Guideline Adherence and Associated Outcomes in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients With an Incident Cardiovascular Comorbidity: An Analysis Based on a Large German Claims Dataset.

INTRODUCTION: According to current guidelines, appropriate drug treatment is the backbone of the effective management of cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The main objective of this study was to assess the degree of real-world adherence to these guideline recommendations and to identify whether poor guideline adherence is associated with worse clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this retrospective German claims data analysis (AOK PLUS dataset), patients with T2DM with an incident diagnosis (index date) of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure or coronary artery disease were observed for 12 months between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2017. We assessed guideline adherence per observed CV disease combination at three levels: "green" if patients received prescriptions of all recommended medications with > 185 defined daily doses (DDDs) per observed patient-year; "yellow" if patients received at least two prescriptions of at least one of the recommended medications; and "red" if patients did not receive at least two prescriptions of at least one of the recommended medications. The impact of the assignment of a patient to one of these three levels on all-cause mortality and CV risk was analyzed based on multivariable Cox regression analyses and reported as adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: We identified 32,916 patients with T2DM with an incident CV comorbidity (mean age 75.0 years, 54.2% female, Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]: 5.5). Observed patients received at least 185 DDDs of the following medication classes in the 12 months before/after the index date: vitamin K antagonists (6%/6%); antiplatelet drugs (9%/27%); novel oral anticoagulants (3%/13%); diuretics (48%/54%); beta blockers (31%/35%); calcium-channel blockers (34%/32%); renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (69%/68%); and lipid-modifying agents (19%/37%). When post-index therapy was compared to guideline recommendations, the level of "guideline adherence" was classified as "green" for 14.4% of the patients, "yellow" for 75.2% and "red" for 10.5%. An assignment of "red" was associated with worse CV outcomes in all analyses. Regarding mortality, in addition to one additional year of age (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04), CCI (HR 1.17), use of insulins (HR 1.25), digitalis glycosides (HR 1.52) and diuretics (HR 1.32), non-adherence to guideline recommendations ("red": HR 6.79; "yellow": HR: 1.30) was a significant predictor for early death, while female gender (HR 0.79), the participation in a disease management program (HR 0.69) and the use of antidiabetics other than insulin (HR 0.74) were generally associated with a reduced risk. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of patients with T2DM and an incident CV comorbidity receive a treatment fully adherent with guideline recommendations. This may contribute to high mortality rates in this population in clinical practice.

The DIVE/DPV registries: evolution of empagliflozin use in clinical practice in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Empagliflozin reduced morbidity and mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in clinical trials. A registry study was undertaken to describe evolution of patient characteristics and assess the real-world effectiveness/safety of empagliflozin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from the Diabetes Patienten Verlaufsdokumentation (DPV)/Diabetes Versorgungsevaluation (DIVE) registries on 9571 adults with T2DM (registered in 2014-2019) receiving empagliflozin were used. Patients were grouped according to the following: early users (group 1; n=505) received empagliflozin before the EMPA-REG OUTCOME study publication (mid-September 2015); intermediate users (group 2; n=2961) started empagliflozin after the EMPA-REG OUTCOME publication but before the European Medicines Agency label change (from mid-September 2015 to mid-January 2017); and late users (group 3; n=6105) started empagliflozin after mid-January 2017. Data on clinical and treatment characteristics were collected. RESULTS: Over time, the proportion of recipients aged <65 years decreased (71.1% vs 54.4% among early and late adopters), male patients increased (from 50.9% to 66.5%), body mass index (mean±SD) decreased (from 35.5±6.7 to 32.7±6.6 kg/m2), proportion with cardiovascular morbidities increased (from 20.4% to 26.4%), and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased (from 83.2±19.5 to 78.5±21.1 mL/min/1.73 m2) (all p<0.001). Patients increasingly received empagliflozin in combination with metformin (60.8% vs 68.6% of early and late adopters; p<0.001), glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists (11.0 vs 14.1%; p<0.001) or insulin (34.3% vs 49.9%; p<0.001). Empagliflozin was generally added to existing antidiabetic regimens. Six months after empagliflozin initiation, the mean glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) decreased by 0.4%, the proportion of patients with HbA1c <6.5% increased (19.2% vs 12.8%), and the mean fasting plasma glucose decreased (155.8±49.7 vs 168.0±55.1 mg/dL) (all p<0.001). No significant changes in rates of severe hypoglycemia and no cases of diabetic ketoacidosis were seen. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, empagliflozin is being prescribed to a broader patient range in routine practice, is usually added to existing antidiabetic regimens, and is increasingly used in combination with metformin, GLP-1 agonists and/or insulin. Empagliflozin had a beneficial effect on glycemic control, with no increase in hypoglycemia.

Impact of Empagliflozin on Blood Pressure in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension by Background Antihypertensive Medication.

In the EMPA-REG BP trial, empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg once daily reduced glycohemoglobin, blood pressure (BP), and weight versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension. Patients received placebo (n=271), empagliflozin 10 mg (n=276), or empagliflozin 25 mg (n=276) for 12 weeks (n=full analysis set). This present analysis investigated changes from baseline to week 12 in mean 24-hour systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) in patients receiving 0, 1, or ≥2 antihypertensive medications and patients receiving/not receiving diuretics or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers. Compared with placebo, empagliflozin 10 mg and 25 mg reduced mean 24-hour SBP/DBP in patients receiving 0 (10 mg: -3.89/-2.58 mm Hg; 25 mg: -3.77/-2.45 mm Hg), 1 (10 mg: -4.74/-1.97 mm Hg; 25 mg: -4.27/-1.81 mm Hg), or ≥2 (10 mg: -2.36/-0.68 mm Hg; 25 mg: -4.17/-1.54 mm Hg) antihypertensives. The effect of empagliflozin was not significantly different between subgroups by number of antihypertensives for changes in SBP (interaction P value 0.448) or DBP (interaction P value 0.498). Empagliflozin reduced 24-hour mean SBP/DBP irrespective of diuretic or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker use, with no significant difference between subgroups by use/no use of diuretics (interaction P values 0.380 [systolic]; 0.240 [diastolic]) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (interaction P values 0.900 [systolic]; 0.359 [diastolic]). In conclusion, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension, empagliflozin for 12 weeks reduced SBP and DBP versus placebo, irrespective of the number of antihypertensives and use of diuretics or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01370005.

Impact of antihypertensive combination and monotreatments on blood pressure variability: assessment by old and new indices. Data from a large ambulatory blood pressure monitoring database.

OBJECTIVES: High 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) variability is associated with poor cardiovascular outcomes. We analysed a large ABP monitoring database containing data from hypertensive patients treated with telmisartan/amlodipine combination or various monotherapies with the aim of quantifying the 24-h distribution of blood pressure (BP) reduction by treatment through the smoothness index and of developing and testing a new treatment-on-variability index (TOVI) to quantify the effects of treatment on both mean BP and BP variability. METHODS: ABP data were pooled from 10 studies (N = 4294) with a median follow-up of 60 days. Smoothness index was calculated by dividing the mean of treatment-induced hourly BP reductions by its SD. TOVI was calculated as the ratio of the mean of hourly BP reductions to weighted 24-h BP SD (weighted mean of daytime and night-time SDs) under treatment. RESULTS: The SBP/DBP smoothness index and TOVI values of telmisartan/amlodipine combination were significantly (P < 0.0001) higher (smoothness index: 1.81/1.51; TOVI: 2.71/2.13) compared with telmisartan 80  mg (smoothness index: 1.12/0.90; TOVI: 1.55/1.23), amlodipine 10  mg (smoothness index: 1.33/1.09; TOVI: 2.09/1.58), valsartan 160  mg (smoothness index: 1.01/0.81; TOVI: 1.35/1.07), ramipril 10  mg (smoothness index: 0.83/0.63; TOVI: 1.11/0.87) and placebo (smoothness index: 0.23/0.18; TOVI: 0.34/0.30), indicating a smoother 24-h BP reduction profile (higher smoothness index) as well as the achievement of significantly lower and smoother BP levels over 24  h (higher TOVI) with the combination. CONCLUSION: As compared with various monotherapies, the telmisartan/amlodipine combination was associated with a smoother BP reduction over 24  h and with a more favourable balance between mean 24-h BP reduction and the degree of BP variability on treatment, reflecting both its effectiveness in lowering BP levels and its longer duration of action. The agreement between smoothness index and TOVI demonstrates that they are similarly effective in the differentiation of antihypertensive treatments, although providing conceptually different information, the clinical relevance of which needs to be tested by ad-hoc outcome studies.

Telmisartan plus amlodipine single-pill combination for the management of hypertensive patients with a metabolic risk profile (added-risk patients).

