What is a preferred angiotensin II receptor blocker-based combination therapy for blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with diabetic and non-diabetic renal impairment?

Hypertension has a major associated risk for organ damage and mortality, which is further heightened in patients with prior cardiovascular (CV) events, comorbid diabetes mellitus, microalbuminuria and renal impairment. Given that most patients with hypertension require at least two antihypertensives to achieve blood pressure (BP) goals, identifying the most appropriate combination regimen based on individual risk factors and comorbidities is important for risk management. Single-pill combinations (SPCs) containing two or more antihypertensive agents with complementary mechanisms of action offer potential advantages over free-drug combinations, including simplification of treatment regimens, convenience and reduced costs. The improved adherence and convenience resulting from SPC use is recognised in updated hypertension guidelines. Despite a wide choice of SPCs for hypertension treatment, clinical evidence from direct head-to-head comparisons to guide selection for individual patients is lacking. However, in patients with evidence of renal disease or at greater risk of developing renal disease, such as those with diabetes mellitus, microalbuminura and high-normal BP or overt hypertension, guidelines recommend renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blocker-based combination therapy due to superior renoprotective effects compared with other antihypertensive classes. Furthermore, RAS inhibitors attenuate the oedema and renal hyperfiltration associated with calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy, making them a good choice for combination therapy. The occurrence of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor-induced cough supports the use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) for RAS blockade rather than ACE inhibitors. In this regard, ARB-based SPCs are available in combination with the diuretic, hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) or the calcium CCB, amlodipine. Telmisartan, a long-acting ARB with preferential pharmacodynamic profile compared with several other ARBs, and the only ARB with an indication for the prevention of CV disease progression, is available in two SPC formulations, telmisartan/HCTZ and telmisartan/amlodipine. Clinical studies suggest that in CV high-risk patients and those with evidence of renal disease, the use of an ARB/CCB combination may be preferred to ARB/HCTZ combinations due to superior renoprotective and CV benefits and reduced metabolic side effects in patients with concomitant metabolic disorders. However, selection of the most appropriate antihypertensive combination should be dependent on careful review of the individual patient and appropriate consideration of drug pharmacology

Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

<div><p>Background</p><p>In a free drug combination, each Blood pressure (BP)-lowering drug is administered as a separate pill, while in a fixed drug combination several BP-lowering agents are combined in a single pill. Using a single pill may enhance compliance and simplify treatment, which would translate into better clinical outcomes. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of using a fixed combination versus free combination of BP-lowering agents in the management of patients with essential hypertension.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) addressing the objective of the review and assessing at least one of the following outcomes: BP-lowering efficacy, rapidity in achieving BP target, compliance, incidence of side effects, mortality, and morbidity. Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. The primary meta-analyses used a random-effects model.</p><p>Results</p><p>We identified seven RCTs with a total of 397 participants. Meta-analysis of efficacy in controlling BP showed a non-significant reduction of mean systolic BP of 0.81 mmHg (95% CI -3.25, 1.64) favoring the fixed combination group. As for adverse events, results showed a non-significant 13% risk reduction favoring the free combination (risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.85, 1.5). Low quality of evidence was noted for both outcomes. Rapidity in achieving BP target was assessed in only one trial, and the results favored the fixed combination. Adherence to treatment was assessed in three trials, no pooled analysis was possible for this outcome. None of the included trials assessed mortality and morbidity.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The available low quality evidence does not confirm or rule out a substantive difference between fixed combination and free combination therapy in the management of HTN. Well designed RCTs with a long duration of follow-up and assessment of morbidity and mortality outcomes are needed.</p></div

Forest plot for the effect of fixed vs. free antihypertensive drug therapy on adverse Events.

<p>Forest plot for the effect of fixed vs. free antihypertensive drug therapy on adverse Events.</p

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

<p>(+): low risk of bias, (-): high risk of bias, (?): unclear risk of bias.</p

Forest plot for the effect of fixed vs free antihypertensive drug therapy on mean systolic blood pressure.

<p>Forest plot for the effect of fixed vs free antihypertensive drug therapy on mean systolic blood pressure.</p

Free vs. Fixed combination antihypertensive therapy for essential arterial hypertension: PRISMA Flow chart.

<p>Free vs. Fixed combination antihypertensive therapy for essential arterial hypertension: PRISMA Flow chart.</p

Characteristics of included studies.

<p>Characteristics of included studies.</p

Risk of bias in included studies.

<p>Risk of bias in included studies.</p