4.5 Article

Projected impact of polypill use among US adults: Medication use, cardiovascular risk reduction, and side effects

期刊

AMERICAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 161, 期 4, 页码 719-725

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.12.019

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [R21 HL089625-01A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Polypills, which include multiple medications for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in a single pill, have been proposed for population-wide use. The number of US adults eligible for polypills and potential benefits are unknown. Methods The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004 and 2007-2008 were analyzed to estimate treatment rates for medications proposed for inclusion in polypills (aspirin, statin, an angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitor, and a thiazide-type diuretic for those without and a beta-blocker for those with a history of myocardial infarction) among US adults. The number of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke events potentially prevented through polypill use was projected by published meta-analyses and 3 large population-based cohort studies. Two polypill eligibility criteria were analyzed: (1) US adults >= 55 years and (2) US adults with a history of CVD. Results There are 67.6 million US adults >= 55 years and 15.4 million US adults with a history of CVD and, thus, eligible for polypills using the 2 outlined criteria. In 2007 to 2008, 37.3% of US adults >= 55 years and 57.0% of those with a history of CVD were taking statins. Use of other polypill medications was also low. Polypill use by US adults aged >= 55 years is projected to potentially prevent 3.2 million CHD events and 1.7 million strokes over 10 years. Among those with a history of CVD, the potential to prevent of 0.9 million CHD events and 0.5 million strokes is projected. Conclusions Polypills have the potential to lower CVD incidence substantially among US adults. (Am Heart J 2011; 161: 719-25.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据