Effect of fixed dose combination treatment on adherence and risk factor control among patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease: randomised controlled trial in primary care

Improving medication adherence in cardiovascular disease

Non-adherence to medication is a global health problem with far-reaching individual-level and population-level consequences but remains unappreciated and under-addressed in the clinical setting. With increasing comorbidity and polypharmacy as well as an ageing population, cardiovascular disease and medication non-adherence are likely to become increasingly prevalent. Multiple methods for detecting non-adherence exist but are imperfect, and, despite emerging technology, a gold standard remains elusive. Non-adherence to medication is dynamic and often has multiple causes, particularly in the context of cardiovascular disease, which tends to require lifelong medication to control symptoms and risk factors in order to prevent disease progression. In this Review, we identify the causes of medication non-adherence and summarize interventions that have been proven in randomized clinical trials to be effective in improving adherence. Practical solutions and areas for future research are also proposed.

Polypill Strategy in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The polypill strategy, originally developed to improve medication adherence, has demonstrated efficacy in improving baseline systolic blood pressures and cholesterol levels in multiple clinical trials. However, the long-term clinical impact of improved major cardiovascular events (MACE) outcomes by the polypill remains uncertain.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent trials with long-term follow-up, which included minority groups and people with low socioeconomic status, have shown non-inferiority with no difference in adverse effects rates for the secondary prevention of MACE. Although the polypill strategy was initially introduced to improve adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for cardiovascular complications, the strategy has surpassed standard medical treatment for secondary prevention of MACE outcomes. Studies also showed improved medication compliance in underserved populations.

Single-pill combination for treatment of hypertension: Just a matter of practicality or is there a real clinical benefit?

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is the largest contributor to the incident cardiovascular disease worldwide. Despite explicit guideline recommendations for the diagnosis and management of hypertension, a large proportion of patients remain undiagnosed, untreated, or treated but uncontrolled. Inadequate BP control is associated with many complex factors including patient preference, physician's inertia, health systems disparities, and poor adherence to prescribed antihypertensive drug treatment. The primary driver for reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality is lowering of BP ''per se'' and not class effects of specific pharmacotherapies. The recent ESH guidelines recommend the use of four major classes of drugs including renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAS) blockers (angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi)), calcium channel blockers (CCB), thiazide and thiazide-like diuretics, and betablockers. Initiation of treatment for hypertension with a two-drug regimen, preferably in a single pill combination (SPC), is recommended for most patients. Preferred combinations should comprise a RAS blocker (either an ACEi or an ARB) with a CCB or thiazide/thiazide-like diuretic. These strategies are supported by robust evidence that combination therapy produces greater BP reductions than monotherapy, reduces side effects of the individual components, improves therapeutic adherence and long-term persistence on treatment, and permits achievement of earlier BP control.

Fixed-dose combination therapy for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy, also known as polypill therapy, targets risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and has been proposed as a strategy to reduce global ASCVD burden. Here we conducted a systematic search for relevant studies from 2016-2022 to assess the effects of FDC therapy for prevention of ASCVD. The studies selected include randomized trials evaluating FDC therapy with at least one blood pressure-lowering drug and one lipid-lowering drug. The study data were independently extracted, the quality of evidence was appraised by multiple reviewers and effect estimates were pooled using a fixed-effect meta-analysis when statistical heterogeneity was low to moderate. The main outcomes of the analysis were all-cause mortality, fatal and nonfatal ASCVD events, adverse events, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and adherence. Among 26 trials (n = 27,317 participants, 43.2% female and mean age range 52.9-76.0), FDC therapy was associated with lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic blood pressure, with higher rates of adherence and adverse events in both primary and mixed secondary prevention populations. For studies with a mostly primary prevention population, FDC therapy was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality by 11% (5.6% versus 6.3%; relative risk (risk ratio) of 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.00; I2 = 0%; four trials and 16,278 participants) and risk of fatal and nonfatal ASCVD events by 29% (6.1% versus 8.4%; relative risk (risk ratio) of 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; five trials and 15,503 participants). One adequately powered trial in an exclusively secondary prevention population showed that FDC therapy reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events by 24%. These findings support adoption and implementation of polypills to lower risk for all-cause mortality and ASCVD.

Bisphosphonate alternative regimens for the prevention of osteoporotic fragility fractures: BLAST-OFF, a mixed-methods study

Background

Bisphosphonates are a class of medication commonly used to treat osteoporosis. Alendronate is recommended as the first-line treatment; however, long-term adherence (both treatment compliance and persistence) is poor. Alternative bisphosphonates are available, which can be given intravenously and have been shown to improve long-term adherence. However, the most clinically effective and cost-effective alternative bisphosphonate regimen remains unclear. What is the most cost-effective bisphosphonate in clinical trials may not be the most cost-effective or acceptable to patients in everyday clinical practice.

Objectives

1. Explore patient, clinician and stakeholder views, experiences and preferences of alendronate compared to alternative bisphosphonates. 2. Update and refine the 2016 systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis of bisphosphonates, and estimate the value of further research into their benefits. 3. Undertake stakeholder/consensus engagement to identify important research questions and further rank research priorities.

Methods

The study was conducted in two stages, stages 1A and 1B in parallel, followed by stage 2: • Stage 1A - we elicited patient and healthcare experiences to understand their preferences of bisphosphonates for the treatment of osteoporosis. This was undertaken by performing a systematic review and framework synthesis of qualitative studies, followed by semistructured qualitative interviews with participants. • Stage 1B - we updated and expanded the existing Health Technology Assessment systematic review and clinical and cost-effectiveness model, incorporating a more comprehensive review of treatment efficacy, safety, side effects, compliance and long-term persistence. • Stage 2 - we identified and ranked further research questions that need to be answered about the effectiveness and acceptability of bisphosphonates.

Results

Patients and healthcare professionals identified a number of challenges in adhering to bisphosphonate medication, balancing the potential for long-term risk reduction against the work involved in adhering to oral alendronate. Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable, with such regimens perceived to be more straightforward to engage in, although a portion of patients taking alendronate were satisfied with their current treatment. Intravenous zoledronate was found to be the most effective, with higher adherence rates compared to the other bisphosphonates, for reducing the risk of fragility fracture. However, oral bisphosphonates are more cost-effective than intravenous zoledronate due to the high cost of zoledronate administration in hospital. The importance of including patients and healthcare professionals when setting research priorities is recognised. Important areas for research were related to patient factors influencing treatment selection and effectiveness, how to optimise long-term care and the cost-effectiveness of delivering zoledronate in an alternative, non-hospital setting.

Conclusions

Intravenous zoledronate treatment was generally more acceptable to patients and found to be the most effective bisphosphonate and with greater adherence; however, the cost-effectiveness relative to oral alendronate is limited by its higher zoledronate hospital administration costs.

Future work

Further research is needed to support people to make decisions influencing treatment selection, effectiveness and optimal long-term care, together with the clinical and cost-effectiveness of intravenous zoledronate administered in a non-hospital (community) setting.

