International open-label studies to assess the efficacy and safety of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin in attaining blood pressure and lipid targets recommended by country-specific guidelines: the JEWEL programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin targets the two most common modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, hypertension and dyslipidaemia. We evaluated the clinical utility of this single pill to help patients across Europe and Canada achieve country-specific targets for blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). DESIGN: Two 16-week, open-label studies conducted in 122 study centres across the United Kingdom and Canada (JEWEL 1) and 113 centres across 11 European countries (JEWEL 2). METHODS: Patients with uncontrolled BP and controlled/uncontrolled LDL-C qualifying for treatment according to local governing guidelines were administered single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin with appropriate lifestyle modification. Eight dosages of amlodipine/atorvastatin (5/10-10/80 mg) were titrated to achieve country-specific BP and LDL-C targets. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients reaching country-specific BP and LDL-C targets in 16 weeks. RESULTS: Among 2245 patients enrolled in the studies (JEWEL 1, n = 1138; JEWEL 2, n = 1107), 62.9% in JEWEL 1 and 50.6% in JEWEL 2 achieved both country-specific BP and LDL-C goals. BP was reduced by 20.4/10.7 and 21.8/12.6 mmHg in JEWEL 1 and JEWEL 2, respectively, and reductions in LDL-C were 0.90 mmol/l (34.8 mg/dl) and 1.09 mmol/l (42.2 mg/dl), respectively. The most common adverse events were peripheral oedema (11.0%), joint swelling (2.9%) and headache (2.9%), of which, only oedema was linked to study treatment. CONCLUSION: Single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin is an effective and well-tolerated treatment, which in a real-world setting helped more than half of the patients achieve both BP and LDL-C targets as recommended by local guidelines. Although fewer patients met their goals in JEWEL 2 than JEWEL 1, reductions in BP and LDL-C were slightly greater in JEWEL 2, suggesting that the observed differences are likely because of more stringent targets in Europe than in the UK/Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".