Estudio farmacodinámico del policomprimido cardiovascular: ¿existe algún tipo de interacción entre los monocomponentes?

Drug-Drug Interactions and Synergy: From Pharmacological Models to Clinical Application

This review explores the concept of synergy in pharmacology, emphasizing its importance in optimizing treatment outcomes through the combination of drugs with different mechanisms of action. Synergy, defined as an effect greater than the expected additive effect elicited by individual agents according to specific predictive models, offers a promising approach to enhance therapeutic efficacy while minimizing adverse events. The historical evolution of synergy research, from ancient civilizations to modern pharmacology, highlights the ongoing quest to understand and harness synergistic interactions. Key concepts, such as concentration-response curves, additive effects, and predictive models, are discussed in detail, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment methods throughout translational drug development. Although various mathematical models exist for synergy analysis, selecting the appropriate model and software tools remains a challenge, necessitating careful consideration of experimental design and data interpretation. Furthermore, this review addresses practical considerations in synergy assessment, including preclinical and clinical approaches, mechanism of action, and statistical analysis. Optimizing synergy requires attention to concentration/dose ratios, target site localization, and timing of drug administration, ensuring that the benefits of combination therapy detected bench-side are translatable into clinical practice. Overall, the review advocates for a systematic approach to synergy assessment, incorporating robust statistical analysis, effective and simplified predictive models, and collaborative efforts across pivotal sectors, such as academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies, and regulatory agencies. By overcoming critical challenges and maximizing therapeutic potential, effective synergy assessment in drug development holds promise for advancing patient care. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Combining drugs with different mechanisms of action for synergistic interactions optimizes treatment efficacy and safety. Accurate interpretation of synergy requires the identification of the expected additive effect. Despite innovative models to predict the additive effect, consensus in drug-drug interactions research is lacking, hindering the bench-to-bedside development of combination therapies. Collaboration among science, industry, and regulation is crucial for advancing combination therapy development, ensuring rigorous application of predictive models in clinical settings.

Fixed-dose combination therapy for the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease

Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy, also known as polypill therapy, targets risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and has been proposed as a strategy to reduce global ASCVD burden. Here we conducted a systematic search for relevant studies from 2016-2022 to assess the effects of FDC therapy for prevention of ASCVD. The studies selected include randomized trials evaluating FDC therapy with at least one blood pressure-lowering drug and one lipid-lowering drug. The study data were independently extracted, the quality of evidence was appraised by multiple reviewers and effect estimates were pooled using a fixed-effect meta-analysis when statistical heterogeneity was low to moderate. The main outcomes of the analysis were all-cause mortality, fatal and nonfatal ASCVD events, adverse events, systolic blood pressure, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and adherence. Among 26 trials (n = 27,317 participants, 43.2% female and mean age range 52.9-76.0), FDC therapy was associated with lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and systolic blood pressure, with higher rates of adherence and adverse events in both primary and mixed secondary prevention populations. For studies with a mostly primary prevention population, FDC therapy was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality by 11% (5.6% versus 6.3%; relative risk (risk ratio) of 0.89; 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.00; I2 = 0%; four trials and 16,278 participants) and risk of fatal and nonfatal ASCVD events by 29% (6.1% versus 8.4%; relative risk (risk ratio) of 0.71; 95% confidence interval 0.63 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; five trials and 15,503 participants). One adequately powered trial in an exclusively secondary prevention population showed that FDC therapy reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events by 24%. These findings support adoption and implementation of polypills to lower risk for all-cause mortality and ASCVD.

The use of the CNIC-Polypill in real-life clinical practice: opportunities and challenges in patients at very high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease - expert panel meeting report

Although the cardiovascular (CV) polypill concept is not new and several guidelines state that a CV polypill should be considered an integral part of a comprehensive CV disease (CVD) prevention strategy, there are still some barriers to its implementation in the real-world setting, mainly in secondary CV prevention. As the CNIC-polypill is the only one approved for secondary CV prevention in patients with atherosclerotic CVD in 27 countries worldwide, a panel of four discussants and 30 participants from 18 countries conveyed in a virtual meeting on April 21, 2022, to discuss key clinical questions regarding the practical use of the CNIC-Polypill and barriers to its implementation.Data presented showed that, although the use of the CV polypill is not explicitly mentioned in the current 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on CVD prevention, it may be used in any patient for secondary CVD prevention tolerating all their components to improve outcomes through different aspects. The favourable results of the Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in the Elderly (SECURE) trial now reinforce this recommendation. The panellists presented algorithms on how to switch from any baseline regimen when starting treatment with the CNIC-polypill in different situations, including patients with hypertension, dyslipidaemia, and a previous CV event; at discharge after a cardiovascular event; in chronic ischemic conditions; and in cases of polypharmacy. The panellists and expert discussants did agree that available studies conducted so far with the CNIC-polypill demonstrate that it is as efficacious as the monocomponents, equipotent drugs, or other therapies; reduces the risk of experiencing recurrent major CV events; improves medication adherence; reduces health care costs and resources compared to patients treated with loose drugs; and the patients prefer it over the multipill strategy.In conclusion, the data presented by the participants provided the evidence behind the use of the CNIC-polypill to help fulfil the goal of encouraging its adoption by physicians.