Limitations

Lack of clarity and limitations in the many studies included in the systematic review may have under-interpreted some of the findings relating to effects of bisphosphonates.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN10491361.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR127550) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 21. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Efficacy and Safety of a Polypill to Reduce Cardiovascular Events: A Review of Clinical Trials

ABSTRACT

Cardiovascular disease continues to be the leading cause of mortality globally. Modifiable risk factors, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, can be managed through lifestyle and pharmacotherapy treatments to reduce the risk of primary and secondary major cardiovascular events in patients with elevated risk. Despite effective and available medications to manage and mitigate cardiovascular risk factors, control rates of hypertension and dyslipidemia are suboptimal, and greater efforts are needed to reduce cardiovascular event rates worldwide. A polypill containing several classes of medications proven to lower cardiovascular risk in a single-dose form has been associated with improved medication adherence over multiple single-ingredient medications and may lead to reduced cardiovascular events. The goal of this article is to review available data from clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of polypills compared with placebo or usual care for cardiovascular risk reduction. Three databases were searched (PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and ScienceDirect) for randomized trials that compared a single polypill with usual care or placebo and reported major adverse cardiovascular events for each study group. A total of 6 trials were selected for inclusion. Several polypill formulations were compared with placebo or usual care with multiple single-ingredient medications in study populations consisting of both primary and secondary prevention patients. Overall, the polypill seems to be associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular event and comparable safety with usual care treatment with an added benefit of improved adherence over multiple single-ingredient medications. The polypill has potential to be a cost-effective intervention to reduce the global burden of cardiovascular disease.

The Impact of Polypill on Adherence and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Comprehensive Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Polypills, containing various combinations of medications for primary and secondary CVD prevention, have been developed to enhance medication adherence and reduce the healthcare burden of CVD. However, their effectiveness compared to usual care remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of polypills on cardiovascular risk factors, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), and medication adherence.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search for large-scale randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the effects of polypills versus usual care on CVD risk factors and events. Outcomes included changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP, DBP), lipid profiles, occurrence of MACE, and medication adherence.

RESULTS

The use of polypills led to a statistically significant yet clinically modest reduction in SBP (mean difference -1.47 mmHg, 95% CI: -2.50 to -0.44, p<0.01) and DBP (mean difference- 1.10 mmHg, 95% CI: -1.68 to -0.51, p< 0.01) compared to usual care. Polypills also showed a significant reduction in the risk of MACE (RR: 0.86, 95% CI: 0.77 -0.95, p<0.01). There was a non-significant reduction in LDL and HDL levels. Adherence to medication improved by up to 17% in polypill users compared to those on usual care (p < 0.01). A multivariable metaregression analysis suggested that adherence may be the underlying factor responsible for the observed effect of the polypills on blood pressure.

CONCLUSION

Polypills were found to significantly reduce SBP, DBP and MACE. An improvement in medication adherence was also observed among polypill users, which might be responsible for the significant reduction in SBP observed users. Future research might benefit from exploring a more personalized approach to the composition of polypills, which could reveal a more clinically significant impact of increased adherence on CVD outcomes.

Polypill and Combination Therapy: Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of medications prescribed to patients has been progressively increasing, primarily driven by cardioprotective medications. The advent of pharmaceutical 3D printing technology holds the promise of reducing the burden of multiple pills by combining various medications with different release mechanisms into a single tablet. This development encourages a comprehensive review of the evidence supporting the use of combination pills.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent randomized studies have shown higher BP control rates in quadpill groups than in monotherapy groups and improved 6-month BP control rates with a low-dose triple fixed-dose combination (FDC) medication compared to usual care. Recent randomized controlled trials also support FDC use for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Three-dimensional printing technologies such as powder-based (PB) 3D printing, fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3D printing, and semisolid extrusion (EXT) 3D printing are examples of promising technologies that could be utilized to combine multiple medications with different release mechanisms into a single tablet. FDC therapy can provide patients with combination regimens with a reduced pill burden, which promotes improved adherence and efficacy. Recent randomized trials have shown that FDC can be used for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease with no significant difference in adverse events. Multidisciplinary approaches should be implemented to enhance long-term adherence, and further research on establishing affordable and effective initial dual antihypertensive therapy options is necessary. Pharmaceutical 3D printing technology may play an important role in enhancing the flexibility, affordability, and feasibility of clinical FDC utilization.

A review of polypills for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is a prevalent chronic condition managed through pharmacotherapy targeting modifiable risk factors. However, ASCVD patients often face poor medication adherence due to a high pill burden from multiple oral drugs, contributing to cardiovascular events. Recent evidence indicates that polypills combining antihypertensive and statin medications effectively control risk factors and improve adherence in various ASCVD risk patients. Randomized clinical trials demonstrate polypill efficacy in reducing major cardiovascular events, making them a convenient strategy for both established ASCVD patients and those without ASCVD. These positive results encourage the incorporation of polypills into comprehensive cardiovascular prevention programs, particularly for socio-economically vulnerable populations. Nevertheless, barriers remain, such as unclear regulatory approval pathways and physician hesitancy. Despite challenges, the benefits of fixed-dose combinations are evident and should be encouraged for secondary and primary prevention, especially in high-risk categories. Technological advancements could further support the successful integration of polypills in clinical practice. This review discusses the evidence, challenges, and perspectives of polypills, emphasizing their potential impact on cardiovascular disease management.

Association Between Self-Rated Medication Adherence and Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Hypertension

Background Medication nonadherence contributes to poor health outcomes but remains challenging to identify. This study assessed the association between self-rated adherence and systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial). Methods and Results A total of 9361 patients randomized to 2 systolic blood pressure target groups, <120 mm Hg (intensive) and <140 mm Hg (standard), self-rated their medication adherence at each visit by marking a scale, ranging from 0% to 100%. Lower and high adherence were defined as scores ≤80% and >80%, respectively. Linear mixed effect regression models and Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association between self-rated adherence and systolic blood pressure and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, respectively. A total of 9278 participants (mean age 68±9.4 years, 35.6% female) had repeated self-rated adherence measurements available, with a mean of 15±4 measurements per participant over 3.8 years follow-up. Of these, 2694 participants (29.0%) had ≥1 adherence measurements ≤80%. Compared with high-adherent patients, patients with lower adherence had significantly higher estimated on-treatment systolic blood pressure at 2-year follow-up: 128.7 (95% CI, 127.6-129.9) versus 120.0 (95% CI, 119.7-120.2) mm Hg in the intensive arm; and 139.8 (95% CI 138.4-141.1) versus 135.0 (95% CI 134.7-135.2) in the standard arm. Moreover, lower adherence was associated with an estimated 11 mg/dL higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, more cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.69 [95% CI, 1.20-2.39]), and higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.16-2.31]). Conclusions Self-rated adherence allows identification of lower medication adherence and correlates with blood pressure control, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and adverse outcomes.

Polypill-based strategy vs. usual care for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS

We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the impact of a polypill-based strategy (PBS) on therapeutic adherence and cardiovascular outcomes compared with usual care for secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs).

METHODS AND RESULTS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases from inception to January 2023, including RCTs comparing PBS with usual care in patients with prior CVD. We assessed efficacy outcomes of therapeutic adherence, systolic blood pressure (SBP), and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and safety outcomes of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.4.1 and R Version 4.2.1. A total of 8 RCTs with a population of 6541 individuals were included, of whom 3318 (50.7%) were treated with the PBS. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 60 months. The polypill-based strategy was associated with a significantly increased therapeutic adherence [risk ratio (RR) 1.22; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.34; P < 0.001]. Cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.85; P = 0.004), SBP [mean difference (MD) -1.47 mmHg; 95% CI -2.86 to -0.09; P = 0.04], and LDL-C (MD -3.83 mg/dL; 95% CI -6.99 to -0.67; P = 0.02) were significantly lower in the PBS group. The incidence of all-cause mortality was similar between groups (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.54-1.29; P = 0.41).

