Healthcare expenditure on Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians at high risk of cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: In spite of bearing a heavier burden of death, disease and disability, there is mixed evidence as to whether Indigenous Australians utilise more or less healthcare services than other Australians given their elevated risk level. This study analyses the Medicare expenditure and its predictors in a cohort of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians at high risk of cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The healthcare expenditure of participants of the Kanyini Guidelines Adherence with the Polypill (GAP) pragmatic randomised controlled trial was modelled using linear regression methods. 535 adult (48% Indigenous) participants at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) were recruited through 33 primary healthcare services (including 12 Aboriginal Medical Services) across Australia. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the expenditure of Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants in non-remote areas following adjustment for individual characteristics. Indigenous individuals living in remote areas had lower MBS expenditure ($932 per year P < 0.001) than other individuals. MBS expenditure was found to increase with being aged over 65 years ($128, p = 0.013), being female ($472, p = 0.003), lower baseline reported quality of life ($102 per 0.1 decrement of utility p = 0.004) and a history of diabetes ($324, p = 0.001), gout ($631, p = 0.022), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ($469, p = 0.019) and established CVD whether receiving guideline-recommended treatment prior to the trial ($452, p = 0.005) or not ($483, p = 0.04). When controlling for all other characteristics, morbidly obese patients had lower MBS expenditure than other individuals (-$887, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that for the majority of participants, once individuals are engaged with a primary care provider, factors other than whether they are Indigenous determine the level of Medicare expenditure for each person. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN 126080005833347.

Do polypills lead to neglect of lifestyle risk factors? Findings from an individual participant data meta-analysis among 3140 patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease.

AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate whether polypill-based care for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is associated with a change in lifestyle risk factors when compared with usual care, among patients with CVD or high calculated cardiovascular risk. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of three trials including patients from Australia, England, India, Ireland, the Netherlands and New Zealand that compared a strategy using a polypill containing aspirin, statin and antihypertensive therapy with usual care in patients with a prior CVD event or who were at high risk of their first event. Analyses investigated any differential effect on anthropometric measures and self-reported lifestyle behaviours. RESULTS: Among 3140 patients (75% male, mean age 62 years and 76% with a prior CVD event) there was no difference in lifestyle risk factors in those randomised to polypill-based care compared with usual care over a median of 15 months, either across all participants combined, or in a range of subgroups. Furthermore, narrow confidence intervals (CIs) excluded any major effect; for example differences between the groups in body mass index was -0.1 (95% CI -0.2 to 0.1) kg/m(2), in weekly duration of moderate intensity physical activity was -2 (-26 to 23) minutes and the proportion of smokers was 16% vs 17% (RR 0.98, 0.84 to 1.15) at the end of trial. DISCUSSION: This analysis allays concern that polypill-based care may lead to neglect of lifestyle risk factors, at least among high-risk patients. Maximally effective preventive approaches should address lifestyle factors alongside pharmaceutical interventions, as recommended by major international guidelines.

A pragmatic randomized trial of a polypill-based strategy to improve use of indicated preventive treatments in people at high cardiovascular disease risk.

BACKGROUND: Most individuals at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk worldwide do not receive any or optimal preventive drugs. We aimed to determine whether fixed dose combinations of generic drugs ('polypills') would promote use of such medications. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label trial involving 623 participants from Australian general practices. Participants had established CVD or an estimated five-year CVD risk of ≥15%, with indications for antiplatelet, statin and ≥2 blood pressure lowering drugs ('combination treatment'). Participants randomized to the 'polypill-based strategy' received a polypill containing aspirin 75 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, lisinopril 10 mg and either atenolol 50 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Participants randomized to 'usual care' continued with separate medications and doses as prescribed by their doctor. Primary outcomes were self-reported combination treatment use, systolic blood pressure and total cholesterol. RESULTS: After a median of 18 months, the polypill-based strategy was associated with greater use of combination treatment (70% vs. 47%; relative risk 1.49, (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.72) p < 0.0001; number needed to treat = 4.4 (3.3 to 6.6)) without differences in systolic blood pressure (-1.5 mmHg (95% CI -4.0 to 1.0) p = 0.24) or total cholesterol (0.08 mmol/l (95% CI -0.06 to 0.22) p = 0.26). At study end, 17% and 67% of participants in polypill and usual care groups, respectively, were taking atorvastatin or rosuvastatin. CONCLUSION: Provision of a polypill improved self-reported use of indicated preventive treatments. The lack of differences in blood pressure and cholesterol may reflect limited study power, although for cholesterol, improved statin use in the polypill group counter-balanced use of more potent statins with usual care.