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

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...

AHA 2025 | OCEAN Study: Anticoagulation vs. Antiplatelet Therapy After Successful Atrial Fibrillation Ablation

After a successful atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, the need to maintain long-term anticoagulation (AC) remains uncertain, especially considering the very low residual embolic risk...

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Related Articles

SOLACI Sessionsspot_img

Recent Articles

VECTOR: First Percutaneous Aorto-Coronary Bypass Case, a New Conceptual Approach

Coronary obstruction represents one of the most severe complications associated with transcatheter aortic valve implantation, particularly in valve-in-valve scenarios involving surgical bioprostheses, narrow aortic...

Comparison of strategies: NMA of IVUS, OCT, or angiography in complex lesions

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex lesions continues to represent a technical challenge in contemporary interventional cardiology. Angiography, although it remains the most widely...

Is upper-limb aerobic training an effective alternative to lower-limb exercise in peripheral artery disease?

Peripheral artery disease is associated with impaired functional capacity, reduced walking distance, and poorer quality of life, and structured exercise is a class I...