CONCLUSION

In patients with pre-existing CVD, a PBS is associated with lower cardiovascular mortality and improved therapeutic adherence, along with a modest decrease in SBP and LDL-C compared with usual care. Thus, a PBS may be considered a preferred option for this patient population.

Factors influencing adherence to non-communicable disease medication in India: secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from WHO - SAGE2

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are a leading cause of death globally and disproportionately affect those in low- and middle-income countries lower-middle-income countries. Poor medication adherence among patients with NCDs is prevalent in India due to lack of initiation, missed dosing or cessation of treatment, and represents a growing healthcare and financial burden. Objective: This study aimed to identify factors influencing medication adherence in adults with NCDs in India. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study, conducting secondary data analysis on the second wave of the World Health Organisation's 'Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE)', a survey that collected data from predominantly older adults across India. Bivariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression modelling were conducted to specifically interrogate the reasons for lack of initiation and cessation of treatment. Reporting of this study was informed by the STROBE guidelines. Results: The average medication adherence rate was 51% across 2,840 patients with one or more NCDs, reflecting non-initiation and lack of persistence of treatment. The strongest factor significantly predicting non-adherence to medication across these components was multimorbidity (odds ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.40-0.56). Tobacco use (OR = 0.76, CI 0.59-0.98) and never having attended school (OR = 0.75, CI 0.62-0.92) were significantly associated with poor medication adherence (p < 0.05) while rural living (OR = 0.70, CI 0.48-1.02), feelings of anxiety (OR = 0.84, CI 0.66-1.08) and feelings of depression (OR = 0.90, CI 0.70-1.16) were factors lacking statistically significant association with medication adherence on multivariate analysis. Older age (OR = 2.02, CI 1.51-2.71) was significantly associated with improved medication adherence whilst there was a weak association between increased wealth and improved medication use. Limitations: The SAGE2 survey did not capture whether patients were taking their medication doses according to prescribed instructions-as a result our findings may under-estimate the true prevalence of medication non-adherence. Conclusion: Our analysis provides evidence that poor medication adherence in India is multifactorial, with distinct socioeconomic and health-system factors interacting to influence patient decision making. Future large-scale surveys interrogating adherence should assess all components of adherence specifically, whilst public health interventions to improve medication adherence should focus on barriers that may exist due to multimorbidity, comorbid depression and anxiety, and low educational status.

The Effectiveness of Polypill for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A significant global health concern, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is characterized by a rising prevalence and accompanying mortality rates. It is crucial to implement primary and secondary prevention strategies, particularly in resource-scarce settings. Polypills, which combine blood pressure, cholesterol, and homocysteine drugs, hold significant potential for lowering the risk of CVD. This study follows PRISMA meta-analysis guidelines. Two researchers conducted an extensive literature search. Inclusion criteria encompassed RCT design, polypill use, a four-week duration, and one meta-analysis outcome. Primary outcomes included MACE and CV mortality, while secondary outcomes encompassed SBP and LDL-C changes. Data extraction was performed independently, and conflicts were resolved. Review Manager 5.4 with random effects was employed for statistical analysis, and ROB 2.0 bias evaluation was conducted. The study reported CVD mortality and MACE risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs, as well as SBP and LDL-C weighted mean differences (MD). A total of 24 trials were included in this meta-analysis. The results revealed that the polypill was associated with a decreased risk of CVD mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Additionally, a significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was observed. This meta-analysis showed that polypill is a viable medication for reducing the risk of CVD mortality and MACE. It is also a beneficial medication for lowering LDL-C levels and SBP.

Polypill use for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: A position paper

Cardiovascular (CV) guidelines stress the need for global intervention to manage risk factors and reduce the risk of major vascular events. Growing evidence supports the use of polypill as a strategy to prevent cerebral and cardiovascular disease, however it is still underused in clinical practice. This paper presents an expert consensus aimed to summarize the data regarding polypill use. The authors consider the benefits of polypill and the significant claims for clinical applicability. Potential advantages and disadvantages, data regarding several populations in primary and secondary prevention, and pharmacoeconomic data are also addressed.

Fixed Combination for the Treatment of Dyslipidaemia

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

It is clear from epidemiological studies that patients at high and very-high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (ASCVD) risk do not reach lipid guideline-recommended targets. Thus, fixed-dose combinations of statins/ezetimibe, bempedoic acid/ezetimibe and statins/fibrates may represent a further armamentarium in the field of lipid-lowering approaches in these individuals.

RECENT FINDINGS

The combination therapy of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe is not inferior to high-intensity statin monotherapy in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. Drug discontinuation or dose reduction is inferior with fixed-dose combination. The fixed-dose combination of bempedoic acid with ezetimibe is superior to bempedoic acid in monotherapy in lowering LDL-C and in reducing high-sensitivity C-reactive protein concentrations. The combination fenofibrate with atorvastatin is superior to monotherapies in lowering triglycerides. Lipid-lowering fixed-dose combinations may guarantee a higher therapy adherence, representing a better approach to control plasma lipids and thus ameliorate ASCVD burden. Additional studies will define the advantages on cardiovascular outcomes in high and very high-risk patients.

Benefits of the Polypill on Medication Adherence in the Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review

Background

Higher medication adherence reduces the risk of new cardiovascular events. However, there are individual and health system barriers that lead to lower adherence. The polypill has demonstrated benefits in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality mainly driven by an increase in adherence. We aim to evaluate the impact of the polypill on adherence to cardiovascular medication, its efficacy and safety in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention.

Methods

A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Databases were searched from January 2003 to December 2022. We included randomized, pragmatic, or real-world clinical trials and observational studies. The primary outcome was medication adherence, secondary outcomes were efficacy in cardiovascular disease in primary and secondary prevention and safety.

Results

From the 490 publications screened, 13 met the inclusion criteria and were incorporated into a comparative table Of those included, 70% were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 53.8% focused on secondary prevention. Most of the studies received a high and moderate quality rating. Self-report, pill counting and, the Morisky scale were the most frequent methods to evaluate adherence (84.6%). Compared with standard medication, the polypill improved overall medication adherence by 13%, with percentages ranging from 7.6% to 34.9%. Moreover, a potential benefit was also observed in reducing Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACE), particularly in secondary prevention studies, with hazard ratios ranged between 0.43 to 0.76. Compared to standard care, the profile of side effects was similar.

Conclusion

The polypill is an effective, safe, and practical strategy to improve adherence in people at risk of CVD. Although there is a demonstrated benefit in reducing MACE, predominantly in secondary prevention, there are still gaps in its efficacy in primary prevention and reducing total mortality. Therefore, the importance of obtaining long-term results of the polypill effect and how this strategy can be implemented in real practice.

Meta-Analysis on the Clinical Outcomes With Polypills for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the outcomes of "polypill" therapy in cardiovascular disease prevention have yielded mixed results. We performed an electronic search through January 2023 for RCTs that examined the use of polypills for cardiovascular disease primary or secondary prevention. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs). The final analysis included 11 RCTs with 25,389 patients; 12,791 patients were in the polypill arm, and 12,598 patients were in the control arm. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 5.6 years. Polypill therapy was associated with a lower risk of MACCE (5.8% vs 7.7%; risk ratio [RR] 0.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 0.91). The reduction of MACCE risk was consistent in both primary and secondary prevention. Polypill therapy was associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular mortality (2.1% vs 3%; RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.87), myocardial infarction (2.3% vs 3.2%; RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.84) and stroke (0.9% vs 1.6%; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90). Polypill therapy was associated with a higher degree of adherence. There was no difference between both groups in the incidence of serious adverse events (16.1% vs 15.9%; RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.36). In conclusion, we found that a polypill strategy was associated with a lower incidence of cardiac events and higher adherence, without an increased incidence of adverse events. This benefit was consistent for both primary and secondary prevention.

