Go to main contents Go to main menus

사용자별 맞춤메뉴

자주찾는 메뉴

추가하기
닫기

Research Articles

contents area

detail content area

Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from ...
  • Date2021-02-23 19:06
  • Update2021-02-23 19:06
  • CountersignatureDivision of Research Planning
  • Tel043-719-8033

Korean Circulation Journal, 2020.50(1), 52-68, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4070/kcj.2019.0173


Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts

Seng Chan You, Sungjae Jung; Joel N. Swerdel; Patrick B. Ryan; Martijn J. Schuemie; Marc A. Suchard; Seongwon Lee; Jaehyeong Cho; George Hripcsak; Rae Woong Park; Sungha Park


Abstract

    Background and objectives: 2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D).
    Methods: Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure.
    Results: A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95-1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; p=0.040) than A+D.
    Conclusions: There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.



  • 본 연구는 질병관리본부 연구개발과제연구비를 지원받아 수행되었습니다.
  • This research was supported by a fund by Research of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


This public work may be used under the terms of the public interest source This public work may be used under the terms of the public interest source
TOP