Does a single-pill antihypertensive/lipid-lowering regimen improve adherence in US managed care enrolees? A non-randomized, observational, retrospective study

Impact of single-pill combinations versus free-equivalent combinations on adherence and persistence in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Hypertension is a leading cause of death and disease burden followed by dyslipidemia. Their asymptomatic nature leads to low adherence and persistence to treatments. A systematic literature review (SLR) investigated the impact of single-pill-combinations (SPC) compared to free-equivalent combination (FEC) on adherence, persistence, clinical outcomes, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and patient-reported outcomes, in patients with hypertension, dyslipidemia, or both.

METHODS

MEDLINE, MEDLINE-IN-PROCESS, Embase, and Cochrane were searched from inception until 11 May 2021, for studies comparing SPC against FEC in patients with hypertension and/or dyslipidemia. Patient characteristics, study design, therapies, measures of adherence or persistence, clinical outcomes, and follow-up were extracted.

RESULTS

Among 52 studies identified in the SLR, 27 (n = 346,030 patients) were included in the meta-analysis. SPCs were associated with significantly improved adherence compared with FEC, as assessed through medication-possession-ratio ≥80% (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, p < 0.01) and proportion of days covered ≥80% (OR 0.45, p < 0.01). SPC also improved persistence (OR 0.44, p < 0.01) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) reduction (mean difference -1.50, p < 0.01) compared with the FEC.

CONCLUSIONS

SPC use resulted in significantly improved adherence, persistence, and SBP levels compared with FEC in patients with hypertension. The findings support SPC use in reducing the burden of hypertension and dyslipidemia.

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.

Prevalence and predictors of medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to describe medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity according to the current literature, and synthesise predictors of non-adherence in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for relevant articles published in English language between January 2009 and April 2019. Quantitative studies reporting medication non-adherence and/or predictors of non-adherence among people with two or more chronic conditions were included in the review. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup of studies that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants, rather than seeking people with specific conditions. Remaining studies reporting prevalence and predictors of non-adherence were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

The database search produced 10 998 records and a further 75 were identified through other sources. Following full-text screening, 178 studies were included in the review. The range of reported non-adherence differed by measurement method, at 76.5% for self-report, 69.4% for pharmacy data, and 44.1% for electronic monitoring. A meta-analysis was conducted with eight studies (n=8949) that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants. The pooled prevalence of non-adherence was 42.6% (95% CI: 34.0 - 51.3%, k=8, I²=97%, p<0.01). The overall range of non-adherence was 7.0%-83.5%. Frequently reported correlates of non-adherence included previous non-adherence and treatment-related beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

The review identified a heterogeneous literature in terms of conditions studied, and definitions and measures of non-adherence used. Results suggest that future attempts to improve adherence among people with multimorbidity should determine for which conditions individuals require most support. The variable levels of medication non-adherence highlight the need for more attention to be paid by healthcare providers to the impact of multimorbidity on chronic disease self-management.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019133849.

Comparative efficacy of fixed-dose statin and antihypertensive agent combinations: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The concurrent administration of statins and antihypertensive agents has been associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes, although the optimal fixed-dose combination remains unclear. This meta-analysis aims to compare the blood pressure and lipid-lowering effects of various statin and antihypertensive drug combinations.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL and Clinicaltrials.gov were systematically searched from inception to 20 March 2021. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of statin-antihypertensive agent combinations on systolic blood pressure or serum lipids were held eligible. A random-effects frequentist model was applied to provide estimates of mean difference of percentage change.

RESULTS

Overall, 18 studies were included, comprising 4450 patients. Compared to statin monotherapy no significant difference in the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was achieved by adding any antihypertensive agent. Compared to amlodipine monotherapy, the addition of moderate-intensity statin resulted in a significantly greater percentage reduction of systolic blood pressure (-2.22%, 95% confidence intervals: [-3.82 to -0.62]). Combined high-intensity statin and amlodipine lead to significant increase of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (8.34%, 95% confidence intervals: [0.73 to 15.95]), while effective triglyceride reduction was achieved by adding amlodipine and telmisartan to high-intensity statin (-14.68%, 95% confidence intervals: [-28.48 to -0.89]). No significant difference of adverse effects was observed.

CONCLUSION

The present network meta-analysis suggests that the administration of fixed-dose combinations of statins and antihypertensive agents is safe and effective in reducing blood pressure and serum lipids. The optimal dosing strategy to prevent cardiovascular events remains to be determined.

Adherence to Single-Pill Versus Free-Equivalent Combination Therapy in Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Poor adherence to antihypertensive therapy is a major cause of poor blood pressure (BP) control in patients with hypertension. Regimen simplification may improve adherence and BP control. This systematic review assessed whether single-pill combination (SPC) therapy led to improved adherence, persistence, and better BP control compared with free-equivalent combination (FEC) therapy in patients with hypertension. PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched until July 2020, in addition to manual searching of relevant congress abstracts from 2014 to 2020 for studies including adults with hypertension aged ≥18 years receiving SPC or FEC antihypertensive therapy measuring any of the following: adherence, persistence, and reductions in systolic BP and/or diastolic BP. Adherence and persistence were summarized in a narrative analysis; direct pair-wise meta-analysis was conducted to compare BP reductions with SPC therapy versus FEC therapy using fixed-effect and random-effects models. Following screening, 44 studies were included. The majority (18 of 23) of studies measuring adherence showed adherence was significantly improved in patients receiving SPCs versus FECs. Overall, 16 studies measured persistence, of which 14 showed that patients receiving SPCs had significantly improved persistence or were significantly less likely to discontinue therapy than patients receiving FECs. Systolic BP (mean difference, -3.99 [95% CI, -7.92 to -0.07]; P=0.05) and diastolic BP (-1.54 [95% CI, -2.67 to -0.41]; P=0.0076) were both significantly reduced with SPC therapy compared with FEC therapy at week 12. SPC therapy leads to improved adherence and persistence compared with FEC therapy and may lead to better BP control in patients with hypertension.

Fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin improves clinical outcomes in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are important risk factors for cardiovascular disease. However, the clinical outcomes of fixed-dose combination (FDC) versus free-equivalent combination (FEC) of amlodipine and atorvastatin in the treatment of concurrent hypertension and dyslipidemia remain unknown. In this study, we included patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia, without previously established cardiovascular disease, and treated with either FDC or FEC of amlodipine and atorvastatin were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan and follow-up for 5 years. By using 1:1 propensity score matching, a total of 1756 patients were enrolled in this study. The composite of major adverse cardiovascular events, including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and coronary revascularization, occurred more frequently in the FEC group than in the FDC group (hazard ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42 to 2.5). Although the all-cause mortality did not differ (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.59), the FEC group developed increased MI, stroke, and coronary revascularization (hazard ratio, 2.87; 95% CI, 1.07 to 7.68; hazard ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.41 to 2.74; and hazard ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.26 to 4.69, respectively). Furthermore, as an unexpected result, a higher risk to develop new-onset diabetes mellitus was observed with FEC regimens (hazard ratio, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0). In conclusion, although the all-cause mortality did not differ between the two groups, the FDC regimen of amlodipine and atorvastatin improved clinical outcomes when compared to FEC in patients with newly diagnosed hypertension and dyslipidemia.

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.

Post Hoc Analysis of the CONFIDENCE II, PROTECT I, SHAKE THE HABIT I and SHAKE THE HABIT II Observational Studies in Mild to Moderate Hypertensive Patients Treated with Perindopril and Atorvastatin Concomitantly

Background and Objectives

Management of hypertension and dyslipidemia is important when considering cardiovascular disease risk; however, achievement of optimal lipid and blood pressure (BP) targets in clinical practice remains inadequate. This analysis sought to estimate the frequency, effectiveness, and safety of co-administrated atorvastatin and perindopril in routine care.

Methods

We conducted a post hoc analysis of four Canadian, prospective, multi-center, observational studies assessing real-life effectiveness and safety of perindopril + atorvastatin in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients with concomitant dyslipidemia over 16 weeks. The safety population comprised patients receiving one or more doses of free combination perindopril + atorvastatin; the full analysis set (FAS) received perindopril + atorvastatin at baseline, with one or more post-baseline systolic BP measurements while on treatment.

Results

A total of 3541 and 3172 patients were included in the safety population and FAS, respectively. At the last observation carried forward, significant reductions in mean systolic BP (− 18.0 mmHg; p < 0.001) and diastolic BP (− 8.9 mmHg; p < 0.001) were observed; target BP was achieved by 73.1% of patients. Emergent adverse events (AEs) were reported in 8.0% of patients, the most common being cough (4.5% of patients), headache (0.9%), and dizziness (0.8%). Four serious AEs were reported among three (0.1%) patients. No differences were observed in effectiveness or safety between studies.

Conclusions

Concomitant perindopril + atorvastatin therapy demonstrated similar efficacy across all studies, with significant reductions in BP and achievement of target BP levels observed in a real-world setting. Results align with known safety profiles of atorvastatin and perindopril, with no unexpected AEs observed when compared with data from treatment with the individual drugs.

Modifications in drug adherence after switch to fixed-dose combination of perindopril/amlodipine in clinical practice. Results of a large-scale Italian experience. The amlodipine-perindopril in real settings (AMPERES) study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the changes in adherence to treatment, in patients who switched from perindopril and/or amlodipine as a monotherapy (single-pill therapy, SPT) or two-pill combinations to fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy.

METHODS

A large retrospective cohort study, in three Italian Local Health Units, was performed. All adult subjects who received at least one prescription of anti-hypertensive drugs between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2014 were selected. The date of the first anti-hypertensive prescription was defined as the index-date (ID). For each patient, we evaluated the anti-hypertensive therapy and the adherence to treatment during the two 12-month periods preceding and following the ID. Changes in the level of adherence have been compared in patients who switched to the FDC of perindopril/amlodipine after the ID, as well as in patients who did not.

RESULTS

A total of 24,020 subjects were initially included in the study. Subjects treated with the free dose combination switched more frequently to FDC of perindopril/amlodipine than subjects treated with SPT (p < .001). Adherence to treatment was found to be higher in the 3,597 subjects who switched to the perindopril/amlodipine FDC therapy, than in the 20,423 subjects who did not. A significant decrease in the number of concomitant anti-hypertensive drugs has been observed in patients treated with the same FDC.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that perindopril/amlodipine FDC increases the rate of stay-on-therapy and reduces the number of concomitant anti-hypertensive drugs in subjects previously treated with the same drugs as a two-pill combination or as SPT.

Does a fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin improve persistence with therapy in the Australian population?

AIM

To compare persistence in people who initiate the combination of amlodipine and statin as a fixed-dose combination (FDC) or separate pill combination (SePC), and assess the impact of prior medicine exposure on this outcome.

METHOD

Prescription dispensing data from a national administrative dataset was used to identify patients initiating FDCs or SePCs of amlodipine and statin between April and September 2013. Each cohort was stratified according to dispensing of calcium channel blockers (CCBs) or statins in the prior 12 months. Time to cessation of combination therapy (persistence) was analyzed over 12 months using Kaplan Meyer survival analysis and Cox proportional hazards (PH) models. Patient factors associated with length of treatment were identified using Cox PH modeling.

RESULTS

Of 26,000 people who initiated combination amlodipine and statin, the majority initiated SePCs (77%). The unadjusted cessation rates at 12 months were SePC 40% and FDC 44%. Following adjustment for patient factors, the risk of ceasing combination therapy was higher in those taking the SePC versus FDC, hazard ratio (95% CI): 1.15 (1.11, 1.21). Patients naïve to both therapies had double the cessation rate compared to those who had at least one prior dispensing of a statin. Factors positively associated with persistence were prior use of other antihypertensive drugs and reaching the medicine subsidy safety-net: factors that were more common in users of SePC amlodipine and statin.

CONCLUSION

In this study we found a lower risk (15%) of ceasing combination therapy when people initiate amlodipine and statin in the form of a FDC. While this outcome supports findings in other countries that FDCs improve persistence with combination therapy, prior experience with component or similar medicines has a larger impact on persistence regardless of formulation initiated.

