First-line therapy option with low-dose bisoprolol fumarate and low-dose hydrochlorothiazide in patients with stage I and stage II systemic hypertension

Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose Bisoprolol/Hydrochlorothiazide Combination for the Treatment of Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect and the safety profile of low-dose bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide combination treatment in patients with hypertension. Methods: Multiple electronic databases were systematically searched, and five clinical studies were included in the meta-analysis. Results: Treatment with bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide significantly reduced systolic BP (SBP) [mean difference (MD): -8.35 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -11.44, -5.25 mmHg versus control; MD: -9.88 mmHg, 95%CI: -12.62, -7.14 mmHg versus placebo] and diastolic BP (DBP) [MD: -7.62 mmHg, 95%CI: -11.20, -4.04 mmHg, versus control; MD: -8.79 mmHg, 95%CI: -11.92, -5.67 mmHg versus placebo]. Moreover, BP response rate and BP control rate after low-dose bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide combination treatment were significantly greater compared to control [odd ratio (OR) for response rate: 4.86, 95%CI: 2.52, 9.37; OR for control rate: 1.67, 95%CI: 1.11, 2.51]. Finally, treatment with low-dose bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide was associated with a reduced risk of any adverse event (AE) and peripheral edema compared to control. Conclusions: Overall, our results reaffirm the safety and efficiency of prescribing bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide combination treatment in stage I and II hypertension.

Blood pressure lowering effects of β-blockers as add-on or combination therapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The authors performed a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of non-atenolol β-blockers as add-on to monotherapy or as a component of combination antihypertensive therapy in patients with hypertension. The authors searched and identified relevant randomized controlled trials from PubMed until November 2021. Studies comparing blood pressure lowering effects of β-blockers with diuretics, calcium channel blockers (CCBs), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) were included. The analysis included 20 studies with 5544 participants. β-blockers add-on to monotherapy significantly reduced systolic and diastolic blood pressure as compared with non-β-blocker monotherapy (weighted mean difference in mm Hg [95% confidence interval]: -4.1 [-6.0, -2.2] and -3.7 [-4.6, -2.8], respectively). These results were consistent across the comparisons with diuretics (systolic pressure, -10.2 [-14.2, -6.2]; diastolic pressure, -5.4 [-8.2, -2.6]), CCBs (systolic pressure, -4.1 [-7.1, -1.0]; diastolic pressure, -2.8 [-4.1, -1.5]), and ACEIs/ARBs (systolic pressure, -2.9 [-4.3, -1.5]; diastolic pressure, -4.2 [-5.0, -3.4]). There was no significant difference in blood pressure lowering effects between combinations with and without a β-blocker (systolic pressure, -1.3 mm Hg [-5.8, 3.2]; diastolic pressure, -.3 mm Hg [-2.7, 2.1]). Metoprolol add-on or combination therapy had a significantly greater blood pressure reduction than non-β-blocker therapy (systolic pressure, -3.6 mm Hg [-5.9, -1.3]; diastolic pressure, -2.1 mm Hg [-3.5, -.7]). In conclusion, non-atenolol β-blockers are effective in lowering blood pressure as add-on to monotherapy or as a component of combination antihypertensive therapy. In line with the current hypertension guideline recommendations, β-blockers can and should be used in combination with other antihypertensive drugs.

Evaluation of a Beta-Blocker-Edema-Loop Diuretic Prescribing Cascade: A Prescription Sequence Symmetry Analysis

BACKGROUND

Drug-related adverse events associated with antihypertensive therapy may result in subsequent prescribing of other potentially harmful medications, known as prescribing cascades. The aim of this study was to assess the magnitude and characteristics of a beta-blocker-edema-loop diuretic prescribing cascade.

METHODS

A prescription sequence symmetry analysis was used to assess loop diuretic initiation before and after initiation of beta-blockers among patients 20 years or older without heart failure, atrial fibrillation, other arrythmias, or use of calcium channel blocker within a U.S. private insurance claims database (2005-2018). The temporality of loop diuretic initiation relative to a beta-blocker or negative control (renin-angiotensin system blocker) initiation was tabulated. Secular trend-adjusted sequence ratios (aSRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) compared the initiation of loop diuretic 90 days before and after initiation of beta-blockers.

RESULTS

Among 988,675 beta-blocker initiators, 9,489 patients initiated a new loop diuretic prescription 90 days after and 5,245 patients before beta-blocker initiation, resulting in an aSR of 1.78 (95% CI, 1.72-1.84). An estimated 1.72 beta-blocker initiators per 100 patient-years experienced the prescribing cascade in the first 90 days. The aSR was disproportionately higher among older adults (aSR 1.97), men (aSR 2.25), and patients who initiated metoprolol tartrate (aSR 2.48), labetalol (aSR 2.18), or metoprolol succinate (aSR 2.11). Negative control results (aSR 1.09, 95% CI, 1.05-1.13) generally corroborated our findings, but suggested modest within-person time-varying confounding.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed excess use of loop diuretics following beta-blocker initiation that was only partially explained by secular trends or hypertension progression.

