Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 50 (1), 52-68

Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence From Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts

Affiliations

Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence From Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts

Seng Chan You et al. Korean Circ J.

Abstract

Background and objectives: 2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D).

Methods: Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure.

Results: A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; p=0.040) than A+D.

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.

Keywords: Angiotensin receptor antagonists; Antihypertensive agents; Calcium channel blockers; Diuretics; Hypertension.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare the following disclosures: Mr. Swerdel, Dr. Ryan, and Dr. Schuemie are employees of Janssen Research & Development. The rest of the authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Kaplan-Meier plots for overall survival comparing different dual combination treatments in propensity score-matched cohorts from each data source. (A) CEDM, (B) CCAE, (C) Medicare, (D) Medicaid, and (E) NHIS-NSC.
A = angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers; C = calcium-channel blocker; CCAE = Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters; CEDM = OptumInsight's Clinformatics™ Data Mart; D = thiazide diuretics; Medicaid = Truven MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid; Medicare = Truven MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Beneficiaries; NHIS-NSC = National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Forest plots depicting HR and 95% CI for primary outcome in each data source. The overall HRs were calculated using a random-effects model. The size of data markers indicates the weight of the study. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. (A) A+C vs. A+D, (B) C+D vs. A+C, and (C) C+D vs. A+D.
A = angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers; C = calcium-channel blocker; CCAE = Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters; CEDM = OptumInsight's Clinformatics™ Data Mart; CI = confidential interval; D = thiazide diuretics; HR = hazard ratio; Medicaid = Truven MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid; Medicare = Truven MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Beneficiaries; NHIS-NSC = National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort. *Event rate per 1,000 person-year.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Forest plots depicting HR and 95% CI for secondary outcomes in each data source. The overall HRs were calculated using a random-effects model. The size of data markers indicates the weight of the study. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. (A) Myocardial infarction, (B) Heart failure, (C) Stroke, and (D) MACCE.
A = angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers; C = calcium-channel blocker; CCAE = Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters; CEDM = OptumInsight's Clinformatics™ Data Mart; CI = confidential interval; D = thiazide diuretics; HR = hazard ratio; MACCE = major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event; Medicaid = Truven MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid; Medicare = Truven MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Beneficiaries; NHIS-NSC = National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort. *Event rate per 1,000 person-year.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Forest plots depicting HR and 95% CI for primary outcome in subgroups. The overall HRs were calculated using a random-effects model. The size of data markers indicates the weight of the study. Error bars indicate 95% CIs. (A) Women, (B) Men, (C) ≥60 years, (D) <60 years.
A = angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blockers; C = calcium-channel blocker; CCAE = Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters; CEDM = OptumInsight's Clinformatics™ Data Mart; CI = confidential interval; D = thiazide diuretics; HR = hazard ratio; MACCE = major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event; Medicaid = Truven MarketScan Multi-State Medicaid; Medicare = Truven MarketScan Medicare Supplemental Beneficiaries; NHIS-NSC = National Health Insurance Service-National Sample Cohort. *Event rate per 1,000 person-year.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 1 PubMed Central articles

References

    1. GBD 2015 Risk Factors Collaborators. Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet. 2016;388:1659–1724. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet. 2004;363:2022–2031. - PubMed
    1. Cushman WC, Ford CE, Cutler JA, et al. Success and predictors of blood pressure control in diverse North American settings: the antihypertensive and lipid-lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT) J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2002;4:393–404. - PubMed
    1. Basile JN, Bloch MJ. Analysis of recent papers in hypertension. Initial combination therapy provides more prompt blood pressure control and reduces cardiovascular events but remains underutilized. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2013;15:523–525. - PubMed
    1. Gradman AH, Parisé H, Lefebvre P, Falvey H, Lafeuille MH, Duh MS. Initial combination therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients: a matched cohort study. Hypertension. 2013;61:309–318. - PubMed
Feedback