First-line drugs for hypertension (Review)

Department of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, University of British Columbia, 2176 Health Sciences Mall, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6T 1Z3.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2009; 164(3):CD001841. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001841.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Sustained elevated blood pressure, unresponsive to lifestyle measures, leads to a critically important clinical question: What class of drug to use first-line? This review answers that question.

To quantify the benefits and harms of the major first-line anti-hypertensive drug classes: thiazides, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, alpha-blockers, and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB).
Electronic search of MEDLINE (Jan. 1966-June 2008), EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane clinical trial register, using standard search strategy of the hypertension review group with additional terms.
Randomized trials of at least one year duration comparing one of 6 major drug classes with a placebo or no treatment. More than 70% of people must have BP >140/90 mmHg at baseline.
The outcomes assessed were mortality, stroke, coronary heart disease (CHD), cardiovascular events (CVS), decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and withdrawals due to adverse drug effects. Risk ratio (RR) and a fixed effects model were used to combine outcomes across trials.
Of 57 trials identified, 24 trials with 28 arms, including 58,040 patients met the inclusion criteria. Thiazides (19 RCTs) reduced mortality (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83, 0.96), stroke (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.57, 0.71), CHD (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75, 0.95) and CVS (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.66, 0.76). Low-dose thiazides (8 RCTs) reduced CHD (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61, 0.84), but high-dose thiazides (11 RCTs) did not (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85, 1.20). Beta-blockers (5 RCTs) reduced stroke (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72, 0.97) and CVS (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81, 0.98) but not CHD (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78, 1.03) or mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86, 1.07). ACE inhibitors (3 RCTs) reduced mortality (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.72-0.95), stroke (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52-0.82), CHD (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70-0.94) and CVS (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67-0.85). Calcium-channel blocker (1 RCT) reduced stroke (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.41, 0.84) and CVS (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57, 0.87) but not CHD (RR 0.77 95% CI 0.55, 1.09) or mortality (RR 0.86 95% CI 0.68, 1.09). No RCTs were found for ARBs or alpha-blockers.
First-line low-dose thiazides reduce all morbidity and mortality outcomes. First-line ACE inhibitors and calcium channel blockers may be similarly effective but the evidence is less robust. First-line high-dose thiazides and first-line beta-blockers are inferior to first-line low-dose thiazides.


Available from: Vijaya M Musini, Jun 12, 2015
1 Follower
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. These aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is, therefore, important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks with an emphasis on patient-relevant outcomes such as morbidity and mortality rather than on surrogate outcomes such as blood pressure and serum cholesterol levels. We searched The Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar, CINAHL, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to July 2012. Two authors screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trialists about additional studies. We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. For mortality outcomes we analysed the results with random-effects model meta-analysis, and for other outcomes we did a qualitative synthesis as meta-analysis was not feasible. We included 16 trials, 14 of which had available outcome data (182,880 participants). Nine trials provided data on total mortality (155,899 participants, 11,940 deaths), median follow-up time nine years, giving a risk ratio of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 1.03). Eight trials provided data on cardiovascular mortality (152,435 participants, 4567 deaths), risk ratio 1.03 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.17) and eight trials on cancer mortality (139,290 participants, 3663 deaths), risk ratio 1.01 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.12). Subgroup and sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings.We did not find an effect on clinical events or other measures of morbidity but one trial found an increased occurrence of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia with screening and one trial found an increased occurence of self-reported chronic disease. One trial found a 20% increase in the total number of new diagnoses per participant over six years compared to the control group. No trials compared the total number of prescriptions, but two out of four trials found an increased number of people using antihypertensive drugs. Two out of four trials found small beneficial effects on self-reported health, but this could be due to reporting bias as the trials were not blinded. We did not find an effect on admission to hospital, disability, worry, additional visits to the physician, or absence from work, but most of these outcomes were poorly studied. We did not find useful results on the number of referrals to specialists, the number of follow-up tests after positive screening results, or the amount of surgery. General health checks did not reduce morbidity or mortality, neither overall nor for cardiovascular or cancer causes, although the number of new diagnoses was increased. Important harmful outcomes, such as the number of follow-up diagnostic procedures or short term psychological effects, were often not studied or reported and many trials had methodological problems. With the large number of participants and deaths included, the long follow-up periods used, and considering that cardiovascular and cancer mortality were not reduced, general health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 10(10):CD009009. DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD009009.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To date there is no Markov model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antihypertensive pharmacotherapies at national level in developing countries. The aim of our study was to evaluate different antihypertensives and determine their cost-effectiveness as monotherapy treatment in primary care in Serbia. We developed a Markov model to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALY), lifetime costs and incremental cost-effectiveness of different antihypertensive medicines used in the clinical practice in Serbia (diuretic, beta blocker, Ca channel blocker and ACE inhibitors) to strategy "no intervention". Cohort of 55-year-old patients with hypertension (systolic and diastolic blood pressure ≥140 and 90 mmHg), without cardiovascular complications was run through the model. Acute myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, heart failure, stroke, and total mortality were observed as outcomes. The time horizon was over a lifetime, and the perspective was that of a third-party payer. Annual discount rate of 5% was applied to all future costs and effects. The results showed small differences in QALY in strategies ACE inhibitor, beta blockers, and diuretic. The incremental costeffectiveness ratio (ICER) for diuretic, compared to no intervention, was €74.27/QALY. The ICER for beta blocker compared to diuretic was €75.58/QALY. ACE inhibitor was extended dominated by diuretic and beta blocker, while Ca channel blocker had higher costs and less effectiveness compared to all previous strategies. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that application of antihypertensive therapy is cost-effective even at small values of willingness to pay. It could be concluded that for individuals aged 55 the diuretics are the most cost-effective strategy to start monotherapy of hypertension.
    Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 01/2012; 26(3):3066-3072. DOI:10.5504/bbeq.2012.0009 · 0.38 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The prevalence of hypertension around the world has increased significantly with projections for an increasing major global burden of hypertension. Medication-resistant hypertension can be perplexing and frustrating. The existence of these difficult patients results in the need for additional approaches to treatment including surgery, percutaneous interventions, and device management. The sophistication of these techniques has progressed markedly and initial procedures such as classical sympathectomy and renal artery bypass are almost never performed. Newer techniques of angioplasty with stenting, renal artery denervation, and baroreflex activation therapy via electrical stimulation of the carotid baroreceptors are now in use with increasing evidence for significant benefit.
    International Journal of Angiology 03/2014; 24(1). DOI:10.1055/s-0034-1374808