A daily polypill regimen improved cardiovascular risk factors in a socioeconomically vulnerable minority population, in a randomized controlled trial.
Patients at a federally qualified community health center in Alabama who received treatment with a combination pill for 1 year had greater reductions in systolic blood pressure and LDL cholesterol than did patients who received usual care, according to results published online on Sept. 19 in the.
“The simplicity and low cost of the polypill regimen make this approach attractive” when barriers such as lack of income, underinsurance, and difficulty attending clinic visits are common, said first author
People with low socioeconomic status and those who are nonwhite have high cardiovascular mortality, and the southeastern United States and rural areas have disproportionately high levels of cardiovascular disease burden, according to the investigators. The rates at which people with low socioeconomic status receive treatment for hypertension and hypercholesterolemia – leading cardiovascular disease risk factors – “are strikingly low,” Dr. Muñoz and colleagues said.
To assess the effectiveness of a polypill-based strategy in an underserved population with low socioeconomic status, the researchers conducted the randomized trial.
They enrolled 303 adults without cardiovascular disease, and 148 of the patients were randomized to receive the polypill, which contained generic versions of atorvastatin (10 mg), amlodipine (2.5 mg), losartan (25 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg). The remaining 155 patients received usual care. All participants scheduled 2-month and 12-month follow-up visits.
The participants had an average age of 56 years, 60% were women, and more than 95% were black. More than 70% had an annual household income of less than $15,000. Baseline characteristics of the treatment groups did not significantly differ.
At baseline, the average BP was 140/83 mm Hg, and the average LDL cholesterol level was 113 mg/dL.
In all, 91% of the participants completed the 12-month trial visit. Average systolic BP decreased by 9 mm Hg in the group that received the polypill, compared with 2 mm Hg in the group that received usual care. Average LDL cholesterol level decreased by 15 mg/dL in the polypill group, versus 4 mg/dL in the usual-care group.
Changes in other medications
Clinicians discontinued or reduced doses of other antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medications in 44% of the patients in the polypill group and none in the usual-care group. Clinicians escalated therapy in 2% of the participants in the polypill group and in 10% of the usual-care group.
Side effects in participants who received the polypill included a 1% incidence of myalgias and a 1% incidence of hypotension or light-headedness. Liver function test results were normal.
Five serious adverse events that occurred during the trial – two in the polypill group and three in the usual-care group – were judged to be unrelated to the trial by a data and safety monitoring board.
The authors noted that limitations of the trial include its open-label design and that it was conducted at a single center.
“It is important to emphasize that use of the polypill does not preclude individualized, add-on therapies for residual elevations in blood-pressure or cholesterol levels, as judged by a patient’s physician,” said Dr. Muñoz and colleagues. “We recognize that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to cardiovascular disease prevention runs counter to current trends in precision medicine, in which clinical, genomic, and lifestyle factors are used for the development of individualized treatment strategies. Although the precision approach has clear virtues, a broader approach may benefit patients who face barriers to accessing the full advantages of precision medicine.”
The study was supported by grants from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Prevention Research Network and the National Institutes of Health. One author disclosed personal fees from Novartis outside the study.
SOURCE: Muñoz D et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 18;381(12):1114-23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1815359.