Therapeutic Properties of Highly Selective β-blockers With or Without Additional Vasodilator Properties: Focus on Bisoprolol and Nebivolol in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease

Bisoprolol and nebivolol are highly selective β₁-adrenoceptor antagonists, with clinical indications in many countries within the management of heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), and hypertension. Nebivolol has additional vasodilator actions, related to enhanced release of NO in the vascular wall. In principle, this additional mechanism compared with bisoprolol might lead to more potent vasodilatation, which in turn might influence the effectiveness of nebivolol in the management of HFrEF, IHD and hypertension. In this article, we review the therapeutic properties of bisoprolol and nebivolol, as representatives of “second generation” and “third generation” β-blockers, respectively. Although head-to-head trials are largely lacking, there is no clear indication from published studies of an additional effect of nebivolol on clinical outcomes in patients with HFrEF or the magnitude of reductions of BP in patients with hypertension.

Comparative effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs prescribed in Ethiopian healthcare practice: A pilot prospective, randomized, open label study

BACKGROUND

Previous research has been highly suggestive that patients of African ancestry are less responsive to beta-blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors. However, clinical practice within Ethiopia has continued to recommend all drugs for treatment of hypertension despite the lack of evidentiary support. Therefore this study aims to compare the effectiveness of the three major antihypertensive drugs currently prescribed in an Ethiopian health care setting to further the potential for evidence based prescribing practices.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, open label comparative study was used to determine the mean reduction in blood pressure (primary outcome) and assess cardiovascular events (secondary outcomes) among patients receiving one or more of three common antihypertensive drugs (i.e., nifedipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and enalapril) in routine clinical practice between November 2016 and April 2017. Patients were followed for three months. Analysis was based on an intention-to-treat approach. One way analysis of covariance was used to compare the difference in therapeutic effectiveness in reducing blood pressure.

RESULT

A total of 141 patients were randomized to one of three recipient groups-nifedipine (n = 47), enalapril (n = 47) or hydrochlorothiazide (n = 47). Three months after randomization, 44 patients in each group completed the follow-up. Patients randomized to nifedipine had significantly higher mean reduction in systolic blood pressure than those randomized to enalapril(p = 0.003) or hydrochlorothiazide(p = 0.036). The mean reduction in systolic blood pressure was -37.35(CI:-40, -34.2) in the nifedipine group; -30.3(CI: -33.5, -27.1) in patients receiving enalapril; and -32.1(CI:-35, -29.3) in patients assigned hydrochlorothiazide. However, nifedipine did not have a significance difference in reduction of mean diastolic blood pressure compared than those receiving enalapril (p = 0.57) or hydrochlorthiazide (p = 0.99).

CONCLUSION

This study revealed that amongst the three drugs nifedipine was found to be the most effective drug in reduction of systolic blood pressure. Hydrochlorothiazide and enalapril did not show a difference in reduction of mean blood pressure. Further, long term randomized trials are highly recommended to inform revision of Ethiopia-centric hypertension treatment guidelines.

Systematic review: antihypertensive drug therapy in patients of African and South Asian ethnicity