Recommendations for the care of patients with cardiovascular disease in health emergency situations: a call to action

COVID-19 has had a negative impact on the health care of patients with cardiovascular disease and patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease. The restrictions affecting access to the health care system have conditioned the care received, resulting in poorer control and a higher risk of events. Taking action to improve the care provided during health emergencies is mandatory. It is important to promote the development of telemedicine and patient empowerment by fostering health literacy and a higher degree of self-care. In addition, primary care and coordination between health care levels should be improved. Moreover, the simplification and optimization of treatment, for example, using the cardiovascular polypill, have led to an improvement in adherence, better control of vascular risk factors, and a reduced risk of events. The present document provides specific recommendations for improving the care provided to patients under a health emergency.

Polypill Therapy in Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of polypill therapy in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disorders is still unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy of polypill therapy in reducing cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated polypill therapy for cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. We included 18 RCTs with a total of 20,463 participants in our analysis. Pooled effect estimates were reported as Odds ratios (ORs) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Polypill therapy was associated with a statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) [OR: -0.33, 95% CI (-0.64, -0.03); P-value= 0.03], diastolic blood pressure (DBP) [OR: -0.70, 95% CI (-1.20, -0.21); P-value= 0.005], and total cholesterol level [OR: -1.25, 95% CI (-1.82, -0.68); P-value < 0.0001]. Polypill therapy also showed improved adherence [OR 2.18, 95% CI (1.47, 3.24); P-value= 0.0001]. However, there was no statistically significant benefit in the reduction of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and LDL-c levels.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of polypill therapy is associated with a statistically significant reduction in SBP, DBP, and total cholesterol levels, as well as improved adherence. Further research is needed to determine its impact on hard clinical outcomes such as mortality and major cardiovascular events.

An Expert Opinion on the Role of the Rosuvastatin/Amlodipine Single Pill Fixed Dose Combination in Cardiovascular Prevention

Current cardiovascular disease prevention strategies are based on the management of cardiovascular risk as a continuum, redefining the therapeutic goals for each individual based on the estimated global risk profile. Given the frequent clustering of the principal cardiovascular risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia, in the same individual, patients are required to take multiple drugs to achieve therapeutic targets. The adoption of single pill fixed dose combinations may contribute to achieve better control of blood pressure and cholesterol compared to the separate administration of the individual drugs, mostly due to better adherence related to therapeutic simplicities. This paper reports the outcomes of an Expert multidisciplinary Roundtable. In particular, the rational and potential clinical use of the single pill fixed dose combination "Rosuvastatin-Amlodipine" for the management of concomitant hypertension/hypercholesterolemia in different clinical fields are discussed. This Expert Opinion also illustrates the importance of an early and effective management of total cardiovascular risk, highlights the substantial benefits of combining blood pressure and lipid-lowering treatments in a single-pill fixed dose combination and attempts to identify and overcome the barriers to the implementation in clinical practice of the fixed dose combinations with dual targets. This Expert Panel identifies and proposes the categories of patients who may benefit the most from this fixed dose combination.

Polypill Programs to Prevent Stroke and Cut Costs in Low Income Countries: Moving From Clinical Efficacy to Pragmatic Implementation

Current projections are that the already overwhelming burden of strokes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) will continue to rise over the coming decades as the prevalence of traditional vascular risk factors burgeon in these countries. Cardiovascular polypills containing combinations of antihypertensive(s), a statin, with or without aspirin or folic acid in the form of a single pill, represent a viable strategy for both primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases in LMICs. Large multicenter trials in LMIC and high-income country (HIC) settings have now clearly demonstrated the beneficial effects of the cardiovascular polypill versus placebo (or usual care) in reducing primary stroke risk by 50%. For survivors of a recent myocardial infarction residing in HICs, the polypill reduced risk of major cardiovascular events by 25% due to improved treatment adherence. Data on the clinical efficacy of the polypill for secondary stroke prevention are scanty both in HICs and LMICs. Cost-effectiveness analyses data from LMICs suggest cost savings with the polypill for primary and secondary prevention of stroke and atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. However, major contextual barriers in LMICs need to be surmounted through mixed methods research and hybrid clinical trials to assess its real-world effectiveness, before the adoption of the polypill for primary and secondary atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention in routine clinical practice.

Fixed dose combination drugs for cardiovascular disease in a prolonged humanitarian crisis in Lebanon: an implementation study

OBJECTIVES

This pre-post implementation study evaluated the introduction of fixed dose combination (FDC) medications for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) secondary prevention into routine care in a humanitarian setting.

SETTING

Two Médecins sans Frontières (MSF) primary care clinics serving Syrian refugee and host populations in north Lebanon.

PARTICIPANTS

Consenting patients ≥18 years with existing ASCVD requiring secondary prevention medication were eligible for study enrolment. Those with FDC contraindication(s) or planning to move were excluded. Of 521 enrolled patients, 460 (88.3%) were retained at 6 months, and 418 (80.2%) switched to FDC. Of these, 84% remained on FDC (n=351), 8.1% (n=34) discontinued and 7.9% (n=33) were lost to follow-up by month 12.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible patients, enrolled February-May 2019, were switched to Trinomia FDC (atorvastatin 20 mg, aspirin 100 mg, ramipril 2.5/5/10 mg) after 6 months' usual care. During the study, the COVID-19 pandemic, an economic crisis and clinic closures occurred.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive and regression analyses compared key outcomes at 6 and 12 months: medication adherence, non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) control. We performed per-protocol, intention-to-treat and secondary analyses of non-switchers.

RESULTS

Among 385 switchers remaining at 12 months, total adherence improved 23%, from 63% (95% CI 58 to 68) at month 6, to 86% (95% CI 82 to 90) at month 12; mean non-HDL-C levels dropped 0.28 mmol/L (95% CI -0.38 to -0.18; p<0.0001), from 2.39 (95% CI 2.26 to 2.51) to 2.11 mmol/L (95% CI 2.00 to 2.22); mean SBP dropped 2.89 mm Hg (95% CI -4.49 to -1.28; p=0.0005) from 132.7 (95% CI 130.8 to 134.6) to 129.7 mm Hg (95% CI 127.9 to 131.5). Non-switchers had smaller improvements in adherence and clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Implementing an ASCVD secondary prevention FDC improved adherence and CVD risk factors in MSF clinics in Lebanon, with potential for wider implementation by humanitarian actors and host health systems.

How to optimize the adherence to a guideline-directed medical therapy in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases: a clinical consensus statement from the European Association of Preventive Cardiology

A key factor to successful secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is optimal patient adherence to treatment. However, unsatisfactory rates of adherence to treatment for CVD risk factors and CVD have been observed consistently over the last few decades. Hence, achieving optimal adherence to lifestyle measures and guideline-directed medical therapy in secondary prevention and rehabilitation is a great challenge to many healthcare professionals. Therefore, in this European Association of Preventive Cardiology clinical consensus document, a modern reappraisal of the adherence to optimal treatment is provided, together with simple, practical, and feasible suggestions to achieve this goal in the clinical setting, focusing on evidence-based concepts.

Effect of the Polypill on Adherence and Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in Patients With or at High Risk of Cardiovascular Diseases: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

It is important to understand the role of polypills on medication adherence and clinical outcomes in patients with or at high risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVD) to help decision-makers make robust guidelines on using polypills in these people. Therefore, the current meta-analysis was conducted to assess the impact of polypills on medication adherence and clinical outcomes in patients with or at high risk of CVD. The present meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We searched the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized control trials (RCTs) from inception to January 1, 2023. The outcomes assessed in the present meta-analysis were adherence to prescribed drugs at the study end, the incidence of cardiovascular events, and change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) from baseline to the study end in mmol/l. A total of six studies were included in the present meta-analysis, with a total sample size of 13139 (6577 in the polypill group and 6562 in the control group). Meta-analysis showed that medication adherence was significantly higher in patients receiving polypills compared to the control group (relative risk (RR): 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22-1.56, p-value: 0.001). The risk of a cardiovascular event was significantly lower in the polypill group (RR: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.63-0.82, p-value: 0.001). No significant differences were found in the changes in LDL-C and total cholesterol between the two groups. This meta-analysis shows a significant impact of polypills on medication adherence. We also found that polypills can reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events in patients with or at high risk of CVD. Our study has also shown that regardless of the history of CVD, polypills play an important role in promoting medication adherence in patients with and without a history of CVD.

Polypill Strategy in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention

BACKGROUND

A polypill that includes key medications associated with improved outcomes (aspirin, angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitor, and statin) has been proposed as a simple approach to the secondary prevention of cardiovascular death and complications after myocardial infarction.

METHODS

In this phase 3, randomized, controlled clinical trial, we assigned patients with myocardial infarction within the previous 6 months to a polypill-based strategy or usual care. The polypill treatment consisted of aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg). The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, or urgent revascularization. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, or nonfatal ischemic stroke.

RESULTS

A total of 2499 patients underwent randomization and were followed for a median of 36 months. A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02). A key secondary-outcome event occurred in 101 patients (8.2%) in the polypill group and in 144 (11.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.90; P = 0.005). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. Medication adherence as reported by the patients was higher in the polypill group than in the usual-care group. Adverse events were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with a polypill containing aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin within 6 months after myocardial infarction resulted in a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than usual care. (Funded by the European Union Horizon 2020; SECURE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02596126; EudraCT number, 2015-002868-17.).

Fixed-Dose Combination (Polypill) for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

This meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy of fixed-dose combination (polypill) in reducing the risk of mortality and cardiovascular events.

METHODS

Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central were searched during May 2021. All randomized trials investigating the efficacy of antihypertensive and lipid-lowering ± antiplatelet drug combinations in patients at cardiovascular risk were included. Outcomes were presented as risk ratios or standardized mean differences with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 16 trials (N = 26,567 participants) were included. The risk reduction for all-cause mortality (risk ratio = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.79, 1.01; I² = 0%; moderate certainty) and major adverse cardiac events (risk ratio=0.84; 95% CI=0.68, 1.04; I²=51%; very low certainty) did not reach statistical significance in comparison with those of the control group. Subgroup analysis of studies that used an active control yielded similar results. However, significant reductions in major adverse cardiac event risk were observed in studies that exclusively targeted primary prevention, followed patients for ≥4 years, and had a low risk of bias. The polypill group had significantly higher adherence (risk ratio=1.18; 95% CI=1.06, 1.32; I²=96%; very low certainty) and comprable rates of adverse side effects (risk ratio=1.10; 95% CI=0.98, 1.23; I²=58%; moderate certainty) with those of the control group. Patients randomized to the polypill had significant reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure as well as in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

DISCUSSION

Despite reductions in cardiovascular risk factors, the observed mortality benefit for the polypill did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are needed to validate its clinical benefits and determine the patient populations likely to achieve such benefits.

Cost-effectiveness of fixed-dose combination pill (Polypill) in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality could be prevented via the population-based and cost-effective interventions. A fixed-dose combination treatment is known as the polypill for the primary and secondary prevention of CVD has come up in recent years.

PURPOSE

In order to provide recommendations for future economic evaluations, this systematic review aimed to review and assess the quality of published evidence on the cost-effectiveness of polypill in primary and secondary prevention of CVD, to identify the key drivers that impact the cost-effectiveness.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature, following the PRISMA guidelines, was undertaken in the electronic databases. Two researchers identified the relevant studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist was used to quality assessment of included studies. ICERs value adjusted to 2020 United States Dollar using consumer price index (CPI) and purchasing power parity (PPP). Finally, data were summarized via a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

In total, 24 articles were identified based on the determined inclusion criteria. All studies met more than 50% of the CHEERS criteria. Adjusted incremental cost-effectiveness ratios varied from 24$ to 31000$(2020 US dollar) among the studies. The polypill resulted in the improved adherence and quality of life, at a price equal to or lower than multiple monotherapies. This price is typically below the commonly accepted thresholds or cost saving in both, primary and secondary prevention of CVD. The main identified cost-effectiveness drivers were the polypill price, adherence, age, CVD risk, and drug combination.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review found that the polypill seemed to be a cost-effective intervention in primary and secondary prevention of CVD. However, it is necessary to conduct more economic evaluation studies based on the long-term clinical trials with large populations. Also, studies should consider how the polypill interacts with other primary and secondary preventive strategies as a complementary health strategy.

Association of polypill therapy with cardiovascular outcomes, mortality, and adherence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Prior studies have reported improvements in population-level risk factor burden and cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes using polypills for CVD risk reduction. However, a comprehensive assessment of the impact of polypills on CVD outcomes, mortality, adherence, and side effects across different settings has not previously been reported. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials examining the association between polypill therapy and CVD outcomes published before February 2021. The primary outcome of interest was the risk of major adverse CVD events (MACE). Risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes were converted to log RR and pooled using a generic inverse variance weighted random-effects model. Data for continuous outcomes were pooled using random-effects modeling and presented as mean differences with 95% CIs. Eight studies representing 25,584 patients were included for analysis. In the overall pooled analysis, the use of polypills was associated with a non-significant reduction in the risk of MACE (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70-1.02) and significant reductions in the risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81-1.00). The reductions in the risk of MACE with polypill use varied by baseline risk and nature of the study population (primary prevention vs. secondary prevention), with the most significant risk reduction among lower-risk cohorts, including within primary prevention populations [RR 0.70 (0.62, 0.79)]. Among measures of CVD risk factors, modest but significant reductions were observed for systolic and diastolic blood pressure [systolic: mean difference 1.99 mmHg (95% CI: -3.07 to -0.91); diastolic: mean difference 1.30 mmHg (95% CI: -2.42 to -0.19), but not for levels of total or low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol. Use of the polypill strategy significantly improved drug adherence (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.11-1.55) with no association between polypill use and rates of adverse events or drug discontinuation. The use of polypill formulations is associated with significant reductions in CVD risk factors and the risk of all-cause mortality and MACE, particularly in the low-risk and primary prevention population.

