A Polypill for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A feasibility study of the World Health Organization

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The feasibility of conducting a large-scale Polypill clinical trial in developing countries remains unclear. More information is needed regarding the efficacy in reducing the risk factors of cardiovascular disease (CVD), side effects, improvement in adherence and physician/patient "acceptability" of the Polypill.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted an open-label, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial involving three sites in Sri Lanka that enrolled a total of 216 patients without established CVD. The trial compared a Polypill (75 mg aspirin, 20 mg simvastatin, 10 mg lisinopril and 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide) to Standard Practice. After randomization, patients were followed monthly for three months. Pre-specified primary outcomes included reduction in systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and estimated 10-year CVD risk. We also evaluated the recruitment process and acceptability of the Polypill by both physicians and patients.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Patients were recruited in a six-month period as planned. Two hundred three patients (94.0%) completed the treatment program and returned for their three-month follow-up visits. No safety concerns were reported. These findings suggest a high rate of patient acceptability, a finding that is bolstered by the majority of patients completing the trial (90%) indicating that they would take the Polypill "for life" if proven to be effective in reducing CVD risk. Approximately 86% of the physicians surveyed agreed with and supported use of the Polypill for primary prevention and 93% for secondary prevention of CVD. Both the Polypill and Standard Practice resulted in marked reductions in systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and 10-year risk of CVD. However, the differences between the treatment groups were not statistically significant.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We successfully completed a Polypill feasibility trial in Sri Lanka. We were able to document high acceptability of the Polypill to patients and physicians. We were unable to estimate the risk factor reductions on the Polypill because the control group received similar treatment with individual drugs. The Polypill was however simpler and achieved comparable risk factor reductions, highlighting its potential usefulness in the prevention of CVD.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/NCT00567307">NCT00567307</a></p

An integrated general practice and pharmacy-based intervention to promote the use of appropriate preventive medications among individuals at high cardiovascular disease risk: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are responsible for significant morbidity, premature mortality, and economic burden. Despite established evidence that supports the use of preventive medications among patients at high CVD risk, treatment gaps remain. Building on prior evidence and a theoretical framework, a complex intervention has been designed to address these gaps among high-risk, under-treated patients in the Australian primary care setting. This intervention comprises a general practice quality improvement tool incorporating clinical decision support and audit/feedback capabilities; availability of a range of CVD polypills (fixed-dose combinations of two blood pressure lowering agents, a statin ± aspirin) for prescription when appropriate; and access to a pharmacy-based program to support long-term medication adherence and lifestyle modification. Methods: Following a systematic development process, the intervention will be evaluated in a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial including 70 general practices for a median period of 18 months. The 35 general practices in the intervention group will work with a nominated partner pharmacy, whereas those in the control group will provide usual care without access to the intervention tools. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients at high CVD risk who were inadequately treated at baseline who achieve target blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels at the study end. The outcomes will be analyzed using data from electronic medical records, utilizing a validated extraction tool. Detailed process and economic evaluations will also be performed. Discussion: The study intends to establish evidence about an intervention that combines technological innovation with team collaboration between patients, pharmacists, and general practitioners (GPs) for CVD prevention. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261600023342

Methods of a large prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point study comparing morning versus evening dosing in hypertensive patients:the Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study

Introduction: Nocturnal blood pressure (BP) appears to be a better predictor of cardiovascular outcome than daytime BP. The BP lowering effects of most antihypertensive therapies are often greater in the first 12 h compared to the next 12 h. The Treatment In Morning versus Evening (TIME) study aims to establish whether evening dosing is more cardioprotective than morning dosing. Methods and analysis: The TIME study uses the prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point (PROBE) design. TIME recruits participants by advertising in the community, from primary and secondary care, and from databases of consented patients in the UK. Participants must be aged over 18 years, prescribed at least one antihypertensive drug taken once a day, and have a valid email address. After the participants have self-enrolled and consented on the secure TIME website (http://www.timestudy.co.uk) they are randomised to take their antihypertensive medication in the morning or the evening. Participant follow-ups are conducted after 1 month and then every 3 months by automated email. The trial is expected to run for 5 years, randomising 10 269 participants, with average participant follow-up being 4 years. The primary end point is hospitalisation for the composite end point of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke (cerebrovascular accident; CVA) or any vascular death determined by record-linkage. Secondary end points are: each component of the primary end point, hospitalisation for non-fatal stroke, hospitalisation for non-fatal MI, cardiovascular death, all-cause mortality, hospitalisation or death from congestive heart failure. The primary outcome will be a comparison of time to first event comparing morning versus evening dosing using an intention-to-treat analysis. The sample size is calculated for a two-sided test to detect 20% superiority at 80% power. Ethics and dissemination: TIME has ethical approval in the UK, and results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number: UKCRN17071; Pre-results

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in People With Diabetes: A position statement of the American Diabetes Association, a scientific statement of the American Heart Association, and an expert consensus document of the American College of Cardiology Foundation

The burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among patients with diabetes is substantial. Individuals with diabetes are at two- to fourfold increased risk of cardiovascular events compared with age- and sex-matched individuals without diabetes. In diabetic patients over the age of 65 years, 68% of deaths are from coronary heart disease (CHD) and 16% are from stroke (1). A number of mechanisms for the increased cardiovascular risk with diabetes have been proposed, including increased tendency toward intracoronary thrombus formation (2), increased platelet reactivity (3), and worsened endothelial dysfunction (4). The increased risk for cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with diabetes has led to considerable interest in identifying effective means for cardiovascular risk reduction. Aspirin has been shown to be effective in reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in high-risk patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke (secondary prevention) (5). The Food and Drug Administration has not approved aspirin for use in primary prevention, and its net benefit among patients with no previous cardiovascular events is more controversial, for both patients with and without a history of diabetes (5). The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently updated its recommendation about aspirin use for primary prevention. The Task Force recommended encouraging aspirin use in men age 45–79 years and women age 55–79 years and not encouraging aspirin use in younger adults. They did not differentiate their recommendations based on the presence or absence of diabetes (6,7). In 2007, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the American Heart Association (AHA) jointly recommended that aspirin therapy (75–162 mg/day) be used as a primary prevention strategy in those with diabetes at increased cardiovascular risk, including those who are over 40 years of age or who have additional risk factors (family history of CVD, hypertension, smoking, dyslipidemia, or albuminuria) (8). These recommendations were

Duration of hospital participation in a nationwide stroke registry is associated with improved quality of care

BACKGROUND: There are several proven therapies for patients with ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA), including prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and initiation of antithrombotic medications within 48 h and at discharge. Stroke registries have been promoted as a means of increasing use of such interventions, which are currently underutilized. METHODS: From 1999 through 2003, 86 U.S. hospitals participated in Ethos, a voluntary web-based acute stroke treatment registry. Detailed data were collected on all patients admitted with a diagnosis of TIA or ischemic stroke. Rates of optimal treatment (defined as either receipt or a valid contraindication) were examined within each hospital as a function of its length of time in registry. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust for patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 16,301 patients were discharged with a diagnosis of stroke or TIA from 50 hospitals that participated for more than 1 year. Rates of optimal treatment during the first 3 months of participation were as follows: 92.5% for antithrombotic medication within 48 h, 84.6% for antithrombotic medications at discharge, and 77.1% for DVT prophylaxis. Rates for all treatments improved with duration of participation in the registry (p < 0.05), with the most dramatic improvements in the first year. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients with stroke or TIA, three targeted quality-improvement measures improved among hospitals participating in a disease-specific registry. Although the changes could be attributed to interventions other than the registry, these findings demonstrate the potential for hospital-level interventions to improve care for patients with stroke and TIA

Investigating the Mechanisms of Hyporesponse to Antiplatelet Approaches

Hyporesponsiveness, or resistance, to antiplatelet therapy may be a major contributor to poorer outcomes among cardiac patients and may be attributed to an array of mechanisms—both modifiable and unmodifiable. Recent evidence has uncovered clinical, cellular, and genetic factors associated with hyporesponsiveness. Patients with severe acute coronary syndromes (ACS), type 2 diabetes, and increased body mass index appear to be the most at risk for hyporesponsiveness. Addressing modifiable mechanisms may offset hyporesponsiveness, while recognizing unmodifiable mechanisms, such as genetic polymorphisms and diseases that affect response to antiplatelet therapy, may help identify patients who are more likely to be hyporesponsive. Hyporesponsive patients might benefit from different dosing strategies or additional antiplatelet therapies. Trials correlating platelet function test results to clinical outcomes are required. Results from these studies could cause a paradigm shift toward individualized antiplatelet therapy, improving predictability of platelet inhibition, and diminishing the likelihood for hyporesponsiveness. Copyright © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/58554/1/20360_ftp.pd

A randomised controlled trial to evaluate and optimize the use of antiplatelet agents in the perioperative management in patients undergoing general and abdominal surgery- the APAP trial (ISRCTN45810007)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Due to the increase of cardiovascular diseases acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) has become one of the most frequently prescribed drugs these days. Despite the rising number of patients with ASA medication presenting for elective general and abdominal surgery and the potentially increased risk of hemorrhage in these patients, there are no clear, evidence-based guidelines for the perioperative use of antiplatelet agents. The present randomised controlled trial was designed to evaluate the safety and optimize the use of ASA in the perioperative management of patients undergoing general and abdominal surgery.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This is a two-arm, monocenter randomised controlled trial. Patients scheduled for elective surgical treatment (i.e. inguinal hernia repair, cholecystectomy and colorectal resections) with ASA as a permanent medication are randomised equally to perioperative continuation or discontinuation of ASA. Patients who are randomised in the discontinuation group stop the administration of ASA five days prior to surgical treatment and start intake of ASA on postoperative day 5. Fifty-two patients will be enrolled in this trial. The primary outcome is the incidence of postoperative bleeding and cardiovascular events at 30 days after surgery. In addition a set of general as well as surgical variables are analysed.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This is a randomised controlled two-group parallel trial designed to assess the safety and optimize the use of ASA in the perioperative management of patients undergoing general and abdominal surgery. The results of this pilot study build the basis for a confirmative randomised controlled trial that may help to clarify the use and potential risk/benefits of perioperative ASA medication in patients undergoing elective surgery.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>The trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN45810007">ISRCTN45810007</a>.</p