Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advantages of Combination Therapy Compared with Monotherapy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Combination Therapy in Hypertension

Abstract

Properties of the ideal antihypertensive agent are given in Fig. 3.1. These properties are difficult to achieve with monotherapy; therefore, low doses of complementary drugs have been combined in an attempt to create a treatment for hypertension that is closer to the ideal. Administration of two complementary antihypertensive drugs in combination is always associated with greater efficacy than uptitration of an individual antihypertensive agent and provides an improved adverse event profile compared with monotherapy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Neutel JM. The role of combination therapy in the management of hypertension. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2006; 21(6):1469–74.

    Google Scholar 

  2. F rishman WH, Bryzinski BS, Coulson LR, et al. A multifactorial trial design to assess combination therapy in hypertension. Treatment with bisoprolol and hydrochlorothiazide. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154:1461–8.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kochar M, Guthrie R, Triscari J, Kassler-Taub K, Reeves RA. Matrix study of irbesartan with hydrochlorothiazide in mild-to-moderate hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1999; 12:797–805.

    Google Scholar 

  4. C hrysant SG, Weber MA, Wang AC, Hinman DJ. Evaluation of antihypertensive therapy with the combination of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide. Am J Hypertens 2004; 17:252–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Neutel JM. The use of combination drug therapy in the treatment of hypertension. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs 2002; 17(2):81–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Whitworth JA; World Health Organization, International Society of Hypertension Writing Group. 2003 World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Hypertension (ISH) statement on management of hypertension. J Hypertens 2003; 21(11):1983–92.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Paramore LC, Halpern MT, Lapuerta P, et al. Impact of poorly controlled hypertension on healthcare resource utilization and cost. Am J Manag Care 2001; 7:389–98.

    Google Scholar 

  8. T aylor AA, Shoheiber O. Adherence to antihypertensive therapy with fixed-dose amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl versus comparable component-based therapy. Congest Heart Fail 2003; 9:324–32.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Neutel JM Combination therapy and the treatment of hypertension. Cardiology Special Edition 2003; 9(1 of 2):11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Weber MA, Bakris GL, Neutel JM, Davidai G, Giles TD. Quality of life measured in a practice-based hypertension trial of an angiotensin receptor blocker. J Clin Hypertens 2003; 5(5):322–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. P risant LM, Weir MR, Frishman WH, Neutel JM, Davidov ME, Lewin AJ. Self reported sexual dysfunction in men and women treated with bisoprolol, hydrochlorothiazide, enalapril, amlodipine, placebo, or bisoprolol/hydrochlorothiazide. J Clin Hypertens 1999; 1(1):22–6.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Neutel JM, Smith DH. Improving patient compliance: a major goal in the management of hypertension. J Clin Hypertens 2003; 5(2):127–32.

    Google Scholar 

  13. M ontgomery AA, Harding J, Fahey T. Shared decision making in hypertension: the impact of patient preferences on treatment choice. Fam Pract 2001; 18(3):309–13. Adv antages of combination therapy • 35

    Google Scholar 

  14. N eutel JM. Metabolic manifestations of low-dose diuretics. Am J Med 1996; 101(3A): 71S–82S.

    Google Scholar 

  15. M iddeke M, Richter WO, Schwandt P, Holzgreve H. The effects of antihypertensive combination therapy on lipid and glucose metabolism: hydrochlorothiazide plus sotalol vs. hydrochlorothiazide plus captopril. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 35(6):231–4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Quiñones-Galvan A, Pucciarelli A, Ciociaro D, Masoni A, Franzoni F, Natali A, Ferrannini E. Metabolic effects of combined antihypertensive treatment in patients with essential hypertension. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2002; 40(6):916–21.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Neutel JM, Rolf CN, Valentine SN, Li J, Lucus C, Marmorstein BL. 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 1996; 71:33–45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Internal Medicine, Orange County Research Center, Tustin, CA, USA

    Joel Neutel

Authors
  1. Joel Neutel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joel Neutel .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Healthcare

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Neutel, J. (2011). Advantages of Combination Therapy Compared with Monotherapy. In: Combination Therapy in Hypertension. Springer Healthcare, Tarporley. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-908517-28-9_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-908517-28-9_3

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer Healthcare, Tarporley

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-908517-25-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-908517-28-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation