Dataset Information

Efficacy of ARB/HCTZ Combination Therapy in Uncontrolled Hypertensive Patients Compared with ARB Monotherapy: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of combination of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) compared to ARB alone in patients with uncontrolled hypertension via a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched databases till July 2019 using relevant search terms. We included articles that were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ARB/HCTZ with ARB for a duration of at least 4 weeks and reported on the efficacy or safety. Meta-analyses for efficacy outcomes were performed. In addition, groups given different concentrations of HCTZ (12.5 and 25 mg) were analysed separately.

Results

Sixteen RCTs (12,055 participants) were included. Overall, ARB/HCTZ combination therapy (both 12.5 and 25 mg HCTZ combination) resulted in better sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure control than ARB alone (mean difference (95% confidence interval (CI): -5.69 [-6.66, -4.73] for 12.5 mg and -9.10 [-11.78, -6.42] for 25 mg and mean difference (95% CI): -2.91 [-3.31, -2.51] for 12.5 mg and -4.16 [-4.75, -3.58] for 25 mg). ARB/HCTZ combination therapy resulted in a higher rate of target blood pressure achievement compared to ARB alone (risk ratio (95% CI): 1.50 [1.42, 1.59]). ARB/HCTZ combination therapy had similar rates of total adverse events (AEs) and severe AEs compared to ARB alone.

Conclusion

ARB/HCTZ combination therapy is more efficacious for controlling blood pressure, and combination with a low concentration of HCTZ has similar AEs compared to ARB alone. Clinicians should consider adding HCTZ in the medication regime of patients with uncontrolled hypertension using ARB, if their clinical profile allows.

SUBMITTER: Ma L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8096582 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) has become a global epidemiological problem for both hospitalized patients and outpatients. The most commonly used drugs to treat CDI are metronidazole and vancomycin. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of metronidazole monotherapy with vancomycin monotherapy and combination therapy in CDI patients. METHODS:A comprehensive search without publication status or other restrictions was conducted. Studies comparing metronidazole monotherapy with vancomycin monotherapy or combination therapy in patients with CDI were considered eligible. Meta-analysis was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model, and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated and reported. RESULTS:Of the 1910 records identified, seventeen studies from thirteen articles (n = 2501 patients) were included. No statistically significant difference in the rate of clinical cure was found between metronidazole and vancomycin for mild CDI (OR = 0.67, 95% CI (0.45, 1.00), p = 0.05) or between either monotherapy and combination therapy for CDI (OR = 1.07, 95% CI (0.58, 1.96), p = 0.83); however, the rate of clinical cure was lower for metronidazole than for vancomycin for severe CDI (OR = 0.46, 95% CI (0.26, 0.80), p = 0.006). No statistically significant difference in the rate of CDI recurrence was found between metronidazole and vancomycin for mild CDI (OR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.40, 2.45), p = 0.98) or severe CDI (OR = 0.98, 95% CI (0.63, 1.53), p = 0.94) or between either monotherapy and combination therapy for CDI (OR = 0.91, 95% CI (0.66, 1.26), p = 0.56). In addition, there was no significant difference in the rate of adverse events (AEs) between metronidazole and vancomycin (OR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.80, 1.74), p = 0.41). In contrast, the rate of AEs was significantly lower for either monotherapy than for combination therapy (OR = 0.30, 95% CI (0.17, 0.51), p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS:Metronidazole and vancomycin are equally effective for the treatment of mild CDI, but vancomycin is superior for the treatment of severe CDI. Combination therapy is not superior to monotherapy because it appears to be associated with an increase in the rate of AEs.

Project description:The relative efficacy of antihypertensive drugs/combinations is not well known. Identifying the most effective ones and the patients' characteristics associated with best performance of the drugs will improve management of hypertensive patients.To assess the blood pressure (BP) reduction attributed to antihypertensive drugs and identify characteristics associated with BP decrease.MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through July 2012 and selected papers.Double-blind, randomized clinical trials whose main result was the reduction in BP by antihypertensive treatment, with study population ?50 or ?25 if the study was a crossover, follow-up of at least 8 weeks, and available required data.Study data were independently extracted by multiple observers and introduced in an electronic database. Inconsistencies were resolved by discussion and referral back to the original articles. Meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA statement and using a Bayesian framework.Mean decrease in systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) achieved by each drug or combination.Two hundred eight trials including 94,305 patients were identified. In monotherapy, most drugs achieved 10 to 15?mm Hg SBP and 8 to 10?mm Hg DBP decreases.Olmesartan/amlodipine, olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, felodipine/metoprolol, and valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide were the combinations leading to the greatest mean SBP reductions (>20?mm Hg). Female sex and body mass index >25?kg/m were associated with more pronounced SBP and DBP reductions, whereas Afro-American ethnicity was associated with BP reductions smaller than the median. Results were adjusted by study duration, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes mellitus. Still, the estimation was performed using the mean administered doses, which do not exactly match those of the available drug formats.Data corresponded to those obtained in each of the included trials; the analysis of the combinations was limited to the most recent ones; estimations were performed using the mean administered doses.Certain drug combinations achieve BP reductions ranging from 20 to 25/10 to 15?mm Hg. Sex, ethnicity, and obesity are associated with antihypertensive response. This information can contribute to better selection of the antihypertensive drug, depending on the magnitude of pretreatment BP elevation. Guidelines should be revised.

Project description:BackgroundHypertension (HTN) is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular mortality globally. The WHO estimates a 60% increase in Asian HTN patients between 2000 and 2025. Numerous studies have compared safety and efficacy between antihypertensive classes, but in-class comparisons of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in combination therapy (CT) (fixed-dose combination or dual combination) with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) are lacking in Asia.ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of the various ARB-amlodipine CTs and amlodipine (AML) monotherapy for treatment of HTN in Asian population.MethodsA systematic literature review sourced Asian randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from PubMed and Cochrane Libraries to inform a network meta-analysis (NMA). We considered the ARB-AML CT. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were short-term (8-12 weeks) treatment response and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), respectively. AML monotherapy was used as a comparator to allow for indirect treatment effect estimation in the absence of direct RCTs evidence comparing the different ARB-AML CTs.ResultsThe analysis included 1198 Asian HTN patients from seven studies involving six ARB-AML CTs: azilsartan (AZL), candesartan (CAN), fimasartan (FIM), losartan (LOS), olmesartan (OLM), and telmisartan (TEL). Compared to AML monotherapy, CT of AZL-AML had five times greater odds of prompting a treatment response (OR 5.2, 95% CI: 2.5, 11.2), while CAN-AML had 3.9 (95% CI: 2.5, 6.4), FIM-AML had 3.4 (95% CI: 1.4, 8.5), TEL-AML had 3.3 (95% CI: 1.6, 7.1), OLM-AML had 2.7 (95% CI: 1.6, 5.0), and LOS-AML had 2.0 (95% CI: 0.6, 7.3). All ARB-AML CTs had safety profiles comparable to AML monotherapy except TEL-AML, which had significantly lower odds of TEAEs (0.26 (95% CI: 0.087, 0.70)).ConclusionThis study suggests that all ARB-AML CTs compared favorably to AML monotherapy regarding short-term treatment response in uncomplicated HTN patients of Asian origin. AZL-AML prompted the most favorable treatment response. Safety profiles among the ARB-AML CTs were largely comparable. Due to the limited study size and small number of trials (direct evidence), our findings should best be interpreted as an exploratory effort importance to inform future research direction.