Despite the large differences in the epidemiology of hypertension across Europe, treatment strategies are similar for national populations of white European descent. However, hypertensive patients of African or South Asian ethnicity may require ethnic-specific approaches, as these population subgroups tend to have higher blood pressure at an earlier age that is more difficult to control, a higher occurrence of diabetes, and more target organ damage with earlier cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the evidence on antihypertensive drug treatment in South Asian and African ethnicity patients. We used the Cochrane systematic review methodology to retrieve trials in electronic databases including CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase from their inception through November 2015; and with handsearch. We retrieved 4596 reports that yielded 35 trials with 7 classes of antihypertensive drugs in 25,540 African ethnicity patients. Aside from the well-known blood pressure efficacy of calcium channel blockers and diuretics, with lesser effect of ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers, nebivolol was not more effective than placebo in reducing systolic blood pressure levels. Trials with morbidity and mortality outcomes indicated that lisinopril and losartan-based therapy were associated with a greater incidence of stroke and sudden death. Furthermore, 1581 reports yielded 16 randomized controlled trials with blood pressure outcomes in 1719 South Asian hypertensive patients. In contrast with the studies in African ethnicity patients, there were no significant differences in blood pressure lowering efficacy between drugs, and no trials available with mortality outcomes. In conclusion, in patients of African ethnicity, treatment initiated with ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor blocker monotherapy was associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes. We found no evidence of different efficacy of antihypertensive drugs in South Asians, but there is a need for trials with morbidity and mortality outcomes. Screening for cardiovascular risk at a younger age, treating hypertension at lower thresholds, and new delivery models to find, treat and follow hypertensives in the community may help reduce the excess cardiovascular mortality in these high-risk groups.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective beta blockers for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Beta blockers are commonly used to treat hypertension. The blood pressure reading is the primary tool for physicians and patients to assess the efficacy of the treatment. The blood pressure lowering effect of beta-1 selective blockers is not known.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the dose-related effects of various doses and types of beta-1 selective adrenergic receptor blockers on systolic and diastolic blood pressure versus placebo in people with primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE) for related reviews.We searched the following databases for primary studies: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register (All years to 15 October 2015), CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (2015, Issue 10), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to 15 October 2015), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to 15 October 2015) and ClinicalTrials.gov (all years to 15 October 2015).The Hypertension Group Specialised Register includes controlled trials from searches of CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Food Science and Technology Abstracts (FSTA), Global Health, LILACS, MEDLINE, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, PsycINFO, Web of Science and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).Electronic databases were searched using a strategy combining the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for identifying randomized trials in MEDLINE: sensitivity-maximizing version (2008 revision) with selected MeSH terms and free text terms. No language restrictions were used. The MEDLINE search strategy was translated into CENTRAL, EMBASE, the Hypertension Group Specialised Register and ClinicalTrials.gov using the appropriate controlled vocabulary as applicable. Full strategies are in Appendix 1.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel or cross-over trials. Studies had to contain a beta blocker monotherapy arm with fixed dose. People enrolled into the studies had to have primary hypertension at baseline. Duration of studies had to be between 3 weeks to 12 weeks. Drugs in this class of beta blockers are atenolol, betaxolol, bevantolol, bisoprolol, esmolol, metoprolol, nebivolol, pafenolol, practolol.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors confirmed the inclusion of studies and extracted the data independently. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.3.5 was used to synthesise data.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 56 RCTs (randomised controlled trials) that examined the blood pressure (BP) lowering efficacy of beta-1 selective blockers (beta-1 blocker) in 7812 primary hypertensive patients. Among the included trials, 26 RCTs were parallel studies and 30 RCTs were cross-over studies, examining eight beta-1 blockers. Overall, the majority of beta-1 blockers studied significantly lowered systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). In people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute. The maximum BP reduction of beta-1 blockers occurred at twice the starting dose. Individual beta-1 blockers did not exhibit a graded dose-response effect on SBP and DBP over the recommended dose range.Most beta-1 blockers tested significantly lowered heart rate. A graded dose-response of beta-1 blockers on heart rate was evident. Higher dose beta-1 blockers lowered heart rate more than lower doses. Individually and overall beta-1 blockers did not affect pulse pressure, which distinguishes them from other classes of drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides low quality evidence that in people with mild to moderate hypertension, beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by an average of -10/-8 mmHg and reduced heart rate by 11 beats per minute as compared to placebo. The effect of beta-1 blockers at peak hours, -12/-9 mmHg, was greater than the reduction at trough hours, -8/-7 mmHg. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered BP by a greater magnitude than dual receptor beta-blockers and partial agonist beta-blockers, lowered BP similarly to nonselective beta-blockers. Beta-1 selective blockers lowered SBP by a similar degree and lowered DBP by a greater degree than diuretics, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. Because DBP is lowered by a similar extent to SBP, beta-1 selective blockers do not reduce pulse pressure.

The Role of Beta-Blockers in the Treatment of Hypertension

IMPORTANCE

Two major guide-line committees (JNC-8 and NICE UK) have dropped beta-blockers as first-line therapy in the treatment of hypertension. Also, recent meta-analyses (that do not take age into account) have concluded that beta-blockers are inappropriate first-line agents in the treatment of hypertension. This review seeks to shed some light on the "rights and wrongs" of such actions and conclusions.

OBJECTIVES

Because the pathophysiology of primary/essential hypertension differs in elderly and younger subjects, the latter being closely linked to obesity and increased sympathetic nerve activity, the author sought to clarify the efficacy of beta-blockers in the younger/middle-aged group in reducing the risk of death, and cardiovascular end-points.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Four searches were undertaken, utilising PubMed up to 31st Dec 2015. One search was under the terms "hypertension AND obesity AND sympathetic nerve activity". A second was "hypertension AND plasma noradrenaline/norepinephrine AND survival". A third was "beta-blockers or adrenergic beta-antagonists AND hypertension AND age AND stroke or myocardial infarction or death". A fourth was "meta-analysis of beta-blockers AND hypertension AND age AND death, stroke, myocardial infarction" RESULTS: Diastolic (with or without systolic) hypertension, in contrast to isolated systolic hypertension, occurs primarily in younger subjects, and is linked to overweight/obesity and increased sympathetic nerve activity. In younger/middle-aged hypertensive subjects, high plasma norepinephrine levels are linked (independent of blood pressure) to an increased risk of future cardiovascular events and death. High resting heart rates (a surrogate for high sympathetic nerve activity) likewise predict premature all-cause death, coronary heart disease and cardiovascular events in younger hypertensive subjects. In this younger/middle-aged hypertensive group, antihypertensive agents that increase sympathetic nerve activity (diuretics, dihydropyridine calcium blockers, and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs)) do not decrease (and may increase) the risk of myocardial infarction, and are therefore inappropriate first-line agents in this age-group. By contrast, in younger/middle-aged hypertensive subjects (less than 60 years old), meta-analysis has shown that beta-blockers are significantly superior to randomised placebo, and at least as effective as randomised comparator agents, in reducing death/stroke/myocardial infarction. In this younger/middle-aged hypertensive group beta-blockers have been shown (vs randomised placebo or diuretics) to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction by 35-50 %, and stroke by 50-55 % (vs placebo), in non-smoker men. Atenolol was at least as effective as ACE-inhibition (captopril) in reducing all 7 cardiovascular endpoints (including stroke which was reduced by 50 %), vs less tight control of blood pressure, in obese hypertensive subjects with type-2 diabetes (UKPDS study); and after 20 years follow-up, atenolol was significantly (23 %) superior to the ACE-inhibitor in reducing the risk of all-cause death (beta-blockers have anti-cancer properties, which maybe relevant).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Primary/essential hypertension in younger/middle-age is underpinned by high sympathetic nerve activity. In this age-group high resting heart rates and high plasma norepinephrine levels (independent of blood pressure) are linked to premature cardiovascular events and death. Thus, anti-hypertensive agents that increase sympathetic nerve activity ie diuretics, dihydropyridine calcium blockers, and ARBs, are inappropriate first-line choices in this younger age-group. Beta-blockers perform well vs randomised placebo and other antihypertensive agents regarding reduced risk of death/stroke/myocardial infarction in younger (<60 years) hypertensive subjects, and are a reasonable first-line choice of therapy (certainly in men). These facts should be reflected in the recommendations of guideline committees around the world.

Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of monotherapy with thiazide diuretics for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Hypertension is a modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. Although it is established that low-dose thiazides reduce mortality as well as cardiovascular morbidity, the dose-related effect of thiazides in decreasing blood pressure has not been subject to a rigorous systematic review. It is not known whether individual drugs within the thiazide diuretic class differ in their blood pressure-lowering effects and adverse effects.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the dose-related decrease in systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure due to thiazide diuretics compared with placebo control in the treatment of patients with primary hypertension. Secondary outcomes included the dose-related adverse events leading to patient withdrawal and adverse biochemical effects on serum potassium, uric acid, creatinine, glucose and lipids.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2014, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to February 2014), Ovid EMBASE (1974 to February 2014) and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included double-blind, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing fixed-dose thiazide diuretic monotherapy with placebo for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in the treatment of adult patients with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened articles, assessed trial eligibility, extracted data and determined risk of bias. We combined data for continuous variables using a mean difference (MD) and for dichotomous outcomes we calculated the relative risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 60 randomized, double-blind trials that evaluated the dose-related trough blood pressure-lowering efficacy of six different thiazide diuretics in 11,282 participants treated for a mean duration of eight weeks. The mean age of the participants was 55 years and baseline blood pressure was 158/99 mmHg. Adequate blood pressure-lowering efficacy data were available for hydrochlorothiazide, chlorthalidone and indapamide. We judged 54 (90%) included trials to have unclear or high risk of bias, which impacted on our confidence in the results for some of our outcomes.In 33 trials with a baseline blood pressure of 155/100 mmHg, hydrochlorothiazide lowered blood pressure based on dose, with doses of 6.25 mg, 12.5 mg, 25 mg and 50 mg/day lowering blood pressure compared to placebo by 4 mmHg (95% CI 2 to 6, moderate-quality evidence)/2 mmHg (95% CI 1 to 4, moderate-quality evidence), 6 mmHg (95% CI 5 to 7, high-quality evidence)/3 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 4, high-quality evidence), 8 mmHg (95% CI 7 to 9, high-quality evidence)/3 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 4, high-quality evidence) and 11 mmHg (95% CI 6 to 15, low-quality evidence)/5 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 7, low-quality evidence), respectively.Direct comparison of doses did not show evidence of dose dependence for blood pressure-lowering for any of the other thiazides for which RCT data were available: bendrofluazide, chlorthalidone, cyclopenthiazide, metolazone or indapamide.In seven trials with a baseline blood pressure of 163/88 mmHg, chlorthalidone at doses of 12.5 mg to 75 mg/day reduced average blood pressure compared to placebo by 12.0 mmHg (95% CI 10 to 14, low-quality evidence)/4 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 5, low-quality evidence).In 10 trials with a baseline blood pressure of 161/98 mmHg, indapamide at doses of 1.0 mg to 5.0 mg/day reduced blood pressure compared to placebo by 9 mmHg (95% CI 7 to 10, low-quality evidence)/4 (95% CI 3 to 5, low-quality evidence).We judged the maximal blood pressure-lowering effect of the different thiazides to be similar. Overall, thiazides reduced average blood pressure compared to placebo by 9 mmHg (95% CI 9 to 10, high-quality evidence)/4 mmHg (95% CI 3 to 4, high-quality evidence).Thiazides as a class have a greater effect on systolic than on diastolic blood pressure, therefore thiazides lower pulse pressure by 4 mmHg to 6 mmHg, an amount that is greater than the 3 mmHg seen with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and renin inhibitors, and the 2 mmHg seen with non-selective beta-blockers. This is based on an informal indirect comparison of results observed in other Cochrane reviews on ACE inhibitors, ARBs and renin inhibitors compared with placebo, which used similar inclusion/exclusion criteria to the present review.Thiazides reduced potassium, increased uric acid and increased total cholesterol and triglycerides. These effects were dose-related and were least for hydrochlorothiazide. Chlorthalidone increased serum glucose but the evidence was unclear for other thiazides. There is a high risk of bias in the metabolic data. This review does not provide a good assessment of the adverse effects of these drugs because there was a high risk of bias in the reporting of withdrawals due to adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review shows that hydrochlorothiazide has a dose-related blood pressure-lowering effect. The mean blood pressure-lowering effect over the dose range 6.25 mg, 12.5 mg, 25 mg and 50 mg/day is 4/2 mmHg, 6/3 mmHg, 8/3 mmHg and 11/5 mmHg, respectively. For other thiazide drugs, the lowest doses studied lowered blood pressure maximally and higher doses did not lower it more. Due to the greater effect on systolic than on diastolic blood pressure, thiazides lower pulse pressure by 4 mmHg to 6 mmHg. This exceeds the mean 3 mmHg pulse pressure reduction achieved by ACE inhibitors, ARBs and renin inhibitors, and the 2 mmHg pulse pressure reduction with non-selective beta-blockers as shown in other Cochrane reviews, which compared these antihypertensive drug classes with placebo and used similar inclusion/exclusion criteria.Thiazides did not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects in these short-term trials but there is a high risk of bias for that outcome. Thiazides reduced potassium, increased uric acid and increased total cholesterol and triglycerides.

Comparison of efficacy and safety between bisoprolol transdermal patch (TY-0201) and bisoprolol fumarate oral formulation in Japanese patients with grade I or II essential hypertension: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

TY-0201 (TY) is a new drug absorbed by the transdermal delivery system developed for the treatment of hypertension, which contains the free base of bisoprolol fumarate that is widely used. An 8-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in hypertensive patients to evaluate the superiority of TY 8 mg to placebo and the noninferiority of TY 8 mg to bisoprolol fumarate oral formulation (BO) 5 mg. Changes in diastolic blood pressure (BP) (primary endpoint) from baseline in the TY 8 mg group, the BO 5 mg group, and the placebo group were -12.2 mm Hg, -11.8 mm Hg, and -3.7 mm Hg, respectively, with TY 8 mg demonstrating superiority to placebo and noninferiority to BO 5 mg. Changes from baseline for systolic BP and pulse rate produced significant reductions compared with placebo. TY is expected to serve as a new treatment approach for hypertensive patients.

Blood pressure lowering efficacy of diuretics as second-line therapy for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

Diuretics are widely prescribed for hypertension not only as a first-line drug but also as a second-line drug. Therefore, it is essential to determine the effects of diuretics on blood pressure (BP), heart rate and withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) when given as a second-line drug.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the additional reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) of diuretic therapy as a second-line drug in patients with primary hypertension

