Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32717045›Full record

Trial reportJAMA cardiology2020

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

Nelson Wang, Abdul Salam, Ruth Webster, Asita de Silva, Rama Guggilla, Sandrine Stepien, Jayanthi Mysore, Laurent Billot, Stephen Jan, Pallab K Maulik and 7 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Efficacy and safety of a four-drug, quarter-dose treatment for hypertension: the QUARTET USA randomized trial.Hypertension research : official journal of the Japanese Society of Hypertension · 2024
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.

Nelson WangThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Abdul SalamThe George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India.
Ruth WebsterThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Asita de SilvaClinical Trials Unit, Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.
Rama GuggillaDivision of Dentistry, Division of Medical Education in English, Department of Population Medicine and Civilization Diseases Prevention, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University of Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland.
Sandrine StepienThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Jayanthi MysoreThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Laurent BillotThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Stephen JanThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Pallab K MaulikThe George Institute for Global Health, New Delhi, India.
Nitish NaikAll India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Vanessa SelakDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Simon ThomDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Dorairaj PrabhakaranCentre for Chronic Disease Control and Public Health Foundation, New Delhi, India.
Anushka PatelThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Anthony RodgersThe George Institute for Global Health, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
TRIUMPH Study Group
The George Institute for Global Health · AUGeorge Institute for Global Health · INUniversity of Auckland · NZUNSW Sydney · AUAll India Institute of Medical Sciences · INCentre for Chronic Disease Control · INMedical University of Białystok · PLUniversity of Kelaniya · LK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Drug PrescriptionsAmlodipineAntihypertensive AgentsBlood PressureChlorthalidoneDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHypertensionMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTelmisartanTreatment OutcomeAmlodipineAntihypertensive AgentsChlorthalidoneTelmisartan

Identifiers

PMID32717045
PMCPMC7376473
OpenAlexW3043982475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.