Adherence to single-pill combination versus multiple-pill combination lipid-modifying therapy among patients with mixed dyslipidemia in a managed care population

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A real-world analysis of adherence, biochemical outcomes, and healthcare costs in patients treated with rosuvastatin/ezetimibe as single-pill combination vs. free combination in Italy

Aims

To compare medication adherence, lipid goal attainment, and healthcare costs between patients receiving a single-pill combination (SPC) vs. a free combination treatment (FCT) of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe (ROS/EZE) in Italy.

Methods and results

Administrative databases of healthcare entities covering ∼7 million individuals were used to identify adults prescribed with ROS/EZE as SPC or FCT between January 2018 and June 2020. Adherence was calculated as the proportion of days covered (PDC) after cohort balancing by propensity score matching. Patients with available LDL cholesterol testing were assessed for the proportion of those who at baseline were above lipid targets recommended by ESC/EAS Guidelines for their cardiovascular risk category and reached the target during follow-up. Among 25 886 patients on SPC and 7309 on FCT, adherent patients were more represented in SPC than FCT cohort (56.8 vs. 44.5%, P < 0.001), and this difference remained significant (P < 0.001) after stratification by cardiovascular risk (very high, high, and other). The proportion of patients reaching LDL cholesterol target at 1 year follow-up was significantly (P < 0.001) higher in SPC vs. FCT cohort: 35.4 vs. 23.8% for very high cardiovascular risk, 46.9 vs. 23.1% for high risk and 71.6 vs. 49.5% for other risk. Total healthcare costs per patient at 1 year follow-up were lower in SPC vs. FCT users (2337€ vs. 1890€, P < 0.001). In both cohorts, costs were mainly driven by drug expenses and hospitalizations.

Conclusion

This real-world analysis in dyslipidaemic patients found that treatment with ROS/EZE as SPC resulted in better adherence, higher chances of reaching lipid goals, and cost savings over FCT, in all cardiovascular risk categories.

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

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

Efficacy and Safety of Single-Pill Combination of Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe in Chinese Patients with Primary Hypercholesterolemia Inadequately Controlled by Statin Treatment (ROZEL): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double Dummy, Active-Controlled Phase 3 Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Many patients with primary hypercholesterolemia do not achieve their plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with statin alone under a recommended dose of statin (e.g., 10 mg rosuvastatin) in China. The objective of this phase III study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new single-pill combination (SPC) of rosuvastatin 10 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (R10/E10) in this population.

METHODS

This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled study in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia inadequately controlled with statin alone. The participants were randomized 1:1 to receive SPC R10/E10 or R10. The primary objective was to demonstrate the superiority of SPC R10/E10 vs. R10 in reducing the LDL-C levels after 8 weeks.

RESULTS

This trial randomized 305 participants to SPC R10/E10 (n = 153) and R10 (n = 152). The superiority of SPC R10/E10 over R10 was demonstrated with the least square (LS) mean difference of percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 8: - 13.85% (95% confidence interval [CI] - 20.15% to - 7.56%, P < 0.0001). The proportion of participants who achieved the LDL-C target (< 2.6 mmol/l) at week 8 was larger with SPC R10/E10 (n = 80, 54.1%) than with R10 (n = 42, 29.2%) (Odds ratio = 2.80, 95% CI 1.70 to 4.61, P < 0.0001). No unexpected safety findings were reported.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that SPC R10/E10 improve LDL-C reduction and goal achievement in Chinese patients with primary hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled on statin therapy, without new safety findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04669041).

Medication adherence with fixed-dose versus free-equivalent combination therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: We conducted a large-scale meta-analysis and subgroup analysis to compare the effect of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with that of free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy on medication adherence. Methods: Studies published in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Embase up to May 2022 were identified according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary assessed outcomes were the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). We investigated the probability of being adherent to the prescribed treatment (MPR or PDC ≥80%) or the average estimate of these two parameters. Studies reporting such results were included in this meta-analysis. The summary measures were reported as the risk ratio (RR) and the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The quality of the cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Of the 1,814 screened studies, 61 met the predefined inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of the results showed that compared to FEC, FDC significantly improved the medication compliance of patients by 1.29 times (95% CI:1.23-1.35, p < 0.00001). I² of 99% represent high heterogeneity across studies. The mean difference in medication adherence between FDC and FEC was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06-0.14, p < 0.00001) with an I² estimate of 100%. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies that reported adherence outcomes according to disease type, period of evaluation and compliance indicators. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to exclude the results of low-quality studies, as well as studies in which there was ambiguity in the method of calculating the estimator. Conclusion: Analysis of the assessed parameters for the intention-to-treat and subgroup populations suggests that FDC can improve adherence to treatment and its advantages over FEC may increase over time. Further research is needed to better understand how medical conditions affect the impact of reduced pill burden on adherence, particularly in diseases other than cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Is it Time for Single-Pill Combinations in Dyslipidemia?

Despite the availability of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) that are safe and effective, the overall rate of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control at a population level in real-life studies is low. Higher-intensity treatment, earlier intervention, and longer-term treatment have all been shown to improve outcomes. However, in clinical practice, actual exposure to LLT is a product of the duration and intensity of, and adherence to, the treatment. To increase exposure to LLTs, the European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommended a stepwise optimization of LLTs by increasing statin intensity to the maximally tolerated dose, with subsequent addition of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. Evidence from randomized controlled trials performed in a range of patients suggested that adding ezetimibe to statins rather than doubling the statin dose resulted in significantly more patients at LDL-C goal and significantly fewer patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events. In addition, data showed that combination treatments effectively increased exposure to LLT. Despite these data and recommendations, optimization of LLT is often limited to increasing statin dose. Therapeutic inertia and poor treatment adherence are significant and prevalent barriers to increasing treatment exposure. They are known to be influenced by pill burden and complexity of treatment. Single-pill combinations provide a strategic approach that supports the intensification of treatment without increasing pill burden or treatment complexity. Single-pill combinations, compared with free associations, have been shown to increase the adherence to LLT and the percentage of patients at LDL-C goal.

ALERT-LDL: adherence to guidelines in the treatment of patients with dyslipidemia

The association between LDL-c levels and cardiovascular outcomes suggests tailoring lipid-lowering therapies according to total cardiovascular risk. We aimed to evaluate the adherence to guidelines-oriented dyslipidaemia's treatment in an outpatient population referring to ARCA cardiologists, and assess the efficacy of treatment's optimization for each specific level of risk. Three thousand seventy-five patients enrolled in this prospective study were classified according to cardiovascular risk category, and their therapies were optimized. At the beginning and the 3 month follow-up visit, LDL-c data were collected, and further therapies were prescribed to the patients that did not reach the target. A significant LDL-c reduction was observed in all subgroups at different cardiovascular risk at the end of the study (p < 0.05). The number of patients assuming statins, both in monotherapy and in combination with ezetimibe, increased during the follow-up (63% at the enrollment vs 89% after 12 months). At the enrollment, only 1.4% of patients were treated with PCSK-9 inhibitors while after 12 months the percentage increased both in high (5.8%) and very high-risk (18.4%) patients. At the beginning of the study, only 698/3075 patients (22.7%) reached lipid targets. At the end of the study, carried out by the referring cardiologists in the pertaining healthcare districts and specifically aimed to control the lipid profile, the percentage of patients on target increased in all risk categories (68.5%). Our results suggest carefully implementing measures that encourage outpatients and their cardiologists to achieve the targeted lipid profile according to cardiovascular risk.

Adherence to Lipid-Lowering Treatment by Single-Pill Combination of Statin and Ezetimibe

INTRODUCTION

Although several studies have shown that a simplified cardiovascular drug treatment leads to better treatment adherence, limited and conflicting findings have been reported on the separate or single-pill combination of the now recommended association between a statin and ezetimibe. We addressed this issue in a large cohort of patients newly treated with statins to whom ezetimibe was additionally administered, either separately or as a single-pill combination.

METHODS

A total of 256,012 patients (age 40-80 years) from the Lombardy Region (Italy) newly treated with statins during 2011-2013 were followed until 2018 to identify those to whom ezetimibe was added. The 2881 and 5351 patients who started a two-pill or a single-pill combination, respectively, of statin and ezetimibe were identified and matched for propensity score. Adherence to drug therapy at 1 year was measured as the ratio between the number of days in which the drug was available and the days of follow-up (the proportion of days covered; PDC). Patients who had a PDC > 75% or < 25% were, respectively, defined as highly and poorly adherent to drug therapy. Analysis was extended to the association between adherence and the risk of fatal/non-fatal cardiovascular events.

RESULTS

Compared to those prescribed a two-pill combination, those prescribed a single-pill combination had an 87% (75-99%) greater odds of being highly adherent and a 79% (72-84%) lower odds of being poorly adherent to treatment. These advantages were manifest in all strata of age, sex, and clinical profile. The risk of cardiovascular outcomes decreased by 55% in patients with high adherence compared to those with low adherence.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were prescribed a single-pill combination of statin/ezetimibe more frequently exhibit a good adherence and less frequently bad adherence to treatment than those prescribed a two-pill combination of these drugs.

Factors Associated with Medication Non-Adherence in Patients with Dyslipidemia

Lack of medication adherence among patients with dyslipidemia negatively affects health-related outcomes. This study aims to evaluate medication adherence; we also aim to investigate the predictors of non-adherence among patients with dyslipidemia in Jordan. Medication adherence was evaluated in a total of 228 dyslipidemia patients. The Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire was also used to assess patients' beliefs about medications. The majority of the current study participants (73.2%) reported non-adherence to the prescribed medications. There were significant negative associations between medication adherence and concerns of prescription drug use (B = -0.41, p-value < 0.01), duration of dyslipidemia (B = -0.22, p-value < 0.01), and the number of medications (B = -0.64, p-value < 0.01). Positive associations were found between medication adherence and the necessity of prescription drug use (B = 0.43, p-value < 0.01), taking statin and fibrate (B = 2.04, p-value < 0.01), and moderate-intensity statin (B = 2.34, p-value < 0.01). As for patients' beliefs about medications, the item "My medicine to lower my cholesterol disrupted my life" had the highest mean (3.50 ± 0.99). This study revealed a low adherence rate to medication among patients with dyslipidemia. It also demonstrates modifiable factors such as beliefs regarding perceived risk, medication harms, treatment duration, and the number of medications associated with poor adherence in patients with dyslipidemia.

[Medication-based secondary prevention in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease : An analysis based on secondary data]

BACKGROUND

Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD) is an atherosclerotic vascular disease with high morbidity and mortality. A consistent medication-based secondary prevention is part of the essential and evidence-based treatment of PAOD. The aim of this study was to ascertain the status quo of medicinal secondary prevention based on submitted prescriptions.

METHODS

In the time period from 2014 to 2017 patients with a confirmed PAOD coding (I70.2-/I73.9-) were identified based on secondary data of the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians Westphalia-Lippe (KVWL). The prescriptions submitted with respect to platelet inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, lipid lowering therapy (LLT) and angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors in the fourth quarter year after diagnosis coding were collated.

RESULTS

In the diagnosis period 2014/2015 a total of 238,397 patients had PAOD in the catchment area of the KVWL. The proportion of submitted prescriptions in the fourth quarter year after diagnosis was 25.9% for LLT, 13.6% for acetylsalicylic acid, 4.5% for clopidogrel, 5.5% for vitamin K antagonists (VKA), 3.5% for non-vitamin K‑dependent oral anticoagulants (NOAC) and 26.8% for ACE inhibitors. Over the course of the 3 years (n = 241,375 patients with PAOD 2016/2017) the proportion of submitted prescriptions for all substances except VKA increased (p < 0.001), whereby the largest relative increase was noted for NOAC (relative increase of 81.7%).

CONCLUSION

The guideline-conform medicinal secondary prevention in patients with PAOD in Germany is still in need of improvement. A consistent implementation of evidence-based medicinal secondary prevention harbors a great potential for improvement of the overall prognosis in patients with PAOD.

Single Pill Regimen Leads to Better Adherence and Clinical Outcome in Daily Practice in Patients Suffering from Hypertension and/or Dyslipidemia: Results of a Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) represent the first cause of mortality in western countries. Hypertension and dyslipidemia are strong risk factors for CVD, and are prevalent either alone or in combination. Although effective substances for the treatment of both factors are available, there is space for optimization of treatment regimens due to poor patient’s adherence to medication, which is usually a combination of several substances. Adherence decreases with the number of pills a patient needs to take. A combination of substances in one single-pill (single pill combination, SPC), might increase adherence, and lead to a better clinical outcome.

Aim

We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effect of SPC with that of free-combination treatment (FCT) in patients with either hypertension, dyslipidemia or the combination of both diseases under conditions of daily practice.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching in PubMed from November 2014 until February 2015. Search criteria focused on trials in identical hypertension and/or dyslipidemia treatment as FCT therapy or as SPC. Adherence and persistence outcome included proportion-of-days-covered (PDC), medication possession ratio (MPR), time-to treatment gap of 30 and 60 days and no treatment gap of 30 days (y/n). Clinical outcomes were all cause hospitalisation, hypertension-related hospitalisation, all cause emergency room visits, hypertension-related emergency room visits, outpatient visits, hypertension-related outpatient visits, and number of patients reaching blood pressure goal. Randomized clinical studies were excluded because they usually do not reflect daily practice.

Results

11 out of 1.465 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. PDC ≥ 80% showed an odds ratio (OR) of 1.78 (95% CI: 1.30–2.45; p = 0.004) after 6 months and an OR of 1.85 (95% CI: 1.71; 2.37; p < 0.001) after ≥ 12 months in favour to the SPC. MPR ≥ 80% after 12 months also was in favour to SPC (OR 2.13; 95% CI: 1.30; 3.47; p = 0.003). Persistence was positively affected by SPC after 6, 12, and 18 months. Time to treatment gap of 60 days resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.03 (95% CI: 1.77; 2.33, p < 0.001). The use of SPC was associated with a significant improvement in systolic blood pressure reduction, leading to a higher number of patients reaching individual blood pressure goals (FCT vs SPC results in OR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69; 0.85, p < 0.001). Outpatient visits, emergency room visits and hospitalisations, both overall and hypertension-related were reduced by SPC: all-cause hospitalisation (SPC vs FCT: 15.0% vs 18.2%, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67; 0.94, p = 0.009), all-cause emergency room visits (SPC vs FCT: 25.7% vs 31.4%, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65; 0.87, p = 0.001) and hypertension related emergency room visits (SPC vs FCT: 9.7% vs 14.1%, OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54; 0.80, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

SPC improved medication adherence and clinical outcome parameter in patients suffering from hypertension and/or dyslipidemia and led to a better clinical outcome compared to FCT under conditions of daily practice.

Does the Polypill Improve Patient Adherence Compared to Its Individual Formulations? A Systematic Review

Many patients, especially those with a high pill burden and multiple chronic illnesses, are less adherent to medication. In medication treatments utilizing polypills, this problem might be diminished since multiple drugs are fused into one formulation and, therefore, the therapy regimen is simplified. This systematic review summarized evidence to assess the effect of polypills on medication adherence. The following databases were searched for articles published between 1 January 2000, and 14 May 2019: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Medication adherence was the only outcome assessed, regardless of the method of measuring it. Sixty-seven original peer-reviewed articles were selected. Adherence to polypill regimens was significantly higher in 56 articles (84%) compared to multiple pill regimens. This finding was also supported by the results of 13 out of 17 selected previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses dealing with this topic. Adherence can be improved through the formulation of polypills, which is probably why the interest in researching them is growing. There are many polypills on the market, but the adherence studies so far focused mainly on a small range of medical conditions.

Methods for Measuring Multiple Medication Adherence: A Systematic Review-Report of the ISPOR Medication Adherence and Persistence Special Interest Group

BACKGROUND

A broad literature base exists for measuring medication adherence to monotherapeutic regimens, but publications are less extensive for measuring adherence to multiple medications.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and characterize the multiple medication adherence (MMA) methods used in the literature.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and the Cochrane Library databases on methods used to measure MMA published between January 1973 and May 2015. A two-step screening process was used; all abstracts were screened by pairs of researchers independently, followed by a full-text review identifying the method for calculating MMA. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to conduct this systematic review. For studies that met the eligibility criteria, general study and adherence-specific characteristics and the number and type of MMA measurement methods were summarized.

RESULTS

The 147 studies that were included originated from 32 countries, in 13 disease states. Of these studies, 26 used proportion of days covered, 23 used medication possession ratio, and 72 used self-reported questionnaires (e.g., the Morisky Scale) to assess MMA. About 50% of the studies included more than one method for measuring MMA, and different variations of medication possession ratio and proportion of days covered were used for measuring MMA.

CONCLUSIONS

There appears to be no standardized method to measure MMA. With an increasing prevalence of polypharmacy, more efforts should be directed toward constructing robust measures suitable to evaluate adherence to complex regimens. Future research to understand the validity and reliability of MMA measures and their effects on objective clinical outcomes is also needed.

Does a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin improve persistence with therapy in the Australian population?

AIM

To compare persistence in people who initiate the combination of amlodipine and statin as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) or separate pill combination (SePC), and assess the impact of prior medicine exposure on this outcome.

METHOD

Prescription dispensing data from a national administrative dataset was used to identify patients initiating FDCs or SePCs of amlodipine and statin between April and September 2013. Each cohort was stratified according to dispensing of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or statins in the prior 12 months. Time to cessation of combination therapy (persistence) was analyzed over 12 months using Kaplan Meyer survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards (PH) models. Patient factors associated with length of treatment were identified using Cox PH modeling.

RESULTS

Of 26,000 people who initiated combination amlodipine and statin, the majority initiated SePCs (77%). The unadjusted cessation rates at 12 months were SePC 40% and FDC 44%. Following adjustment for patient factors, the risk of ceasing combination therapy was higher in those taking the SePC versus FDC, hazard ratio (95% CI): 1.15 (1.11, 1.21). Patients naïve to both therapies had double the cessation rate compared to those who had at least one prior dispensing of a statin. Factors positively associated with persistence were prior use of other antihypertensive drugs and reaching the medicine subsidy safety-net: factors that were more common in users of SePC amlodipine and statin.

CONCLUSION

In this study we found a lower risk (15%) of ceasing combination therapy when people initiate amlodipine and statin in the form of a FDC. While this outcome supports findings in other countries that FDCs improve persistence with combination therapy, prior experience with component or similar medicines has a larger impact on persistence regardless of formulation initiated.

Contemporary rates and correlates of statin use and adherence in nondiabetic adults with cardiovascular risk factors: The KP CHAMP study

BACKGROUND

Statin therapy is highly efficacious in the prevention of fatal and nonfatal atherosclerotic events in persons at increased cardiovascular risk. However, its long-term effectiveness in practice depends on a high level of medication adherence by patients.

METHODS

We identified nondiabetic adults with cardiovascular risk factors between 2008 and 2010 within a large integrated health care delivery system in Northern California. Through 2013, we examined the use and adherence of newly initiated statin therapy based on data from dispensed prescriptions from outpatient pharmacy databases.

RESULTS

Among 209,704 eligible adults, 68,085 (32.5%) initiated statin therapy during the follow-up period, with 90.4% receiving low-potency statins. At 12 and 24 months after initiating statins, 84.3% and 80.2%, respectively, were actively receiving statin therapy, but only 42% and 30%, respectively, had no gaps in treatment during those time periods. There was also minimal switching between statins or use of other lipid-lowering therapies for augmentation during follow-up. Age≥50 years, Asian/Pacific Islander race, Hispanic ethnicity, prior myocardial infarction, prior ischemic stroke, hypertension, and baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol>100 mg/dL were associated with higher adjusted odds, whereas female gender, black race, current smoking, dementia were associated with lower adjusted odds, of active statin treatment at 12 months after initiation.

CONCLUSIONS

There remain opportunities for improving prevention in patients at risk for cardiovascular events. Our study identified certain patient subgroups that may benefit from interventions to enhance medication adherence, particularly by minimizing treatment gaps and discontinuation of statin therapy within the first year of treatment.

Does tablet formulation alone improve adherence and persistence: a comparison of ezetimibe fixed dose combination versus ezetimibe separate pill combination?

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare adherence and persistence in patients who add ezetimibe to statin therapy as a separate pill combination (SPC) or fixed dose combination (FDC).

METHOD

This is a retrospective cohort study of prescription data conducted in an Australian health dataset. Two cohorts were identified: those dispensed statins and subsequently ezetimibe as either SPC or FDC. We compared adherence to combination therapy using the medication possession ratio (MPR), multivariate linear and logistic regression. Persistence to initial combination medicines and any lipid-lowering therapies were analysed using Kaplan Meyer survival and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 3651 people initiated ezetimibe SPC and 5740 ezetimibe FDC. There was no significant difference in adherence with mean MPRs: ezetimibe SPC = 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.98-1.01) and FDC = 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99). One year persistence rates to initial combination medicines were ezetimibe SPC 49.1% vs. FDC 62.4%; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.81 (95% CI 1.76-1.90). However, persistence to any lipid-lowering therapy was higher in those initiating ezetimibe SPC = 84.9% vs. FDC = 76%; HR = 0.62 (95% CI 0.55-0.72). One year persistence rates to any two lipid-lowering medicines were similar: ezetimibe SPC 65.2% and FDC 65%.

CONCLUSION

In this study FDCs have little impact on either adherence or persistence to combination lipid-lowering therapy in people who have been taking statins. The benefit of higher persistence to FDCs in first episode of treatment with initial medicines is debatable as persistence to dual therapy was similar in both cohorts.

[Low persistence of simvastatin and ezetimibe fixed combination in the lipid lowering therapy]

INTRODUCTION

The high cholesterol level is a well-known modifiable cardiovascular risk factor. Adequate patient adherence is important to decrease the cardiovascular risk.

AIM

The aim of the authors was to evaluate the persistence on one-year treatment with the free or fixed combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe and rosuvastatin.

METHOD

Information from the National Health Insurance Found prescriptions database on pharmacy-claims between October 1, 2012 and September 30, 2013 was analyzed. The authors identified patients who filled prescriptions for fixed or free combinations of simvastatin and ezetimibe and rosuvastatin prescribed for the first time. The subjects have not received antilipemic therapy with similar drugs during the year preceding the study. Using Kaplan-Meier technique, the authors constructed persistence curves with a 95% confidence interval for point estimates calculated on a log scale. Patients who were still persistent at the closing date of the study were considered censored. For the modelling of the curves, the authors used semi-parametric Cox's regression where antihypertensive therapy was the only (categorical) explanatory variable, and the patients taking the fixed combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe were regarded as the reference group.

RESULTS

204,699 patients met the inclusion criteria. During the study period, antilipemic therapy with simvastatin and ezetimibe free combination 10,030 and 7,613 fixed combination of these agents and 187,056 patients with rosuvastatin was started by patients. One-year persistence rate in patients taking simvastatin and ezetimibe as a free combination was 10.97%, whereas it was 24.35% in those on the fixed combination and 30.47% in those on rosuvastatin monotherapy. The hazard ratio of discontinuation of simvastatin and ezetimibe free combination was 1.73 [95% confidence interval: 1.61-1.85], p<0.0001 compared to fixed combination and 0.80 [95% confidence interval: 0.78-0.82], p<0.0001 compared to rosuvastatin. Considering only the 360-day study period, the mean duration of persistence was 107 days in patients on the free, 164 days in those taking the free combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe and 185 days those taking rosuvastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that one-year persistence of free and fixed combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe was significantly lower compared to rosuvastatin.

Clinical Benefits of Single‐tablet Regimens

Since the advent of highly active antiretroviral therapy, considerable progress has been made in the treatment of HIV infection. Single-tablet regimens (STRs) represent substantial improvements in the treatment of HIV infection by providing all of the components of a safe and effective antiretroviral therapy regimen in a single pill that is dosed once daily, thereby allowing for simpler and more convenient treatment. Of the three FDA-approved STRs currently available in the USA, two consist of combinations of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EFV/FTC/TDF) and emtricitabine/rilpivirine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/RPV/TDF), while the third and newest STR consists of two NRTIs plus an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF). Large clinical trials and retrospective analyses have demonstrated the advantages of these STRs over other treatment regimens, including greater adherence and persistence, better health outcomes, improved patient preference and quality of life and reduced healthcare resource utilization. Because of the demonstrated advantages of STR therapies in the management of HIV and successes in other disease areas using coformulated medications, it may be beneficial to develop future STRs for the treatment of other chronic diseases.

How do we improve patient compliance and adherence to long-term statin therapy?

Statins are highly effective drugs prescribed to millions of people to lower LDL-cholesterol and decrease cardiovascular risk. The benefits of statin therapy seen in randomized clinical trials will only be replicated in real-life if patients adhere to the prescribed treatment regimen. But, about half of patients discontinue statin therapy within the first year, and adherence decreases with time. Patient, physician and healthcare system-related factors play a role in this problem. Recent studies have focused more on the patients' perspectives on non-adherence. Adverse events are cited as the most common cause of statin discontinuation; thus, the healthcare provider must be willing to ally and dialogue with patients to address concerns and assess the risks and benefits of continued statin therapy.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin: a guide to its clinical use in hypercholesterolemia

Ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy combines two lipid-lowering compounds with complementary mechanisms of action, thereby blocking the two sources of plasma cholesterol and improving lipid profiles. Ezetimibe/simvastatin is an effective and generally well tolerated adjunct to dietary therapy for markedly reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and improving other lipid parameters across diverse patient populations. Dual treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin is more effective than monotherapy with an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin), and the addition of ezetimibe to current statin therapy is more effective than doubling the statin dose.

Comparing Medication Adherence Methods in Lipid-Modifying Therapy

Background:

Investigators have employed a number of different methods to calculate adherence estimates for patients taking lipid-modifying therapy (LMT), including measures with different numerator and denominator options. Although at least one method is known to correlate well with cardiovascular outcomes, most have not been evaluated in outcomes studies.

Objectives:

To evaluate different methods for measuring adherence, using LMT as a case example, and to determine whether estimates for adherence differ statistically and/or whether different methods can lead to different conclusions about patient adherence.

Methods:

Adherence ratios were calculated using 8 different methods for 12,448 patients who were in a managed-care system and were considered new starts with statin therapy. The calculated measures were compared and tested for differences. Patients were categorized as adherent by each method, using a threshold of 0.8, and the proportions of patients categorized as adherent were compared for differences between adherence calculation methods.

Results:

Adherence ratios calculated with like observation intervals did not vary substantially, regardless of which method for measuring medication availability was used. Those calculated with different observation intervals had substantial variability. Mean adherence ratios ranged between 0.777 and 0.798 for difference in days' observation intervals; they ranged between 0.618 and 0.630 for the predefined interval. Differences between ratios calculated using these different denominators were statistically significant (p < 0.008). Correlations between ratios were statistically significant for all comparisons (p < 0.001). Correlation coefficients ( r) were 0.64 for comparisons between ratios with different denominators versus 1.0 for comparisons with like denominators. Categorization as adherent or nonadherent differed between the methods for about 20% of patients.

Conclusions:

Significant differences were found to be based on observation period but not on medication availability. Studies of adherence should be interpreted with caution depending on which method is used, and particular interest should be paid to whether the choice of methods is consistent with study objectives and to the observation interval, as different methods may lead to different conclusions about patient adherence. Further research in LMT and other therapeutic areas is needed to determine which methods correlate best with positive patient outcomes, such as reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events.