Effects of Single Pill Combinations Compared to Identical Multi Pill Therapy on Outcomes in Hypertension, Dyslipidemia and Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention: The START-Study

IF 1.5 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
T. Wilke, B. Weisser, H. Predel, R. Schmieder, S. Wassmann, A. Gillessen, J. Blettenberg, U. Maywald, O. Randerath, S. Mueller, M. Böhm
{"title":"Effects of Single Pill Combinations Compared to Identical Multi Pill Therapy on Outcomes in Hypertension, Dyslipidemia and Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention: The START-Study","authors":"T. Wilke, B. Weisser, H. Predel, R. Schmieder, S. Wassmann, A. Gillessen, J. Blettenberg, U. Maywald, O. Randerath, S. Mueller, M. Böhm","doi":"10.2147/IBPC.S336324","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim Current guidelines for the treatment of arterial hypertension (AH) or cardiovascular (CV) prevention recommend combination drug treatments with single pill combinations (SPC) to improve adherence to treatment. We aimed to assess whether the SPC concept is clinically superior to multi pill combination (MPC) with identical drugs. Methods and Results In an explorative study, we analyzed anonymized claims data sets of patients treated with CV drugs for hypertension and/or CV disorders who were insured by the German AOK PLUS statutory health fund covering 01/07/2012-30/06/2018. Patients at age ≥18 years who received either a SPC or MPC with identical drugs were followed for up to one year. A one to one propensity score matching (PSM) was applied within patient groups who started identical drug combinations, and results were reported as incidence rate ratios (IRRs) as well as hazard ratios (HRs). After PSM, data from 59,336 patients were analyzed. In 30 out of 56 IRR analyses, superiority of SPC over MPC was shown. In 5 out of 7 comparisons, the HR for the composite outcome of all-cause death and all-cause hospitalizations was in favor of the SPC regimen (SPC versus MPC): valsartan/amlodipine: HR=0.87 (95% CI: 0.84–0.91, p ≤ 0.001); candesartan/amlodipine: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65–0.90, p = 0.001); valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide: HR=0.68 (95% CI: 0.61–0.74, p ≤ 0.001); ramipril/amlodipine: HR=0.80 (95% CI: 0.77–0.83, p ≤ 0.001); acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)/atorvastatin/ramipril: HR=0.64 (95% CI: 0.47–0.88, p = 0.005). Conclusion SPC regimens are associated with a lower incidence of CV events and lower all-cause mortality in clinical practice. SPC regimens should generally be preferred to improve patient’s prognosis.","PeriodicalId":45299,"journal":{"name":"Integrated Blood Pressure Control","volume":"15 1","pages":"11 - 21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrated Blood Pressure Control","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/IBPC.S336324","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Aim Current guidelines for the treatment of arterial hypertension (AH) or cardiovascular (CV) prevention recommend combination drug treatments with single pill combinations (SPC) to improve adherence to treatment. We aimed to assess whether the SPC concept is clinically superior to multi pill combination (MPC) with identical drugs. Methods and Results In an explorative study, we analyzed anonymized claims data sets of patients treated with CV drugs for hypertension and/or CV disorders who were insured by the German AOK PLUS statutory health fund covering 01/07/2012-30/06/2018. Patients at age ≥18 years who received either a SPC or MPC with identical drugs were followed for up to one year. A one to one propensity score matching (PSM) was applied within patient groups who started identical drug combinations, and results were reported as incidence rate ratios (IRRs) as well as hazard ratios (HRs). After PSM, data from 59,336 patients were analyzed. In 30 out of 56 IRR analyses, superiority of SPC over MPC was shown. In 5 out of 7 comparisons, the HR for the composite outcome of all-cause death and all-cause hospitalizations was in favor of the SPC regimen (SPC versus MPC): valsartan/amlodipine: HR=0.87 (95% CI: 0.84–0.91, p ≤ 0.001); candesartan/amlodipine: 0.77 (95% CI: 0.65–0.90, p = 0.001); valsartan/amlodipine/hydrochlorothiazide: HR=0.68 (95% CI: 0.61–0.74, p ≤ 0.001); ramipril/amlodipine: HR=0.80 (95% CI: 0.77–0.83, p ≤ 0.001); acetylsalicylic acid (ASA)/atorvastatin/ramipril: HR=0.64 (95% CI: 0.47–0.88, p = 0.005). Conclusion SPC regimens are associated with a lower incidence of CV events and lower all-cause mortality in clinical practice. SPC regimens should generally be preferred to improve patient’s prognosis.
与相同的多药治疗相比,单药联合治疗对高血压、血脂异常和心血管二级预防的影响:start研究
目的目前的动脉高压(AH)或心血管(CV)预防治疗指南建议采用单药联合用药(SPC)来提高治疗依从性。我们旨在评估SPC概念在临床上是否优于具有相同药物的多药丸组合(MPC)。方法和结果在一项探索性研究中,我们分析了接受CV药物治疗的高血压和/或CV障碍患者的匿名索赔数据集,这些患者由德国AOK PLUS法定健康基金承保,涵盖2012年7月1日至2018年6月30日。年龄≥18岁的患者接受SPC或MPC治疗,并使用相同的药物,随访长达一年。在开始相同药物组合的患者组中应用一对一倾向评分匹配(PSM),结果报告为发病率比(IRRs)和危险比(HR)。PSM后,对59336名患者的数据进行了分析。在56次内部收益率分析中,有30次表明SPC优于MPC。在7项比较中的5项中,全因死亡和全因住院的复合结果的HR有利于SPC方案(SPC与MPC):缬沙坦/氨氯地平:HR=0.87(95%CI:0.84–0.91,p≤0.001);坎地沙坦/氨氯地平:0.77(95%CI:0.65-0.90,p=0.001);缬沙坦/氨氯地平/氢氯噻嗪:HR=0.68(95%CI:0.61-0.74,p≤0.001);雷米普利/氨氯地平:HR=0.80(95%CI:0.77–0.83,p≤0.001);乙酰水杨酸(ASA)/阿托伐他汀/雷米普利:HR=0.64(95%CI:0.47–0.88,p=0.005)。结论SPC方案在临床实践中可降低心血管事件的发生率和全因死亡率。SPC方案通常应优先用于改善患者的预后。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Integrated Blood Pressure Control
Integrated Blood Pressure Control PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信