z-logo
Premium
Hypertension guidelines, meta‐analyses and clinical trials: do we assume too much?
Author(s) -
Peverill Roger E
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
medical journal of australia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.904
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1326-5377
pISSN - 0025-729X
DOI - 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06582.x
Subject(s) - guideline , medicine , meta analysis , clinical trial , drug , drug class , first line , intensive care medicine , pharmacology , medline , drug trial , political science , pathology , law
Given fundamental differences in the recommendations in guidelines from major national and international committees, we cannot rely on them unquestioningly. Different antihypertensive agents are known to have differing effects according to age and race. Exchanging (rather than following guideline recommendations of adding to) an ineffective first‐line antihypertensive drug can result in control of hypertension with monotherapy. Conclusions about a preferable first‐line antihypertensive agent are limited by trial protocols with varying drug doses and questionable drug combinations. Guidelines are often based on meta‐analyses of drugs of a particular class, which could ignore important differences between drugs within a class. Trials of 3–5 years cannot determine the long‐term effects of drugs which patients often take for decades.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom