Browsing by Author "Salam, A."

Now showing 1 - 10 of 10

Association of low-dose triple combination therapy vs usual care with time at target blood pressure: A secondary analysis of the TRIUMPH Randomized Clinical Trial
(American Medical Association, 2022) Gnanenthiran, S.R.; Wang, N.; Luca Di Tanna, G.; Salam, A.; Webster, R.; de Silva, H.A.; Guggilla, R.; Jan, S.; Maulik, P.K.; Naik, N.; Selak, V.; Thom, S.; Prabhakaran, D.; Schutte, A.E.; Patel, A.; Rodgers, A.; TRIUMPH Study Group
Importance: Cumulative exposure to high blood pressure (BP) is an adverse prognostic marker. Assessments of BP control over time, such as time at target, have been developed but assessments of the effects of BP-lowering interventions on such measures are lacking. Objective: To evaluate whether low-dose triple combination antihypertensive therapy was associated with greater rates of time at target compared with usual care. Design, setting, and participants: The Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) trial was a open-label randomized clinical trial of low-dose triple BP therapy vs usual care conducted in urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017. Adults with hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg or in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease, systolic BP >130 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >80 mm Hg) requiring initiation (untreated patients) or escalation (patients receiving monotherapy) of antihypertensive therapy were included. Patients were excluded if they were currently taking 2 or more blood pressure-lowering drugs or had severe or uncontrolled blood pressure, accelerated hypertension or physician-determined need for slower titration of treatment, a contraindication to the triple combination pill therapy, an unstable medical condition, or clinically significant laboratory values deemed by researchers to be unsuitable for the study. All 700 individuals in the original trial were included in the secondary analysis. This post hoc analysis was conducted from December 2020 to December 2021. Intervention: Once-daily fixed-dose triple combination pill (telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2.5 mg, and chlorthalidone 12.5 mg) therapy vs usual care. Main outcomes and measures: Between-group differences in time at target were compared over 24 weeks of follow-up, with time at target defined as percentage of time at target BP. Results: There were a total of 700 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 56 [11] years; 403 [57.6%] women). Patients allocated to the triple pill group (n = 349) had higher time at target compared with those in the usual care group (n = 351) over 24 weeks' follow-up (64% vs 43%; risk difference, 21%; 95% CI, 16-26; P < .001). Almost twice as many patients receiving triple pill therapy achieved more than 50% time at target during follow-up (64% vs 37%; P < .001). The association of the triple pill with an increase in time at target was seen early, with most patients achieving more than 50% time at target by 12 weeks. Those receiving the triple pill achieved a consistently higher time at target at all follow-up periods compared with those receiving usual care (mean [SD]: 0-6 weeks, 36.3% [30.9%] vs 21.7% [28.9%]; P < .001; 6-12 weeks, 5.2% [31.9%] vs 33.7% [33.0%]; P < .001; 12-24 weeks, 66.0% [31.1%] vs 43.5% [34.3%]; P < .001). Conclusions and relevance: To our knowledge, this analysis provides the first estimate of time at target as an outcome assessing longitudinal BP control in a randomized clinical trial. Among patients with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with a low-dose triple combination pill was associated with substantially higher time at target compared with usual care.
Association of low-dose triple combination therapy with therapeutic inertia and prescribing patterns in patients with hypertension: A Secondary analysis of the TRIUMPH trial
(American Medical Association., 2020) Wang, N.; Salam, A.; Webster, R.; de Silva, A.; Guggilla, R.; Stepien, S.; Mysore, J.; Billot, L.; Jan, S.; Maulik, P. K.; Naik, N.; Selak, V.; Thom, S.; Prabhakaran, D.; Patel, A.; Rodgers, A.; TRIUMPH Study Group
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.
B vitamins in patients with recent transient ischaemic attack or stroke in the VITAmins TO Prevent Stroke (VITATOPS) trial: a randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trial.
