Observational studyJournal of hypertension2025
Effect of single-pill versus free equivalent combinations on persistence and major adverse cardiovascular events in hypertension: a real-world analysis.
Observational study in Journal of hypertension, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association between single-pill combination therapy use and blood pressure control in the Systolic Blood Pressure Reduction Intervention Trial: a post hoc analysis.European journal of preventive cardiology · 2026Trial
- Medication Non-Adherence in Resistant Hypertension: Detection, Drivers, and Practical Solutions.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- Challenges and Perspectives in Optimising the Treatment of Arterial Hypertension: Role of the Ramipril-Amlodipine-Hydrochlorothiazide Single-Pill Combination.High blood pressure & cardiovascular prevention : the official journal of the Italian Society of Hypertension · 2026Review
- Impact of Antihypertensive Treatment Adherence on Premature Mortality over Seven Years: A Follow-Up Investigation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesHypertension guidelines recommend the use of single-pill combinations (SPCs) of antihypertensive drugs to improve treatment persistence and blood pressure control. This study aimed to investigate the long-term effects of ramipril/amlodipine (R/A) SPC versus free equivalent dose combinations (FEC) on cardiovascular outcomes and treatment persistence.
methodsThis retrospective, observational study analysed the database of the Hungarian National Health Insurance Fund. The study included patients with hypertension aged at least 18 years who were initiated on R/A SPC or FEC of different dose combinations (R/A 5/5, 5/10, 10/5 and 10/10 mg) between 2012 and 2018, with follow-up for up to 60 months. Imbalances in baseline characteristics were reduced with propensity score-based sub-classification. All analyses were performed with Cox proportional hazard model and propensity score sub-classification to adjust the imbalances in baseline characteristics. Drug persistence and MACEs were the primary and secondary endpoints, respectively.
resultsOverall, 104 882 patients with SPC and 68 324 patients with FEC-treated hypertension were included. The R/A 5/5 mg combination represented the largest proportion (62%). The nonpersistence rate was significantly lower with SPC than with FEC from month 1 to month 24 in the R/A 5/5 mg combination ( P < 0.001) and during the entire observation period in the remaining combinations. The MACE rate was significantly reduced with all R/A SPCs versus FECs. No effects on age and sex on both endpoints were noted.
conclusionThis study further supports the beneficial effects of the use of SPC on 60-month persistence and MACEs in hypertension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.