Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2011 Jan;12(1):65-82.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70260-6. Epub 2010 Nov 29.

Antihypertensive drugs and risk of cancer: network meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of 324,168 participants from randomised trials

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Antihypertensive drugs and risk of cancer: network meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of 324,168 participants from randomised trials

Sripal Bangalore et al. Lancet Oncol. 2011 Jan.

Abstract

Background: The risk of cancer from antihypertensive drugs has been much debated, with a recent analysis showing increased risk with angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs). We assessed the association between antihypertensive drugs and cancer risk in a comprehensive analysis of data from randomised clinical trials.

Methods: We undertook traditional direct comparison meta-analyses, multiple comparisons (network) meta-analyses, and trial sequential analyses. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1950, to August, 2010, for randomised clinical trials of antihypertensive therapy (ARBs, angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors [ACEi], β blockers, calcium-channel blockers [CCBs], or diuretics) with follow-up of at least 1 year. Our primary outcomes were cancer and cancer-related deaths.

Findings: We identified 70 randomised controlled trials (148 comparator groups) with 324,168 participants. In the network meta-analysis (fixed-effect model), we recorded no difference in the risk of cancer with ARBs (proportion with cancer 2·04%; odds ratio 1·01, 95% CI 0·93-1·09), ACEi (2·03%; 1·00, 0·92-1·09), β blockers (1·97%; 0·97, 0·88-1·07), CCBs (2·11%; 1·05, 0·96-1·13), diuretics (2·02%; 1·00, 0·90-1·11), or other controls (1·95%, 0·97, 0·74-1·24) versus placebo (2·02%). There was an increased risk with the combination of ACEi plus ARBs (2·30%, 1·14, 1·02-1·28); however, this risk was not apparent in the random-effects model (odds ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·92-1·38). No differences were detected in cancer-related mortality for ARBs (death rate 1·33%; odds ratio 1·00, 95% CI 0·87-1·15), ACEi (1·25%; 0·95, 0·81-1·10), β blockers (1·23%; 0·93, 0·80-1·08), CCBs (1·27%; 0·96, 0·82-1·11), diuretics (1·30%; 0·98, 0·84-1·13), other controls (1·43%; 1·08, 0·78-1·46), and ACEi plus ARBs (1·45%; 1·10, 0·90-1·32). In direct comparison meta-analyses, similar results were recorded for all antihypertensive classes, except for an increased risk of cancer with ACEi and ARB combination (OR 1·14, 95% CI 1·04-1·24; p=0·004) and with CCBs (1·06, 1·01-1·12; p=0·02). However, we noted no significant differences in cancer-related mortality. On the basis of trial sequential analysis, our results suggest no evidence of even a 5-10% relative risk (RR) increase of cancer and cancer-related deaths with any individual class of antihypertensive drugs studied. However, for the ACEi and ARB combination, the cumulative Z curve crossed the trial sequential monitoring boundary, suggesting firm evidence for at least a 10% RR increase in cancer risk.

Interpretation: Our analysis refutes a 5·0-10·0% relative increase in the risk of cancer or cancer-related death with the use of ARBs, ACEi, β blockers, diuretics, and CCBs. However, increased risk of cancer with the combination of ACEi and ARBs cannot be ruled out.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources