• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估单片与自由联合降压治疗患者的依从性和医疗保健利用情况。

Evaluation of compliance and health care utilization in patients treated with single pill vs. free combination antihypertensives.

机构信息

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, NJ, USA.

出版信息

Curr Med Res Opin. 2010 Sep;26(9):2065-76. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.494462.

DOI:10.1185/03007995.2010.494462
PMID:20629600
Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To compare compliance/persistence, health care resource utilization, and costs associated with single-pill combination (SPC) vs. free-combination (FC) therapies among adult hypertension patients at the national and state level. Combination therapies with angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) + calcium channel blocker, ARB + hydrochlorothiazide, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor + hydrochlorothiazide were evaluated.

METHODS

Patients initiated on SPC or FC were identified in the MarketScan Database (2006-2008). Multivariate regression models were used to compare the health care outcomes of SPC vs. FC use during the 6-month study period. National- and state-level outcomes were analyzed and reported. Compliance was measured by medication possession ratio (MPR), and persistence was assessed based on treatment discontinuation (i.e., a lapse in therapy exceeding 30 days). Utilization and cost outcomes included frequencies of inpatient and emergency room (ER) visits and changes in health care costs from baseline.

RESULTS

Adjusting for baseline characteristics, SPC patients (N = 382,476) demonstrated significantly higher MPR than FC patients (N = 197,375) (difference = 11.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.4%, 11.7%). SPC patients had fewer all-cause hospitalizations (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.79) and ER visits (adjusted IRR = 0.87; 95% CI: 0.86, 0.89) than FC patients. Results for cardiovascular-related utilization were similar to all-cause results. Compared to FC, SPC patients showed significantly greater reductions post-therapy initiation in all-cause medical costs by -$208 (95% CI: -$302, -$114), but larger increases in hypertension-related prescription costs by $53 (95% CI: $51, $55). State-level results were generally consistent in magnitude and direction for comparisons of compliance and utilization, with greater regional variation in costs. Limitations include the possibility of residual confounding from factors not observable in claims.

CONCLUSION

SPC use was associated with significantly better compliance/persistence and fewer hospitalizations and ER visits than FC in hypertensive patients at the national level and in almost all states. Larger reductions in medical costs with SPC use more than offset higher drug costs within most states.

摘要

目的

在全国和州级水平上比较高血压患者使用单片复方制剂(SPC)与自由联合复方制剂(FC)治疗的依从性/持久性、医疗资源利用和成本。评估了包含血管紧张素受体阻滞剂(ARB)+钙通道阻滞剂、ARB+氢氯噻嗪和血管紧张素转换酶抑制剂+氢氯噻嗪的联合治疗。

方法

在 MarketScan 数据库(2006-2008 年)中确定使用 SPC 或 FC 的患者。使用多变量回归模型比较了 6 个月研究期间 SPC 与 FC 使用的医疗结果。分析并报告了全国和州级的结果。通过药物使用比例(MPR)衡量依从性,根据治疗中断(即超过 30 天的治疗中断)评估持久性。利用和成本结果包括住院和急诊室(ER)就诊的频率以及从基线开始的医疗费用变化。

结果

调整基线特征后,SPC 患者(N=382476)的 MPR 显著高于 FC 患者(N=197375)(差异=11.6%;95%置信区间[CI]:11.4%,11.7%)。SPC 患者全因住院(调整发病率比[IRR]=0.77;95%CI:0.75,0.79)和 ER 就诊(调整 IRR=0.87;95%CI:0.86,0.89)的次数均少于 FC 患者。心血管相关利用的结果与全因结果相似。与 FC 相比,SPC 患者在治疗开始后全因医疗费用显著降低了$208(95%CI:$302,$114),但高血压相关处方药费用增加了$53(95%CI:$51,$55)。在比较依从性和利用时,州级结果在幅度和方向上通常一致,但成本的区域差异较大。局限性包括索赔中无法观察到的因素可能存在残余混杂。

结论

在全国范围内和大多数州,与 FC 相比,高血压患者使用 SPC 治疗的依从性/持久性更好,住院和 ER 就诊次数更少。在大多数州,SPC 治疗的医疗费用降低幅度较大,足以抵消大部分药物成本的增加。

相似文献

1
Evaluation of compliance and health care utilization in patients treated with single pill vs. free combination antihypertensives.评估单片与自由联合降压治疗患者的依从性和医疗保健利用情况。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2010 Sep;26(9):2065-76. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.494462.
2
Comparison of real-world adherence, healthcare resource utilization and costs for newly initiated valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination versus angiotensin receptor blocker/calcium channel blocker free-combination therapy.比较新起始缬沙坦/氨氯地平单片复方与血管紧张素受体阻滞剂/钙通道阻滞剂自由联合治疗的真实世界依从性、医疗资源利用和成本。
J Med Econ. 2011;14(5):576-83. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2011.596873. Epub 2011 Jul 6.
3
Copayment level, treatment persistence, and healthcare utilization in hypertension patients treated with single-pill combination therapy.单片复方制剂治疗的高血压患者的共付水平、治疗持久性和医疗保健利用。
J Med Econ. 2011;14(3):267-78. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2011.570401. Epub 2011 Mar 30.
4
Comparison of amlodipine/valsartan fixed-dose combination therapy and conventional therapy.氨氯地平/缬沙坦固定剂量联合疗法与传统疗法的比较。
Manag Care. 2010 Jul;19(7):36-42.
5
Adherence and persistence of single-pill ARB/CCB combination therapy compared to multiple-pill ARB/CCB regimens.与多片 ARB/CCB 方案相比,单片 ARB/CCB 联合治疗的依从性和持久性。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2010 Dec;26(12):2877-87. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.534129. Epub 2010 Nov 11.
6
Real-life treatment patterns, compliance, persistence, and medication costs in patients with hypertension in Germany.德国高血压患者的真实治疗模式、依从性、持续性和药物费用。
J Med Econ. 2012;15(1):155-65. doi: 10.3111/13696998.2011.635229. Epub 2011 Nov 8.
7
A retrospective study of persistence with single-pill combination therapy vs. concurrent two-pill therapy in patients with hypertension.一项关于高血压患者单一片剂联合治疗与同期两片剂治疗持续性的回顾性研究。
Manag Care. 2001 Feb;10(2 Suppl):6-10.
8
[Influence of compliance on the incidence of cardiovascular events and health costs when using single-pill fixed-dose combinations for the treatment of hypertension].[使用单片固定剂量复方制剂治疗高血压时依从性对心血管事件发生率及医疗费用的影响]
Med Clin (Barc). 2011 Feb 26;136(5):183-91. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2010.01.038. Epub 2010 Nov 23.
9
Issues in blood pressure control and the potential role of single-pill combination therapies.血压控制存在的问题及单片复方制剂治疗的潜在作用。
Int J Clin Pract. 2009 May;63(5):790-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2009.01999.x. Epub 2009 Feb 11.
10
Chart review of patients on valsartan-based single-pill combinations vs. ARB-based free combinations for BP goal achievement.对使用缬沙坦单片复方制剂和 ARB 自由复方制剂的患者进行图表回顾,以评估其血压达标情况。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2010 Sep;26(9):2203-12. doi: 10.1185/03007995.2010.500883.

引用本文的文献

1
Renal denervation for hypertension.用于治疗高血压的肾去神经支配术。
Nat Rev Cardiol. 2025 Jan 2. doi: 10.1038/s41569-024-01104-z.
2
Medication adherence with fixed-dose free-equivalent combination therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis.固定剂量等效复方疗法的药物依从性:系统评价与荟萃分析
Front Pharmacol. 2023 Mar 22;14:1156081. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2023.1156081. eCollection 2023.
3
Single-Pill Combination to Improve Hypertension Treatment: Pharmaceutical Industry Development.单片复方制剂改善高血压治疗:制药行业发展。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Mar 31;19(7):4156. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19074156.
4
Starting Antihypertensive Drug Treatment With Combination Therapy: Controversies in Hypertension - Con Side of the Argument.开始抗高血压药物治疗联合治疗:高血压的争议-反面观点。
Hypertension. 2021 Mar 3;77(3):788-798. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.120.12858. Epub 2021 Feb 10.
5
The feasibility of polypill for cardiovascular disease prevention in Asian Population.亚洲人群心血管疾病一级预防中使用复方药的可行性。
J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2021 Mar;23(3):545-555. doi: 10.1111/jch.14075. Epub 2020 Oct 21.
6
Does the Polypill Improve Patient Adherence Compared to Its Individual Formulations? A Systematic Review.与单一制剂相比,复方制剂是否能提高患者的依从性?一项系统评价。
Pharmaceutics. 2020 Feb 22;12(2):190. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics12020190.
7
2019 AHA/ACC Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With High Blood Pressure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.2019年美国心脏协会/美国心脏病学会成人高血压临床绩效与质量指标:美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会绩效指标特别工作组报告
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Nov 26;74(21):2661-2706. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.10.001.
8
2019 AHA/ACC Clinical Performance and Quality Measures for Adults With High Blood Pressure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.2019年美国心脏协会/美国心脏病学会成人高血压临床绩效与质量指标:美国心脏病学会/美国心脏协会绩效指标特别工作组报告
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019 Nov;12(11):e000057. doi: 10.1161/HCQ.0000000000000057. Epub 2019 Nov 12.
9
Fixed and Low-Dose Combinations of Blood Pressure-Lowering Agents: For the Many or the Few?降压药物固定剂量和低剂量组合:为多数人还是少数人?
Drugs. 2019 Nov;79(17):1831-1837. doi: 10.1007/s40265-019-01209-7.
10
Medication Adherence to Antihypertensive Triple-Combination Therapy Among Patients Enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan.在参加医疗保险优势计划的患者中,抗高血压三联组合疗法的药物依从性。
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019 Jun;25(6):678-686. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2019.25.6.678.