1
|
Kengne AP, Brière JB, Le Nouveau P, Kodjamanova P, Atanasov P, Kochoedo M, Irfan O, Khan ZM. 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. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2024; 24:817-827. [PMID: 38088763 DOI: 10.1080/14737167.2023.2293199] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2023] [Accepted: 11/29/2023] [Indexed: 01/24/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- André Pascal Kengne
- A Non-Communicable Diseases Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa
| | | | | | - Petya Kodjamanova
- Health Economics and Market Access, Amaris Consulting, Sofia, Bulgaria
| | - Petar Atanasov
- Health Economics and Market Access, Amaris Consulting, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Maryse Kochoedo
- Health Economics and Market Access, Amaris Consulting, Montréal, Canada
| | - Omar Irfan
- Health Economics and Market Access, Amaris Consulting, Toronto, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lee KJ, Ryu JK, Cho YH, Shin WY, Kim JS, Yoon YW, Jang JY, Kim WH, Beom JW, Kang SM. Effectiveness and Safety of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Valsartan and Rosuvastatin (Rovatitan ® Tablet) in Patients with Concomitant Hypertension and Hyperlipidemia: An Observational Study. Drug Des Devel Ther 2023; 17:1047-1062. [PMID: 37051292 PMCID: PMC10084874 DOI: 10.2147/dddt.s391288] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2022] [Accepted: 02/23/2023] [Indexed: 04/14/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin and valsartan (Rovatitan®) in Korean patients with concomitant hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Patients and Methods A total of 1008 eligible patients with concomitant hypertension and hyperlipidemia were enrolled and treated for 12 weeks. Both upward and downward drug dose titrations were allowed based on the investigator's discretion. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the study drug, defined by the percentage of patients achieving the blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment targets. Additionally, regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the factors associated with the effectiveness and safety of the study drug. Of the 1008 patients enrolled in the study, 911 were analyzed for clinical effectiveness. Results At 12 weeks, 84.6% and 75.9% of patients treated with the study drug achieved their BP and LDL-C targets, respectively, and 64.8% of patients achieved both targets simultaneously. Furthermore, the percentage of patients who achieved their BP and LDL-C treatment targets demonstrated a trend across the respective risk groups; the higher the risk group, the lower the success of attaining the respective target. This trend was also observed regardless of the prior antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering treatments. According to regression analysis, poor metabolic profiles, including a higher body mass index (BMI) and higher BP and LDL-C levels at baseline, were significantly associated with treatment failure for BP. Among the 1005 patients included in the safety analysis, 17 patients (1.7%) experienced serious adverse events; however, none were considered related to the study drug. Conclusion The study drug used for the treatment of concomitant hypertension and hyperlipidemia in a real-world setting was effective and was well tolerated. Therefore, the study drug is suggested as a good alternative to increase patient convenience and compliance, particularly in those taking multiple medications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kwang Je Lee
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
| | - Jae-Kean Ryu
- Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea
| | | | - Won Yong Shin
- Department of Cardiology, Soon Chun Hyang University Hospital Cheonan, Cheonan, Korea
| | - Jeong Su Kim
- Cardiovascular Center, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
| | - Young Won Yoon
- Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - Ji Yong Jang
- Department of Cardiology, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Ilsan, Korea
| | - Won Ho Kim
- Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
| | - Jong Wook Beom
- Department of Cardiology, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju, Korea
| | - Seok-Min Kang
- Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| | - On behalf of LG-VROS001 STUDY INVESTIGATOR GROUP
- Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University Hospital, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Daegu Catholic University Medical Center, Daegu, Korea
- Cardiovascular Center, Myongji Hospital, Goyang, Korea
- Department of Cardiology, Soon Chun Hyang University Hospital Cheonan, Cheonan, Korea
- Cardiovascular Center, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, Yangsan, Korea
- Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
- Department of Cardiology, National Health Insurance Service Ilsan Hospital, Ilsan, Korea
- Eulji University School of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
- Department of Cardiology, Jeju National University Hospital, Jeju, Korea
- Severance Cardiovascular Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Wei Q, Zhou J, Li H, Wang L, Wu Y, Ma A, Guan X. Medication adherence with fixed-dose versus free-equivalent combination therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol 2023; 14:1156081. [PMID: 37033611 PMCID: PMC10074603 DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156081] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2023] [Accepted: 03/13/2023] [Indexed: 04/11/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Qiran Wei
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research of China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Jiting Zhou
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research of China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Hongchao Li
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research of China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Luying Wang
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research of China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Yao Wu
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research of China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
| | - Aixia Ma
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research of China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- *Correspondence: Aixia Ma, ; Xin Guan,
| | - Xin Guan
- School of International Pharmaceutical Business, China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- Center for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research of China Pharmaceutical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
- *Correspondence: Aixia Ma, ; Xin Guan,
| |
Collapse
|