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.
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.