of follow-up. When studies, which used antihypertensive agents that are no longer indicated for hypertension in pregnancy, were excluded in the sensitivity analyses, hydralazine found not to have a statistically significant difference compared with labetalol and nifedipine regarding the reduction of maternal blood pressure (WMD: 1.72, 95%CI: -1.47 to 4.9 mmHg for systolic, WMD: 0.26, 95%CI: -1.75 to 2.28 mmHg for diastolic), maternal heart rate (WMD: 13.56, 95%CI: -5.62 to 32.74 beats/min), low birthweight (WMD: -88.62, 95%CI: -243.24 to 66 beats/min) and adverse events (RR: 1.19, 95%CI: 0.99 to 1.43). Hydralazine seems not to be inferior compared to labetalol and nifedipine for safety and efficacy.

A systematic review and network meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers in hypertension.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers are drugs commonly used for the treatment of hypertension. However, studies on their comparative efficacy have not been extensively investigated. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis studied the comparative efficacy of the two antihypertensive treatment categories in reducing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension patients. A literature search was carried out in Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for placebo- and active-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trials, which had reported blood pressure effects, mortality, and/or morbidity. Blood pressure results were found in 30 studies with 7370 participants and 8 studies with 25,158 participants with mortality/morbidity results included in the analysis. The two drug classes had similar effectiveness in lowering systolic (weighted mean difference (WMD): 0.59, 95% CI: -0.21 to 1.38) and diastolic blood pressure (WMD: 0.62, 95% CI: -0.06 to 1.30), all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR)): 0.96, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.14), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.87, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.14), fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR: 1.02, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.37) and stroke (RR: 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.46). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more helpful in the prevention and/or the hospitalization for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers (RR: 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.93). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were similarly effective in decreasing blood pressure, mortality, and morbidity in essential hypertension. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were more protective in the advancement and/or hospitalization of the hypertensive patient for heart failure than angiotensin receptor blockers.