Polypill: Benefits Seen for Stroke and Other Outcomes

A polypill-type strategy for primary prevention was first published at the turn of the century and advised that a multi-ingredient pill applied to an adult population would prevent up to 80% of cardiovascular and stroke events. Such a pill should contain small doses of antihypertensives, lipid-lowering drugs, and some nutrients. The startling increase of the global stroke burden has led to a revival of this concept and the propagation of a population-based prevention strategy. Recent cardiovascular fixed-dose combination trials have shown a significant effect in reducing not only blood pressure and cholesterol levels but also in reducing cardiovascular and stroke events. In most of the studies, the study population was for secondary prevention and the total number of strokes was small. Nevertheless, it is now clear that a large proportion of primary prevention must take this path. It is especially promising when combined with community health workers interventions for modifying risk behavior. While a polypill-type approach seems most efficacious in underserved regions of high-income countries as well as in low- and middle-income countries, it seems to have a large overall effect in spite of some problems with nonadherence or potential side effects. It should be available and affordable for large target populations. Larger phase 4 studies are under way.

Implementation of fixed-dose combination therapy for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease among Syrian refugees in Lebanon: a qualitative evaluation

Background

We report findings of a qualitative evaluation of fixed-dose combination therapy for patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) attending Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) clinics in Lebanon. Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, and humanitarian actors are increasingly faced with the challenge of providing care for chronic diseases such as ASCVD in settings where health systems are disrupted. Secondary prevention strategies, involving 3–5 medications, are known to be effective for patients at risk of heart attack or stroke, but supply and adherence are challenging in humanitarian settings. Fixed dose combination therapy, combining two or more medications in one tablet, may be a strategy to address this.

Methods

The evaluation was nested within a prospective mixed-methods study in which eligible ASCVD patients were followed for 1 year during (i) 6 months of usual care then (ii) 6 months of fixed dose combination (FDC) therapy. After 1 year, we conducted in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of patients, MSF staff and external stakeholders. Interviews focused on acceptability and sustainability of the fixed dose therapy intervention. Interview data were analysed thematically, informed by thea Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Additional attention was paid to non-typical cases in order to test and strengthen analysis.

Results

Patients and health care providers were positive about the FDC intervention. For patients, acceptability was related to ease of treatment and trust in MSF staff, while, for staff, it was related to perceived improvements in adherence, having a good understanding of the medication and its use, and fitting well with their priorities for patient’s wellbeing. External stakeholders were less familiar with FDC therapy. While external clinicals expressed concerns about treatment inflexibility, non-clinician stakeholder interviews suggested that cost-effectiveness would have a major influence on FDC therapy acceptability. Sustainability was tied to the future role of MSF care provision and coherence with the local health system.

Conclusions

For patients and clinic staff, FDC was an acceptable treatment approach for secondary prevention of ASCVD disease in two MSF clinics in Lebanon. Sustainability is more complex and calls for better alignment of care with public systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08040-z.

Scalability of effective adherence interventions for patients using cardiovascular disease medication - a realist synthesis inspired systematic review

Upscaling of medication adherence interventions to routine care is still challenging. This realist theory inspired review aimed to assess which intervention aspects are potentially important for the scalability of effective cardiovascular disease (CVD) medication adherence interventions and how they are reported in effectiveness studies. A total of 4097 articles from four databases were screened of which ultimately 31 studies were included. Relevant information on scalability was extracted using a theoretic framework based on the scalability assessment tool used in the QUALIDEC study for the following domains; (i) innovation, (ii) implementers and patients, (iii) adopting organizations and health system and (iv) socio-political context. Extracted articles were analysed for themes and chains of inference, which were grouped based on commonality and source of evidence to form new hypotheses. Six different domains relevant for scalability of adherence interventions were identified: 1) Complexity of the intervention 2) training; 3) customization of the intervention; 4) drivers of the intervention; 5) technical interventions 6) stakeholder involvement. These six domains might be useful for the development of more scalable interventions by bridging the gap between research and practice. Data relevant for scalability is not well reported on in effectiveness trials for CVD medication adherence interventions and only limited data on scalability has been published in additional papers. We believe the adoption and reach of effective CVD medication adherence interventions will improve with increased awareness for the necessity of scalability in all phases of intervention development.

A Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of New-Formulation Zenon (Rosuvastatin/Ezetimibe Fixed-Dose Combination) in Primary Hypercholesterolemia Inadequately Controlled by Statins

OBJECTIVE

In primary hypercholesterolemia many people treated with statins do not reach their plasma LDL-C goals and are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of a new fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe (R/E) in this population.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-arm study of FDC R/E in people with primary hypercholesterolemia at very high risk (VHR) or high risk (HR) of CVD, inadequately controlled with 20 mg or 10 mg stable daily dose of rosuvastatin or equipotent dose of another statin. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of FDC R/E versus rosuvastatin monotherapy uptitrated to 40 mg (R40) or 20 mg (R20) in reduction of LDL-C after 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Randomized VHR participants (n = 244) were treated with R40, R40/E10, or R20/E10; randomized HR participants (n = 208) received R10/E10 or R20. In VHR participants, superiority of R40/E10 and R20/E10 versus R40 was demonstrated on LDL-C percent change from baseline to Week 6 with least squares mean differences (LSMD) of -19.66% (95% CI: -29.48% to -9.84%; P < .001) and -12.28% (95% CI: -22.12% to -2.44%; P = .015), respectively. In HR participants, superiority of R10/E10 over R20 was not demonstrated (LSMD -5.20%; 95% CI: -15.18% to 4.78%; P = .306), despite clinically relevant LDL-C reduction with R10/E10. No unexpected safety findings were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this study suggest that R/E FDCs improve LDL-C reduction and goal achievement in people with primary hypercholesterolemia inadequately controlled with statins and at VHR/HR of CVD.

Medication adherence in cardiovascular medicine

Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death globally. While pharmacological advancements have improved the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease, non-adherence to prescribed treatment remains a significant barrier to improved patient outcomes. A variety of strategies to improve medication adherence have been tested in clinical trials, and include the following categories: improving patient education, implementing medication reminders, testing cognitive behavioral interventions, reducing medication costs, utilizing healthcare team members, and streamlining medication dosing regimens. In this review, we describe specific trials within each of these categories and highlight the impact of each on medication adherence. We also examine ongoing trials and future lines of inquiry for improving medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular diseases.

Position statement on use of pharmacological combinations in a single pill for treatment of hypertension by Argentine Federation of Cardiology (FAC) and Argentine Society of Hypertension (SAHA)

The present document provides scientific evidence reviewed and analysed by a group of specialist clinicians in hypertension that aims to give an insight into a pharmacological strategy to improve blood pressure control. Evidence shows that most hypertensive patients will need at least two drugs to achieve blood pressure goals. There is ample evidence showing that treatment adherence is inversely related to the number of drugs taken. Observational studies show that use of drug combinations to initiate treatment reduces the time to reach the treatment goal and reduces CVD, especially with single pill combinations (SPCs). This work, based on recommendations of the Argentine Federation of Cardiology and Argentine Society of Hypertension as a reference, aims to review the more recent evidence on SPC, and to serve as guidelines for health professionals in their clinical practice and to the wider use of SPCs for the treatment of hypertension. Evidence from clinical trials on the effectiveness and adverse effects of using SPCs are provided. An analysis is also made of the main contributions of SPCs in special populations, e.g., elderly and diabetic patients, and its use in high risk and resistant hypertension. The effects of SPCs on hypertensive-mediated organ damage is also examined. Finally, we provide some aspects to consider when choosing treatments in the economic context of Latin-America for promoting the most efficient use of resources in a scarce environment and to provide quality information to decision makers to formulate safe, cost-effective, and patient-centered health policies. Finally, future perspectives and limitations in clinical practice are also discussed.

Adherence at 2 years with distribution of essential medicines at no charge: The CLEAN Meds randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Adherence to medicines is low for a variety of reasons, including the cost borne by patients. Some jurisdictions publicly fund medicines for the general population, but many jurisdictions do not, and such policies are contentious. To our knowledge, no trials studying free access to a wide range of medicines have been conducted.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We randomly assigned 786 primary care patients who reported not taking medicines due to cost between June 1, 2016 and April 28, 2017 to either free distribution of essential medicines (n = 395) or to usual medicine access (n = 391). The trial was conducted in Ontario, Canada, where hospital care and physician services are publicly funded for the general population but medicines are not. The trial population was mostly female (56%), younger than 65 years (83%), white (66%), and had a low income from wages as the primary source (56%). The primary outcome was medicine adherence after 2 years. Secondary outcomes included control of diabetes, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in patients taking relevant treatments and healthcare costs over 2 years. Adherence to all appropriate prescribed medicines was 38.7% in the free distribution group and 28.6% in the usual access group after 2 years (absolute difference 10.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.3 to 16.9, p = 0.004). There were no statistically significant differences in control of diabetes (hemoglobin A1c 0.27; 95% CI -0.25 to 0.79, p = 0.302), systolic blood pressure (-3.9; 95% CI -9.9 to 2.2, p = 0.210), or LDL cholesterol (0.26; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.60, p = 0.130) based on available data. Total healthcare costs over 2 years were lower with free distribution (difference in median CAN$1,117; 95% CI CAN$445 to CAN$1,778, p = 0.006). In the free distribution group, 51 participants experienced a serious adverse event, while 68 participants in the usual access group experienced a serious adverse event (p = 0.091). Participants were not blinded, and some outcomes depended on participant reports.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that free distribution of essential medicines to patients with cost-related nonadherence substantially increased adherence, did not affect surrogate health outcomes, and reduced total healthcare costs over 2 years.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02744963.

The value of the polypill in cardiovascular disease: an Italian multidisciplinary Delphi panel consensus

The purpose of this work was to reach the consensus of a multidisciplinary and multistakeholder Italian panel on the value of polypill in cardiovascular disease, with respect to the clinical, technological, economic and organizational dimension. A three-step modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus. Eleven experts in the area of cardiology, pharmaceutical technology, general practice, hospital pharmacy, pharmacology, and health economics participated in the expert panel. To identify existing evidence concerning the value of polypill in the prevention of patients with cardiovascular disease, a systematic literature review was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines. In the first round, 22 statements were distributed to the panel. Panel members were asked to mark 'agree' or 'disagree' for each statement and provide any comments. The same voting method was again used for the second round. In the first round nine statements met consensus. In the second round, 10 statements reached consensus. Overall, consensus was reached for 19 statements representing five value polypill domains: clinical, technological, economic and organizational. During a final web meeting with all panel members consensus document open points were discussed. Panel members agreed to recognize polypill as effective in reducing cardiovascular events, blood pressure and lipids, cardiovascular risk and the weight of therapy, in therapeutic adherence improvement, in the absence of differences in bioavailability between drugs administered in fixed or free combinations and the better cost-effectiveness profile compared with standard care. This document represents a knowledge framework to inform decision makers of the value of polypill in cardiovascular prevention.

Polypill eligibility and equivalent intake in a Swiss population-based study

The polypill has been advocated for cardiovascular disease (CVD) management. The fraction of the population who could benefit from the polypill in Switzerland is unknown. Assess (1) the prevalence of subjects (a) eligible for the polypill and (b) already taking a polypill equivalent; and (2) the determinants of polypill intake in the first (2009–2012) and second follow-ups (2014–2017) of a population-based prospective study conducted in Lausanne, Switzerland. The first and the second follow-ups included 5038 and 4596 participants aged 40–80 years, respectively. Polypill eligibility was defined as having a high CVD risk as assessed by an absolute CVD risk ≥ 5% with the SCORE equation for Switzerland and/or presenting with CVD. Four polypill equivalents were defined: statin + any antihypertensive with (A) or without (B) aspirin; statin + calcium channel blocker (CCB) (C); and statin + CCB + angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (D). The prevalence of polypill eligibility was 20.6% (95% CI 19.5–21.8) and 27.7% (26.5–29.1) in the first and second follow-up, respectively. However, only around one-third of the eligible 29.5% (95% CI 26.7–32.3) and 30.4% (27.9–33.0) respectively, already took the polypill equivalents. All polypill equivalents were more prevalent among men, elderly and in presence of CVD. After multivariable adjustment, in both periods, male gender was associated with taking polypill equivalent A (OR: 1.93; 95% CI 1.45–2.55 and OR: 1.67; 95% CI 1.27–2.19, respectively) and polypill equivalent B (OR: 1.52; 95% CI 1.17–1.96 and OR: 1.41; 95% CI 1.07–1.85, respectively). Similarly, in both periods, age over 70 years, compared to middle-age, was associated with taking polypill equivalent A (OR: 11.71; CI 6.74–20.33 and OR: 9.56; CI 4.13–22.13, respectively) and equivalent B (OR: 13.22; CI 7.27–24.07 and OR: 20.63; CI 6.51–56.36, respectively). Former or current smoking was also associated with a higher likelihood of taking polypill equivalent A in both periods. A large fraction of the population is eligible for the polypill, but only one-third of them actually benefits from an equivalent, and this proportion did not change over time.

Association of Low-Dose Triple Combination Therapy With Therapeutic Inertia and Prescribing Patterns in Patients With Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of the TRIUMPH Trial

Importance

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapies are being increasingly recommended for initial or early management of patients with hypertension, as they reduce treatment complexity and potentially reduce therapeutic inertia.

Objective

To investigate the association of antihypertensive triple drug FDC therapy with therapeutic inertia and prescribing patterns compared with usual care.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A post hoc analysis of the Triple Pill vs Usual Care Management for Patients With Mild-to-Moderate Hypertension (TRIUMPH) study, a randomized clinical trial of 700 patients with hypertension, was conducted. Patients were enrolled from 11 urban hospital clinics in Sri Lanka from February 2016 to May 2017; follow-up ended in October 2017. Data were analyzed from September to November 2019.

Interventions

Once-daily FDC antihypertensive pill (telmisartan, 20 mg; amlodipine, 2.5 mg; and chlorthalidone, 12.5 mg) or usual care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Therapeutic inertia, defined as not intensifying therapy in those with blood pressure (BP) above target, was assessed at baseline and during follow-up visits. Prescribing patterns were characterized by BP-lowering drug class and treatment regimen potency. Predictors of therapeutic inertia were assessed with binomial logistic regression.

Results

Of the 700 included patients, 403 (57.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 56 (11) years. Among patients who did not reach the BP target, therapeutic inertia was more common in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at the week 6 visit (92 of 106 [86.8%] vs 124 of 194 [63.9%]; P < .001) and week 12 visit (81 of 90 [90%] vs 116 of 179 [64.8%]; P < .001). At the end of the study, 221 of 318 patients in the triple pill group (69.5%) and 182 of 329 patients in the usual care group (55.3%) reached BP targets. Among those who received treatment intensification, the increase in estimated regimen potency was greater in the triple pill group compared with the usual care group at baseline (predicted mean [SD] increase in regimen potency: triple pill, 15 [6] mm Hg; usual care, 10 [5] mm Hg; P < .001), whereas there were no significant differences at the week 6 or at week 12 visit. Clinic systolic BP level was the only consistent predictor of treatment intensification during follow-up. During follow-up, there were 23 vs 54 unique treatment regimens per 100 treated patients in the triple pill vs usual care groups, respectively (P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Triple pill FDC therapy was associated with greater rates of therapeutic inertia compared with usual care. Despite this, triple pill FDC therapy substantially simplified prescribing patterns and improved 6-month BP control rates compared with usual care. Further improvements in hypertension control could be achieved by addressing therapeutic inertia among the minority of patients who do not achieve BP control after initial FDC therapy.

