TRIple pill vs Usual care Management for Patients with mild-to-moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH): Study protocol

Comparing Triple Combination Drug Therapy and Traditional Monotherapy for Better Survival in Patients With High-Risk Hypertension: A Systematic Review

High-risk hypertension patients are more susceptible to cardiovascular disease, stroke, and mortality. Monotherapy and triple combination drug therapy are two different approaches to treating hypertension. Monotherapy involves using a single medication to manage hypertension, whereas triple combination therapy involves the simultaneous use of three different antihypertensive medications from different drug classes. Making a fast switch from monotherapy to combination medication is one method to regulate blood pressure (BP) better. It is widely recognized that a significant proportion of individuals with hypertension require combination therapy to manage their condition effectively. This review aims to evaluate the mortality rates across monotherapy and triple combination drug therapy in high-risk hypertension patients. A systematic literature review was conducted across multiple scientific literature repositories. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Based on the end outcome of each published journal on the effectiveness of triple combination drug therapy as a treatment option for high-risk hypertension patients, there was a notable difference in overall survival, mortality rates, BP reduction, and adherence datasets. Triple combination drug use correlated with increased timeframes for multiple patient survival parameters within the articles shortlisted in this investigation. However, it is crucial for healthcare providers to weigh the risks and benefits of triple combination drug therapy when deciding which treatment approach is best for their patients.

Use of Perindopril Arginine/Indapamide/Amlodipine in the Management of Hypertension in Two Sub-Saharan African Island Countries of Madagascar and Mauritius

INTRODUCTION

Most patients with hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa require two or more drugs to control their blood pressure. Triple fixed-dose combination therapy of perindopril arginine/indapamide/amlodipine is more effective in lowering blood pressure, offers better target organ protection and has increased adherence compared to monotherapy and free combination therapy, and is safe to use. This observational study evaluates the effectiveness of perindopril arginine/indapamide/amlodipine in controlling blood pressure at least 1 month after treatment initiation and assesses patient- and physician- reported drug tolerance over a 3-month period in Madagascar and Mauritius.

METHODS

A total of 198 patients with hypertension in ambulatory care who had been on fixed-dose combination of perindopril arginine, indapamide, and amlodipine for at least 4 weeks were included. The main outcome measures were changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, attainment of blood pressure control under 140/90 mmHg and 130/80 mmHg, self-reported drug tolerance by the patient, and perceived drug tolerance by the treating physician. Data was collected at 1 month and 3 months.

RESULTS

Mean systolic blood pressure was significantly lower at the 1-month (- 3.4 mmHg, p = 0.002) and 3-month (- 8.5 mmHg, p < 0.0001) visits. Diastolic blood pressure also decreased significantly (- 2.4 mmHg at 1-month, p = 0.017 and - 5.4 mmHg at the 3-month visits, p < 0.0001). At 3 months, 80.4% of the patients attained blood pressure targets less than 140/90 mmHg and 42.7% attained targets less than 130/80 mmHg on the basis of their baseline blood pressure. Excellent drug tolerance was reported by more than 90% of patients and physicians at the 1-month visit and by more than 95% at the 3-month visit.

CONCLUSION

Triple fixed-dose therapy of perindopril arginine/indapamide/amlodipine continues to show additional blood pressure-lowering capacity even months after initiating the treatment in patients with hypertension in Madagascar and Mauritius. It is also well tolerated by patients with hypertension and assessed as safe to use by physicians.

Association of Low-Dose Triple Combination Therapy With Therapeutic Inertia and Prescribing Patterns in Patients With Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of the TRIUMPH Trial

Importance

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies are being increasingly recommended for initial or early management of patients with hypertension, as they reduce treatment complexity and potentially reduce therapeutic inertia.

Objective

To investigate the association of antihypertensive triple drug FDC therapy with therapeutic inertia and prescribing patterns compared with usual care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A post hoc analysis of the Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) study, a randomized clinical trial of 700 patients with hypertension, was conducted. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017. Data were analyzed from September to November 2019.

Interventions

Once-daily FDC antihypertensive pill (telmisartan, 20 mg; amlodipine, 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg) or usual care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Therapeutic inertia, defined as not intensifying therapy in those with blood pressure (BP) above target, was assessed at baseline and during follow-up visits. Prescribing patterns were characterized by BP-lowering drug class and treatment regimen potency. Predictors of therapeutic inertia were assessed with binomial logistic regression.

Results

Of the 700 included patients, 403 (57.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 56 (11) years. Among patients who did not reach the BP target, therapeutic inertia was more common in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at the week 6 visit (92 of 106 [86.8%] vs 124 of 194 [63.9%]; P < .001) and week 12 visit (81 of 90 [90%] vs 116 of 179 [64.8%]; P < .001). At the end of the study, 221 of 318 patients in the triple pill group (69.5%) and 182 of 329 patients in the usual care group (55.3%) reached BP targets. Among those who received treatment intensification, the increase in estimated regimen potency was greater in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at baseline (predicted mean [SD] increase in regimen potency: triple pill, 15 [6] mm Hg; usual care, 10 [5] mm Hg; P < .001), whereas there were no significant differences at the week 6 or at week 12 visit. Clinic systolic BP level was the only consistent predictor of treatment intensification during follow-up. During follow-up, there were 23 vs 54 unique treatment regimens per 100 treated patients in the triple pill vs usual care groups, respectively (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Triple pill FDC therapy was associated with greater rates of therapeutic inertia compared with usual care. Despite this, triple pill FDC therapy substantially simplified prescribing patterns and improved 6-month BP control rates compared with usual care. Further improvements in hypertension control could be achieved by addressing therapeutic inertia among the minority of patients who do not achieve BP control after initial FDC therapy.

Trial Registration

ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864.

Efficacy and safety of triple versus dual combination blood pressure-lowering drug therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Most patients with hypertension need at least two drugs to achieve goal blood pressure. This systematic review assessed efficacy and safety of triple versus dual combination therapy for the management of hypertension.

METHODS

Publication databases, clinical trial registries and regulatory agency websites were searched until April 2018 for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple with dual therapy of BP-lowering drugs, for at least 3 weeks, among patients with hypertension. Meta-analyses for efficacy and safety outcomes were performed using random-effects model. Regimen efficacy was predicted using the Therapeutic Intensity Score (TIS) and the Law et al. method (which predict dose doubling increases efficacy by 100% and around 20%, respectively), and compared with observed efficacy.

RESULTS

Fourteen RCTs (11 457 participants) were included. Overall, triple compared with dual therapy reduced BP by 5.4/3.2 mmHg (P < 0.001), and improved BP control by 58 versus 45% [relative risk (RR) 1.33 (95% CI 1.25-1.41)], whereas incidence of withdrawals because of adverse events were 3.3 versus 3.4% [RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.00-1.54), P = 0.05]. Law et al.'s method was superior to TIS in predicting differences in efficacy between triple and dual therapies. For patients uncontrolled on submaximal dose dual therapy, adding a third drug achieved on average approximately four times more BP reduction than doubling the dose of dual therapy component drugs (6.0/3.6 versus 1.5/0.8 mmHg, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Addition of a third drug is likely to be more efficacious without increasing adverse events, compared with increasing dose of existing dual therapy. Early use of triple therapy can significantly improve hypertension control.

Efficacy and safety of dual combination therapy of blood pressure-lowering drugs as initial treatment for hypertension: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and tolerability of dual combination of blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs as initial treatment for hypertension.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL were searched until August 2017 for randomized, double-blind trials of dual combination therapy vs. monotherapy in adults with hypertension who were either treatment naïve or untreated for at least 4 weeks. Regimens were classified with reference to usual daily 'standard-dose'; for example, <1 + <1 for a combination of two drugs both at less than one standard-dose. Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirty-three trials (13 095 participants) with mean baseline mean BP 155/100 mmHg were included. Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, dual combinations of <1 + <1, 1 + <1 and 1 + 1 (i.e. low-to-standard dose), showed a dose-response relationship in reducing SBP [mean differences (95% confidence interval) of 2.8 (1.6-4.0), 4.6 (3.4-5.7) and 7.5 (5.4-9.5) mmHg, respectively], and in improving BP control [risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval) 1.11 (0.92-1.34), 1.25 (1.16-1.35) and 1.42 (1.27-1.58), respectively]. Withdrawals due to adverse events were uncommon with low-to-standard dose dual combinations, with no significant difference compared with standard-dose monotherapy [2.9 vs. 2.2%; RR 1.28 (0.85 to 1.92)]. There were fewer data for higher dose dual combinations, which did not appear to produce substantial additional efficacy and could potentially be less tolerable.

CONCLUSION

Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, initiating treatment with low-to-standard dose dual combination therapy is more efficacious without increasing withdrawals due to adverse events.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42016032822.

Fixed-combination, low-dose, triple-pill antihypertensive medication versus usual care in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in Sri Lanka: a within-trial and modelled economic evaluation of the TRIUMPH trial

BACKGROUND

Elevated blood pressure incurs a major health and economic burden, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. The Triple Pill versus Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) trial showed a greater reduction in blood pressure in patients using fixed-combination, low-dose, triple-pill antihypertensive therapy (consisting of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone) than in those receiving usual care in Sri Lanka. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the triple-pill strategy.

METHODS

We did a within-trial (6-month) and modelled (10-year) economic evaluation of the TRIUMPH trial, using the health system perspective. Health-care costs, reported in 2017 US dollars, were determined from trial records and published literature. A discrete-time simulation model was developed, extrapolating trial findings of reduced systolic blood pressure to 10-year health-care costs, cardiovascular disease events, and mortality. The primary outcomes were the proportion of people reaching blood pressure targets (at 6 months from baseline) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted (at 10 years from baseline). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to estimate the cost per additional participant achieving target blood pressure at 6 months and cost per DALY averted over 10 years.

FINDINGS

The triple-pill strategy, compared with usual care, cost an additional US$9·63 (95% CI 5·29 to 13·97) per person in the within-trial analysis and $347·75 (285·55 to 412·54) per person in the modelled analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at $7·93 (95% CI 6·59 to 11·84) per participant reaching blood pressure targets at 6 months and $2842·79 (-28·67 to 5714·24) per DALY averted over a 10-year period.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with usual care, the triple-pill strategy is cost-effective for patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Scaled up investment in the triple pill for hypertension management in Sri Lanka should be supported to address the high population burden of cardiovascular disease.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Prevention of stroke: a global perspective

Along with the rising global burden of disability attributed to stroke, costs of stroke care are rising, providing the impetus to direct our research focus towards effective measures of stroke prevention. In this Series paper, we discuss strategies for reducing the risk of the emergence of disease (primordial prevention), preventing the onset of disease (primary prevention), and preventing the recurrence of disease (secondary prevention). Our focus includes global strategies and campaigns, and measurements of the effectiveness of worldwide preventive interventions, with an emphasis on low-income and middle-income countries. Our findings reveal that effective tobacco control, adequate nutrition, and development of healthy cities are important strategies for primordial prevention, whereas polypill strategies, use of mobile technology (mHealth), along with salt reduction and other dietary interventions, are effective in the primary prevention of stroke. An effective collaboration between various health-care sectors, government policies, and campaigns can successfully implement secondary prevention strategies, through surveillance and registries, such as the WHO's non-communicable diseases programmes, across high-income and low-income countries.

Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of a pharmacological strategy to improve hypertension control: protocol for a qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Globally, the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension is high, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. There is a critical need for strategies to improve hypertension control. The early use of a fixed low-dose combination of three antihypertensive drugs (triple pill) has the potential to significantly improve hypertension control. The TRI ple Pill vs. U sual care M anagement for P atients with mild-to- moderate H ypertension (TRIUMPH) randomised controlled trial (RCT) is designed to test the effects of this strategy compared with usual care in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. This paper reports the protocol of a process evaluation of the TRIUMPH RCT. The objectives are to understand factors related to implementation of the intervention, mechanisms of effect, contextual factors that underpin the effectiveness of the triple pill strategy and the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the strategy in clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Face-to-face semistructured in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of TRIUMPH RCT participants and healthcare professionals in Sri Lanka will be conducted. Healthcare professionals will include physicians and their staff who were involved in conducting the TRIUMPH RCT. Interviewees will be recruited sequentially until thematic saturation is achieved. Interviews will be audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in NVivo using framework analysis methods.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The TRIUMPH RCT and process evaluation have received approval from the relevant Ethics Review Committee. All participants will be asked to provide written consent before participation. Findings from the study will be disseminated through publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12612001120864 , SLCTR/2015/020 ; Pre-results.

Fixed Low-Dose Triple Combination Antihypertensive Medication vs Usual Care for Blood Pressure Control in Patients With Mild to Moderate Hypertension in Sri Lanka: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Poorly controlled hypertension is a leading global public health problem requiring new treatment strategies.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether a low-dose triple combination antihypertensive medication would achieve better blood pressure (BP) control vs usual care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized, open-label trial of a low-dose triple BP therapy vs usual care for adults with hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg; or in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease: >130 mm Hg and/or >80 mm Hg) requiring initiation (untreated patients) or escalation (patients receiving monotherapy) of antihypertensive therapy. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

A once-daily fixed-dose triple combination pill (20 mg of telmisartan, 2.5 mg of amlodipine, and 12.5 mg of chlorthalidone) therapy (n = 349) or usual care (n = 351).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion achieving target systolic/diastolic BP (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean systolic/diastolic BP difference during follow-up and withdrawal of BP medications due to an adverse event.

RESULTS

Among 700 randomized patients (mean age, 56 years; 58% women; 29% had diabetes; mean baseline systolic/diastolic BP, 154/90 mm Hg), 675 (96%) completed the trial. The triple combination pill increased the proportion achieving target BP vs usual care at 6 months (70% vs 55%, respectively; risk difference, 12.7% [95% CI, 3.2% to 22.0%]; P < .001). Mean systolic/diastolic BP at 6 months was 125/76 mm Hg for the triple combination pill vs 134/81 mm Hg for usual care (adjusted difference in postrandomization BP over the entire follow-up: systolic BP, -9.8 [95% CI, -7.9 to -11.6] mm Hg; diastolic BP, -5.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -6.1] mm Hg; P < .001 for both comparisons). Overall, 419 adverse events were reported in 255 patients (38.1% for triple combination pill vs 34.8% for usual care) with the most common being musculoskeletal pain (6.0% and 8.0%, respectively) and dizziness, presyncope, or syncope (5.2% and 2.8%). There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patient withdrawal from BP-lowering therapy due to adverse events (6.6% for triple combination pill vs 6.8% for usual care).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with a pill containing low doses of 3 antihypertensive drugs led to an increased proportion of patients achieving their target BP goal vs usual care. Use of such medication as initial therapy or to replace monotherapy may be an effective way to improve BP control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864; slctr.lk Identifier: SLCTR/2015/020.

Quarter-dose quadruple combination therapy for initial treatment of hypertension: placebo-controlled, crossover, randomised trial and systematic review

BACKGROUND

Globally, most patients with hypertension are treated with monotherapy, and control rates are poor because monotherapy only reduces blood pressure by around 9/5 mm Hg on average. There is a pressing need for blood pressure-control strategies with improved efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to assess whether ultra-low-dose combination therapy could meet these needs.

METHODS

We did a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial of a quadpill-a single capsule containing four blood pressure-lowering drugs each at quarter-dose (irbesartan 37·5 mg, amlodipine 1·25 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 6·25 mg, and atenolol 12·5 mg). Participants with untreated hypertension were enrolled from four centres in the community of western Sydney, NSW, Australia, mainly by general practitioners. Participants were randomly allocated by computer to either the quadpill or matching placebo for 4 weeks; this treatment was followed by a 2-week washout, then the other study treatment was administered for 4 weeks. Study staff and participants were unaware of treatment allocations, and masking was achieved by use of identical opaque capsules. The primary outcome was placebo-corrected 24-h systolic ambulatory blood pressure reduction after 4 weeks and analysis was by intention to treat. We also did a systematic review of trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of quarter-standard-dose blood pressure-lowering therapy against placebo. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614001057673. The trial ended after 1 year and this report presents the final analysis.