(Lancet Pub. Group, 2010) Hankey, G.J.; Eikelboom, J.W.; Baker, R.I.; Gelavis, A.; Hickling, S.C.; Jamrozik, K.; van Bockxmeer, F.M.; Vasikaran, S.; Chen, C.; Eikelboom, J.W.; Lees, K.R.; Yi, Q.; Hankey, G.J.; Algra, A.; Chen, C.; Wong, M.C.; Cheung, R.; Wong, I.; Divjak, I.; Ferro, J.; De Freitas, G.; Gommans, J.; Groppa, S.; Hill, M.; Spence, J.D.; Lees, K.R.; Lisheng, L.; Navarro, J.; Ranawaka, U.; Ricci, S.; Schmidt, R.; Slivka, A.; Tan, A.; Tsiskaridze, A.; Uddin, W.; Vanhooren, G.; Xavier, D.; Armitage, J.; Hobbs, M.; Le, M.; Sudlow, C.; Wheatley, K.; Yi, Q.; Brown, W.; Bulder, M.; Eikelboom, J.W.; Hankey, G.J.; Ho, W.K.; Jamrozik, K.; Klijn, C.J.; Koedam, E.; Langton, P.; Nijboer, E.; Tuch, P.; Pizzi, J.; Tang, M.; Alaparthi, R.; Antenucci, M.; Chew, Y.; Chinnery, C.; Cockayne, C.; Holt, R.; Loh, K.; McMullin, L.; Mulholland, G.; Nahoo, B.; Read, E.; Smith, F.; Yip, C.Y.; Hankey, G.J.; Loh, K.; Crimmins, D.; Davis, T.; England, M.; Rakic, V.; Schultz, D.W.; Frayne, J.; Bladin, C.; Kokkinos, J.; Dunbabin, D.; Harper, J.; Rees, P.; Warden, D.; Levi, C.; Parsons, M.; Russell, M.; Spratt, N.; Clayton, P.; Nayagam, P.; Sharp, J.; Grainger, K.; De Wytt, C.; McDougall, A.; Donnan, G.A.; Grimley, R.; Neynens, E.; Reinhart, B.; Ropele, S.; Schmidt, R.; Stögerer, E.; Dedeken, P.; Schelstraete, C.; Vanhooren, G.; Veyt, A.; Andre, C.; De Freitas, G.R.; Gomes, S.E.; Mok, V.C.; Wong, A.; Wong, L.K.; Cheung, R.T.; Li, L.S.; Pais, P.; Xavier, D.; Joshi, S.; Parthasaradhi, S.; Roy, A.K.; Varghese, R.V.; Kochar, K.; Panwar, R.B.; Chidambaram, N.; Rajasekaharan, U.; Bala, S.; Pandian, J.D.; Singh, Y.; Karadan, U.; Salam, A.; Shivkumar, S.; Sundararajan, A.; Joshi, R.; Kalantri, S.P.; Singh, H.; Rath, A.; Balasubramanian, N.T.; Kalanidhi, A.; Babu, K.; Bharani, A.; Choudhary, P.; Jain, M.; Agarwal, A.; Singh, M.; Agarwal, R.R.; Gupta, R.; Kothari, S.; Mijar, S.; Wadia, R.S.; Paul, S.K.; Sekhar Nandi, S.; Mehndiratta, M.M.; Tukaram, U.; Mittal, K.; Rohatgi, A.; Kumar, S.; Vinayan, K.P.; Muralidharan, R.S.; Celani, M.G.; Favorito, I.; Mazzoli, T.; Ricci, S.; Righetti, E.; Blundo, M.; Carnemolla, A.; D'Asta, A.; Giordano, A.; Iemolo, F.; Favorito, L.; Mazzoli, T.; Ricci, S.; Righetti, E.; Gresele, P.; Guercini, F.; Caporalini, R.; De Dominicis, L.; Giovagnetti, M.; Giuliani, G.; Paoletti, S.; Pucci, E.; Cavallini, A.; Persico, A.; Casoni, F.; Costa, A.; Magoni, M.; Spezi, R.; Tortorella, R.; Venturelli, E.; Vergani, V.; Caprioli, S.; Provisione, M.; Zanotta, D.; Abdullah, J.M.; Damitri, T.; Idris, B.; Sayuthi, S.; Hong, J.J.; Tan, C.T.; Tan, K.S.; Dutca, G.; Grigor, V.; Groppa, S.; Manea, D.; Achterberg, S.; Algra, A.; Halkes, P.H.; Kappelle, L.J.; Boon, A.M.; Doelman, J.C.; Sips, R.; Visscher, F.; Kwa, V.I.; Ternede, O.A.; van der