Back

Characterizing Dual Combination Therapy Use in Treatment Escalation of Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from Multinational Cohorts

Lu, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, X.; Dorajoo, S. R.; Feng, M.; Hsu, M.-H.; Hsu, J. C.; Hwang, J.; Iqbal, U.; Jason, C.; Jonnagaddala, J.; Li, Y.-C.; Liaw, T.; Ngiam, K. Y.; Nguyen, P.-A.; Park, R. W.; Pratt, N.; Reich, C.; Rhee, S. Y.; Sathappan, S. M.; TAN, H. X.; You, S. C.; Zhang, X.; Krumholz, H.; Suchard, M.; Liu, Y.; Zandt, M. V.; Xu, H.

2021-07-04 cardiovascular medicine
10.1101/2021.06.28.21258167 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundOver one billion adults have hypertension globally, of whom approximately 70% cannot achieve blood pressure control goal with monotherapy alone. Data are lacking on patterns of dual combination therapies prescribed to patients who escalate from monotherapy in routine practice. MethodsUsing eleven electronic health record databases that cover 118 million patients across eight countries/regions, we characterized the initiation of antihypertensive dual combination therapies for patients with hypertension. In each database, we first constructed twelve exposure cohorts of patients who newly initiate dual combination therapy with one of the four most commonly used antihypertensive drug classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor [ACEi] or angiotensin receptor blocker [ARB]; calcium channel blocker [CCB]; beta-blocker; and thiazide or thiazide-like diuretic) after escalating from monotherapy with one of the three alternative classes. Using these cohorts, we then described dual combination therapy utilization, stratified by age, gender, history of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), and country. ResultsAcross data sources, we identified 980,648 patients with hypertension initiating dual combination therapy with antihypertensive agents after escalating from monotherapy: 12,541 from Australia, 6,980 from South Korea, 2,096 from Singapore, 7,008 from China, 16,663 from Taiwan, 103,994 from France, 76,082 from Italy, and 754,137 from the United States (US). Significant variations in treatment utilization existed across countries and patient subgroups. In Australia and Singapore, starting an ACEi/ARB monotherapy followed by a CCB was most common while in South Korea, China and Taiwan, starting a CCB monotherapy followed by an ACEi/ARB was most common. In Italy, France, and the US, sequential use of an ACEi/ARB monotherapy followed by a diuretic was most common. Younger patients were more likely to be prescribed ACEi/ARB followed by either a CCB or a diuretic compared with older patients. Women were more likely to be prescribed diuretics then an ACEi/ARB or a CCB compared with men. Among patients with history of CVD, ACEi/ARB followed by beta-blocker, and beta-blocker followed by ACEi/ARB were more commonly prescribed. ConclusionThis is the largest and most comprehensive study characterizing the real-world utilization of dual combination therapies in treating hypertension. Large variation in the transition between monotherapy and dual combination therapy for hypertension was observed across countries. These results highlight the need for future research to identify which second-line dual combination therapy is most effective in practice.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.1%
2
Hypertension
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
3
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.2%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.8%
5
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.1%
6
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
7
The American Journal of Cardiology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.5%
50% of probability mass above
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.2%
9
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.0%
10
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.3%
11
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.0%
12
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 8%
2.0%
13
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
14
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
15
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
16
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.6%
17
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.6%
18
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
19
Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology
65 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.2%
20
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
21
European Heart Journal
16 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
22
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
23
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
24
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.8%
25
Cardiovascular Research
33 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
26
Heart
10 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
27
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
28
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
30
European Journal of Preventive Cardiology
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%