Abstract TH144: Single-Pill vs Multi-Pill Antihypertensive Therapy: A Systematic Review of Adherence and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".