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.

Does tablet formulation alone improve adherence and persistence: a comparison of ezetimibe fixed dose combination versus ezetimibe separate pill combination?

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare adherence and persistence in patients who add ezetimibe to statin therapy as a separate pill combination (SPC) or fixed dose combination (FDC).

METHOD

This is a retrospective cohort study of prescription data conducted in an Australian health dataset. Two cohorts were identified: those dispensed statins and subsequently ezetimibe as either SPC or FDC. We compared adherence to combination therapy using the medication possession ratio (MPR), multivariate linear and logistic regression. Persistence to initial combination medicines and any lipid-lowering therapies were analysed using Kaplan Meyer survival and Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

A total of 3651 people initiated ezetimibe SPC and 5740 ezetimibe FDC. There was no significant difference in adherence with mean MPRs: ezetimibe SPC = 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.98-1.01) and FDC = 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99). One year persistence rates to initial combination medicines were ezetimibe SPC 49.1% vs. FDC 62.4%; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.81 (95% CI 1.76-1.90). However, persistence to any lipid-lowering therapy was higher in those initiating ezetimibe SPC = 84.9% vs. FDC = 76%; HR = 0.62 (95% CI 0.55-0.72). One year persistence rates to any two lipid-lowering medicines were similar: ezetimibe SPC 65.2% and FDC 65%.

CONCLUSION

In this study FDCs have little impact on either adherence or persistence to combination lipid-lowering therapy in people who have been taking statins. The benefit of higher persistence to FDCs in first episode of treatment with initial medicines is debatable as persistence to dual therapy was similar in both cohorts.

Evaluation of the durability of pain relief throughout a 12 hour dosing interval of a novel, extended-release, abuse-deterrent formulation of oxycodone

BACKGROUND

Abuse deterrent formulations (ADF) are designed to prevent the misuse of opioids by tampering (e.g. physical and chemical manipulation) in order to ingest the opioid in a manner other than intended. Extended-release (ER) formulations are formulated with a larger drug load than immediate-release (IR) formulations, which makes ER opioids more desirable to drug abusers than I.R. formulations. ADFs, therefore, are particularly useful with ER opioid agents, which are designed to produce consistent analgesia over prolonged dosing intervals. However, the drug release properties of these formulations vary and sometimes may not provide adequate pain relief throughout the intended dosing interval, requiring patients to take additional medication for pain relief. Oxycodone DETERx* (Xtampza ER * ) is a novel, microsphere-in-capsule opioid formulation, which allows for twice daily dosing (i.e. every 12 hours) and mitigates the ability to tamper with the formulation.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the durability of pain relief of a novel formulation of oxycodone throughout the 12 hour dosing interval.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This study is a post-hoc analysis of 193 subjects in a Phase 3 randomized withdrawal, double-blind, placebo-controlled, enriched-enrollment, parallel-group, multicenter, 12-week clinical study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The analysis evaluated the frequency and distribution of use of oxycodone ER and rescue medication during the Double-blind Maintenance Phase of the study.

RESULTS

Usage patterns captured by an electronic diary indicated limited overall and limited per-day use of rescue medication with no increase in rescue medication consumption 8 to 12 hours post-dose, suggesting that subjects did not experience end-of-dose failure during this time period.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited in that it is a post-hoc analysis based on data gathered electronically from a large, prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase 3 clinical study.

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of dosing patterns indicates that this ER oxycodone capsule formulation has durability of effect over the entire 12-hour dosing interval. These data support the use of abuse-deterrent oxycodone ER as a 12-hour dosing formulation.

Patient considerations in type 2 diabetes - role of combination dapagliflozin-metformin XR

PURPOSE

The purpose of this review article is to provide guidance to health care providers regarding the use of dapagliflozin-metformin XR (extended release) as a therapeutic option for the treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

The PubMed database was searched through August 2015 to identify clinical trials and meta-analyses evaluating the use of the sodium-glucose cotransporter type 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin administered as monotherapy or in combination with metformin.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included for this review, six of which evaluated dapagliflozin in combination with metformin, one of which evaluated dapagliflozin monotherapy, and four of which evaluated dapagliflozin as an add-on therapy to other antidiabetic agents. The combination of dapagliflozin and metformin resulted in an A1C decrease of up to 2%, weight loss of 2-3 kg, and modest systolic blood pressure decrease of 3-5 mmHg. However, long-term effects on cancer and cardiovascular health are still being investigated. Providing patients with a fixed-dose combination therapy such as dapagliflozin-metformin XR can increase medication adherence and patient satisfaction, and improve glycemic control. Dapagliflozin-metformin XR is ideal because it can be administered orally once a day, is associated with a low risk of hypoglycemia, and provides the added benefit of weight reduction and modest blood pressure lowering.

CONCLUSION

The unique combined mechanism of action and favorable efficacy and safety profile of dapagliflozin-metformin XR support consideration of this fixed-dose combination as a treatment option for patients with T2DM.

Clinical management of comorbid diabetes and psychotic disorders

Individuals with psychotic disorders experience substantial health disparities with respect to diabetes, including increased risk of incident diabetes and of poor diabetes outcomes (eg, diabetes complications and mortality). Low-quality medical care for diabetes is a significant contributor to these poor health outcomes. A thoughtful approach to both diabetes pharmacotherapy and drug management for psychotic disorders is essential, irrespective of whether treatment is given by a psychiatrist, a primary care provider, or an endocrinologist. Exposure to drugs with high metabolic liability should be minimised, and both psychiatric providers and medical providers need to monitor patients to ensure that medical care for diabetes is adequate. Promising models of care management and team approaches to coordination and integration of care highlight the crucial need for communication and cooperation among medical and psychiatric providers to improve outcomes in these patients. Evidence-based programmes that promote weight loss or smoking cessation need to be more accessible for these patients, and should be available in all the settings where they access care.

Comparing Medication Adherence Methods in Lipid-Modifying Therapy

Background:

Investigators have employed a number of different methods to calculate adherence estimates for patients taking lipid-modifying therapy (LMT), including measures with different numerator and denominator options. Although at least one method is known to correlate well with cardiovascular outcomes, most have not been evaluated in outcomes studies.

Objectives:

To evaluate different methods for measuring adherence, using LMT as a case example, and to determine whether estimates for adherence differ statistically and/or whether different methods can lead to different conclusions about patient adherence.

Methods:

Adherence ratios were calculated using 8 different methods for 12,448 patients who were in a managed-care system and were considered new starts with statin therapy. The calculated measures were compared and tested for differences. Patients were categorized as adherent by each method, using a threshold of 0.8, and the proportions of patients categorized as adherent were compared for differences between adherence calculation methods.

Results:

Adherence ratios calculated with like observation intervals did not vary substantially, regardless of which method for measuring medication availability was used. Those calculated with different observation intervals had substantial variability. Mean adherence ratios ranged between 0.777 and 0.798 for difference in days' observation intervals; they ranged between 0.618 and 0.630 for the predefined interval. Differences between ratios calculated using these different denominators were statistically significant (p < 0.008). Correlations between ratios were statistically significant for all comparisons (p < 0.001). Correlation coefficients ( r) were 0.64 for comparisons between ratios with different denominators versus 1.0 for comparisons with like denominators. Categorization as adherent or nonadherent differed between the methods for about 20% of patients.

Conclusions:

Significant differences were found to be based on observation period but not on medication availability. Studies of adherence should be interpreted with caution depending on which method is used, and particular interest should be paid to whether the choice of methods is consistent with study objectives and to the observation interval, as different methods may lead to different conclusions about patient adherence. Further research in LMT and other therapeutic areas is needed to determine which methods correlate best with positive patient outcomes, such as reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events.

Combining antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic agents - optimizing cardiovascular risk factor management

Clinical guidelines now recognize the importance of a multifactorial approach to managing cardiovascular (CV) risk. This idea was taken a step further with the concept of the Polypill™. There are, however, considerable patent, pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, registration, and cost implications that will need to be overcome before the Polypill™ or other single-pill combinations of CV medications become widely available. However, a medication targeting blood pressure (BP) and lipids provides much of the proposed benefits of the Polypill™. A single-pill combination of the antihypertensive amlodipine besylate and the lipid-lowering medication atorvastatin calcium (SPAA) is currently available in many parts of the world. This review describes the rationale for this combination therapy and the clinical trials that have demonstrated that these two agents can be combined without the loss of efficacy for either agent or an increase in the incidence of adverse events. The recently completed Cluster Randomized Usual Care vs Caduet Investigation Assessing Long-term-risk (CRUCIAL trial) is discussed in detail. CRUCIAL was a 12-month, international, multicenter, prospective, open-label, parallel design, cluster-randomized trial, which demonstrated that a proactive intervention strategy based on SPAA in addition to usual care (UC) had substantial benefits on estimated CV risk, BP, and lipids over continued UC alone. Adherence with antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapies outside of the controlled environment of clinical trials is very low (~30%–40% at 12 months). Observational studies have demonstrated that improving adherence to lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications may reduce CV events. One means of improving adherence is the use of single-pill combinations. Real-world observational studies have demonstrated that patients are more adherent to SPAA than co-administered antihypertensive and lipid-lowering therapy, and this improved adherence translated to reduced CV events. Taken together, these findings suggest that SPAA can play an important role in helping physicians improve the management of CV risk in their patients.

Persistence with a single pill versus two pills of amlodipine and atorvastatin: the Australian experience, 2006-2010

OBJECTIVE

To study patient persistence on therapy for hypertension and dyslipidaemia using a single-pill combination compared with a two-pill approach.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Post-hoc observational assessment of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme claim records covering the period April 2005 to March 2010.

PARTICIPANTS

A 10% random sample of Australian long-term concession card holders was analysed. The patients studied had commenced on either amlodipine and atorvastatin as two individual pills, or a single pill containing both amlodipine and atorvastatin (AA), with neither combined approach having been dispensed to them in the previous 6 months.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportions of patients failing to fill their first repeat prescription after 1 month or failing to persist with treatment at 12 months, and the median persistence time (MPT) were measured.

RESULTS

Of 4146 patients prescribed the AA single pill, 11% failed to fill the first repeat prescription and 33% had ceased treatment by 12 months (MPT, 35 months). Of 6204 patients prescribed amlodipine and atorvastatin as two pills, 23% failed to fill the first repeat prescriptions and 59% had ceased treatment by 12 months (MPT, 7 months). In a multivariate model, cessation of single-pill therapy increased by 165% if there was no prior therapy, but only increased by 48%-55% if there was no prior therapy with a calcium channel blocker or statin. MPT on the single pill was 8 months in those without prior antihypertensive therapy, but was ≥ 37 months in those with any prior antihypertensive therapy.

CONCLUSION

A single-pill combination drug is associated with superior long-term persistence compared with two-pill therapy in the management of hypertension and dyslipidaemia.

Medication adherence: WHO cares?

The treatment of chronic illnesses commonly includes the long-term use of pharmacotherapy. Although these medications are effective in combating disease, their full benefits are often not realized because approximately 50% of patients do not take their medications as prescribed. Factors contributing to poor medication adherence are myriad and include those that are related to patients (eg, suboptimal health literacy and lack of involvement in the treatment decision-making process), those that are related to physicians (eg, prescription of complex drug regimens, communication barriers, ineffective communication of information about adverse effects, and provision of care by multiple physicians), and those that are related to health care systems (eg, office visit time limitations, limited access to care, and lack of health information technology). Because barriers to medication adherence are complex and varied, solutions to improve adherence must be multifactorial. To assess general aspects of medication adherence using cardiovascular disease as an example, a MEDLINE-based literature search (January 1, 1990, through March 31, 2010) was conducted using the following search terms: cardiovascular disease, health literacy, medication adherence, and pharmacotherapy. Manual sorting of the 405 retrieved articles to exclude those that did not address cardiovascular disease, medication adherence, or health literacy in the abstract yielded 127 articles for review. Additional references were obtained from citations within the retrieved articles. This review surveys the findings of the identified articles and presents various strategies and resources for improving medication adherence.