Search

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among cancer survivors. Mental health is considered an important risk factor affecting the treatment of cardiovascular disease. However, little is known about the use of secondary prevention strategies for CVD in patients with both cancer and CVD. This study aimed to compare the utilisation of primary care chronic disease management plans, mental health care and guideline-indicated cardioprotective medications among CVD patients with and without cancer. METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study utilising clinical data of patients with CVD from 50 Australian primary care practices. Outcomes included the use of chronic disease management plans, mental health care, guideline-indicated cardioprotective medications and influenza vaccination. Logistic regression, accounting for demographic and clinical covariates and clustering effects by practices, was used to compare the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 15,040 patients with CVD, 1,486 patients (9.9%) concurrently had cancer. Patients with cancer, compared to those without, were older (77.6 vs 71.8 years, p<0.001), more likely to drink alcohol (62.6% vs 55.7%, p<0.001), have lower systolic (130.3±17.8 vs 132.5±21.1 mmHg, p<0.001) and diastolic (72.2±11 vs 75.3±34 mmHg, p<0.001) blood pressure. Although suboptimal for both groups, patients with cancer were significantly more likely to have general practice management plans (GPMPs) (51.4% vs 43.2%, p<0.001), coordination of team care arrangements (TCAs) (46.2% vs 37.0%, p<0.001), have a review of either GPMP or TCA (42.8% vs 34.7%, p<0.001), have a mental health treatment consultation (15.4% vs 10.5%, p=0.004) and be prescribed blood pressure-lowering medications (70.1% vs 66.0%, p=0.002). However, there were no statistical differences in the prescription of lipid-lowering or antiplatelet medications. After adjustments for covariates and multiple testing, patients with cancer did not show

BACKGROUND: Hypertension control remains a significant challenge in reducing the cardiovascular disease burden worldwide. Community peer-support groups have been identified as a promising strategy to improve medication adherence and blood pressure (BP) control. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and impact of adherence clubs to improve BP control in Southeast Nigeria. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods research involving a formative (pre-implementation) research, pilot study and process evaluation. Hypertensive patients in two communities were recruited into peer-support adherence clubs under the leadership of role-model patients to motivate and facilitate medication adherence, BP monitoring, and monthly medication delivery for six months. The primary outcome was medication adherence measured using visual analogue scale (VAS), with BP level at six months as a key secondary outcome. RESULTS: We recruited a total of 104 participants. The mean age was 56.8 (SD-10.7) years, 72 (69.2%) were women, mean BP was 146.7 (SD-20.1)/86.9 (SD-11.2) mmHg, and the mean percentage of medication adherence on the VAS was 41.4% (SD-11.9%). At six months, 67 patients were assessed; self-reported adherence on the VAS increased to 57.3% (SD-25.3%) (mean difference between baseline and follow-up of 15.5%, p < 0.0001), while the mean BP decreased to 132.3 (SD-22.0)/82.9 (SD-12.2) mmHg (mean difference of 13.0 mmHg in systolic BP, p < 0.0001 and of 3.6 mmHg in diastolic BP, p = 0.02). Five in-depth interviews and four focus groups discussions were conducted as part of the qualitative analyses of the study. The participants saw hypertension as a big issue, with many unaware of the diagnosis, and they accepted the CLUBMEDS differential service delivery (DSD) model concept in hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrates that the implementation of adherence clubs for hypertension control is feasible and led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improve

As population aging progresses, demands of patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) on the primary care services is inevitably increased. However, the utilisation of primary care services across varying age groups is unknown. The study aims to explore age-related variations in provision of chronic disease management plans, mental health care, guideline-indicated cardiovascular medications and influenza vaccination among patients with CVD over differing ages presenting to primary care. Data for patients with CVD were extracted from 50 Australian general practices. Logistic regression, accounting for covariates and clustering effects by practices, was used for statistical analysis. Of the 14,602 patients with CVD (mean age, 72.5 years), patients aged 65-74, 75-84 and ≥85 years were significantly more likely to have a GP management plan prepared (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.6, 1.88 and 1.55, respectively, p < 0.05), have a formal team care arrangement (aOR: 1.49, 1.8, 1.65, respectively, p < 0.05) and have a review of either (aOR: 1.63, 2.09, 1.93, respectively, p < 0.05) than those < 65 years. Patients aged ≥ 65 years were more likely to be prescribed blood-pressure-lowering medications and to be vaccinated for influenza. However, the adjusted odds of being prescribed lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medications and receiving mental health care were significantly lowest among patients ≥ 85 years. There are age-related variations in provision of primary care services and pharmacological therapy. GPs are targeting care plans to older people who are more likely to have long-term conditions and complex needs.

BACKGROUND: Practice-level quality improvement initiatives using rapidly advancing technology offers a multidimensional approach to reduce cardiovascular disease burden. For the "QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living with heart disease" (QUEL) cluster randomised controlled trial, a 12-month quality improvement intervention was designed for primary care practices to use data and implement progressive changes using "Plan, Do, Study, Act" cycles within their practices with training in a series of interactive workshops. This protocol aims to describe the systematic methods to conduct a process evaluation of the data-driven intervention within the QUEL study. METHODS: A mixed-method approach will be used to conduct the evaluation. Quantitative data collected throughout the intervention period, via surveys and intervention materials, will be used to (1) identify the key elements of the intervention and how, for whom and in what context it was effective; (2) determine if the intervention is delivered as intended; and (3) describe practice engagement, commitment and capacity associated with various intervention components. Qualitative data, collected via semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions, will be used to gather in-depth understanding of the (1) satisfaction, utility, barriers and enablers; (2) acceptability, uptake and feasibility, and (3) effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Findings from the evaluation will provide new knowledge on the implementation of a complex, multi-component intervention at practice-level using their own electronic patient data to enhance secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12619001790134.

As population aging progresses, demands of patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) on the primary care services is inevitably increased. However, the utilisation of primary care services across varying age groups is unknown. The study aims to explore age-related variations in provision of chronic disease management plans, mental health care, guideline-indicated cardiovascular medications and influenza vaccination among patients with CVD over differing ages presenting to primary care. Data for patients with CVD were extracted from 50 Australian general practices. Logistic regression, accounting for covariates and clustering effects by practices, was used for statistical analysis. Of the 14,602 patients with CVD (mean age, 72.5 years), patients aged 65-74, 75-84 and ≥85 years were significantly more likely to have a GP management plan prepared (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.6, 1.88 and 1.55, respectively, p < 0.05), have a formal team care arrangement (aOR: 1.49, 1.8, 1.65, respectively, p < 0.05) and have a review of either (aOR: 1.63, 2.09, 1.93, respectively, p < 0.05) than those < 65 years. Patients aged ≥ 65 years were more likely to be prescribed blood-pressure-lowering medications and to be vaccinated for influenza. However, the adjusted odds of being prescribed lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medications and receiving mental health care were significantly lowest among patients ≥ 85 years. There are age-related variations in provision of primary care services and pharmacological therapy. GPs are targeting care plans to older people who are more likely to have long-term conditions and complex needs.

As population aging progresses, demands of patients with cardiovascular diseases (CVD) on the primary care services is inevitably increased. However, the utilisation of primary care services across varying age groups is unknown. The study aims to explore age-related variations in provision of chronic disease management plans, mental health care, guideline-indicated cardiovascular medications and influenza vaccination among patients with CVD over differing ages presenting to primary care. Data for patients with CVD were extracted from 50 Australian general practices. Logistic regression, accounting for covariates and clustering effects by practices, was used for statistical analysis. Of the 14,602 patients with CVD (mean age, 72.5 years), patients aged 65-74, 75-84 and ≥85 years were significantly more likely to have a GP management plan prepared (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.6, 1.88 and 1.55, respectively, p < 0.05), have a formal team care arrangement (aOR: 1.49, 1.8, 1.65, respectively, p < 0.05) and have a review of either (aOR: 1.63, 2.09, 1.93, respectively, p < 0.05) than those < 65 years. Patients aged ≥ 65 years were more likely to be prescribed blood-pressure-lowering medications and to be vaccinated for influenza. However, the adjusted odds of being prescribed lipid-lowering and antiplatelet medications and receiving mental health care were significantly lowest among patients ≥ 85 years. There are age-related variations in provision of primary care services and pharmacological therapy. GPs are targeting care plans to older people who are more likely to have long-term conditions and complex needs.

BACKGROUND: Practice-level quality improvement initiatives using rapidly advancing technology offers a multidimensional approach to reduce cardiovascular disease burden. For the "QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living with heart disease" (QUEL) cluster randomised controlled trial, a 12-month quality improvement intervention was designed for primary care practices to use data and implement progressive changes using "Plan, Do, Study, Act" cycles within their practices with training in a series of interactive workshops. This protocol aims to describe the systematic methods to conduct a process evaluation of the data-driven intervention within the QUEL study. METHODS: A mixed-method approach will be used to conduct the evaluation. Quantitative data collected throughout the intervention period, via surveys and intervention materials, will be used to (1) identify the key elements of the intervention and how, for whom and in what context it was effective; (2) determine if the intervention is delivered as intended; and (3) describe practice engagement, commitment and capacity associated with various intervention components. Qualitative data, collected via semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions, will be used to gather in-depth understanding of the (1) satisfaction, utility, barriers and enablers; (2) acceptability, uptake and feasibility, and (3) effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Findings from the evaluation will provide new knowledge on the implementation of a complex, multi-component intervention at practice-level using their own electronic patient data to enhance secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12619001790134.

BACKGROUND: Practice-level quality improvement initiatives using rapidly advancing technology offers a multidimensional approach to reduce cardiovascular disease burden. For the "QUality improvement in primary care to prevent hospitalisations and improve Effectiveness and efficiency of care for people Living with heart disease" (QUEL) cluster randomised controlled trial, a 12-month quality improvement intervention was designed for primary care practices to use data and implement progressive changes using "Plan, Do, Study, Act" cycles within their practices with training in a series of interactive workshops. This protocol aims to describe the systematic methods to conduct a process evaluation of the data-driven intervention within the QUEL study. METHODS: A mixed-method approach will be used to conduct the evaluation. Quantitative data collected throughout the intervention period, via surveys and intervention materials, will be used to (1) identify the key elements of the intervention and how, for whom and in what context it was effective; (2) determine if the intervention is delivered as intended; and (3) describe practice engagement, commitment and capacity associated with various intervention components. Qualitative data, collected via semi-structured interviews and open-ended questions, will be used to gather in-depth understanding of the (1) satisfaction, utility, barriers and enablers; (2) acceptability, uptake and feasibility, and (3) effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the implementation of the intervention. CONCLUSION: Findings from the evaluation will provide new knowledge on the implementation of a complex, multi-component intervention at practice-level using their own electronic patient data to enhance secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) number ACTRN12619001790134.

Background: Treatment inertia is a recognised barrier to blood pressure control, and simpler, more effective treatment strategies are needed. We hypothesised that a hypertension management strategy starting with a single pill containing ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy would be more effective than a strategy of starting with monotherapy. Methods: QUARTET was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial among Australian adults (≥18 years) with hypertension, who were untreated or receiving monotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned to either treatment, that started with the quadpill (containing irbesartan at 37·5 mg, amlodipine at 1·25 mg, indapamide at 0·625 mg, and bisoprolol at 2·5 mg) or an indistinguishable monotherapy control (irbesartan 150 mg). If blood pressure was not at target, additional medications could be added in both groups, starting with amlodipine at 5 mg. Participants were randomly assigned using an online central randomisation service. There was a 1:1 allocation, stratified by site. Allocation was masked to all participants and study team members (including investigators and those assessing outcomes) except the manufacturer of the investigational product and one unmasked statistician. The primary outcome was difference in unattended office systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control (standard office blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg), safety, and tolerability. A subgroup continued randomly assigned allocation to 12 months to assess long-term effects. Analyses were per intention to treat. This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001144404, and is now complete. Findings: From June 8, 2017, to Aug 31, 2020, 591 participants were recruited, with 743 assessed for eligibility, 152 ineligible or declined, 300 participants randomly assigned to intervention of initial quadpill treatment, and 291 to control of

High blood pressure is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality globally. Many patients remain on single-drug treatment with poor control, although guidelines recognize that most require combination therapy for blood pressure control. Our hypothesis is that a single-pill combination of 4 blood pressure–lowering agents each at a quarter dose may provide a simple, safe, and effective blood pressure–lowering solution which may also improve long-term adherence. The Quadruple UltrA-low-dose tReaTment for hypErTension (QUARTET) double-blind, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial will examine whether ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy is more effective than guideline-recommended standard care in lowering blood pressure. QUARTET will enroll 650 participants with high blood pressure either on no treatment or on monotherapy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 and allocated to intervention therapy of a single pill (quadpill) containing irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or to control therapy of a single identical-appearing pill containing irbesartan 150 mg. In both arms, step-up therapy of open-label amlodipine 5 mg will be provided if blood pressure is >140/90 at 6 weeks. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in the change from baseline in mean unattended automated office systolic blood pressure at 12-week follow-up. The primary outcome and some secondary outcomes will be assessed at 12 weeks; there is an optional 12-month extension phase to assess longer-term efficacy and tolerability. Our secondary aims are to assess if this approach is safe, has fewer adverse effects, and has better tolerability compared to standard care control. QUARTET will therefore provide evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a new paradigm in the management of high blood pressure.

Background

Methods

Results

Background

Methods

Results

BACKGROUND: Treatment inertia is a recognised barrier to blood pressure control, and simpler, more effective treatment strategies are needed. We hypothesised that a hypertension management strategy starting with a single pill containing ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy would be more effective than a strategy of starting with monotherapy. METHODS: QUARTET was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial among Australian adults (≥18 years) with hypertension, who were untreated or receiving monotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned to either treatment, that started with the quadpill (containing irbesartan at 37·5 mg, amlodipine at 1·25 mg, indapamide at 0·625 mg, and bisoprolol at 2·5 mg) or an indistinguishable monotherapy control (irbesartan 150 mg). If blood pressure was not at target, additional medications could be added in both groups, starting with amlodipine at 5 mg. Participants were randomly assigned using an online central randomisation service. There was a 1:1 allocation, stratified by site. Allocation was masked to all participants and study team members (including investigators and those assessing outcomes) except the manufacturer of the investigational product and one unmasked statistician. The primary outcome was difference in unattended office systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control (standard office blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg), safety, and tolerability. A subgroup continued randomly assigned allocation to 12 months to assess long-term effects. Analyses were per intention to treat. This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001144404, and is now complete. FINDINGS: From June 8, 2017, to Aug 31, 2020, 591 participants were recruited, with 743 assessed for eligibility, 152 ineligible or declined, 300 participants randomly assigned to intervention of initial quadpill treatment, and 291 to control of

BACKGROUND: Treatment inertia is a recognised barrier to blood pressure control, and simpler, more effective treatment strategies are needed. We hypothesised that a hypertension management strategy starting with a single pill containing ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy would be more effective than a strategy of starting with monotherapy. METHODS: QUARTET was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial among Australian adults (≥18 years) with hypertension, who were untreated or receiving monotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned to either treatment, that started with the quadpill (containing irbesartan at 37·5 mg, amlodipine at 1·25 mg, indapamide at 0·625 mg, and bisoprolol at 2·5 mg) or an indistinguishable monotherapy control (irbesartan 150 mg). If blood pressure was not at target, additional medications could be added in both groups, starting with amlodipine at 5 mg. Participants were randomly assigned using an online central randomisation service. There was a 1:1 allocation, stratified by site. Allocation was masked to all participants and study team members (including investigators and those assessing outcomes) except the manufacturer of the investigational product and one unmasked statistician. The primary outcome was difference in unattended office systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control (standard office blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg), safety, and tolerability. A subgroup continued randomly assigned allocation to 12 months to assess long-term effects. Analyses were per intention to treat. This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001144404, and is now complete. FINDINGS: From June 8, 2017, to Aug 31, 2020, 591 participants were recruited, with 743 assessed for eligibility, 152 ineligible or declined, 300 participants randomly assigned to intervention of initial quadpill treatment, and 291 to control of

Background

Methods

Results

BACKGROUND: Treatment inertia is a recognised barrier to blood pressure control, and simpler, more effective treatment strategies are needed. We hypothesised that a hypertension management strategy starting with a single pill containing ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy would be more effective than a strategy of starting with monotherapy. METHODS: QUARTET was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial among Australian adults (≥18 years) with hypertension, who were untreated or receiving monotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned to either treatment, that started with the quadpill (containing irbesartan at 37·5 mg, amlodipine at 1·25 mg, indapamide at 0·625 mg, and bisoprolol at 2·5 mg) or an indistinguishable monotherapy control (irbesartan 150 mg). If blood pressure was not at target, additional medications could be added in both groups, starting with amlodipine at 5 mg. Participants were randomly assigned using an online central randomisation service. There was a 1:1 allocation, stratified by site. Allocation was masked to all participants and study team members (including investigators and those assessing outcomes) except the manufacturer of the investigational product and one unmasked statistician. The primary outcome was difference in unattended office systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control (standard office blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg), safety, and tolerability. A subgroup continued randomly assigned allocation to 12 months to assess long-term effects. Analyses were per intention to treat. This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001144404, and is now complete. FINDINGS: From June 8, 2017, to Aug 31, 2020, 591 participants were recruited, with 743 assessed for eligibility, 152 ineligible or declined, 300 participants randomly assigned to intervention of initial quadpill treatment, and 291 to control of

© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC The aim of our study was to estimate the size of regression to the mean with home blood pressure (BP) monitoring and compare with that for office BP. Office and home BP measures were obtained from the BP GUIDE (value of central Blood Pressure for GUIDing managEment for hypertension) study, in which 286 patients had BP measured every 3 months for 12 months. Patients were categorized by 10 mm Hg strata of baseline BP, and regression to the mean measures was calculated for home and office BP. High baseline home BP readings tended to be lower on long-term follow-up, and low baseline readings tended to be higher. For example, patients in the group with mean baseline home systolic BP ≥ 150 mm Hg had a mean baseline systolic BP of 156 mm Hg, which fell to 143 mm Hg at 12 months; and patients in the group with mean baseline home systolic BP < 120 mm Hg had a mean baseline systolic BP of 113 mm Hg which rose to 120 mm Hg at 12 months. Similar patterns were seen in intervention and control groups, and for diastolic BP. The regression dilution ratio for home systolic BP and diastolic BP was 0.52 and 0.64, respectively, compared to 0.40 and 0.55 for office systolic BP and diastolic BP, respectively. Home BP is subject to regression to the mean to a similar degree as office BP. These findings have implications for the diagnosis and management of hypertension using home BP.

Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, is the leading cause of death and disability globally. A large proportion of mortality occurs in people with prior CHD and effective and scalable strategies are needed to prevent associated deaths and hospitalisations. The aim of this study is to determine if a practice-level collaborative quality improvement program, focused on patients with CHD, reduces the rate of unplanned CVD hospitalisations and major adverse cardiovascular events, and increases the proportion of patients achieving risk factor targets at 24 months. Methods: Cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of a primary care quality improvement program in 50 primary care practices (n~ 10,000 patients) with 24-month follow-up. Eligible practices will be randomised (1:1) to participate in either the intervention (collaborative quality improvement program) or control (standard care) regimens. Outcomes will be assessed based on randomised allocation, according to intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with unplanned CVD hospitalisations at 2 years. Secondary outcomes are proportion of patients with major adverse cardiovascular events, proportion of patients who received prescriptions for guideline-recommended medicines, proportion of patients achieving national risk factor targets and proportion with a chronic disease management plan or review. Differences in the proportion of patients who are hospitalised (as well as binary secondary outcomes) will be analysed using logbinomial regression or robust Poisson regression, if necessary. (Continued on next page)

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, is the leading cause of death and disability globally. A large proportion of mortality occurs in people with prior CHD and effective and scalable strategies are needed to prevent associated deaths and hospitalisations. The aim of this study is to determine if a practice-level collaborative quality improvement program, focused on patients with CHD, reduces the rate of unplanned CVD hospitalisations and major adverse cardiovascular events, and increases the proportion of patients achieving risk factor targets at 24 months. METHODS: Cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of a primary care quality improvement program in 50 primary care practices (n~ 10,000 patients) with 24-month follow-up. Eligible practices will be randomised (1:1) to participate in either the intervention (collaborative quality improvement program) or control (standard care) regimens. Outcomes will be assessed based on randomised allocation, according to intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with unplanned CVD hospitalisations at 2 years. Secondary outcomes are proportion of patients with major adverse cardiovascular events, proportion of patients who received prescriptions for guideline-recommended medicines, proportion of patients achieving national risk factor targets and proportion with a chronic disease management plan or review. Differences in the proportion of patients who are hospitalised (as well as binary secondary outcomes) will be analysed using log-binomial regression or robust Poisson regression, if necessary. DISCUSSION: Despite extensive research with surrogate outcomes, to the authors' knowledge, this is the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a data-driven collaborative quality improvement intervention on hospitalisations, CVD events and cardiovascular risk amongst patients with CHD in the primar

High blood pressure is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality globally. Many patients remain on single-drug treatment with poor control although guidelines recognize that most require combination therapy for blood pressure control. Our hypothesis is that a single-pill combination of four blood pressure- lowering agents each at a quarter dose may provide a simple, safe and effective blood pressure lowering solution which may also improve long term-adherence. The QUARTET (Quadruple UltrA-low-dose tReaTment for hypErTension) double-blind, active controlled, randomized clinical trial will examine whether ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy is more effective than guideline recommended standard care, in lowering blood pressure. QUARTET will enroll 650 participants with high blood pressure, either on no treatment or on monotherapy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 and allocated to intervention therapy of a single pill (quadpill) containing irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or to control therapy of a single identical appearing pill containing irbesartan 150 mg. In both arms step up therapy of open-label amlodipine 5mg will be provided if BP is >140/90 at 6weeks. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in the change from baseline in mean unattended automated office systolic blood pressure at 12weeks follow-up. The primary outcome and some secondary outcomes will be assessed at 12weeks, there is an optional 12months extension phase to assess longer term efficacy and tolerability. Our secondary aims are to assess if this approach is safe, has fewer adverse effects and better tolerability compared to standard care control. QUARTET will therefore provide evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a new paradigm in the management of high blood pressure.

High blood pressure is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality globally. Many patients remain on single-drug treatment with poor control although guidelines recognize that most require combination therapy for blood pressure control. Our hypothesis is that a single-pill combination of four blood pressure- lowering agents each at a quarter dose may provide a simple, safe and effective blood pressure lowering solution which may also improve long term-adherence. The QUARTET (Quadruple UltrA-low-dose tReaTment for hypErTension) double-blind, active controlled, randomized clinical trial will examine whether ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy is more effective than guideline recommended standard care, in lowering blood pressure. QUARTET will enroll 650 participants with high blood pressure, either on no treatment or on monotherapy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 and allocated to intervention therapy of a single pill (quadpill) containing irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or to control therapy of a single identical appearing pill containing irbesartan 150 mg. In both arms step up therapy of open-label amlodipine 5mg will be provided if BP is >140/90 at 6weeks. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in the change from baseline in mean unattended automated office systolic blood pressure at 12weeks follow-up. The primary outcome and some secondary outcomes will be assessed at 12weeks, there is an optional 12months extension phase to assess longer term efficacy and tolerability. Our secondary aims are to assess if this approach is safe, has fewer adverse effects and better tolerability compared to standard care control. QUARTET will therefore provide evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a new paradigm in the management of high blood pressure.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, is the leading cause of death and disability globally. A large proportion of mortality occurs in people with prior CHD and effective and scalable strategies are needed to prevent associated deaths and hospitalisations. The aim of this study is to determine if a practice-level collaborative quality improvement program, focused on patients with CHD, reduces the rate of unplanned CVD hospitalisations and major adverse cardiovascular events, and increases the proportion of patients achieving risk factor targets at 24 months. METHODS: Cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of a primary care quality improvement program in 50 primary care practices (n~ 10,000 patients) with 24-month follow-up. Eligible practices will be randomised (1:1) to participate in either the intervention (collaborative quality improvement program) or control (standard care) regimens. Outcomes will be assessed based on randomised allocation, according to intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with unplanned CVD hospitalisations at 2 years. Secondary outcomes are proportion of patients with major adverse cardiovascular events, proportion of patients who received prescriptions for guideline-recommended medicines, proportion of patients achieving national risk factor targets and proportion with a chronic disease management plan or review. Differences in the proportion of patients who are hospitalised (as well as binary secondary outcomes) will be analysed using log-binomial regression or robust Poisson regression, if necessary. DISCUSSION: Despite extensive research with surrogate outcomes, to the authors' knowledge, this is the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a data-driven collaborative quality improvement intervention on hospitalisations, CVD events and cardiovascular risk amongst patients with CHD in the primar

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke, is the leading cause of death and disability globally. A large proportion of mortality occurs in people with prior CHD and effective and scalable strategies are needed to prevent associated deaths and hospitalisations. The aim of this study is to determine if a practice-level collaborative quality improvement program, focused on patients with CHD, reduces the rate of unplanned CVD hospitalisations and major adverse cardiovascular events, and increases the proportion of patients achieving risk factor targets at 24 months. METHODS: Cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of a primary care quality improvement program in 50 primary care practices (n~ 10,000 patients) with 24-month follow-up. Eligible practices will be randomised (1:1) to participate in either the intervention (collaborative quality improvement program) or control (standard care) regimens. Outcomes will be assessed based on randomised allocation, according to intention-to-treat. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with unplanned CVD hospitalisations at 2 years. Secondary outcomes are proportion of patients with major adverse cardiovascular events, proportion of patients who received prescriptions for guideline-recommended medicines, proportion of patients achieving national risk factor targets and proportion with a chronic disease management plan or review. Differences in the proportion of patients who are hospitalised (as well as binary secondary outcomes) will be analysed using log-binomial regression or robust Poisson regression, if necessary. DISCUSSION: Despite extensive research with surrogate outcomes, to the authors' knowledge, this is the first randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a data-driven collaborative quality improvement intervention on hospitalisations, CVD events and cardiovascular risk amongst patients with CHD in the primar

BACKGROUND: Physical manipulation of the manufactured dose form is a common practice, with almost a quarter of all drugs administered in primary care having their dose altered. Splitting a tablet can be advantageous as it facilitates swallowing, allows for dose flexibility and provides cost reductions. However, there are concerns these physical changes can lead to inaccurate portions resulting in significant variations from the prescribed dose. Thus, the review described in this protocol aims to summarise the literature assessing the effect of tablet splitting on dose accuracy. METHODS: Relevant studies will be identified through electronic searches in databases including EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, from the beginning of databases until January 2020. Studies investigating any drug, where the tablet was split, will be potentially eligible. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and extract data using standardised forms. Data extracted will include general study information, characteristics of the study, intervention characteristics and outcomes. Primary outcome is to assess dose accuracy of a split tablet measured by drug content or weight variability. Assessment of risk of bias will be dependent upon study design. If deemed feasible, meta-analysis will be performed. RESULTS: The study described within this protocol will provide a synthesis of current evidence assessing the effect of tablet splitting on dose accuracy. CONCLUSION: The conclusion of our study will provide evidence to judge whether splitting a tablet results in an accurate half dose. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was not required for this study. The results of the systematic review described will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. REGISTRATION DETAILS: PROSPERO CRD42018106252.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Most patients with hypertension need at least two drugs to achieve goal blood pressure. This systematic review assessed efficacy and safety of triple versus dual combination therapy for the management of hypertension. METHODS:Publication databases, clinical trial registries and regulatory agency websites were searched until April 2018 for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple with dual therapy of BP-lowering drugs, for at least 3 weeks, among patients with hypertension. Meta-analyses for efficacy and safety outcomes were performed using random-effects model. Regimen efficacy was predicted using the Therapeutic Intensity Score (TIS) and the Law et al. method (which predict dose doubling increases efficacy by 100% and around 20%, respectively), and compared with observed efficacy. RESULTS:Fourteen RCTs (11 457 participants) were included. Overall, triple compared with dual therapy reduced BP by 5.4/3.2 mmHg (P < 0.001), and improved BP control by 58 versus 45% [relative risk (RR) 1.33 (95% CI 1.25-1.41)], whereas incidence of withdrawals because of adverse events were 3.3 versus 3.4% [RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.00-1.54), P = 0.05]. Law et al.'s method was superior to TIS in predicting differences in efficacy between triple and dual therapies. For patients uncontrolled on submaximal dose dual therapy, adding a third drug achieved on average approximately four times more BP reduction than doubling the dose of dual therapy component drugs (6.0/3.6 versus 1.5/0.8 mmHg, respectively). CONCLUSION:Addition of a third drug is likely to be more efficacious without increasing adverse events, compared with increasing dose of existing dual therapy. Early use of triple therapy can significantly improve hypertension control.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Most patients with hypertension need at least two drugs to achieve goal blood pressure. This systematic review assessed efficacy and safety of triple versus dual combination therapy for the management of hypertension. METHODS:Publication databases, clinical trial registries and regulatory agency websites were searched until April 2018 for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing triple with dual therapy of BP-lowering drugs, for at least 3 weeks, among patients with hypertension. Meta-analyses for efficacy and safety outcomes were performed using random-effects model. Regimen efficacy was predicted using the Therapeutic Intensity Score (TIS) and the Law et al. method (which predict dose doubling increases efficacy by 100% and around 20%, respectively), and compared with observed efficacy. RESULTS:Fourteen RCTs (11 457 participants) were included. Overall, triple compared with dual therapy reduced BP by 5.4/3.2 mmHg (P < 0.001), and improved BP control by 58 versus 45% [relative risk (RR) 1.33 (95% CI 1.25-1.41)], whereas incidence of withdrawals because of adverse events were 3.3 versus 3.4% [RR 1.24 (95% CI 1.00-1.54), P = 0.05]. Law et al.'s method was superior to TIS in predicting differences in efficacy between triple and dual therapies. For patients uncontrolled on submaximal dose dual therapy, adding a third drug achieved on average approximately four times more BP reduction than doubling the dose of dual therapy component drugs (6.0/3.6 versus 1.5/0.8 mmHg, respectively). CONCLUSION:Addition of a third drug is likely to be more efficacious without increasing adverse events, compared with increasing dose of existing dual therapy. Early use of triple therapy can significantly improve hypertension control.

Background Prevention of repeat cardiovascular events is an important means of addressing the increasing burden of coronary heart disease in China, however there is minimal information about the use of cardiovascular prevention treatment following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in China. Methods We analysed data from baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24-month follow-up surveys of 15,140 consecutive ACS patients recruited in 70 hospitals from 17 provinces of China. We describe the use of indicated cardiovascular prevention medicines, risk factor control, change over time and factors associated with continued prevention. Results 12,094 patients had follow-up data up to 12 months. At discharge, 86.1% were on a combination of antiplatelet, statin and blood pressure (BP) lowering drugs. Use of this combination fell to 68.0% at 12 months and 59.7% in patients followed to 24 months. Patients admitted to tertiary hospitals were more likely to be on the combination compared to secondary hospitals (at discharge 90.1% vs. 79.5%, p < 0.0001; at 12 months 71% vs. 64%, p < 0.001 respectively). At 12 months 25.2% achieved control in ≥ four of five guideline levels of risk factors and this was similar by hospital level. Prescription of BP-lowering drugs and statins at discharge was the strongest predictor of use at 12 months follow-up. Lower income was associated with less use of both. Conclusions Use of cardiovascular prevention treatment declines steadily over time following an ACS. The largest proportional decline is in the first six months. Ensuring patients are discharged on these therapies and addressing barriers for low-income earners may help address this gap.

Objective: To measure the placebo-controlled effects of combination therapy on hypotension, treatment discontinuation, and major renal outcomes, according to baseline blood pressure. Methods: We conducted an analysis of the action in diabetes and vascular disease: preterax and diamicron-MR controlled evaluation ADVANCE and perindopril protection against recurrent stroke study PROGRESS trials, including 14 684 participants allocated combination therapy or placebo. The mean age was 65 years, 61% were men, and 64% were receiving background blood pressure lowering (BPL) therapy. Participants were stratified into five subgroups by baseline SBP less than 120, 120-129, 130-139, 140-159, and at least 160 mmHg. Discontinuation of study treatment during the active run-in phase and postrandomization follow-up was assessed for hypotension/dizziness and other causes. Major renal outcomes (sustained doubling in creatinine or renal death) were also assessed. Results: Discontinuation during the 4-6-week active runin phase due to hypotension/dizziness ranged from 3.6% in those with SBP less than 120mmHg to 1.3% in those with SBP at least 160 mmHg. Median follow-up in the randomized phase was 5.6 years, and discontinuation for hypotension was higher with combination therapy compared with placebo in the less than 120mmHg group (4.7 vs. 1.2%). However, for each subgroup with baseline SBP 120-129, 130-139, and 140-159 mmHg, the absolute excess of discontinuation due to hypotension with combination therapy was 0.7%. Total discontinuations were only increased in the less than 120mmHg group (18.4 vs. 12.5%) and the 120-129-mmHg subgroup (17.6 vs. 14.2%). There were no clear differences across the SBP subgroups for the combined renal outcome (overall, 0.8 vs. 0.6%). Conclusion: Compared with those with baseline SBP 140-159 mmHg, side effects of dual combination BPL are essentially the same for people with SBP 130-139mmHg and only modestly increased among patients with SBP 120-129 mmHg. Duri