Observational studyEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy2025
Effect of a single pill concept on clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes in cardiovascular diseases.
Observational study in European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Triple drug antihypertensive single-pill combinations included as WHO essential medicines: an overview of efficacy, safety, and cost.Journal of human hypertension · 2026Review
- Reaping the rewards of a simplified dosing regimen.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsOur study aimed to assess whether a single pill concept (SPC) is superior to a multi-pill concept (MPC) in reducing cardiovascular (CV) events, all-cause death, and costs in CV patients. METHOD AND
resultsAnonymized medical claims data covering 2012-2018, including patients with hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and CV diseases who started a drug therapy either as SPC or identical MPC were analysed after 1:1-propensity score matching. Hospitalizations with predefined CV events, all-cause mortality, and costs were studied in 25 311 patients with SPC and 25 311 patients with MPC using incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and non-parametric tests for continuous variables.IRRs were significantly lower for SPC: stroke (IRR = 0.77; 95% CI 0.67-0.88; P < 0.001), transitory ischaemic attack (IRR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.48-0.78; P < 0.001), myocardial infarction (IRR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.63-0.90; P = 0.0016), coronary artery disease (IRR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.57-0.77; P < 0.001), heart failure (IRR = 0.59; 95% CI 0.54-0.64; P < 0.001), acute renal failure (IRR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.56-0.64; P < 0.001), all cause hospitalization (IRR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.71-0.74; P < 0.001), CV hospitalization (IRR = 0.63; 95% CI 0.57-0.69; P < 0.001), and all-cause mortality (IRR = 0.62; 95% CI 0.57-0.68; P < 0.001). Mean time to first events and time to death were also in favour of SPC. Mean total costs were 4708€ for SPC vs. 5.669€ for MPC, respectively (mean ratio 0.830, P < 0.001).
conclusionSPC is associated with lower incidence rates of CV events, time to CV events, and all-cause death, and is superior regarding pharmacoeconomic parameters and should therefore become standard of care to improve outcomes and reduce healthcare costs.
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.