IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0052145.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Efficacy and Tolerability of ‘Polypills’: Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • C Raina Elley
  • Ajay K Gupta
  • Ruth Webster
  • Vanessa Selak
  • Min Jun
  • Anushka Patel
  • Anthony Rodgers
  • Simon Thom

Abstract

Background: To assess the blood pressure and lipid-lowering efficacy and tolerability of ‘polypills’ used in cardiovascular disease prevention trials. Methodology/Principal Findings: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Search strategy: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, and PubMed databases were searched for eligible trials. Study inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials of at least six weeks duration, which compared a ‘polypill’ (that included at least one anti-hypertensive and one lipid-lowering medication) with a placebo (or one active component). Outcome measures: Change from baseline in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, and total and LDL-cholesterol; discontinuation of study medication and reported adverse effects. Of 44 potentially eligible studies, six trials (including 2,218 patients without previous cardiovascular disease) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, ‘polypills’ reduced systolic blood pressure by −9.2 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI): −13.4, −5.0) diastolic blood pressure by −5.0 mmHg (95%CI: −7.4, −2.6), total cholesterol by −1.22 mmol/L (95%CI: −1.60, −0.84) and LDL-cholesterol by −1.02 mmol/L (95%CI: −1.37, −0.67). However, those taking a ‘polypill’ (vs. placebo or component) were more likely to discontinue medication (20% vs 14%) (Odds ratio: 1.5 (95% CI: 1.2, 1.9)). There was no significant difference in reported adverse effects amongst those on a ‘polypill’ (36% vs. 28%) (OR: 1.3 (95%CI: 0.7, 2.5)). There was high statistical heterogeneity in comparisons for blood pressure and lipid-lowering but use of random-effects and quality-effects models produced very similar results. Conclusions/Significance: Compared with placebo, the ‘polypills’ reduced blood pressure and lipids. Tolerability was lower amongst those on ‘polypills’ than those on placebo or one component, but differences were moderate. Effectiveness trials are needed to help clarify the status of ‘polypills’ in primary care and prevention strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • C Raina Elley & Ajay K Gupta & Ruth Webster & Vanessa Selak & Min Jun & Anushka Patel & Anthony Rodgers & Simon Thom, 2012. "The Efficacy and Tolerability of ‘Polypills’: Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0052145
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0052145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052145
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0052145&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0052145?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sue Jowett & Pelham Barton & Andrea Roalfe & Kate Fletcher & F D Richard Hobbs & Richard J McManus & Jonathan Mant, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of use of a polypill versus usual care or best practice for primary prevention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-15, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0052145. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.