Initial single-pill combination therapy for cardiovascular risk factor management: it is not just convenience

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

Importance

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

Objective

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

Design, Setting, and Participants

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

Interventions

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

Main Outcomes and Measures

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

Results

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

Conclusions and Relevance

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

Trial Registration

ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864.

A randomized multicenter study on ambulatory blood pressure and arterial stiffness in patients treated with valsartan/amlodipine or nifedipine GITS

In a pre-specified subgroup analysis of a 12-week randomized multicenter study, we investigated effects of valsartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg single-pill combination (n = 75) and nifedipine GITS 30 mg (n = 75) on ambulatory blood pressure (BP) and arterial stiffness assessed by brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (PWV) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. At week 12, the between-treatment mean differences in systolic/diastolic BP were smaller for 24-hour and daytime (-2.1/-1.7 and -2.0/-1.5 mm Hg, respectively, P ≥ 0.22) but greater (P < 0.01) for nighttime (-4.0/-2.8 mm Hg, P ≤ 0.09), especially in sustained uncontrolled hypertension (-5.0/-4.1 mm Hg, P ≤ 0.04) and non-dippers (-6.5/-3.7 mm Hg, P ≤ 0.07), in favor of valsartan/amlodipine. At week 12, PWV was significantly reduced from baseline by valsartan/amlodipine (n = 59, P < 0.0001) but not nifedipine (n = 59, P = 0.06). The changes in PWV were significantly associated with that in ambulatory systolic BP and pulse pressure in the nifedipine (P ≤ 0.0008) but not valsartan/amlodipine group (P ≥ 0.57), with a significant interaction (P ≤ 0.045). The valsartan/amlodipine combination was more efficacious than nifedipine GITS in lowering nighttime BP in sustained uncontrolled hypertension and non-dippers, and in lowering arterial stiffness independent of BP lowering.

Fixed-dose combination therapy for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide, yet ASCVD risk factor control and secondary prevention rates remain low. A fixed-dose combination of blood pressure- and cholesterol-lowering and antiplatelet treatments into a single pill, or polypill, has been proposed as one strategy to reduce the global burden of ASCVD.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal ASCVD events, and adverse events. We also sought to determine the effect of fixed-dose combination therapy on blood pressure, lipids, adherence, discontinuation rates, health-related quality of life, and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We updated our previous searches in September 2016 of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, and DARE, HTA, and HEED. We also searched two clinical trials registers in September 2016. We used no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a fixed-dose combination therapy including at least one blood pressure-lowering and one lipid-lowering component versus usual care, placebo, or an active drug comparator for any treatment duration in adults 18 years old or older, with no restrictions on presence or absence of pre-existing ASCVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted the data for this update. We evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' assessment tool. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using fixed-effect models when heterogeneity was low (I² < 50%) and random-effects models when heterogeneity was high (I² ≥ 50%). We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In the initial review, we identified nine randomised controlled trials with a total of 7047 participants and four additional trials (n = 2012 participants; mean age range 62 to 63 years; 30% to 37% women) were included in this update. Eight of the 13 trials evaluated the effects of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy in populations without prevalent ASCVD, and the median follow-up ranged from six weeks to 23 months. More recent trials were generally larger with longer follow-up and lower risk of bias. The main risk of bias was related to lack of blinding of participants and personnel, which was inherent to the intervention. Compared with the comparator groups (placebo, usual care, or active drug comparator), the effects of the fixed-dose combination treatment on mortality (FDC = 1.0% versus control = 1.0%, RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.89,  I² = 0%, 5 studies, N = 5300) and fatal and non-fatal ASCVD events (FDC = 4.7% versus control = 3.7%, RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.66, I² = 0%, 6 studies, N = 4517) were uncertain (low-quality evidence). The low event rates for these outcomes and indirectness of evidence for comparing fixed-dose combination to usual care versus individual drugs suggest that these results should be viewed with caution. Adverse events were common in both the intervention (32%) and comparator (27%) groups, with participants randomised to fixed-dose combination therapy being 16% (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.25, 11 studies, 6906 participants, moderate-quality evidence) more likely to report an adverse event . The mean differences in systolic blood pressure between the intervention and control arms was -6.34 mmHg (95% CI -9.03 to -3.64, 13 trials, 7638 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The mean differences (95% CI) in total and LDL cholesterol between the intervention and control arms were -0.61 mmol/L (95% CI -0.88 to -0.35, 11 trials, 6565 participants, low-quality evidence) and -0.70 mmol/L (95% CI -0.98 to -0.41, 12 trials, 7153 participants, moderate-quality evidence), respectively. There was a high degree of statistical heterogeneity in comparisons of blood pressure and lipids (I² ≥ 80% for all) that could not be explained, so these results should be viewed with caution. Fixed-dose combination therapy improved adherence to a multidrug strategy by 44% (26% to 65%) compared with usual care (4 trials, 3835 participants, moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of fixed-dose combination therapy on all-cause mortality or ASCVD events are uncertain. A limited number of trials reported these outcomes, and the included trials were primarily designed to observe changes in ASCVD risk factor levels rather than clinical events, which may partially explain the observed differences in risk factors that were not translated into differences in clinical outcomes among the included trials. Fixed-dose combination therapy is associated with modest increases in adverse events compared with placebo, active comparator, or usual care but may be associated with improved adherence to a multidrug regimen. Ongoing, longer-term trials of fixed-dose combination therapy will help demonstrate whether short-term changes in risk factors might be maintained and lead to expected differences in clinical events based on these changes.