ArticleScientific reports2021
Polypill eligibility and equivalent intake in a Swiss population-based study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Redefining the polypill: pros and cons in cardiovascular precision medicine.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
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.