Hypertensive Patients: Maximizing Doses or Adding New Drugs

Adding new medication in moderate doses to control hypertension conveniently maximizes efficacy, reduces adverse effects and minimizes costs, among other advantages.  On the flipside, patients having to remember a whole list of drugs and their combination will often lead to non-adherence or forgetfulness. The latter has been shown not only by dedicated trials, but also by studies on renal denervation. 

Escalar dosis o agregar nuevas medicaciones en pacientes con hipertensión arterial

This new study takes us back to the old school approach: maximizing antihypertensives, which is the simplest and most manageable strategy vs. constantly adding small doses of new drugs (at least in elderly patients). 

The SPRINT study supports intensifying medication in hypertensive adults. Notwithstanding, guidelines have differed on their preferred strategy. Europe proposes the combination of at least 2 drugs and no limits to achieve our target, and except for high-risk patients, the US does not propose a specific strategy. 

Here is where we should wonder: what is more important, the strategy or reaching our target? Both solutions to this problem have pros and cons, which is why reaching our target should remain our priority, and non-compliant patients will hardly meet their target. 

With elderly patients already on several drugs who might also be cognitively deteriorated, maximizing doses and simplifying their scheme seems to be the most practical thing to do. 

This study assessed 178,562 hypertensive patients (>130 mmHg) ≥ 65. They were all on at least one antihypertensive, at less than maximum dose between 2011 and 2013. Drug mean was 2.


Read also: Drug-Eluting Balloons Find Their Niche.


25.5% of the population intensified their therapy adding one drug, while the remaining 74.5% maximized one of the drugs already indicated, without adding any other drug to their scheme. 

After 3-month followup, patients who had maximized doses had more chances of maintaining control or reaching the same level of patients who added one new drug (65.0% vs 49.8%). This difference was maintained after multiple adjustments and results were true also at 12 months. 

To be fair, patients who added one new drug did achieve a more pronounced reduction that was maintained at 12 months. In absolute terms, this reduction reached 1 mmHg.


Read also: More Keys to Define Moderate Aortic Stenosis.


Patients not being able to maintain higher doses because of adverse effects conceals the fact that patients will not adhere to complicated schemes because they forget to take their drugs. 

A mere 1 mmHg difference reveals both strategies are adequate. Physicians are the ones in charge of assessing patients and opting for one or the other option

Original Title: Adding a New Medication Versus Maximizing Dose to Intensify Hypertension Treatment in Older Adults : A Prospective Observational Study.

Reference: Carole E Aubert et al. Ann Intern Med. 2021 Oct 5. Online ahead of print. doi: 10.7326/M21-1456. 


Subscribe to our weekly newsletter

Get the latest scientific articles on interventional cardiology

More articles by this author

How real are the adverse effects of statins? Evidence from randomized clinical trials

The safety of statins continues to be a subject of debate, partly due to the extensive list of adverse effects included in prescribing information,...

Is it safe to use negative chronotropic drugs early after TAVI?

TAVI is associated with a relevant incidence of conduction system disturbances and the development of atrioventricular block that may require permanent pacemaker implantation. Many...

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Diabetic Patients with AMI: De-Escalation Strategy

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a common comorbidity in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) of increasing prevalence over the last decade, associated with...

AHA 2025 | OPTIMA-AF: 1 Month vs. 12 Months of Dual Therapy (DOAC + P2Y12) After PCI in Atrial Fibrillation

Concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease is a common occurrence in clinical practice. In these patients, current guidelines recommend 1 month of...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

OCT- and IVUS-Guided Coronary Angioplasty in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Long-Term Clinical Outcomes

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty (PCI) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has reduced mortality in the acute phase. However, recurrent ACS and target vessel...

One-Year Results of ENCIRCLE: Percutaneous Mitral Valve Replacement in Patients Ineligible for Surgery or TEER

Symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR) in patients who are not candidates for surgery or transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) remains a highly complex clinical scenario associated...

Can Coronary CT Angiography Replace Invasive Coronary Angiography in Pre-TAVI Coronary Assessment?

Coronary artery disease coexists in approximately half of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation, making coronary assessment prior to the procedure essential. Invasive coronary...