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

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

Combinatorial approaches for novel cardiovascular drug discovery: a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

In this article, authors report an inclusive discussion about the combinatorial approach for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and for counteracting the cardiovascular risk factors. The mentioned strategy was demonstrated to be useful for improving the efficacy of pharmacological treatments and in CVDs showed superior efficacy with respect to the classical monotherapeutic approach.

AREAS COVERED

According to this topic, authors analyzed the combinatorial treatments that are available on the market, highlighting clinical studies that demonstrated the efficacy of combinatorial drug strategies to cure CVDs and related risk factors. Furthermore, the review gives an outlook on the future perspective of this therapeutic option, highlighting novel drug targets and disease models that could help the future cardiovascular drug discovery.

EXPERT OPINION

The use of specifically designed and increasingly rational and effective drug combination therapies can therefore be considered the evolution of polypharmacy in cardiometabolic and CVDs. This approach can allow to intervene on multiple etiopathogenetic mechanisms of the disease or to act simultaneously on different pathologies/risk factors, using the combinations most suitable from a pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, and toxicological perspective, thus finding the most appropriate therapeutic option.

Adherence to triple-component antihypertensive regimens is higher with single-pill than equivalent two-pill regimens: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Using a single‐pill combination (SPC) for hypertension (HTN) treatment resulted in better adherence and persistence than a free‐equivalent combination in previous observational studies. The aim of this study is to confirm superior adherence with a triple‐component SPC compared with an equivalent two‐pill regimen in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) using a medication event monitoring system (MEMS). This is a multicenter, open‐label, RCT. Subjects were persons with HTN whose clinic blood pressure was not adequately controlled (systolic >140 mmHg or diastolic >90 mmHg) with a dual combination. Eligible patients were randomized to either the triple‐component SPC (olmesartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide 20/5/12.5 mg) group or the equivalent two‐pill (olmesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 20/12.5 mg + amlodipine 5 mg) group and maintained for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes were the difference in percentage of doses taken (PDT) and percentage of days with the prescribed dose taken correctly (PDTc) between the single‐ and two‐pill therapy groups, calculated from MEMS data. From 8 hospitals, 145 patients with HTN were randomized. The single‐pill group had significantly higher PDT and PDTc than the two‐pill group: median (25–75 percentile) PDT 95.1 (86.7–100.0) versus 92.1 (73.0–97.3); and PDTc 91.0 (79.4–96.5) versus 88.6 (69.2–96.3%), P = 0.04 for both by the Wilcoxon rank sum test. The single‐pill combination of the triple‐component antihypertensive regimen showed better adherence than the equivalent two‐pill therapy. Reducing pill burden by means of a single‐pill combination is an effective strategy for enhancing adherence to multiple‐agent antihypertensive therapy.

Risk of Cardiovascular Outcomes and Antihypertensive Triple Combination Therapy Among Elderly Patients with Hypertension Enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP)

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to evaluate the risk of cardiovascular-specific hospitalizations with different types of antihypertensive triple combination therapy among patients enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan (MAP).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients with hypertension enrolled in a Texas MAP between January 2014 and December 2016. Antihypertensive combination therapy users were classified into three treatment groups: single-pill triple combination, fixed-dose dual combination plus a third agent, and free triple combination. Group differences were assessed using Chi-square tests for binary variables and Student's t tests for continuous variables. Cox proportional hazards model was performed to assess the association between type of combination therapy and risk of cardiovascular-specific hospitalization adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

A total of 10,836 triple combination users were identified. The risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) hospitalization for the fixed-dose dual combination plus a third agent group [hazard ratio (HR) 3.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80-8.12] and for the free triple combination therapy group (HR 3.65, 95% CI 1.43-9.31) was significantly higher than for the single-pill triple combination group.

CONCLUSION

Single-pill triple combination therapy was significantly associated with a lower risk of CVD hospitalizations in comparison to other types of triple combination therapy.

Medication Adherence to Antihypertensive Triple-Combination Therapy Among Patients Enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan

BACKGROUND

Approximately 32% (75 million) of adults have hypertension in the United States, leading to 1,100 daily deaths and costing more than $48 billion annually in medical expenditures. Approximately 25% of patients with hypertension require triple combination therapy to reach recommended blood pressure. Currently, only 3 single-pill triple-combination therapies are available in the market for the treatment of hypertension. Medication adherence has become a major concern for the health care system, and nonadherence is associated with higher risks of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To compare medication adherence rates among single-pill triple-combination therapy, free triple-combination therapy, and fixed-dose dual-combination therapy plus a third agent in hypertensive patients enrolled in a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan using 2 adherence definitions.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using Cigna-HealthSpring's medical claims database from January 2014 to December 2016. Antihypertensive combination therapy users were classified into a single-pill triple-combination group, a fixed-dose dual-combination plus a third agent group, and a free triple-combination group. Adherence rates using proportion of days covered (PDC) were calculated for each group within a 1-year follow-up period using 2 definitions: a strict one requiring all antihypertensive agents during follow-up and a more relaxed definition requiring any antihypertensive agent during follow-up. Descriptive statistics were examined, and group differences were assessed using chi-square and analysis of variance. Multivariate logistic regression was conducted to control confounders of adherence using both definitions.

RESULTS

10,836 triple-combination users were identified. In the multivariate model using the first definition, fixed-dose dual-combination plus a third agent was significantly associated with lower adherence compared with single-pill triple therapy (OR = 0.177; 95% CI = 0.119-0.263; P < 0.001). No significant difference was detected between single-pill triple-combination therapy in comparison with free-combination therapy. In the multivariate model using the second definition, fixed-dose dual-combination plus a third agent and free-combination therapy were significantly associated with better adherence in comparison with single-pill triple combination therapy (OR = 3.62, 95% CI = 2.59-5.05; OR = 4.31, 95% CI = 2.15-8.64, respectively). Younger age, female gender, language (Spanish), some comorbidities, and previous hospitalization had a negative effect on adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

Measuring adherence to multiple concurrent regimens is complicated and different adherence definitions can result in significant variations in adherence measures. Future research evaluating clinical outcomes with various definitions is needed.

DISCLOSURES

No outside funding supported this study. Abughosh reports grants from Sanofi, Regeneron, Valeant Pharmaceuticals, BMS/Pfizer, and PhRMA, not related to this study. Serna reports employement with CareAllies, a Cigna company. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Efficacy and effectiveness of valsartan/amlodipine and valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide in hypertension: randomized controlled versus observational studies

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to compare the results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and real-world evidence (RWE) studies of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) and valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide (Val/Aml/HCTZ) in patients with uncontrolled hypertension (>140/90 mmHg).

METHODS

Data was pooled from 15 RCTs (N = 5542) and 8 RWE studies (N = 1397) for Val/Aml; and 2 RCTs (N = 804) and 5 RWE studies (N = 9380) for Val/Aml/HCTZ. Patients who received Val/Aml (80/5, 160/5, 160/10, 320/5, or 320/10 mg), Val/Aml/HCTZ (160/5/12.5, 160/5/25, 160/10/12.5, 160/10/25, or 320/10/25 mg) or placebo were considered for this analysis. Only patients with both baseline and follow-up assessment within 60-90 days after baseline had been included in the analysis. Patients with missing values were excluded from the analysis. Using fitted linear mixed-effects model and random factors, treatment interactions and study design with mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP), diastolic BP (msDBP) and pulse pressure (msPP) reductions from baseline to Week 8-12 of treatment were compared.

RESULTS

Baseline demographics and patient characteristics were comparable between RCT and RWE datasets and within Val/Aml and Val/Aml/HCTZ treatment groups. In both RCT and RWE studies, least-squares mean (LSM) reduction in msSBP/msDBP and msPP from baseline were significant (p < .05) across all dosages. The efficacy of Val/Aml in RCTs was statistically significantly greater than in RWE studies for msSBP/msDBP (-23.1/-13.8 vs. -17.9/-9.1 mmHg) but the difference was non-significant for msPP (-8.6 vs. -9.3 mmHg; p = .77). For Val/Aml/HCTZ, no direct comparison was available but a similar trend was observed. The difference observed for msSBP and msDBP may be due to routine practice setting, larger populations may have more confounders and different behaviors towards treatment adherence.

CONCLUSION

These findings demonstrate that the efficacy of Val/Aml and Val/Aml/HCTZ in RCTs was more pronounced compared with their effectiveness in RWE studies in different ethnic populations although the overall benefit was not different.

A multinational clinical approach to assessing the effectiveness of catheter-based ultrasound renal denervation: The RADIANCE-HTN and REQUIRE clinical study designs

Catheter-based renal denervation is a new approach to treat hypertension via modulation of the renal sympathetic nerves. Although nonrandomized and small, open-label randomized studies resulted in significant reductions in office blood pressure 6months after renal denervation with monopolar radiofrequency catheters, the first prospective, randomized, sham-controlled study (Symplicity HTN-3) failed to meet its blood pressure efficacy end point. New clinical trials with new catheters have since been designed to address the limitations of earlier studies. Accordingly, the RADIANCE-HTN and REQUIRE studies are multicenter, blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trials designed to assess the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of the ultrasound-based renal denervation system (Paradise) in patients with established hypertension either on or off antihypertensive medications, is designed to evaluate patients in 2 cohorts-SOLO and TRIO, in the United States and Europe. The SOLO cohort includes patients with essential hypertension, at low cardiovascular risk, and either controlled on 1 to 2 antihypertensive medications or uncontrolled on 0 to 2 antihypertensive medications. Patients undergo a 4-week medication washout period before randomization to renal denervation (treatment) or renal angiogram (sham). The TRIO cohort includes patients with hypertension resistant to at least 3 antihypertensive drugs including a diuretic. Patients will be stabilized on a single-pill, triple-antihypertensive-drug combination for 4weeks before randomization to treatment or sham. Reduction in daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure (primary end point) will be assessed at 2months in both cohorts. A predefined medication escalation protocol, as needed for blood pressure control, is implemented between 2 and 6months in both cohorts by a study staff member blinded to the randomization process. At 6months, daytime ambulatory blood pressure and antihypertensive treatment score will be assessed. REQUIRE is designed to evaluate patients with resistant hypertension on standard of care medication in Japan and Korea. Reduction in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure will be assessed at 3months (primary end point). Both studies are enrolling patients, and their results are expected in 2018.

Angiotensin receptor blockers: Focus on cardiac and renal injury

Angiotensin II, an important component of renin angiotensin system, is a potent vasopressor and its actions are mostly mediated via angiotensin II type 1 receptor (AT1R) and role of AT2R in counterbalancing the actions of AT1R stimulation are under extensive research. In addition to its physiological actions, angiotensin II plays important roles in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis, hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and heart failure. The effects of angiotensin II can be blocked by either suppressing its production by blocking angiotensin converting enzyme or by antagonizing its actions on AT1R using angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Instead of the extensive use of ARBs in the treatment of various cardiovascular diseases, proper selection of a particular ARB is crucial as the clinical condition of individual patient is different and also their economic status would play an essential role in medication compliance. Thus a critical review of the proven and promising actions of ARBs against various pathological conditions will be of great importance for the clinicians as well as for the researchers.

A medication adherence and persistence comparison of hypertensive patients treated with single-, double- and triple-pill combination therapy

OBJECTIVE

Fixed-dose combination therapy reduces pill burden and may, therefore, improve medication adherence and health outcomes. This study compared adherence to and persistence with single-, double-, and triple-pill treatment regimens among hypertensive patients in a US clinical practice setting.

METHODS

Adults with hypertension treated with three anti-hypertensive medications were identified. Index date was the first occurrence of a single-, double-, or triple-pill regimen with olmesartan or valsartan plus amlodipine and hydrochlorothiazide from July 2010 to September 2011. Patients were followed for 12 months to assess adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] ≥ 80%) and time to discontinuation (medication gap ≥ 60 days) of the index regimen. Multivariate regression models were used to compare adjusted outcomes.

RESULTS

The number of prescribed pills in the index regimen was monotonically related to adherence with 55.3%, 40.4% and 32.6% of patients having PDC ≥ 80% in the single-, double- and triple-pill cohorts, respectively. In adjusted analysis, patients in the double- (odds ratio [OR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.42-0.48) and triple-pill (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.22-0.30) cohorts were less likely to be adherent to their index regimens than those in the single-pill cohort. Double-pill (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.74-2.06) and triple-pill patients (HR: 2.49; 95% CI: 2.14-2.88) were more likely to discontinue treatment than single-pill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater pill burden was directly and significantly associated with decreased adherence and persistence with antihypertensive therapies in real-practice settings. Use of fixed-dose combinations that reduce pill burden could help patients to continue treatment and may result in improved clinical outcomes. Typical of observational studies, the potential for residual confounding of adherence estimates remains due to lack of randomization of treatment groups.