High-dose calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy vs combination therapy of standard-dose CCBs and angiotensin receptor blockers for hypertension: a meta-analysis

Comparison of Efficacies of Commonly Used Hypertension Treatment Modalities: A Retrospective Study of 1900 Participants in a Hypertension Clinic

BACKGROUND Although various antihypertensive medications are available, some hypertensive patients have uncontrolled blood pressures, especially in the clinic. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacies of various antihypertensive therapies in our hypertension (HTN) clinic (monotherapy vs. combination therapy, fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus free equivalent combination (FEC), and diuretics versus non-diuretics. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this retrospective study, patients at the HTN clinic of the Third Xiangya Hospital with primary hypertension were enrolled from June 2016 to February 2017. Data on participants' basic characteristics, blood pressure data, and treatment modalities were collected. The proportions of participants attaining target blood pressure after treatment with antihypertensive modalities were calculated and compared. RESULTS Among 1900 participants, combination therapy had a better control efficacy than monotherapy (P<0.0005). When HTN was treated by 2 kinds of drugs, FEC was used much more frequently than FDC (P<0.0005). In grade 3 HTN, FDC had a higher control rate (P=0.002). If more than 2 kinds of drugs were used, FDC+OTHER had a slightly higher control rate in grade 2 and 3 (42.1% vs. 38.5%, P=0.724; 36.2% vs. 31.0%, P=0.526, respectively). Therapies with diuretics had better control rates than those without diuretics (43.1% vs. 36.9%, P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS In our clinic, FEC was prescribed more often than FDC. When blood pressure is significantly elevated, especially at levels 2 or 3, FDC seems to have a better control rate than FEC. Therapies with diuretics controlled HTN more efficiently.

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

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review originally published in 2017. 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.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We used no language restrictions. We also searched clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs on the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, 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 drugs 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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and performed data entry. The 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 summarised data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

This update included one new study in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. As none of the four included studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment, we asked investigators for data for this subgroup. One study (PREVER-treatment 2016) used a combination of thiazide-type diuretic/potassium-sparing diuretic; as the former is not indicated in monotherapy, we analysed this study separately. The three original trials in the main comparison (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants) included outpatients, mostly European and white people. Two trials only included people with type 2 diabetes; the remaining 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. It is very uncertain whether combination therapy versus monotherapy reduces total mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 21.72), cardiovascular mortality (zero events reported), cardiovascular events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.41), serious adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92), or withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.35); all outcomes had 568 participants, and the evidence was rated as of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and for using a subgroup that was not defined in advance. The confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit. The PREVER-treatment 2016 trial, which used a combination therapy with potassium-sparing diuretic (monotherapy: 84 participants; combination therapy: 116 participants), included outpatients. This trial was conducted in Brazil and had a follow-up of 18 months. The number of events was very low and confidence intervals very wide, with zero events reported for cardiovascular mortality and withdrawals due to adverse events. It is very uncertain if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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 review question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Magnitude of and Characteristics Associated With the Treatment of Calcium Channel Blocker-Induced Lower-Extremity Edema With Loop Diuretics

IMPORTANCE

Calcium channel blockers, specifically dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers (DH CCBs, eg, amlodipine), may cause lower-extremity edema. Anecdotal reports suggest this may result in a prescribing cascade, where DH CCB-induced edema is treated with loop diuretics.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the magnitude and characteristics of the DH CCB prescribing cascade.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used a prescription sequence symmetry analysis to assess loop diuretic initiation before and after the initiation of DH CCBs among patients aged 20 years or older without heart failure. Data from a private insurance claims database from 2005 to 2017 was analyzed. Use of loop diuretics associated with initiation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and other commonly used medications was used as negative controls. Data were analyzed from March 2019 through October 2019.

EXPOSURES

Initiation of DH CCB or negative control medications.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The temporality of loop diuretic initiation relative to DH CCB or negative control initiation. Secular trend-adjusted sequence ratios (aSRs) with 95% CIs were calculated using data from 360 days before and after initiation of DH CCBs.

RESULTS

Among 1 206 093 DH CCB initiators, 55 818 patients (4.6%) (33 100 [59.3%] aged <65 years; 32 916 [59.0%] women) had a new loop diuretic prescription 360 days before or after DH CCB initiation, resulting in an aSR of 1.87 (95% CI, 1.84-1.90). An estimated 1.44% of DH CCB initiators experienced the prescribing cascade. The aSR was disproportionately higher among DH CCB initiators who were prescribed high doses (aSR, 2.20; 95% CI, 2.13-2.27), initiated amlodipine (aSR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.86-1.93), were men (aSR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.91-2.01), and used fewer antihypertensive classes (aSR, 2.55; 95% CI, 2.47-2.64). The evaluation of ACE inhibitors or ARBs as negative controls suggested hypertension progression may have tempered the incidence of the prescribing cascade (aSR for ACE inhibitors and ARBs, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found an excessive use of loop diuretics following initiation of DH CCBs that cannot be completely explained by secular trends or hypertension progression. The prescribing cascade was more pronounced among those initially prescribed a high dose of DH CCBs.