Rationale for Low-Dose Combination Therapy in Cardiovascular Risk Management

  • Joel M. Neutel
  • David H. G. Smith
Part of the Current Clinical Practice book series (CCP)


Data from recent studies have reconfirmed the importance of aggressive blood pressure (BP) control in protecting hypertensive patients from target organ damage. However, surveys performed to assess the adequacy of hypertension control in the United States have demonstrated that only one quarter of hypertensive patients are controlled at a level of 140/90 mmHg. If the currently recommended goals of 130/85 mmHg are applied, the controlled number is much less. Thus, our current approaches to the management of hypertension are failing in the most fundamental goals of treating hypertension. It is therefore crucial that we reassess the currently recommended approaches to hypertension to determine what changes need to be made in order to improve control rates.


Hypertensive Patient Side Effect Profile Losartan Potassium Amlodipine Besylate Diabetic Hypertensive Patient 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Burt VI, Cutler JA, Higgins M (1995) Trends in the prevalence, awareness, treatment and control of hypertension in the US population data from the Health Examination Surveys, 1960 to 1991. Hypertension 26: 60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sica DA (1994) Fixed dose combination antihypertensive drugs: do they have a role in rational therapy? Drugs 48: 16.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muller JE, Stone PH, Turi ZG (1985) Circadian variation in the frequency of onset of acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 313: 1315.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chobanian AV (1987) Effects of beta blockers and other antihypertensive drugs on cardiovascular risk. Am J Cardiol 59: S1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group (1983) Arch Intern Med 153: 186–193.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansson L, Zanchetti A, Carruthers SG, et al. (1998) Effects of intensive blood pressure lowering and low-dose aspirin in patients with hypertension: principal results of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) randomized trial. Lancet 351: 1755–1762.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Taylor Nelson Healthcare, Epson Survey (1992) England: Copyright Cardiomonitor.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marques-Vidal P, 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
  9. 9.
    Nieto FJ, Alonso J, Chambless LE, et al. (1995) Population awareness and control of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. Arch Intern Med 155: 667–684.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flack JM, Neaton J, Grimm R Jr, et al. (1995) Blood pressure and mortality among men with prior myocardial infarction. Multiple Risk Faction Intervention Trial Research Group. Circulation 92: 2437–2445.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    The sixth report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (1997) Arch Intern Med 157: 2413–2446.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neutel JM, Rolf CN, Valentine SN, et al. (1996) Low dose combination therapy as first line treatment of mild-to-moderate hypertension: the efficacy and safety of bisoprolol/HCTZ versus amlodipine, enalapril and placebo. Cardiovasc Rev Rep 71: 1.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kuschnir E, Acuna E, Sevilla D (1996) Treatment of patients with essential hypertension: amlodipine 5mg/benazepril 20mg compared with amlodipine 5mg/ benazepril 20mg and placebo. Clin Ther 18: 6–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tatti P, Pahor M, Byington RP, et al. (1998) Outcome results of the Fosinopril Versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events Randomized Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Diabetes Care 21: 597–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fogari R, Zoppi A, Malanani GD, Lusardi P, Destro M, Corradi L (1997) Effects of amlodipine vs enalapril on microalbuminuria in hypertensive patients with type II diabetes. Clin Drug Invest 13 (Suppl. 1): 42–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    MacMahon S, Petro R, Cutler J, et al. (1990) Blood pressure, stroke and coronary heart disease. Part I. Prolonged differences in blood pressure: prospective observational studies corrected for the regression dilutional bias. Lancet 335: 765.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stamler J, Stamler R, Neaton JD (1993) Blood pressure, systolic and diastolic and cardiovascular risks. US Population Data. Arch Intern Med 153: 598.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joel M. Neutel
  • David H. G. Smith

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations