ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2025
Adherence to perindopril/amlodipine/atorvastatin combination according to the administration strategy.
Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsTo compare adherence to perindopril/amlodipine/atorvastatin combination administrated as a polypill (one pill) vs. separate tablets. METHODS AND
resultsUsing the healthcare utilization database of Lombardy (Italy), 1110 patients who received the perindopril/amlodipine/atorvastatin polypill during 2019-2021 were matched with 1110 patients prescribed the same combination in separate tablets or as two antihypertensive drugs in a single tablet and the lipid-lowering drug tablet separately. Adherence to treatment was assessed over the year after the first perindopril/amlodipine/atorvastatin dispensation as the proportion of the follow-up days covered by prescription (PDC). Patients with a PDC >75% and <25% were defined as highly and poorly adherent, respectively. Adherence dynamics over time were evaluated through group-based trajectory modelling. Cardiovascular-related healthcare costs were also assessed. Log-binomial regression models were fitted to estimate the risk ratio (RR) of treatment adherence associated with the administration strategy. Among the polypill and the separate-pill combination users, 60% and 18% of patients showed high adherence, respectively; the corresponding figures for the low adherence were 5% and 37%. Compared with the separate-pill combination, the polypill increased the propensity to be highly adherent to treatment by 3.29 times (95% confidence interval: 2.88-3.75) and reduced the low adherence risk (RR = 0.13, 0.10-0.18), irrespective of sex, age, comorbidities, and co-treatment burden also throughout the entire follow-up. The polypill was also associated with lower costs (€676 vs. €1068, P = 0.003).
conclusionIn a real-life setting, the polypill improved treatment adherence and reduced healthcare costs compared to the corresponding separate-pill combination. These findings support current guidelines in favour of the polypill.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.