Early cardiovascular protection by initial two-drug fixed-dose combination treatment vs. monotherapy in hypertension

Clinical outcome in hypertensive patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol or plus valsartan

OBJECTIVE

Several guidelines do not recommend beta-blocker as the first-line treatment for hypertension because of its inferior efficacy in stroke prevention. Combination therapy with beta-blocker is commonly used for blood pressure control. We compared the clinical outcomes in patients treated with amlodipine plus bisoprolol (A + B), a ß1-selective beta-blocker and amlodipine plus valsartan (A + V).

METHODS

A population-based cohort study was performed using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From 2012 to 2019, newly diagnosed adult hypertensive patients who received initial amlodipine monotherapy and then switched to A + V or A + B were included. The efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) event (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and coronary revascularization), hemorrhagic stroke, and heart failure. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between outcomes and different treatments.

RESULTS

Overall, 4311 patients in A + B group and 10980 patients in A + V group were included. After a mean follow-up of 4.34 ± 1.79 years, the efficacy outcomes were similar between the A + V and A + B groups regarding all-cause death (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.18), ASCVD event (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.12), and heart failure (aHR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87-1.30). The risk of hemorrhagic stroke was lower in A + B group (aHR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.94). The result was similar when taking death into consideration in competing risk analysis. The safety outcomes were similar between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference of all-cause death, ASCVD event, and heart failure in A + B vs. A + V users. But A + B users had a lower risk of hemorrhagic stroke.

Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri (ANMCO) scientific statement on the simplification of the drug regimen for secondary cardiovascular prevention

The issue of suboptimal drug regimen adherence in secondary cardiovascular prevention presents a significant barrier to improving patient outcomes. To address this, the utilization of drug combinations, specifically single pill combinations (SPCs) and polypills, was proposed as a strategy to simplify treatment regimens. This approach aims to enhance treatment accessibility, affordability, and adherence, thereby reducing healthcare costs and improving patient health. The document is an Associazione Nazionale Medici Cardiologi Ospedalieri (ANMCO) scientific statement on simplifying drug regimens for secondary cardiovascular prevention. It discusses the underuse of treatments despite available, effective, and accessible options, highlighting a significant gap in secondary prevention across different socio-economic statuses and countries. The statement explores barriers to implementing evidence-based treatments, including patient, healthcare provider, and system-related challenges. The paper also reviews international guidelines, the role of SPCs and polypills in clinical practice, and their economic impact, advocating for their use in secondary prevention to improve patient outcomes and adherence.

Comparison of two single-pill dual combination antihypertensive therapies in Chinese patients: a randomized, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Current hypertension guidelines recommend combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blocker with a calcium-channel blocker or thiazide diuretic as initial antihypertensive therapy in patients with monotherapy uncontrolled hypertension. However, to what extent these two different combinations are comparable in blood pressure (BP)-lowering efficacy and safety remains under investigation, especially in the Chinese population. We investigated the BP-lowering efficacy and safety of the amlodipine/benazepril and benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide dual therapies in Chinese patients.

METHODS

In a multi-center, randomized, actively controlled, parallel-group trial, we enrolled patients with stage 1 or 2 hypertension from July 2018 to June 2021 in 20 hospitals and community health centers across China. Of the 894 screened patients, 560 eligible patients were randomly assigned to amlodipine/benazepril 5/10 mg (n = 282) or benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide 10/12.5 mg (n = 278), with 213 and 212 patients, respectively, who completed the study and had a valid repeat ambulatory BP recording during follow-up and were included in the efficacy analysis. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to 24 weeks of treatment in 24-h ambulatory systolic BP. Adverse events including symptoms and clinically significant changes in physical examinations and laboratory findings were recorded for safety analysis.

RESULTS

In the efficacy analysis (n = 425), the primary outcome, 24-h ambulatory systolic BP reduction, was - 13.8 ± 1.2 mmHg in the amlodipine/benazepril group and - 12.3 ± 1.2 mmHg in the benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide group, with a between-group difference of - 1.51 (p = 0.36) mmHg. The between-group differences for major secondary outcomes were - 1.47 (p = 0.18) in 24-h diastolic BP, - 2.86 (p = 0.13) and - 2.74 (p = 0.03) in daytime systolic and diastolic BP, and - 0.45 (p = 0.82) and - 0.93 (p = 0.44) in nighttime systolic and diastolic BP. In the safety analysis (n = 560), the incidence rate of dry cough was significantly lower in the amlodipine/benazepril group than in the benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide group (5.3% vs 10.1%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

The amlodipine/benazepril and benazepril/hydrochlorothiazide dual therapies were comparable in ambulatory systolic BP lowering. The former combination, compared with the latter, had a greater BP-lowering effect in the daytime and a lower incidence rate of dry cough.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03682692. Registered on 18 September 2018.

Synthesis of Ursolic Acid-based Hybrids: In Vitro Antibacterial, Cytotoxicity Studies, In Silico Physicochemical and Pharmacokinetic Properties

BACKGROUND

There is a critical need for the discovery of novel and effective antibacterial or anticancer molecules.

OBJECTIVES

Amine-linked ursolic acid-based hybrid compounds were prepared in good yields in the range of 60-68%.

METHODS

Their molecular structures were successfully confirmed using different spectroscopic methods including 1H/13C NMR, UHPLC-HRMS and FTIR spectroscopy. The in vitro cytotoxicity of some of these hybrid molecules against three human tumour cells, such as MDA-MB23, MCF7, and HeLa was evaluated using the MTT colorimetric method.

RESULT

Their antibacterial efficacy was evaluated against eleven bacterial pathogens using a serial dilution assay. Majority of the bacterial strains were inhibited significantly by compounds 17 and 24, with the lowest MIC values in the range of 15.3-31.25 μg/mL. Compound 16 exhibited higher cytotoxicity against HeLa cells than ursolic acid, with an IC50 value of 43.64 g/mL.

CONCLUSION

The in vitro antibacterial activity and cytotoxicity of these hybrid compounds demonstrated that ursolic acid-based hybrid molecules are promising compounds. Further research into ursolic acid-based hybrid compounds is required.

A Retrospective Observational Real-Word Analysis of the Adherence, Healthcare Resource Consumption and Costs in Patients Treated with Bisoprolol/Perindopril as Single-Pill or Free Combination

INTRODUCTION

The present real-world analysis aims to compare the drug utilization, hospitalizations and direct healthcare costs related to the use of single-pill combination (SPC) or free-equivalent combination (FEC) of perindopril and bisoprolol (PER/BIS) in a large Italian population.

METHODS

This observational retrospective analysis was based on administrative databases covering approximately 7 million subjects across Italy. All adult subjects receiving PER/BIS as SPC or FEC between January 2017-June 2020 were included. Subjects were followed for 1 year after the first prescription of PER/BIS as FEC (± 1 month) or SPC. Before comparing the SPC and FEC cohorts, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance the baseline characteristics. Drug utilization was investigated as adherence (defined by the proportion of days covered, PDC) and persistence (evaluated by Kaplan-Meier curves). Hospitalizations and mean annual direct healthcare costs (due to drug prescriptions, hospitalizations and use of outpatient services) were analyzed during follow-up.

RESULTS

The original cohort included 11,440 and 6521 patients taking the SPC and FEC PER/BIS combination, respectively. After PSM, two balanced SPC and FEC cohorts of 4688 patients were obtained (mean age 70 years, approximately 50% male, 24% in secondary prevention). The proportion of adherent patients (PDC ≥ 80%) was higher for those on SPC (45.5%) than those on FEC (38.6%), p < 0.001. The PER/BIS combination was discontinued by 35.8% of patients in the SPC cohort and 41.7% in the FEC cohort (p < 0.001). The SPC cohort had fewer cardiovascular (CV) hospitalizations (5.3%) than the free-combination cohort (7.4%), p < 0.001. Mean annual total healthcare costs were lower in the SPC (1999€) than in the FEC (2359€) cohort (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In a real-world setting, patients treated with PER/BIS SPC showed higher adherence, lower risk of drug discontinuation, reduced risk of CV hospitalization, and lower healthcare costs than those on FEC of the same drugs.

Perspectives on improving blood pressure control to reduce the clinical and economic burden of hypertension

The clinical and economic burden of hypertension is high and continues to increase globally. Uncontrolled hypertension has severe but avoidable long-term consequences, including cardiovascular diseases, which are among the most burdensome and most preventable conditions in Europe. Yet, despite clear guidelines on screening, diagnosis and management of hypertension, a large proportion of patients remain undiagnosed or undertreated. Low adherence and persistence are common, exacerbating the issue of poor blood pressure (BP) control. Although current guidelines provide clear direction, implementation is hampered by barriers at the patient-, physician- and healthcare system levels. Underestimation of the impact of uncontrolled hypertension and limited health literacy lead to low adherence and persistence among patients, treatment inertia among physicians and a lack of decisive healthcare system action. Many options to improve BP control are available or under investigation. Patients would benefit from targeted health education, improved BP measurement, individualized treatment or simplified treatment regimens through single-pill combinations. For physicians, increasing awareness of the burden of hypertension, as well as offering training on monitoring and optimal management and provision of the necessary time to collaboratively engage with patients would be useful. Healthcare systems should establish nationwide strategies for hypertension screening and management. Furthermore, there is an unmet need to implement more comprehensive BP measurements to optimize management. In conclusion, an integrative, patient-focused, multimodal multidisciplinary approach to the management of hypertension by clinicians, payers and policymakers, involving patients, is required to achieve long-term improvements in population health and cost-efficiency for healthcare systems.

[Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy in old age]

Cardiovascular diseases are the most frequent cause of disability and death. Evidence-based pharmacotherapy is the basis for successful treatment of common diseases, such as hypertension, heart failure, coronary artery disease, and atrial fibrillation. The proportion of older people with several diseases (multimorbidity) who need five or more drugs daily (polypharmacy) is steadily increasing. Evidence on the efficacy and safety of drugs in these patients is, however, limited because they are often excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. In addition, clinical guidelines mostly focus on single diseases and only occasionally deal with the challenges in the pharmacotherapy of older multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. This article describes the options and special features of pharmacotherapy for hypertension, chronic heart failure and dyslipidemia, as well as antithrombotic treatment in (very) old people.

The Combination of Beta-Blockers and ACE Inhibitors Across the Spectrum of Cardiovascular Diseases

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of mortality worldwide, affecting a wide range of patients at different stages across the cardiovascular continuum. Hypertension is one of the earliest risk factors in this continuum and can be controlled in most patients with currently available antihypertensive agents. However, goals are often not met because treatments are not optimized in terms of tailoring therapy to individual patients based on their hypertension subclass and cardiovascular risk profile and initiating early use of adapted-dose, single-pill combinations. In this context, beta-blockers in combination with angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are of special interest as a result of their complementary actions on the sympathetic nervous system and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system, two interlinked pathways that influence cardiovascular risk and disease outcomes. In addition to their antihypertensive actions, beta-blockers are used to manage arrhythmias and treat angina pectoris and heart failure, while ACE inhibitors provide cardioprotection in patients with acute coronary syndromes and treat congestive heart failure. A broad range of patients may therefore receive the combination in routine clinical practice. This paper examines the supporting evidence for beta-blockers and ACE inhibitors in each of the above indications and considers the rationale for combining these agents into a single pill, using data from bisoprolol and perindopril randomized controlled trials as supporting evidence. Combining these established antihypertensive agents into a single pill continues to provide effective blood pressure lowering and improved cardiovascular outcomes while allowing a greater proportion of patients to rapidly achieve treatment targets.

The correlation between different antihypertensive treatments and prognosis of cardiovascular disease in hypertensive patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association between different antihypertensive regimens and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes in hypertensive patients.

METHOD

This single center retrospective cohort study analyzed 602 hypertensive patients with complete medical records at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 2016 to November 2022. Baseline data and follow-up data of the included patients were collected, including demographic and clinical characteristics and laboratory results.

RESULTS

During the 5-year follow-up period, CVD outcomes occurred in 244 hypertensive patients (40.53%). Compared with patients receiving regular antihypertensive treatment, the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving irregular antihypertensive treatment was significantly higher (62 [55.86%] vs 182 [37.07%], HR 1.642, 95% CI 1.227-2.197, p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the results showed that the incidence of CVD was not identical (χ2 = 9.170, p = 0.010). The incidence of adverse cardiovascular events was highest in the single-drug antihypertensive treatment group (43.60%), followed by the multi-drug combination group (41.51%), and lowest in the two-drug combination group (29.58%). Kaplan-Meier curve showed that hypertensive patients treated with two-drug combination antihypertensive had longer overall survival time. We further compared the incidence of CVD between standard blood pressure and intensive blood pressure control, and found no significant difference in the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events between treatment to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of less than 140 mmHg compared with a SBP target of less than 120 mmHg (105 [43.93%] vs 35 [29.66%], HR 1.334, 95% CI 0.908-1.961, p = 0.142).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of adverse cardiovascular events was significantly different among different antihypertension treatments. Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed that hypertensive patients receiving two-drug combination antihypertensive treatment had longer overall survival time.

A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Quadruple Combination of Amlodipine, Losartan, Rosuvastatin, and Ezetimibe in Patients with Concomitant Essential Hypertension and Dyslipidemia

BACKGROUND

Few data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination (SPC) consisting of four medications in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose SPC consisting of 5 mg amlodipine, 100 mg losartan, 20 mg rosuvastatin, and 10 mg ezetimibe (A/L/R/E) in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia.

METHODS

This was a 14-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial. In total, 145 patients were randomized to receive A/L/R/E, A/L, or L/R/E. The primary endpoints were the average change in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level in the A/L/R/E and A/L groups and the sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) in the A/L/R/E and L/R/E groups. The numbers of patients with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were compared as safety variables.

