Search

IMPORTANCE: Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies are being increasingly recommended for initial or early management of patients with hypertension, as they reduce treatment complexity and potentially reduce therapeutic inertia. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of antihypertensive triple drug FDC therapy with therapeutic inertia and prescribing patterns compared with usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A post hoc analysis of the Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) study, a randomized clinical trial of 700 patients with hypertension, was conducted. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017. Data were analyzed from September to November 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Once-daily FDC antihypertensive pill (telmisartan, 20 mg; amlodipine, 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg) or usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Therapeutic inertia, defined as not intensifying therapy in those with blood pressure (BP) above target, was assessed at baseline and during follow-up visits. Prescribing patterns were characterized by BP-lowering drug class and treatment regimen potency. Predictors of therapeutic inertia were assessed with binomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 700 included patients, 403 (57.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 56 (11) years. Among patients who did not reach the BP target, therapeutic inertia was more common in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at the week 6 visit (92 of 106 [86.8%] vs 124 of 194 [63.9%]; P < .001) and week 12 visit (81 of 90 [90%] vs 116 of 179 [64.8%]; P < .001). At the end of the study, 221 of 318 patients in the triple pill group (69.5%) and 182 of 329 patients in the usual care group (55.3%) reached BP targets. Among those who received treatment intensification, the increase in estimated regimen potency was greater in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at baseline (predicted mean [SD] increase in regimen potency: triple pill, 15 [6] mm Hg; usual care, 10 [5] mm Hg; P < .001), whereas there were no significant differences at the week 6 or at week 12 visit. Clinic systolic BP level was the only consistent predictor of treatment intensification during follow-up. During follow-up, there were 23 vs 54 unique treatment regimens per 100 treated patients in the triple pill vs usual care groups, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Triple pill FDC therapy was associated with greater rates of therapeutic inertia compared with usual care. Despite this, triple pill FDC therapy substantially simplified prescribing patterns and improved 6-month BP control rates compared with usual care. Further improvements in hypertension control could be achieved by addressing therapeutic inertia among the minority of patients who do not achieve BP control after initial FDC therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864

Few studies have examined effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against COVID-19 and all-cause mortality across different pandemic periods in 2022.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the effect of polypill-based care on the achievement of 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline targets for blood pressure (BP), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and antiplatelet therapy.MethodsWe conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of three randomised clinical trials that compared a strategy using a polypill containing aspirin, statin and antihypertensive therapy with usual care in patients with a prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) event or who were at high risk of their first event. Overall, the trials included 3140 patients from Australia, England, India, Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand (75% male, mean age 62 years and 76% with a prior CVD event). The primary outcome for this study was the proportion of people achieving ESC guideline targets for BP, LDL and antiplatelet therapy.ResultsThose randomised to polypill-based care were more likely than those receiving usual care to achieve recommended targets for BP (62% vs 58%, risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15), LDL (39% vs 34%, RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.25) and all three targets for BP, LDL and adherence to antiplatelet therapy (the latter only applicable to those with a prior CVD event) simultaneously (24% vs 19%, RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.47) at 12 months. There was no difference between groups in antiplatelet adherence (96% vs 96%, RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.01). There was heterogeneity by baseline treatment intensity such that treatment effects increased with the fewer the number of treatments being taken at baseline: for patients taking 3, 2 and 0–1 treatment modalities the RRs for reaching all three guideline goals simultaneously were 1.10 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.30, 22% vs 20%), 1.62 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.42, 27% vs 17%) and 3.07 (95% CI 1.77 to 5.33, 35% vs 11%), respectively.ConclusionsPolypill-based therapy significantly improved the achievement of all three ESC targets for BP, LDL and antiplatelet therapy compared with usual care, particularly among those undertreated at baseline.

Aim The aim of this study was to investigate whether polypill-based care for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is associated with a change in lifestyle risk factors when compared with usual care, among patients with CVD or high calculated cardiovascular risk.Methods We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of three trials including patients from Australia, England, India, Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand that compared a strategy using a polypill containing aspirin, statin and antihypertensive therapy with usual care in patients with a prior CVD event or who were at high risk of their first event. Analyses investigated any differential effect on anthropometric measures and self-reported lifestyle behaviours.Results Among 3140 patients (75% male, mean age 62 years and 76% with a prior CVD event) there was no difference in lifestyle risk factors in those randomised to polypill-based care compared with usual care over a median of 15 months, either across all participants combined, or in a range of subgroups. Furthermore, narrow confidence intervals (CIs) excluded any major effect; for example differences between the groups in body mass index was −0.1 (95% CI −0.2 to 0.1) kg/m2, in weekly duration of moderate intensity physical activity was −2 (−26 to 23) minutes and the proportion of smokers was 16% vs 17% (RR 0.98, 0.84 to 1.15) at the end of trial.Discussion This analysis allays concern that polypill-based care may lead to neglect of lifestyle risk factors, at least among high-risk patients. Maximally effective preventive approaches should address lifestyle factors alongside pharmaceutical interventions, as recommended by major international guidelines.