Next Article in Journal
The Current Status of Minimally Invasive Conduit Harvesting for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting
Previous Article in Journal
A Vector Theory of Assessing Clinical Trials: An Application to Bioequivalence
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCDD
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/jcdd11070186
jcdd-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Perspective

Facilitators and Barriers of Incremental Innovation by Fixed Dose Combinations in Cardiovascular Diseases

by
András Inotai
1,2,
Zoltán Kaló
1,2,*,
Zsuzsanna Petykó
1,2,
Kristóf Gyöngyösi
1,2,
Derek T. O’Keeffe
3,
Marcin Czech
4 and
Tamás Ágh
2,5
1
Center for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, 1091 Budapest, Hungary
2
Syreon Research Institute, 1142 Budapest, Hungary
3
School of Medicine, University of Galway, H91TK33 Galway, Ireland
4
Department of Pharmacoeconomics, Institute of Mother and Child, 01-211 Warsaw, Poland
5
Medication Adherence Research Group, Center for Health Technology Assessment and Pharmacoeconomic Research, University of Pécs, 7623 Pécs, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11(7), 186; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070186
Submission received: 28 May 2024 / Revised: 18 June 2024 / Accepted: 19 June 2024 / Published: 21 June 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Basic and Translational Cardiovascular Research)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite the availability of affordable pharmaceuticals treating cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), many of the risk factors remain poorly controlled. Fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), a form of incremental innovation, have already demonstrated improvements over combinations of single medicines in adherence and hard clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, there are many barriers related to the wider use of FDCs in CVDs. Our aim was to identify these barriers and explore system-level facilitators from a multi-stakeholder perspective. Identified barriers include (i) hurdles in evidence generation for manufacturers, (ii) limited acceptance of adherence as an endpoint by clinical guideline developers and policymakers, (iii) limited options for a price premium for incremental innovation for healthcare payers, (iv) limited availability of real-world evidence, and (v) methodological issues to measure improved adherence. Initiatives to standardize and link healthcare databases in European countries, movements towards improved patient centricity in healthcare, and extended value assessment provide opportunities to capture the benefits of FDCs. Still, there is an emerging need to facilitate the generalizability of sporadic clinical evidence across different FDCs and to improve adherence measures. Finally, healthcare payers need to be convinced to pay a fair premium price for the added value of FDCs to incentivize incremental innovation in CVD treatment.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) has been highly successful in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). As a consequence, significant therapeutic experience has been accumulated with cardiovascular (CV) medicines, accompanied by well-known safety profiles and affordable price tags. In comparison with other disease areas (e.g., oncology), the unmet need for general CV patient populations is relatively small [1]. Due to off-patent standard therapies and regulators’ expectations for large-scale clinical trials with over ten thousand patients, the return on investment for de novo revolutionary innovation in CVDs has become limited [2], and so innovators have been focusing only on narrow patient populations in niche areas, such as amyloid cardiomyopathy [3,4].
Despite the wide treatment armamentarium, CVDs still represent the largest global disease burden for adults [5,6,7]. CVD is the leading cause of death globally [8], and due to the rising prevalence of CVDs, the health burden will grow in the future. Many CVD risk factors remain poorly controlled. The silent course of the CVD, complexity of treatment sequencing, increasing rates of comorbidities (e.g., diabetes, obesity, and autoimmune diseases), and suboptimal adherence are important factors limiting the translation of clinical trial efficacy into real-world effectiveness at the population level. In the absence of de novo innovation for the general CV population, there are two potential ways forward: First, the synergistic effect of co-administering medicines with different mechanisms of action has improved therapeutic outcomes, e.g., in hypertension, the combination of diuretics, calcium channel blockers, beta-blockers, and renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers has been proved to be effective in reducing major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) [9,10]. The second way forward is the incremental or evolutionary innovation of existing medicines to create value-added or repurposed medicines. There are three drug repurposing models: (i) drug repositioning refers to finding new indications or applying a medicine in a new patient population; (ii) drug reformulation is a process in which the pharmaceutical formulation of a product is modified to gain new attributes; finally, (iii) the