Participants' views of ultra-low dose combination therapy for high blood pressure: a mixed-methods study from the QUARTET trial.

Single-pill combination therapy containing four quarter-dose medications for high blood pressure improves BP control compared to monotherapy, however patient-reported acceptance of the quadpill as a treatment strategy remains undescribed. We collected within-trial feedback and interviewed participants from the quadruple ultra-low-dose treatment for hypertension (QUARTET) trial to characterise patient attitudes to this intervention. All trial participants were asked about ease and preference for the quadpill and provided an opportunity to give further comments on the trial at 12 weeks (trial primary endpoint) and 52 weeks extended follow-up. Separately, we used purposive and quota sampling for the semi-structured telephone interviews, with the resultant verbatim transcripts analysed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Themes were re-evaluated after each successive interview, and at suspected data saturation, an additional interview conducted for confirmation. At 12 weeks follow-up, 502 of 591 (85%) participants responded to acceptability questions, and 359 of 417 (86%) responded at week 52. Most reported the trial capsule easy or very easy to take. From eight sites, 16 participants were interviewed between 5 August 2020 and 19 November 2020. All described a positive experience, preferred once-daily morning dosing and found routine facilitated adherence. Participants valued individual responsibility for adherence, and involvement of the general practitioner in blood-pressure management. Most reported capsule size did not deter adherence but desired a smaller capsule. Participants described a preference for minimising number and dosage of medications, reduced capsule size, and once-daily morning dosing. These findings suggest a preference for single-pill combination therapy for blood pressure lowering.

Ambulatory blood pressure after 12 weeks of quadruple combination of quarter doses of blood pressure medication vs. standard medication.

BACKGROUND: A combination of four ultra-low-dose blood pressure (BP) medications lowered office BP more effectively than initial monotherapy in the QUARTET trial. The effects on average ambulatory BP changes at 12 weeks have not yet been reported in detail. METHODS: Adults with hypertension who were untreated or on monotherapy were eligible for participation. Overall, 591 participants were randomized to either the quadpill (irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg) or monotherapy control (irbesartan 150 mg). The difference in 24-h, daytime, and night-time systolic and diastolic ambulatory BP at 12 weeks along further metrics were predefined secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 576 participants, 289 were randomized to the quadpill group and 287 to the monotherapy group. At 12 weeks, mean 24-h ambulatory SBP and DBP were 7.7 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 9.6-5.8] and 5.3 (95% CI: 6.5-4.1) mmHg lower in the quadpill vs. monotherapy group ( P  < 0.001 for both). Similar reductions in the quadpill group were observed for daytime (8.1/5.7 mmHg lower) and night-time (6.3/4.0 mmHg lower) BP at 12 weeks (all P  < 0.001) compared to monotherapy. The rate of BP control (24-h average BP < 130/80 mmHg) at 12 weeks was higher in the quadpill group (77 vs. 50%; P  < 0.001). The reduction in BP load was also more pronounced with the quadpill. CONCLUSION: A quadruple quarter-dose combination compared with monotherapy resulted in greater ambulatory BP lowering across the entire 24-h period with higher ambulatory BP control rates and reduced BP variability at 12 weeks. These findings further substantiate the efficacy of an ultra-low-dose quadpill-based BP lowering strategy.

Cost-effectiveness of ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy for high blood pressure.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a quadpill containing irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg and bisoprolol 2.5 mg in comparison with irbesartan 150 mg for people with hypertension who are either untreated or receiving monotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a within-trial and modelled economic evaluation of the Quadruple UltrA-low-dose tReaTment for hypErTension trial. The analysis was preplanned, and medications and health service use captured during the trial. The main outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for cost per mm Hg systolic blood pressure (BP) reduction at 3 months, and modelled cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) over a lifetime. RESULTS: The within-trial analysis showed no clear difference in cost per mm Hg BP lowering between randomised treatments at 3 months ($A10 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) $A -18 to $A37) per mm Hg per person) for quadpill versus monotherapy. The modelled cost-utility over a lifetime projected a mean incremental cost of $A265 (95% UI $A166 to $A357) and a mean 0.02 QALYs gained (95% UI 0.01 to 0.03) per person with quadpill therapy compared with monotherapy. Quadpill therapy was cost-effective in the base case (ICER of $A14 006 per QALY), and the result was sensitive to the quadpill cost in one-way sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Quadpill in comparison with monotherapy is comparably cost-effective for short-term BP lowering. In the long-term, quadpill therapy is likely to be cost-effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTRN12616001144404.

Tolerability, gastric emptying patterns, and symptoms during the Nottingham Test Meal in 330 secondary care non-diabetic dyspeptic patients.

BACKGROUND: Scintigraphy is used for overall assessment of gastric emptying. Adherence to an international consensus protocol is recommended to ensure quality; however, this has not been widely adopted because preparation of the "egg-beater" meal is inconvenient in clinical practice. In this report, we audit the tolerability and the results of gastric emptying scintigraphy with the 400 ml Tc-99 m-labeled liquid nutrient Nottingham Test Meal (NTM). METHODS: Results from 330 consecutive adult, non-diabetic patients with dyspeptic symptoms referred for gastric scintigraphy were analyzed. Gastric half-emptying time (T50) and validated measurements of early- and late-phase gastric emptying were acquired. Postprandial sensations of fullness, bloating, heartburn, nausea, and epigastric pain were recorded using 100 mm visual analog scales (VAS) before and 0, 30, and 90 min after NTM ingestion. Results were compared with those previously obtained in healthy subjects. KEY RESULTS: Almost all (98%) of the patients were able to consume the 400 ml NTM. Considering early- and late-phase gastric emptying, frequently observed patterns included normal early- with slow late-phase (25%) and fast early- with slow late-phase emptying (27%). Abnormal score of fullness and/ or dyspeptic symptoms were observed in 88% of dyspeptic patients. Abnormal fullness at T0 (after completed drink ingestion) was associated with slow late phase of gastric emptying, especially in women. CONCLUSIONS: Gastric scintigraphy with the NTM is simple to perform and well tolerated. Whether the identified abnormal gastric emptying patterns could predict different treatment outcome in patients with functional dyspepsia is the subject of ongoing prospective studies.

Initial treatment with a single pill containing quadruple combination of quarter doses of blood pressure medicines versus standard dose monotherapy in patients with hypertension (QUARTET): a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment inertia is a recognised barrier to blood pressure control, and simpler, more effective treatment strategies are needed. We hypothesised that a hypertension management strategy starting with a single pill containing ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy would be more effective than a strategy of starting with monotherapy. METHODS: QUARTET was a multicentre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised, phase 3 trial among Australian adults (≥18 years) with hypertension, who were untreated or receiving monotherapy. Participants were randomly assigned to either treatment, that started with the quadpill (containing irbesartan at 37·5 mg, amlodipine at 1·25 mg, indapamide at 0·625 mg, and bisoprolol at 2·5 mg) or an indistinguishable monotherapy control (irbesartan 150 mg). If blood pressure was not at target, additional medications could be added in both groups, starting with amlodipine at 5 mg. Participants were randomly assigned using an online central randomisation service. There was a 1:1 allocation, stratified by site. Allocation was masked to all participants and study team members (including investigators and those assessing outcomes) except the manufacturer of the investigational product and one unmasked statistician. The primary outcome was difference in unattended office systolic blood pressure at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure control (standard office blood pressure <140/90 mm Hg), safety, and tolerability. A subgroup continued randomly assigned allocation to 12 months to assess long-term effects. Analyses were per intention to treat. This trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001144404, and is now complete. FINDINGS: From June 8, 2017, to Aug 31, 2020, 591 participants were recruited, with 743 assessed for eligibility, 152 ineligible or declined, 300 participants randomly assigned to intervention of initial quadpill treatment, and 291 to control of initial standard dose monotherapy treatment. The mean age of the 591 participants was 59 years (SD 12); 356 (60%) were male and 235 (40%) were female; 483 (82%) were White, 70 (12%) were Asian, and 38 (6%) reported as other ethnicity; and baseline mean unattended office blood pressure was 141 mm Hg (SD 13)/85 mm Hg (SD 10). By 12 weeks, 44 (15%) of 300 participants had additional blood pressure medications in the intervention group compared with 115 (40%) of 291 participants in the control group. Systolic blood pressure was lower by 6·9 mm Hg (95% CI 4·9-8·9; p<0·0001) and blood pressure control rates were higher in the intervention group (76%) versus control group (58%; relative risk [RR] 1·30, 95% CI 1·15-1·47; p<0·0001). There was no difference in adverse event-related treatment withdrawals at 12 weeks (intervention 4·0% vs control 2·4%; p=0·27). Among the 417 patients who continued, uptitration occurred more frequently among control participants than intervention participants (p<0·0001). However, at 52 weeks mean unattended systolic blood pressure remained lower by 7·7 mm Hg (95% CI 5·2-10·3) and blood pressure control rates higher in the intervention group (81%) versus control group (62%; RR 1·32, 95% CI 1·16-1·50). In all randomly assigned participants up to 12 weeks, there were seven (3%) serious adverse events in the intervention group and three (1%) serious adverse events in the control group. INTERPRETATION: A strategy with early treatment of a fixed-dose quadruple quarter-dose combination achieved and maintained greater blood pressure lowering compared with the common strategy of starting monotherapy. This trial demonstrated the efficacy, tolerability, and simplicity of a quadpill-based strategy. FUNDING: National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia.