OBJECTIVE: Hypertensive patients with metabolic risk factors, including obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome, often require a combination of antihypertensive agents to achieve blood pressure (BP) targets. This article considers the evidence supporting telmisartan/amlodipine combination therapy for the treatment of hypertension in patients with metabolic risk factors. METHODS: Clinical trials of telmisartan/amlodipine at doses of 40-80 mg/5-10 mg (T40-80/A5-10) in free, fixed-dose and single-pill combinations were identified through electronic searches (MEDLINE and congress abstracts) up to and including June 2012, and from the Boehringer Ingelheim (BI) trial database. All identified trials were reviewed for data on hypertensive patients with obesity, diabetes, or both. Post-hoc subgroup analyses were carried out using the BI database to determine the relevant information if it was not previously reported. RESULTS: Thirteen clinical trials including 6886 patients were identified with data relevant for inclusion in this review. The telmisartan/amlodipine combination allowed a high proportion of hypertensive patients with metabolic conditions to achieve BP targets, particularly among patients who had previously failed to achieve BP targets with monotherapy. BP reductions and goal rate achievement were similarly high among patients with and without the presence of metabolic risk factors. BP reductions were maintained throughout the 24 h dosing period, and 24 h goal rates were obtained in a high proportion of patients. Particularly large reductions in BP with telmisartan/amlodipine were recorded among patients with severe hypertension (systolic BP ≥180 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this post-hoc analysis further support the ability of the telmisartan/amlodipine combination to effectively reduce BP in hypertensive patients with obesity, diabetes, or metabolic syndrome, enabling the majority of patients to achieve target BP. This combination is also well tolerated, and may be considered a suitable option for these added-risk hypertensive patients.

Improving treatment adherence to antihypertensive therapy: the role of single-pill combinations.

INTRODUCTION: The majority of patients with hypertension require combination therapy to achieve their blood pressure (BP) goal. Studies have consistently shown that polypharmacy and complex treatment regimens have a detrimental effect on treatment compliance, adherence and persistence (herein referred to as treatment adherence). AREAS COVERED: This paper reviews the available clinical evidence, as well as guidelines, which propose combinations of an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) or an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor plus a calcium channel blocker (CCB) or diuretic. EXPERT OPINION: ARBs are associated with better tolerability compared with ACE inhibitors, and data suggest that ARB/CCB combinations may be better tolerated than CCB monotherapy. The use of true once-daily single-pill combination therapy with effective and well-tolerated agents will reduce pill burden, simplify treatment regimens and improve treatment adherence, which will, in turn, help patients to reach and maintain their BP target and achieve the short- and long-term treatment goal of cardiovascular risk reduction.

Single-pill combination of telmisartan/amlodipine in patients with severe hypertension: results from the TEAMSTA severe HTN study.

This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study compared efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan/amlodipine (T/A) single-pill combination (SPC) vs the respective monotherapies in 858 patients with severe hypertension (systolic/diastolic blood pressure [SBP/DBP] ≥180/95 mm Hg). At 8 weeks, T/A provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP/DBP (-47.5 mm Hg/-18.7 mm Hg) vs T (P<.0001) or A (P=.0002) monotherapy; superior reductions were also evident at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Blood pressure (BP) goal and response rates were consistently higher with T/A vs T or A. T/A was well tolerated, with less frequent treatment-related adverse events vs A (12.6% vs 16.4%) and a numerically lower incidence of peripheral edema and treatment discontinuation. In conclusion, treatment of patients with substantially elevated BP with T/A SPCs resulted in high and significantly greater BP reductions and higher BP goal and response rates than the respective monotherapies. T/A SPCs were well tolerated.

Single-pill combination of telmisartan/amlodipine versus amlodipine monotherapy in diabetic hypertensive patients: an 8-week randomized, parallel-group, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertensive patients with diabetes often require combination therapy to achieve a blood pressure (BP) goal, and evidence suggests that time to BP goal is crucial to decrease cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate whether the single-pill combination of telmisartan and amlodipine was superior to amlodipine alone as initial antihypertensive therapy in patients with diabetes and hypertension. METHODS: An 8-week, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind international trial comparing the once-daily single-pill combination of telmisartan 80 mg and amlodipine 10 mg (T/A; n = 352) with once-daily amlodipine 10 mg (A; n = 354) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stage 1 or 2 hypertension (systolic BP [SBP] >150 mm Hg). RESULTS: Patient demographics were similar between treatment groups, with an mean (SD) age of 60.5 (10.1) years; 51.7% were male, the mean (SD) body mass index was 32.0 (6.1) and the mean (SD) duration of hypertension was 8.8 (7.9) years. After 8 weeks (primary end point) as well as after 1, 2, and 4 weeks (key secondary end points), significantly greater decreases in the in-clinic mean seated trough cuff SBP with T/A versus A were achieved (-29.0 mm Hg vs -22.9 mm Hg at 8 weeks; P < 0.0001). After 8 weeks, 71.4% versus 53.8% of patients achieved the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg) with T/A versus A, with mean SBPs of 131.9 and 137.9 mm Hg, respectively. Similar results were observed in the obese (metabolic syndrome) subpopulation. The more stringent goal (<130/80 mm Hg) was achieved by 36.4% and 17.9% patients in the T/A and A groups, respectively. The most common adverse events were peripheral edema, headache, and dizziness. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected population of patients with diabetes and hypertension, T/A provided prompt and greater BP decreases compared with A monotherapy, with the majority of patients achieving the BP goal (<140/90 mm Hg).