Efficacy and safety of triple versus dual combination blood pressure-lowering drug therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.


Journal

Journal of hypertension
ISSN: 1473-5598
Titre abrégé: J Hypertens
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8306882

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
08 2019
Historique:
pubmed: 7 5 2019
medline: 7 7 2020
entrez: 7 5 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Most patients with hypertension need at least two drugs to achieve goal blood pressure. This systematic review assessed efficacy and safety of triple versus dual combination therapy for the management of hypertension. Publication databases, clinical trial registries and regulatory agency websites were searched until April 2018 for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple with dual therapy of BP-lowering drugs, for at least 3 weeks, among patients with hypertension. Meta-analyses for efficacy and safety outcomes were performed using random-effects model. Regimen efficacy was predicted using the Therapeutic Intensity Score (TIS) and the Law et al. method (which predict dose doubling increases efficacy by 100% and around 20%, respectively), and compared with observed efficacy. Fourteen RCTs (11 457 participants) were included. Overall, triple compared with dual therapy reduced BP by 5.4/3.2 mmHg (P < 0.001), and improved BP control by 58 versus 45% [relative risk (RR) 1.33 (95% CI 1.25-1.41)], whereas incidence of withdrawals because of adverse events were 3.3 versus 3.4% [RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.00-1.54), P = 0.05]. Law et al.'s method was superior to TIS in predicting differences in efficacy between triple and dual therapies. For patients uncontrolled on submaximal dose dual therapy, adding a third drug achieved on average approximately four times more BP reduction than doubling the dose of dual therapy component drugs (6.0/3.6 versus 1.5/0.8 mmHg, respectively). Addition of a third drug is likely to be more efficacious without increasing adverse events, compared with increasing dose of existing dual therapy. Early use of triple therapy can significantly improve hypertension control.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Most patients with hypertension need at least two drugs to achieve goal blood pressure. This systematic review assessed efficacy and safety of triple versus dual combination therapy for the management of hypertension.
METHODS
Publication databases, clinical trial registries and regulatory agency websites were searched until April 2018 for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple with dual therapy of BP-lowering drugs, for at least 3 weeks, among patients with hypertension. Meta-analyses for efficacy and safety outcomes were performed using random-effects model. Regimen efficacy was predicted using the Therapeutic Intensity Score (TIS) and the Law et al. method (which predict dose doubling increases efficacy by 100% and around 20%, respectively), and compared with observed efficacy.
RESULTS
Fourteen RCTs (11 457 participants) were included. Overall, triple compared with dual therapy reduced BP by 5.4/3.2 mmHg (P < 0.001), and improved BP control by 58 versus 45% [relative risk (RR) 1.33 (95% CI 1.25-1.41)], whereas incidence of withdrawals because of adverse events were 3.3 versus 3.4% [RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.00-1.54), P = 0.05]. Law et al.'s method was superior to TIS in predicting differences in efficacy between triple and dual therapies. For patients uncontrolled on submaximal dose dual therapy, adding a third drug achieved on average approximately four times more BP reduction than doubling the dose of dual therapy component drugs (6.0/3.6 versus 1.5/0.8 mmHg, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Addition of a third drug is likely to be more efficacious without increasing adverse events, compared with increasing dose of existing dual therapy. Early use of triple therapy can significantly improve hypertension control.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31058799
doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000002089
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antihypertensive Agents 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1567-1573

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Abdul Salam (A)

The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Hyderabad, India.

Emily R Atkins (ER)

The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Benjumin Hsu (B)

School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Ruth Webster (R)

The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Anushka Patel (A)

The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Anthony Rodgers (A)

The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH