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:BackgroundClostridium 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsMetronidazole 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:Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved as cancer immunotherapeutic agents for advanced malignant melanoma (MM) in recent years, and nivolumab and ipilimumab are the most widely used ICIs either alone or in combination. However, their efficacy and safety between single and combined ICIs are not clear. This meta-analysis (MA) is aimed to update the efficacy and safety of ICIs by comparing monotherapy and combination therapy in the treatment of advanced MM. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, EbscoHost and ClinicalTrials.gov for the eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared the efficacy and safety of ICIs between a single ICI and combined ICIs. The outcomes analyzed included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR) and treatment-related adverse events (AEs). A fixed-effect or random-effects model was adopted depending on the study heterogeneity. Results: A total of nine RCTs were included in this MA. Regarding the efficacy, combined nivolumab and ipilimumab therapy showed statistically significant prolonged OS and PFS with HR 0.65, 95% CI [0.53, 0.79], p <0.0001 and HR 0.48, 95% CI [0.38, 0.60], p<0.0001 respectively. Combination therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab also showed statistically significant longer ORR than monotherapy; with RR 2.15, 95% CI [1.63, 2.84], p <0.00001. In terms of safety, the incidence of all AEs which include any AEs, high-grade, haematological, gastrointestinal, dermatological, pulmonary, liver and endocrine AEs were significantly lower with monotherapy (either nivolumab or ipilimumab) of ICI compared to combination ICI therapy with a p-value <0.00001 to 0.03. Conclusion: Efficacy of the combined nivolumab and ipilimumab was better than a single ICI, especially in the treatment of advanced MM. Although combination therapy showed better efficacy than monotherapy, monotherapy (either nivolumab or ipilimumab) was safer than combination therapy as it tended to decrease the incidence of most of the treatment-related AEs.