Abstract TH144: Single-Pill vs Multi-Pill Antihypertensive Therapy: A Systematic Review of Adherence and Outcomes
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Combination therapy using many antihypertensive medications is necessary for many hypertensive patients. Taking many medications, however, may cause drug adherence to decline, undermining the effectiveness of treatment. Single-pill combinations (SPCs) have been suggested an easier strategy that could improve blood pressure control and adherence. A difficult evaluation of the advantages of SPCs versus standard multi-pill regimens is still necessary. Our goal was to find out if taking many drugs in one pill enhances blood pressure control and adherence more than taking them separately. Hypothesis: Patients with out-of-control hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg) who start combination therapy, single-pill combinations (SPCs) will minimize major heart problems, compared to multi-pill prescriptions, due to increased likely adherence to medication and better-sustained blood pressure control. Methods: Several databases was searched using PRISMA guidelines for those comparing antihypertensive single- and multi-pill regimens. 14 studies were included in the review (8 were randomized controlled trials, and 6 were observational). We collected figures on how consistently people took their medicines, blood pressure declines, and overall results. Cochrane Risk of Bias was used tool for randomized controlled trials and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for studies that were not RCTs. Results: SPC therapy showed better adherence than having patients follow several-pill regimens. Patients given single-pill combinations had lower blood pressures and were more likely to control their blood pressure during follow-up than who took each medicine separately. Researchers found that patients receiving SPCs tended to stay on therapy and experienced a decreased risk of stopping their treatment early. Even though clinical result data were scarce, the results still pointed toward SPC as the preferred option. RCTs generally had a low chance of bias, and observational studies of good quality confirmed the benefit of using SPCs. Conclusions: The review fulfills an important need by systematically comparing single-step medications and strategies that use more than one pill daily. Providing therapy as one easy-to-take pill improves patients' ability to stick to their treatment and manage their blood pressure. Using fixed-dose combinations is new and meaningful in treating hypertension and shows that they should be used more widely to gain better results for patients.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,060 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».