IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0161285.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Samir G Mallat
  • Bassem Y Tanios
  • Houssam S Itani
  • Tamara Lotfi
  • Elie A Akl

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Samir G Mallat & Bassem Y Tanios & Houssam S Itani & Tamara Lotfi & Elie A Akl, 2016. "Free versus Fixed Combination Antihypertensive Therapy for Essential Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0161285
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161285
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161285
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161285&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0161285?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0161285. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.