Combination Pharmacotherapy to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: Present Status and Challenges
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Combination pills containing aspirin,multiple blood pressure (BP) lowering drugs, and a statin have demonstrated safety, substantial risk factor reductions, and improved medication adherence in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). The individual medications in combination pills are already recommended for use together in secondary CVD prevention. Therefore, current information on their pharmacokinetics, impact on the risk factors, and tolerability should be sufficient to persuade regulators and clinicians to use fixed-dose combination pills in high-risk individuals, such as in secondary prevention. Long-term use of these medicines, in a poly pill or otherwise, is expected to reduce CVD risk by at least 50–60% in such groups. This risk reduction needs confirmation in prospective randomized trials for populations for whom concomitant use of the medications is not currently recommended (e.g.primary prevention). Given their additive benefits, the combined estimated relative risk reduction (RRR) in CVD from both lifestyle modification and a combination pill is expected to be 70–80%. The first of several barriers to the widespread use of combination therapy in CVD prevention is physician reluctance to use combination pills. This reluctance may originate from the belief that lifestyle modification should take precedence, and that medications should be introduced one drug at a time, instead of regarding combination pills and lifestyle modification as complementary and additive. Second, widespread availability of combination pills is also impeded by the reluctance of large pharmaceutical companies to invest in development of novel co-formulations of generic (or ‘mature’) drugs.A business model based on ‘mass approaches’ to drug production, packaging, marketing, and distribution could make the combination pill available at an affordable price, while at the same time providing a viable profit for the manufacturers.A third barrier is regulatory approval for novel multidrug combination pills, as there are few precedents for the approval of combination products with four or more components for CVD. Acceptance of combination therapy in other settings suggests that with concerted efforts by academics, international health agencies, research funding bodies, governments, regulators, and pharmaceutical manufacturers, combination pills for prevention of CVD in those with disease or at high risk (e.g. those with multiple risk factors) can be made available worldwide at affordable prices. It is anticipated that widespread use of combination pills with lifestyle modifications can lead to substantial risk reductions (as much as an 80% estimated RRR) in CVD.Heath care systems need to deploy these strategies widely, effectively, and efficiently. If implemented, these strategies could avoid several millions of fatal and non-fatal CVD events every year worldwide.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,017 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,011 | 0,004 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».