Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42222159›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026

Comparative efficacy and safety of dual-combination vs. triple-combination antihypertensive therapies in hypertensive patients: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhuoling Gong, Lijun Huang, Xinru Long, Yan Zhang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zhuoling GongJiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, China.
Lijun HuangThe Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, China.
Xinru LongJiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, China.
Yan ZhangThe Affiliated Hospital of Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Combination therapy is often required for treating hypertension,but the comparative efficacy and safety of triple versus dual antihypertensive regimens remain to be clarified by the latest evidence-based medical data. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of dual versus triple antihypertensive drug therapy for adult primary hypertension, providing updated evidence to support clinical decision-making. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across four databases-PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science-up to July 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials comparing dual antihypertensive therapy with triple antihypertensive therapy for treating adult primary hypertension. The primary outcome was mean seated blood pressure; secondary outcomes included blood pressure control rates and adverse events. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two independent researchers.The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate study quality; data analysis was conducted using Stata 15.1 software. Results: A total of 21 studies involving 17,669 patients were ultimately included. Of these, 6,918 patients received triple therapy and 10,751 patients received dual therapy. Triple therapy reduced systolic blood pressure [WMD: -5.98 mmHg, (95% CI: -7.04, -4.92)] and diastolic blood pressure [WMD: -3.34 mmHg, (95% CI: -4.03, -2.65)]. In the ARB subgroup, valsartan-based triple therapy demonstrated significant blood pressure-lowering effects on systolic blood pressure [WMD = -7.41 mmHg, (95% CI: -8.91 to -5.91)] and diastolic blood pressure [WMD = -4.57 mmHg, (95% CI: -5.65 to -3.49)]. An evaluation of 14 adverse reaction symptoms revealed that triple therapy improved patient fatigue [RR: 0.80, (95% CI: 0.67, 0.96)]. Triple therapy increased the rate of blood pressure control [RR: 1.31, (95% CI: 1.23, 1.39)]. Conclusion: Compared with the dual-drug regimen, the triple-drug antihypertensive regimen may be more effective for short-term blood pressure control, and its overall safety profile is acceptable. However, the subgroup analyses in this study represent exploratory findings only and cannot be directly used to guide clinical drug selection. Given that, although the evidence for the primary efficacy outcome is of moderate certainty, significant heterogeneity remains, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Indexed as

antihypertensive drugsdual-combinationhypertensionmeta-analysistriple-combination

Identifiers

PMID42222159
PMCPMC13219965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.