Jin Ma1, Xiao-Yan Wang1, Zhi-De Hu1, Zhi-Rui Zhou1, Paul Schoenhagen1, Hao Wang1. 1. 1 Department of Cardiology, Yangpu Hospital, Tongji University, Shanghai 20090, China ; 2 Graduate School, Dalian Medical University, Dalian 116044, China ; 3 Department of Laboratory Medicine, General Hospital of Ji'nan Military Region, Ji'nan 250031, China ; 4 Department of Radiation Oncology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center, Shanghai 200032, China ; 5 Department of Oncology, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China ; 6 Cleveland Clinic, Imaging Institute and Heart&Vascular Institute, Cleveland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted this meta-analysis to systematically review and analyze the clinical benefits of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combined with calcium channel blocker (CCB) following ineffective CCB monotherapy. METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles published until August 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical benefits of ARB combined with CCB following ineffective CCB monotherapy were included. The primary efficacy endpoint of the studies was normal rate of blood pressure, the secondary efficacy endpoints were the response rate and change in blood pressure from baseline. The safety endpoint of the studies was incidence of adverse events. Differences are expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity across studies was tested by using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included and had sample sizes ranging from 185 to 1,183 subjects (total: 3,909 subjects). The pooled analysis showed that the on-target rate of hypertension treatment was significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group (RR =1.59; 95% CI, 1.31-1.91; P<0.01). The response rate of systolic blood pressure (SBP) (RR =1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.58; P<0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P=0.04) were significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group. The change in SBP (RR =-3.56; 95% CI, -7.76-0.63; P=0.10) and DBP (RR =-3.03; 95% CI, -6.51-0.45; P=0.09) were higher in hypertensive patients receiving amlodipine + ARB but the difference did not reach statistical significance. ARB + amlodipine treatment carried a lower risk of adverse events relative to amlodipine monotherapy (RR =0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate that adding an ARB to CCB after initial ineffective CCB monotherapy, significantly improved blood pressure control and the percentage of on-target hypertension treatment with significantly reduced incidence of adverse events compared with continued CCB monotherapy.
BACKGROUND: We conducted this meta-analysis to systematically review and analyze the clinical benefits of angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) combined with calcium channel blocker (CCB) following ineffective CCB monotherapy. METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles published until August 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical benefits of ARB combined with CCB following ineffective CCB monotherapy were included. The primary efficacy endpoint of the studies was normal rate of blood pressure, the secondary efficacy endpoints were the response rate and change in blood pressure from baseline. The safety endpoint of the studies was incidence of adverse events. Differences are expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% CIs for continuous outcomes. Heterogeneity across studies was tested by using the I(2) statistic. RESULTS: Seven RCTs were included and had sample sizes ranging from 185 to 1,183 subjects (total: 3,909 subjects). The pooled analysis showed that the on-target rate of hypertension treatment was significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group (RR =1.59; 95% CI, 1.31-1.91; P<0.01). The response rate of systolic blood pressure (SBP) (RR =1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.58; P<0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) (RR =1.27; 95% CI, 1.12-1.44; P=0.04) were significantly higher in the amlodipine + ARB group than in the amlodipine monotherapy group. The change in SBP (RR =-3.56; 95% CI, -7.76-0.63; P=0.10) and DBP (RR =-3.03; 95% CI, -6.51-0.45; P=0.09) were higher in hypertensivepatients receiving amlodipine + ARB but the difference did not reach statistical significance. ARB + amlodipine treatment carried a lower risk of adverse events relative to amlodipine monotherapy (RR =0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results of our meta-analysis demonstrate that adding an ARB to CCB after initial ineffective CCB monotherapy, significantly improved blood pressure control and the percentage of on-target hypertension treatment with significantly reduced incidence of adverse events compared with continued CCB monotherapy.
Authors: Lars H Lindholm; Hans Ibsen; Björn Dahlöf; Richard B Devereux; Gareth Beevers; Ulf de Faire; Frej Fyhrquist; Stevo Julius; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Krister Kristiansson; Ole Lederballe-Pedersen; Markku S Nieminen; Per Omvik; Suzanne Oparil; Hans Wedel; Peter Aurup; Jonathan Edelman; Steven Snapinn Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-23 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Hans Lithell; Lennart Hansson; Ingmar Skoog; Dag Elmfeldt; Albert Hofman; Bertil Olofsson; Peter Trenkwalder; Alberto Zanchetti Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Giuseppe Mancia; Robert Fagard; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Josep Redon; Alberto Zanchetti; Michael Böhm; Thierry Christiaens; Renata Cifkova; Guy De Backer; Anna Dominiczak; Maurizio Galderisi; Diederick E Grobbee; Tiny Jaarsma; Paulus Kirchhof; Sverre E Kjeldsen; Stéphane Laurent; Athanasios J Manolis; Peter M Nilsson; Luis Miguel Ruilope; Roland E Schmieder; Per Anton Sirnes; Peter Sleight; Margus Viigimaa; Bernard Waeber; Faiez Zannad; Josep Redon; Anna Dominiczak; Krzysztof Narkiewicz; Peter M Nilsson; Michel Burnier; Margus Viigimaa; Ettore Ambrosioni; Mark Caufield; Antonio Coca; Michael Hecht Olsen; Roland E Schmieder; Costas Tsioufis; Philippe van de Borne; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Cetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Denis L Clement; Antonio Coca; Thierry C Gillebert; Michal Tendera; Enrico Agabiti Rosei; Ettore Ambrosioni; Stefan D Anker; Johann Bauersachs; Jana Brguljan Hitij; Mark Caulfield; Marc De Buyzere; Sabina De Geest; Geneviève Anne Derumeaux; Serap Erdine; Csaba Farsang; Christian Funck-Brentano; Vjekoslav Gerc; Giuseppe Germano; Stephan Gielen; Herman Haller; Arno W Hoes; Jens Jordan; Thomas Kahan; Michel Komajda; Dragan Lovic; Heiko Mahrholdt; Michael Hecht Olsen; Jan Ostergren; Gianfranco Parati; Joep Perk; Jorge Polonia; Bogdan A Popescu; Zeljko Reiner; Lars Rydén; Yuriy Sirenko; Alice Stanton; Harry Struijker-Boudier; Costas Tsioufis; Philippe van de Borne; Charalambos Vlachopoulos; Massimo Volpe; David A Wood Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-06-14 Impact factor: 29.983