![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This item is an original article produced for a website- it has not been posted. It uses information from the BMJ website and the original paper journal. I suppose therefore that the intellectual property lies with the authors of the paper- Wald and Law- and with the British Medical journal. There is no known legal copyright for it. The information though is within the public domain and this is a summary of the facts within the public domain.
I wrote the article for my personal ( small company) website but assumed that it could be used on wikipedia too. There is no copyright issue, that I am aware as I wrote the article. The polypill has been subject to international conferences to discuss it's development. As a concept and development it is not copyrighted. The BMJ was used to check facts and not plagarised.
Confess naiviety to the wikipedia format etc. Only after I had posted it did I realise that it was not in keeping with the rest of the entries.Later I returned and found that I should not edit it so haven't. More than happy to try resubmitting an improved version again
Hi Thanks for your help. I have editted it, hopefully so it is more appropriate in style. I tried putting some links in too. Feedback would be most appreciated
Have editted again and included details on Wald and Law. I do not know how to properly format this inclusion though. At what point is the article "clean enough"? the edits were done when I wasnt logged in -- Wazza ( talk · contribs)
The Indian Polycap Study has been added with a massive new 6-header section, plus a link to its own article at Polycap. It seems a bit excessive and disproportionate to the rest of the article, and reads a little like it's partly about promoting the Polycap approach. I am not sure how to fix it or even if it needs fixing. Comments please? Oh, and I'd be most grateful if the editor could please stop the excessive bolding, which I do not think is supported by the Manual of Style at wp:mos and seems to add nothing. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 09:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is a conflict of interest here and at Polycap and have added the COI template to the article page. Drmaseeh has a username similar to someone featured in the article and has been adding extensively on this topic. The user has not responded to attempts to make contact. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 06:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The article has this: "Incidentally, the Polypill concept was floated a year earlier by Dr Salim Yusuf in an Editorial in Lancet in 2002." Reading the referenced paper I find the concept mentioned thus "(perhaps even a combination pill)." Is that "floating the Polypill concept"? I'm not sure: I worry that it is not. While I'm at it, I'm not sure about the use of "Incidentally" in that sentence and in this one: "Incidentally, the Polymeal was on the menu at the first Polycap Investigators' Meet at Bangalore." There's something about it strikes me as potentially unencyclopaedic: a bit chatty, or something. Oh, and both "incidentally" edits came from the same non-communicating, possible-COI-editor who was very busy here for a while but has currently stopped. Incidentally, for personal reasons I am no longer editing these articles and have removed them from my watchlist, and I wish you much luck with them. Oh, and it's The Lancet - sorry! :) Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
PILL Collaborative Group, Rodgers A, Patel A, Berwanger O, Bots M, Grimm R, Grobbee DE, Jackson R, Neal B, Neaton J, Poulter N, Rafter N, Raju PK, Reddy S, Thom S, Vander Hoorn S, Webster R.
+ Collaborators (114) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21647425#
An international randomised placebo-controlled trial of a four-component combination pill ("polypill") in people with raised cardiovascular risk.
PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19857. Epub 2011 May 25.
Free PMC Article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21647425/?tool=pubmed
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
There has been widespread interest in the potential of combination cardiovascular medications containing aspirin and agents to lower blood pressure and cholesterol ('polypills') to reduce cardiovascular disease. However, no reliable placebo-controlled data are available on both efficacy and tolerability.
METHODS:
We conducted a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a polypill (containing aspirin 75 mg, lisinopril 10 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg and simvastatin 20 mg) in 378 individuals without an indication for any component of the polypill, but who had an estimated 5-year cardiovascular disease risk over 7.5%. The primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), LDL-cholesterol and tolerability (proportion discontinued randomised therapy) at 12 weeks follow-up.
FINDINGS:
At baseline, mean BP was 134/81 mmHg and mean LDL-cholesterol was 3.7 mmol/L. Over 12 weeks, polypill treatment reduced SBP by 9.9 (95% CI: 7.7 to 12.1) mmHg and LDL-cholesterol by 0.8 (95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) mmol/L. The discontinuation rates in the polypill group compared to placebo were 23% vs 18% (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00, p = 0.2). There was an excess of side effects known to the component medicines (58% vs 42%, p = 0.001), which was mostly apparent within a few weeks, and usually did not warrant cessation of trial treatment.
