Efficacy and safety of dual combination therapy of blood pressure-lowering drugs as initial treatment for hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Issue 9 (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Salam, Abdul; Kanukula, Raju; Atkins, Emily; Wang, Xia; Islam, Shariful; Kishore, Sandeep P.; Jaffe, Marc G.; Patel, Anushka; Rodgers, Anthony
• Is Part Of: Journal of hypertension. Volume 37:Issue 9(2019:Sep.)
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: antihypertensive drugs -- hypertension -- initial treatment -- low-dose combination therapy -- meta-analysis -- systematic review; Hypertension -- Periodicals; Hypertension -- Periodicals; 616.132005
• DOI: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002096
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1473-5598

Abstract

Abstract : Objective: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of dual combination of blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs as initial treatment for hypertension. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL were searched until August 2017 for randomized, double-blind trials of dual combination therapy vs. monotherapy in adults with hypertension who were either treatment naïve or untreated for at least 4 weeks. Regimens were classified with reference to usual daily 'standard-dose'; for example, <1 + <1 for a combination of two drugs both at less than one standard-dose. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis. Results: Thirty-three trials (13 095 participants) with mean baseline mean BP 155/100 mmHg were included. Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, dual combinations of <1 + <1, 1 + <1 and 1 + 1 (i.e. low-to-standard dose), showed a dose–response relationship in reducing SBP [mean differences (95% confidence interval) of 2.8 (1.6–4.0), 4.6 (3.4–5.7) and 7.5 (5.4–9.5) mmHg, respectively], and in improving BP control [risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval) 1.11 (0.92–1.34), 1.25 (1.16–1.35) and 1.42 (1.27–1.58), respectively]. Withdrawals due to adverse events were uncommon with low-to-standard dose dual combinations, with no significant difference compared with standard-dose monotherapy [2.9 vs. 2.2%; RR 1.28 (0.85 to 1.92)]. There were fewer data for higher dose dual combinations, which did not appear to produce substantial additional efficacy and could potentially be less tolerable. Conclusion: Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, initiating treatment with low-to-standard dose dual combination therapy is more efficacious without increasing withdrawals due to adverse events. PROSPERO registration: CRD42016032822. Abstract : Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text