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

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license 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$347·75 (285·55 to 412·54) per person in the modelled analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated at $7·93 (95$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. Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

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

Importance:Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies are being increasingly recommended for initial or early management of patients with hypertension, as they reduce treatment complexity and potentially reduce therapeutic inertia. Objective:To investigate the association of antihypertensive triple drug FDC therapy with therapeutic inertia and prescribing patterns compared with usual care. Design, Setting, and Participants:A post hoc analysis of the Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) study, a randomized clinical trial of 700 patients with hypertension, was conducted. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017. Data were analyzed from September to November 2019. Interventions:Once-daily FDC antihypertensive pill (telmisartan, 20 mg; amlodipine, 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg) or usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures:Therapeutic inertia, defined as not intensifying therapy in those with blood pressure (BP) above target, was assessed at baseline and during follow-up visits. Prescribing patterns were characterized by BP-lowering drug class and treatment regimen potency. Predictors of therapeutic inertia were assessed with binomial logistic regression. Results:Of the 700 included patients, 403 (57.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 56 (11) years. Among patients who did not reach the BP target, therapeutic inertia was more common in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at the week 6 visit (92 of 106 [86.8%] vs 124 of 194 [63.9%]; P < .001) and week 12 visit (81 of 90 [90%] vs 116 of 179 [64.8%]; P < .001). At the end of the study, 221 of 318 patients in the triple pill group (69.5%) and 182 of 329 patients in the usual care group (55.3%) reached BP targets. Among those who received treatment intensification, the increase in estimated regimen potency was greater in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at baseline (predicted mean [SD] increase in regimen potency: triple pill, 15 [6] mm Hg; usual care, 10 [5] mm Hg; P < .001), whereas there were no significant differences at the week 6 or at week 12 visit. Clinic systolic BP level was the only consistent predictor of treatment intensification during follow-up. During follow-up, there were 23 vs 54 unique treatment regimens per 100 treated patients in the triple pill vs usual care groups, respectively (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:Triple pill FDC therapy was associated with greater rates of therapeutic inertia compared with usual care. Despite this, triple pill FDC therapy substantially simplified prescribing patterns and improved 6-month BP control rates compared with usual care. Further improvements in hypertension control could be achieved by addressing therapeutic inertia among the minority of patients who do not achieve BP control after initial FDC therapy. Trial Registration:ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864

TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Healthcare using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions:the TRIUMPH cluster RCT and economic evaluation

Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm ( = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm ( = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information