, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 443–462 | Cite as

Rationale for Fixed-Dose Combinations in the Treatment of Hypertension

The Cycle Repeats
Review Article


Single-drug therapy remains the preferred way to begin treatment of hypertension, although in many patients this is unable to bring blood pressure (BP) to goal levels. Single-drug therapy, even when maximally titrated, is at best only modestly effective in normalising BP in Stage-I or II hypertension, which represents the majority of the hypertensive population. It is increasingly appreciated that the elusive goal of a ‘normal’ BP is achieved only if multi-drug therapy is employed. This is especially so when considered in the context of today’s lower BP goals. The options for multi-drug therapy are quite simple: either fixed-dose combination therapy or drugs added sequentially one after another to then arrive at an effective multi-drug regimen. Advocates exist for both approaches.

A considerable legacy, dating to the 1950’s, exists for fixed-dose combination therapies. The rationale to this approach has remained constant. Fixed-dose combination therapy successfully reduces BP because two drugs, each typically working at a separate site, block different effector pathways. In addition, the second drug of such two-drug combinations may check counter-regulatory system activity triggered by the other. For example, a diuretic and β-blocker combination may find the diuretic correcting the salt-and-water retention which occasionally accompanies β-blocker therapy. The pattern of adverse effects also differs with fixed-dose combination therapy, in part, because less drug is generally being given. In addition, one component of a fixed-dose combination therapy can effectively counterbalance the tendency of the other to produce adverse effects. For example, the peripheral oedema, that accompanies calcium channel antagonist therapy, occurs less frequently when an ACE inhibitor is co-administered. ACE inhibitors improve, if not eliminate, the peripheral oedema associated with calcium channel antagonists because of their proven ability to cause venodilation. In addition, diuretic therapy-induced volume contraction may generate a state of secondary hyperaldosteronism and thereby electrolyte abnormalities such as hypokalaemia and/or hypomagnesaemia. In many cases, the co-administration of either an ACE inhibitor or an angiotensin II receptor blocker with a diuretic corrects the aforementioned electrolyte disturbances.

Fixed-dose combination therapy has a proven record of reducing BP. This form of treatment has been available for close to a half-century. Over that period of time, many physicians have taken advantage of this therapeutic approach even when academic opinion was less than charitable to this concept. Academic opinion is rarely immutable and occasionally irrelevant to prescription practice. Prescription practice is driven by many considerations including ease of use, cost and tolerance of a therapy. Most importantly, the therapeutic pathway taken should successfully result in goal BP being reached in a large number of those treated. Unfortunately, despite the simplicity of the concept behind fixed-dose combination therapy, its success will ultimately rest on cost. If made truly cost-competitive, it will gain an increasing share of the hypertensive market. If not, market forces will relegate it to a secondary role for hypertension treatment.


  1. 1.
    Wofford JL. History of fixed-dose combination therapy for hypertension [letter]. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 1044PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sica DA. Fixed dose combination antihypertensive therapy: is this the future? J Clin Hypertens 2000; 2: 46–55Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sica DA. Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive drugs. Do they have a role in rational therapy? Drugs 1994; 48: 16–24Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Epstein M, Bakris G. Newer approaches to antihypertensive therapy. Arch Int Med 1996; 156: 1969–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2413–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization 1999. International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. J Hypertens 1999; 17: 151–85Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Australian Drug Evaluation Committee (ADEC). ADEC Recommendations [online]. Available from URL: http://www.health.gov.au/hfs/tga/docs/html/adec/adecrecs.htm. [Accessed 2000 September 27]
  8. 8.
