Projecting the long-term benefits of single pill combination therapy for patients with hypertension in five countries
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To project the 10-year clinical outcomes associated with single pill combination (SPC) therapies compared with multi-pill regimens for the management of hypertension in five countries (Italy, Russia, China, South Korea and Mexico). Methods
A microsimulation model was designed to project health outcomes between 2020 and 2030 for populations with hypertension managed according to four different treatment pathways: current treatment practices (CTP), single drug with dosage titration then sequential addition of other agents (start low and go slow, SLGS), free choice combination with multiple pills (FCC) and combination therapy in the form of a single pill (SPC). Model inputs were derived from the Global Burden of Disease 2017 dataset. Simulated outcomes of mortality, chronic kidney disease (CKD), stroke, ischemic heart disease (IHD), and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were estimated for 1,000,000 patients on each treatment pathway. Results
SPC therapy was projected to improve clinical outcomes over SLGS, FCC and CTP in all countries. SPC reduced mortality by 5.4% in Italy, 4.9% in Russia, 4.5% in China, 2.3% in South Korea and 3.6% in Mexico versus CTP and showed greater reductions in mortality than SLGS and FCC. The projected incidence of clinical events was reduced by 11.5% in Italy, 9.2% in Russia, 8.4% in China, 4.9% in South Korea and 6.7% in Mexico for SPC versus CTP. Conclusions
Ten-year projections indicated that combination therapies (FCC and SPC) are likely to reduce the burden of hypertension compared with conventional management approaches, with SPC showing the greatest overall benefits due to improved adherence.
SUBMITTER: Borghi C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8790100 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The use of multiple drug regimens is increasingly recognized as a tacit requirement for the management of hypertension, a necessity fueled in part by rising rates of metabolic syndrome and diabetes. By targeting complementary pathways, combinations of antihypertensive drugs can be applied to provide effective blood pressure control while minimizing side effects and reducing exposure to high doses of individual medications. In addition, combination therapies, including angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), have the added benefit of reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity over other dual therapies while providing equivalent blood pressure control. It is possible that angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), which unlike ACE inhibitors are minimally affected by upregulation of alternative pathways for angiotensin II accumulation following long-term treatment, would also provide such outcome benefits. At issue, however, is maintaining patient compliance, as adding medications is known to reduce adherence to treatment regimens. The purpose of this review is to summarize existing trial data for the long-term safety and efficacy of a recent addition to the armamentarium of dual-antihypertensive therapeutic options, the telmisartan/amlodipine single pill combination. The areas where long-term data are lacking, notably clinical information regarding minorities and women, will also be discussed.
| S-EPMC3606043 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe World Health Organization (WHO) included single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive medications on their 2019 essential medicines list (EML) to encourage uptake and improved hypertension control. We documented key national-level facilitators (SPCs on national EMLs, recommendation for SPCs in national hypertension guidelines and availability of SPCs on the market) supporting uptake of SPCs in the 30 most populous low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsA hierarchical information gathering strategy was used including literature and web searches, the use of organisational databases and personal communications with colleagues to obtain information on (1) whether SPC antihypertensives are on national EMLs, (2) whether SPC antihypertensives are recommended in national hypertension guidelines and (3) whether SPCs are available on the market.ResultsEleven of 30 LMICs had all facilitators in place being Egypt, Kenya, Nigeria, Sudan, China, the Philippines, Thailand, Iran, Argentina, Colombia and Mexico. Twenty-six countries had national hypertension guidelines (or similar) in place with SPCs being recommended in 18 of these. Apart from Afghanistan, SPCs were available on the market in all countries. The facilitator least present was the inclusion of SPC antihypertensives on national EMLs at 12 of 29 (Turkey does not have an EML).ConclusionThis study demonstrated that many LMICs have made significant progress in their uptake of SPC antihypertensives and several had included SPCs on their EMLs and guidelines prior to their inclusion on the WHO EML. Despite this progress, the uptake of SPC antihypertensives in LMICs could be improved including through their further inclusion on EMLs.
| S-EPMC8796691 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Antihypertensive efficacy of single-pill combinations (SPCs) consisting of a β1 -selective adrenergic blocker with vasodilatory properties via β3 -agonism (nebivolol) and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (valsartan) was demonstrated in an 8-week phase 3 trial (NCT01508026). In this post hoc analysis, seated blood pressure, heart rate, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, plasma aldosterone, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and safety measures were assessed in obese (body mass index >32 kg/m2 ; n=1823) and nonobese (body mass index <27 kg/m2 ; n=847) adults with hypertension (stage I or II) treated with nebivolol-valsartan SPCs, nebivolol or valsartan monotherapy, or placebo. At week 8, reductions from baseline in blood pressure and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring were greater with SPCs and most nebivolol and valsartan monotherapy doses vs placebo regardless of obesity status. Aldosterone declined with all active treatments and estimated glomerular filtration rate remained steady. The nebivolol-valsartan 5/80 mg/d SPC was efficacious regardless of degree of obesity.
| S-EPMC5484387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The single-pill combination (SPC) comprising nebivolol (5 mg), a vasodilatory β1 -selective antagonist/β3 -agonist, and valsartan (80 mg), a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, is the only Food and Drug Administration-approved β-blocker/renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor SPC for hypertension. Additive effects of four nebivolol/valsartan SPC doses (5 mg/80 mg, 5/160 mg, 10/160 mg, 10/320 mg nebivolol/valsartan) were compared with five Food and Drug Administration-approved non-β-blocker/renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor SPCs (aliskiren/hydrochlorothiazide, aliskiren/amlodipine, valsartan/amlodipine, aliskiren/valsartan, and telmisartan/amlodipine). Additivity is the ratio of placebo-adjusted SPC blood pressure (BP) reduction to the placebo-adjusted monotherapy component BP reduction sums. A weighted average of comparator scores was calculated and compared vs nebivolol/valsartan. Additivity ratio scores for nebivolol/valsartan SPCs (diastolic BP range: 0.735-0.866; systolic BP range: 0.717-0.822) were similar to the comparator weighted average (diastolic BP: 0.837; systolic BP: 0.825). Among the nebivolol/valsartan SPCs, 5/80 mg had the greatest additivity (diastolic BP: 0.866; systolic BP: 0.822). BP reduction contributions with monotherapy were similar for nebivolol/valsartan 5/80 mg SPC. Additivity scores for nebivolol/valsartan and select non-β-blocker/renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor SPCs were comparable.
| S-EPMC5813198 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatients with hypertension often require a combination of three antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure control, but very few single-pill triple combinations are available. The aim of this study was to determine whether a single-pill triple combination of perindopril, indapamide, and amlodipine was as effective as a dual-pill combination of perindopril/indapamide plus separate amlodipine at reducing blood pressure in patients with uncontrolled, essential hypertension.MethodsThis international, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted in men or women aged ≥18 years old with confirmed essential hypertension (SBP ≥140 and <160 mmHg and DBP ≥90 and <100 mmHg), uncontrolled on maximal dose antihypertensive monotherapy or with a single dose of dual therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to: single-pill triple combination of perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg/amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind/Aml) or dual-pill combination perindopril 5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg + amlodipine 5 mg (Per/Ind + Aml) once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was change in office supine SBP and DBP from baseline to week 12. The proportion of responders defined as those with normalized BP (SBP <140 mmHg and DBP <90 mmHg), and/or decrease of SBP ≥20 mmHg, and/or decrease of DBP ≥10 mmHg at week 12 (W12) compared with baseline was also assessed. Secondary efficacy endpoints included change in office supine SBP and DBP, response, and BP control at weeks 4 and 8. The tolerability of the treatments was also assessed.ResultsA total of 148 patients were randomized: 75 to Per/Ind/Aml and 73 to Per/Ind + Aml. Mean supine SBP and DBP were 149.1 ± 4.7 and 94.1 ± 3.1 mmHg, respectively, with no relevant between-group difference. At week 12, both triple-therapy regimens were associated with clinically significant reductions in SBP compared with baseline (-21.5 ± 11.7 and -20.0 ± 12.9 mmHg, respectively). Reductions in office supine DBP were also clinically significant (-15.3 ± 7.8 and -14.8 ± 9.0 mmHg, respectively). The proportion of treatment responders was high in both groups: 89.2 and 87.1%, respectively. The reduction in office supine SBP/DBP was already evident at week 4 and maintained for the duration of the study in both groups. The majority of patients were treatment responders at week 4 (89.2 and 82.9%, respectively) and had achieved BP control (87.8 vs. 78.6%, respectively), which was maintained until week 12 in both treatment groups. Both treatments were well tolerated with no between-group differences.ConclusionsIn adult patients with uncontrolled essential hypertension on treatment, single-pill triple-combination therapy with Per/Ind/Aml is as effective as the same dose dual-pill combination of Per/Ind + Aml. Both treatments were associated with clinically significant BP reductions compared with baseline and were well tolerated. Clinical trials number: http://www.controlled-trials.com ISRCTN: 16442558.FundingLes Laboratoires Servier.
| S-EPMC5446818 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study compared efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan/amlodipine (T/A) single-pill combination (SPC) vs the respective monotherapies in 858 patients with severe hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP] ≥180/95 mm Hg). At 8 weeks, T/A provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP/DBP (-47.5 mm Hg/-18.7 mm Hg) vs T (P<.0001) or A (P=.0002) monotherapy; superior reductions were also evident at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Blood pressure (BP) goal and response rates were consistently higher with T/A vs T or A. T/A was well tolerated, with less frequent treatment-related adverse events vs A (12.6% vs 16.4%) and a numerically lower incidence of peripheral edema and treatment discontinuation. In conclusion, treatment of patients with substantially elevated BP with T/A SPCs resulted in high and significantly greater BP reductions and higher BP goal and response rates than the respective monotherapies. T/A SPCs were well tolerated.
| S-EPMC8108787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSingle-pill combination (SPC) therapy of two drugs is recommended by international guidelines, including the Chinese guidelines (2010), for the treatment of hypertension in high-risk patients who require marked blood pressure (BP) reductions. Real-world data on the efficacy and safety of valsartan/amlodipine (Val/Aml) SPC are scarce. The present study is the first observational study in China to evaluate the efficacy (primary endpoint) and safety of Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC in Chinese patients with hypertension whose BP was not adequately controlled by monotherapy in a real-world setting.MethodsThis prospective, multicenter, open-label, post-marketing observational study included 11,422 Chinese adults (≥18 years) with essential hypertension from 238 sites of 29 provinces who were prescribed once-daily Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC. Patients were treated for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable of the study included changes in mean sitting systolic BP (MSSBP) and mean diastolic BP (MSDBP) from baseline to week 8 (end point). The secondary efficacy variable of the study included BP control rate and response rate at week 4 and 8. Safety assessments included recording and measurement of all adverse events (AEs) and vital signs in the safety population.ResultsA significant reduction of 27.1 mmHg in MSSBP (159.6 vs. 132.5 mmHg; P < 0.0001) and 15.2 mmHg in MSDBP (95.6 vs. 80.4 mmHg; P < 0.0001) from baseline was observed at week 8. The BP-lowering efficacy of Val/Aml SPC was independent of age and comorbidities. BP control of <140/90 mmHg was achieved in 76.8% (n = 8,692) of the patients. The most frequently reported AEs were dizziness (0.2%), headache (0.2%), upper respiratory tract infection (0.2%), and edema (0.2%). Only three serious AEs were reported and they were not drug-related.ConclusionThis is the first evidence-based real-world data in Chinese hypertensive patients which demonstrate the efficacy and safety of Val/Aml (80/5 mg) SPC.
| S-EPMC4115183 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLinear growth is an important outcome of child development with implications for economic productivity. Enteric infections, particularly Shigella, have been linked to linear growth faltering (LGF). However, benefits from potential reductions in LGF are rarely included in economic analyses of enteric infections. We aimed to quantify the economic benefits of vaccination related to reduced Shigella-attributable disease and associated LGF compared with the net costs of a vaccine programme.MethodsIn this benefit-cost analysis, we modelled productivity benefits in 102 low-income and middle-income countries that had recent stunting estimates available, at least one Shigella-attributable death annually, and available economic data, particularly on gross national income and growth rate projections. We modelled benefits strictly related to linear growth improvements and no other benefits associated with reducing diarrhoeal burden. The effect size in each country was calculated as shifts in height-for-age Z score (HAZ), representing population average changes for preventing Shigella-attributable less-severe diarrhoea and moderate-to-severe diarrhoea separately for children younger than 5 years. Benefits data were calculated per country and combined with estimated net costs of the vaccine programme in the form of benefit-cost ratios (BCRs); BCRs above parity, or $1 in benefits per $1 in costs (with a 10% margin representing borderline results: 1·10:1), were considered cost-beneficial. Countries were aggregated for analysis by WHO region, World Bank income category, and eligibility for support from Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance.FindingsIn the base-case scenario, all regions exhibited cost-beneficial results, with the South-East Asia region and Gavi-eligible countries exhibiting the highest BCRs (21·67 for the South-East Asia region and 14·45 for Gavi-eligible countries), and the Eastern Mediterranean region yielding the lowest BCRs (2·90). All regions exhibited cost-beneficial results from vaccination, except in more conservative scenarios (eg, those assuming early retirement ages and higher discount rates). Our findings were sensitive to assumed returns for increased height, assumptions about vaccine efficacy against linear growth detriments, the anticipated shift in HAZ, and discount rate. Incorporating the productivity benefits of LGF reduction into existing cost-effectiveness estimates resulted in longer-term cost-savings in nearly all regions.InterpretationLGF is a secondary outcome of Shigella infection and reduction in LGF is not often quantified as a health or economic benefit of vaccination. However, even under conservative assumptions, a Shigella vaccine only moderately effective against LGF could pay for itself from productivity gains alone in some regions. We recommend that LGF be considered in future models assessing the economic and health impacts of interventions preventing enteric infections. Further research is needed on vaccine efficacy against LGF to inform such models.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust.
| S-EPMC10205973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Over the past 2 decades, major advances in our understanding of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have led to the development of new targeted therapeutics and management strategies that have provided benefits to patients with this devastating disease. Despite such improvements, no therapies are curative, and PAH remains a progressive disease associated with high morbidity and suboptimal survival in many patients. Clinical research in PAH is currently at a crossroads. To move forward, not only are new therapies needed, but novel approaches to clinical trial design are also required. Trials should be designed to assess the longer-term benefits of investigational therapies in what has become a chronic disease. Moreover, there is a need to consider moving away from short-term trials that use markers such as the 6-minute walk distance as a measure of exercise capacity as primary end points to longer-term, event-driven trials with composite end points made up of clinically relevant measures that better reflect the ultimate goals of reducing morbidity and mortality. A shift in trial design may also be useful in overcoming some of the muted results from recent pivotal phase III studies of combination therapy by allowing the potential of these regimens to be more comprehensively assessed.
| S-EPMC4070802 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and Purpose: During the months and years post-stroke, treatment benefits from endovascular therapy (EVT) may be magnified by disability-related differences in morbidity/mortality or may be eroded by recurrent strokes and non-stroke-related disability/mortality. Understanding the extent to which EVT benefits may be sustained at 5 years, and the factors influencing this outcome, may help us better promote the sustenance of EVT benefits until 5 years post-stroke and beyond. Methods: In this review, undertaken 5 years after EVT became the standard of care, we searched PubMed and EMBASE to examine the current state of the literature on 5-year post-stroke outcomes, with particular attention to modifiable factors that influence outcomes between 3 months and 5 years post-EVT. Results: Prospective cohorts and follow-up data from EVT trials indicate that 3-month EVT benefits will likely translate into lower 5-year disability, mortality, institutionalization, and care costs and higher quality of life. However, these group-level data by no means guarantee maintenance of 3-month benefits for individual patients. We identify factors and associated "action items" for stroke teams/systems at three specific levels (medical care, individual psychosocioeconomic, and larger societal/environmental levels) that influence the long-term EVT outcome of a patient. Medical action items include optimizing stroke rehabilitation, clinical follow-up, secondary stroke prevention, infection prevention/control, and post-stroke depression care. Psychosocioeconomic aspects include addressing access to primary care, specialist clinics, and rehabilitation; affordability of healthy lifestyle choices and preventative therapies; and optimization of family/social support and return-to-work options. High-level societal efforts include improving accessibility of public/private spaces and transportation, empowering/engaging persons with disability in society, and investing in treatments/technologies to mitigate consequences of post-stroke disability. Conclusions: In the longtime horizon from 3 months to 5 years, several factors in the medical and societal spheres could negate EVT benefits. However, many factors can be leveraged to preserve or magnify treatment benefits, with opportunities to share responsibility with widening circles of care around the patient.
| S-EPMC8350336 | biostudies-literature