Kidney-protective effects of azelnidipine versus a diuretic in combination with olmesartan in hypertensive patients with diabetes and albuminuria: a randomized study

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review published in 2010. While calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are often recommended as a first-line drug to treat hypertension, the effect of CCBs on the prevention of cardiovascular events, as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes, is still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether CCBs used as first-line therapy for hypertension are different from other classes of antihypertensive drugs in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, the Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) up to 1 September 2020: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2020, Issue 1), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work and checked the references of published studies to identify additional trials. The searches had no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing first-line CCBs with other antihypertensive classes, with at least 100 randomised hypertensive participants and a follow-up of at least two years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the included trials, evaluated the risk of bias, and entered the data for analysis. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion. We contacted study authors for additional information.

MAIN RESULTS

This update contains five new trials. We included a total of 23 RCTs (18 dihydropyridines, 4 non-dihydropyridines, 1 not specified) with 153,849 participants with hypertension. All-cause mortality was not different between first-line CCBs and any other antihypertensive classes. As compared to diuretics, CCBs probably increased  major cardiovascular events (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.09, P = 0.03) and increased congestive heart failure events (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.51, moderate-certainty evidence). As compared to beta-blockers, CCBs reduced the following outcomes: major cardiovascular events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), stroke (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.88, moderate-certainty evidence), and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, CCBs reduced stroke (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, low-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.28, low-certainty evidence). As compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), CCBs reduced myocardial infarction (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.94, moderate-certainty evidence) and increased congestive heart failure (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36, low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For the treatment of hypertension, there is moderate certainty evidence that diuretics reduce major cardiovascular events and congestive heart failure more than CCBs. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs probably reduce major cardiovascular events more than beta-blockers. There is low to moderate certainty evidence that CCBs reduced stroke when compared to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and reduced myocardial infarction when compared to angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), but increased congestive heart failure when compared to ACE inhibitors and ARBs. Many of the differences found in the current review are not robust, and further trials might change the conclusions. More well-designed RCTs studying the mortality and morbidity of individuals taking CCBs as compared with other antihypertensive drug classes are needed for patients with different stages of hypertension, different ages, and with different comorbidities such as diabetes.

Renoprotective effects of renin-angiotensin system inhibitor combined with calcium channel blocker or diuretic in hypertensive patients: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a meta-analysis of studies comparing the renoprotective effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ACEI/ARB) combined with either calcium channel blocker (CCB) or diuretic, but not both, in hypertensive patients.

DATA SOURCES

Pubmed, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of blood pressure lowering treatments in patients with hypertension.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs comparing the renoprotective effects of ACEI/ARB plus CCB with ACEI/ARB plus diuretic in hypertensive patients, with at least one of the following reported outcomes: urinary protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate/creatinine clearance (eGFR/CrCl), or serum creatinine.

RESULTS

Based on 14 RCTs with 18,125 patients, statistically significant benefits were found in ACEI/ARB plus CCB for maintaining eGFR/CrCl (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20-0.53; P < 0.001), serum creatinine reduction (mean difference [MD] = -0.05 mg/dL; 95% CI: -0.07 to -0.03; P < 0.001). However, no statistical differences were found between the 2 therapeutic strategies in terms of urinary protein (MD = 7.48%; 95% CI: -6.13% to 21.08%; P = 0.28; I = 92%).

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis concluded that ACEI/ARB plus CCB have a stronger effect on the maintenance of renal function in patients with hypertension than ACEI/ARB plus diuretic.

Comparison of the antialbuminuric effects of benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide in Renin-Angiotensin System (RAS) inhibitor-treated hypertensive patients with albuminuria: the COSMO-CKD (COmbination Strategy on Renal Function of Benidipine or Diuretics TreatMent with RAS inhibitOrs in a Chronic Kidney Disease Hypertensive Population) study

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the non-inferiority of renoprotection afforded by benidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

In this prospective, multicenter, open-labeled, randomized trial, the antialbuminuric effects of benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide were examined in renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibitor-treated patients with blood pressure (BP) readings of ≥ 130/80 mmHg and ≤ 180/110 mmHg, a urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR) of ≥ 300 mg/g, and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of ≥ 30 ml/min/1.73m(2). Patients received benidipine (n = 176, final dose: 4.8 mg/day) or hydrochlorothiazide (n = 170, 8.2 mg/day) for 12 months.

RESULTS

Benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide exerted similar BP- and eGFR-decreasing actions. The UACR values for benidipine and hydrochlorothiazide were 930.8 (95% confidence interval: 826.1, 1048.7) and 883.1 (781.7, 997.7) mg/g at baseline, respectively. These values were reduced to 790.0 (668.1, 934.2) and 448.5 (372.9, 539.4) mg/g at last observation carried forward (LOCF) visits. The non-inferiority of benidipine versus hydrochlorothiazide was not demonstrated (benidipine/hydrochlorothiazide ratio of LOCF value adjusted for baseline: 1.67 (1.40, 1.99)).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of the antialbuminuric effect of benidipine relative to that of hydrochlorothiazide in RAS inhibitor-treated hypertensive patients with macroalbuminuria.