ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2006
The polypill: at what price would it become cost effective?
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- The Polypill: A New Alternative in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- The polypill in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: cost-effectiveness in the Dutch population.BMJ open · 2011Article
- What is the future of stroke prevention?: debate: polypill versus personalized risk factor modification.Stroke · 2010Review
- Fixed-dose combination therapy and secondary cardiovascular prevention: rationale, selection of drugs and target population.Nature clinical practice. Cardiovascular medicine · 2009Review
- Issues to consider in the pharmaceutical development of a cardiovascular polypill.Nature clinical practice. Cardiovascular medicine · 2009Review
- Cost-effectiveness of medical interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease in a sub-Saharan African country--the case of Tanzania.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionA promising concept in cardiovascular disease prevention (the polypill) was introduced in 2003. Although the polypill may seem as an effective intervention, data on its costs and cost effectiveness remain unknown. The aim of this study was to determine the maximum price of the polypill for it to be a cost effective alternative in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
methodsData on the hypothetical effects of the polypill were taken from the literature. Using data from the Framingham heart study and the Framingham offspring study, life tables were built to model the assumed benefits of the polypill. Using a third party payer perspective and a 10 years time horizon, the authors calculated what should be the maximum drug cost of the polypill for it to be cost effective (using a 20,000 euro/year of life saved threshold) in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease among populations at different levels of absolute risk of coronary heart disease and age.
resultsTo be cost effective among populations at levels of 10 year coronary heart disease risk over 20% (high risk), the annual cost of medication for the polypill therapy should be no more than 302 euro or 410 euro for men at age 50 and 60 years respectively. For cost effective prevention in populations at levels of coronary heart disease risk between 10% and 20% the costs should be two to three times lower.
conclusionAlthough the polypill could theoretically be a highly effective intervention, the costs of the medication could be its caveat for implementation in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.