ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Fixed-dose combination
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Fixed-dose combination (FDC) antihypertensive therapy is recommended by hypertension guidelines to improve adherence and blood pressure control. However, its association with healthcare utilization and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension (aTRH) remains unexplored. This study evaluated the association of FDC Methods: We conducted a pooled cross-sectional study using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (2013-2022). Medication-defined aTRH was defined as adults aged ≥18 years with a hypertension diagnosis who were prescribed ≥4 antihypertensive medications from different classes. Medication-defined aTRH patients were then categorized as FDC users if they were prescribed at least one FDC antihypertensive product and as MPC users if they were prescribed antihypertensive classes as separate pills. Healthcare utilization outcomes included office-based visits, outpatient department visits, prescription fill, emergency department visits, home health visits, and inpatient night. HRQoL outcomes included Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to balance covariates. IPTW negative binomial and linear regression models were used to assess the associations between FDC antihypertensive therapy Results: The study included 3,131 adults with medication-defined aTRH, of whom 1,518 were FDC users and 1,613 were MPC users. In IPTW models, FDC use was associated with lower rates of office-based visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.760; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.683-0.846), prescription fills (RR = 0.854; 95% CI: 0.791-0.921), emergency department visits (RR = 0.667; 95% CI: 0.551-0.807), and inpatient nights (RR = 0.596; 95% CI: 0.403-0.879). FDC use was also associated with a higher PCS score; IPTW model (β = 2.686; 95% CI: 1.589-3.783). No significant association was observed with MCS score. Conclusion: Among US adults with medication-defined aTRH, FDC antihypertensive therapy was associated with lower healthcare utilization and better physical HRQoL compared with MPC therapy. These findings suggest that an FDC-containing regimen may represent a valuable treatment-simplification strategy in patients requiring multiple antihypertensive classes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.