4.7 Article

Risk of Developing Hypokalemia in Patients With Hypertension Treated With Combination Antihypertensive Therapy

期刊

HYPERTENSION
卷 75, 期 4, 页码 966-972

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.14223

关键词

calcium channel blockers; hypertension; hypokalemia; potassium; thiazides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about the occurrence of hypokalemia due to combination therapy for hypertension. Using data from Danish administrative registries, we investigated the association between different combinations of antihypertensive therapy and risk of developing hypokalemia. Using incidence density matching, 2 patients without hypokalemia were matched to a patient with hypokalemia (K, <3.5 mmol/L) on age, sex, renal function, and time between index date and date of potassium measurement. Combination therapies were subdivided into 10 groups including beta-blockers (BB)+thiazides (BB+thiazides), calcium channel blockers (CCB)+renin angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi)+thiazides (CCB+RASi+Thiazides), calcium channel blockers+thiazides (CCB+thiazides), and beta-blockers+renin angiotensin system inhibitors+thiazides (BB+RASi+thiazides). We used conditional logistic regression to estimate the odds of developing hypokalemia for different combinations of antihypertensive drugs within 90 days of combination therapy initiation. We matched 463 patients with hypokalemia to 926 patients with normal potassium concentrations. The multivariable analysis showed 5.82x increased odds of developing hypokalemia if administered CCB+thiazides (95% CI, 3.06-11.08) compared with CCB+RASi. Other combinations significantly associated with increased hypokalemia odds were BB+thiazides (odds ratio, 3.34 [95% CI, 1.67-6.66]), CCB+RASi+thiazides (odds ratio, 3.07 [95% CI, 1.72-5.46]), and BB+RASi+thiazides (odds ratio, 2.78 [95% CI, 1.41-5.47]). Combinations of thiazides with CCB, RASi, or BB were strongly associated with increased hypokalemia risk within 90 days of treatment initiation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据