Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mallat, Samir G., Tanios, Bassem Y., Itani, Houssam S., Lotfi, Tamara, Akl, Elie A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27548060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161285
_version_ 1782449137453629440
author Mallat, Samir G.
Tanios, Bassem Y.
Itani, Houssam S.
Lotfi, Tamara
Akl, Elie A.
author_facet Mallat, Samir G.
Tanios, Bassem Y.
Itani, Houssam S.
Lotfi, Tamara
Akl, Elie A.
author_sort Mallat, Samir G.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4993355
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49933552016-09-12 Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Mallat, Samir G. Tanios, Bassem Y. Itani, Houssam S. Lotfi, Tamara Akl, Elie A. PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. Public Library of Science 2016-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC4993355/ /pubmed/27548060 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161285 Text en © 2016 Mallat et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Mallat, Samir G.
Tanios, Bassem Y.
Itani, Houssam S.
Lotfi, Tamara
Akl, Elie A.
Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_short Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
title_sort free versus fixed combination antihypertensive therapy for essential arterial hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4993355/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27548060
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161285
work_keys_str_mv AT mallatsamirg freeversusfixedcombinationantihypertensivetherapyforessentialarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT taniosbassemy freeversusfixedcombinationantihypertensivetherapyforessentialarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT itanihoussams freeversusfixedcombinationantihypertensivetherapyforessentialarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT lotfitamara freeversusfixedcombinationantihypertensivetherapyforessentialarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT akleliea freeversusfixedcombinationantihypertensivetherapyforessentialarterialhypertensionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis