Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES@#2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D).@*METHODS@#Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure.@*RESULTS@#A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97−1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87−1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95−1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01−1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01−1.17; p=0.040) than A+D.@*CONCLUSIONS@#There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.

Comparison of First-Line Dual Combination Treatments in Hypertension: Real-World Evidence from Multinational Heterogeneous Cohorts

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: 2018 ESC/ESH Hypertension guideline recommends 2-drug combination as initial anti-hypertensive therapy. However, real-world evidence for effectiveness of recommended regimens remains limited. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of first-line anti-hypertensive treatment combining 2 out of the following classes: angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin-receptor blocker (A), calcium channel blocker (C), and thiazide-type diuretics (D).METHODS: Treatment-naïve hypertensive adults without cardiovascular disease (CVD) who initiated dual anti-hypertensive medications were identified in 5 databases from US and Korea. The patients were matched for each comparison set by large-scale propensity score matching. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events as a composite outcome comprised the secondary measure.RESULTS: A total of 987,983 patients met the eligibility criteria. After matching, 222,686, 32,344, and 38,513 patients were allocated to A+C vs. A+D, C+D vs. A+C, and C+D vs. A+D comparison, respectively. There was no significant difference in the mortality during total of 1,806,077 person-years: A+C vs. A+D (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97−1.20; p=0.127), C+D vs. A+C (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87−1.01; p=0.067), and C+D vs. A+D (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.95−1.47; p=0.104). A+C was associated with a slightly higher risk of heart failure (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01−1.18; p=0.040) and stroke (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01−1.17; p=0.040) than A+D.CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in mortality among A+C, A+D, and C+D combination treatment in patients without previous CVD. This finding was consistent across multi-national heterogeneous cohorts in real-world practice.

The Best Prediction Model for Trauma Outcomes of the Current Korean Population: a Comparative Study of Three Injury Severity Scoring Systems / 대한중환자의학회지

BACKGROUND: Injury severity scoring systems that quantify and predict trauma outcomes have not been established in Korea. This study was designed to determine the best system for use in the Korean trauma population. METHODS: We collected and analyzed the data from trauma patients admitted to our institution from January 2010 to December 2014. Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) were calculated based on the data from the enrolled patients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for the prediction ability of each scoring system was obtained, and a pairwise comparison of ROC curves was performed. Additionally, the cut-off values were estimated to predict mortality, and the corresponding accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 7,120 trauma patients (6,668 blunt and 452 penetrating injuries) were enrolled in this study. The AUCs of ISS, RTS, and TRISS were 0.866, 0.894, and 0.942, respectively, and the prediction ability of the TRISS was significantly better than the others (p < 0.001, respectively). The cut-off value of the TRISS was 0.9082, with a sensitivity of 81.9% and specificity of 92.0%; mortality was predicted with an accuracy of 91.2%; its positive predictive value was the highest at 46.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study were based on the data from one institution and suggest that the TRISS is the best prediction model of trauma outcomes in the current Korean population. Further study is needed with more data from multiple centers in Korea.

The Best Prediction Model for Trauma Outcomes of the Current Korean Population: a Comparative Study of Three Injury Severity Scoring Systems / 대한구급학회지

BACKGROUND: Injury severity scoring systems that quantify and predict trauma outcomes have not been established in Korea. This study was designed to determine the best system for use in the Korean trauma population. METHODS: We collected and analyzed the data from trauma patients admitted to our institution from January 2010 to December 2014. Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) were calculated based on the data from the enrolled patients. Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for the prediction ability of each scoring system was obtained, and a pairwise comparison of ROC curves was performed. Additionally, the cut-off values were estimated to predict mortality, and the corresponding accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 7,120 trauma patients (6,668 blunt and 452 penetrating injuries) were enrolled in this study. The AUCs of ISS, RTS, and TRISS were 0.866, 0.894, and 0.942, respectively, and the prediction ability of the TRISS was significantly better than the others (p < 0.001, respectively). The cut-off value of the TRISS was 0.9082, with a sensitivity of 81.9% and specificity of 92.0%; mortality was predicted with an accuracy of 91.2%; its positive predictive value was the highest at 46.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study were based on the data from one institution and suggest that the TRISS is the best prediction model of trauma outcomes in the current Korean population. Further study is needed with more data from multiple centers in Korea.