Cost-effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill versus separate monocomponents in cardiovascular secondary prevention in Spain

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Despite advances in treatment, cardiovascular disease is the second leading cause of death in Spain. The objective of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill strategy (acetylsalicylic acid 100 mg, atorvastatin 20/40 mg, ramipril 2.5/5/10 mg) compared with the same separate monocomponents for the secondary prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events in adults in Spain.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A Markov cost-utility model was adapted considering 4 health states (stable, subsequent major adverse cardiovascular event, subsequent ischemic stroke and death) and the SMART risk equation over a lifetime horizon from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System. The CNIC-Polypill strategy was compared with monocomponents in a hypothetical cohort of 1000 secondary prevention patients. Effectiveness, epidemiological, cost and utilities data were obtained from the NEPTUNO study, official databases and literature. Outcomes were costs (in 2021 euros) per life-year (LY) and quality-adjusted LY (QALY) gained. A 3% discount rate was applied. Deterministic one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses evaluated the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The CNIC-Polypill strategy in secondary prevention results in more LY (13.22) and QALY (11.64) gains at a lower cost than monocomponents. The CNIC-Polypill is dominant and saves є280.68 per patient compared with monocomponents. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis shows that 82.4% of the simulations are below the threshold of є25,000 per QALY gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The CNIC-Polypill strategy in secondary cardiovascular prevention is cost-effective compared with the same separate monocomponents, resulting in a cost-saving strategy to the Spanish National Healthcare System.

Recommendations for the care of patients with cardiovascular disease in health emergency situations: a call to action

COVID-19 has had a negative impact on the health care of patients with cardiovascular disease and patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease. The restrictions affecting access to the health care system have conditioned the care received, resulting in poorer control and a higher risk of events. Taking action to improve the care provided during health emergencies is mandatory. It is important to promote the development of telemedicine and patient empowerment by fostering health literacy and a higher degree of self-care. In addition, primary care and coordination between health care levels should be improved. Moreover, the simplification and optimization of treatment, for example, using the cardiovascular polypill, have led to an improvement in adherence, better control of vascular risk factors, and a reduced risk of events. The present document provides specific recommendations for improving the care provided to patients under a health emergency.

Real-life effect on the control of risk factors associated with initiation of the cardiovascular polypill created from equipotent drugs

OBJECTIVE

This work aims to analyze the impact of Spain's National Center for Cardiovascular Research (CNIC-Ferrer)'s cardiovascular (CV)-polypill on blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (cLDL) levels in patients in our healthcare area who previously took equipotent doses of statins and antihypertensives.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients in our healthcare area (Santiago de Compostela, Spain) who, as of December 31, 2019, had an active prescription for the CV-polypill (CNIC-Ferrer) since January 16, 2015 were registered. The index date was the start date of the CV-polypill prescription. The drugs the patient had previously received for dyslipidemia and hypertension were analyzed, classifying them by their equivalent potency to atorvastatin and ramipril. Changes in cLDL and BP were analyzed by means of Student's t-test for paired samples.

RESULTS

We analyzed 547 patients with a mean age of 71.5 ± 11.5 years. The majority were men (60.6%). We observed a decrease in cLDL (-10.6 [95% CI: -7.0, -14.3], p < 0.001) in patients who started taking the CV-polypill who had previously taken equally potent doses of atorvastatin (n = 471). We documented a reduction in systolic BP (-3.7 [95% CI: -0.4, -6.9], p = 0.029) in patients who had previously taken equally potent doses of ramipril (n = 360). In 88 patients, the CV-polypill was started via equally potent doses of atorvastatin and ramipril, with a decrease in cLDL (-8.7 [95% CI: -3.8, -13.6], p = 0.001) and systolic BP (-3.6 [95% CI: -7.8, 0.5], p = 0.085).

CONCLUSIONS

The initiation of treatment with the CV-polypill in patients who previously received equally potent treatment with atorvastatin and ramipril was associated with a greater reduction in cLDL and systolic BP.

Evaluating patients' satisfaction and preferences with a secondary prevention cardiovascular polypill: the Aurora Study

Aim: To evaluate the satisfaction, preferences and adherence of patients in secondary cardiovascular prevention treated with the Spanish National Cardiovascular Research Centre cardiovascular polypill compared with patients treated with the separate monocomponents. Methods: Observational, cross-sectional and multicenter study. Satisfaction was evaluated by the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication 9 items, adherence by the Morisky-Green questionnaire and ad-hoc questions were asked regarding patient preferences. Results: Polypill patients reported higher satisfaction than patients treated with the monocomponents (77.3 vs 71.2%; p < 0.0001). 72.8% of patients treated with the monocomponents would prefer to change to the polypill. Patients treated with the polypill had significantly higher adherence than patients treated with the monocomponents (57.7 vs 41.1%; p = 0.0027). Conclusion: Polypill patients show higher satisfaction and better adherence. Most patients receiving the monocomponents would prefer a polypill regime.

Combination blood pressure lowering in the presence or absence of background statin and aspirin therapy: a combined analysis of PROGRESS and ADVANCE Trials

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of combination BP lowering on cardiovascular events and mortality in the presence of aspirin and/or statin therapy in a combined analysis of the ADVANCE and PROGRESS trials.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of 14 682 participants allocated combination therapy with perindopril and indapamide or placebo followed up for a mean of 4.2 years. Participants were stratified into four groups defined by background use of medications at baseline: statin, aspirin, both or neither. Linear mixed effect models were used to assess differences in BP and Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risks of major cardiovascular events, all-cause mortality and treatment discontinuation.

RESULTS

At baseline, 14% of patients were on both aspirin and statin, 35% on aspirin, 9% on statins and 42% on neither aspirin/statins. Compared with placebo, combination BP therapy reduced mean SBP by 5.7 mmHg in ADVANCE and 12.1 mmHg in PROGRESS, with no difference (P > 0.447) between patients by baseline use of aspirin/statin. Combination BP therapy reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.71-0.86), with no significant difference (P = 0.600) between aspirin/statin subgroups. Rates of treatment discontinuation were similar with combination BP therapy compared with placebo (18.4 versus 18%), with no evidence of difference across the subgroups (P = 0.340).

CONCLUSION

BP lowering with perindopril and indapamide reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events independent of baseline use of aspirin and/or statins.