Ultra-low-dose quadruple combination blood pressure-lowering therapy in patients with hypertension: The QUARTET randomized controlled trial protocol.

High blood pressure is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality globally. Many patients remain on single-drug treatment with poor control, although guidelines recognize that most require combination therapy for blood pressure control. Our hypothesis is that a single-pill combination of 4 blood pressure-lowering agents each at a quarter dose may provide a simple, safe, and effective blood pressure-lowering solution which may also improve long-term adherence. The Quadruple UltrA-low-dose tReaTment for hypErTension (QUARTET) double-blind, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial will examine whether ultra-low-dose quadruple combination therapy is more effective than guideline-recommended standard care in lowering blood pressure. QUARTET will enroll 650 participants with high blood pressure either on no treatment or on monotherapy. Participants will be randomized 1:1 and allocated to intervention therapy of a single pill (quadpill) containing irbesartan 37.5 mg, amlodipine 1.25 mg, indapamide 0.625 mg, and bisoprolol 2.5 mg or to control therapy of a single identical-appearing pill containing irbesartan 150 mg. In both arms, step-up therapy of open-label amlodipine 5 mg will be provided if blood pressure is >140/90 at 6 weeks. The primary outcome is the difference between groups in the change from baseline in mean unattended automated office systolic blood pressure at 12-week follow-up. The primary outcome and some secondary outcomes will be assessed at 12 weeks; there is an optional 12-month extension phase to assess longer-term efficacy and tolerability. Our secondary aims are to assess if this approach is safe, has fewer adverse effects, and has better tolerability compared to standard care control. QUARTET will therefore provide evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a new paradigm in the management of high blood pressure.

Evaluating the effect of a third-party implementation of resolution recovery on the quality of SPECT bone scan imaging using visual grading regression.

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the benefits to SPECT bone scan image quality when applying resolution recovery (RR) during image reconstruction using software provided by a third-party supplier. METHODS: Bone SPECT data from 90 clinical studies were reconstructed retrospectively using software supplied independent of the gamma camera manufacturer. The current clinical datasets contain 120×10 s projections and are reconstructed using an iterative method with a Butterworth postfilter. Five further reconstructions were created with the following characteristics: 10 s projections with a Butterworth postfilter (to assess intraobserver variation); 10 s projections with a Gaussian postfilter with and without RR; and 5 s projections with a Gaussian postfilter with and without RR. Two expert observers were asked to rate image quality on a five-point scale relative to our current clinical reconstruction. Datasets were anonymized and presented in random order. The benefits of RR on image scores were evaluated using ordinal logistic regression (visual grading regression). RESULTS: The application of RR during reconstruction increased the probability of both observers of scoring image quality as better than the current clinical reconstruction even where the dataset contained half the normal counts. Type of reconstruction and observer were both statistically significant variables in the ordinal logistic regression model. CONCLUSION: Visual grading regression was found to be a useful method for validating the local introduction of technological developments in nuclear medicine imaging. RR, as implemented by the independent software supplier, improved bone SPECT image quality when applied during image reconstruction. In the majority of clinical cases, acquisition times for bone SPECT intended for the purposes of localization can safely be halved (from 10 s projections to 5 s) when RR is applied.

