Drug adherence to olmesartan/amlodipine fixed combination in an Italian clinical practice setting

Medication adherence with fixed-dose versus free-equivalent combination therapies: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: We conducted a large-scale meta-analysis and subgroup analysis to compare the effect of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with that of free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy on medication adherence. Methods: Studies published in Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and Embase up to May 2022 were identified according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The primary assessed outcomes were the medication possession ratio (MPR) and proportion of days covered (PDC). We investigated the probability of being adherent to the prescribed treatment (MPR or PDC ≥80%) or the average estimate of these two parameters. Studies reporting such results were included in this meta-analysis. The summary measures were reported as the risk ratio (RR) and the weighted mean difference (MD) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The quality of the cohort studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: Of the 1,814 screened studies, 61 met the predefined inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis of the results showed that compared to FEC, FDC significantly improved the medication compliance of patients by 1.29 times (95% CI:1.23-1.35, p < 0.00001). I² of 99% represent high heterogeneity across studies. The mean difference in medication adherence between FDC and FEC was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.06-0.14, p < 0.00001) with an I² estimate of 100%. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies that reported adherence outcomes according to disease type, period of evaluation and compliance indicators. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to exclude the results of low-quality studies, as well as studies in which there was ambiguity in the method of calculating the estimator. Conclusion: Analysis of the assessed parameters for the intention-to-treat and subgroup populations suggests that FDC can improve adherence to treatment and its advantages over FEC may increase over time. Further research is needed to better understand how medical conditions affect the impact of reduced pill burden on adherence, particularly in diseases other than cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Towards better reporting of the Proportion of Days Covered method in cardiovascular medication adherence: A scoping review and new tool TEN-SPIDERS

Although medication adherence is commonly measured in electronic datasets using the proportion of days covered (PDC), no standardized approach is used to calculate and report this measure. We conducted a scoping review to understand the approaches taken to calculate and report the PDC for cardiovascular medicines to develop improved guidance for researchers using this measure. After prespecifying methods in a registered protocol, we searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus and grey literature (1 July 2012 to 14 December 2020) for articles containing the terms “proportion of days covered” and “cardiovascular medicine”, or synonyms and subject headings. Of the 523 articles identified, 316 were reviewed in full and 76 were included (93% observational studies; 47% from the USA; 2 grey literature articles). In 45 articles (59%), the PDC was measured from the first dispensing/claim date. Good adherence was defined as 80% PDC in 61 articles, 56% of which contained a rationale for selecting this threshold. The following parameters, important for deriving the PDC, were often not reported/unclear: switching (53%), early refills (45%), in‐hospital supplies (45%), presupply (28%) and survival (7%). Of the 46 articles where dosing information was unavailable, 59% reported how doses were imputed. To improve the transparent and systematic reporting of the PDC, we propose the TEN‐SPIDERS tool, covering the following PDC parameters: Threshold, Eligibility criteria, Numerator and denominator, Survival, Presupply, In‐hospital supplies, Dosing, Early Refills, and Switching. Use of this tool will standardize reporting of the PDC to facilitate reliable comparisons of medication adherence estimates between studies.

Single-Pill Combination to Improve Hypertension Treatment: Pharmaceutical Industry Development

Multiple illness is an increasingly common phenomenon. Its consequence is the need for polytherapy, which is particularly common among people suffering from arterial hypertension. The development of combined preparations (containing at least two API-active pharmaceutical ingredients) dedicated to the treatment of hypertension is a response to increased compliance, especially in elderly patients. In our work, we describe in particular the possibilities of using β-adrenergic receptors blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors in combinations. The combinations of APIs are used as single pills in patients with arterial hypertension with concomitant diseases such as hyperlipidemia; blood coagulation problems and diabetes mellitus were also discussed successively. Pharmacoeconomic analysis for the API combinations shown is also presented. As a final conclusion, numerous benefits of using the combined preparations should be indicated, especially by the elderly and/or in patients with coexistence of other diseases.

Impact of single-pill combination therapy on adherence, blood pressure control, and clinical outcomes: a rapid evidence assessment of recent literature

The 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension raised the need for evidence to support the use of single-pill combination (SPC) therapy in preference to free-dosed therapy for hypertension. This systematic rapid evidence assessment sought to determine if initiating SPC therapy improves adherence, blood pressure (BP) control and/or cardiovascular outcomes vs. initiation of free-dose combination therapy.

Single Pill Regimen Leads to Better Adherence and Clinical Outcome in Daily Practice in Patients Suffering from Hypertension and/or Dyslipidemia: Results of a Meta-Analysis

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) represent the first cause of mortality in western countries. Hypertension and dyslipidemia are strong risk factors for CVD, and are prevalent either alone or in combination. Although effective substances for the treatment of both factors are available, there is space for optimization of treatment regimens due to poor patient’s adherence to medication, which is usually a combination of several substances. Adherence decreases with the number of pills a patient needs to take. A combination of substances in one single-pill (single pill combination, SPC), might increase adherence, and lead to a better clinical outcome.

Aim

We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effect of SPC with that of free-combination treatment (FCT) in patients with either hypertension, dyslipidemia or the combination of both diseases under conditions of daily practice.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching in PubMed from November 2014 until February 2015. Search criteria focused on trials in identical hypertension and/or dyslipidemia treatment as FCT therapy or as SPC. Adherence and persistence outcome included proportion-of-days-covered (PDC), medication possession ratio (MPR), time-to treatment gap of 30 and 60 days and no treatment gap of 30 days (y/n). Clinical outcomes were all cause hospitalisation, hypertension-related hospitalisation, all cause emergency room visits, hypertension-related emergency room visits, outpatient visits, hypertension-related outpatient visits, and number of patients reaching blood pressure goal. Randomized clinical studies were excluded because they usually do not reflect daily practice.

Results

11 out of 1.465 studies met the predefined inclusion criteria. PDC ≥ 80% showed an odds ratio (OR) of 1.78 (95% CI: 1.30–2.45; p = 0.004) after 6 months and an OR of 1.85 (95% CI: 1.71; 2.37; p < 0.001) after ≥ 12 months in favour to the SPC. MPR ≥ 80% after 12 months also was in favour to SPC (OR 2.13; 95% CI: 1.30; 3.47; p = 0.003). Persistence was positively affected by SPC after 6, 12, and 18 months. Time to treatment gap of 60 days resulted in a hazard ratio (HR) of 2.03 (95% CI: 1.77; 2.33, p < 0.001). The use of SPC was associated with a significant improvement in systolic blood pressure reduction, leading to a higher number of patients reaching individual blood pressure goals (FCT vs SPC results in OR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.69; 0.85, p < 0.001). Outpatient visits, emergency room visits and hospitalisations, both overall and hypertension-related were reduced by SPC: all-cause hospitalisation (SPC vs FCT: 15.0% vs 18.2%, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67; 0.94, p = 0.009), all-cause emergency room visits (SPC vs FCT: 25.7% vs 31.4%, OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65; 0.87, p = 0.001) and hypertension related emergency room visits (SPC vs FCT: 9.7% vs 14.1%, OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.54; 0.80, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

SPC improved medication adherence and clinical outcome parameter in patients suffering from hypertension and/or dyslipidemia and led to a better clinical outcome compared to FCT under conditions of daily practice.

Does the Polypill Improve Patient Adherence Compared to Its Individual Formulations? A Systematic Review

Many patients, especially those with a high pill burden and multiple chronic illnesses, are less adherent to medication. In medication treatments utilizing polypills, this problem might be diminished since multiple drugs are fused into one formulation and, therefore, the therapy regimen is simplified. This systematic review summarized evidence to assess the effect of polypills on medication adherence. The following databases were searched for articles published between 1 January 2000, and 14 May 2019: PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. Medication adherence was the only outcome assessed, regardless of the method of measuring it. Sixty-seven original peer-reviewed articles were selected. Adherence to polypill regimens was significantly higher in 56 articles (84%) compared to multiple pill regimens. This finding was also supported by the results of 13 out of 17 selected previously published systematic reviews and meta-analyses dealing with this topic. Adherence can be improved through the formulation of polypills, which is probably why the interest in researching them is growing. There are many polypills on the market, but the adherence studies so far focused mainly on a small range of medical conditions.

The effect of the blended education program on treatment concordance of patients with hypertension: A single-blind randomized, controlled trial

Poor treatment concordance is one of the major problems in patients with hypertension (HTN). An appropriate teaching method can help solving this problem. This study aimed to determine the effect of blended education program on treatment concordance in patients with HTN. This is a single-blind randomized controlled trial, and 60 patients with HTN who met inclusion criteria were selected by a convenience sampling and allocated into the control and intervention groups. A demographic information form and the questionnaires were used in this study. The questionnaires included questions addressing treatment concordance, which explored three dimensions: dietary adherence, medication adherence, physical activity plan. The blended educational intervention was carried out for 4 weeks in the intervention group. The control group only received traditional face-to-face education. The results showed that there was a significant increase in the total score of treatment concordance of the intervention group compared to the control group after the intervention (P < .001). In conclusion, using a blended education program is highly recommended to improve treatment concordance in patients with HTN. Consequently, it reduces patients' medical costs and enhances their health-related quality of life.

Formulations of Amlodipine: A Review

Amlodipine (AD) is a calcium channel blocker that is mainly used in the treatment of hypertension and angina. However, latest findings have revealed that its efficacy is not only limited to the treatment of cardiovascular diseases as it has shown to possess antioxidant activity and plays an important role in apoptosis. Therefore, it is also employed in the treatment of cerebrovascular stroke, neurodegenerative diseases, leukemia, breast cancer, and so forth either alone or in combination with other drugs. AD is a photosensitive drug and requires protection from light. A number of workers have tried to formulate various conventional and nonconventional dosage forms of AD. This review highlights all the formulations that have been developed to achieve maximum stability with the desired therapeutic action for the delivery of AD such as fast dissolving tablets, floating tablets, layered tablets, single-pill combinations, capsules, oral and transdermal films, suspensions, emulsions, mucoadhesive microspheres, gels, transdermal patches, and liposomal formulations.

Comparative study of the efficacy of olmesartan/amlodipine vs. perindopril/amlodipine in peripheral blood pressure after missed dose in type 2 diabetes

INTRODUCTION

Combination therapy is needed to control blood pressure (BP) in a large number of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus. Adherence to treatment is a major clinical problem; therefore, the time duration of the antihypertensive action of a drug determines BP control when a dose is skipped.

OBJECTIVES

The aim was to determine whether the fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine provides equal efficacy and safety as the perindopril/amlodipine combination when a drug dose is missed.

METHODS

In this noninferiority trial with a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy parallel group, controlled design, 260 patients received either olmesartan 20-40 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg or perindopril 4-8 mg/amlodipine 5-10 mg for 24 weeks. The main outcome was the sitting office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment at 48 h from last administration.

RESULTS

The olmesartan/amlodipine combination reached noninferiority criteria in reduction of office DBP after 24 weeks of treatment and after the missed dose, compared with the perindopril/amlodipine combination (-11.7 and -10.5 mmHg, respectively). Office SBP and pulse pressure were significantly lower in both groups after 24 weeks of treatment and 48 h after the missed dose, observing a trend to greater SBP reduction in the olmesartan/amlodipine group.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination olmesartan/amlodipine is safe, well tolerated, and as effective as the combination of perindopril/amlodipine in the control of essential hypertension in patients with diabetes mellitus. A missed dose does not leave the patients unprotected in both treatments; however, a faster control with less dose increment is observed with olmesartan/amlodipine.

Patient Adherence to Olmesartan/Amlodipine Combinations: Fixed Versus Extemporaneous Combinations

BACKGROUND

Lack of adherence to prescribed therapies is often a cause of suboptimal blood pressure control in patients with hypertension. To enhance patients' adherence to treatment, fixed-dose combinations of active substances with complementary mechanisms of action have been developed. An angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or an angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) is often combined with a calcium channel blocker. Olmesartan is the most used ARB in combination therapy. In Italy, in September 2011, a fixed-dose combination of olmesartan/amlodipine (olmesartan/amlodipine 20/5 mg, 40/5 mg, or 40/10 mg) was introduced to treat patients with hypertension for whom control of blood pressure is not reached with either olmesartan or amlodipine alone. Prior research on adherence to olmesartan/amlodipine combinations was carried out in local contexts (e.g., claims databases of Italian regions or local health authorities), and/or it was limited by the fact that adherence was assessed against monotherapies already known for their low compliance profile, such as diuretics.

OBJECTIVE

To compare adherence with olmesartan/amlodipine fixed-dose combination (FDC) and extemporaneous combination in primary care in Italy.

METHODS

A nationwide, population-based study was conducted by using the Health Search IMS Health Longitudinal Patient Database. Patients aged > 17 years, affected by hypertension and treated with the FDC or extemporaneous combination of olmesartan/amlodipine, were identified. Adherence to these 2 therapeutic regimens was estimated by calculating the proportion of days covered (PDC). Patients were classified into 3 levels of adherence: high (PDC ≥ 80%), intermediate (PDC = 40%-79%), or low (PDC < 40%).

RESULTS

In the 6-month follow-up, FDC showed higher adherence compared with an extemporaneous combination (55.1% vs. 15.9%, P < 0.001). This difference was confirmed in a multivariable logistic regression model clustered on patient identifier (odds ratio = 6.65; 95% CI = 3.10-14.26; P < 0.001). The proportion of patients adherent to FDC varied from 60.4% for the 40/5 mg formulation to 47.5% for the 40/10 mg formulation.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that higher adherence may be achieved with FDCs than with extemporaneous combinations. To improve the degree of adherence, general practitioners may consider prescribing fixed combinations of antihypertensive agents as soon as monotherapies fail to achieve the expected therapeutic objective.