Trends in Initial Antihypertensive Medication Prescribing Among >2.8 Million Veterans Newly Diagnosed With Hypertension, 2000 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Among patients diagnosed with high blood pressure (BP), initial dual therapy has been recommended for patients with high pretreatment systolic BP (≥160 mm Hg) since 2003, and first-line ß-blocker use without a compelling condition has fallen out of favor in US guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: This serial cross-sectional study of national Veterans Health Administration data included adult Veterans with incident hypertension initiating antihypertensive medication between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2019. We assessed annual trends in initial regimens dispensed (index date: first antihypertensive dispense date) by number of classes and unique class combinations used overall and by pretreatment systolic BP (<140, 140 to <160, and ≥160 mm Hg), as well as trends in subgroups (age, sex, race and ethnicity, and comorbidities warranting ß-blocker use). Among 2 832 684 eligible Veterans (average age 61 years, 95% men, 65% non-Hispanic White, and 8% with cardiovascular disease), from 2000-2004 to 2015-2019, initial monotherapy increased across all pretreatment systolic BP levels (<140 mm Hg: 62.1% to 66.4%; 140 to <160 mm Hg: 70.7% to 76.8%; ≥160 mm Hg: 64.2% to 69.7%). Initiation of dual therapy decreased across all pretreatment systolic BP levels (<140 mm Hg: 25.0% to 24.2%; 140 to <160 mm Hg: 20.4% to 17.6%; ≥160 mm Hg: 22.7% to 22.0%). Among 2 521 696 Veterans (89% of overall) without a ß-blocker-indicated condition in 2015 to 2019, 20% initiated a ß-blocker, most commonly as monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of US Veterans diagnosed with hypertension with a pretreatment systolic BP ≥160 mm Hg were started on antihypertensive monotherapy. There are disparities between guideline-recommended first-line treatments and the actual regimens initiated for newly diagnosed Veterans with hypertension.

Use and Cost Patterns of Antihypertensive Medications in the United States From 1996 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive medication use patterns have likely been influenced by changing costs and accessibility over the past 3 decades. This study examines the relationships between patent exclusivity loss, medication costs, and national health policies on antihypertensive medication use. METHODS: Using 1996 to 2021 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data of US adults with hypertension taking at least 1 antihypertensive medication, we conducted a cross-sectional analysis. We explored the associations between patent exclusivity loss, per-pill costs, and Medicare Part D enactment on medication use over time, focusing on the most commonly used medications (lisinopril, amlodipine, losartan, hydrochlorothiazide, and metoprolol). RESULTS: The unweighted sample comprised 50 095 US adults (mean age, 62 years; 53% female). The survey-weighted number of adults taking antihypertensive medications increased from 22 million (95% CIs, 20-23 million) to 55 million (95% CI, 51-60 million) between 1996 and 2021. Loss of patent exclusivity led to increased medication fills, notably for lisinopril, amlodipine, and losartan, which all exhibited within-class dominance. However, per-pill cost decreases coinciding with Medicare Part D did not increase the number of individuals treated or the use of specific antihypertensive medications or classes. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in antihypertensive medication use over the past decades highlights the significant impact of loss of patent exclusivity on the uptake in the use of specific medications. These findings underscore the complexity of factors influencing medication use, beyond cost reductions alone, and suggest that policies need to consider multiple facets to effectively improve antihypertensive medication accessibility and utilization.

Optimal Initial Intravenous Loop Diuretic Dosing in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure.

Background: Nearly one-half of patients admitted with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) are discharged with unresolved congestion, elevating rehospitalization risk. This may be due to suboptimal intravenous (IV) loop diuretic dosing, which may be influenced by home oral diuretic dose. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the association between: 1) home oral loop diuretic dose and optimal initial IV loop diuretic dosing in ADHF; and 2)receiving optimal initial IV loop diuretic dosing and length of stay and 30-day readmission. Methods: Retrospective analysis of adults admitted to a large U.S. hospital for ADHF on home oral loop diuretics from 1 January 2014 to 21 December 2021. Patients were categorized by home dose: low (≤40 mg furosemide equivalents), medium (>40-80 mg furosemide equivalents), and high (>80 mg furosemide equivalents). Optimal initial IV dosing was considered ≥2 times home oral dosing. Poisson regression models estimated prevalence ratios (CIs) for optimal initial IV loop diuretic dosing. Results: Among 3,269 adults admitted for ADHF (mean age 63 years, 62% male), optimal initial IV dosing occurred in 2,218 (67.9%). The prevalence of optimal initial IV dosing among low, medium, and high home dosing was 95.5%, 59.9%, and 4.0%, respectively. Adjusted prevalence ratios for optimal IV dosing with high and medium home dosing, compared to low, were 0.05 (95% CI: 0.03-0.07) and 0.66 (95% CI: 0.62-0.70), respectively. There was no difference in length of stay or 30-day readmission between optimal and suboptimal initial IV diuretic dosing. Conclusions: Among patients with ADHF, higher home loop diuretic dose was strongly associated with a substantially lower likelihood of optimal initial IV diuretic dosing.

Pharmacologic Treatment of Hypertension in Older Adults.

The authors conducted a review of pharmacologic therapy in older adults with hypertension. They reviewed the evidence supporting their use in older adults, understanding the physiologic changes and potential adverse drug effects associated with aging and antihypertensive medication use, exploring guideline recommendations for antihypertensive use in older adults, and evaluating the associated risks and benefits of specific classes of antihypertensive medications.

The Management of Elevated Blood Pressure in the Acute Care Setting: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Over the past 3 decades, a substantial body of high-quality evidence has guided the diagnosis and management of elevated blood pressure (BP) in the outpatient setting. In contrast, there is a lack of comparable evidence for guiding the management of elevated BP in the acute care setting, resulting in significant practice variation. Throughout this scientific statement, we use the terms acute care and inpatient to refer to care received in the emergency department and after admission to the hospital. Elevated inpatient BP is common and can manifest either as asymptomatic or with signs of new or worsening target-organ damage, a condition referred to as hypertensive emergency. Hypertensive emergency involves acute target-organ damage and should be treated swiftly, usually with intravenous antihypertensive medications, in a closely monitored setting. However, the risk-benefit ratio of initiating or intensifying antihypertensive medications for asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP is less clear. Despite this ambiguity, clinicians prescribe oral or intravenous antihypertensive medications in approximately one-third of cases of asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP. Recent observational studies have suggested potential harms associated with treating asymptomatic elevated inpatient BP, which brings current practice into question. Despite the ubiquity of elevated inpatient BPs, few position papers, guidelines, or consensus statements have focused on improving BP management in the acute care setting. Therefore, this scientific statement aims to synthesize the available evidence, provide suggestions for best practice based on the available evidence, identify evidence-based gaps in managing elevated inpatient BP (asymptomatic and hypertensive emergency), and highlight areas requiring further research.

Association Between Pharmacy Proximity With Cardiovascular Medication Use and Risk Factor Control in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Poor neighborhood-level access to health care, including community pharmacies, contributes to cardiovascular disparities in the United States. The authors quantified the association between pharmacy proximity, antihypertensive and statin use, and blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) among a large, diverse US cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cross-sectional analysis of Black and White participants in the REGARDS (Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke) study during 2013 to 2016 was conducted. The authors designated pharmacy proximity by census tract using road network analysis with population-weighted centroids within a 10-minute drive time, with 5- and 20-minute sensitivity analyses. Pill bottle review measured medication use, and BP and LDL-C were assessed using standard methods. Poisson regression was used to quantify the association between pharmacy proximity with medication use and BP control, and linear regression for LDL-C. Among 16 150 REGARDS participants between 2013 and 2016, 8319 (51.5%) and 8569 (53.1%) had an indication for antihypertensive and statin medication, respectively, and pharmacy proximity data. The authors did not find a consistent association between living in a census tract with higher pharmacy proximity and antihypertensive medication use, BP control, or statin medication use and LDL-C levels, regardless of whether the area was rural, suburban, or urban. Results were similar among the 5- and 20-minute drive-time analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Living in a low pharmacy proximity census tract may be associated with antihypertensive and statin medication use, or with BP control and LDL-C levels. Although, in this US cohort, outcomes were similar for adults living in high or low pharmacy proximity census tracts.

Cost of Cardiovascular Disease Event and Cardiovascular Disease Treatment-Related Complication Hospitalizations in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is among the costliest conditions in the United States, and cost-effectiveness analyses can be used to assess economic impact and prioritize CVD treatments. We aimed to develop standardized, nationally representative CVD events and selected possible CVD treatment-related complication hospitalization costs for use in cost-effectiveness analyses. METHODS: Nationally representative costs were derived using publicly available inpatient hospital discharge data from the 2012-2018 National Inpatient Sample. Events were identified using the principal International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. Facility charges were converted to costs using charge-to-cost ratios, and total costs were estimated by applying a published professional fee ratio. All costs are reported in 2021 US dollars. Mean costs were estimated for events overall and stratified by age, sex, and survival status at discharge. Annual costs to the US health care system were estimated by multiplying the mean annual number of events by the mean total cost per discharge. RESULTS: The annual mean number of hospital discharges among CVD events was the highest for heart failure (1 087 000 per year) and cerebrovascular disease (800 600 per year). The mean cost per hospital discharge was the highest for peripheral vascular disease ($33 700 [95% CI, $33 300-$34 000]) and ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation ($32 500 [95% CI, $32 100-$32 900]). Hospitalizations contributing the most to annual US health care costs were heart failure ($19 500 [95% CI, $19 300-$19 800] million) and acute myocardial infarction ($18 300, [95% CI, $18 200-$18 500] million). Acute kidney injury was the most frequent possible treatment complication (515 000 per year), and bradycardia had the highest mean hospitalization costs ($17 400 [95% CI, $17 200-$17 500]). CONCLUSIONS: The hospitalization cost estimates and statistical code reported in the current study have the potential to increase transparency and comparability of cost-effectiveness analyses for CVD in the United States.

Association Between Self-Reported Medication Adherence and Therapeutic Inertia in Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial).

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic inertia (TI), failure to intensify antihypertensive medication when blood pressure (BP) is above goal, remains prevalent in hypertension management. The degree to which self-reported antihypertensive adherence is associated with TI with intensive BP goals remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cross-sectional analysis was performed of the 12-month visit of participants in the intensive arm of SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), which randomized adults to intensive (<120 mm Hg) versus standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic BP goals. TI was defined as no increase in antihypertensive regimen intensity score, which incorporates medication number and dose, when systolic BP is ≥120 mm Hg. Self-reported adherence was assessed using the 8-Item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8) and categorized as low (MMAS-8 score <6), medium (MMAS-8 score 6 to <8), and high (MMAS-8 score 8). Poisson regressions estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% CIs for TI associated with MMAS-8. Among 1009 intensive arm participants with systolic BP >120 mm Hg at the 12-month visit (mean age, 69.6 years; 35.2% female, 28.8% non-Hispanic Black), TI occurred in 50.8% of participants. Participants with low adherence (versus high) were younger and more likely to be non-Hispanic Black or smokers. The prevalence of TI among patients with low, medium, and high adherence was 45.0%, 53.5%, and 50.4%, respectively. After adjustment, neither low nor medium adherence (versus high) were associated with TI (PR, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.87-1.42]; PR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.84-1.38], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although clinician uncertainty about adherence is often cited as a reason for why antihypertensive intensification is withheld when above BP goals, we observed no evidence of an association between self-reported adherence and TI.

