No abstract

Background Most people who begin statins abandon them, most commonly because of side effects. Objectives The purpose of this study was to assess daily symptom scores on statin, placebo, and no treatment in participants who had abandoned statins. Methods Participants received 12 1-month medication bottles, 4 containing atorvastatin 20 mg, 4 placebo, and 4 empty. We measured daily symptom intensity for each using an app (scale 1-100). We also measured the “nocebo” ratio: the ratio of symptoms induced by taking statin that was also induced by taking placebo. Results A total of 60 participants were randomized and 49 completed the 12-month protocol. Mean symptom score was 8.0 (95% CI: 4.7-11.3) in no-tablet months. It was higher in statin months (16.3; 95% CI: 13.0-19.6; P < 0.001), but also in placebo months (15.4; 95% CI: 12.1-18.7; P < 0.001), with no difference between the 2 (P = 0.388). The corresponding nocebo ratio was 0.90. In the individual-patient daily data, neither symptom intensity on starting (OR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.98-1.06; P = 0.28) nor extent of symptom relief on stopping (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.98-1.05; P = 0.48) distinguished between statin and placebo. Stopping was no more frequent for statin than placebo (P = 0.173), and subsequent symptom relief was similar between statin and placebo. At 6 months after the trial, 30 of 60 (50%) participants were back taking statins. Conclusions The majority of symptoms caused by statin tablets were nocebo. Clinicians should not interpret symptom intensity or timing of symptom onset or offset (on starting or stopping statin tablets) as indicating pharmacological causation, because the pattern is identical for placebo. (Self-Assessment Method for Statin Side-effects Or Nocebo [SAMSON]; NCT02668016 )

ImportanceThe Use of a Multidrug Pill In Reducing cardiovascular Events (UMPIRE) trial has shown improved adherence with the use of a polypill strategy when compared with usual medications for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. To advance from efficacy to impact, we need a better understanding of why and how such a strategy might be deployed in complex health systems.ObjectiveTo understand, from the perspective of UMPIRE trial participants and professionals, how and why a polypill strategy improves adherence compared with usual care, why improvement is greater in some subgroups, and to explore the acceptability of a polypill strategy among trial participants and healthcare professionals.Design, setting and participantsA preplanned process evaluation, based on qualitative interviews, was conducted with a subsample of 102 trial participants and 41 healthcare professionals at the end of the UMPIRE trial in India and Europe.ResultsMost patients contrasted the simplicity of the polypill with usual medications that they found complex and, for many in India, expensive. Patients with low baseline adherence struggled most with complex medication lists, and those without established disease described less motivation to adhere when compared with people who had already been diagnosed with CVD; people in the latter group had already undertaken self-directed measures to adhere to CVD preventive medicines prior to entering the trial. Taking medication was one of many adaptations described by patients; these included dietary changes, stopping smoking and maintaining exercise. Most patients liked the polypill strategy, although some participants and health professionals were concerned that it would provide less tailored therapy for individual needs.ConclusionsAdherence to treatment lists with multiple medications is complex and influenced by several factors. Simplifying medication by using a once-daily polypill is one approach to CVD prevention that may enhance adherence. Prescribers should also consider the wide variety of adjustments that individuals need to make to cope with daily medication.

No abstract

not available

The ability of statins to reduce the morbidity and mortality of cardiovascular disease has ensured that they are among the most prescribed drugs in modern medicine. Unfortunately, most patients who start taking statins will end up stopping them, most commonly due to side effects. Confusingly, however, in blinded placebocontrolled trials, side effects appear no more common in those taking statins than those taking placebo. One possible explanation is that ever-present background symptoms are being falsely attributed to statins. However, another explanation is the nocebo effect, where the act of just taking a tablet (even a placebo) causes genuine side effects in patients.Two recent randomized placebo-controlled personalized (N-of-1) trials have been reported: StatinWise and SAMSON. In these trials, each participant was randomized to multiple periods of statin and placebo, with regular symptom burden assessments. Together, these trials support the existence of a significant nocebo effect from taking statins. Possibly even more importantly, they demonstrate the ability of personalized trials to inform and empower patients: up to half of the patients in these trials were able to successfully restart statins after taking part, despite previously having been statin intolerant. StatinWise and SAMSON have raised public awareness of the nocebo effect in statin intolerance. However, they also demonstrate a potential role for the personalized design outside of clinical trials. If taking part in these personalized experiments allows half of our patients to successfully restart life-saving medications, maybe we should be able to prescribe personalized experiments to our patients in the clinical setting?

No abstract