American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 1–6 | Cite as

Combination Therapy as First-Line Treatment for Hypertension

Current Opinion


Systemic hypertension is a long-term risk factor for the development of atherosclerotic vascular disease and when uncontrolled is a short-term trigger of acute vascular events such as acute coronary syndromes and stroke. Thus, rapid reduction in BP is desirable. Patients at high risk for vascular disease, such as those with diabetes mellitus, have aggressive goal BP targets because studies have shown that achieving these targets reduces events. Given the dual goals in high-risk patients of reducing BP quickly and to aggressively low targets, the classic ‘step therapy’ of one drug titrated at a time to reduce BP is inadequate. Combination therapy with at least two potent medications makes more sense, and manufacturers are now increasing their offerings of single-pill combinations for hypertension. Combination pills are popular with patients and increase compliance with therapy. Many believe that renin-angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) blockers are the cornerstone of hypertension treatment in patients at high risk for vascular disease. The newer combination pills include a RAAS blocker and diuretics or a long-acting calcium channel antagonist (CCA). Recent studies have shown that a RAAS blocker plus a dihydropyridine CCA is superior to older diuretic-based combinations for preventing cardiovascular events. These considerations support a new approach to the higher risk hypertensive patient: effective doses of RAAS blocker/CCA combination pills to rapidly lower BP to <130/80 mmHg.


Amlodipine Valsartan Calcium Channel Antagonist Thiazide Diuretic Benazepril 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Dr Crawford has received honoraria for speaking from Pfizer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Abbott pharmaceutical companies in the last 2 years. Funding to support the preparation of this manuscript was provided by Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation. The views expressed in this review are those of the author.


  1. 1.
    Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, et al. Selected major risk factors and global and regional burden of disease. Lancet 2002; 360 (9343): 1347–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, et al. Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 2006; 367 (9524): 1747–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dickinson HO, Mason JM, Nicolson DJ, et al. Lifestyle interventions to reduce raised blood pressure: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Hypertens 2006; 24 (2): 215–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, et al. Effects on blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet. DASH-Sodium Collaborative Research Group. N Engl J Med 2001; 344 (1): 3–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Trials of Hypertension Prevention Collaborative Research Group. Effects of weight loss and sodium reduction intervention on blood pressure and hypertension incidence in overweight people with high-normal blood pressure. The Trials of Hypertension Prevention, phase II. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157 (6): 657–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neal B, MacMahon S, Chapman N. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Lancet 2000; 356 (9246): 1955–64Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Turnbull F, Neal B, Ninomiya T, et al. Effects of different regimens to lower blood pressure on major cardiovascular events in older and younger adults: meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 2008; 336 (7653): 1121–3PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staessen JA, Gasowski J, Wang JG, et al. Risks of untreated and treated isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: meta-analysis of outcome trials. Lancet 2000; 355 (9207): 865–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gueyffier F, Boutitie F, Boissel JP, et al. Effect of antihypertensive drug treatment on cardiovascular outcomes in women and men: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized, controlled trials. The INDANA Investigators. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126 (10): 761–7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turnbull F. Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively-designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 2003; 362 (9395): 1527–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Williams MJA, Low CJS, Wilkins GT, et a1. Randomized comparison of the effects of nicardipine and esmolol on coronary artery wall stress: implications for the risk of plaque rupture. Heart 2000; 84: 377–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Staessen JA, Fogard R, Lutgarde T, et al. Randomized double-blind comparison of placebo and active treatment for older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. Lancet 1997; 350: 757–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Julius S, Kjeldsen SE, Weber M, et al. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based upon valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomized trial. Lancet 2004; 363: 2022–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, et al. Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 2003; 42 (6): 1206–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The Kidney Disease Outcome Quality Initiative (KDOQI) clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease and diabetes. Am J Kidney Dis 2007; 48 (2 Suppl. 2): S12–154Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Canadian Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Expert Committee. Canadian Diabetes Association 2008 clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of diabetes in Canada. Can J Diabetes 2008; 32 Suppl. 1: S1–S201Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    American Diabetes Association. American Diabetes Association clinical practice recommendations 2007. Diabetes Care 2007; 30 Suppl. 1: 51–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canetero OA, Oparil S. Essential Hypertension: part I. Definition and etiology. Circulation 2000; 101: 329–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mancia G, De Backer G, Dominiczak A, et al. 2007 Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the Management of Arterial Hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2007; 28 (12): 1462–536PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Black HR, Elliott WJ, Grandits G, et al. Principal results of the Controlled Onset Verapamil Investigation of Cardiovascular End Points (CONVINCE) trial. JAMA 2003; 289 (16): 2073–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 (6): 393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Law MR, Wald NJ, Morris JK, et al. Value of low dose combination treatment with blood pressure lowering drugs: analysis of 354 randomised trials. BMJ 2003; 326 (7404): 1427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gerbino PP, Shoheiber O. Adherence patterns among patients treated with fixed-dose combination versus separate antihypertensive agents. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2007; 64 (12): 1279–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Waeber B, Burnier M, Brunner HR. Compliance with antihypertensive therapy. Clin Exp Hypertens 1999; 21 (5–6): 973–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laragh JH, Sealey JE. Relevance of the plasma renin hormonal control system that regulates blood pressure and sodium balance for correctly treating hypertension and for evaluating ALLHAT. Am J Hypertens 2003; 16 (5 Pt 1): 407–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    AIRE study investigators. Effect of ramipril on mortality and morbidity of survivors of acute myocardial infarction with clinical evidence of heart failure. The Acute Infarction Ramipril Efficacy (AIRE) study. Lancet 1993; 342: 821–8Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Turnbull F, Neal B, Algert C, et al. Effects of different blood pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomized trials. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165 (12): 1410–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brewster LM, van Montfrans GA, Kleijnen J. Systematic review: antihypertensive drug therapy in black patients. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141 (8): 614–27PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2002; 288 (23): 2981–97Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sica DA. Rationale for fixed-dose combinations in the treatment of hypertension: the cycle repeats. Drugs 2002; 62 (3): 443–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ambrosioni E, Borghi C, Costa FV. Captopril and hydrochlorothiazide: rationale for their combinations. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 23 Suppl. 1:43–50SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chrysant S. Using Fixed-dose combination therapies to achieve blood pressure goals. Clin Drug Invest 2008; 28: 713–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ram CV. Antihypertensive efficacy of angiotensin receptor blockers in combination with hydrochlorothiazide: a review of the factorial-design studies. J Clin Hypertens 2004; 6: 569–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    De la Sierra A, Gil-Extremera B, Calvo C, et al. Comparison of the antihypertensive effects of the fixed dose combination enalapril 10 mg/nitrendipine 20mg vs losartan 50mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg, assessed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, in essential hypertensive patients. J Hum Hypertens 2004; 18: 215–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elliott WJ, Montoro R, Smith D, et al. Comparison of two strategies for intensifying antihypertensive treatment: low-dose combination (enalapril + felodipine ER) versus increased dose of monotherapy (enalapril). LEVEL (Lexxel vs Enalapril) Study Group. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12 (7): 691–6Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Karlberg BE, Andrup M, Oden A. Efficacy and safety of a new long-acting drug combination, trandolapril/verapamil as compared to monotherapy in primary hypertension. Swedish TARKA trialists. Blood Press 2000; 9 (2–3): 140–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Smith TR, Philipp T, Vaisse B, et al. Amlodipine and valsartan combined and as monotherapy in stage 2, elderly, and black hypertensive patients: subgroup analyses of 2 randomized, placebo-controlled studies. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2007; 9 (5): 355–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dahlof B, Ever B, Poulter NR, et al. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regime of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroylumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA) a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 895–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jamerson K, Weber MA, Bakris GL, et al. Benazepril plus amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide for hypertension in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2008; 359; 23: 2417–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM, et al. A calcium antagonist vs a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease: the International Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290: 2805–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Bellet M, Sassaus P, Guyene T, et al. Converting enzyme inhibition buffers the counter-regulatory response to acute administration of nicardipine. J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 24: 465–72Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kjeldsen SE, Jamerson JA, Bakris GL, et al. Predictors of blood pressure response to intensified and fixed combination treatment of hypertension: the ACCOMPLISH study. Blood Press 2008; 17: 7–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Black HR, Elliott WJ, Grandits G, et al. Principle results of the controlled onset verapamil investigation of cardiovascular endpoints (CONVINCE) trial. JAMA 2003; 289: 2073–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Black HR, Elliott WJ, Neaton JD, et al. Baseline characteristics and early blood pressure control in the CONVINCE trial. Hypertension 2001; 37: 12–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Bangalore S, Kamalakkannan G, Parkar S, et al. Fixed-dose combinations improve medication compliance: a meta-analysis. Am J Med 2007; 120: 713–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Smith TR, Philipp T, Vaisse B, et al. Amlodipine and valsartan combined and as monotherapy in stage 2, elderly, and black hypertensive patients: subgroup analyses of 2 randomized, placebo-controlled studies. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich) 2007; 9 (5): 355–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fernandez R, Puig JG, Rodriguez-Perez JC, et al. Effect of two antihypertensive combinations on metabolic control in type-2 diabetic hypertensive patients with albuminuria: a randomised, double-blind study. J Hum Hypertens 2001; 15: 849–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bakris G, Molitch M, Hewkin A, et al. Differences in glucose tolerance between fixed-dose antihypertensive drug combinations in people with metabolic syndrome. Diabetes Care 2006; 29: 2592–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Weir MR, Bakris GL. Combination therapy with renin-angiotensin-aldosterone receptor blockers for hypertension: how far have we come? J Clin Hypertens 2008; 10: 146–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rabbani A, Alexander C. Out-of-pocket and total costs of fixed-dose combination antihypertensives and their components. Am J Hypertens 2008; 21:509–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Arredondo A. Out-of-pocket costs to users: medicine options for hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2008; 21: 492PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Cardiology, Department of MedicineUniversity of California, San Francisco (UCSF)San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations