9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      First-line combination therapy versus first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm‐to‐benefit balance of each strategy is unknown. To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. We searched the Hypertension Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, 2016, Issue 2), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) up to February 2016. We searched in clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs in Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines. Randomized, double‐blind trials with at least 12 months' follow‐up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first‐line antihypertensive drug with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events or serious adverse events. Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias and entered the data. Primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug‐related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial) and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention‐to‐treat principle. We summarized data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. We found three studies in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. None of the studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment so we asked investigators for data for this subgroup (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants). They included outpatients, and mostly European and white people. Two trials included only people with type 2 diabetes, whereas the other trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia or cardiovascular drugs. The follow‐up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. Certainty of evidence was very low due to the serious imprecision, and for using a subgroup not defined in advance. Confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit. The numbers of included participants and, hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the question and report clinically relevant endpoints. Background Hypertension (high blood pressure) is a long‐term condition that increases the risk of having health problems such as heart attack, stroke or kidney disease. There are several types of medicines that are used to treat hypertension. Over time, frequently a person needs more than one type of medicine to control their blood pressure. When a doctor prescribes medicines to reduce the blood pressure for the first time, he or she has two options, using only one medicine (called monotherapy) or using two medicines (called combination therapy). The combination therapy can be in the same tablet or in different tablets. The potential advantage of using combination therapy is that blood pressure could fall faster, but we do not know if this is better or worse for avoiding health problems. Study characteristics We looked for clinical studies that compared starting the treatment of hypertension in adults with monotherapy versus starting with combination therapy. Studies had to report results in terms of deaths, events due to diseases of the heart or the vessels (heart attack, stroke or heart failure); deaths due to diseases of the heart or the vessels, or any health‐related serious side effects. We only selected studies with 50 or more people per group and that lasted at least 12 months. The evidence is current to February 2016. Key results and certainty of the evidence We found three studies that fit our criteria with 233 people were treated with combination therapy and 335 treated with monotherapy. However, we did not find enough data to answer our question. It is necessary to perform more and larger studies that compare monotherapy with combination therapy as initial treatment of hypertension.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The 2015 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations for blood pressure measurement, diagnosis, assessment of risk, prevention, and treatment of hypertension.

          The Canadian Hypertension Education Program reviews the hypertension literature annually and provides detailed recommendations regarding hypertension diagnosis, assessment, prevention, and treatment. This report provides the updated evidence-based recommendations for 2015. This year, 4 new recommendations were added and 2 existing recommendations were modified. A revised algorithm for the diagnosis of hypertension is presented. Two major changes are proposed: (1) measurement using validated electronic (oscillometric) upper arm devices is preferred over auscultation for accurate office blood pressure measurement; (2) if the visit 1 mean blood pressure is increased but < 180/110 mm Hg, out-of-office blood pressure measurements using ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (preferably) or home blood pressure monitoring should be performed before visit 2 to rule out white coat hypertension, for which pharmacologic treatment is not recommended. A standardized ambulatory blood pressure monitoring protocol and an update on automated office blood pressure are also presented. Several other recommendations on accurate measurement of blood pressure and criteria for diagnosis of hypertension have been reorganized. Two other new recommendations refer to smoking cessation: (1) tobacco use status should be updated regularly and advice to quit smoking should be provided; and (2) advice in combination with pharmacotherapy for smoking cessation should be offered to all smokers. The following recommendations were modified: (1) renal artery stenosis should be primarily managed medically; and (2) renal artery angioplasty and stenting could be considered for patients with renal artery stenosis and complicated, uncontrolled hypertension. The rationale for these recommendation changes is discussed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Medical Research Council trial of treatment of hypertension in older adults: principal results. MRC Working Party.

            To establish whether treatment with diuretic or beta blocker in hypertensive older adults reduces risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, and death. Randomised, placebo controlled, single blind trial. 226 general practices in the MRC general practice research framework. 4396 patients aged 65-74 randomised to receive diuretic, beta blocker, or placebo. Patients had mean systolic pressures of 160-209 mm Hg and mean diastolic pressures less than 115 mm Hg during an eight week run in and were not taking antihypertensive treatment. Patients were randomised to atenolol 50 mg daily; hydrochlorothiazide 25 mg or 50 mg plus amiloride 2.5 mg or 5 mg daily; or placebo. The regimens were adjusted to achieve specified target pressures. Mean follow up was 5.8 years. Strokes, coronary events, and deaths from all causes. Both treatments reduced blood pressure below the level in the placebo group. Compared with the placebo group, actively treated subjects (diuretic and beta blocker groups combined) had a 25% (95% confidence interval 3% to 42%) reduction in stroke (p = 0.04), 19% (-2% to 36%) reduction in coronary events (p = 0.08), and 17% (2% to 29%) reduction in all cardiovascular events (p = 0.03). After adjusting for baseline characteristics the diuretic group had significantly reduced risks of stroke (31% (3% to 51%) p = 0.04), coronary events (44% (21% to 60%), p = 0.0009), and all cardiovascular events (35% (17% to 49%), p = 0.0005) compared with the placebo group. The beta blocker group showed no significant reductions in these end points. The reduction in strokes was mainly in non-smokers taking the diuretic. Hydrochlorothiazide and amiloride reduce the risk of stroke, coronary events, and all cardiovascular events in older hypertensive adults.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improvement in blood pressure, arterial stiffness and wave reflections with a very-low-dose perindopril/indapamide combination in hypertensive patient: a comparison with atenolol.

              International guidelines recommend that antihypertensive drug therapy should normalize not only diastolic (DBP) but also systolic blood pressure (SBP). Therapeutic trials based on cardiovascular mortality have recently shown that SBP reduction requires normalization of both large artery stiffness and wave reflections. The aim of the present study was to compare the antihypertensive effects of the very-low-dose combination indapamide (0.625 mg) and perindopril (2 mg) (Per/Ind) with the beta-blocking agent atenolol (50 mg) to determine whether Per/Ind decreases SBP and pulse pressure (PP) more than does atenolol and, if so, whether this decrease is predominantly due to reduction of aortic pulse wave velocity (PWV) (automatic measurements) and reduction of wave reflections (pulse wave analysis, applanation tonometry). In a double-blind randomized study, 471 patients with essential hypertension were followed for 12 months. For the same DBP reduction, Per/Ind decreased brachial SBP (-6.02 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -8.90 to -3.14) and PP (-5.57; 95% confidence interval, -7.70 to -3.44) significantly more than did atenolol. This difference was significantly more pronounced for the carotid artery than for the brachial artery. Whereas the 2 antihypertensive agents decreased PWV to a similar degree, only Per/Ind significantly attenuated carotid wave reflections, resulting in a selective decrease in SBP and PP. The very-low-dose combination Per/Ind normalizes SBP, PP, and arterial function to a significantly larger extent than does atenolol, a hemodynamic profile that is known to improve survival in hypertensive populations with high cardiovascular risk.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley-Blackwell
                14651858
                January 13 2017
                :
                :
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Cochrane Hypertension Group
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD010316.pub2
                6464906
                28084624
                a8b16913-8d1a-4b2a-b039-3c0eaf42f36c
                © 2017
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article