CONCLUSIONS:
This polypill achieved sizeable reductions in SBP and LDL-cholesterol but caused side effects in about 1 in 6 people. The halving in predicted cardiovascular risk is moderately lower than previous estimates and the side effect rate is moderately higher. Nonetheless, substantial net benefits would be expected among patients at high risk.
TRIAL REGISTRATION:
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000099426. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
neutrality is disputed
(Note: I have a potential COI here so will be trying to avoid editing the article myself if it's contentious.) Looking at this removal of the link to http://www.polypill.com ... :UseTheCommandLine says "clearly linkspam, and prohibited by WP:EL". Is that definitely the case?
I had a look at EL and I can see some ways in which it tends to be forbidden (it's commercial) but I can also see a potential argument that it is useful background. It was billed as "Wald and Law's Polypill" and Wald and Law are named in the article as the originators of the term, so I suppose it goes some way to answering the question "hey, what are those guys up to these days" or even "can I/people get a polypill?" (Which, yes, could be a commercial enquiry but also a seeking for greater knowledge!) It also has quite good stuff on the make-up (or break-down?!) of their particular flavour of polypill ( https://www.polypill.com/what-is-polypill.html), and an explanation of the rationale behind it ( https://www.polypill.com/evidence-for-polypill.html). And it's not currently one of 326 sites answering the same questions, as far as I can see - if it were and they were all clamouring for an EL I can see we'd want to be very strict but with this whole thing in its infancy I do wonder if the article might not be well served - at present anyway - by keeping the link in as background. (It's a pity we don't have a "beware - commercial site but has other interesting content" or "dodgy looking but less dodgy than it might be EL" or "evil commerce but not entirely evil" flag!)
As I say, though, I'm not intending to edit where I might have a CoI and I am certainly not intending to start a fist fight over one EL, so this is NOT a challenge! :) I would just be interested to debate it a little further. With thanks and best wishes LBN ( talk) 07:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This article says: "It is commonly manufactured as a fixed-dose combination (FDC)". The Combination drug starts with: A combination drug or a fixed-dose combination (FDC), and fixed-dose combination redirects to the Combination drug article. See also Talk:Combination_drug#Merge_from_Polypill.-- Bawanio ( talk) 01:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This item is an original article produced for a website- it has not been posted. It uses information from the BMJ website and the original paper journal. I suppose therefore that the intellectual property lies with the authors of the paper- Wald and Law- and with the British Medical journal. There is no known legal copyright for it. The information though is within the public domain and this is a summary of the facts within the public domain.
I wrote the article for my personal ( small company) website but assumed that it could be used on wikipedia too. There is no copyright issue, that I am aware as I wrote the article. The polypill has been subject to international conferences to discuss it's development. As a concept and development it is not copyrighted. The BMJ was used to check facts and not plagarised.
Confess naiviety to the wikipedia format etc. Only after I had posted it did I realise that it was not in keeping with the rest of the entries.Later I returned and found that I should not edit it so haven't. More than happy to try resubmitting an improved version again
Hi Thanks for your help. I have editted it, hopefully so it is more appropriate in style. I tried putting some links in too. Feedback would be most appreciated
Have editted again and included details on Wald and Law. I do not know how to properly format this inclusion though. At what point is the article "clean enough"? the edits were done when I wasnt logged in -- Wazza ( talk · contribs)
The Indian Polycap Study has been added with a massive new 6-header section, plus a link to its own article at Polycap. It seems a bit excessive and disproportionate to the rest of the article, and reads a little like it's partly about promoting the Polycap approach. I am not sure how to fix it or even if it needs fixing. Comments please? Oh, and I'd be most grateful if the editor could please stop the excessive bolding, which I do not think is supported by the Manual of Style at wp:mos and seems to add nothing. DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 09:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe there is a conflict of interest here and at Polycap and have added the COI template to the article page. Drmaseeh has a username similar to someone featured in the article and has been adding extensively on this topic. The user has not responded to attempts to make contact. Thanks and best wishes DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 06:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. The article has this: "Incidentally, the Polypill concept was floated a year earlier by Dr Salim Yusuf in an Editorial in Lancet in 2002." Reading the referenced paper I find the concept mentioned thus "(perhaps even a combination pill)." Is that "floating the Polypill concept"? I'm not sure: I worry that it is not. While I'm at it, I'm not sure about the use of "Incidentally" in that sentence and in this one: "Incidentally, the Polymeal was on the menu at the first Polycap Investigators' Meet at Bangalore." There's something about it strikes me as potentially unencyclopaedic: a bit chatty, or something. Oh, and both "incidentally" edits came from the same non-communicating, possible-COI-editor who was very busy here for a while but has currently stopped. Incidentally, for personal reasons I am no longer editing these articles and have removed them from my watchlist, and I wish you much luck with them. Oh, and it's The Lancet - sorry! :) Cheers, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered ( talk) 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
PILL Collaborative Group, Rodgers A, Patel A, Berwanger O, Bots M, Grimm R, Grobbee DE, Jackson R, Neal B, Neaton J, Poulter N, Rafter N, Raju PK, Reddy S, Thom S, Vander Hoorn S, Webster R.