FINDINGS

Between November, 2014, and December, 2015, 55 patients were screened for our randomised trial, of whom 21 underwent randomisation. Mean age of participants was 58 years (SD 11) and mean baseline office and 24-h systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels were 154 (14)/90 (11) mm Hg and 140 (9)/87 (8) mm Hg, respectively. One individual declined participation after randomisation and two patients dropped out for administrative reasons. The placebo-corrected reduction in systolic 24-h blood pressure with the quadpill was 19 mm Hg (95% CI 14-23), and office blood pressure was reduced by 22/13 mm Hg (p<0·0001). During quadpill treatment, 18 (100%) of 18 participants achieved office blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, compared with six (33%) of 18 during placebo treatment (p=0·0013). There were no serious adverse events and all patients reported that the quadpill was easy to swallow. Our systematic review identified 36 trials (n=4721 participants) of one drug at quarter-dose and six trials (n=312) of two drugs at quarter-dose, against placebo. The pooled placebo-corrected blood pressure-lowering effects were 5/2 mm Hg and 7/5 mm Hg, respectively (both p<0·0001), and there were no side-effects from either regimen.

INTERPRETATION

The findings of our small trial in the context of previous randomised evidence suggest that the benefits of quarter-dose therapy could be additive across classes and might confer a clinically important reduction in blood pressure. Further examination of the quadpill concept is needed to investigate effectiveness against usual treatment options and longer term tolerability.

FUNDING

National Heart Foundation, Australia; University of Sydney; and National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Innovative Approaches to Hypertension Control in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Elevated blood pressure, a major risk factor for ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and stroke, is the leading global risk for mortality. Treatment and control rates are very low in low- and middle-income countries. There is an urgent need to address this problem. The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases sponsored research projects focus on controlling hypertension, including community engagement, salt reduction, salt substitution, task redistribution, mHealth, and fixed-dose combination therapies. This paper reviews the rationale for each approach and summarizes the experience of some of the research teams. The studies demonstrate innovative and practical methods for improving hypertension control.

Behaviour change strategies for reducing blood pressure-related disease burden: findings from a global implementation research programme

Background

The Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases comprises the majority of the world’s public research funding agencies. It is focussed on implementation research to tackle the burden of chronic diseases in low- and middle-income countries and amongst vulnerable populations in high-income countries. In its inaugural research call, 15 projects were funded, focussing on lowering blood pressure-related disease burden. In this study, we describe a reflexive mapping exercise to identify the behaviour change strategies undertaken in each of these projects.

Methods

Using the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, each team rated the capability, opportunity and motivation of the various actors who were integral to each project (e.g. community members, non-physician health workers and doctors in projects focussed on service delivery). Teams then mapped the interventions they were implementing and determined the principal policy categories in which those interventions were operating. Guidance was provided on the use of Behaviour Change Wheel to support consistency in responses across teams. Ratings were iteratively discussed and refined at several group meetings.

Results

There was marked variation in the perceived capabilities, opportunities and motivation of the various actors who were being targeted for behaviour change strategies. Despite this variation, there was a high degree of synergy in interventions functions with most teams utilising complex interventions involving education, training, enablement, environmental restructuring and persuasion oriented strategies. Similar policy categories were also targeted across teams particularly in the areas of guidelines, communication/marketing and service provision with few teams focussing on fiscal measures, regulation and legislation.

Conclusions

The large variation in preparedness to change behaviour amongst the principal actors across these projects suggests that the interventions themselves will be variably taken up, despite the similarity in approaches taken. The findings highlight the importance of contextual factors in driving success and failure of research programmes. Forthcoming outcome and process evaluations from each project will build on this exploratory work and provide a greater understanding of factors that might influence scale-up of intervention strategies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0331-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.