combination of established medicines into a single pill. Fixed dose combinations (FDCs) of monocomponents in the same indication, or polypills of medicines from different indications, have the potential to deliver additional value to patients, healthcare professionals, and healthcare payers [11]. The selection of active product ingredients (APIs) for combination should be based on the following considerations: (1) the APIs in the combination should have different and complementary mechanisms of action, (2) their pharmacokinetics should not be widely different, and (3) they should not have supra-additive toxicity compared to monotherapy [12]. For example, better blood pressure control and a reduction in low-density lipoprotein concentration have been demonstrated with the use of FDCs in secondary prevention of CVDs [13]. Importantly, the WHO has recently incorporated FDCs in its Essential Medicines List [14]. Due to the high global prevalence of CVDs, incremental innovation of marketed medicines has more potential to reduce the global burden of CVDs than de novo innovation in niche CV patient populations.
Despite the availability of numerous effective and well-tolerated pharmacotherapies in CVDs, their potential benefits are often not fully realized due to medication non-adherence [15]. Moreover, the necessity to take multiple medications for CVD combination therapies may negatively impact adherence. Approximately half of the patients on chronic pharmaceutical therapy fail to follow their long-term medication regimens [16], which is amplified by the rising prevalence of multimorbidity within aging populations [17,18,19]. As a potential solution, simplified treatment regimens and reduced pill burden through FDCs can improve medication adherence among CVD patients [20].
The impact of non-adherence is especially critical for those patients for whom limited disease control is associated with negative clinical events and increased mortality [21,22,23,24,25,26]. A recent meta-analysis––which included observational (cohort or case–control) studies with risk estimates for cardiovascular events, strokes, or all-cause mortality related to lipid-lowering, antihypertensive, antidiabetics, and antithrombotic agents––highlighted that a 20% increase in adherence to CV medication is associated with a 9% reduction in the risk of CV events, a 16% reduction in the risk of stroke, and a 10% reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality [27]. Conversely, in Europe, 9% of all CV events can be associated with poor medication adherence [28]. Real-world studies on CVDs have demonstrated that FDCs, by improving adherence, are associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81–1.00) and a non-significant reduction in the risk of major cardiac events (MACEs) (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.70–1.02) [29]. Obviously, these indicators may vary for CV diseases (such as coronary heart diseases, chronic heart failure, or stroke) and subpopulations with different baseline risks.
Medication non-adherence in CVDs also leads to substantial healthcare costs due to increased utilization of preventable healthcare services, such as medication use, emergency department visits, outpatient visits, and hospital admissions [30]. Such cost increases become particularly critical when considering that expenditures related to CVD represent up to 7.6% of total healthcare spending in the European Union, partly driven by medication non-adherence [31]. This suggests that, among other potential adherence interventions, FDCs offer a promising strategy to mitigate the healthcare burden associated with CVDs [20,32]. The annual savings associated with changing combination antihypertensive therapy to FDCs in Poland was estimated to be EUR 12.3 million from the public payer’s perspective and an additional EUR 5.0 million from the patients’ perspective. Apart from the immediate savings in pharmaceutical costs, the broadened use of FDCs was also expected to improve the patients’ adherence and non-drug costs (e.g., avoided complications) [33].
Finally, the applicability of lower doses due to the improved therapeutic effect of FDCs may be translated to potentially lower collateral effects and reduced utilization and cost of the API.
Potential disadvantages of FDCs include limited flexibility in dosing (both during the titration period and during the maintenance treatment period), hindering personalized medicines, and, compared to administering only one monocomponent, potentially increased chances of adverse drug effects and interactions [34].
Several publications describe how medication adherence at the patient level can be facilitated by healthcare professionals (e.g., physicians, pharmacists, and nurses) with the support of clinical societies and patient advocacy groups [35,36]. However, there is limited information about how policymakers and healthcare payers at the health system level can advocate incremental innovation of health technologies—such as FDCs or digital health solutions—with the potential to improve therapeutic adherence.
This perspective paper aims to describe the barriers preventing the increased utilization of FDCs in CVDs and, based on the identified barriers, to provide system-level policy solutions and recommendations from a multi-stakeholder perspective.

2. System Level Barriers to Advocate FDCs

In order to explore system-level barriers towards the development and use of FDCs to improve medication adherence, it is important to understand what differentiates incremental innovation of widely used medicines from other types of pharmaceutical innovations from the perspective of regulators and healthcare payers.
As described in Table 1, the patentability of FDCs is fairly limited compared to other types of pharmaceutical R&D. HTA bodies and healthcare payers treat FDCs similarly to generic or biosimilar medicines. They do not expect health gain compared with the combination of monocomponents, which has to be rewarded with a price premium. In theory, healthcare payers are not against paying a fair price premium for a reduction in mortality or an improvement in quality of life if manufacturers are able to prove these benefits at product launch from randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The current approach of macro-level decisions is associated with several barriers to the extended development and use of FDCs in CVDs.

2.1. Barrier #1: Hurdles in Evidence Generation for Innovators of FDCs

When comparing FDCs to combination therapies in separate pills, it is difficult to separate the improved therapeutic effect coming (1) from the synergistic effect of co-administering single medicines with different mechanisms of action, or (2) from the benefit of combining established medicines into a single pill. Investment in evidence generation related to the added value of the single pill formulation is a dilemma for the first movers due to the limited patentability, as once the evidence is in the public domain, other manufacturers will have the opportunity to free-ride on the first mover’s investment and develop their own FDCs with the same components.
As a consequence of the limited patentability, pharmaceutical companies have to limit the R&D budget to test the benefits of FDCs of off-patent medicines in prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Even if they are willing to invest a development budget comparable to de novo investigational medicines, it is not possible to detect adherence improvement of FDCs in blinded RCTs. Therefore, clinical differentiation of FDCs in RCTs has to be based on hard clinical endpoints, which necessitates the inclusion of thousands of patients with long-term follow-up. Improved medication adherence (and related improvement in hard clinical endpoints) can potentially be measured in observational studies. Recently, there has been increasing evidence that biochemical urine testing is a promising tool for measuring adherence in multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes and mental disorders [37,38,39]. However, the generation of real-world evidence is possible only after the wide-scale use of FDCs.
In conclusion, the benefits of FDCs can be proven only in highly expensive, large-scale RCTs and real-world evidence is available only after the reimbursement of FDCs by healthcare payers.

2.2. Barrier #2: Limited Acceptance of Adherence as an Endpoint by Clinical Guideline Developers and Policymakers

Certain clinical guidelines already recognize the importance of FDCs in reducing pill burden and improving adherence in the pharmacotherapy of CVDs. Specifically, the ESH (European Society of Hypertension) guidelines [40] emphasize treatment initiation with FDCs rather than the administration of separate monocomponents for most patients with hypertension. Similarly, the ACC/AHA (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association) guidelines [41] recommend the same approach for patients with stage 2 hypertension, those with blood pressure more than 20/10 mm Hg above their target blood pressure, and Black patients.
Nevertheless, the integration of FDCs into CV clinical guidelines is still in its early stages and not yet comprehensive. Despite the significant potential of FDCs in enhancing medication adherence, they face four main challenges in gaining extensive recognition as a valid strategy for clinical improvement within clinical guidelines. First, the development of evidence-based guidelines heavily focuses on hard clinical endpoints, such as mortality and MACEs, thus typically not considering the impact of FDCs on adherence as a valid clinical endpoint. Second, the assertion that FDCs improve medication adherence lacks robust support from RCTs due to the aforementioned reasons, hindering the acceptance of adherence benefits as a legitimate clinical improvement [42]. Third, the lack of regulatory recommendations on standardized definitions, measurement methods, and reporting protocols of medication adherence, both in RCTs and in real-world data analysis, complicates the assessment of adherence interventions, including FDCs [43,44]. Finally, various other factors beyond the formulation of medications can significantly influence medication adherence [16,45,46]. These factors underscore the complexity of enhancing adherence and suggest that a multifaceted approach is necessary to comprehensively address this issue.

2.3. Barrier #3: Limited Options for Price Premium for Incremental Innovation by Healthcare Payers

In the financing protocol for treatments of CVDs, the first-line therapies are off-patent medicines. After the patent expiry, the primary expectation of healthcare payers is the generation of savings from generic price erosion, and they devote limited attention to health outcomes. Payers routinely apply internal reference pricing (IRP) for medicines in the retail sector or single-criterion tenders with a ‘lowest-price-wins’ decision rule in the hospital sector [47,48]. Pharmaceutical price regulators, healthcare payers, and procurement bodies set up similarly conservative pricing rules for FDCs, which permit discount prices for FDCs compared with the aggregated price level of monocomponents; in other words, they expect that ‘1 + 1 < 2’. Some payers even maximize the price of FDCs according to the higher-priced monocomponent (’1 + 1 = 1’ or even ‘1 + 1 + 1 = 1’) [33] and hope that manufacturers of FDCs accept such an unfair pricing rule for a potentially higher market share compared with monocomponents.
Exemptions from IRP or a modest price premium are more realistic in areas with high unmet needs, such as oncology or pediatric indications. Based on a series of structured interviews with health policy experts from Ireland, the price potential of FDCs is still not sufficient to incentivize investment in R&D [49]. A good example of that is a polypill called TRINOMIA (containing acetylsalicylic acid, atorvastatin, and ramipril) which is used for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular accidents. Our interviewees highlighted that, despite the substantial added therapeutic value of the polypill, they expected the medicines not to receive a price premium [50]. Based on the reimbursement price of TRINOMIA in Ireland, it was priced slightly higher than the most expensive monocomponent, atorvastatin (EUR 13.11 and EUR 12, respectively), for a 28-day treatment period [51,52]. Additionally, based on the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association’s 2021–2025 Framework Agreement, a yearly price reduction resulted in an even lower price for TRINOMIA (EUR 12.83) as of the 1st of March 2022 [53]. The negative incentivizing effect of such pricing policies is well demonstrated by the fact that the pivotal trial for TRINOMIA (SECURE trial) was funded by the EU [54,55]. With more adaptive pricing policies and a better price potential, a local pharmaceutical company might have been incentivized to run a trial for the FDC and supply the medicine in Ireland. Our interviews revealed that a similar pricing structure is true for Poland, where the price is usually set to the price level of the highest-priced monocomponent (‘1 + 1 = 1’) [33]. Our experts highlighted that even after the expected future revision of the Polish legislation, the full price may not reach the sum of the two monocomponents’ prices (i.e., ‘1 + 1 < 2’), and they see that this discourages investment in FDCs. Therefore, price regulators, healthcare payers, and procurement bodies do not financially incentivize the added value of improved therapeutic adherence generated by incremental innovation.
Another potential reason why payers are reluctant to pay a price premium for FDCs (with their main benefit being improved adherence) is the multifactorial nature of the issue of non-adherence. As often argued, in addition to therapy-related factors, non-adherence is also influenced by social and economic, disease-related, patient-related, and healthcare-system-related factors. Hence, according to the argument of some payers, isolating and attributing improved adherence solely to the pharmaceutical product itself may be misleading. As an example, one might argue that promotional activities of sales representatives of pharmaceutical companies may have an impact on medication adherence, therefore, payers, similarly to developers of clinical guidelines, also prefer the hard clinical endpoints over medication adherence.

2.4. Barrier #4: Limited Availability of Real-World Evidence

Pathways of CVD patients and their long-term outcomes (i.e., mortality and MACEs) can potentially be followed in payer’s databases in countries with a single healthcare payer. However, the accessibility to individualized patient records is often limited to researchers, even in an anonymized format, and missing or poor-quality data also limits the potential of capturing the benefits of FDCs in payer’s databases.
In countries with multiple payers, where healthcare financing is fragmented, the patient pathways may not be reliably traceable.

2.5. Barrier #5: Methodological Issues to Measure Improved Adherence

The lack of consensus on how to calculate medication adherence may also complicate the analysis of prescription-refill databases. In the case of polypharmacy, complexity arises from the need to integrate the dosing and timing schedules of each drug as their effects merge into a single treatment regimen [56]. This may pose a challenge for retrospective database analyses attempting to assess real-world adherence improvements with FDCs compared with the combination of monocomponents.

3. Recommended Solutions

While the extended use of FDCs at the level of individual CV patients has to be supported by healthcare professionals, it is of utmost importance to change the entire healthcare ecosystem with the involvement of different stakeholders at the macro level.
Dissemination of evidence about the clinical and economic benefits of FDCs has to be facilitated to different stakeholders, including macro-level decision makers, such as regulators and healthcare payers, clinical societies and patient organizations.
Policymakers have to support the extended use of FDCs in CVDs by different measures. FDCs should be included in clinical guidelines and financing protocols at a preferred first-line position. Minimum quotas for the percentage of FDCs in selected CVDs and financial and other incentives to physicians for the prescription of FDCs need to be considered.
Clinical societies and regulators should create consensus about commonly accepted adherence measurement and calculation methods and reporting guidelines [57,58]. If all adherence studies apply the same measures, meta-analyses can be conducted to strengthen the evidence base of adherence-improving technologies. With the increasing evidence about the benefits of FDCs in improving adherence and reducing mortality and MACEs, additional secondary research is needed to explore the generalizability of risk-reduction estimates to future FDCs and also to explore the effect size in different CV diseases and subpopulations with different baseline risks.
Digitalization of medical records and recent initiatives to both standardize and link big data in European countries [59,60], accompanied by current advances in artificial intelligence methodologies, create a unique opportunity to generate real-world evidence (RWE) about the benefits of FDCs in reducing MACEs and mortality, as well as on reduced collateral effects and lower overall API utilization due to potentially lower doses.
The accessibility of payers’ databases to researchers has to be improved, partly because the RWE about the benefits of FDCs would be more acceptable for payers and HTA bodies if the evidence is generated in public ‘non-biased’ databases governed by healthcare payers.
Finally, the added value of FDCs should be acknowledged and incentivized by healthcare payers through new payment models, revising the current conservative pricing models, primarily based on internal reference pricing, into a formula that allows a fair premium price for incremental health gain. However, HTA bodies and healthcare payers cannot expect RCT evidence about the health gain of FDCs before pricing and reimbursement decisions, but they should rely on generalized evidence about the potential reduction in mortality and MACEs by FDCs, and/or they should facilitate ex-post evidence-generation methods based on real-world data, such as coverage with evidence-generation schemes.

4. Conclusions

From the societal and industry policy perspectives, the cost of incremental innovation is significantly less than the innovation of de novo medicines. The magnitude of the real-world benefits of FDCs is similar to new medicines, with less uncertainty about safety. FDCs have the potential to improve patient centricity in healthcare, which is an important attribute of extended value assessment. In conclusion, incremental innovation of FDCs in CVDs may be more cost-effective than the development of original medicines [61]. The confirmation of the positive impact of FDCs on adherence has been reinforced recently by the inclusion of these treatments (FDCs and polypills) in the WHO Essential Medicines List [14].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.I., Z.K. and T.Á.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I., Z.K. and T.Á.; writing—review and editing, Z.P., K.G., D.T.O. and M.C.; funding acquisition, Z.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Egis Pharmaceuticals PLC.

Acknowledgments

This perspective paper has been funded by Egis Pharmaceuticals PLC. The funder had the opportunity to review the manuscript before submission. However, the authors expressed their independent professional opinion and take full responsibility for the content.

Conflicts of Interest

Syreon Research Institute received grants from Egis Pharmaceuticals PLC for pharmaceutical policy research related to off-patent pharmaceuticals on various topics, including generic, biosimilar, and value-added medicines. A.I., Z.K., Z.P., K.G. and T.Á. are employees of Syreon Research Institute. The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.

References

  1. Inotai, A.; Petrova, G.; Vitezic, D.; Kalo, Z. Benefits of investment into modern medicines in Central–Eastern European countries. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2014, 14, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. DiMasi, J.A.; Grabowski, H.G.; Hansen, R.W. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs. J. Health Econ. 2016, 47, 20–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tschöpe, C.; Elsanhoury, A. Treatment of transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy: The current options, the future, and the challenges. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Macedo, A.V.S.; Schwartzmann, P.V.; de Gusmão, B.M.; Melo, M.D.T.D.; Coelho-Filho, O.R. Advances in the treatment of cardiac amyloidosis. Curr. Treat. Options Oncol. 2020, 21, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Mensah, G.A.; Roth, G.A.; Fuster, V. The global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors: 2020 and beyond. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2019, 74, 2529–2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Roth, G.A.; Mensah, G.A.; Fuster, V. The global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risks: A compass for global action. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2020, 76, 2980–2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Vaduganathan, M.; Mensah, G.A.; Turco, J.V.; Fuster, V.; Roth, G.A. The global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk: A compass for future health. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 80, 2361–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. World Health Organization. The Global Health Observatory. Available online: https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  9. Sood, N.; Reinhart, K.M.; Baker, W.L. Combination therapy for the management of hypertension: A review of the evidence. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 2010, 67, 885–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Wald, D.S.; Law, M.; Morris, J.K.; Bestwick, J.P.; Wald, N.J. Combination therapy versus monotherapy in reducing blood pressure: Meta-analysis on 11,000 participants from 42 trials. Am. J. Med. 2009, 122, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Petykó, Z.I.; Inotai, A.; Holtorf, A.P.; Brixner, D.; Kaló, Z. Barriers and facilitators of exploiting the potential of value-added medicines. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 2020, 20, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gautam, C.S.; Saha, L. Fixed dose drug combinations (FDCs): Rational or irrational: A view point. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2008, 65, 795–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bramlage, P.; März, W.; Westermann, D.; Weisser, B.; Wirtz, J.H.; Zeymer, U.; Baumgart, P.; Mark, G.; Laufs, U.; Unger, K. Management verschiedener kardiovaskulärer Risikofaktoren mit einem Kombinationspräparat (,,Polypill”). Herz 2018, 43, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. World Health Organization. WHO Endorses Landmark Public Health Decisions on Essential Medicines for Multiple Sclerosis. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/26-07-2023-who-endorses-landmark-public-health-decisions-on-essential-medicines-for-multiple-sclerosis (accessed on 13 May 2024).
  15. Haynes, R.B.; McDonald, H.; Garg, A.X.; Montague, P. Interventions for helping patients to follow prescriptions for medications. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2002, 2, 7–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. World Health Organization. Adherence to Long-Term Therapies: Evidence for Action. World Health Organization. Available online: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/42682 (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  17. Delara, M.; Murray, L.; Jafari, B.; Bahji, A.; Goodarzi, Z.; Kirkham, J.; Chowdhury, M.; Seitz, D.P. Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Geriatr. 2022, 22, 601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mohammed, M.A.; Moles, R.J.; Chen, T.F. Medication-related burden and patients’ lived experience with medicine: A systematic review and metasynthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e010035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Foley, L.; Larkin, J.; Lombard-Vance, R.; Murphy, A.W.; Hynes, L.; Galvin, E.; Molloy, G.J. Prevalence and predictors of medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e044987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Nelson, A.J.; Pagidipati, N.J.; Bosworth, H.B. Improving medication adherence in cardiovascular disease. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 2024, 21, 417–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bansilal, S.; Castellano, J.M.; Garrido, E.; Wei, H.G.; Freeman, A.; Spettell, C.; Garcia-Alonso, F.; Lizano, I.; Arnold, R.J.; Rajda, J.; et al. Assessing the impact of medication adherence on long-term cardiovascular outcomes. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2016, 68, 789–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Du, L.; Cheng, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Y.; Mei, D. The impact of medication adherence on clinical outcomes of coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2017, 24, 962–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Garcia, R.A.; Spertus, J.A.; Benton, M.C.; Jones, P.G.; Mark, D.B.; Newman, J.D.; Bangalore, S.; Boden, W.E.; Stone, G.W.; Reynolds, H.R.; et al. Association of medication adherence with health outcomes in the ISCHEMIA trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2022, 80, 755–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ho, P.M.; Magid, D.J.; Shetterly, S.M.; Olson, K.L.; Maddox, T.M.; Peterson, P.N.; Masoudi, F.A.; Rumsfeld, J.S. Medication nonadherence is associated with a broad range of adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Am. Heart J. 2008, 155, 772–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jackevicius, C.A.; Mamdani, M.; Tu, J.V. Adherence with statin therapy in elderly patients with and without acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2002, 288, 462–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rasmussen, J.N.; Chong, A.; Alter, D.A. Relationship between adherence to evidence-based pharmacotherapy and long-term mortality after acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 2007, 297, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Liu, M.; Zheng, G.; Cao, X.; Chang, X.; Zhang, N.; Liang, G.; Wang, A.; Yu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; et al. Better medications adherence lowers cardiovascular events, stroke, and all-cause mortality risk: A dose-response meta-analysis. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2021, 8, 146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Chowdhury, R.; Khan, H.; Heydon, E.; Shroufi, A.; Fahimi, S.; Moore, C.; Stricker, B.; Mendis, S.; Hofman, A.; Mant, J.; et al. Adherence to cardiovascular therapy: A meta-analysis of prevalence and clinical consequences. Eur. Heart J. 2013, 34, 2940–2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Rao, S.; Jamal Siddiqi, T.; Khan, M.S.; Michos, E.D.; Navar, A.M.; Wang, T.J.; Greene, S.J.; Prabhakaran, D.; Khera, A.; Pandey, A. Association of polypill therapy with cardiovascular outcomes, mortality, and adherence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2022, 73, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Cutler, R.L.; Fernandez-Llimos, F.; Frommer, M.; Benrimoj, C.; Garcia-Cardenas, V. Economic impact of medication non-adherence by disease groups: A systematic review. BMJ Open 2018, 8, e016982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vandenberghe, D.; Albrecht, J. The financial burden of non-communicable diseases in the European Union: A systematic review. Eur. J. Public Health 2020, 30, 833–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Rivera, A.; Campos, B.; Ceolin, S.; Godoi, A.; Castanha, E.; Campello Jorge, C.A.; Cardoso, R. Polypill-based strategy vs. usual care for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur. J. Prev. Cardiol. 2023, 30, 1828–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Czech, M.; Boguslawski, S.; Smaga, A.; Filipiak, K.J. Use of single pill combinations in the treatment of arterial hypertension in Poland: The current practice and guidelines, the impact on reimbursement spending and patient copayment. Cardiol. J. 2022, 29, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wilkins, C.A.; Hamman, H.; Hamman, J.H.; Steenekamp, J.H. Fixed-Dose Combination Formulations in Solid Oral Drug Therapy: Advantages, Limitations, and Design Features. Pharmaceutics 2024, 16, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Rubio-Valera, M.; Serrano-Blanco, A.; Magdalena-Belío, J.; Fernández, A.; García-Campayo, J.; March Pujol, M.; Lopez del Hoyo, Y. Effectiveness of pharmacist care in the improvement of adherence to antidepressants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann. Pharmacother. 2011, 45, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Harrington, J.; Noble, L.M.; Newman, S.P. Improving patients’ communication with doctors: A systematic review of intervention studies. Patient Educ. Couns. 2004, 52, 7–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Beernink, J.M.; Oosterwijk, M.M.; Khunti, K.; Gupta, P.; Patel, P.; van Boven, J.F.M.; Lambers Heerspink, H.J.; Bakker, S.J.L.; Navis, G.; Nijboer, R.M.; et al. Biochemical Urine Testing of Medication Adherence and Its Association With Clinical Markers in an Outpatient Population of Type 2 Diabetes Patients: Analysis in the DIAbetes and LifEstyle Cohort Twente (DIALECT). Diabetes Care 2021, 44, 1419–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Patel, P.; Gupta, P.; Burns, A.; Suwaidan, A.A.; Cole, R.; Lane, D.; Seidu, S.; Khunti, K. Biochemical Urine Testing of Adherence to Cardiovascular Medications Reveals High Rates of Nonadherence in People Attending Their Annual Review for Type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care 2019, 42, 1132–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Cohen, A.N.; Collins, G.; Nucifora Jr, F.C.; Strobel, R.; Wait, D.B.; Young, A.S. Clinical consensus recommendations for urine testing of adherence to antipsychotics among people with serious mental illness. Psychiatr. Serv. 2018, 69, 345–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Mancia, G.; Kreutz, R.; Brunström, M.; Burnier, M.; Grassi, G.; Januszewicz, A.; Muiesan, M.L.; Tsioufis, K.; Agabiti-Rosei, E.; Algharably, E.A.E.; et al. 2023 ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension The Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension: Endorsed by the International Society of Hypertension (ISH) and the European Renal Association (ERA). J. Hypertens. 2023, 41, 1874–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Whelton, P.K.; Carey, R.M.; Aronow, W.S.; Casey, D.E.; Collins, K.J.; Dennison Himmelfarb, C.; DePalma, S.M.; Gidding, S.; Jamerson, K.A.; Jones, D.W.; et al. ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2023, 71, e127–e248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zhang, Z.; Peluso, M.J.; Gross, C.P.; Viscoli, C.M.; Kernan, W.N. Adherence reporting in randomized controlled trials. Clin. Trials 2014, 11, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Ágh, T.; Hiligsmann, M.; Borah, B.; Beaudart, C.; Turcu-Stiolica, A.; Manias, E.; Jakab, I.; Pednekar, P.; Zeber, J.; Peterson, A.M. A Systematic Review of Outcomes for Assessment of Medication Adherence Enhancing Interventions–An ISPOR Special Interest Group Report. Value Health 2023, 27, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mantila, K.M.; Pasmooij, A.M.; Hallgreen, C.E.; Mol, P.G.; van Boven, J.F. Medication Adherence Measurement Methods in Registration Trials Supporting the Approval of New Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Centralized Procedures in the European Union 2010–2020. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2022, 112, 1051–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Kardas, P.; Lewek, P.; Matyjaszczyk, M. Determinants of patient adherence: A review of systematic reviews. Front. Pharmacol. 2013, 4, 44981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kvarnström, K.; Westerholm, A.; Airaksinen, M.; Liira, H. Factors contributing to medication adherence in patients with a chronic condition: A scoping review of qualitative research. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Kaló, Z.; Holtorf, A.P.; Alfonso-Cristancho, R.; Shen, J.; Ágh, T.; Inotai, A.; Brixner, D. Need for multicriteria evaluation of generic drug policies. Value Health 2015, 18, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kaló, Z.; Abonyi-Toth, Z.; Rokszin, G.; Agh, T.; Inotai, A. Impact of multiple switching on health care costs and outcomes in generic drug policies: The Hungarian case of losartan. Acta Pol. Pharm. 2017, 74, 1295–1300. [Google Scholar]
  49. Petykó, Z.; Inotai, A.; Espin, J.; O’Keeffe, D.T.; O’Mahony, J.F.; Czech, M.; Kalo, Z. HPR95 Opportunities and Challenges for Value Added Medicines: Results of a Scoping Research Based on Expert Interviews. Value Health 2022, 25, S249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. European Commission. Improving Heart Health with a Single Pill. Available online: https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/projects/success-stories/all/improving-heart-health-single-pill (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  51. IPHA. Price Reduction. Available online: https://www.hse.ie/eng/about/who/cpu/ipha-price-reduction-2022/ (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  52. Healthwave. Prescription Drug Price List Ireland. Available online: https://healthwave.ie/prescription-prices/ (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  53. IPHA. Framework Agreement on The Supply and Pricing of Medicines. Available online: https://www.ipha.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/20211206_FASPM_TermsofAgreement_Final_ForSigning.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  54. Grigorian-Shamagian, L.; Coca, A.; Morais, J.; Perez-Martinez, P. The use of the CNIC-Polypill in real-life clinical practice: Opportunities and challenges in patients at very high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease–expert panel meeting report. BMC Proc. 2023, 17 (Suppl. 8), 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. González-Juanatey, J.R.; Cordero, A.; Castellano, J.M.; Masana, L.; Dalmau, R.; Ruiz, E.; Sicras-Mainar, A.; Fuster, V. The CNIC-Polypill reduces recurrent major cardiovascular events in real-life secondary prevention patients in Spain: The NEPTUNO study. Int. J. Cardiol. 2022, 361, 116–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Pednekar, P.P.; Ágh, T.; Malmenäs, M.; Raval, A.D.; Bennett, B.M.; Borah, B.J.; Hutchins, D.S.; Manias, E.; Williams, A.F.; Hiligsmann, M.; et al. Methods for measuring multiple medication adherence: A systematic review–report of the ISPOR medication adherence and persistence special interest group. Value Health 2019, 22, 139–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Raebel, M.A.; Schmittdiel, J.; Karter, A.J.; Konieczny, J.L.; Steiner, J.F. Standardizing terminology and definitions of medication adherence and persistence in research employing electronic databases. Med. Care 2013, 51, S11–S21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. De Geest, S.; Zullig, L.L.; Dunbar-Jacob, J.; Helmy, R.; Hughes, D.A.; Wilson, I.B.; Vrijens, B. ESPACOMP medication adherence reporting guideline (EMERGE). Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 30–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. European Commission. European Health Data Space. Available online: https://health.ec.europa.eu/ehealth-digital-health-and-care/european-health-data-space_en (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  60. EHDEN. Available online: https://www.ehden.eu/ (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  61. An, J.; Derington, C.G.; Luong, T.; Olson, K.L.; King, J.B.; Bress, A.P.; Jackevicius, C.A. Fixed-dose combination medications for treating hypertension: A review of effectiveness, safety, and challenges. Curr. Hypertens. Rep. 2020, 22, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Current approach of healthcare regulators and policymakers for different types of innovative pharmaceutical technologies.
Table 1. Current approach of healthcare regulators and policymakers for different types of innovative pharmaceutical technologies.
Types of Pharmaceutical Innovation
Disruptive Pharmaceutical TechnologiesRevolutionary Technologies (First-In-Class Medicines)Incremental Innovation of Medicines with Known Mechanism of Action (Me-Too Medicines)Incremental Innovation of Widely Used Medicines (e.g., Fixed Dose Combinations)Non-Innovative Generic or Biosimilar Medicines
Patentabilityfullfullfullfairly limitedno
Expectations of health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers about health gainSignificant health gain based on superiority clinical trialsHealth gain based on superiority clinical trialsOption A: equivalent health gain based on non-inferiority clinical trials
Option B: minor health gain based on superiority clinical trials		Option A: equivalent health gain based on bioequivalence of short-term non-inferiority studies
Option B: minor health gain based on superiority clinical trials		Equivalent health gain based on bioequivalence study
Acceptability of real-world evidence by bodies and payersAcceptable ex-ante or ex-post (e.g., coverage with evidence development)Acceptable ex-ante or ex-post (e.g., coverage with evidence development)Acceptable ex-ante or ex-post (e.g., coverage with evidence development)Acceptable ex-anteNo acceptance
Typical pricing approach by healthcare payersFree pricing; benchmark pricing; value-based pricing (major price premium)Value-based pricing (minor or major price premium)Option A: therapeutic reference pricing
Option B: value-based pricing (minor price premium)		Option A: internal reference pricing
Option B: value-based pricing (minor price premium)		Internal reference pricing
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Inotai, A.; Kaló, Z.; Petykó, Z.; Gyöngyösi, K.; O’Keeffe, D.T.; Czech, M.; Ágh, T. Facilitators and Barriers of Incremental Innovation by Fixed Dose Combinations in Cardiovascular Diseases. J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2024, 11, 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070186

AMA Style

Inotai A, Kaló Z, Petykó Z, Gyöngyösi K, O’Keeffe DT, Czech M, Ágh T. Facilitators and Barriers of Incremental Innovation by Fixed Dose Combinations in Cardiovascular Diseases. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease. 2024; 11(7):186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070186

Chicago/Turabian Style

Inotai, András, Zoltán Kaló, Zsuzsanna Petykó, Kristóf Gyöngyösi, Derek T. O’Keeffe, Marcin Czech, and Tamás Ágh. 2024. "Facilitators and Barriers of Incremental Innovation by Fixed Dose Combinations in Cardiovascular Diseases" Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease 11, no. 7: 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070186

APA Style

Inotai, A., Kaló, Z., Petykó, Z., Gyöngyösi, K., O’Keeffe, D. T., Czech, M., & Ágh, T. (2024). Facilitators and Barriers of Incremental Innovation by Fixed Dose Combinations in Cardiovascular Diseases. Journal of Cardiovascular Development and Disease, 11(7), 186. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcdd11070186

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop