Amlodipine monotherapy vs. amlodipine-ARB combination therapy as first-line treatment for primary hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Pub Date : 2026-04-22 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fcvm.2026.1779673
Yusra Pintaningrum, Claresta Salsabila Putri Evianto, Romi Ermawan, Fitri Damayanti, R Mohamad Javier, Kristian Kurniawan
{"title":"Amlodipine monotherapy vs. amlodipine-ARB combination therapy as first-line treatment for primary hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Yusra Pintaningrum, Claresta Salsabila Putri Evianto, Romi Ermawan, Fitri Damayanti, R Mohamad Javier, Kristian Kurniawan","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2026.1779673","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Some clinical guidelines recommend initiating combination antihypertensive therapy as first-line treatment rather than monotherapy. Evidence indicates that a substantial proportion of patients with hypertension require more than one antihypertensive agent to achieve recommended blood pressure targets. However, it remains unclear whether the benefits of initiating combination therapy outweigh the potential risks compared with antihypertensive monotherapy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of blood pressure control and the risk of drug-related adverse events associated with amlodipine monotherapy compared against first-line combination therapy of amlodipine and an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients with primary hypertension.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Library up to 15 November 2025, using the following search terms: \"amlodipine\" AND \"angiotensin receptor blocker\" AND \"primary hypertension\" AND \"randomized controlled trial.\" Only randomized controlled trials comparing amlodipine monotherapy with first-line combination therapy of amlodipine and an ARB, administered for at least 8 weeks, were included. The primary outcomes were blood pressure control and drug-related adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.4.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on six included studies, the analytical results showed that combination therapy with Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) and an ARB was associated with 2.25 (odds ratio = 2.25: 95% CI: 1.78-2.83) times odds ratio with statistically significant overall effect (<i>P</i> < 0.00001) and 0.93 (risk ratio = 0.93: 95% CI: 0.82-1.05) times risk ratio with statistically insignificant overall effect (<i>P</i> = 0.24) compared with CCB (amlodipine 5 mg) monotherapy.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The results of this study indicate that combination therapy with CCB and an ARB is associated with a 2.25-fold higher likelihood of achieving blood pressure control, with a significant correlation, and a lower risk of drug-related adverse events, without a significant correlation, compared with CCB monotherapy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12414,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"13 ","pages":"1779673"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13144120/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2026.1779673","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Some clinical guidelines recommend initiating combination antihypertensive therapy as first-line treatment rather than monotherapy. Evidence indicates that a substantial proportion of patients with hypertension require more than one antihypertensive agent to achieve recommended blood pressure targets. However, it remains unclear whether the benefits of initiating combination therapy outweigh the potential risks compared with antihypertensive monotherapy.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the efficacy of blood pressure control and the risk of drug-related adverse events associated with amlodipine monotherapy compared against first-line combination therapy of amlodipine and an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) in patients with primary hypertension.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, and the Cochrane Library up to 15 November 2025, using the following search terms: "amlodipine" AND "angiotensin receptor blocker" AND "primary hypertension" AND "randomized controlled trial." Only randomized controlled trials comparing amlodipine monotherapy with first-line combination therapy of amlodipine and an ARB, administered for at least 8 weeks, were included. The primary outcomes were blood pressure control and drug-related adverse events. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.4.

Results: Based on six included studies, the analytical results showed that combination therapy with Calcium Channel Blocker (CCB) and an ARB was associated with 2.25 (odds ratio = 2.25: 95% CI: 1.78-2.83) times odds ratio with statistically significant overall effect (P < 0.00001) and 0.93 (risk ratio = 0.93: 95% CI: 0.82-1.05) times risk ratio with statistically insignificant overall effect (P = 0.24) compared with CCB (amlodipine 5 mg) monotherapy.

Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that combination therapy with CCB and an ARB is associated with a 2.25-fold higher likelihood of achieving blood pressure control, with a significant correlation, and a lower risk of drug-related adverse events, without a significant correlation, compared with CCB monotherapy.

氨氯地平单药治疗与氨氯地平- arb联合治疗作为原发性高血压的一线治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景:一些临床指南建议将联合降压治疗作为一线治疗,而不是单一治疗。有证据表明,相当大比例的高血压患者需要一种以上的降压药来达到推荐的血压目标。然而,与单一抗高血压治疗相比,联合治疗的益处是否大于潜在风险尚不清楚。目的:本研究通过系统回顾和荟萃分析,比较氨氯地平单药治疗与氨氯地平联合血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARB)一线联合治疗对原发性高血压患者血压控制的疗效和药物相关不良事件的风险。方法:系统检索PubMed、PubMed Central和Cochrane Library,检索截止到2025年11月15日,检索词为:“氨氯地平”、“血管紧张素受体阻滞剂”、“原发性高血压”和“随机对照试验”。仅纳入比较氨氯地平单药治疗与氨氯地平和ARB一线联合治疗至少8周的随机对照试验。主要结局是血压控制和药物相关不良事件。meta分析使用Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4版本进行。结果:基于6项纳入的研究,分析结果显示,与CCB(氨氯地平5 mg)单药治疗相比,钙通道阻滞剂(CCB)和ARB联合治疗的总疗效(P = 0.24)为2.25(优势比= 2.25:95% CI: 1.78-2.83)倍的优势比。结论:本研究结果表明,与CCB单药治疗相比,CCB和ARB联合治疗与实现血压控制的可能性高2.25倍相关,具有显著相关性,并且药物相关不良事件的风险较低,但无显著相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
11.10%
发文量
3529
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Frontiers? Which frontiers? Where exactly are the frontiers of cardiovascular medicine? And who should be defining these frontiers? At Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine we believe it is worth being curious to foresee and explore beyond the current frontiers. In other words, we would like, through the articles published by our community journal Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine, to anticipate the future of cardiovascular medicine, and thus better prevent cardiovascular disorders and improve therapeutic options and outcomes of our patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书