Key result
While triple therapy with an ACE inhibitor showed higher 24-hour blood pressure control than ARB therapy (54.8% vs 44.0%), this association was driven by the lower number of pills taken rather than the drug class.
Why the study?
The study evaluated the prevalence and predictors of ambulatory blood pressure control in patients receiving triple antihypertensive therapy containing an ACEi versus an ARB.
Does the number of pills or the type of renin-angiotensin system inhibitor predict ambulatory blood pressure control in essential hypertensives on triple therapy?
Cross-Sectional (n=520)
No
Does the number of pills or the type of renin-angiotensin system inhibitor predict ambulatory blood pressure control in essential hypertensives on triple therapy?
Odds Ratio: 1.5 (95% CI 1.1–2.2)
Absolute Event Rate: 54.8% vs 44%
p-value: p=0.019
The number of antihypertensive pills, rather than the specific type of RAS inhibitor, is the primary predictor of ambulatory BP control in patients on triple therapy, supporting the use of fixed-dose combinations.
Real-world ambulatory BP control on triple therapy remains incompletely characterized; leaves open predictors for future prospective trials.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the prevalence and predictors of ambulatory blood pressure (BP) control in patients taking a triple antihypertensive therapy (renin-angiotensin system inhibitor + calcium channel blocker + thiazide/thiazide-like diuretic, in either free or fixed-dose combinations) containing an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB). METHODS: We performed an observational cross-sectional study on 520 consecutive patients with essential hypertension taking a stable triple therapy in whom 24-h ambulatory BP was evaluated. Both number of pills and antihypertensive treatment intensity (ATI), as possible pharmacological predictors of ambulatory BP control, were taken into account. RESULTS: A total of 189 (36.3%) patients were taking triple therapy with ACEi and 331 (63.7%) patients were taking triple therapy with ARB. Mean age was 62.7 ± 12.2 years. Patients on triple therapy with ACEi had a significantly lower ATI and took fewer antihypertensive pills than patients on triple therapy with ARB (22.2% of patients took a single-pill triple fixed-dose combination). Patients taking triple therapy with ACEi had higher prevalence of both 24-h (54.8% vs 44.0%; p = 0.019) and daytime BP control (61.8% vs 49.2%; p = 0.006) than patients taking triple therapy with ARB, even after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, smoking habit, type 2 diabetes mellitus, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and ATI [OR 1.5 (95% CI 1.1-2.2) and OR 1.6 (95% CI 1.1-2.4), respectively]. However, these independent associations with ambulatory BP control were lost when the number of antihypertensive pills was included in the model. CONCLUSION: The higher prevalence of ambulatory BP control found in patients taking a triple therapy with ACEi was affected by the lower number of antihypertensive pills taken, which was also the key predictor of ambulatory BP control in our study. This confirms the importance of fixed-dose combinations in the management of essential hypertension.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarzani et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Essential hypertension (n=520). Triple therapy with ACE inhibitor vs. Triple therapy with ARB was evaluated on 24-h ambulatory blood pressure control (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p=0.019). While triple therapy with an ACE inhibitor showed higher 24-hour blood pressure control than ARB therapy (54.8% vs 44.0%), this association was driven by the lower number of pills taken rather than the drug class.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: