CNIC-Polypill (乙酰水杨酸、阿托伐他汀和雷米普利),与缺血性心脏病患者的其他治疗方案相比,是一种有效且节约成本的二级预防策略

Regina Dalmau, A. Cordero, Luís Masana, Emilio Ruiz, Antoni Sicras-mainar, J.R. Gonzalez-Juanatey
{"title":"CNIC-Polypill (乙酰水杨酸、阿托伐他汀和雷米普利),与缺血性心脏病患者的其他治疗方案相比,是一种有效且节约成本的二级预防策略","authors":"Regina Dalmau, A. Cordero, Luís Masana, Emilio Ruiz, Antoni Sicras-mainar, J.R. Gonzalez-Juanatey","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oeae027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The retrospective NEPTUNO study evaluated the effectiveness of the CNIC-polypill (including acetylsalicylic acid, ramipril, and atorvastatin) vs other therapeutic approaches in secondary prevention for cardiovascular (CV) disease. In this substudy, the focus was on the subgroup of patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD).\n \n \n \n Patients on four strategies: CNIC-polypill, its monocomponents as loose medications, equipotent medications, and other therapies. The primary endpoint was the incidence of recurrent major adverse CV events (MACE) after two years. After matching, 1,080 patients were included in each cohort. The CNIC-polypill cohort had a significantly lower incidence of recurrent MACE compared to Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies cohorts (16.1% vs 24%, 24.4%, and 24.3%, respectively; P<0.001). The hazard ratios (HR) for recurrent MACE were higher in Monocomponents (HR=1.12; P=0.042), Equipotent drugs (HR=1.14; P=0.031), and Other therapies cohorts (HR=1.17; P=0.016) compared to the CNIC-polypill, with a number needed to treat of 12 patients to prevent a MACE. The CNIC-polypill demonstrated a greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-56.1% vs -43.6%, -33.3%, and -33.2% in the Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies, respectively; P<0.001) and systolic blood pressure (-13.7% vs -11.5%, -10.6%, and -9.1% in the CNIC-polypill, Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies, respectively; P<0.001) compared to other cohorts. The CNIC-polypill intervention was less costly and more effective than any other therapeutic option, with €2,317–€2,407 cost savings per event prevented.\n \n \n \n In IHD, the CNIC-Polypill exemplifies a guideline-recommended secondary prevention treatment linked to better outcomes and cost-saving compared to other therapeutic options.\n","PeriodicalId":505595,"journal":{"name":"European Heart Journal Open","volume":"49 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The CNIC-Polypill (acetylsalicylic acid, atorvastatin, and ramipril), an effective and cost-saving secondary prevention strategy compared with other therapeutic options in patients with ischemic heart disease\",\"authors\":\"Regina Dalmau, A. Cordero, Luís Masana, Emilio Ruiz, Antoni Sicras-mainar, J.R. Gonzalez-Juanatey\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ehjopen/oeae027\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n The retrospective NEPTUNO study evaluated the effectiveness of the CNIC-polypill (including acetylsalicylic acid, ramipril, and atorvastatin) vs other therapeutic approaches in secondary prevention for cardiovascular (CV) disease. In this substudy, the focus was on the subgroup of patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD).\\n \\n \\n \\n Patients on four strategies: CNIC-polypill, its monocomponents as loose medications, equipotent medications, and other therapies. The primary endpoint was the incidence of recurrent major adverse CV events (MACE) after two years. After matching, 1,080 patients were included in each cohort. The CNIC-polypill cohort had a significantly lower incidence of recurrent MACE compared to Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies cohorts (16.1% vs 24%, 24.4%, and 24.3%, respectively; P<0.001). The hazard ratios (HR) for recurrent MACE were higher in Monocomponents (HR=1.12; P=0.042), Equipotent drugs (HR=1.14; P=0.031), and Other therapies cohorts (HR=1.17; P=0.016) compared to the CNIC-polypill, with a number needed to treat of 12 patients to prevent a MACE. The CNIC-polypill demonstrated a greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-56.1% vs -43.6%, -33.3%, and -33.2% in the Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies, respectively; P<0.001) and systolic blood pressure (-13.7% vs -11.5%, -10.6%, and -9.1% in the CNIC-polypill, Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies, respectively; P<0.001) compared to other cohorts. The CNIC-polypill intervention was less costly and more effective than any other therapeutic option, with €2,317–€2,407 cost savings per event prevented.\\n \\n \\n \\n In IHD, the CNIC-Polypill exemplifies a guideline-recommended secondary prevention treatment linked to better outcomes and cost-saving compared to other therapeutic options.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":505595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Heart Journal Open\",\"volume\":\"49 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Heart Journal Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeae027\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Heart Journal Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeae027","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

回顾性 NEPTUNO 研究评估了 CNIC 多联疗法(包括乙酰水杨酸、雷米普利和阿托伐他汀)与其他治疗方法在心血管疾病二级预防中的有效性。在这项子研究中,重点是缺血性心脏病(IHD)患者亚组。 接受四种策略治疗的患者:CNIC-多聚酶抑制剂、其单成分散剂、等效药物和其他疗法。主要终点是两年后复发主要心血管不良事件(MACE)的发生率。经过匹配后,每个队列共纳入了 1080 名患者。与单克隆抗体、等效药物和其他疗法队列相比,CNIC-多聚酶抑制剂队列的复发性MACE发生率明显较低(分别为16.1% vs 24%、24.4%和24.3%;P<0.001)。与 CNIC 聚能丸相比,单组分(HR=1.12;P=0.042)、等效药物(HR=1.14;P=0.031)和其他疗法(HR=1.17;P=0.016)组别中复发性 MACE 的危险比(HR)更高,需要治疗 12 例患者才能预防 MACE。CNIC-多聚酶抑制剂对低密度脂蛋白胆固醇的降低幅度更大(单组分、等效药物和其他疗法分别为-56.1% vs -43.6%、-33.3%和-33.2%;P<0.001)和收缩压(CNIC-多丸、单一成分、等效药物和其他疗法分别为-13.7% vs -11.5%、-10.6%和-9.1%;P<0.001)。与其他治疗方案相比,CNIC-多聚酶抑制剂干预的成本更低,效果更好,每预防一起事件可节省成本2317-2407欧元。 与其他治疗方案相比,CNIC-多聚酶抑制剂是心肌缺血二级预防治疗指南推荐的典范,可带来更好的疗效并节约成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The CNIC-Polypill (acetylsalicylic acid, atorvastatin, and ramipril), an effective and cost-saving secondary prevention strategy compared with other therapeutic options in patients with ischemic heart disease
The retrospective NEPTUNO study evaluated the effectiveness of the CNIC-polypill (including acetylsalicylic acid, ramipril, and atorvastatin) vs other therapeutic approaches in secondary prevention for cardiovascular (CV) disease. In this substudy, the focus was on the subgroup of patients with ischaemic heart disease (IHD). Patients on four strategies: CNIC-polypill, its monocomponents as loose medications, equipotent medications, and other therapies. The primary endpoint was the incidence of recurrent major adverse CV events (MACE) after two years. After matching, 1,080 patients were included in each cohort. The CNIC-polypill cohort had a significantly lower incidence of recurrent MACE compared to Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies cohorts (16.1% vs 24%, 24.4%, and 24.3%, respectively; P<0.001). The hazard ratios (HR) for recurrent MACE were higher in Monocomponents (HR=1.12; P=0.042), Equipotent drugs (HR=1.14; P=0.031), and Other therapies cohorts (HR=1.17; P=0.016) compared to the CNIC-polypill, with a number needed to treat of 12 patients to prevent a MACE. The CNIC-polypill demonstrated a greater reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-56.1% vs -43.6%, -33.3%, and -33.2% in the Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies, respectively; P<0.001) and systolic blood pressure (-13.7% vs -11.5%, -10.6%, and -9.1% in the CNIC-polypill, Monocomponents, Equipotent drugs, and Other therapies, respectively; P<0.001) compared to other cohorts. The CNIC-polypill intervention was less costly and more effective than any other therapeutic option, with €2,317–€2,407 cost savings per event prevented. In IHD, the CNIC-Polypill exemplifies a guideline-recommended secondary prevention treatment linked to better outcomes and cost-saving compared to other therapeutic options.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信