We found moderate- to high-quality evidence of reduced risk of cytomegalovirus infection in renal transplant recipients in the mTOR inhibitor-based compared with the calcineurin inhibitor-based regimen. Our review also suggested that a combination of a mTOR inhibitor and a reduced dose of calcineurin inhibitor may be associated with similar eGFR and rates of acute rejections and serious adverse events compared with a standard calcineurin inhibitor-based regimen at the expense of higher incidence of proteinuria and wound-healing complications.

BackgroundIn a free drug combination, each Blood pressure (BP)-lowering drug is administered as a separate pill, while in a fixed drug combination several BP-lowering agents are combined in a single pill. Using a single pill may enhance compliance and simplify treatment, which would translate into better clinical outcomes. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the effects of using a fixed combination versus free combination of BP-lowering agents in the management of patients with essential hypertension.MethodsWe searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) addressing the objective of the review and assessing at least one of the following outcomes: BP-lowering efficacy, rapidity in achieving BP target, compliance, incidence of side effects, mortality, and morbidity. Two review authors independently selected eligible studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included trials. The primary meta-analyses used a random-effects model.ResultsWe identified seven RCTs with a total of 397 participants. Meta-analysis of efficacy in controlling BP showed a non-significant reduction of mean systolic BP of 0.81 mmHg (95% CI -3.25, 1.64) favoring the fixed combination group. As for adverse events, results showed a non-significant 13% risk reduction favoring the free combination (risk ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.85, 1.5). Low quality of evidence was noted for both outcomes. Rapidity in achieving BP target was assessed in only one trial, and the results favored the fixed combination. Adherence to treatment was assessed in three trials, no pooled analysis was possible for this outcome. None of the included trials assessed mortality and morbidity.ConclusionThe available low quality evidence does not confirm or rule out a substantive difference between fixed combination and free combination therapy in the management of HTN. Well designed RCTs with a long duration of follow-up and assessment of morbidity and mortality outcomes are needed.

Hypertension (HTN) is a worldwide health problem and a major preventable risk factor for cardiovascular (CV) events. Achieving an optimal blood pressure (BP) target for patients with HTN will often require more than one BP-lowering drug. Combination therapy is not only needed, but also confers many advantages such as better efficacy and a better tolerability. A better compliance and simplicity of treatment is noted with the single-pill combination (SPC). In addition, for those patients who do not achieve BP target when receiving dual combinations, triple SPCs are now available, and their efficacy and safety have been tested in large clinical trials. BP-lowering drugs used in combination therapy should have complementary mechanisms of action, leading to an additive BP-lowering effect and improvement in overall tolerability, achieved by decreasing the incidence of adverse effects. On the basis of large, outcome-driven trials, preferred dual combinations include an angiotensin receptor antagonist (ARB) or an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) combined with a calcium channel blocker (CCB), or an ARB or ACEI combined with a diuretic. Acceptable dual combinations include a direct rennin inhibitor (DRI) and a CCB, a DRI and a diuretic, a beta-blocker and a diuretic, a CCB and a diuretic, a CCB and a beta-blocker, a dihydropyridine CCB and a non-dihydropyridine CCB, and a thiazide diuretic combined with a potassium-sparing diuretic. Some combinations are not recommended and may even be harmful, such as dual renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibition. Currently available triple SPCs combine a renin angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitor with a CCB and a diuretic. Combination therapy as an initial approach is advocated in patients with a systolic BP more than 20 mmHg and/or a diastolic BP more than 10 mmHg above target and in patients with high CV risk. In addition, using SPCs has been stressed and favored in recent international guidelines. Recently, triple SPCs have been approved and provide an attractive option for patients not achieving BP target on dual combination. The effect of such a strategy in the overall management of HTN, especially on further reducing the incidence of CV events, will have to be confirmed in future clinical and population-based studies.

Clopidogrel irreversibly binds to the P2Y12 platelet receptor and acts as a potent inhibitor of platelet activation and aggregation. It is currently recommended for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes, recent ischemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease. Clopidogrel is a prodrug requiring hepatic conversion into its active metabolite. In the general population, genetic polymorphisms in the CYP2C19 gene interfering with hepatic conversion and the ABCB1 gene interfering with gut absorption of clopidogrel, account for the large interindividual response to clopidogrel and clopidogrel resistance. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) and ESKD are independent risk factors for clopidogrel resistance; 50-80% of patients with ESKD have high on-treatment residual platelet reactivity when treated with clopidogrel. This may partially explain the abysmal outcomes for patients with kidney disease post coronary intervention. Several assays are used to determine residual on-treatment platelet reactivity; however, their use in tailoring the suitability of clopidogrel treatment in patients with ESKD is unclear. Although clopidogrel decreased cardiovascular events in the general population after acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous intervention in the CURE and CREDO trials, a reanalysis of these studies in patients with CKD (eGFR <60 ml/minute) showed either a reduced or no benefit from clopidogrel treatment. ESKD patients were not represented in these two large trials; this is true for most of the trials that established clopidogrel as an integral part of the therapeutic armamentarium for cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, clopidogrel has been associated with an increased risk of death, death from bleeding, and hospitalization for bleeding in patients with ESKD. In conclusion, current evidence suggests that ESKD patients may not derive the same benefits from clopidogrel therapy as the general population and this therapy may be associated with harm. Properly designed observational studies and randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the role of clopidogrel in patients with ESKD, the use of platelet assays to tailor therapy, and the role of other antiplatelet agents such as prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients who exhibit high on-treatment residual platelet reactivity.