SEARCH STRATEGY

CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2008, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966-July 2008), EMBASE (1988-July 2008) and bibliographic citations of articles and reviews were searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluating the BP lowering efficacy of a diuretic in combination therapy with another class of anti-hypertensive drugs compared with the respective monotherapy (without a diuretic) for a duration of 3 to 12 weeks in patients with primary hypertension.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed trial quality.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-three double-blind RCTs evaluating a thiazide in 15129 hypertensive patients (baseline BP of 156/101 mmHg) were included. Hydrochlorothiazide was the thiazide used in 49/53 (92%) of the included studies. The additional BP reduction caused by the thiazide as a second drug was estimated by comparing the difference in BP reduction between the combination and monotherapy groups. Thiazides as a second-line drug reduced BP by 6/3 and 8/4 mmHg at doses of 1 and 2 times the manufacturer's recommended starting dose respectively. The BP lowering effect was dose related. The effect was similar to that obtained when thiazides are used as a single agent. Only 3 double-blind RCTs evaluating loop diuretics were identified. These RCTs showed a BP lowering effect of a starting dose of about 6/3 mmHg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Thiazides when given as a second-line drug have a dose related effect to lower blood pressure that is similar to when they are added as a first-line drug. This means that the BP lowering effect of thiazides is additive. Loop diuretics appear to have a similar blood pressure lowering effect as thiazides at 1 times the recommended starting dose. Because of the short duration of the trials and lack of reporting of adverse events, this review does not provide a good estimate of the incidence of adverse effects of diuretics given as a second-line drug.

Combination therapy versus monotherapy in reducing blood pressure: meta-analysis on 11,000 participants from 42 trials

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the incremental effect of combining blood pressure-lowering drugs from any 2 classes of thiazides, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers over 1 drug alone and to compare the effects of combining drugs with doubling dose.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of factorial trials in which participants were randomly allocated to 1 drug alone, another drug alone, both drugs together, or a placebo.

RESULTS

We identified 42 trials (10,968 participants). With a thiazide used alone, the mean placebo-subtracted reduction in systolic blood pressure was 7.3 mm Hg and 14.6 mm Hg combined with a drug from another class. The corresponding reductions were 9.3 mm Hg and 18.9 mm Hg with a beta-blocker, 6.8 mm Hg and 13.9 mm Hg with an angiotensin-converting enzyme, and 8.4 mm Hg and 14.3 mm Hg with a calcium channel blocker. The expected blood pressure reduction from 2 drugs together, assuming an additive effect, closely predicted the observed blood pressure reductions. The ratios of the observed to expected incremental blood pressure reductions from combining each class of drug with any other over that from 1 drug were, respectively, for thiazides, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers: 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.20), 1.00 (95% CI, 0.76-1.24), 1.16 (95% CI, 0.93-1.39), and 0.89 (95% CI, 0.69-1.09); the overall average was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.90-1.12). Comparison of our results with those of a published meta-analysis of different doses of the same drug showed that doubling the dose of 1 drug had approximately one fifth of the equivalent incremental effect (0.22 [95% CI, 0.19-0.25]).

CONCLUSION

Blood pressure reduction from combining drugs from these 4 classes can be predicted on the basis of additive effects. The extra blood pressure reduction from combining drugs from 2 different classes is approximately 5 times greater than doubling the dose of 1 drug.

Low-dose fixed combination of bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide as first line for hypertension: a review of the rationale and clinical evidence

Essential hypertension is a heterogeneous multifactorial disease. Data from the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey and from the World Health Organization have clearly demonstrated that, worldwide, less than 30% of hypertensive patients are adequately controlled by our currently accepted blood pressure goals. Although monotherapy is often unable to achieve blood pressure goals, the use of fixed low-dose combination drugs as alternative treatment seems to be related to a better antihypertensive efficacy and higher response rates in the low range of doses as the result of complementary mechanisms of antihypertensive effects. Indeed clinical trials have shown that initial low-dose combination therapy is superior as compared with treatment by the stepped-care and the sequential monotherapy approach, while recently, low-dose combination therapy for initial antihypertensive therapy instead of the stepped-care approach or of sequential monotherapy has been recommended. This review summarizes the beneficial effect of low-dose bisoprolol/ hydrochlorothiazide combination in the treatment of patients with stage I and II hypertension.

Thiazide-induced subtle renal injury not observed in states of equivalent hypokalemia

Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) is used to manage hypertension and heart failure; however, its side effects include mild hypokalemia, metabolic abnormalities, and volume depletion, which might have deleterious effects on renal and endothelial function. We studied whether HCTZ cause renal injury and/or altered vasoreactivity and if these changes are hypokalemia-dependent. Rats were given a normal diet or a diet moderately low in potassium K+ with or without HCTZ. Animals fed either a low K+ diet alone or HCTZ developed mild hypokalemia. There was no significant difference in systolic blood pressure in the different treatment groups. All three groups with hypokalemia had mild proteinuria; low K(+)-HCTZ rats had reduced creatinine clearance. HCTZ-treated rats displayed hypomagnesemia, hypertriglyceridemia, hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and hyperaldosteronism. No renal injury was observed in the groups without HCTZ; however, increased kidney weight, glomerular ischemia, medullary injury, and cortical oxidative stress were seen with HCTZ treatment. Endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation was reduced in all hypokalemic groups and correlated with reduced serum K+, serum, and urine nitric oxide. Our results show that HCTZ is associated with greater renal injury for the same degree of hypokalemia as the low K+ diet, suggesting that factors such as chronic ischemia and hyperaldosteronism due to volume depletion may be responsible agents. We also found impaired endothelium-dependent vasorelaxation was linked to mild hypokalemia.

Thiazide diuretics exacerbate fructose-induced metabolic syndrome

Fructose is a commonly used sweetener associated with diets that increase the prevalence of metabolic syndrome. Thiazide diuretics are frequently used in these patients for treatment of hypertension, but they also exacerbate metabolic syndrome. Rats on high-fructose diets that are given thiazides exhibit potassium depletion and hyperuricemia. Potassium supplementation improves their insulin resistance and hypertension, whereas allopurinol reduces serum levels of uric acid and ameliorates hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia, hyperglycemia, and insulin resistance. Both potassium supplementation and treatment with allopurinol also increase urinary nitric oxide excretion. We suggest that potassium depletion and hyperuricemia in rats exacerbates endothelial dysfunction and lowers the bioavailability of nitric oxide, which blocks insulin activity and causes insulin resistance during thiazide usage. Addition of potassium supplements and allopurinol with thiazides might be helpful in the management of metabolic syndrome.

WITHDRAWN: Effect of antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity and blood pressure in blacks

BACKGROUND

Black people have a greater prevalence of elevated blood pressure leading to excess morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effects of different antihypertensive drugs on mortality, morbidity and blood pressure black adults with elevated blood pressure.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Medline, Embase, LILACS, African Index Medicus, the Cochrane Library November 2003; Pubmed September 2003 to March 2004. Searches were conducted without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of drugs versus placebo (blood pressure outcomes) or versus placebo or other drugs (morbidity and mortality outcomes).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently extracted data unblinded. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Authors were contacted twice to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Full reports or abstracts from more than 2900 references of papers yielded 30 trials considering 53 interventions with 8 classes of antihypertensive drugs in 20,006 black patients from Africa, the Caribbean, and the United States of America, aged 18 to >80 years. In one large trial the main morbidity and mortality outcomes did not differ significantly between initial treatment drug classes when drugs were added to reach goal blood pressures. However, the comparison ACE Inhibitors vs diuretic favoured the diuretic for stroke 1.40 [1.17 to 1.68]; combined CHD 1.15 [1.02 to 1.30] and combined CVD 1.19 [1.09 to 1.30] and the comparison alpha blocker vs diuretic favoured the diuretic for combined CVD 1.40 [1.25 to 1.57]. In addition, all comparisons for heart failure favoured diuretic (1.47 [1.24 to 1.74] vs calcium blocker; 1.32 [1.11 to 1.58] vs ACE Inhibitor; and 2.18 [1.73 to 2.74] vs alpha blocker. The results also showed a greater occurrence of diabetes with diuretics. No significant differences were detected between placebo and beta adrenergic blockers in the reduction of systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference [95% CI], -3.52 [-7.50 to 0.46] mm Hg). In addition, ACE inhibitors did not significantly differ from placebo in achievement of goal diastolic blood pressure (risk difference [95% CI], 5% [-10% to 21%]). Calcium blockers, diuretics, centrally acting agents, alpha adrenergic blockers and angiotensin II antagonists were all more effective than placebo in reducing blood pressure in the pooled analyses. Only calcium blockers remained effective in all prespecified subgroups, including baseline diastolic blood pressure >109 mm Hg.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When first-line drugs from different classes are compared in the treatment of black people, there is no evidence of differential effects on most mortality and morbidity outcomes. Those morbidity differences that were found favoured diuretics. Drugs differ in their ability to reduce blood pressure in black people. Calcium blockers were the only drug class that reduced blood pressure in all subgroups of black people including those with severe hypertension. Beta-blockers, angiotensin receptor blocker, alpha blockers and ACE Inhibitors were least good at reducing blood pressure in black adults.

Should beta blockers be used in the treatment of hypertension in the elderly?

The lack of benefit and the potential negative side effects of beta blockers are overstated, especially in the elderly. This emphasis has led to recommendations by some investigators that these agents not be used in the management of hypertension in this age group. There are numerous reasons why these recommendations should not be followed. The use of beta blockers in the elderly hypertensive has resulted in a reduction in strokes and congestive heart failure. In addition, it should be emphasized that elderly patients are more likely to have silent coronary artery disease or sustain myocardial infarctions. There is abundant evidence that beta blockers are effective therapy in reducing mortality once a myocardial infarction has occurred. In fact, there is a clear reduction in sudden cardiac death. Furthermore, national statistics document that elderly patients have a prevalence of congestive heart failure that varies from 6%-10%. Multiple studies have now documented that beta blockers are additive to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in reducing mortality for congestive heart failure. Thus, elderly hypertensive patients may benefit from the use of beta blockers, especially if there is evidence of ischemic heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, or congestive heart failure.

The antihypertensive efficacy of the combination of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide assessed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Irbesartan Multicenter Study Group

In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, 178 patients with ambulatory diastolic blood pressure (BP) > or =85 mm Hg and seated diastolic BP (SeDBP) 95-110 mm Hg received either once-daily irbesartan 75 mg/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg, irbesartan 150 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg, or placebo for 8 weeks to assess reductions in 24-hour ambulatory BP and office BP. Safety and tolerability of all treatment regimens were also evaluated. BP results and therapeutic response (trough SeDBP normalized to <90 mm Hg) were expressed as change from baseline to Week 8. Mean reductions in 24-hour ambulatory BP and office seated BP for irbesartan/HCTZ combinations were significantly greater compared with placebo (all, p<0.01). More patients were normalized with irbesartan/HCTZ (65%-69%) than placebo (24%, p<0.01). The frequency of adverse events was similar in all groups. Irbesartan/HCTZ given once-daily appears to be a well-tolerated, safe, and effective antihypertensive treatment.

Use of beta-adrenergic receptor blockers in blacks

Beta adrenergic receptor blockers (beta-blockers) are an important class of drugs in the management of patients with cardiovascular diseases. These drugs have been shown to reduce mortality in hypertension and prolong survival in patients with coronary heart disease. Although hypertension and coronary heart disease account for the majority of excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in blocks, beta-blockers continue to be underprescribed in this ethnic group. The magnitude of blood pressure reduction in black patients with hypertension has been consistently less during monotherapy with nonselective beta-blockers than with diuretics. However, the highly selective beta-blocker bisoprolol has been shown to be as effective as diuretics and is equally effective in black and nonblack patients with hypertension. In general, no racial differences in efficacy are noted when beta-blockers are used with diuretics as combination therapy for hypertension. Black patients should not be denied beta-blocker therapy because of an anticipated suboptimal response, especially when there are clear indications for treatment (e.g., for migraine, hyperthyroidism, arrhythmia control, and after myocardial infarction).

Insulin resistance in systemic hypertension: pharmacotherapeutic implications

Systemic hypertension, a vascular disease with multiple origins, now is being linked to subtle abnormalities in glucose metabolism, which include insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia. These conditions often occur together in patients with obesity, noninsulin-dependent diabetes, or both. Hyperinsulinemia and insulin resistance may cause systemic hypertension through multiple mechanisms. Insulin has a salt-retaining effect on the kidney. Also, insulin can augment catecholamine release, increase vascular sensitivity to vasoconstrictor substances, and decrease vascular sensitivity to vasodilator substances. In addition, insulin can increase production of tissue growth factors and help retain sodium and calcium in cells. Insulin resistance in patients can be treated with regular aerobic exercise, weight reduction, and a high-fiber diet. Pharmacologic approaches include hypoglycemic drugs, weight-reducing agents, and certain antihypertensive drugs that may have a favorable impact on both blood pressure and insulin resistance.

Low-dose drug combination therapy: an alternative first-line approach to hypertension treatment

To investigate the concept that the initial treatment of hypertension with low doses of two antihypertensives that have different modes of action and additive effects may achieve control of blood pressure and minimize the dose-dependent adverse effects seen with conventional monotherapy, a randomized, double-blind parallel group dose-escalation study was conducted. After a 4 to 5 week placebo washout period, 218 men and women with diastolic blood pressure between 95 and 114 mm Hg were randomly allocated to take: amlodipine (2.5 to 10 mg), enalapril (5 to 20 mg), and the low-dose combination of bisoprolol (2.5 to 10 mg) with 6.25 mg of hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ). All drugs were administered once daily, titrated to optimal response, and taken for a total of 12 weeks. Blood pressure was measured 24 hours after dose. The response rates (either a diastolic blood pressure < or = 90 mm Hg or a decrease of diastolic pressure > or = 10 mm Hg) were 71% for bisoprolol-6.25 mg HCTZ, 69% for amlodipine, and 45% for enalapril. The mean decreases in systolic/diastolic blood pressure from baseline were 13.4/10.7, 12.8/10.2, and 7.3/6.6 mm Hg for bisoprolol-6.25 mg HCTZ, amlodipine, and enalapril, respectively. The mean change with enalapril was less than the other drugs (p < 0.01), although the once-daily dosing of enalapril and the maximum dose of 20 mg might not have been optimal for this agent.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)