Wang Ji-Guang, Staessen Jan A
Departement Moleculair en Cardiovasculair Onderzoek, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2003 Jan-Feb;5(1):66-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-6175.2003.01307.x.
In a quantitative overview of published trials, we investigated whether pharmacologic properties of antihypertensive drugs, as opposed to reduction in blood pressure, explain cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive or high-risk patients. We used meta-regression to investigate the association between the odds ratios of outcome (experimental vs. reference treatment) and the corresponding blood pressure differences between study groups. Thus, we correlated odds ratios with between-group differences in systolic pressure. We then compared odds ratios of benefit observed in recent trials with those predicted by meta-regression on the basis of the differences in systolic pressure between randomized groups. Among nine actively-controlled trials in hypertension, significant differences in systolic pressure (follow-up minus baseline) between randomized groups (experimental minus reference) were observed in the ALLHAT, CAPPP, MIDAS, and NORDIL trials. Furthermore, the differences in achieved systolic and/or diastolic pressure between study groups were also significant in the hypertension trials and studies in high-risk patients, which involved untreated control patients. The differences between the observed odds ratios and those predicted by meta-regression did not reach statistical significance except for NORDIL and the single-drug therapy subgroup of the PROGRESS trial. In NORDIL, the risk of stroke was lower on diltiazem than on the older drug classes despite a 3.1 mm Hg higher systolic pressure on the calcium channel blocker. In PROGRESS, perindopril alone reduced blood pressure by 5/3 mm Hg, but did not affect the incidence of all cardiovascular events or the recurrence of stroke. In conclusion, the finding that in the reviewed trials blood pressure reduction largely accounted for outcome emphasizes the desirability of tight blood pressure control. The hypothesis that blood pressure-lowering medications might influence cardiovascular prognosis over and beyond their antihypertensive effect remains to a large extent unproved.
在一项已发表试验的定量综述中,我们研究了抗高血压药物的药理学特性,而非血压降低本身,是否能解释高血压或高危患者的心血管结局。我们使用meta回归来研究结局的比值比(试验组与对照组治疗)与研究组之间相应的血压差异之间的关联。因此,我们将比值比与收缩压的组间差异进行了关联分析。然后,我们将近期试验中观察到的获益比值比与基于随机分组间收缩压差异的meta回归预测值进行了比较。在九项高血压的积极对照试验中,在ALLHAT、CAPPP、MIDAS和NORDIL试验中观察到随机分组(试验组减去对照组)之间收缩压(随访值减去基线值)存在显著差异。此外,在高血压试验以及涉及未治疗对照患者的高危患者研究中,研究组之间达到的收缩压和/或舒张压差异也很显著。除了NORDIL试验和PROGRESS试验的单药治疗亚组外,观察到的比值比与meta回归预测值之间的差异未达到统计学显著性。在NORDIL试验中,尽管钙通道阻滞剂组的收缩压高3.1 mmHg,但地尔硫䓬组的中风风险低于旧药物类别组。在PROGRESS试验中,单独使用培哚普利可使血压降低5/3 mmHg,但并未影响所有心血管事件的发生率或中风的复发率。总之,在所审查的试验中血压降低在很大程度上解释了结局这一发现强调了严格控制血压的必要性。降压药物可能在其降压作用之外影响心血管预后这一假设在很大程度上仍未得到证实。