    SHEP Cooperative Research Group. Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: Final Results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). J Am Med Assoc 1991; 265: 3255–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bakris GL. Maximizing cardiorenal benefit in the management of hypertension: achieving blood pressure goals. J Clin Hypertens 1999; 1: 141–7Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. Effect of intensive blood-pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomised trial. Lancet 1998; 351: 1755–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sica DA, Frishman W. Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) study: successes and failures. Cardiovasc Rev Rep 1999; 20: 232–6Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Tight blood pressure control and risk of macrovascular and microvascular complications in type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 38. BMJ 1998; 317: 703–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hebert LA, Kusek JW, Greene T, et al. Effects of blood pressure control on progressive renal disease in blacks and whites. Hypertension 1997; 30: 428–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Estacio RO, Jeffers BW, Hiatt WR, et al. The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes and hypertension. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 645–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sever P. The heterogeneity of hypertension: why doesn’t every patient respond to every antihypertensive drug. J Hum Hypertens 1995; 9 Suppl 2: S33–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Cushman WC, et al. Single drug therapy for hypertension in men: a comparison of six antihypertensive agents with placebo. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 914–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Swales JD. Management guidelines for hypertension: is anyone taking notice? J Hum Hypertens 1995; 9 Suppl. 2: S9–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haria M, Plosker GL, Markham A. Felodipine/metoprolol: a review of the fixed dose controlled release formulation in the management of essential hypertension. Drugs 2000; 59: 141–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hilleman DE, Ryschon KL, Mohiuddin SM, et al. Fixed-dose combination vs monotherapy in hypertension: a meta-analysis evaluation. J Hum Hypertens 1999; 13: 477–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Leeuw PW, Notter T, Zilles P. Comparison of different fixed antihypertensive combination drugs: a double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study. J Hypertens 1997; 15: 87–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dollery CT. Pharmacological basis for combination therapy of hypertension. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1977; 17: 311–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sica DA, Gehr TW, Fernandez A. Risk-benefit ratio of angiotensin antagonists versus ACE inhibitors in end-stage renal disease. Drug Saf 2000; 22: 350–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sica DA. Kinetics of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in renal failure. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1992: 20Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sica DA, Cutler RE, O’Connor DT, et al. Comparison of the steady-state pharmacokinetics of fosinopril, lisinopril and enalapril in patients with chronic renal insufficiency. Clin Pharmacokinet 1991; 20: 420–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Epstein M. The benefits of ACE inhibitors and calcium antagonists in slowing progressive renal failure: focus on fixed-dose combination antihypertensive therapy. Ren Fail 1996; 18: 813–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roos JC, Boer P, Koomans HA, et al. Haemodynamic and hormonal changes during acute and chronic diuretic treatment in essential hypertension. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1981; 19: 107–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sica DA, Gehr TWB. Diuretic combinations in refractory edema states: pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationships. Clin Pharmacokinet 1996; 30: 229–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Calhoun DA, Zhu S. Pretreatment with enalaprilat blunts nicardipine-induced sympathetic activation in spontaneously hypertensive and Wistar-Kyoto rats. J Hypertens 1999; 17: 507–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bellet M, Sassano P, Guyene T, et al. Converting enzyme inhibition buffers the counter-regulatory response to acute administration of nicardipine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 24: 465–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gehr TWB, Sica DA. Dose-response relationships in antihypertensive treatment. In: Oparil S, Weber M, editors. Hypertension: a companion to the kidney. 1st ed. Philadelphia (PA): WB Saunders Company, 2000: 492–7Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davidov ME, Becker FE, Hollifield J. Serum magnesium and potassium levels in hypertensive patients after a therapeutic switch from hydrochlorothiazide plus a potassium supplement to Maxzide. Am J Med 1987; 82 Suppl. 3A: 48–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dyckner T, Wester PO. Potassium/magnesium depletion in patients with cardiovascular disease. Am J Med 1987; 82 Suppl. 3A: 11–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maronde RF, Milgrom M, Vlachakis ND, et al. Response of thiazide-induced hypokalemia to amiloride. JAMA 1983; 249: 237–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gradman AH, Cutler NR, Davis PJ, et al. Enalapril-felodipine ER in essential hypertension: a factorial design study of combination therapy. Amer J Cardiol 1997; 79: 431–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dahlof B, Hansson L. The influence of antihypertensive therapy on the structural arteriolar changes in essential hypertension: different effects of enalapril and hydrochlorothiazide. J Intern Med 1993; 234: 271–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kuschnir E, Acuna E, Sevilla D. Treatment of patients with essential hypertension: amlodipine 5mg/benazepril 20 mg compared with amlodipine, benazepril 20 mg, and placebo. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 1213–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gasse C, Sticher J, Doring A, et al. Population trends in antihypertensive drug use: results from the MONICA Augsburg Project 1984 to 1995. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 695–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Piepho RW, Beal J. An overview of antihypertensive therapy in the 20th century. J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 40: 967–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Fagan TC. Remembering the lessons of basic pharmacology. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1430–1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Brunner H, Menard J, Waeber B, et al. Treating the individual hypertensive patient: considerations on dose, sequential monotherapy and drug combinations. J Hypertens 1990; 8: 3–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sica DA. Fixed-dose combination antihypertensive drugs: principles and practice. Cardiovasc Rev Rep 1997; 9: 28–46Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sica DA, Ripley E. Low-dose fixed-combination antihypertensive therapy. In: Oparil S, Weber M, editors. Hypertension: a companion to the kidney. 1st ed. Philadelphia, (PA): WB Saunders Company, 2000: 497–504Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fenichel RR, Lipicky RJ. Combination products as first-line pharmacotherapy. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1429–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rangoonwala B, Schulz W, Bauer B. Fixed dose combinations of ACE inhibitors. Br J Clin Pract 1996; 50: 454–65PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Eisen SA, Miller DK, Woodward RS, et al. The effect of prescribed daily dose frequency on patient medication compliance. Arch Intern Med 1990; 150: 1881–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rudd P. Medication compliance for antihypertensive therapy. In: Oparil S, Weber M, editors. Hypertension: a companion to the kidney. 1st ed. Philadelphia (PA): WB Saunders Company, 2000: 419–31Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Morgan TO, Anderson A, Jones E. Comparison and interaction of low dose felodipine and enalapril in the treatment of essential hypertension in elderly subjects. Am J Hypertens 1992; 5: 238–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Lewen AJ, Lueg MC, Targum S, et al. A clinical trial evaluating the 24-hour effect of bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide 5 mg/6.25 mg combination in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. Clin Cardiol 1993; 16: 732–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Neutel JM. Low-dose antihypertensive combination therapy; its rationale and role in cardiovascular risk management. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12: 73S–9SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Hyman DJ, Pavlik VN. Self-reported hypertension treatment practices among primary care physicians. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2281–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Burt VL, Whelton P, Roccella EJ, et al. Prevalence of hypertension in the US adult population. Result from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1991. Hypertension 1995; 25: 305–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hosie J, Wiklund I. Managing hypertension in general practice: can we do better? J Hum Hypertens 1995; 9 Suppl. 2: S15–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Rudd P, Ahmed S, Zachary V, et al. Antihypertensive drug trials, contributions from medical monitors. In: Cramer JA, Spilker B, editors. Patient compliance in medical practice and clinical trials. New York. Raven Press Ltd, 1991: 283–99Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Urquhart J. When outpatient drug treatment fails: identifying noncompliers as a cost containment tool. Med Interface 1993; 6: 65–73Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ambrosini E, Borghi C, Costa FV. Captopril and hydrochlorothiazide: rationale for their combination. Brit J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 23: 43S–50SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hung HMJ, Ng TH, Chi GY, et al. Response surface and factorial designs for combination antihypertensive drugs. Drug Inf J 1990; 24: 371–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Menard J, Bellet M. Calcium antagonists-ACE inhibitors combination therapy: objectives and methodology of clinical development. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1993; 21 Suppl. 2: S49–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Neutel JM, Black HR, Weber MA. Combination therapy with diuretics: an evolution of understanding. Am J Med 1996; 101(3A): 61S–70SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ramsay LE, Hettiarachchi J. Spironolactone in thiazide-induced hypokalemia: variable response between patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1981; 11: 153–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Sica DA. Old antihypertensive agents-diuretics and beta-blockers: do we know how and in whom they lower blood pressure? Curr Hypertens Rep 1999; 1: 296–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ghosh AK, Mankikar G, Strouthidis T, et al. A single-blind, comparative study of hydrochlorothiazide/amiloride (‘Moduretic’ 25) and hydrochlorothiazide/triamterene (‘Dyazide’) in elderly patients with congestive heart failure. Curr Med Res Opin 1987; 10: 573–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Maschio G, Tessitore N, D’Angelo A, et al. Prevention of calcium nephrolithiasis with low-dose thiazide, amiloride and allopurinol. Am J Med 1981; 71: 623–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Siscovick DS, Raghunathun TE, Psaty BM. Diuretic therapy for hypertension and the risk for primary cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med 1994; 330: 1852–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    MacGregor GA, Banks RA, Markander ND, et al. Lack of effect of beta-blocker on flat dose response to thiazide combined with beta-blocker. BMJ 1983; 286: 1535–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Kendall MJ. Approaches to meeting the criteria for fixed dose antihypertensive combinations. Focus on metoprolol. Drugs 1995; 50: 454–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Frishman WH, Bryzinski BS, Coulson LR, et al. A multifactorial trial design to assess combination therapy in hypertension. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 1461–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Prisant LM, Weir MR, Papademetriou V. Low-dose drug combination therapy: an alternative first-line approach to hypertension treatment. Am Heart J 1995; 130: 359–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on antihypertensive agents: Propranolol in the treatment of essential hypertension. J Am Med Womens Assoc 1977; 237: 2303–10Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Saunders E, Weir MW, Kong BW, et al. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of a β-blocker, a calcium-channel blocker, and a converting enzyme inhibitor in hypertensive blacks. Arch Int Med 1990; 150: 1707–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Prisant ML, Mensah GA. Use of β-adrenergic receptor blockers in blacks. J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 36: 867–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group on Antihypertensive Agents. Efficacy of nadolol alone and combined with bendroflumethiazide and hydralazine for systemic hypertension. Am J Cardiol 1983; 52: 1230–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Kostis JB, Berge KG, Davis BR, et al. Effect of atenolol and reserpine on selected events in the systolic hypertension in the elderly program (SHEP). Am J Hypertens 1995; 8: 1147–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Materson BJ, Reda DJ, Williams D. Lessons from combination therapy in Veterans Affairs Studies. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group on antihypertensive agents. Am J Hypertens 1996; 9: 187S–91SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Prisant LM, Weir MR, Papademetriou V, et al. Low-dose drug combination therapy: an alternative first-line approach to hypertension treatment. Am Heart J 1995; 130: 359–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Waeber B, Detry JM, Dahlof B, et al. Felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet: a valuable option to initiate antihypertensive therapy. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12: 915–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Guengerich FP, Brian WR, Iwaski M, et al. Oxidation of dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker and analogs by human liver cytochrome P-450 IIIA 4. J Med Chem 1991; 34: 1838–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Johnson JA, Burlew BS. Metoprolol metabolism via cytochrome P4502D6 in ethnic populations. Drug Metab Dispos 1996; 24: 350–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Zannad F, Boivin JM. Lorraine General Physician Investigation Group. Ambulatory 24-hr blood pressure assessment of the felodipine-metoprolol combination versus amlodipine in mild to moderate hypertension. J Hypertens 1999; 17: 1023–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Hoffmann J. Comparison of a felodipine-metoprolol combination tablet vs each component alone as antihypertensive therapy. Blood Press Suppl. 1993; 1: 30–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Andren L, Weiner L, Svensson A, et al. Enalapril with either a ‘very low’ or ‘low’ dose of hydrochlorothiazide is equally effective in essential hypertension. A double blind trial in 100 essential hypertensives. J Hypertens 1983; 1 Suppl. 2: 384–86Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Chrysant SG. Antihypertensive effectiveness of low-dose lisinopril-hydrochlorothiazide combination: a large multi-center study. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154: 737–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Schoenberger JA. Losartan with hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension. J Hypertens 1995; 13 Suppl. 1: S43–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Johnston CI, Arnold L, Hiwatari M. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors in the treatment of hypertension. Drugs 1984; 27: 271–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Scholze J, Breitstadt A, Cairns V, et al. Ramipril and hydrochlorothiazide combination therapy in hypertension: a clinical trial of factorial design. J Hypertens 1993: 21Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Costa FV, Borghi C, Ambrosini E. Captopril and oxprenolol in a fixed combination with diuretics; comparison of their antihypertensive efficacy and metabolic effects. Clin Ther 1984; 6: 708–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Antihypertensive Agents. Racial differences in response to low-dose captopril are abolished by the addition of hydrochlorothiazide. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1982; 14 Suppl. 2: 97S–101SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Flack JM, Saunders E, Gradman A, et al. Antihypertensive efficacy and safety of losartan alone and in combination with hydrochlorothiazide in adult African Americans with mild to moderate hypertension. Clin Ther 2001; 23: 1193–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Owens P, Kelly L, Nallen R, et al. Comparison of antihypertensive and metabolic effects of losartan and losartan in combination with hydrochlorothiazide — a randomized controlled trial. J Hypertens 2000; 18: 339–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Luccioni R, Sever PS, DiPerri T, et al. An equivalence study of the safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of perindopril with indapamide versus fixed-dose combinations of captopril with hydrochlorothiazide and enalapril with hydrochlorothiazide in the treatment of hypertension. J Hypertens 1995; 13: 1847–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Oparil S, Guthrie R, Lewin AJ. An elective-titration study of the comparative effectiveness of two angiotensin II-receptor blockers, irbesartan and losartan. Irbesartan/Losartan Study Investigators. Clin Ther 1998; 20: 398–409PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Singer DRJ, Markandu ND, Sugden AI, et al. Sodium restriction in hypertensive patients treated with a converting enzyme inhibitor and a thiazide. Hypertension 1991; 17: 798–803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Dahlof B, Andren L, Eggertsen R, et al. Potentiation of the antihypertensive effect of enalapril by randomised addition of different doses of hydrochlorothiazide. J Hypertens 1985; 3: S483–6Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Guul SJ, Os I, Jounela AJ. The efficacy and tolerability of enalapril in a formulation with a very low dose of hydrochlorothiazide in hypertensive patients resistant to enalapril monotherapy. Am J Hypertens 1995; 8: 727–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Pool JL, Gennari J, Goldstein R, et al. Controlled multicentre study of antihypertensive effects of lisinopril, hydrochlorothiazide, lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide, in the treatment of 394 patients with mild to moderate essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1987; 9: S36–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Chalmers J, Castaigne A, Morgan T, et al. Long-term efficacy of a new, fixed, very low-dose angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/diuretic combination as first-line therapy in the elderly hypertensive. J Hypertens 2000; 18: 327–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Canter D, Frank GH, Knapp LK, et al. Quinapril and hydrochlorothiazide combination for control of hypertension: assessment by factorial design. J Hum Hypertens 1994; 8: 155–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Myers MG, Asmar R, Leenen FHH, et al. Fixed low-dose combination therapy in hypertension - a dose response study of perindopril and indapamide. J Hypertens 2000; 18: 317–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Soffer BA, Wright JT, Pratt JH, et al. Effects of losartan on a background of hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension. Hypertension 1995; 26: 112–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Pouleur HG. Clinical overview of irbesartan: a new angiotensin II receptor antagonist. Am J Hypertens 1997; 10: 318S–24SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Antonios TF, Cappuccio FP, Markandu ND, et al. A diuretic is more effective than a β-blocker in hypertensive patients not controlled on amlodipine and lisinopril. Hypertension 1996; 27: 1325–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Ratheiser K, Dusleag J, Seitl K, et al. A ’lipo-protectve’ effect of a fixed combination of captopril and hydrochlorothiazide in antihypertensive therapy. Clin Cardiol 1992; 15: 647–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Burnier M, Rutshmann B, Nussberger J, et al. Salt-dependent renal effects of an angiotensin II antagonist in healthy subjects. Hypertension 1993; 22: 339–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Weber M, Byyny RL, Pratt JH, et al. Blood pressure effects of the angiotensin-II receptor blocker, losartan. Arch Intern Med 1995; 155: 405–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Leonetti G, Terzoli L, Rupoli L, et al. Renal effects of felodipine in hypertension. Drugs 1987; 34 Suppl. 3: S59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Frishman WH, Ram CV, McMahon FG, et al. Comparison of amlodipine and benazepril monotherapy to amlodipine plus benazepril in patients with systemic hypertension: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study. J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 35: 1060–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Frishman WF, Landau A, Cretkovic A. Combination drug therapy with calcium-channel blockers in the treatment of systemic hypertension. J Clin Pharmacol 1993; 33: 752–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    DeQuattro V, Lee D. Fixed-dose combination therapy with trandolapril and verapamil SR is effective in primary hypertension. Trandolapril Study Group. Am J Hypertens 1997; 10: 138S–45SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Messerli F. Effects of combination therapy on the heart. In: Opie LH, Messerli F, editors. Combination drug therapy for hypertension 1997 New York: Lippincott-Raven Publishers,: 115–21Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Weir MR. When antihypertensive monotherapy fails: fixed-dose combination therapy. South Med J 2000; 93: 548–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Bakris G. The role of combination antihypertensive therapy and the progression of renal disease hypertension: looking toward the next millenium. Am J Hypertens 1998; 11: 158S–62SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Bakris GL, Weir MR, DeQuattro V, et al. Effects of an ACE inhibitor/calcium antagonist combination on proteinuria in diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int 1998; 54: 1283–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Sica DA. Diuretics: where have we been and where are we going? J Clin Hypertens 1999; 1: 148–53Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Taylor AA, Sunthornyothin S. The case for combining angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium-channel blockers. Curr Hypertens Rep 1999; 1: 446–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Ferrari R. Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor — calcium antagonist combination: an alliance for cardioprotection. J Hypertens 1997; 15 Suppl. 2: S109–17Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Guazzi MD, DeCesare N, Galli C, et al. Calcium channel blockade with nifedipine and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with captopril in the therapy of patients with severe primary hypertension. Circulation 1984; 70: 279–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Weir MR. The rationale for combination versus single-entity therapy in hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1998; 11: 163S–9SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Holzgreve H. Safety profile of the combination of verapamil and trandolapril. J Hypertens Suppl 1997; 15: S51–3PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Medical College of VirginiaVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations