RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Single-pill vs free-equivalent combination therapies for hypertension
A meta-analysis of health care costs and adherence
Sherrill, E., Halpern, M., Khan, S., Zhang, J., & Panjabi, S. (2011). Single-pill vs free-equivalent combination therapies for hypertension: A meta-analysis of health care costs and adherence. Journal of Clinical Hypertension, 13(12), 898-909. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-7176.2011.00550.x
This meta-analysis compares health care resource use costs, adherence, and persistence between groups of patients taking antihypertensives as single-pill combinations (SPCs) vs free-equivalent components (FEC) based on a structured review of published studies. The search yielded 12 retrospective database studies included in analyses. The mean difference in combined total annual all-cause and hypertension-related health care costs was $1357 (95% confidence interval [CI], $778–$1935) lower in favor of SPC than FEC groups. Adherence, measured as the mean difference in medication possession ratio, was estimated to be 8% higher for patients naive to prior antihypertensives and 14% higher for nonnaive SPC patients compared with corresponding FEC patients. Persistence in the SPC groups was twice as likely as the FEC groups (pooled risk ratio, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.1–4.1). Improved adherence and persistence may have contributed to the lower costs in the SPC groups via improved clinical outcomes.