Long-term persistence with single-pill, fixed-dose combination therapy versus two pills of amlodipine and perindopril for hypertension: Australian experience

Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing single-pill combination of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide to the free equivalent combination in patients with hypertension from an Italian national health system perspective

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a single-pill combination (SPC) of perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide versus its free equivalent combination (FEC) in adults with hypertension in Italy.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis with a lifetime horizon and an Italian healthcare payer's perspective. In the model, the additional effect of the SPC on blood pressure level compared with the FEC was translated into a decreased risk of cardiovascular events and CKD, which was modeled via Framingham risk algorithms. Difference in persistence rates of SPC and FEC were modeled via discontinuation rates.

RESULTS

A perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is associated with lower cost and better health outcomes compared to its FEC. Over a lifetime horizon, it is associated with a 0.050 QALY gain and cost savings of €376, resulting from lower cardiovascular event rates. In the alternative scenario, where different approach for modeling impact of adherence was considered, incremental gain of 0.069 QALY and savings of €1,004 were observed. Results were robust to sensitivity and scenario analyses, indicating that use of this SPC is a cost-effective strategy.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that a perindopril/amlodipine/indapamide SPC is a cost-saving treatment option for hypertension in Italy, compared to its FEC.

Effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine fixed-dose combination in the treatment of hypertension: a systematic review

Background: Uncontrolled blood pressure is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy offers a promising approach to addressing this challenge by providing a convenient single-tablet solution that enhances the effectiveness of blood pressure control. In our systematic review, we assess the effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC in managing blood pressure. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search across four primary electronic databases, namely, PubMed, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Global Health Library (GHL), and Google Scholar, as of 8 February 2022. Additionally, we performed a manual search to find relevant articles. The quality of the selected articles was evaluated using the Study Quality Assessment Tools (SQAT) checklist from the National Institute of Health and the ROB2 tool from Cochrane. Results: Our systematic review included 17 eligible articles. The findings show that the use of perindopril/amlodipine FDC significantly lowers blood pressure and enhances the quality of blood pressure control. Compared to the comparison group, the perindopril/amlodipine combination tablet resulted in a higher rate of blood pressure response and normalization. Importantly, perindopril/amlodipine FDC contributes to improved patient adherence with minimal side effects. However, studies conducted to date have not provided assessments of the cost-effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC. Conclusion: In summary, our analysis confirms the effectiveness of perindopril/amlodipine FDC in lowering blood pressure, with combination therapy outperforming monotherapy and placebo. Although mild adverse reactions were observed in a small subset of participants, cost-effectiveness assessments for this treatment remain lacking in the literature.

Effectiveness of Single-Tablet Combination Therapy in Improving Adherence and Persistence and the Relation to Clinical and Economic Outcomes

Background: Single-tablet combination therapies (STCTs) combine multiple drugs into one formulation, making drug administration more convenient for patients. STCTs were developed to address concerns with treatment adherence and persistence, but the impact of STCT use is not fully understood across indications. Objectives: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to examine STCT-associated outcomes across 4 evidence domains: clinical trials, real-world evidence (RWE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) studies, and economic evaluations. Methods: Four SLRs were conducted across the aforementioned domains. Included studies compared STCTs as well as fixed-dose combinations ([FDCs] of non-tablet formulations) with the equivalent active compounds and doses in loose-dose combinations (LDCs). Original research articles were included; case reports, case series, and non-English-language sources were excluded. Databases searched included EconLit, Embase, and Ovid MEDLINE® ALL. Two independent reviewers assessed relevant studies and extracted data. Conflicts were resolved with a third reviewer or consensus-based discussion. Results: In all, 109 studies were identified; 27 studies were identified in more than one SLR. Treatment adherence was significantly higher in patients receiving FDCs vs LDCs in 12 of 13 RWE studies and 3 of 13 clinical trials. All 18 RWE studies reported higher persistence with FDCs. In RWE studies examining clinical outcomes (n = 17), 14 reported positive findings with FDCs, including a reduced need for add-on medication, blood pressure control, and improved hemoglobin A1C. HRQoL studies generally reported numerical improvements with STCTs or similarities between STCTs and LDCs. Economic outcomes favored STCT use. All 6 cost-effectiveness or cost-utility analyses found FDCs were less expensive and more efficacious than LDCs. Four budget impact models found that STCTs were associated with cost savings. Medical costs and healthcare resource use were generally lower with FDCs than with LDCs. Discussion: Evidence from RWE and economic studies strongly favored STCT use, while clinical trials and HRQoL studies primarily reported similarity between STCTs and LDCs. This may be due to clinical trial procedures aimed at maximizing adherence and HRQoL measures that are not designed to evaluate drug administration. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the value of STCTs for improving patient adherence, persistence, and clinical outcomes while also offering economic advantages.

A real-world analysis of outcomes and healthcare costs of patients on perindopril/indapamide/amlodipine single-pill vs. multiple-pill combination in Italy

OBJECTIVES

This analysis compared adherence, cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality incidence, and healthcare costs among hypertensive patients treated with perindopril (PER)/indapamide (IND)/amlodipine (AML) in single-pill combination (SPC) vs. multiple-pill combination, in a real-world setting in Italy.

METHODS

In this observational retrospective analysis of Italian administrative databases, adult patients treated with PER/IND/AML between 2010 and 2020 were divided into two cohorts: single-pill vs. multiple-pill. Patient data were available for at least one year before and after index date. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce selection bias. Adherence was defined as proportion of days covered: non-adherence, <40%; partial adherence, 40-79%, and adherence ≥80%. Mortality incidence and CV events as single, or composite, endpoints were evaluated after first year of follow-up. Healthcare cost analyses were performed from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service.

RESULTS

Following PSM, the single-pill cohort included 12 150 patients, and the multiple-pill cohort, 6105. The SPC cohort had a significantly higher percentage of adherent patients vs. the multiple-pill cohort (59.9% vs. 26.9%, P  < 0.001). Following the first year of follow-up, incidence of all-cause mortality, and combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and CV events were lower in the SPC cohort compared with multiple-pill cohort. Average annual direct healthcare costs were lower in the single-pill cohort (€2970) vs. multiple-pill cohort (€3642); cost of all drugs and all-cause hospitalizations were major contributors.

CONCLUSION

The SPC of PER/IND/AML, compared with multiple-pill combination, is associated with higher adherence to medication, lower incidence of CV events and mortality, and reduced healthcare costs.

Impact of single-pill combinations versus free-equivalent combinations on adherence and persistence in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Hypertension is a leading cause of death and disease burden followed by dyslipidemia. Their asymptomatic nature leads to low adherence and persistence to treatments. A systematic literature review (SLR) investigated the impact of single-pill-combinations (SPC) compared to free-equivalent combination (FEC) on adherence, persistence, clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and patient-reported outcomes, in patients with hypertension, dyslipidemia, or both.

METHODS

MEDLINE, MEDLINE-IN-PROCESS, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception until 11 May 2021, for studies comparing SPC against FEC in patients with hypertension and/or dyslipidemia. Patient characteristics, study design, therapies, measures of adherence or persistence, clinical outcomes, and follow-up were extracted.

RESULTS

Among 52 studies identified in the SLR, 27 (n = 346,030 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. SPCs were associated with significantly improved adherence compared with FEC, as assessed through medication-possession-ratio ≥80% (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, p < 0.01) and proportion of days covered ≥80% (OR 0.45, p < 0.01). SPC also improved persistence (OR 0.44, p < 0.01) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction (mean difference -1.50, p < 0.01) compared with the FEC.

CONCLUSIONS

SPC use resulted in significantly improved adherence, persistence, and SBP levels compared with FEC in patients with hypertension. The findings support SPC use in reducing the burden of hypertension and dyslipidemia.

An experience on the model-based evaluation of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction for a long half-life drug

Fixed-dose combinations development requires pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction (DDI) studies between active ingredients. For some drugs, pharmacokinetic properties such as long half-life or delayed distribution, make it difficult to conduct such clinical trials and to estimate the exact magnitude of DDI. In this study, the conventional (non-compartmental analysis and bioequivalence [BE]) and model-based analyses were compared for their performance to evaluate DDI using amlodipine as an example. Raw data without DDI or simulated data using pharmacokinetic models were compared to the data obtained after concomitant administration. Regardless of the methodology, all the results fell within the classical BE limit. It was shown that the model-based approach may be valid as the conventional approach and reduce the possibility of DDI overestimation. Several advantages (i.e., quantitative changes in parameters and precision of confidence interval) of the model-based approach were demonstrated, and possible application methods were proposed. Therefore, it is expected that the model-based analysis is appropriately utilized according to the situation and purpose.

Impact of single-pill combination therapy on adherence, blood pressure control, and clinical outcomes: a rapid evidence assessment of recent literature

The 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension raised the need for evidence to support the use of single-pill combination (SPC) therapy in preference to free-dosed therapy for hypertension. This systematic rapid evidence assessment sought to determine if initiating SPC therapy improves adherence, blood pressure (BP) control and/or cardiovascular outcomes vs. initiation of free-dose combination therapy.

Persistence as a Robust Indicator of Medication Adherence-Related Quality and Performance

Medication adherence is a priority for health systems worldwide and is widely recognised as a key component of quality of care for disease management. Adherence-related indicators were rarely explicitly included in national health policy agendas. One barrier is the lack of standardised adherence terminology and of routine measures of adherence in clinical practice. This paper discusses the possibility of developing adherence-related performance indicators highlighting the value of measuring persistence as a robust indicator of quality of care. To standardise adherence and persistence-related terminology allowing for benchmarking of adherence strategies, the European Ascertaining Barriers for Compliance (ABC) project proposed a Taxonomy of Adherence in 2012 consisting of three components: initiation, implementation, discontinuation. Persistence, which immediately precedes discontinuation, is a key element of taxonomy, which could capture adherence chronology allowing the examination of patterns of medication-taking behaviour. Advances in eHealth and Information Communication Technology (ICT) could play a major role in providing necessary structures to develop persistence indicators. We propose measuring persistence as an informative and pragmatic measure of medication-taking behaviour. Our view is to develop quality and performance indicators of persistence, which requires investing in ICT solutions enabling healthcare providers to review complete information on patients’ medication-taking patterns, as well as clinical and health outcomes.

Adherence to Single-Pill Versus Free-Equivalent Combination Therapy in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Poor adherence to antihypertensive therapy is a major cause of poor blood pressure (BP) control in patients with hypertension. Regimen simplification may improve adherence and BP control. This systematic review assessed whether single-pill combination (SPC) therapy led to improved adherence, persistence, and better BP control compared with free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy in patients with hypertension. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched until July 2020, in addition to manual searching of relevant congress abstracts from 2014 to 2020 for studies including adults with hypertension aged ≥18 years receiving SPC or FEC antihypertensive therapy measuring any of the following: adherence, persistence, and reductions in systolic BP and/or diastolic BP. Adherence and persistence were summarized in a narrative analysis; direct pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted to compare BP reductions with SPC therapy versus FEC therapy using fixed-effect and random-effects models. Following screening, 44 studies were included. The majority (18 of 23) of studies measuring adherence showed adherence was significantly improved in patients receiving SPCs versus FECs. Overall, 16 studies measured persistence, of which 14 showed that patients receiving SPCs had significantly improved persistence or were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy than patients receiving FECs. Systolic BP (mean difference, -3.99 [95% CI, -7.92 to -0.07]; P=0.05) and diastolic BP (-1.54 [95% CI, -2.67 to -0.41]; P=0.0076) were both significantly reduced with SPC therapy compared with FEC therapy at week 12. SPC therapy leads to improved adherence and persistence compared with FEC therapy and may lead to better BP control in patients with hypertension.

Fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin improves clinical outcomes in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. However, the clinical outcomes of fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus free-equivalent combination (FEC) of amlodipine and atorvastatin in the treatment of concurrent hypertension and dyslipidemia remain unknown. In this study, we included patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia, without previously established cardiovascular disease, and treated with either FDC or FEC of amlodipine and atorvastatin were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan and follow-up for 5 years. By using 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 1756 patients were enrolled in this study. The composite of major adverse cardiovascular events, including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and coronary revascularization, occurred more frequently in the FEC group than in the FDC group (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42 to 2.5). Although the all-cause mortality did not differ (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.59), the FEC group developed increased MI, stroke, and coronary revascularization (hazard ratio, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.07 to 7.68; hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.74; and hazard ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.26 to 4.69, respectively). Furthermore, as an unexpected result, a higher risk to develop new-onset diabetes mellitus was observed with FEC regimens (hazard ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0). In conclusion, although the all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups, the FDC regimen of amlodipine and atorvastatin improved clinical outcomes when compared to FEC in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia.

Fixed dose drug combinations - are they pharmacoeconomically sound? Findings and implications especially for lower- and middle-income countries

Introduction: There are positive aspects regarding the prescribing of fixed dose combinations (FDCs) versus prescribing the medicines separately. However, these have to be balanced against concerns including increased costs and their irrationality in some cases. Consequently, there is a need to review their value among lower- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which have the greatest prevalence of both infectious and noninfectious diseases and issues of affordability.Areas covered: Review of potential advantages, disadvantages, cost-effectiveness, and availability of FDCs in high priority disease areas in LMICs and possible initiatives to enhance the prescribing of valued FDCs and limit their use where there are concerns with their value.Expert commentary: FDCs are valued across LMICs. Advantages include potentially improved response rates, reduced adverse reactions, increased adherence rates, and reduced costs. Concerns include increased chances of drug:drug interactions, reduced effectiveness, potential for imprecise diagnoses and higher unjustified prices. Overall certain FDCs including those for malaria, tuberculosis, and hypertension are valued and listed in the country's essential medicine lists, with initiatives needed to enhance their prescribing where currently low prescribing rates. Proposed initiatives include robust clinical and economic data to address the current paucity of pharmacoeconomic data. Irrational FDCs persists in some countries which are being addressed.

HIV treatment regimens and adherence to national guidelines in Australia: an analysis of dispensing data from the Australian pharmaceutical benefits scheme

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines for antiretroviral therapy (ART) have evolved to emphasize newer regimens that address ageing-related comorbidities. Using national Australian dispensing data we compare ART regimens with Australian HIV treatment guidelines in the context of treated comorbidities.

METHODS

The study population included all individuals in a 10% sample of national data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) who purchased a prescription of ART during 2016. We defined each patient's most recently dispensed ART regimen and characterized them to evaluate regimen complexity and adherence to national HIV treatment guidelines. We then analyzed ART regimens in the context of other co-prescriptions purchased for defined comorbidities.

RESULTS

The 1995 patients in our sample purchased 212 different ART regimens during 2016; 1524 (76.4%) purchased one of the top ten most common regimens of which 62.3% were integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based. Among the 1786 (90%) patients that purchased the most common regimens, 83.7% purchased a regimen recommended by the guidelines for initial antiretroviral therapy and 11.4% purchased antiretrovirals that are not recommended for initial therapy; < 1% of the entire cohort purchased medications not recommended for use. While most patients purchased optimal ART regimens with low potential for significant drug interactions, regimen choices in the setting of risk factors for heart disease, renal disease and low bone mineral density appeared suboptimal.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian HIV providers are prescribing ART regimens in accordance with updated treatment guidelines, but could further optimize regimens in the setting of important medical comorbidities.

Cross-sectional survey evaluating blood pressure control ACHIEVEment in hypertensive patients treated with multiple anti-hypertensive agents in Belgium and Luxembourg

Objective

This study evaluates the actual blood pressure control rate and its estimation by general practitioners, the use of single-pill or free combinations, and the attitude towards single-pill combinations in primary care.

Methods

Cross-sectional observational survey in primary care between January 2015 and September 2016 in Belgium and Luxembourg. The participating general practitioners enrolled hypertensive patients taking at least 2 antihypertensive molecules (as fixed or free associations).

Results

742 general practitioners included a total of 8,006 patients, with a mean age of 66 ± 12 years. Systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were respectively 141 ± 17 mmHg and 82 ± 10 mmHg (means ± SD). These patients had a blood pressure control rate of 45%, whereas it was estimated by general practitioners to be 60%. General practitioners with 11–25 years’ experience performed better than general practitioners with 36–51 years’ experience in the evaluation of blood pressure control. Combinations used were free in 39%, single-pill in 34% and mixed in 27% of the patients. Patients receiving single-pill combinations were younger than those treated with free combinations (63 ± 12 vs. 68 ± 12 years, p < 0.001), with fewer comorbidities (39 vs. 55%, p < 0.001). In patients treated solely with free pill associations, 66% of patient cases, general practitioners were willing to switch to a single-pill combination. The main reasons were improved adherence (76%) and better blood pressure control (64%).

Conclusion

In patients requiring at least two antihypertensive drugs, blood pressure control rate remains low and is overestimated by general practitioners. Free combinations remain largely used although many general practitioners seem willing to shift to single-pill combinations. Treatment simplification could improve adherence and blood pressure control rate, which has been shown to lead to reduced morbidity and mortality.

National characteristics and trends in antiretroviral treatment in Australia can be accurately estimated using a large clinical cohort

OBJECTIVES

Cohort studies are often used as a national surveillance tool to monitor trends in HIV treatment and morbidity outcomes. However, there are limited studies validating the accuracy of using cohorts as a representation of the overall HIV-positive population. We compared data from a large Australian HIV-positive cohort study (Australian HIV Observational Database [AHOD]) and a 10% longitudinal sample from Australia's subsidized prescription medication scheme (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme [PBS]) to assess the use of cohorts for providing representative data for surveillance and monitoring purposes.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Basic demographics and treatment information from July 1, 2013, to March 31, 2016, were divided into half-yearly periods to compare HIV trends between AHOD (n = 2,488) and PBS (n = 18,409) patients.

RESULTS

In both data sets, most patients were men, aged above 50 years, and primarily resided in New South Wales. Both data sets revealed a significant shift toward the increased use of integrase strand transfer inhibitors and a gradual decline in the use of protease inhibitors and nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors among the treated population in Australia. Similarly, a substantial increase in the use of once daily, single-tablet, fixed-dose combination regimens was also observed.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that observational cohort studies can serve as useful surrogate surveillance tools for monitoring patient characteristics and HIV treatment trends.

Pigments from Filamentous Ascomycetes for Combination Therapy

Filamentous ascomycetes (Neurospora and Monascus) have been studied for a long time because of their production of secondary metabolites such as microbial pigments. The ascomycetes represent an interesting group of compounds with high potential for medicinal applications. Many recent studies have shown their efficacy in the treatment of serious pathological states such as oncological diseases, neurodegenerative diseases and hyperlipidaemia. Nevertheless, the clinical usability of ascomycetes is still limited. However, this problem can be solved by the use of these compounds with combinations of other therapeutic agents. This strategy can suppress their side effects and improve their therapeutic efficacy. Moreover, their co-application can significantly enhance conventional therapies that are used. This review summarizes and discusses the general principles of this approach, introduced and supported by numerous examples. In addition, the prediction of the future potential application of this methodology is included.