International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 38, Issue 3–4, pp 673–682 | Cite as

Combination pharmacotherapy in hypertension

  • George S. Stergiou


Combination pharmacotherapy with two or more drugs is required in order to reach the currently recommended blood pressure goals in the majority of hypertensive patients, particularly those with a goal of <130/80 mm Hg. Further to the potentiation of the antihypertensive effects, benefits of combination therapy include the potential of fewer adverse affects and of improvement of patients’ compliance. Current guidelines recommend that combination pharmacotherapy might also be considered as initial treatment in patients with significant elevation of blood pressure and evidence of complications. Several effective and well-tolerated antihypertensive drug classes available today offer multiple options for combination therapy. The choice of antihypertensive agents should be made on the basis of current recommendations regarding first line drugs and compelling indications. Specific drug combinations might have additional beneficial or detrimental long-term metabolic effects, beyond their effects on blood pressure. However, more outcome data comparing antihypertensive drug combinations are required. The implementation of an intensive up-titration treatment strategy, together with a systematic use of full doses of multiple drug combinations, is expected to achieve optimal blood pressure control in the vast majority of hypertensive patients.


Combination therapy Drug treatment Hypertension Hypertension control 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chobanian AV, Bakris GL and Black HR (2003). Seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Hypertension 42: 1206–1252 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    (2003). European Society of Hypertension–European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. J Hypertens 21: 1011–1053 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension. World Health Organization, International Society of Hypertension Writing Group. J Hypertens 2003; 21: 1983–1992Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lewington S, Clarke R and Qizilbash N (2002). Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet 360: 1903–1913 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klag MJ, Whelton PK and Randall BL (1996). Blood pressure and end-stage renal disease in men. N Engl J Med 334: 13–18 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Collins R and MacMahon S (1994). Blood pressure, antihypertensive drug treatment and the risks of stroke and of coronary heart disease. Br Med Bull 50: 272–298 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Staessen JA, Gasowski J and Wang JG (2000). Risks of untreated and treated isolated systolic hypertension in the elderly: meta-analysis of outcome trials. Lancet 355: 865–872 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staessen JA, Wang JG and Thijs L (2003). Cardiovascular prevention and blood pressure reduction: a quantitative overview updated until 1 March 2003. J Hypertens 21: 1055–1076PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zanchetti A (2005). Evidence-based medicine in hypertension: what type of evidence?. J Hypertens 23: 1113–1120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    (2003). Effects of different blood-pressure-lowering regimens on major cardiovascular events: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 362: 1527–1535 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Julius S, Kjeldsen SE and Weber M (2004). VALUE trial group. Outcomes in hypertensive patients at high cardiovascular risk treated with regimens based on valsartan or amlodipine: the VALUE randomised trial. Lancet 363: 2022–2031 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stergiou GS and Salgami EV (2004). New European, American and International Guidelines for hypertension management: agreement and disagreement. Exp Rev Cardiovasc Ther 2: 359–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A and Carruthers SG (1998). Effects of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 351: 1755–1762 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    (1998). Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 317: 703–713 Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bakris GL, Williams M and Dworkin L (2000). Preserving renal function in adults with hypertension and diabetes: a consensus approach. National Kidney Foundation Hypertension and Diabetes Executive Committees Working Group. Am J Kidney Dis 36: 646–661 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM and Libby P (2004). CAMELOT Investigators. Effect of antihypertensive agents on cardiovascular events in patients with coronary disease and normal blood pressure: the CAMELOT study: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 292: 2217–2225 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    (2001). Randomised trial of perindopril based blood pressure-lowering regimen among 6108 individuals with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. Lancet 358: 1033–1041 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kearney PM, Whelton M and Reynolds K (2005). Global burden of hypertension: analysis of worldwide data. Lancet 365: 217–223 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marques-Vidal P and Tuomilehto J (1997). Hypertension awareness, treatment and control in the community: is the rule of halves still valid?. J Hum Hypertens 11: 213–220 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Amar J, Vaur L and Perret M (2002). PRATIK study investigators. Hypertension in high-risk patients: beware of the underuse of effective combination therapy (results of the PRATIK study). J Hypertens 20: 779–784 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stergiou GS, Karotsis AK, Symeonidis A and Vassilopoulou VA (2003). for the ABC–GP Study Group. Aggressive blood pressure Control in General Practice (ABC–GP) study: can the new targets be reached?. J Hum Hypertens 17: 767–773 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Berlowitz DR, Ash AS and Hickey EC (1998). Inadequate management of blood pressure in a hypertensive population. N Engl J Med 339: 1957–1963 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oliveria SA, Lapuerta P and McCarthy BD (2002). Physician-related barriers to the effective management of uncontrolled hypertension. Arch Intern Med 162: 413–420 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fagard RH, Leeman M and Warling X (2002). Survey on treatment of hypertension and implementation of World Health Organization/International Society of Hypertension risk stratification in primary care in Belgium. J Hypertens 20: 1297–1302 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stergiou GS (2004). Angiotensin receptor blockade in the challenging era of systolic hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 18: 837–847 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mancia G and Grassi G (2002). Systolic and diastolic blood pressure control in antihypertensive drug trials. J Hypertens 20: 1461–1464 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    (2002). Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic. JAMA 288: 2981–2997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verdecchia P, Reboldi G and Angeli F (2004). Adverse prognostic significance of new diabetes in treated hypertensive subjects. Hypertension 43: 963–969 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lee RE, Seligmann AM and Goebel D (1956). Reserpine–hydralazine combination therapy of hypertensive disease, with hydralazine in doses generally below the toxic range. Ann Intern Med 44: 456–465 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dickerson JE, Hingorani AD and Ashby MJ (1999). Optimisation of antihypertensive treatment by crossover rotation of four major classes. Lancet 353: 2008–2013 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stergiou GS, Skeva II and Baibas NM (2001). Does the antihypertensive response to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition predict the antihypertensive response to angiotensin receptor antagonism?. Am J Hypertens 14: 688–693 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stergiou G, Efstathiou S, Roussias L and Mountokalakis T (2005). Intraindividual blood pressure responses to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition and angiotensin receptor blockade. J Clin Hypertens 7: 18–23Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stergiou GS and Skeva II (2004). Renin–angiotensin system blockade at the level of the angiotensin converting enzyme or the angiotensin type-1 receptor: similarities and differences. Curr Top Med Chem 4: 473–481PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zanchetti A (1999). Contribution of fixed low-dose combinations to initial therapy in hypertension. Eur Heart J 17(suppl A): 8–15 Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dahlof B, Devereux RB and Kjeldsen SE (2002). LIFE Study Group. Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in the Losartan Intervention For Endpoint reduction in hypertension study (LIFE): a randomised trial against atenolol. Lancet 359: 995–1003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pepine CJ, Handberg EM and Cooper-DeHoff RM (2003). INVEST Investigators. 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 290: 2805–2816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lewis EJ, Hunsicker LG and Clarke WR (2001). Renoprotective effect of the angiotensin-receptor antagonist irbesartan in patients with nephropathy due to type-2 diabetes. N Engl J Med 345: 851–860PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Brenner BM and Cooper ME (2001). Effects of losartan on renal and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type-2 diabetes and nephropathy. N Engl J Med 345: 861–869 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hoffmann J (1993). Comparison of a felodipine–metoprolol combination tablet vs each component alone as antihypertensive therapy. The German Multicentre Study Group. Blood Press 1(Suppl): 30–36Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Messerli FH, Oparil S and Feng Z (2000). Comparison of efficacy and side effects of combination therapy of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (benazepril) with calcium antagonist (either nifedipine or amlodipine) versus high-dose calcium antagonist monotherapy for systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 86: 1182–1187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Stergiou GS, Skeva II and Baibas NM (2000). Additive hypotensive effect of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition and angiotensin receptor antagonism in essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 35: 937–941PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Stergiou GS, Makris T and Papavasiliou M (2005). Additive effects of an ACE inhibitor versus a Ca antagonist versus a diuretic in hypertensive patients uncontrolled on angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy. J Hypertens 23: 883–889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mogensen CE, Neldam S and Tikkanen I (2000). Randomised controlled trial of dual blockade of renin–angiotensin system in patients with hypertension, microalbuminuria, and non-insulin dependent diabetes: the candesartan and lisinopril microalbuminuria (CALM) study. Br Med J 321: 1440–1444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nakao N, Yoshimura A, Morita H, Takada M, Kayano T and Ideura T (2003). Combination treatment of angiotensin-II receptor blocker and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor in non-diabetic renal disease (COOPERATE): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 361: 117–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Solomon SD, Wang D and Finn P (2004). Effect of candesartan on cause-specific mortality in heart failure patients: the Candesartan in Heart failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) program. Circulation 110: 2180–2183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Teo K, Yusuf S and Sleight P (2004). ONTARGET/TRANSCEND Investigators. Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics of 2 large, simple, randomized trials evaluating telmisartan, ramipril, and their combination in high-risk patients: the Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial/Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE Intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease (ONTARGET/TRANSCEND) trials. Am Heart J 148: 52–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Taylor AA (2004). Combination drug treatment of hypertension: have we come full circle?. Curr Cardiol Rep 6: 421–426PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Waeber B (2003). Very-low dose combinations: a first-line choice for the treatment of hypertension. J Hypertens 21(suppl 3): S3–S10Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Opie LH and Schall R (2004). Old antihypertensives and new diabetes. J Hypertens 22: 1453–1458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Dahlof B, Sever PS and Poulter NR (2005). ASCOT Investigators. Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 366: 895–906PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brown MJ, Palmer CR and Castaigne A (2000). Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet 356: 366–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hansson L, Lindholm LH and Niskanen L (1999). Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet 353: 611–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yusuf S, Sleight P and Pogue J (2000). Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 342: 145–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lindholm LH, Persson M and Alaupovic P (2003). Metabolic outcome during 1 year in newly detected hypertensives: results of the Antihypertensive Treatment and Lipid Profile in a North of Sweden Efficacy Evaluation (ALPINE study). J Hypertens 21: 1563–1574PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Scheen AJ (2004). Prevention of type-2 diabetes mellitus through inhibition of the renin–angiotensin system. Drugs 64: 2537–2565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jamerson KA, Bakris GL and Wun CC (2004). Rationale and design of the avoiding cardiovascular events through combination therapy in patients living with systolic hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) trial. Am J Hypertens 17: 793–801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wald NJ and Law MR (2003). A strategy to reduce cardiovascular disease by more than 80%. Br Med J 326: 1419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    O’Brien E, Asmar R and Beilin L (2003). On behalf of the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring. European Society of Hypertension Recommendations for Conventional, Ambulatory and Home Blood Pressure Measurement. J Hypertens 21: 821–848PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Poulter NR, Wedel H and Dahlof B (2005). ASCOT Investigators. Role of blood pressure and other variables in the differential cardiovascular event rates noted in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT–BPLA). Lancet 366: 907–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • George S. Stergiou
    • 1
  1. 1.Hypertension Center, Third University Department of MedicineSotiria HospitalAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations