Suppr超能文献

低剂量三联疗法与高血压患者治疗惰性和处方模式的关联:TRIUMPH 试验的二次分析。

Association of Low-Dose Triple Combination Therapy With Therapeutic Inertia and Prescribing Patterns in Patients With Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of the TRIUMPH Trial.

机构信息

The George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

The George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India.

出版信息

JAMA Cardiol. 2020 Nov 1;5(11):1219-1226. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.2739.

Abstract

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.

摘要

重要性

固定剂量联合(FDC)疗法越来越多地被推荐用于高血压患者的初始或早期治疗,因为它们可以降低治疗复杂性并可能降低治疗惰性。

目的

研究与常规护理相比,降压三联药物 FDC 治疗与治疗惰性和处方模式的关系。

设计、设置和参与者:对 Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) 研究进行了事后分析,这是一项针对轻度至中度高血压患者的随机临床试验,纳入了 700 名患者。患者于 2016 年 2 月至 2017 年 5 月从斯里兰卡 11 家城市医院诊所招募;随访于 2017 年 10 月结束。数据于 2019 年 9 月至 11 月进行分析。

干预措施

每日一次 FDC 降压药(替米沙坦,20mg;氨氯地平,2.5mg;氢氯噻嗪,12.5mg)或常规护理。

主要结果和措施

在基线和随访访视时评估血压(BP)高于目标时不加强治疗的治疗惰性。通过降压药物类别和治疗方案效力来描述处方模式。使用二项逻辑回归评估治疗惰性的预测因素。

结果

在纳入的 700 名患者中,403 名(57.6%)为女性,平均(SD)年龄为 56(11)岁。在未达到 BP 目标的患者中,与常规护理组相比,三联组在第 6 周访视时(92/106 [86.8%] 比 124/194 [63.9%];P < .001)和第 12 周访视时(81/90 [90%] 比 116/179 [64.8%];P < .001)更常见治疗惰性。在研究结束时,三联组 318 名患者中的 221 名(69.5%)和常规护理组 329 名患者中的 182 名(55.3%)达到了 BP 目标。在接受治疗强化的患者中,与常规护理组相比,三联组在基线时的治疗方案效力增加更大(预测平均[SD]治疗方案效力增加:三联组,15[6]mmHg;常规护理组,10[5]mmHg;P < .001),而在第 6 周或第 12 周访视时没有显著差异。诊所收缩压水平是随访期间治疗强化的唯一一致预测因素。在随访期间,与常规护理组相比,三联组每 100 名治疗患者的独特治疗方案分别为 23 个和 54 个(P < .001)。

结论和相关性

与常规护理相比,三联 FDC 治疗与更高的治疗惰性发生率相关。尽管如此,与常规护理相比,三联 FDC 治疗大大简化了处方模式,并提高了 6 个月的 BP 控制率。通过解决初始 FDC 治疗后血压控制不佳的少数患者的治疗惰性,可以进一步改善高血压控制。

试验注册

ANZCTR 标识符:ACTRN12612001120864。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

5
10
Hypertension in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.中低收入国家的高血压问题。
Circ Res. 2021 Apr 2;128(7):808-826. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.120.318729. Epub 2021 Apr 1.

本文引用的文献

3
Blood pressure control: a challenge to global health systems.血压控制:对全球卫生系统的一项挑战。
Lancet. 2019 Aug 24;394(10199):613-615. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31293-0. Epub 2019 Jul 18.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验