Andrea Pio-Abreu1, Luciano F Drager2,3. 1. Hypertension Unit, Renal Division, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Hypertension Unit, Renal Division, University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil. luciano.drager@incor.usp.br. 3. Hypertension Unit, Heart Institute (InCor), University of Sao Paulo Medical School, São Paulo, Brazil. luciano.drager@incor.usp.br.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Resistant hypertension (RH) is a growing clinical condition worldwide associated with target-organ damage and poor prognosis compared to non-resistant counterparts. The purpose of this review is to perform a critical evaluation of preferable drug choices for managing RH highlighting the evidence that significant proportion of patients remained uncontrolled despite using four anti-hypertensive drugs. RECENT FINDINGS: Until recently, the fourth drug therapy was main derived from personal opinion or small interventional studies. The recent data derived from two multicentric randomized trials, namely PATHWAY-2 and ReHOT, pointed spironolactone as the preferable fourth drug therapy in patients with confirmed RH as compared to bisoprolol and doxazosin (PATHWAY-2) as well as clonidine (ReHOT). However, significant proportion of patients (especially observed in ReHOT trial that used 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) did not achieve optimal blood pressure with the fourth drug. This finding underscores the need of new approaches and treatment options in this important research area. The current evidence pointed that significant proportion of RH patients are requiring more than four drugs for controlling BP. This statement is particularly true considering the new criteria proposed by the 2017 Guidelines for diagnosing RH (> 130 × 80 mmHg). New combinations, drugs, or treatments should be tested aiming to reduce the RH burden. Based on the aforementioned multicentric trials, we proposed the first five preferable anti-hypertensive classes in the overall context of RH.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Resistant hypertension (RH) is a growing clinical condition worldwide associated with target-organ damage and poor prognosis compared to non-resistant counterparts. The purpose of this review is to perform a critical evaluation of preferable drug choices for managing RH highlighting the evidence that significant proportion of patients remained uncontrolled despite using four anti-hypertensive drugs. RECENT FINDINGS: Until recently, the fourth drug therapy was main derived from personal opinion or small interventional studies. The recent data derived from two multicentric randomized trials, namely PATHWAY-2 and ReHOT, pointed spironolactone as the preferable fourth drug therapy in patients with confirmed RH as compared to bisoprolol and doxazosin (PATHWAY-2) as well as clonidine (ReHOT). However, significant proportion of patients (especially observed in ReHOT trial that used 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring) did not achieve optimal blood pressure with the fourth drug. This finding underscores the need of new approaches and treatment options in this important research area. The current evidence pointed that significant proportion of RH patients are requiring more than four drugs for controlling BP. This statement is particularly true considering the new criteria proposed by the 2017 Guidelines for diagnosing RH (> 130 × 80 mmHg). New combinations, drugs, or treatments should be tested aiming to reduce the RH burden. Based on the aforementioned multicentric trials, we proposed the first five preferable anti-hypertensive classes in the overall context of RH.
Authors: W J Louis; J J McNeil; S N Anavekar; E L Conway; B Workman; L G Howes; O H Drummer; B Jarrott Journal: J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Date: 1987 Impact factor: 3.105
Authors: Eduardo M Krieger; Luciano F Drager; Dante M A Giorgi; Alexandre C Pereira; José Augusto Soares Barreto-Filho; Armando R Nogueira; José Geraldo Mill; Paulo A Lotufo; Celso Amodeo; Marcelo C Batista; Luiz C Bodanese; Antônio C C Carvalho; Iran Castro; Hilton Chaves; Eduardo A S Costa; Gilson S Feitosa; Roberto J S Franco; Flávio D Fuchs; Armênio C Guimarães; Paulo C Jardim; Carlos A Machado; Maria E Magalhães; Décio Mion; Raimundo M Nascimento; Fernando Nobre; Antônio C Nóbrega; Antônio L P Ribeiro; Carlos R Rodrigues-Sobrinho; Antônio F Sanjuliani; Maria do Carmo B Teixeira; Jose E Krieger Journal: Hypertension Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Jan Václavík; Richard Sedlák; Martin Plachy; Karel Navrátil; Jirí Plásek; Jirí Jarkovsky; Tomás Václavík; Roman Husár; Eva Kociánová; Milos Táborsky Journal: Hypertension Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Enrique Rodilla; José A Costa; Francisco Pérez-Lahiguera; Emilio Baldó; Carmen González; José M Pascual Journal: Rev Esp Cardiol Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 4.753
Authors: Ross D Feldman; Guang Y Zou; Margaret K Vandervoort; Cindy J Wong; Sigrid A E Nelson; Brian G Feagan Journal: Hypertension Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 10.190
Authors: Anna Oliveras; Pedro Armario; Albert Clarà; Laia Sans-Atxer; Susana Vázquez; Julio Pascual; Alejandro De la Sierra Journal: J Hypertens Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 4.844
Authors: Raymond R Townsend; Felix Mahfoud; David E Kandzari; Kazuomi Kario; Stuart Pocock; Michael A Weber; Sebastian Ewen; Konstantinos Tsioufis; Dimitrios Tousoulis; Andrew S P Sharp; Anthony F Watkinson; Roland E Schmieder; Axel Schmid; James W Choi; Cara East; Anthony Walton; Ingrid Hopper; Debbie L Cohen; Robert Wilensky; David P Lee; Adrian Ma; Chandan M Devireddy; Janice P Lea; Philipp C Lurz; Karl Fengler; Justin Davies; Neil Chapman; Sidney A Cohen; Vanessa DeBruin; Martin Fahy; Denise E Jones; Martin Rothman; Michael Böhm Journal: Lancet Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Bryan Williams; Thomas M MacDonald; Steve Morant; David J Webb; Peter Sever; Gordon McInnes; Ian Ford; J Kennedy Cruickshank; Mark J Caulfield; Jackie Salsbury; Isla Mackenzie; Sandosh Padmanabhan; Morris J Brown Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-09-20 Impact factor: 79.321