Key result
A polypill for primary cardiovascular prevention increased costs by $291 in lower-middle-income and $1068 in upper-middle-income countries over 4.6 years, but was cost neutral in high-income countries.
Why the study?
Following findings that a polypill reduces cardiovascular events, regional variations in costs and affordability based on the TIPS-3 trial remained to be determined.
What are the cost implications and affordability of a polypill for primary cardiovascular prevention across different country income levels?
What are the cost implications and affordability of a polypill for primary cardiovascular prevention across different country income levels?
Mean Difference: 291 (95% CI 243–339)
A polypill for primary cardiovascular prevention is affordable across various economic levels and cost-neutral in high-income countries.
Added costs may limit uptake in middle-income countries; leaves open affordability for primary prevention across economies.
AIMS: The International Polycap Study 3 (TIPS-3) trial demonstrated that a polypill containing cholesterol- and multiple blood-pressure-lowering drugs reduces cardiovascular events by 20% compared with placebo in people without cardiovascular disease. The polypill plus aspirin led to a 31% relative risk reduction in cardiovascular disease events compared with double placebo. We report regional variations in costs and affordability of a polypill based on the TIPS-3 trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Countries were categorized using World Bank economic groups: lower-middle-income, upper-middle-income, and high-income countries. Country-specific costs were obtained for hospitalization events, procedures, and non-study medications (2019 US dollars). Polypill price was based on the cheapest equivalent substitute (CES) for each component. For the polypill vs. placebo, the difference in cost over the 4.6 years of the trial was $291 [95% confidence interval (CI): $243-339] per participant in lower-middle-income countries, $1068 (95% CI: $992-1144) in upper-middle-income countries, and $48 (95% CI: -$271 to $367) in high-income countries. Results were similar for the polypill plus aspirin vs. a double placebo. In both cases, the polypill was affordable in all groups using monthly household capacity to pay or a threshold of 4% of the gross national income per capita. CONCLUSION: The use of a polypill (CES) in TIPS-3 increases costs in lower-middle-income countries and upper-middle-income countries but is affordable in countries at various economic levels and is cost neutral (dominant) in high-income countries.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lamy et al. (2021) studied Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Polypill vs. Placebo was evaluated on Difference in cost over 4.6 years per participant in lower-middle-income countries (MD $291, 95% CI 243-339). A polypill for primary cardiovascular prevention increased costs by $291 in lower-middle-income and $1068 in upper-middle-income countries over 4.6 years, but was cost neutral in high-income countries.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: