13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Single-Pill Combination of Perindopril/Indapamide/Amlodipine in Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Patients 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.

          Methods

          This 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.

          Results

          A 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.

          Conclusions

          In 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.

          Funding: Les Laboratoires Servier.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40119-017-0085-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Fixed-dose combinations improve medication compliance: a meta-analysis.

          Compliance with treatment is a sine qua non for successful treatment of chronic conditions like hypertension. Fixed-dose combinations are designed to simplify the medication regimen and potentially improve compliance. However the data on comparison of fixed-dose combination with free-drug regimen to improve patient's medication compliance is limited. We conducted a MEDLINE search of studies using the words fixed-dose combinations, compliance and/or adherence. The inclusion criteria were studies which involved fixed-dose combination versus free-drug components of the regimen given separately. Only studies which reported patient's compliance were included. Of the 68 studies on fixed-dose combinations, only 9 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Two studies were in patients with tuberculosis, 4 in the hypertensive population, 1 in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease and 2 in the diabetic population. A total of 11,925 patients on fixed-dose combination were compared against 8317 patients on free-drug component regimen. Fixed-dose combination resulted in a 26% decrease in the risk of non-compliance compared with free-drug component regimen (pooled relative risk [RR] 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.80; P <.0001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in this analysis (chi(2)=14.49, df=8; P=.07). A subgroup analysis of the 4 studies on hypertension showed that fixed-dose combination (pooled RR 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.81; P <.0001) decreased the risk of medication non-compliance by 24% compared with free-drug combination regimen. Fixed-dose combination decreases the risk of medication non-compliance and should be considered in patients with chronic conditions like hypertension for improving medication compliance which can translate into better clinical outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce mortality in hypertension: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors involving 158 998 patients

            Aims Renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system (RAAS) inhibitors are well established for the reduction in cardiovascular morbidity, but their impact on all-cause mortality in hypertensive patients is uncertain. Our objective was to analyse the effects of RAAS inhibitors as a class of drugs, as well as of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and AT1 receptor blockers (ARBs) separately, on all-cause mortality. Methods and results We performed a pooled analysis of 20 cardiovascular morbidity–mortality trials. In each trial at least two-thirds of the patients had to be diagnosed with hypertension, according to the trial-specific definition, and randomized to treatment with an RAAS inhibitor or control treatment. The cohort included 158 998 patients (71 401 RAAS inhibitor; 87 597 control). The incidence of all-cause death was 20.9 and 23.3 per 1000 patient-years in patients randomized to RAAS inhibition and controls, respectively. Overall, RAAS inhibition was associated with a 5% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91–1.00, P= 0.032), and a 7% reduction in cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.88–0.99, P= 0.018). The observed treatment effect resulted entirely from the class of ACE inhibitors, which were associated with a significant 10% reduction in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.84–0.97, P= 0.004), whereas no mortality reduction could be demonstrated with ARB treatment (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.94–1.04, P= 0.683). This difference in treatment effect between ACE inhibitors and ARBs on all-cause mortality was statistically significant (P-value for heterogeneity 0.036). Conclusion In patients with hypertension, treatment with an ACE inhibitor results in a significant further reduction in all-cause mortality. Because of the high prevalence of hypertension, the widespread use of ACE inhibitors may result in an important gain in lives saved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Relationship of Blood Pressure Control to Adherence With Antihypertensive Monotherapy in 13 Managed Care Organizations

              OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the relationship between medication compliance and blood pressure (BP) control among members of 13 managed care organizations with essential hypertension (HTN) who received antihypertensive monotherapy for at least 3 pharmacy claims prior to the blood pressure measurement. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of medical and pharmacy claims over a 4-year period (1999-2002) from 13 U.S. health plans. Data were collected by trained health professionals from randomly selected patient medical records per Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) technical specifications. Patients were selected if they (1) had received monotherapy or fixed-dose combination therapy (administered in one tablet or capsule) during the time BP was measured (thus those with no BP drug therapy were excluded); (2) had received 3 or more antihypertensive pharmacy claims for the antihypertensive drug therapy prior to BP measurement; and (3) had one or more antihypertensive pharmacy claims after BP was measured. Control of BP was defined according to guidelines of the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee (JNC 6) on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (less than140/90 mm Hg, or less than130/85 mm Hg for patients with diabetes). Medication adherence was measured using the medication possession ratio (MPR), and MPR was used to classify patients into 3 adherence levels: high (80%-100%), medium (50%-79%), and low (less than50%). The relationship between medication adherence and BP control was assessed using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: There were 1,017,181 patients with a diagnosis of HTN in medical claims data from which 10,734 (10.6%) were randomly selected for chart review. There were 1,032 patients (9.6%) in the samples who had a diagnosis of HTN but who were excluded because they had no HTN drug therapy. Of the total 9,894 patients (92.2%) who were excluded from the sample, 3,029 patients (28.2%) met all other inclusion criteria but were receiving more than one HTN drug. Of the 840 patients on HTN monotherapy, the mean age was 59 ± 12.2 years; 422 (50%) were women, 16% had diabetes, and 43% had dyslipidemia. The monotherapy HTN drug was an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (27% of patients), calcium channel blocker (22%), beta-blocker (20%), or diuretic (11%). Of the 840 patients, 629 (74.8%) were determined to have high medication adherence, 165 (19.6%) had medium adherence, and 46 (5.5%) had low adherence. Approximately 270 (43%) of high adherence patients achieved BP control compared with 56 (34%) and 15 (33%) patients with medium and low adherence, respectively. High-adherence patients were 45% more likely to achieve BP control than those with medium or low compliance after controlling for age, gender, and comorbidities (odds ratio=1.45; P =0.026). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that 75% of these health plan members with a diagnosis of essential HTN who were selected for receipt of at least 4 pharmacy claims for HTN monotherapy exhibited high medication adherence. However, only 43% of high-adherence patients attained their target (JNC 6) blood pressure goal compared with 33% to 34% of patients with medium or low adherence to antihypertensive monotherapy.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                nedogodasv@rambler.ru
                Journal
                Cardiol Ther
                Cardiol Ther
                Cardiology and Therapy
                Springer Healthcare (Cheshire )
                2193-8261
                2193-6544
                8 February 2017
                8 February 2017
                June 2017
                : 6
                : 1
                : 91-104
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department Volgograd Medical State University, Volgograd, Russia
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 8743 1110, GRID grid.418577.8, , Center for Hypertension, Clinical Center of Serbia, Medical School University of Belgrade, ; Belgrade, Serbia
                Article
                85
                10.1007/s40119-017-0085-7
                5446818
                28181192
                cd307bb1-e603-40f3-bde2-d31bd2fd2d25
                © The Author(s) 2017
                History
                : 13 October 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Institut de Recherches Servier
                Categories
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Healthcare 2017

                amlodipine,antihypertensive,indapamide,perindopril,single-pill combination,uncontrolled essential hypertension

                Comments

                Comment on this article