RESULTS

The average percentage change in the LDL-C level as the least squares mean (LSM) from the baseline LDL-C level at the end of the 8-week treatment was - 59.0% in the A/L/R/E group and 0.2% in the A/L group (LSM difference - 59.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 68.1 to - 50.4; p < 0.0001). The average change in the sitSBP as the LSM was - 15.8 mmHg in the A/L/R/E group and -4.7 mmHg in the L/R/E group (LSM difference - 11.1, 95% CI - 16.8 to - 5.4; p = 0.0002). No ADRs occurred in the A/L/R/E group.

CONCLUSIONS

A/L/R/E as an SPC could be an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia without significant safety issues.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT04074551 (registered 30 August 2019).

Improved Persistence to Medication, Decreased Cardiovascular Events and Reduced All-Cause Mortality in Hypertensive Patients With Use of Single-Pill Combinations: Results From the START-Study

BACKGROUND

Single-pill combination improves adherence and persistence to medication in hypertension. It remains unclear whether this also reduces cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality. We analyzed whether single-pill combinations are superior to identical multiple pills on persistence to medication, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality.

METHODS

This was a retrospective claims data (German AOK PLUS) analysis. Data from hypertensive patients ≥18 years treated with renin-angiotensin system combinations given as single pill or identical multipills covering the years 2012 to 2018 were analyzed and followed up to at least 1 year. After 1:1 propensity score matching, persistence to medication, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality were compared using non-parametric tests. Results were reported as incidence rate ratios and hazard ratios.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching data from 57 998 patients were analyzed: 10 801 patients received valsartan/amlodipine, 1026 candesartan/amlodipine, 15 349 ramipril/amlodipine, and 1823 amlodipine/valsartan/hydrochlorothiazide as single pill or identical multipill. No relevant differences in patient characteristics were observed within the 4 groups. In all groups, a significant lower all-cause mortality, a significant a higher persistence to medication, a significant lower event rate in 15 out of 20 comparisons, and a tendency in the remaining 5 comparisons was observed under single pills compared with multipill combinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive combination therapy reduces all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events when provided as single pill compared to identical drugs as multipills. This strongly supports the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and International Society of Hypertension guidelines recommending the use of a single-pill combination and thus should be more rigorously implemented into daily clinical practice.

Risk Factors Control After an Acute Coronary Syndrome and Association with Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Single Center Experience in Latin-America

INTRODUCTION

An important challenge in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases is the optimization of risk factors (RFs) after hospital discharge. These have been shown to be insufficiently controlled in clinical practice.

AIM

To evaluate whether secondary prevention goals were met at our institution at 12 months after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) index event, as well as analyzing if achieving these goals was associated with a lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE).

METHODS

Retrospective cohort of patients with a former diagnosis of ACS over a period of 4 years. To evaluate the proportion of patients who met RF control goals at 12 months after the index event, we used two sets of preestablished goals: stringent and lenient. During follow-up we evaluated the occurrence of MACE, defined by the following: ACS, coronary revascularization, stroke, hospitalization because of acute heart failure and cardiovascular death.

RESULTS

We included 468 patients during the study period. The mean age of the patients was 60 ± 10.76 years, 20.5% were women, and mean follow-up was 41.8 ± 22.0 months. The proportion of patients that met all secondary prevention stringent and lenient goals accounted for 5.5% and 17.2%, respectively, and 8% did not achieve any target. Overall, 9.6% presented the composite of MACE during follow-up. The number of RFs in control at 12 months was associated with a lower rate of MACE, both with stringent and lenient goals.

CONCLUSION

Achieving established goals for modifiable RFs can lower the incidence of MACE during long-term follow-up.

[Hypertension: Who to treat, to what extent and how?]

Hypertension is the modifiable risk factor causing the largest loss in healthy life-years. The risk of cardiovascular events increases exponentially with the level of blood pressure (BP), starting from 115mmHg for systolic BP. Out-of-office BP measurements (self-measurements or ambulatory BP measurements) are now preferred for the diagnosis and follow up. In the absence of a preferred indication, antihypertensive treatment is based on thiazide diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers. These treatments are associated with a significant reduction in morbidity and mortality in people with office BP ≥ 140/90mmHg (self-measurements ≥ 135/85mmHg). For people at high cardiovascular risk, especially those with a history of cardiovascular disease, starting the treatment for an office BP ≥ 130/80mmHg is also beneficial (self-measurements ≥ 130/80mmHg as well). It is now common to start treatment with half-dose dual therapy, which is more effective and better tolerated than full-dose monotherapy. The clinical effect is assessed at 4 weeks and intensification, if required, is then usually done by switching to the same dual therapy at full-dose for both components.

Expert Consensus on Ivabradine-based Therapy for Heart Rate Management in Chronic Coronary Syndrome and Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction in India

Heart rate is an important indicator of health and disease and the modulation of heart rate can help to improve cardiovascular outcomes. Besides β-blockers, Ivabradine is a wellestablished heart rate modulating drug that reduces heart rate without any hemodynamic effects. This consensus document was developed with the help of expert opinions from cardiologists across India on effective heart rate management in routine clinical practice and choosing an appropriate Ivabradine-based therapy considering the available scientific data and guideline recommendations. Based on the discussion during the meetings, increased heart rate was recognized as a significant predictor of adverse cardiovascular outcomes among patients with chronic coronary syndromes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction making heart rate modulation important in these subsets. Ivabradine is indicated in the management of chronic coronary syndromes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction for patients in whom heart rate targets cannot be achieved despite guideline-directed β-blocker dosing or having contraindication/intolerance to β-blockers. A prolonged release once-daily dosage of Ivabradine can be considered in patients already stabilized on Ivabradine twice-daily. Ivabradine/β-blocker fixed-dose combination can also be considered to reduce pill burden. Two consensus algorithms have been developed for further guidance on the appropriate usage of Ivabradine-based therapies. Ivabradine and β-blockers can provide more pronounced clinical improvement in most chronic coronary syndromes and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction patients with a fixed-dose combination providing an opportunity to improve adherence.

Synergistic cardioprotective ability of co-administration of Moringa supplemented diets and acarbose in diabetic cardiomyopathy involves attenuation of cholinergic, purinergic, monoaminergic, renin-angiotensin system, and antioxidant pathways

One of the major complications of diabetes mellitus (DM) is diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM) due to the multifaceted therapy involved. Here, we evaluated the combinatorial effect of Moringa leaf (ML) and seed (MS) supplemented diets plus acarbose (ACA) on cardiac acetylcholinesterase (AChE), adenosine triphosphatase (ATPase), adenosine deaminase (ADA), monoamine oxidase (MAO), arginase, angiotensin-I converting enzyme (ACE), and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activities, thiobarbituric acid reactive species (TBARS), and thiols levels. The diets and ACA (25 mg/kg) were administered for 14 days. The fasting blood glucose level (FBGL), cardiac AChE, ATPase, ADA, MAO, arginase, ACE, LDH activities, and TBARS and thiol levels were determined. Relative to the normal rats, the biomarkers were significantly increased in DM rats but were suppressed significantly in the diets plus ACA-treated rats while improving antioxidant status, with the 4% Moringa plus ACA proving outstanding compared to individual ML/MS and ACA. In addition, ML-supplemented diets with/without ACA had better effects compared to MS with/without ACA, respectively. In conclusion, the combination of ML/MS supplemented diets and ACA synergistically modulates the tested biochemicals. However, the effect on blood vessels and the nerves that control the heart, stiffness of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy, fibrosis, cell signaling abnormalities, related gene expression, clinical trials, and echocardiology studies should be further investigated to affirm this claim. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: Moringa oleifera has been a vocal appetite in mitigating cardiovascular disease induced by diabetes, but the formulation of a medicinal diet as an ameliorative route of attention to the pathology is fairly addressed, not talking of its combination with the synthetic antidiabetic drug, such as ACA. Based on this experiment, it is imperative to explore such an idea. This research shows that co-administration of moringa leaf/seed formulated diets plus ACA exhibits a synergistic effect in DCM management. However, further research is needed in this field of experiment.

Use of initial and subsequent antihypertensive combination treatment in the last decade: analysis of a large Italian database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to assess the use of antihypertensive combination treatment, both as the initial and as a subsequent therapeutic step, in a large Italian population.

METHODS

The residents of the Lombardy Region (Italy), aged 40 years or older, who were newly treated with antihypertensive drugs during 2012, 2015 and 2018 were identified and the drug treatment strategy (monotherapy and combination of two, three and more than three antihypertensive drugs) was assessed at treatment initiation, and after 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years of treatment. Data were also analysed after stratification for demographic and clinical categories.

RESULTS

About 100 000 patients were identified for each cohort. Monotherapy was the most common initial treatment strategy (75%), followed by two-drug single-pill combination (16%), two-drug free combination (6%), and combination of at least three drugs (3%). Use of two and three or more antihypertensive drugs increased during follow-up and reached about 32% (two drugs) and 11% (>2 drugs) of the patients after 3 years from treatment initiation. Among patients prescribed a two-drug combination, the single-pill was the most common approach, whereas the use of the three-drug single-pill combination was extremely rare. There were no substantial differences in the use of combination treatment between the three cohorts and the results were similar in all demographic and clinical categories.

CONCLUSION

Our data show that in a real-life population use of antihypertensive drug combinations is low. They also show that, contrary to guideline recommendations, antihypertensive combination treatment did not show any noticeable increase in recent years.

Management of Diabetes and Hypertension within the Gulf Region: Updates on Treatment Practices and Therapies

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death globally, driven by the high rates of risk factors, such as diabetes and hypertension. As the prevalence of these risk factors is particularly high in the Gulf region, better diagnosis and management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hypertension has the potential to dramatically reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes for individuals in that part of the world. This article provides a summary of presentations made during the EVIDENT summit, a virtual symposium on Evidence in Diabetes and Hypertension, held in September 2021, including a review of the various guidelines for both T2D and hypertension, as well as recent findings relevant to the safety and efficacy for therapies relating to these conditions. Of relevance to the Gulf region, the risk of hypoglycaemia with sulfonylureas during Ramadan was reviewed. For the management of T2D, sulfonylureas have been a long-standing medication used to achieve glycaemic control; however, differences have emerged between early and later generations, with recent studies suggesting improvements in the safety profiles of late-generation sulfonylureas. For patients with hypertension, incremental therapy changes are recommended to reduce the risk of cardiovascular complications that are associated with increasing blood pressure. For first-line therapy, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), such as perindopril, have been demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. The addition of calcium channel blockers and diuretics to ACEi has been shown to be effective in patients with poorly controlled hypertension. The different renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors are reviewed, and the benefit of combination therapies, including amlodipine and indapamide in patients with difficult-to-control hypertension, is investigated. The benefits of lifestyle modifications for these patients are also discussed, with important clinical considerations that are expected to inform patient management in daily clinical practice.

From contact coverage to effective coverage of community care for patients with severe mental disorders: A real-world investigation from Italy

OBJECTIVES

To measure the gap between contact and effective coverage of mental healthcare (MHC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

45,761 newly referred cases of depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and personality disorder from four Italian regions were included. A variant of the self-controlled case series method was adopted to estimate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for the relationship between exposure (i.e., use of different types of MHC such as pharmacotherapy, generic contact with the outpatient services, psychosocial intervention, and psychotherapy) and relapse (emergency hospital admissions for mental illness).

RESULTS

11,500 relapses occurred. Relapse risk was reduced during periods covered by (i) psychotherapy for patients with depression (IRR 0.67; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.91) and bipolar disorder (0.64; 0.29 to 0.99); (ii) psychosocial interventions for those with depression (0.74; 0.56 to 0.98), schizophrenia (0.83; 0.68 to 0.99), and bipolar disorder (0.55; 0.36 to 0.84), (iii) pharmacotherapy for patients with schizophrenia (0.58; 0.49 to 0.69), and bipolar disorder (0.59; 0.44 to 0.78). Coverage with generic care, in absence of psychosocial/psychotherapeutic interventions, did not affect risk of relapse.

CONCLUSION

This study ascertained the gap between contact and effective coverage of MHC and showed that administrative data can usefully contribute to assess the effectiveness of a mental health system.

Risk of bias in observational studies using routinely collected data of comparative effectiveness research: a meta-research study

BACKGROUND

To assess the completeness of reporting, research transparency practices, and risk of selection and immortal bias in observational studies using routinely collected data for comparative effectiveness research.

METHOD

We performed a meta-research study by searching PubMed for comparative effectiveness observational studies evaluating therapeutic interventions using routinely collected data published in high impact factor journals from 01/06/2018 to 30/06/2020. We assessed the reporting of the study design (i.e., eligibility, treatment assignment, and the start of follow-up). The risk of selection bias and immortal time bias was determined by assessing if the time of eligibility, the treatment assignment, and the start of follow-up were synchronized to mimic the randomization following the target trial emulation framework.

RESULT

Seventy-seven articles were identified. Most studies evaluated pharmacological treatments (69%) with a median sample size of 24,000 individuals. In total, 20% of articles inadequately reported essential information of the study design. One-third of the articles (n = 25, 33%) raised some concerns because of unclear reporting (n = 6, 8%) or were at high risk of selection bias and/or immortal time bias (n = 19, 25%). Only five articles (25%) described a solution to mitigate these biases. Six articles (31%) discussed these biases in the limitations section.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of essential information of study design in observational studies remained suboptimal. Selection bias and immortal time bias were common methodological issues that researchers and physicians should be aware of when interpreting the results of observational studies using routinely collected data.

Self-Reported Antihypertensive Medication Class and Temporal Relationship to Treatment Guidelines

The greater antihypertensive responses to initial therapy with calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or thiazide-type diuretics than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in non-Hispanic Black (NHB) adults was recognized in the US High BP guidelines from 1988 to 2003. The 2014 Report from Panel Members Appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (2014 aJNC8 Report) and the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association High Blood Pressure Guideline were the first to recommend CCBs or thiazide-type diuretics rather than renin-angiotensin system blockers as initial therapy in NHB. We assessed the temporal relationship of these recommendations on self-reported CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy by NHB and NHW adults with hypertension absent compelling indications for β-blockers or renin-angiotensin system blockers in National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2015 to 2018 versus 2007 to 2012 (after versus before 2014 aJNC8 Report). CCB or thiazide-type diuretics monotherapy was unchanged in NHW adults (17.1% versus 18.1%, P=0.711) and insignificantly higher after 2014 among NHB adults (43.7% versus 38.2%, P=0.204), although CCB monotherapy increased (29.5% versus 21.0%, P=0.021) and renin-angiotensin system blocker monotherapy fell (44.5% versus 31.0%, P=0.008). Although evidence-based CCB monotherapy increased among NHB adults in 2015 to 2018, hypertension control declined as untreated hypertension and monotherapy increased. While a gap between recommended and actual monotherapy persists, evidence-based monotherapy appears insufficient to improve hypertension control in NHB adults, especially given evidence for worsening therapeutic inertia. Initiating treatment with single-pill combinations and timely therapeutic intensification when required to control hypertension are evidence-based, race-neutral options for improving hypertension control among NHB adults.

Adherence to Treatment by Initial Antihypertensive Mono and Combination Therapies

BACKGROUND

Aim of our study was to compare adherence to antihypertensive drug therapy between newly treated patients in whom monotherapy or a 2-drug single-pill combination (SPC) was initially dispensed.

METHODS

The 63,448 residents of Lombardy Region (Italy), aged 40-80 years, who were newly treated with antihypertensive drugs during 2016, were identified and followed for 1 year after the first prescription. The outcome of interest was adherence to drug therapy that was measured according to the "proportion of days covered" (PDC) criterion, i.e., the ratio between the number of days in which the drug was available and the days of follow-up. Patients who had a PDC >75% and <25% were defined as highly and poorly adherent to drug therapy, respectively. Log-binomial regression models were fitted to compare the propensity to treatment adherence between the initial therapeutic strategies, after adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical covariates.

RESULTS

About 46% and 17% of patients showed high and poor adherence, respectively. Compared with patients under initial monotherapy (85%), those who were initially treated with a SPC (15%) had higher propensity to be highly adherent and a lower propensity to be poorly adherent to antihypertensive treatment (risk ratio: 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.21; 0.42, 0.39-0.45, respectively). This was the case regardless the sex, the age, the patient clinical status, and with almost any type of SPC.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-life setting, patients who were initially prescribed a 2-drug SPC exhibited more frequently a good adherence to antihypertensive treatment than those starting with a single drug.

The use of single-pill combinations as first-line treatment for hypertension: translating guidelines into clinical practice

: The 2008 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension guidelines recommend the first-line prescription of two antihypertensive drugs in single-pill combinations (SPCs), also known as fixed-dose combinations, for the treatment of most patients with hypertension. This recommendation is based on a large amount of data, which shows that first-line treatment with SPCs supports reaching blood pressure targets rapidly and reducing cardiovascular outcome risk while keeping the therapeutic strategies as simple as possible and fostering adherence and persistence. As this approach constitutes a big shift from the stepped-care approaches that have been dominant for many years, practicing physicians have expressed concerns about using SPCs as first-line agents. In this review, we will discuss the barriers to the uptake of this recommendation. We will also offer suggestions to reduce the impact of these barriers and address specific concerns that have been raised.

Position statement on use of pharmacological combinations in a single pill for treatment of hypertension by Argentine Federation of Cardiology (FAC) and Argentine Society of Hypertension (SAHA)

The present document provides scientific evidence reviewed and analysed by a group of specialist clinicians in hypertension that aims to give an insight into a pharmacological strategy to improve blood pressure control. Evidence shows that most hypertensive patients will need at least two drugs to achieve blood pressure goals. There is ample evidence showing that treatment adherence is inversely related to the number of drugs taken. Observational studies show that use of drug combinations to initiate treatment reduces the time to reach the treatment goal and reduces CVD, especially with single pill combinations (SPCs). This work, based on recommendations of the Argentine Federation of Cardiology and Argentine Society of Hypertension as a reference, aims to review the more recent evidence on SPC, and to serve as guidelines for health professionals in their clinical practice and to the wider use of SPCs for the treatment of hypertension. Evidence from clinical trials on the effectiveness and adverse effects of using SPCs are provided. An analysis is also made of the main contributions of SPCs in special populations, e.g., elderly and diabetic patients, and its use in high risk and resistant hypertension. The effects of SPCs on hypertensive-mediated organ damage is also examined. Finally, we provide some aspects to consider when choosing treatments in the economic context of Latin-America for promoting the most efficient use of resources in a scarce environment and to provide quality information to decision makers to formulate safe, cost-effective, and patient-centered health policies. Finally, future perspectives and limitations in clinical practice are also discussed.

Cardiovascular Outcomes and Mortality Associated With Discontinuing Statins in Older Patients Receiving Polypharmacy

IMPORTANCE

Polypharmacy is a major health concern among older adults. While deprescribing may reduce inappropriate medicine use, its effect on clinical end points remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical implications of discontinuing the use of statins while maintaining other drugs in a cohort of older patients receiving polypharmacy.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective, population-based cohort study included the 29 047 residents in the Italian Lombardy region aged 65 years or older who were receiving uninterrupted treatment with statins, blood pressure-lowering, antidiabetic, and antiplatelet agents from October 1, 2013, until January 31, 2015, with follow-up through June 30, 2018. Data were collected using the health care utilization database of Lombardy region in Italy. Data analysis was conducted from March to November 2020.

EXPOSURES

Cohort members were followed up to identify those who discontinued statins. Among this group, those who maintained other therapies during the first 6 months after statin discontinuation were 1:1 propensity score matched with patients who discontinued neither statins nor other drugs.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The pairs of patients discontinuing and maintaining statins were followed up from the initial discontinuation until June 30, 2018, to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for fatal and nonfatal outcomes associated with statin discontinuation.

RESULTS

The full cohort inclued 29 047 patients exposed to polypharmacy (mean [SD] age, 76.5 [6.5] years; 18 257 [62.9%] men). Of them, 5819 (20.0%) discontinued statins while maintaining other medications, and 4010 (68.9%) of them were matched with a comparator. In the discontinuing group, the mean (SD) age was 76.5 (6.4) years, 2405 (60.0%) were men, and 506 (12.6%) had Multisource Comorbidity Scores of 4 or 5. In the maintaining group, the mean (SD) age was 76.1 (6.3) years, 2474 (61.7%) were men, and 482 (12.0%) had multisource comorbidity scores of 4 or 5. Compared with the maintaining group, patients in the discontinuing group had increased risk of hospital admissions for heart failure (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.43) and any cardiovascular outcome (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), deaths from any cause (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30), and emergency admissions for any cause (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.05-1.19).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study of patients receiving polypharmacy, discontinuing statins while maintaining other drug therapies was associated with an increase in the long-term risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular outcomes.

Synergistic cardioptotection by tilianin and syringin in diabetic cardiomyopathy involves interaction of TLR4/NF-κB/NLRP3 and PGC1a/SIRT3 pathways

Diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM) is a chronic multifactorial complication of type-2 diabetes mellitus, leading to heart failure. A combination of multifaceted therapeutics for the management of DCM is needed. Here, we investigated the combined effect of syringin and tilianin on DCM by evaluating cardiac function, inflammation, oxidative stress, apoptosis and mitochondrial function, and explored the contribution of TLR4/NF-κB/NLRP3 and PGC1α/SIRT3 pathways in diabetic rats and hyperglycemic-H9c2 cells. Syringin and tilianin (50 and 60 mg/kg, i.p, respectively) were administered for eight weeks, individually or in combination, to healthy and type-2 diabetic Sprague-Dawley rats. Myocardial function was recorded using a carotid catheter, mitochondrial and histopathological changes were evaluated by fluorometric and staining methods, cardiac markers and signaling pathways' proteins expression were measured through ELISA and immunoblotting. In comparison to individual treatments, combination of syringin and tilianin effectively exerted antidiabetic effects and improved cardiac function and DCM markers, reduced NLRP3/IL-6/IL-1β/TNF-α expression, and suppressed diabetes/hyperglycemia‑induced oxidative stress in rats' heart and H9c2 cells, as demonstrated by decreased 8-isoprostane, and increased superoxide dismutase-2 levels. Mitochondrial membrane depolarization and ROS production were inhibited, and caspase-3 and Bax/Bcl2 expression downregulated by combination therapy. Combined treatment markedly inhibited up-regulation of TLR4, MyD88 and NF-κB in diabetic rats. Finally, inhibition of PGC1α/SIRT3 pathway by 3-TYP in hyperglycemic H9c2-cells reversed the beneficial effects of combination therapy on cardiomyocytes injury and NF-κB/NLRP3/IL-1β expression, without affecting TLR4/MyD88 expression. Syringin plus tilianin synergistically inhibited the diabetes-induced cardiac functional, biochemical and histopathological changes in DCM. Crosstalk between TLR4/NF-κB/NLRP3 and PGC1α/SIRT3/mitochondrial pathways contributed to this protection.

ARB-Based Combination Therapy for the Clinical Management of Hypertension and Hypertension-Related Comorbidities: A Spotlight on Their Use in COVID-19 Patients

Essential hypertension is the most common cardiovascular (CV) risk factor, being primarily involved in the pathogenesis of CV disease and mortality worldwide. Given the high prevalence and growing incidence of this clinical condition in the general population in both high and low-income countries, antihypertensive drug therapies are frequently prescribed in different hypertension-related CV diseases and comorbidities. Among these conditions, evidence are available demonstrating the clinical benefits of lowering blood pressure (BP) levels, particularly in those hypertensive patients at high or very high CV risk profile. Preliminary studies, performed during the Sars-COVID-19 epidemic, raised some concerns on the potential implication of hypertension and antihypertensive medications in the susceptibility of having severe pneumonia, particularly with regard to the use of drugs inhibiting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS), including angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). These hypotheses were not confirmed by subsequent studies, which independently and systematically demonstrated no clinical harm of these drugs also in patients with Sars-COVID-19 infection. The aim of this narrative review is to critically discuss the available evidence supporting the use of antihypertensive therapies based RAS blocking agents in hypertensive patients with different CV risk profile and with additional clinical conditions or comorbidities, including Sars-COVID-19 infection, with a particular focus on single-pill combination therapies based on olmesartan medoxomil.

Beneficial Effects of a Perindopril/Indapamide Single-Pill Combination in Hypertensive Patients with Diabetes and/or Obesity or Metabolic Syndrome: A Post Hoc Pooled Analysis of Four Observational Studies

INTRODUCTION

To assess real-life effectiveness of a perindopril/indapamide (Per/Ind) single-pill combination (SPC) in patients with hypertension (HT) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity and/or metabolic syndrome (MetS).

METHODS

This post hoc analysis pooled raw data from four large observational studies (FORTISSIMO, FORSAGE, ACES, PICASSO). Patients, most with uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) on previous treatments were switched to Per/Ind (10 mg/2.5 mg) SPC at study entry. Office systolic and diastolic blood pressures (SBP and DBP) were measured at baseline, 1 month and 3 months.

RESULTS

In the overall pooled population (N = 16,763), mean age was 61 ± 12 years, HT duration 11 ± 8 years, and baseline SBP/DBP 162/94 mmHg. T2DM, obesity and MetS were present in 21%, 49% and 27% of patients, respectively. Subgroups had similar mean age and HT duration to the overall population; patients with T2DM were slightly older (64 ± 10 years) with a longer HT duration (13 ± 8 years). Mean BP was approximately 160/95 mmHg in each subgroup. At 1 month, mean SBP decreased by approximately 20 mmHg in the overall population, and by a further 10 mmHg at 3 months. Similar results were observed in the three subgroups, with mean changes from baseline at 3 months of - 28 ± 15/- 13 ± 10 in T2DM; - 30 ± 15/- 14 ± 10 in obesity; and - 31 ± 15/- 15 ± 9 mmHg in MetS. BP decreases were greatest in patients with grade II or grade III HT. BP control rates (< 140/90 mmHg or 140/85 mmHg for T2DM) at 3 months were 59% in T2DM, 67% in obese, and 66% in MetS. No specific safety concerns were raised, particularly concerning ionic (Na, K) or metabolic profiles.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching to Per/Ind SPC led to rapid and effective BP decreases in patients with T2DM, obesity, or MetS. BP control was achieved in 6-7 out of 10 previously treated but uncontrolled patients. Treatment was well tolerated. The results confirm the beneficial effects of a Per/Ind SPC for difficult-to-control patient populations.

Novel approaches to management of hypertension

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Of the roughly 1.4 billion people with hypertension worldwide, only about one in seven has their blood pressure (BP) successfully treated and adequately controlled. This review will focus on new therapeutic approaches of hypertension.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several recent clinical studies and guidelines have favoured the assessment of target organ damage and cardiovascular risk scores for the diagnosis and treatment approach of hypertension. Paradigm shifts recommended in the guidelines are the initiation of antihypertensive treatment with combination (not mono) therapy and the recommendation of single-pill combinations (SPC), which improve adherence and result in rapid and effective BP control. In clinical trials with optimized design and renal denervation (RDN) technology, the biological proof of concept has been established. Consistent, durable ambulatory and office BP reductions without procedure associated serious adverse events have been documented. The challenges are now to identify patients who respond best to interventional treatment.

SUMMARY

Major key points in the treatment strategy for hypertension are: individualization of the therapy according to total cardiovascular risk, combination therapy as initial step, recommendation of SPC and RDN as promising interventional therapy.

Treatment Patterns and Blood Pressure Control With Initiation of Combination Versus Monotherapy Antihypertensive Regimens

Many patients with hypertension require 2 or more drug classes to achieve their blood pressure (BP) goal. We compared antihypertensive medication treatment patterns and BP control between patients who initiated combination therapy versus monotherapy. We identified adults with hypertension enrolled in a US integrated healthcare system who initiated antihypertensive medication between 2008 and 2014. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, antihypertensive medication, and BP were extracted from electronic health records. Antihypertensive medication patterns and multivariable adjusted prevalence ratios (PRs) of achieving the 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline-recommended BP <130/80 mm Hg were evaluated for 2 years following treatment initiation. Of 135 971 patients, 43% initiated antihypertensive combination therapy (35% ACE [angiotensin converting enzyme] inhibitor (ACEI)-thiazide diuretics; 8% with other combinations) and 57% initiated monotherapy (22% ACEIs; 16% thiazide diuretics; 11% β blockers; 8% calcium channel blockers). After multivariable adjustment including premedication BP levels, patients who initiated ACEI-thiazide diuretic combination therapy were more likely to achieve BP <130/80 mm Hg compared with their counterparts who initiated monotherapy with ACEI (PR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.08-1.12]), thiazide diuretic (PR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.18-1.24]), β blocker (PR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.14-1.20]), or calcium channel blocker (PR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.22-1.29]). Compared with initiating monotherapy, patients initiating ACEI-thiazide diuretic combination therapy were more likely to achieve BP goals.

Better adherence with out-of-hospital healthcare improved long-term prognosis of acute coronary syndromes: Evidence from an Italian real-world investigation

BACKGROUND

Patients who experience a hospital admission for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) exhibit poor prognosis over the years. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the real-world patterns of out-of-hospital practice in the management of ACS patients and to assess their impact on the risk of selected outcomes.

METHODS

The cohort of 87,530 residents in the Lombardy Region (Italy) who were newly hospitalised for ACS during 2011-2015 was followed until 2018. Exposure to medical treatment including use of selected drugs, diagnostic procedures and laboratory tests was recorded. The main outcome of interest was re-hospitalisation for cardiovascular (CV) outcomes. Proportional hazards models were fitted to estimate hazard ratio, and 95% confidence intervals (CI), for the exposure-outcome association. Analyses were stratified according to the ACS type.

RESULTS

The cumulative incidence of re-hospitalisation for CV disease was 33%, 42% and 38% at 5 years after index discharge among STEMI, NSTEMI and unstable angina patients. Within one year from index discharge, between 70% and 80% of patients had at least a prescription of statins, beta-blockers and renin-angiotensin-system blocking agents, underwent ECG and lipid profile examination, and had a cardiologic examination. One patient in five underwent cardiac rehabilitation. Compared with patients who did not adhere to healthcare recommendations, the risk of CV hospital readmission was reduced from 10% (95% CI: 4%-10%) to 23% (12%-32%) among patients who underwent lipid profile examinations and who experienced cardiac rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Close out-of-hospital healthcare must be considered the cornerstone for improving the long-term prognosis of ACS patients.

Two-drug fixed-dose combinations of blood pressure-lowering drugs as WHO essential medicines: An overview of efficacy, safety, and cost

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the world's leading cause of death. High blood pressure (BP) is the leading global risk factor for all-cause preventable morbidity and mortality. Globally, only about 14% of patients achieve BP control to systolic BP <140 mm Hg and diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. Most patients (>60%) require two or more drugs to achieve BP control, yet poor adherence to therapy is a major barrier to achieving this control. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs) of BP-lowering drugs are one means to improve BP control through greater adherence and efficacy, with favorable safety and cost profiles. The authors present a review of the supporting data from a successful application to the World Health Organization (WHO) for the inclusion of FDCs of two BP-lowering drugs on the 21st WHO Essential Medicines List. The authors discuss the efficacy and safety of FDCs of two BP-lowering drugs for the management of hypertension in adults, relevant hypertension guideline recommendations, and the estimated cost of such therapies.

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Blockers and the Risk of Covid-19

BACKGROUND

A potential association between the use of angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and the risk of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) has not been well studied.

METHODS

We carried out a population-based case-control study in the Lombardy region of Italy. A total of 6272 case patients in whom infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) was confirmed between February 21 and March 11, 2020, were matched to 30,759 beneficiaries of the Regional Health Service (controls) according to sex, age, and municipality of residence. Information about the use of selected drugs and patients' clinical profiles was obtained from regional databases of health care use. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for associations between drugs and infection, with adjustment for confounders, were estimated by means of logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among both case patients and controls, the mean (±SD) age was 68±13 years, and 37% were women. The use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was more common among case patients than among controls, as was the use of other antihypertensive and non-antihypertensive drugs, and case patients had a worse clinical profile. Use of ARBs or ACE inhibitors did not show any association with Covid-19 among case patients overall (adjusted odds ratio, 0.95 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.86 to 1.05] for ARBs and 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.07] for ACE inhibitors) or among patients who had a severe or fatal course of the disease (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.10] for ARBs and 0.91 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.21] for ACE inhibitors), and no association between these variables was found according to sex.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, population-based study, the use of ACE inhibitors and ARBs was more frequent among patients with Covid-19 than among controls because of their higher prevalence of cardiovascular disease. However, there was no evidence that ACE inhibitors or ARBs affected the risk of COVID-19.

Reorganizing the treatment of cardiovascular disease in response to coronavirus disease 2019; time for the polypill?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has forced a redesign of healthcare services. Resource reallocation will have consequences on the routine management of chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease (CVD). We consider how to mitigate potential adverse effects.

RECENT FINDINGS

Combination therapy is well established in hypertension. Many guidelines recommend dual antihypertensive therapy as the initial treatment step as this results in faster blood pressure control, albeit with limited evidence of improved outcomes. Control of CVD risk factors through multiclass combination therapy (the polypill) was proposed many years ago. This approach has not been adopted by Western healthcare systems despite improving surrogate outcomes. Recently, the PolyIran trials have demonstrated improved CVD outcomes without increased adverse events, in both primary and secondary prevention.

SUMMARY

The COVID-19 pandemic allows models of chronic healthcare to be rethought. Current practices are resource-intensive and there is a need to simplify titration and monitoring protocols in CVD. Moving toward the use of polypill combinations allied with telehealth consultations may be one solution.

Comparison of Efficacies of Commonly Used Hypertension Treatment Modalities: A Retrospective Study of 1900 Participants in a Hypertension Clinic

BACKGROUND Although various antihypertensive medications are available, some hypertensive patients have uncontrolled blood pressures, especially in the clinic. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacies of various antihypertensive therapies in our hypertension (HTN) clinic (monotherapy vs. combination therapy, fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus free equivalent combination (FEC), and diuretics versus non-diuretics. MATERIAL AND METHODS In this retrospective study, patients at the HTN clinic of the Third Xiangya Hospital with primary hypertension were enrolled from June 2016 to February 2017. Data on participants' basic characteristics, blood pressure data, and treatment modalities were collected. The proportions of participants attaining target blood pressure after treatment with antihypertensive modalities were calculated and compared. RESULTS Among 1900 participants, combination therapy had a better control efficacy than monotherapy (P<0.0005). When HTN was treated by 2 kinds of drugs, FEC was used much more frequently than FDC (P<0.0005). In grade 3 HTN, FDC had a higher control rate (P=0.002). If more than 2 kinds of drugs were used, FDC+OTHER had a slightly higher control rate in grade 2 and 3 (42.1% vs. 38.5%, P=0.724; 36.2% vs. 31.0%, P=0.526, respectively). Therapies with diuretics had better control rates than those without diuretics (43.1% vs. 36.9%, P=0.025). CONCLUSIONS In our clinic, FEC was prescribed more often than FDC. When blood pressure is significantly elevated, especially at levels 2 or 3, FDC seems to have a better control rate than FEC. Therapies with diuretics controlled HTN more efficiently.

First-line combination therapy versus first-line monotherapy for primary hypertension

BACKGROUND

This is the first update of a review originally published in 2017. Starting with one drug and starting with a combination of two drugs are strategies suggested in clinical guidelines as initial treatment of hypertension. The recommendations are not based on evidence about clinically relevant outcomes. Some antihypertensive combinations have been shown to be harmful. The actual harm-to-benefit balance of each strategy is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 2005), Embase (from 1974), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We used no language restrictions. We also searched clinical studies repositories of pharmaceutical companies, reviews of combination drugs on the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, and lists of references in reviews and clinical practice guidelines.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised, double-blind trials with at least 12 months' follow-up in adults with primary hypertension (systolic blood pressure/diastolic blood pressure 140/90 mmHg or higher, or 130/80 mmHg or higher if participants had diabetes), which compared combination of two first-line antihypertensive drugs with monotherapy as initial treatment. Trials had to include at least 50 participants per group and report mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cardiovascular events, or serious adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, evaluated the risk of bias, and performed data entry. The primary outcomes were mortality, serious adverse events, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were withdrawals due to drug-related adverse effects, reaching blood pressure control (as defined in each trial), and blood pressure change from baseline. Analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle. We summarised data on dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

This update included one new study in which a subgroup of participants met our inclusion criteria. As none of the four included studies focused solely on people initiating antihypertensive treatment, we asked investigators for data for this subgroup. One study (PREVER-treatment 2016) used a combination of thiazide-type diuretic/potassium-sparing diuretic; as the former is not indicated in monotherapy, we analysed this study separately. The three original trials in the main comparison (monotherapy: 335 participants; combination therapy: 233 participants) included outpatients, mostly European and white people. Two trials only included people with type 2 diabetes; the remaining trial excluded people treated with diabetes, hypocholesterolaemia, or cardiovascular drugs. The follow-up was 12 months in two trials and 36 months in one trial. It is very uncertain whether combination therapy versus monotherapy reduces total mortality (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 21.72), cardiovascular mortality (zero events reported), cardiovascular events (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.41), serious adverse events (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.92), or withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.35); all outcomes had 568 participants, and the evidence was rated as of very low certainty due to serious imprecision and for using a subgroup that was not defined in advance. The confidence intervals were extremely wide for all important outcomes and included both appreciable harm and benefit. The PREVER-treatment 2016 trial, which used a combination therapy with potassium-sparing diuretic (monotherapy: 84 participants; combination therapy: 116 participants), included outpatients. This trial was conducted in Brazil and had a follow-up of 18 months. The number of events was very low and confidence intervals very wide, with zero events reported for cardiovascular mortality and withdrawals due to adverse events. It is very uncertain if there are differences in clinical outcomes between monotherapy and combination therapy in this trial.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The numbers of included participants, and hence the number of events, were too small to draw any conclusion about the relative efficacy of monotherapy versus combination therapy as initial treatment for primary hypertension. There is a need for large clinical trials that address the review question and report clinically relevant endpoints.

Russian Trial ALGORITHM: Implementation of Combined Antihypertensive and Hypolipidemic Treatment for Clinical Efficacy Achievement in Routine Clinical Practice

Aim. To study the clinical outcomes (achievement of target blood pressure [BP]) and tolerability of antihypertensive and hypolipidemic therapy with fixed combinations of indapamide/perindopril, amlodipine/perindopril, amlodipine/indapamide/perindopril and rosuvastatin in patients with hypertension and high/very high cardiovascular risk in real clinical practice.

Material and methods. The study included 16,788 patients from 104 cities of the Russian Federation. The duration of observation was 12 weeks. All patients had three monitoring visits. BP level was measured twice during the visits: the arithmetic mean of the obtained parameters was calculated. The results of the study were analyzed and presented by descriptive statistics.

Results. The average age of the patients was 60.6±10.2 years; 42.2% of the patients were men and 57.8% women. Patients who demonstrated systolicdiastolic hypertension (BP>140/90 mm Hg) at the initial visit accounted for 73.9% (n=12,413) of the total number of participants. The average level of systolic BP at the inclusion into the study was 162.94±13.07 mm Hg, the level of diastolic BP was 93.43±8.61 mm Hg. As expected, the Russian population consists of over 90% of patients with very high (57%; n=9,586) and high (35.9%; n=6,022) additional cardiovascular risk. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of patients with hypertension had a high and very high additional risk, more than a third of patients received monotherapy to control their BP level (36.8%; n=6,182), while 13.8% of patients (n=2,321) had never received antihypertensive therapy before. According to the results of therapy with combination drugs based on perindopril, 92.7% of patients managed to reach the target BP levels of <140/90 mm Hg. After treatment the average level of systolic BP decreased from 162.94±13.07 mm Hg to 127.80±7.56 mm Hg, and the level of diastolic BP – from 93.43±8.61 mm Hg to 78.54±5.59. Adherence to the treatment in more than 97% of cases was recognized as very high and high. Only 10 adverse events were recorded on a large sample of patients during 12 weeks of treatment.

Conclusion. In the Russian population, 73.9% of patients with hypertension and high/very high risk do not achieve the target BP levels. Application of combined therapy based on fixed combinations with perindopril allows achieving effective BP control in 93% of patients with hypertension having high and very high risk during 12 weeks with good tolerability of treatment.

3D-Printed Solid Dispersion Drug Products

With the well-known advantages of additive manufacturing methods such as three-dimensional (3D) printing in drug delivery, it is disappointing that only one product has been successful in achieving regulatory approval in the past few years. Further research and development is required in this area to introduce more 3D printed products into the market. Our study investigates the potential of fixed dose combination solid dispersion drug products generated via 3D printing. Two model drugs-fluorescein sodium (FS) and 5-aminosalicyclic acid (5-ASA)-were impregnated onto a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) filament, and the influence of solvent choice in optimal drug loading as well as other influences such as the physicochemical and mechanical properties of the resultant filaments were investigated prior to development of the resultant drug products. Key outcomes of this work included the improvement of filament drug loading by one- to threefold due to solvent choice on the basis of its polarity and the generation of a 3D-printed product confirmed to be a solid dispersion fixed dose combination with the two model drugs exhibiting favourable in vitro dissolution characteristics.