Trial Registration

ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12612001120864.

Use of the Cardiovascular Polypill in Secondary Prevention of Cerebrovascular Disease: A Real-Life Tertiary Hospital Cohort Study of 104 Patients

BACKGROUND

The use of the cardiovascular polypill, a fixed-dose combination treatment, is conceived to improve adherence. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may overestimate it. Studies focusing on cerebrovascular disease and real-life efficacy compared with conventional treatment are lacking.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, hospital-based cohort study of acute ischaemic stroke patients who were prescribed a polypill (aspirin 100 mg, atorvastatin 20/40 mg, ramipril 2.5/5/10 mg) versus conventional treatment (aspirin 100 mg and other blood pressure/lipid-lowering agents) in secondary prevention (2017-2018). Clinical records were reviewed 90 days after discharge for stroke recurrence, vascular risk factor control, and safety. Adherence was assessed using the adapted Morisky-Green scale.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included (61% male; mean age 69.7 ± 13.9 years); 54 were treated with the polypill and 50 with conventional treatment. No baseline differences in clinical or demographic variables were detected. No recurrences were registered in the polypill group, compared to 1 recurrence in the conventional treatment group. A significant reduction of systolic blood pressure (SBP) was achieved in the polypill group (12.1 mm Hg) compared to the conventional treatment group (6.8 mm Hg) (p = 0.002). No significant differences were detected regarding the goal of LDL cholesterol ≤70 mg/dL (41 vs. 44%). The adverse events were mild and their frequency was similar in the two groups (9 vs. 2%, ns). Adherence was similarly good in the two groups (93 vs. 88%, ns). Polypill group adherence was similar to that reported in a previous meta-analysis of RCTs (93 vs. 84%, ns).

CONCLUSION

In our experience, the cardiovascular polypill achieved a higher reduction in SBP levels and was well tolerated. Adherence was similar to that found in the previous literature, which is remarkable given the real-life setting of our study.

The feasibility of polypill for cardiovascular disease prevention in Asian Population

Polypill is a fixed‐dose combination of medications with proven benefits for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Its role in CVD prevention has been extensively debated since the inception of this concept in 2003. There are two major kinds of polypills in clinical studies. The first is polypill that combines multiple low‐dose medications for controlling only one CVD risk factor (such as high blood pressure or high serum cholesterol). These “single‐purpose” polypills were mostly developed from original producers and have higher cost. The polypill that combines 3‐4 pharmaceutical components, each with potential to reduce one major cardiovascular risk factors is “multi‐purpose” or “cardiovascular” polypill. Using data from various clinical trials and from meta‐analysis, Wald and Law claimed that this “cardiovascular” polypill when administered to every individual older than 55 years could reduce the incidence of CVD by more than 80%. Several short and intermediate to long‐term studies with different cardiovascular polypills in phase II and III trials showed that they could provide better adherence, equivalent, or better risk factor control and quality of life among users as compared to usual care. One recently published randomized controlled clinical trial demonstrated the effectiveness and safety of a four‐component polypill for both primary and secondary CVD prevention with acceptable number needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one major cardiovascular event. Considering the slow achievement of CVD prevention in many poor‐ and middle‐income Asian countries and also the need to further improve compliance of antihypertensive and lipid lowering medications in many high‐income Asian countries, the concept of “cardiovascular polypill” could be very useful. With further support from ongoing polypill cardiovascular outcome trials, polypill could be the foundation of the population‐based strategies for CVD prevention.

Implementing Fixed Dose Combination Medications for the Prevention and Control of Cardiovascular Diseases

Highlights:  - Despite clinical evidence of its effectiveness in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, uptake of fixed dose combination therapy (FDCs) for CVD has been poor.- A symposium was held bringing together stakeholders on this issue, including from academia, government and NGOs.- The conclusion made was that what is now needed to improve implementation of FDCs is country-specific health systems analyses to design appropriate implementation strategies.- Implementation strategies must look beyond listing on the WHO Essential Medicines List to consider approaches to improving FDC availability, accessibility, affordability, and adherence.- Strategies might include incorporation of FDCs into the WHO HEARTS technical package, simplified treatment and monitoring algorithms, decentralisation of medicine dispensing and task-sharing for treatment management.

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetics of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Rosuvastatin/Metformin Sustained-Release (10/1000 mg) and Separate Tablets in Healthy Male Subjects

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) drugs with various dose combinations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia are currently in demand. We compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of the rosuvastatin/metformin sustained-release (10/1000 mg) FDC and separate tablets and evaluated the effect of food by randomized, open-label, 3-period, 6-sequence crossover studies conducted in healthy male subjects. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the following treatments: separate tablets of 10 mg rosuvastatin and 1000 mg metformin sustained release in the fed state and the FDC in the fasted and fed states. PK samples were collected up to 72 hours postdose for rosuvastatin, N-desmethyl rosuvastatin, and metformin. The PK parameters were determined using a noncompartmental method, and the geometric mean ratio (GMR) and the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the treatments were calculated. A total of 35 subjects completed the study. The GMR and 90%CI of the peak concentration (C_max ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration (AUC_last ) of the FDC and the separate tablets were within the bioequivalence criteria (0.8-1.25) for both rosuvastatin and metformin. The effect of food was statistically significant for both rosuvastatin and metformin but not expected to be of clinical significance.

Facing the Challenge of Lowering Blood Pressure and Cholesterol in the Same Patient: Report of a Symposium at the European Society of Hypertension

A symposium held at the 29th European Meeting on Hypertension and Cardiovascular Protection in Milan, Italy, discussed the potential impact and long-term benefits of early active management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in patients with hypertension, and potential barriers to this strategy. Hypertension often aggregates with other cardiovascular risk factors, exponentially increasing morbidity and mortality. While effective therapies to treat hypertension exist, a substantial number of patients still experience major cardiovascular events. Two major issues account for these disappointing results: interventions initiated too late in the disease trajectory and lack of effective translation of the research findings into daily clinical practice. Results from genetic studies suggest that lifetime exposure to lower blood pressure (BP) and cholesterol levels due to protective gene mutations, can provide greater cardiovascular benefits than middle-/late-age interventions. Clinical guidelines suggest adding statins to BP-lowering therapies for further cardiovascular benefits in most hypertensive patients; however, real-world data show that physicians' compliance with these recommendations and patients' adherence to BP- and lipid-lowering treatments remain poor, resulting in poor risk factor control and an increased risk of adverse outcomes. The use of single-pill combinations (SPC) can partially mitigate these issues, as they are associated with increased patient adherence and improved BP control. Treatment with SPC has been recommended in the European Hypertension Guidelines, but optimization of the total CVD risk may need adoption of more ambitious treatment strategies aimed to deliver single pills that control multiple CVD risk factors. Amlodipine, perindopril and atorvastatin have been shown to improve BP and lipid levels to a great extent when given separately, and this combination has also been shown to improve cardiovascular outcomes. Overall, early intervention in patients with hypertension with use of an effective, high-intensity cardiovascular risk reduction regimen and attention to medication adherence through reducing pill burden are likely to result in optimal outcomes.