IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003821.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Drug-induced orthostatic hypotension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Author

Listed:
  • Cini Bhanu
  • Danielle Nimmons
  • Irene Petersen
  • Mine Orlu
  • Daniel Davis
  • Hajra Hussain
  • Sanuri Magammanage
  • Kate Walters

Abstract

Background: Drug-induced orthostatic hypotension (OH) is common, and its resulting cerebral hypoperfusion is linked to adverse outcomes including falls, strokes, cognitive impairment, and increased mortality. The extent to which specific medications are associated with OH remains unclear. Methods and findings: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the extent to which specific drug groups are associated with OH. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception through 23 November 2020. Placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on any drug reporting on OH as an adverse effect in adults (≥18 years) were eligible. Three authors extracted data on the drug, OH, dose, participant characteristics, and study setting. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to appraise evidence. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated for OH using fixed effects Mantel–Haenszel statistics. We conducted subgroup analysis on validity of OH measurement, drug dose, risk of bias, age, and comorbidity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to summarise the certainty of evidence. Of 36,940 citations, 69 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis comprising 27,079 participants. Compared with placebo, beta-blockers and tricyclic antidepressants were associated with increased odds of OH (OR 7.76 [95% CI 2.51, 24.03]; OR 6.30 [95% CI 2.86, 13.91]). Alpha-blockers, antipsychotics, and SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with up to 2-fold increased odds of OH, compared to placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in odds of OH with vasodilators (CCBs, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, SSRIs), compared to placebo. Limitations of this study are as follows: data limited to placebo-controlled studies, (excluding head-to-head trials), many RCTs excluded older participants; therefore results may be amplified in older patients in the clinical setting. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020168697). Conclusions: Medications prescribed for common conditions (including depression, diabetes, and lower urinary tract symptoms) were associated with significantly increased odds of OH. Drugs causing sympathetic inhibition were associated with significantly increased odds of OH, while most vasodilators were associated with small nonsignificant differences in odds of OH, compared to placebo. Drugs targeting multiple parts of the orthostatic blood pressure (BP) reflex pathway (e.g. sympathetic inhibition, vasodilation, cardio-inhibitory effects) may carry cumulative risk, suggesting that individuals with polypharmacy could benefit from postural BP monitoring. Cini Bhanu and colleagues evaluate the extent to which different drug groups are associated with orthostatic hypertension in this systematic review and meta-analysis.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Cini Bhanu & Danielle Nimmons & Irene Petersen & Mine Orlu & Daniel Davis & Hajra Hussain & Sanuri Magammanage & Kate Walters, 2021. "Drug-induced orthostatic hypotension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-14, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003821
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003821
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003821
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003821&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003821?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003821. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.