+ Collaborators (114) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21647425#
An international randomised placebo-controlled trial of a four-component combination pill ("polypill") in people with raised cardiovascular risk.
PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e19857. Epub 2011 May 25.
Free PMC Article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/21647425/?tool=pubmed
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
There has been widespread interest in the potential of combination cardiovascular medications containing aspirin and agents to lower blood pressure and cholesterol ('polypills') to reduce cardiovascular disease. However, no reliable placebo-controlled data are available on both efficacy and tolerability.
METHODS:
We conducted a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of a polypill (containing aspirin 75 mg, lisinopril 10 mg, hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg and simvastatin 20 mg) in 378 individuals without an indication for any component of the polypill, but who had an estimated 5-year cardiovascular disease risk over 7.5%. The primary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), LDL-cholesterol and tolerability (proportion discontinued randomised therapy) at 12 weeks follow-up.
FINDINGS:
At baseline, mean BP was 134/81 mmHg and mean LDL-cholesterol was 3.7 mmol/L. Over 12 weeks, polypill treatment reduced SBP by 9.9 (95% CI: 7.7 to 12.1) mmHg and LDL-cholesterol by 0.8 (95% CI 0.6 to 0.9) mmol/L. The discontinuation rates in the polypill group compared to placebo were 23% vs 18% (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.00, p = 0.2). There was an excess of side effects known to the component medicines (58% vs 42%, p = 0.001), which was mostly apparent within a few weeks, and usually did not warrant cessation of trial treatment.
CONCLUSIONS:
This polypill achieved sizeable reductions in SBP and LDL-cholesterol but caused side effects in about 1 in 6 people. The halving in predicted cardiovascular risk is moderately lower than previous estimates and the side effect rate is moderately higher. Nonetheless, substantial net benefits would be expected among patients at high risk.
TRIAL REGISTRATION:
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000099426. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.133.143 ( talk) 23:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
neutrality is disputed
(Note: I have a potential COI here so will be trying to avoid editing the article myself if it's contentious.) Looking at this removal of the link to http://www.polypill.com ... :UseTheCommandLine says "clearly linkspam, and prohibited by WP:EL". Is that definitely the case?
I had a look at EL and I can see some ways in which it tends to be forbidden (it's commercial) but I can also see a potential argument that it is useful background. It was billed as "Wald and Law's Polypill" and Wald and Law are named in the article as the originators of the term, so I suppose it goes some way to answering the question "hey, what are those guys up to these days" or even "can I/people get a polypill?" (Which, yes, could be a commercial enquiry but also a seeking for greater knowledge!) It also has quite good stuff on the make-up (or break-down?!) of their particular flavour of polypill ( https://www.polypill.com/what-is-polypill.html), and an explanation of the rationale behind it ( https://www.polypill.com/evidence-for-polypill.html). And it's not currently one of 326 sites answering the same questions, as far as I can see - if it were and they were all clamouring for an EL I can see we'd want to be very strict but with this whole thing in its infancy I do wonder if the article might not be well served - at present anyway - by keeping the link in as background. (It's a pity we don't have a "beware - commercial site but has other interesting content" or "dodgy looking but less dodgy than it might be EL" or "evil commerce but not entirely evil" flag!)
As I say, though, I'm not intending to edit where I might have a CoI and I am certainly not intending to start a fist fight over one EL, so this is NOT a challenge! :) I would just be interested to debate it a little further. With thanks and best wishes LBN ( talk) 07:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
This article says: "It is commonly manufactured as a fixed-dose combination (FDC)". The Combination drug starts with: A combination drug or a fixed-dose combination (FDC), and fixed-dose combination redirects to the Combination drug article. See also Talk:Combination_drug#Merge_from_Polypill.-- Bawanio ( talk) 01:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)