• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在随机治疗基础上需要额外药物的高血压患者中,心血管风险更高且降压治疗获益受损:加用药物总是有益的吗?

Higher cardiovascular risk and impaired benefit of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients requiring additional drugs on top of randomized therapy: is adding drugs always beneficial?

机构信息

Divisions of Hypertension and Biometrics, FuWai Hospital and Cardiovascular Institute, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.

出版信息

J Hypertens. 2012 Nov;30(11):2202-12. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283582eec.

DOI:10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283582eec
PMID:22990352
Abstract

BACKGROUND

In antihypertensive treatment trials, when randomized therapies do not reach target, additional drugs are administered. However, patients requiring (add-on) or not requiring add-on therapy (no-add-on) may be at different cardiovascular risk and differently susceptible to benefits of antihypertensive treatment.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Felodipine Event Reduction study included 9711 Chinese hypertensive patients receiving 12.5  mg/day hydrochlorothiazide and randomized to associating either felodipine (5  mg/day) or placebo. Within 6 months, add-on therapy (further diuretic and other drugs) was required by 2185 patients, whereas 7243 did not require it. Despite significant SBP/DBP reductions by add-on therapy, outcome incidence remained much lower in no-add-on than in add-on patients: hazard ratios for various outcomes, after adjusting for baseline variables and blood pressure (BP) at time of add-on decision, were 0.22-0.368 (P always <0.001) and remained substantially unchanged when further adjusted for the small SBP/DBP difference persisting during follow-up treatment (-2.4/-1.1  mmHg in no-add-on). When felodipine was compared to placebo, the benefit of a lower SBP/DBP caused by felodipine was evident in the no-add-on patients (hazard ratio 0.45-0.68, P always <0.001), but it was lost in the add-on group (hazard ratio 0.91-1.17).

CONCLUSION

Comparing patients more or less easily responding to antihypertensive treatment may identify patients at high risk of outcomes and less susceptible to benefits of a lower BP. It remains to be more directly investigated to what extent adding drugs to drugs is effective in reducing outcomes of patients in whom simple antihypertensive therapy does not achieve goal BP.

摘要

背景

在降压治疗试验中,当随机治疗未达到目标时,会加用其他药物。然而,需要(加用)或不需要(不加用)加用治疗的患者可能具有不同的心血管风险,并且对降压治疗的益处的敏感性不同。

方法和结果

费洛地平事件减少研究纳入了 9711 例接受 12.5 毫克/天氢氯噻嗪治疗的中国高血压患者,随机分为联合使用非洛地平(5 毫克/天)或安慰剂。在 6 个月内,有 2185 例患者需要加用治疗(进一步使用利尿剂和其他药物),而 7243 例患者不需要。尽管加用治疗可显著降低 SBP/DBP,但加用组的结局发生率仍明显低于不加用组:在调整了基线变量和加用决策时的血压(BP)后,各种结局的风险比为 0.22-0.368(P 始终<0.001),当进一步调整随访治疗期间持续存在的较小 SBP/DBP 差异(在不加用组中分别为-2.4/-1.1mmHg)时,风险比基本保持不变。与安慰剂相比,非洛地平可降低 SBP/DBP,从而使非加用组患者获益(风险比 0.45-0.68,P 始终<0.001),但在加用组中获益消失(风险比 0.91-1.17)。

结论

比较对降压治疗更易或更不易反应的患者可能会发现结局风险较高且对降低血压的益处敏感性较低的患者。仍需更直接地研究在单纯降压治疗不能达到目标血压的患者中,加用药物是否能更有效地降低结局。

相似文献

1
Higher cardiovascular risk and impaired benefit of antihypertensive treatment in hypertensive patients requiring additional drugs on top of randomized therapy: is adding drugs always beneficial?在随机治疗基础上需要额外药物的高血压患者中,心血管风险更高且降压治疗获益受损:加用药物总是有益的吗?
J Hypertens. 2012 Nov;30(11):2202-12. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283582eec.
2
The Felodipine Event Reduction (FEVER) Study: a randomized long-term placebo-controlled trial in Chinese hypertensive patients.非洛地平降压疗效和安全性研究(FEVER):一项针对中国高血压患者的随机、长期、安慰剂对照试验。
J Hypertens. 2005 Dec;23(12):2157-72. doi: 10.1097/01.hjh.0000194120.42722.ac.
3
Cardiovascular outcomes in hypertensive patients: comparing single-agent therapy with combination therapy.高血压患者的心血管结局:比较单药治疗与联合治疗。
J Hypertens. 2012 Nov;30(11):2213-22. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0b013e3283582ed6.
4
Is a systolic blood pressure target <140 mmHg indicated in all hypertensives? Subgroup analyses of findings from the randomized FEVER trial.收缩压目标<140mmHg 是否适用于所有高血压患者?FEVER 随机试验结果的亚组分析。
Eur Heart J. 2011 Jun;32(12):1500-8. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr039. Epub 2011 Feb 22.
5
Efficacy and tolerability of combination therapy with valsartan plus hydrochlorothiazide compared with amlodipine monotherapy in hypertensive patients with other cardiovascular risk factors: the VAST study.缬沙坦联合氢氯噻嗪与氨氯地平单药治疗对伴有其他心血管危险因素的高血压患者的疗效及耐受性比较:VAST研究
Clin Ther. 2005 May;27(5):578-87. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.05.006.
6
Antihypertensive efficacy and tolerability of two fixed-dose combinations of valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide compared with valsartan monotherapy in patients with stage 2 or 3 systolic hypertension: an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial.缬沙坦与氢氯噻嗪两种固定剂量复方制剂与缬沙坦单药治疗对2或3期收缩期高血压患者的降压疗效及耐受性比较:一项为期8周的随机、双盲、平行组试验
Clin Ther. 2005 Jul;27(7):1013-21. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.07.010.
7
Comparison of the antihypertensive effects of the fixed dose combination enalapril 10 mg/nitrendipine 20 mg vs losartan 50 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg, assessed by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, in essential hypertensive patients.通过24小时动态血压监测评估依那普利10毫克/尼群地平20毫克固定剂量复方制剂与氯沙坦50毫克/氢氯噻嗪12.5毫克对原发性高血压患者的降压效果比较。
J Hum Hypertens. 2004 Mar;18(3):215-22. doi: 10.1038/sj.jhh.1001655.
8
Clinical efficacy and tolerability of alpha-blocker doxazosin as add-on therapy in patients with hypertension and impaired glucose metabolism.α受体阻滞剂多沙唑嗪作为高血压合并糖代谢受损患者附加治疗的临床疗效及耐受性
Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis. 2006 Mar;16(2):137-47. doi: 10.1016/j.numecd.2005.04.005. Epub 2005 Oct 20.
9
Blood pressure-lowering efficacy of amiloride versus enalapril as add-on drugs in patients with uncontrolled blood pressure receiving hydrochlorothiazide.在接受氢氯噻嗪治疗但血压控制不佳的患者中,阿米洛利与依那普利作为附加药物的降压疗效比较。
Clin Exp Hypertens. 2008 Oct;30(7):553-64. doi: 10.1080/10641960802441906.
10
A factorial study of combination hypertension treatment with metoprolol succinate extended release and felodipine extended release results of the Metoprolol Succinate-Felodipine Antihypertension Combination Trial (M-FACT).美托洛尔琥珀酸盐缓释片与非洛地平缓释片联合治疗高血压的析因研究——美托洛尔琥珀酸盐-非洛地平抗高血压联合试验(M-FACT)结果
Am J Hypertens. 2006 Apr;19(4):388-95. doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2005.10.007.

引用本文的文献

1
Optimal blood pressure control with fewer antihypertensive medications: Achieved mostly in low-risk hypertensive patients.最佳血压控制需要更少的降压药物:在低危高血压患者中大多可实现。
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2024 Nov;26(11):1284-1290. doi: 10.1111/jch.14903. Epub 2024 Sep 28.
2
Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension.钙通道阻滞剂与其他类药物治疗高血压的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jan 9;1(1):CD003654. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003654.pub6.
3
Calcium channel blockers versus other classes of drugs for hypertension.
钙通道阻滞剂与其他降压药物的比较。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Oct 17;10(10):CD003654. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003654.pub5.
4
What is new in the 2018 Chinese hypertension guideline and the implication for the management of hypertension in Asia?2018 年中国高血压指南有哪些新内容,对亚洲高血压管理有何影响?
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2020 Mar;22(3):363-368. doi: 10.1111/jch.13803. Epub 2020 Jan 19.
5
Application of causal inference methods in the analyses of randomised controlled trials: a systematic review.因果推断方法在随机对照试验分析中的应用:一项系统综述。
Trials. 2018 Jan 10;19(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2381-x.
6
High blood pressure: An obscuring misnomer?高血压:一个容易造成混淆的不恰当名称?
Anatol J Cardiol. 2016 Sep;16(9):713-9. doi: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2016.7054. Epub 2016 Jul 31.
7
Comorbidities and mortality in hypercapnic obese under domiciliary noninvasive ventilation.高碳酸血症肥胖患者行家庭无创通气治疗的合并症与死亡率。
PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e52006. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052006. Epub 2013 Jan 16.