Fixed-dose combination vs monotherapy in hypertension: A meta-analysis evaluation

Journal of Human Hypertension

Volumn 13, Issue 7, 1999, Pages 477-483

  Hilleman, D E ^a   Ryschon, K L ^b   Mohiuddin, S M ^a   Wurdeman, Richard L ^b  

^a CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY CARDIAC CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

Amlodipine benazepril; Fixed dose combination; Monotherapy

Indexed keywords

AMLODIPINE PLUS BENAZEPRIL; ANTIHYPERTENSIVE AGENT; ATENOLOL; CAPTOPRIL; LISINOPRIL; VERAPAMIL;

ANTIHYPERTENSIVE THERAPY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIASTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG WITHDRAWAL; ESSENTIAL HYPERTENSION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; META ANALYSIS; SAMPLE; SIDE EFFECT; VARIANCE;

EID: 0032789850     PISSN: 09509240     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1000855     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Oparil S. Arterial hypertension. In: Wyngaarden JB, Smith LH, Bennett JC (eds). Cecil Textbook of Medicine. W.B. Saunders Company: Philadelphia, PA, 1992, pp 253-269.
2. Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. The fifth report of the Joint National Committee on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC V). Arch Intern Med 1993; 153: 154-183.
3. Fouad FM, Tarazi RC. Cardiac factors in response to antihypertensive treatment. Hypertension 1883; 5 (spool III): 43-48.
4. Brunner HR et al. Treatment of the individual hypertensive patient considerations on dose sequential monotherapy and drug combinations. J Hypertens 1990; 8: 3-11.
5. Dengler HJ, Lasagna L. Report of a workshop on fixed-ratio drug combinations. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1975; 8: 140-154.
6. Dollery CT. Pharmacological basis for combination therapy of hypertension. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1977; 17: 311-323.
7. Frishman WH et al. A multifactorial trial design to assess combination therapy in hypertentsion. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1461-1468.
8. Menard J, Bellet M. Calcium antagonists-ACE inhibitors combination therapy: objectives and methodology of clinical development. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1993; 21 (Suppl 2): 49-54.
9. Sica DA. Fixed-dose combination antihypertenive drugs. Drugs 1994; 48: 16-24.
10. Papademetriou V et al. Efficacy of low-dose combination of bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide compared with amlodipine and enalpril in men and women with essential hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81: 1363-1365.
11. Kuschnir E et al. Treatment of patients with essential hypertension: amlodipine 5 mg/benazepril 20 mg compared with amlodipine 5 mg, benazepril 20 mg and placebo. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 1213-1224.
12. Chrysant SG, Fagan T, Glazer R, Kriegman A. Effects of benazepril and hydrochlorothiazide, given alone and in low and high dose combinations, on blood pressure in patients with hypertension. Arch Fam Med 1996; 5: 17-24.
13. Bahena JH, Estrella ME, Modesto M. Quinapril versus atenolol in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther 1992; 14: 527-536.
14. Breed JGS et al. Quality of life perception during antihypertensive treatment: a comparative study of bisoprolol and enalapril. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1992; 20: 750-755.
15. Burris JF et al. Double-blind comparison of amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988; 12 (Suppl 7): S98-S102.
16. Chalmers JP et al. Effects of enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide on blood pressure, renin-angiotensin system, and atrial natriuretic factor in essential hypertension: A double-blind factorial cross-over study. Aust NZ J Med 1986; 16: 475-480.
17. Chiariello M. A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of lacidipine and hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1991; 17 (Suppl 4): S35-S37.
18. Creytens G, Saelen A. Comparative effects of nicardipine hydrochloride and hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension: a double-blind parallel study. Br J Clin Pract 1986; 40: 518-523.
19. Cubeddu LX et al. A comparison of verapamil and propranolol for the initial treatment of hypertension. JAMA 1986; 256: 2214-2221.
20. de Bruijn B et al. Multicenter placebo-controlled comparison of amlodipine and atenolol in mild to moderate hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988; 12 (Suppl 7): S107-S109.
21. Daniels AR, Opie LH. Atenolol plus nifedipine for mild to moderate systemic hypertension after fixed doses of either agent alone. Am J Cardiol 1986; 57: 965-970.
22. Edmonds D et al. Enalapril as a first-step agent in essential hypertension: a comparative study with atenolol. J Hypertens 1986; 4 (Suppl 5): S406-S409.
23. Eisner GM et al. A multicenter comparison of the safety and efficacy of isradipine and enalapril in the treatment of hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1991; 4: 154S-157S.
24. Enstrom I, Thulin T, Lindholm L. A plea for more comprehensive blood pressure measurements when evaluating drug treatment of hypertension. J Hypertens 1988; 6: 959-964.
25. Escudero J, Hernandez H. Clinical evaluation of amlodipine, a new long-acting calcium antagonist, in mild and moderate hypertension. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 1991; XI: 243-246.
26. Escudero J, Hernandez H, Martinez F. Comparative study of the antihypertensive effect of verapamil and atenolol. Am J Cardiol 1986; 57: 54D-58D.
27. Feig PU et al. The efficacy and safety of once-daily nifedipine coat-core in the treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension. Clin Ther 1993; 15: 963-975.
28. Frick MH et al. Amlodipine: a double-blind evaluation of the dose-response relationship in mild to moderate hypertension, J Cardiol Pharmacol 1988; 12 (Suppl 7): S76-S78.
29. Frishman WH et al. Amlodipine versus atenolol in essential hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1994; 73: 50A-54A.
30. Frishman WH et al. Comparison of amlodipine and benazepril monotherapy to amlodipine plus benazepril in patients with systemic hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 35: 1060-1066.
31. Kuschnir E et al. Treatment of patients with essential hypertension: amolodipine 5 mg/benazepril 20 mg compared with amlodipine 5 mg, benazepril 20 mg, and placebo. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 1213-1224.
32. Frishman WH et al. Comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and sustained-release diltiazem for mild-to-moderate systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1987; 59: 615-623.
33. Fritschka E. Comparisons of once-daily nilvadipine with enalapril and diuretic in patients with essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1992; 20 (Suppl 6): S62-S68.
34. Gavras I et al. Antihypertensive effectiveness of the nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system. Am J Med 1987; 83 (Suppl 6B): 20-23.
35. Gradman AH et al. Comparison of sustained-release formulations of nicardipine and verapamil for mild to moderate systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1992; 70: 1571-1575.
36. Hart W et al. ACE inhibition versus calcium antagonism in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension: a multicentre study. Postgrad Med J 1993; 69: 450-455.
37. Hedner T et al. A comparison of diltiazem and metoprolol in hypertension. J Clin Pharmacol 1990; 39: 427-433.
38. Herrera-Acosta J et al. Enalapril in essential hypertension. Drugs 1985; 30 (Suppl 1): 35-46.
39. Isradipine in Hypertension Study Group. A multicenter evaluation of the safety and efficacy of isradipine and atenolol in the treatment of hypertension. Am J Med 1989; 86 (Suppl 4A): 119-123.
40. Jensen HA, Danish Cooperative Study Group. Efficacy and tolerability of lisinopril compared with extended release felodipine in patients with essential hypertension. Clin Exper Hyper 1992; A14: 1095-1110.
41. Kaplan NM, Grundy S. Comparison of the effects of guanabenz and hydrochlorothiazide on plasma lipids. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1988; 44: 297-302.
42. Lang H. The results of a large multicentre study comparing low-dose lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide with the monocomponents. J Hum Hypertens 1991; 5 (Suppl 2): 73-76.
43. Langdon CG, Baxter GA, Young PH. A multicenter comparison of carvedilol with hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. J Cardiol Pharmacol 1991; 18 (Suppl 4): S51-S56.
44. Laplante LE et al, for The Enalapril-Hydrochlorothiazide in Essential Hypertension Canadian Working Group. Enalapril and enalapril plus hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of essential hypertension. Clin Ther 1993; 15: 364-373.
45. Larochelle P et al. for the Canadian Enalapril Study Group. Comparison of monotherapy with enalapril and atenolol in mild to moderate hypertension. CMAJ 1987; 137: 803-808.
46. Lejeune P et al. Effects of BAYI 5240, a fixed combination of low dose nifedipine and acebutolol on hypertension: comparison with standard dose nifedipine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1985; 28: 17-21.
47. Leon AS, Multicenter Cooperative Study Group. Efficacy and safety of enalapril versus extended-release nifedipine for the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension: A multicenter 22-week study. Clin Ther 1993; 15: 1094-1107.
48. Lessem JN et al. Long-term enalapril - a new converting enzyme inhibitor - in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension, results of a world wide multiclinic study. Clin Exper Theory Pract 1985; A7: 1515-1539.
49. Lewis JE. Comparison of acebutolol and hydrochlorothiazide in essential hypertension. Am Heart J 1985; 109: 1168-1174.
50. Lorimer AR et al. Double-blind comparison of amlodipine and nifedipine retard in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 1994; 8: 65-68.
51. Lorimer AR et al. Comparison of amlodipine and verapamil in the treatment of mild to moderate hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988; 12 (Suppl 7): S89-S93.
52. Lucas CP, Morledge JH, Tessman DK. Comparison of hydrochlorothiazide and hydrochlorothiazide plus bevantolol in hypertension. Clin Ther 1985; 8: 49-60.
53. Massie B et al. Diltiazem and propranolol in mild to moderate essential hypertension as monotherapy or with hydrochlorothiazide. Ann Intern Med 1987; 107: 150-157.
54. Massie B. Antihypertensive therapy with nitrendipine: comparison with hydrochloro-thiazide and propranolol. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1988; 12 (Suppl 4): S55-S58.
55. Massie BM et al. 24-hour efficacy of once-daily diltiazem in essential hypertension. Clin Cardiol 1992; 15: 365-368.
56. Mehta JL et al. Double-blind evaluation of the dose-response relationship of amlodipine in essential hypertension. Am Heart J 1993; 125: 1704-1710.
57. Mroczek WJ et al. Comparison of the antihypertensive effects of betaxolol to atenolol. Am J Cardiol 1988; 61: 807-811.
58. Nash DT et al. A double-blind parallel trial to assess the efficacy of doxazosin, atenolol, and placebo in patients with mild to moderate systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1987; 59: 87G-90G.
59. Neutel JM et al. Application of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in differentiating between antihypertensive agents. Am J Med 1993; 94: 181-187.
60. Nugent LW, Miola SR, Walker JF. A comparison of enalapril and metoprolol as initial therapy for mild to moderate hypertension. J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 27: 461-467.
61. Ohman KP et al. Antihypertensive and metabolic effects of nifedipine and labetalol alone and in combination in primary hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1985; 29: 149-154.
62. Omvik P et al. Double-blind, parallel, comparative study on quality of life during treatment with amlodipine or enalapril in mild or moderate hypertensive patients: a multicentre study. J Hypertens 1993; 11: 103-113.
63. Ott P et al. Multicenter, double-blind comparison of doxazosin and atenolol in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1987; 59: 73G-77G.
64. Pacheco JP et al. Monotherapy of mild hypertension with nifedipine. Am J Med 1986; 81 (Suppl 6A): 20-24.
65. Pollare T et al. Metabolic effects of diltiazem and atenolol: results from a randomized, double-blind study with parallel groups. J Hypertens 1989; 7: 551-559.
66. Pool PE et al. A randomized, controlled trial comparing diltiazem, hydrochlorothiazide, and their combination in the therapy of essential hypertension. Pharmacotherapy 1993; 13: 487-493.
67. Pool PE et al. Sustained-release diltiazem: duration of antihypertensive effect. J Clin Pharmacol 1989; 29: 533-537.
68. Pool PE et al. Diltiazem as monotherapy for systemic hypertension: a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Am J Cardiol 1986; 57: 212-217.
69. Prisant LM et al. Low-dose drug combination therapy: an alternative first-line approach to hypertension treatment. Am Heart J 1995; 130: 359-366.
70. Rocha-Goncalves F et al. First clinical experience with isradipine in the treatment of hypertension in Portugal. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1991; 18 (Suppl 3): S4-S6.
71. Rosenthal F, Silke B, Capone P. A comparison of celiprolol and atenolol in the treatment of hypertension. Br J Clin Pract 1985 (Symp Suppl); 40: 76-77.
72. Ruddy MC, Mroczek WJ. Comparison of ramipril and enalapril in patients with essential hypertension. Pharmacotherapy 1993; 13: 224-228.
73. Ruilope LM, Carvedilol Study Group. Comparison of a new vasodilating beta-blocker, carvedilol, with atenolol in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1994; 7: 129-136.
74. Rumboldt Z et al. Controlled multicentre comparison of captopril versus lisinopril in the treatment of mild-to-moderate arterial hypertension. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 1993; XIII: 35-41.
75. Salvetti A, Arzilli F. Chronic dose-response curve of enalapril in essential hypertensives: An Italian multicenter study. Am J Hypertens 1989; 2: 352-354.
76. Sanchez S et al. Quinapril versus enalapril in the treatment of mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. Clin Ther 1991; 13: 651-655.
77. Seedat YK, Parag KB. A comparison of lisinopril and atenolol in black and Indian patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension. S Afr Med J 1987; 71: 149-153.
78. Silke B. Studies with sustained-release verapamil in essential hypertension. Br J Clin Pract 1988; 60: 53-57.
79. Silke B, Rosenthal F, Taylor S. A randomized double-blind study of atenolol and celiprolol in mild to moderate hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1986; 8 (Suppl 4): S122-S126.
80. Stamler R et al. Initial antihypertensive drug therapy -a comparison of alpha-blocker (prazosin) and diuretic (hydrochlorothiazide): brief summary of a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Med 1989; 86 (Suppl B): 24-25.
81. Stumpe K et al. A comparison of celiprolol and atenolol in the treatment of hypertension: a placebo controlled doublle-blind study. Br J Clin Pract 1985; 40: 73-75.
82. Taylor SH. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of quinapril with that of enalapril in the treatment of mild to moderate essential hypertension. Angiology-J Vascular Dis 1989; April: 382-388.
83. Taylor SH. The treatment of mild to moderate hypertension with ACE inhibitors. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1990; 15 (Suppl 2): S24-S28.
84. The United Kingdom Lacidipine Study Group. A double-blind comparison of the efficacy and safety of lacidipine with atenolol in the treatment of essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1991; 17 (Suppl 4): S27-S30.
85. Waeber B et al. Amlodipine compared to nitrendipine in hypertensive patients: the effects on toleration in relationship with the onset of action. Cardiology 1992; 80 (Suppl 1): 46-53.
86. Watts RW, Dufek A, Wing LMH. Comparison of felodipine and enalapril monotherapy in essential hypertension. Blood Pressure 1993; 2: 53-58.
87. Weir MR, Lavin PT. Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of prinavil and procardia XL in black and white hypertensive patients. Clin Ther 1992; 14: 730-739.
88. Weir MR et al. Comparison of the efficacy and metabolic effects of nicardipine and hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive black men and women. J Hum Hypertens 1993; 7: 141-147.
89. Weir MR et al. Sustained-release diltiazem compared with atenolol monotherapy for mild to moderate systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1987; 60: 361-411.
90. Wessels F. Double-blind comparison of doxazosin and enalapril in patients with mild or moderate essential hypertension. Am Heart J 1991; 121: 299-303.
91. Whelton A, Eff J, Magner DJ. Sustained antihypertensive activity of diltiazem SR: double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 32: 808-815.
92. Woehler TR et al. Multicenter evaluation of the efficacy and safety of sustained-release diltiazem hydrochloride for the treatment of hypertension. Clin Ther 1992; 14: 148-157.
93. Wolfson P et al. Diltiazem and captopril alone or in combination for treatment of mild to moderate systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1988; 62: 103G-108G.
94. Wu SC et al. Beta-blocker versus diuretic for control of the blood pressure response to stress in hypertensive patients. Eur Heart J 1986; 7: 885-892.
95. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986; 7: 177-188.
96. Edelson JT et al. Long-term cost-effectiveness of various initial monotherapies for mild to moderate hypertension. JAMA 1986; 263: 407-413.
97. Wolf FM. Meta-Analysis Quantitative Methods for Research Synthesis. Series: Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 1986; ISBN 07-059:39-46.
98. Glass GV, McGaw B, Smith ML. Meta-Analysis in Social Research. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, 1981.
99. Rosenthal R, Rubin D. Further meta-analytic procedures for assessing cognitive gender differences. J Educ Psych 1982; 74: 708-712.