Sande, J.J.; Frendin, T.; Gommans, J.; Anderson, N.E.; Bennett, P.; Charleston, A.; Spriggs, D.; Singh, J.; Bourke, J.; Bucknell, R.; McNaughton, H.; Anwar, A.; Murtaza, H.; Uddin, W.; Ismail, J.; Khan, N.U.; Navarro, J.C.; Amor, V.G.; Canete, M.T.; Lim, C.; Ravelo, E.B.; Siguenza, M.; Villahermosa, M.O.; Siguenza, M.; Canete, M.T.; Cardino, M.J.; Cenabre, R.; Gara, M.; Salas, Z.; Batac, A.; Canete, M.T.; Conde, L.; Dumdum, P.; Garcia, F.S.; Libarnes, S.; Matig-a, N.; Olanda, N.; Arcenas, R.; Canete, M.T.; Loraña, A.; Surdilla, A.; Araullo, M.L.; Lokin, J.; Maylem, G.; Marques, E.; Veloso, M.; Correia, M.; Lopes, G.; Canhão, P.; Ferro, J.M.; Melo, T.P.; Dias, A.; Sousa, A.P.; Tsiskaridze, A.; Vashadze, T.; Divjak, I.; Papic, V.; Chang, H.M.; Chen, C.P.; de Silva, D.A.; Tan, E.K.; Ranawaka, U.K.; Wijesekera, J.C.; de Silva, H.A.; Wijekoon, C.N.; Dawson, U.K.; Higgins, P.; Lees, K.R.; MacDonald, L.; McArthur, K.; McIlvenna, Y.; Quinn, T.; Walters, M.; Curless, R.; Dickson, J.; Murdy, J.; Scott, A.; Cameron, S.; Darnley, K.; Dennis, M.; Lyle, D.; Hunter, A.; Watt, M.; Watt, M.; Wiggam, I.; Murdy, J.; Rodgers, H.; Dick, F.; Macleod, M.; McKenzie, A.; Jones, P.; Jones, S.; Hussain, M.; Albazzaz, M.K.; Elliott, K.; Hardware, B.; Bacabac, E.; Martin, H.; Sharma, A.; Sutton, V.; Baht, H.; Cowie, L.; Gunathilagan, G.; Hargrove, D.R.; Smithard, D.J.; Adrian, M.; Bath, P.; Hammonds, F.; Maguire, H.; Roff, C.; Datta-chaudhuri, M.; Diyazee, K.; Krishnamoorthy, S.; McNulty, K.; Okwera, J.; Hilaire, C.; Kelly, D.; Barron, L.; James, M.; Wedge, N.; Bruce, M.; Macleod, M.; Barber, M.; Esson, D.; Ames, D.; Chataway, J.; Bulley, S.; Jenkins, K.; Rashed, K.; Dafalla, B.E.; Venugopalan, T.C.; Ball, M.; Punnoose, S.; Justin, F.; Sekaran, L.; Sethuraman, S.; Goddard, H.; Howard, J.; McIlmoyle, J.; Diver-Hall, C.; McCarron, M.; McNicholl, M.P.; Clamp, B.; Hunter, J.; Oke, A.; Weaver, A.; Fraser, P.; McAlpine, C.; Chambers, J.; Dymond, H.; Saunders, G.; Langhorne, P.; Stott, D.; Wright, F.; Adie, K.; Bland, R.; Courtauld, G.; Harrington, F.; James, A.; Mate, A.; Schofield, C.; Wroath, C.; Duberley, S.; Punekar, S.; Niranjan, K.; Sandler, D.; Krishna, P.; Moussouttas, M.; Notestine, M.A.; Slivka, A.; Vallini, D.; Hwang, T.; Saverance, M.; Booth, K.; Murphy, D.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies suggest that raised plasma concentrations of total homocysteine might be a risk factor for major vascular events. Whether lowering total homocysteine with B vitamins prevents major vascular events in patients with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack is unknown. We aimed to assess whether the addition of once-daily supplements of B vitamins to usual medical care would lower total homocysteine and reduce the combined incidence of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and death attributable to vascular causes in patients with recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack of the brain or eye. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack (within the past 7 months) from 123 medical centres in 20 countries to receive one tablet daily of placebo or B vitamins (2 mg folic acid, 25 mg vitamin B6, and 0.5 mg vitamin B12). Patients were randomly allocated by means of a central 24-h telephone service or an interactive website, and allocation was by use of random permuted blocks stratified by hospital. Participants, clinicians, carers, and investigators who assessed outcomes were masked to the assigned intervention. The primary endpoint was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or vascular death. All patients randomly allocated to a group were included in the analysis of the primary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00097669, and Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN74743444. FINDINGS: Between Nov 19, 1998, and Dec 31, 2008, 8164 patients were randomly assigned to receive B vitamins (n=4089) or placebo (n=4075). Patients were followed up for a median duration of 3.4 years (IQR 2.0-5.5). 616 (15%) patients assigned to B vitamins and 678 (17%) assigned to placebo reached the primary endpoint (risk ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.00, p=0.05; absolute risk reduction 1.56%, -0.01 to 3.16). There were no unexpected serious adverse reactions and no significant differences in common adverse effects between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Daily administration of folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 to patients with recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack was safe but did not seem to be more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of major vascular events. These results do not support the use of B vitamins to prevent recurrent stroke. The results of ongoing trials and an individual patient data meta-analysis will add statistical power and precision to present estimates of the effect of B vitamins. FUNDING: Australia National Health and Medical Research Council, UK Medical Research Council, Singapore Biomedical Research Council, Singapore National Medical Research Council, Australia National Heart Foundation, Royal Perth Hospital Medical Research Foundation, and Health Department of Western Australia.
Efficacy and safety of a novel low-dose triple single-pill combination compared with placebo for initial treatment of hypertension
(Elsevier Biomedical, 2024) Rodgers, A.; Salam, A.; Schutte, A.E.; Cushman, W.C.; De Silva, H.A.; Tanna, G.L.D.; Grobbee, D.; Narkiewicz, K.; Ojji, D.B.; Poulter, N.R.; Schlaich, M.P.; Oparil, S.; Spiering, W.; Williams, B.; Jr, J.T.W.; Gutierez, A.; Sanni, A.; Lakshman, P.; McMullen, D.; Ranasinghe, G.; Gianacas, C.; Shanthakumar, M.; Liu, X.; Wang, N.; Whelton, P.
BACKGROUND Single-pill combinations of 3 or more low-dose blood pressure (BP)-lowering drugs hold promise for initial or early treatment of hypertension.OBJECTIVES We conducted a placebo-controlled trial of a new single-pill combination containing low doses of telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide in 2 dose options to assess efficacy and safety.METHODS This international, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial enrolled adults with hypertension receiving 0 to 1 BP-lowering drugs. After a 2-week placebo run-in during which any BP-lowering medication was stopped, participants were eligible if home systolic BP (SBP) was 130 to 154 mm Hg. Participants were randomized in a 2:2:1 ratio to GMRx2 ¼ dose (telmisartan 10 mg/amlodipine 1.25 mg/indapamide 0.625 mg), GMRx2 ½ dose (telmisartan 20 mg/amlodipine 2.5 mg/indapamide 1.25 mg), or placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was difference in change in home SBP from randomization to week 4, and primary safety outcome was treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event.RESULTS From June 14, 2021 to October 18, 2023, a total of 295 participants (mean age: 51 years; 56% female) were randomized and 96% completed the trial. Baseline mean home BP was 139/86 mm Hg and clinic BP was 138/86 mm Hg after placebo run-in. The placebo-corrected least square mean differences in home SBP at Week 4 were -7.3 mm Hg (95% CI: -4.5 to -10.2) for GMRx2 ¼ dose and -8.2 mm Hg (95% CI: -5.2 to -11.3) for GMRx2 ½ dose; reductions for clinic BP were 8.0/4.0 and 9.5/4.9 mm Hg. At Week 4, clinic BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) was 37%, 65%, and 70% for placebo, GMRx2 ¼ dose, and GMRx2 ½ dose, respectively (both doses P < 0.001 vs placebo). Placebo, GMRx2-triple ¼, and GMRx2 ½ treatment discontinuation due to an adverse event occurred in 1 (1.6%), 0, and 6 (5.1%), respectively; out of normal range serum sodium or potassium was observed in 4 (6.3%), 12 (10.6%), and 12 (10.1%), respectively, but no participant had a serum sodium <130/>150 mmol/L or potassium <3.0/>6.0 mmol/L. Serious adverse events were reported by 2 participants in the placebo and GMRx2 ½ groups and none in the GMRx2 ¼ group.CONCLUSIONS In a population with mild-to-moderate BP elevation, both dose versions of the novel low-dose triple single-pill combination showed good tolerability and clinically relevant BP reductions compared with placebo. (Efficacy and Safety of GRMx2 Compared to Placebo for the Treatment of Hypertension: NCT04518306).
Efficacy and safety of a novel low-dose triple single-pill combination of telmisartan, amlodipine and indapamide, compared with dual combinations for treatment of hypertension: a randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, international clinical trial
(Elsevier, 2024-10) Rodgers, A.; Salam, A.; Schutte, A.E.; Cushman, W.C.; De Silva, H.A.; Tanna, G.L.D.; Grobbee, D.E.; Narkiewicz, K.; Ojji, D.B.; Poulter, N.R.; Schlaich, M.P.; Oparil, S.; Spiering, W.; Williams, B.; Jr, J.T.W.; Lakshman, P.; Uluwattage, W.; Hay, P.; Pereira, T.; Amarasena, N.; Ranasinghe, G.; Gianacas, C.; Shanthakumar, M.; Liu, X.; Wang, N.; Gnanenthiran, S.R.; Whelton, P.K.; GMRx2 Investigators
BACKGROUND Single-pill combinations (SPCs) of three low-dose antihypertensive drugs can improve hypertension control but are not widely available. A key issue for any combination product is the contribution of each component to efficacy and tolerability. This trial compared a new triple SPC called GMRx2, containing telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide, with dual combinations of components for efficacy and safety.METHODS In this international, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial, we enrolled adults with hypertension receiving between zero and three antihypertensive drugs, with a screening systolic blood pressure (SBP) ranging from 140-179 mm Hg (on no drugs) to 110-150 mm Hg (on three drugs). Participants were recruited from Australia, the Czech Republic, New Zealand, Poland, Sri Lanka, the UK, and the USA. In a 4-week active run-in, existing medications were switched to GMRx2 half dose (telmisartan 20 mg, amlodipine 2·5 mg, and indapamide 1·25 mg). Participants were then randomly allocated (2:1:1:1) to continued GMRx2 half dose or to each possible dual combination of components at half doses (telmisartan 20 mg with amlodipine 2·5 mg, telmisartan 20 mg with indapamide 1·25 mg, or amlodipine 2·5 mg with indapamide 1·25 mg). At week 6, doses were doubled in all groups, unless there was a clinical contraindication. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change in home SBP from baseline to week 12, and the primary safety outcome was withdrawal of treatment due to an adverse event from baseline to week 12. Secondary efficacy outcomes included differences in clinic and home blood pressure levels and control rates. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04518293, and is completed.FINDINGS The trial was conducted between July 9, 2021 and Sept 1, 2023. We randomly allocated 1385 participants to four groups: 551 to GMRx2, 276 to telmisartan-indapamide, 282 to telmisartan-amlodipine, and 276 to amlodipine-indapamide groups. The mean age was 59 years (SD 11), 712 (51%) participants self-reported as female and 673 (48·6%) male, and the mean clinic blood pressure at the screening visit was 142/85 mm Hg when taking an average of 1·6 blood pressure medications. Following the run-in on GMRx2 half dose, the mean clinic blood pressure level at randomisation was 133/81 mm Hg and the mean home blood pressure level was 129/78 mm Hg. At week 12, the mean home SBP was 126 mm Hg in the GMRx2 group, which was lower than for each of the dual combinations: -2·5 (95% CI -3·7 to -1·3, p<0·0001) versus telmisartan-indapamide, -5·4 (-6·8 to -4·1, p<0·0001) versus telmisartan-amlodipine, and -4·4 (-5·8 to -3·1, p<0·0001) versus amlodipine-indapamide. For the same comparisons, differences in clinic blood pressure at week 12 were 4·3/3·5 mm Hg, 5·6/3·7 mm Hg, and 6·3/4·5 mm Hg (all p<0·001). Clinic blood pressure control rate below 140/90 mm Hg at week 12 was superior with GMRx2 (74%) to with each dual combination (range 53-61%). Withdrawal of treatment due to adverse events occurred in 11 (2%) participants in the GMRx2 group, four (1%) in telmisartan-indapamide, three (1%) in telmisartan-amlodipine, and four (1%) in amlodipine-indapamide, with none of the differences being statistically significant.INTERPRETATION A novel low-dose SPC product of telmisartan, amlodipine, and indapamide provided clinically meaningful improvements in blood pressure reduction compared with dual combinations and was well tolerated. This SPC provides a new therapeutic option for the management of hypertension and its use could result in a substantial improvement in blood pressure control in clinical practice.
Fixed low-dose triple combination Antihypertensive Medication vs usual care for blood pressure control in patients with mild to moderate hypertension in Sri Lanka: A Randomized Clinical Trial
(American Medical Association, 2018) Webster, R.; Salam, A.; de Silva, H.A.; Selak, V.; Stepien, S.; Rajapakse, S.; Amarasekara, N.; Amarasena, N.; Billotm, L.; de Silva, A.P.; Fernando, M.; Guggilla, R.; Jan, S.; Jayawardena, J.; Maulik, P.K.; Mendis, S.; Mendis, S.; Munasinghe, J.; Naik, N.; Prabhakaran, D.; Ranasinghe, G.; Thom, S.; Thisserra, N.; Senaratne, V.; Wijekoon, S.; Wijeyasingham, S.; Rodgers, A.; Patel, A.; TRIUMPH Study Group
IMPORTANCE: Poorly controlled hypertension is a leading global public health problem requiring new treatment strategies. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a low-dose triple combination antihypertensive medication would achieve better blood pressure (BP) control vs usual care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, open-label trial of a low-dose triple BP therapy vs usual care for adults with hypertension (systolic BP >140 mm Hg and/or diastolic BP >90 mm Hg; or in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease: >130 mm Hg and/or >80 mm Hg) requiring initiation (untreated patients) or escalation (patients receiving monotherapy) of antihypertensive therapy. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017. INTERVENTIONS: A once-daily fixed-dose triple combination pill (20 mg of telmisartan, 2.5 mg of amlodipine, and 12.5 mg of chlorthalidone) therapy (n = 349) or usual care (n = 351). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion achieving target systolic/diastolic BP (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes or chronic kidney disease) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included mean systolic/diastolic BP difference during follow-up and withdrawal of BP medications due to an adverse event. RESULTS: Among 700 randomized patients (mean age, 56 years; 58% women; 29% had diabetes; mean baseline systolic/diastolic BP, 154/90 mm Hg), 675 (96%) completed the trial. The triple combination pill increased the proportion achieving target BP vs usual care at 6 months (70% vs 55%, respectively; risk difference, 12.7% [95% CI, 3.2% to 22.0%]; P < .001). Mean systolic/diastolic BP at 6 months was 125/76 mm Hg for the triple combination pill vs 134/81 mm Hg for usual care (adjusted difference in postrandomization BP over the entire follow-up: systolic BP, -9.8 [95% CI, -7.9 to -11.6] mm Hg; diastolic BP, -5.0 [95% CI, -3.9 to -6.1] mm Hg; P < .001 for both comparisons). Overall, 419 adverse events were reported in 255 patients (38.1% for triple combination pill vs 34.8% for usual care) with the most common being musculoskeletal pain (6.0% and 8.0%, respectively) and dizziness, presyncope, or syncope (5.2% and 2.8%). There were no significant between-group differences in the proportion of patient withdrawal from BP-lowering therapy due to adverse events (6.6% for triple combination pill vs 6.8% for usual care). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients with mild to moderate hypertension, treatment with a pill containing low doses of 3 antihypertensive drugs led to an increased proportion of patients achieving their target BP goal vs usual care. Use of such medication as initial therapy or to replace monotherapy may be an effective way to improve BP control.
Fixed-combination, low-dose, triple-pill antihypertensive medication versus usual care in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in Sri Lanka: a within-trial and modelled economic evaluation of the TRIUMPH trial.
(The Lancet. Global health., 2019) Lung, T.; Jan, S.; de Silva, H.A.; Guggilla, R.; Maulik, P.K.; Naik, N.; Patel, A.; de Silva, A.P.; Rajapakse, S.; Ranasinghe, G.; Prabhakaran, D.; Rodgers, A.; Salam, A.; Selak, V.; Stepien, S.; Thom, S.; Webster, R.; Lea-Laba, T.; TRIUMPH Study Group.
BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure incurs a major health and economic burden, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. The Triple Pill versus Usual Care Management for Patients with Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) trial showed a greater reduction in blood pressure in patients using fixed-combination, low-dose, triple-pill antihypertensive therapy (consisting of amlodipine, telmisartan, and chlorthalidone) than in those receiving usual care in Sri Lanka. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the triple-pill strategy. METHODS: We did a within-trial (6-month) and modelled (10-year) economic evaluation of the TRIUMPH trial, using the health system perspective. Health-care costs, reported in 2017 US dollars, were determined from trial records and published literature. A discrete-time simulation model was developed, extrapolating trial findings of reduced systolic blood pressure to 10-year health-care costs, cardiovascular disease events, and mortality. The primary outcomes were the proportion of people reaching blood pressure targets (at 6 months from baseline) and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted (at 10 years from baseline). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to estimate the cost per additional participant achieving target blood pressure at 6 months and cost per DALY averted over 10 years. FINDINGS: The triple-pill strategy, compared with usual care, cost an additional US$9·63 (95% CI 5·29 to 13·97) per person in the within-trial analysis and $347·75 (285·55 to 412·54) per person in the modelled analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at $7·93 (95% CI 6·59 to 11·84) per participant reaching blood pressure targets at 6 months and $2842·79 (-28·67 to 5714·24) per DALY averted over a 10-year period. INTERPRETATION: Compared with usual care, the triple-pill strategy is cost-effective for patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. Scaled up investment in the triple pill for hypertension management in Sri Lanka should be supported to address the high population burden of cardiovascular disease.
Process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of a pharmacological strategy to improve hypertension control: protocol for a qualitative study
(BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2018) Salam, A.; Webster, R.; Patel, A.; Godamunne, P.; de Silva, H.A.; Rogers, A.; Jan, S.; Laba, T.L.
INTRODUCTION: Globally, the prevalence of uncontrolled hypertension is high, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. There is a critical need for strategies to improve hypertension control. The early use of a fixed low-dose combination of three antihypertensive drugs (triple pill) has the potential to significantly improve hypertension control. The TRI ple Pill vs. U sual care M anagement for P atients with mild-to- moderate H ypertension (TRIUMPH) randomised controlled trial (RCT) is designed to test the effects of this strategy compared with usual care in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. This paper reports the protocol of a process evaluation of the TRIUMPH RCT. The objectives are to understand factors related to implementation of the intervention, mechanisms of effect, contextual factors that underpin the effectiveness of the triple pill strategy and the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing the strategy in clinical practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Face-to-face semistructured in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of TRIUMPH RCT participants and healthcare professionals in Sri Lanka will be conducted. Healthcare professionals will include physicians and their staff who were involved in conducting the TRIUMPH RCT. Interviewees will be recruited sequentially until thematic saturation is achieved. Interviews will be audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed in NVivo using framework analysis methods. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The TRIUMPH RCT and process evaluation have received approval from the relevant Ethics Review Committee. All participants will be asked to provide written consent before participation. Findings from the study will be disseminated through publications and conference presentations.
Rationale for a new low-dose triple single pill combination for the treatment of hypertension
(Elsevier, 2024) Rodgers, A.; Salam, A.; Cushman, W.; de Silva, A.; Tanna, G.L.D.; Gnanenthiran, S.R.; Grobbee, D.; Narkiewicz, K.; Ojji, D.; Oparil, S.; Poulter, N.; Schlaich, M.P.; Schutte, A.E.; Spiering, W.; Williams, B.; Wright, J.T.Jr.; Whelton, P.
Two recent large trials showed the potential of single pill combinations (SPCs) with ≥3 low-dose components among people with hypertension who were untreated or receiving monotherapy. In both trials, these 'hypertension polypills' were superior to usual care, achieving >80% BP control without increasing withdrawal due to side effects. However, there are no such products available for prescribers. To address this unmet need, George Medicines developed GMRx2 with telmisartan/amlodipine/indapamide in three strengths (mg): 10/1.25/0.625, 20/2.5/1.25; 40/5/2.5. Two pivotal trials are ongoing to support FDA submission for the treatment of hypertension, including initial treatment. These assess efficacy and safety of GMRx2 compared to: placebo, and each of the three possible dual combinations. Regulatory submissions are planned for 2024, with the aim of providing access to GMRx2 in developed and developing regions. Wider implementation of GMRx2-based treatment strategies will be guided by further research to inform access and appropriate scale up.
Reduced efficacy of blood pressure lowering drugs in the presence of diabetes mellitus-results from the TRIUMPH randomised controlled trial
(Nature Publishing Group, 2023) Gnanenthiran, S.R.; Webster, R.; de Silva, A.; Maulik, P.K.; Salam, A.; Selak, V.; Guggilla, R.K.; Schutte, A.E.; Patel, A.; Rodgers, A.; TRIUMPH Study Group
We investigated whether diabetes mellitus (DM) affects the efficacy of a low-dose triple combination pill and usual care among people with mild-moderate hypertension. TRIUMPH (TRIple pill vs Usual care Management for Patients with mild-to-moderate Hypertension) was a randomised controlled open-label trial of patients requiring initiation or escalation of antihypertensive therapy. Patients were randomised to a once-daily low-dose triple combination polypill (telmisartan-20mg/amlodipine-2.5 mg/chlorthalidone-12.5 mg) or usual care. This analysis compared BP reduction in people with and without DM, both in the intervention and control groups over 24-week follow-up. Predicted efficacy of prescribed therapy was calculated (estimation methods of Law et al.). The trial randomised 700 patients (56 ± 11 yrs, 31% DM). There was no difference in the number of drugs prescribed or predicted efficacy of therapy between people with DM and without DM. However, the observed BP reduction from baseline to week 24 was lower in those with DM compared to non-diabetics in both the triple pill (25/11 vs 31/15 mmHg, p ≤ 0.01) and usual care (17/7 vs 22/11 mmHg, p ≤ 0.01) groups, and these differences remained after multivariable adjustment. DM was a negative predictor of change in BP (β-coefficient -0.08, p = 0.02). In conclusion, patients with DM experienced reduced efficacy of BP lowering therapies as compared to patients without DM, irrespective of the type of BP lowering therapy received.