Effectiveness of Hypertension Management Strategies in SPRINT-Eligible US Adults: A Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events and death in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), intensive systolic blood pressure goals have not been adopted in the United States. This study aimed to simulate the potential long-term impact of 4 hypertension management strategies in SPRINT-eligible US adults. METHODS AND RESULTS: The validated Blood Pressure Control-Cardiovascular Disease Policy Model, a discrete event simulation of hypertension care processes (ie, visit frequency, blood pressure [BP] measurement accuracy, medication intensification, and medication adherence) and CVD outcomes, was populated with 25 000 SPRINT-eligible US adults. Four hypertension management strategies were simulated: (1) usual care targeting BP <140/90 mm Hg (Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care), (2) intensive care per the SPRINT protocol targeting BP <120/90 mm Hg (SPRINT intensive), (3) usual care targeting guideline-recommended BP <130/80 mm Hg (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care), and (4) team-based care added to usual care and targeting BP <130/80 mm Hg. Relative to the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, among the 18.1 million SPRINT-eligible US adults, an estimated 138 100 total CVD events could be prevented per year with SPRINT intensive, 33 900 with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care, and 89 100 with team-based care. Compared with the Seventh Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure usual care, SPRINT intensive care was projected to increase treatment-related serious adverse events by 77 600 per year, American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association usual care by 33 300, and team-based care by 27 200. CONCLUSIONS: As BP control has declined in recent years, health systems must prioritize hypertension management and invest in effective strategies. Adding team-based care to usual care may be a pragmatic way to manage risk in this high-CVD-risk population.

Cost-Effectiveness of Icosapent Ethyl in REDUCE-IT USA: Results From Patients Randomized in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In 3146 REDUCE-IT USA (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events With Icosapent Ethyl Intervention Trial USA) participants, icosapent ethyl (IPE) reduced first and total cardiovascular events by 31% and 36%, respectively, over 4.9 years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used participant-level data from REDUCE-IT USA, 2021 US costs, and IPE costs ranging from $4.59 to $11.48 per day, allowing us to examine a range of possible medication costs. The in-trial analysis was participant-level, whereas the lifetime analysis used a Markov model. Both analyses considered value from a US health sector perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (incremental costs divided by incremental quality-adjusted life-years) of IPE compared with standard care (SC) was the primary outcome measure. There was incremental gain in quality-adjusted life-years with IPE compared with SC using in-trial (3.28 versus 3.13) and lifetime (10.36 versus 9.83) horizons. Using an IPE cost of $4.59 per day, health care costs were lower with IPE compared with SC for both in-trial ($29 420 versus $30 947) and lifetime ($216 243 versus $219 212) analyses. IPE versus SC was a dominant strategy in trial and over the lifetime, with 99.7% lifetime probability of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. At a medication cost of $11.48 per day, the cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was $36 208 in trial and $9582 over the lifetime. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, at $4.59 per day, IPE offers better outcomes than SC at lower costs in trial and over a lifetime and is cost-effective at $11.48 per day for conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds. Treatment with IPE should be strongly considered in US patients like those enrolled in REDUCE-IT USA. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01492361.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor use among adults with diabetes mellitus by cardiovascular-kidney disease risk: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys, 2015-2020.

Objective: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1-RAs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2Is) lower adverse cardiac and kidney events among high-risk patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and are now guideline-recommended as first-line therapy alongside metformin. However, the adoption of these new treatments from 2015 to 2020 among the highest-risk adults with DM remains unclear. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) 2015-2020 to estimate the use of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2Is among adults with DM overall and by level of cardiovascular and kidney risk (CKR). We defined high CKR by history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), heart failure, or age ≥55 years with at least 2 ASCVD risk factors (i.e., obesity, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, or current smoker). Results: Overall, 2,432 participants with DM (mean age 60.6 years, 46.8 % female, 58.8 % Non-Hispanic White) were included, of which 1,869 and 563 were with and without high CKR, respectively. Participants with vs. without high CKR were more likely to be older, have higher systolic blood pressure, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, use oral antidiabetic agents, and have health insurance. Overall, the weighted prevalence of GLP1-RA or SGLT2I was 9.0 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 6.9-11.0): 4.8 % (95 % CI 3.6-6.1) took GLP1-RAs, and 5.1 % (95 % CI 3.3-7.0) took SGLT2Is. Use of GLP1-RAs or SGLT2Is did not differ between participants with vs. without high CKR (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] 1.00; 95 % CI 0.98-1.02). Participants with ASCVD were more likely to be on a GLP1-RA or SGLT2I (aPR 1.28; 95 % CI 1.25-1.31), while adults with CKD were less likely (aPR 0.84; 95 % CI 0.82-0.86). Conclusion: Among US adults with DM, GLP1-RA and SGLT2I use was low regardless of CKR. Data since 2020 analyzing the utilization of GLP1-RAs and SGLT2Is among high-CKR patients with DM is needed to identify implementation strategies for increased utilization.

Patterns, Prognostic Implications, and Rural-Urban Disparities in Optimal GDMT Following HFrEF Diagnosis Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Patterns and disparities in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) uptake for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across rural vs urban regions are not well described. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate patterns, prognostic implications, and rural-urban differences in GDMT use among Medicare beneficiaries following new-onset HFrEF. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of new-onset HFrEF in a 5% Medicare sample with available data for Part D medication use were identified from January 2015 through December 2020. The primary exposure was residence in rural vs urban zip codes. Optimal triple GDMT was defined as ≥50% of the target daily dose of beta-blockers, ≥50% of the target daily dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker or any dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and any dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The association between the achievement of optimal GDMT over time following new-onset HFrEF diagnosis and risk of all-cause mortality and subsequent HF hospitalization was also evaluated using adjusted Cox models. The association between living in rural vs urban location and time to optimal GDMT achievement over a 12-month follow-up was assessed using cumulative incidence curves and adjusted Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 41,296 patients (age: 76.7 years; 15.0% Black; 27.6% rural) were included. Optimal GDMT use over the 12-month follow-up was low, with 22.5% initiated on any dose of triple GDMT and 9.1% on optimal GDMT doses. Optimal GDMT on follow-up was significantly associated with a lower risk of death (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.85-0.94]; P < 0.001) and subsequent HF hospitalization (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.87-0.98]; P = 0.02). Optimal GDMT use at 12 months was significantly lower among patients living in rural (vs urban) areas (8.4% vs 9.3%; P = 0.02). In adjusted analysis, living in rural (vs urban) locations was associated with a significantly lower probability of achieving optimal GDMT (HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86-0.98]; P = 0.01 Differences in optimal GDMT use following HFrEF diagnosis accounted for 16% of excess mortality risk among patients living in rural (vs urban) areas. CONCLUSIONS: Use of optimal GDMT following new-onset HFrEF diagnosis is low, with substantially lower use noted among patients living in rural vs urban locations. Suboptimal GDMT use following new-onset HFrEF was associated with an increased risk of mortality and subsequent HF hospitalization.

Age-based disparities in statin use for primary prevention in US adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys 2013-2020.

Statin use among younger adults at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk compared with older adults at the same risk is unclear. We determined prevalent statin use by 10-year ASCVD risk and age among US participants aged 40-75 eligible for risk-indicated primary prevention statins from the 2013-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey cycles. Among 3,503 participants, statin use by ASCVD risk (5-<7.5%, 7.5-<20%, and ≥20%) was 9.4%, 9.0%, and 12.2% among those age 40-54 compared to 22.0%, 23.9%, and 14.3% among adults 55-64 years and 39.3%, 33.6%, and 38.1% age 65-75 years. After adjusting for sociodemographic and healthcare access, the prevalence ratio (vs. 65-75 years) for statin use among adults with an ASCVD risk of 7.5-<20% age 40-54 years was 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39,0.41) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.87,0.88) for adults 55-64 years. Among high ASCVD-risk adults aged 40-75 years, primary prevention statin use was lower among adults <65 years despite similar ASCVD risk as older adults.

New Users of Angiotensin II Receptor Blocker-Versus Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitor-Based Antihypertensive Medication Regimens and Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Secondary Analysis of ACCORD-BP and SPRINT.

BACKGROUND Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) block distinct components of the renin-angiotensin system. Whether this translates into differential effects on cardiovascular disease events remains unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS We used the ACCORD-BP (Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure) trial and the SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) to emulate target trials of new users of ARBs versus ACEIs on cardiovascular disease events (primary outcome) and death (secondary outcome). We estimated marginal cause-specific hazard ratios (HRs) and treatment-specific cumulative incidence functions with inverse probability of treatment weights. We identified 3298 new users of ARBs or ACEIs (ACCORD-BP: 374 ARB versus 884 ACEI; SPRINT: 727 ARB versus 1313 ACEI). For participants initiating ARBs versus ACEIs, the inverse probability of treatment weight rate of the primary outcome was 3.2 versus 3.5 per 100 person-years in ACCORD-BP (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.63-1.31]) and 1.8 versus 2.2 per 100 person-years in SPRINT (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.56-1.18]). There were no appreciable differences in pooled analyses, except that ARBs versus ACEIs were associated with a lower death rate (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.37-0.85]). ARBs were associated with a lower rate of the primary outcome among subgroups of male versus female participants, non-Hispanic Black versus non-Hispanic White participants, and those randomly assigned to standard versus intensive blood pressure (Pinteraction: <0.01, 0.05, and <0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS In this secondary analysis of ACCORD-BP and SPRINT, new users of ARB- versus ACEI-based antihypertensive medication regimens experienced similar cardiovascular disease events rates, with important subgroup differences and lower rates of death overall. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01206062, NCT00000620.

Single-Pill Combination Product Availability of the Antihypertensive Regimens Used for Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Treatment in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-pill combination (SPC) antihypertensive products improve blood pressure control and medication adherence among patients with hypertension. It is unknown to what degree commercially available SPC products could be used to target an intensive systolic blood pressure goal of <120 mm Hg. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included participants randomized to the intensive treatment arm (goal systolic blood pressure <120 mm Hg) of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) using ≥2 antihypertensive medication classes at the 12-month postrandomization visit. Antihypertensive medication data were collected using pill bottle review by research coordinators, and regimens were categorized by the unique combinations of antihypertensive classes. We calculated the proportion of regimens used, which are commercially available as one of the 7 SPC class combinations in the United States as of January 2023. RESULTS: Among the 3833 SPRINT intensive arm participants included (median age, 67.0 years; 35.5% female), participants were using 219 unique antihypertensive regimens. The 7 regimens for which there are class-equivalent SPC products were used by 40.3% of participants. Only 3.2% of all medication class regimens used are available as a class-equivalent SPC product (7/219). There are no SPC products available with 4 or more medication classes, which were used by 1060 participants (27.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Most SPRINT participants in the intensive arm used an antihypertensive medication regimen, which is not commercially available as a class equivalent SPC product. To achieve the SPRINT results in real-world settings, maximize the potential benefit of SPCs, and reduce pill burden, improvements in the product landscape are needed. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT01206062; Unique identifier: NCT01206062.

Estimated Population Health Benefits of Intensive Systolic Blood Pressure Treatment Among SPRINT-Eligible US Adults.

BACKGROUND: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated an intensive (<120 mm Hg) vs. standard (<140 mm Hg) systolic blood pressure (SBP) goal lowered cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Estimating the effect of intensive SBP lowering among SPRINT-eligible adults most likely to benefit can guide implementation efforts. METHODS: We studied SPRINT participants and SPRINT-eligible participants in the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) Study and National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES). A published algorithm of predicted CVD benefit with intensive SBP treatment was used to categorize participants into low, medium, or high predicted benefit. CVD event rates were estimated with intensive and standard treatment. RESULTS: Median age was 67.0, 72.0, and 64.0 years in SPRINT, SPRINT-eligible REGARDS, and SPRINT-eligible NHANES participants, respectively. The proportion with high predicted benefit was 33.0% in SPRINT, 39.0% in SPRINT-eligible REGARDS, and 23.5% in SPRINT-eligible NHANES. The estimated difference in CVD event rate (standard minus intensive) was 7.0 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.4-10.7), 8.4 (95% CI 8.2-8.5), and 6.1 (95% CI 5.9-6.3) per 1,000 person-years in SPRINT, SPRINT-eligible REGARDS participants, and SPRINT-eligible NHANES participants, respectively (median 3.2-year follow-up). Intensive SBP treatment could prevent 84,300 (95% CI 80,800-87,920) CVD events per year in 14.1 million SPRINT-eligible US adults; 29,400 and 28,600 would be in 7.0 million individuals with medium or high predicted benefit, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the population health benefit from intensive SBP goals could be achieved by treating those characterized by a previously published algorithm as having medium or high predicted benefit.