A randomized study of standard versus double dose oseltamivir for treating influenza in the community.

BACKGROUND: The neuraminidase inhibitors are the treatment of choice for influenza virus infection. Oseltamivir-resistant (OsR) strains of influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 are described, but the effect of higher dose oseltamivir on efficacy, safety and emergence of resistance has not been addressed in the developed setting in outpatients. The objectives of the study were to compare standard dose (SD) versus double dose (DD) oseltamivir regimens for frequency of detecting OsR influenza virus, clinical disease resolution, virological clearance and adverse events. METHODS: This was an unblinded randomized controlled trial of community-based patients with confirmed influenza. Participants were randomized to a 5-day regimen of either SD or DD oseltamivir. RESULTS: Of 52 participants (aged 4.8-54.8 years), 25 received SD and 27 DD oseltamivir. Clinical resolution did not differ by dosing regimen (P=0.43); neither did virological clearance differ for either influenza A (P=0.20) or B (P=0.70). Adverse events, predominantly gastrointestinal, were greater with DD than SD (P=0.04). One OsR strain was detected prior to treatment and two individuals developed OsR strains during treatment, one each on SD and DD. Those with OsR strains did not appear to have a different clinical course. CONCLUSIONS: DD oseltamivir did not appear to provide a clinical or virological advantage, nor reduce the emergence of oseltamivir resistance, but our study was underpowered. Adverse events occurred more frequently on DD compared to SD oseltamivir.

Esophageal transit and in vivo disintegration of branded risedronate sodium tablets and two generic formulations of alendronic acid tablets: a single-center, single-blind, six-period crossover study in healthy female subjects.

BACKGROUND: Delayed esophageal transit or disintegration of oral bisphosphonate tablets before they enter the stomach may be of concern with respect to iatrogenic complications among patients receiving longterm treatment. Different formulations of generic bisphosphonate tablets meeting regulatory requirements may have substantial differences in pharmaceutical attributes from the branded product that may result in different characteristics during esophageal transit. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate and compare esophageal transit times and in vivo disintegration of 3 bisphosphonate formulations, one branded and the others generic, that are commercially available in Canada and the United Kingdom. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, singleblind, 6-period crossover study in healthy postmenopausal women aged >50 years. Each subject received a single oral dose of a branded risedronate sodium 35-mg tablet and 2 generic formulations of alendronic acid 70-mg tablets (Novopharm Limited, Toronto, Canada, and Teva UK Limited, Morley, United Kingdom) in both the erect and semisupine (45 degrees ) positions. Although the products are labeled to be taken in the erect position, the semisupine position was included to simulate dosing in bedridden patients. Subjects took tablets with 30 mL of water in the morning after an overnight fast. The tablets were radiolabeled with technetium-99m ion-exchange resins to enable visualization and measurement of esophageal transit time and disintegration using a gamma camera. Dynamic scintigraphic images were obtained for a total of 10 minutes: 2 images per second for the first 30 seconds and 1 image every 15 seconds for 9.5 minutes. This was a mechanistic study and tolerability was not assessed. RESULTS: The study was conducted in 20 healthy white female subjects with a mean age of 62 years (range, 51-77 years). The effect of body position was statistically significant (P = 0.043), with the estimated hazard ratio (HR) of 0.74 indicating longer transit time in the semisupine position relative to the erect position. There was a statistically significant difference in transit time among the 3 types of tablets (P = 0.007), with the Novopharm tablet (HR = 0.59; P < 0.001) and Teva tablet (HR = 0.71; P = 0.042) having longer transit times compared with the risedronate tablet. In 4 instances, the Novopharm tablet disintegrated and dispersed in the esophagus, once in the erect position and 3 times in the semisupine position. CONCLUSIONS: In these healthy female subjects, esophageal transit was delayed when the tablets were given in the semisupine position. The branded risedronate tablet had a significantly faster transit time than the 2 generic formulations of alendronate tested.