-
1.
Evaluating the safety and efficacy of a polyherbal Unani formulation in dyslipidaemia-a prospective randomized controlled trial.
Ain, Q, Nawab, M, Ahmad, T, Kazmi, MH, Naikodi, MAR
Journal of ethnopharmacology. 2022;:115036
Abstract
ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE Unani System of Medicine offers treatment for obesity and dyslipidaemia. Jawarish Falafili (JF) is a Unani polyherbal pharmacopoeial preparation. It has been used in the treatment of obesity for a long time. Dyslipidaemia is a recognised modifiable risk factor for hypertension, ischemic heart disease and stroke. Limitations of the current conventional therapy have provided scope for research of a potential drug in this medical condition. It was hypothesised that JF may ameliorate dyslipidaemia in human participants. AIM OF THE STUDY The main objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the JF. MATERIALS AND METHODS This was a prospective randomized, active-controlled, open-label and parallel-group study. We randomized 74 participants of dyslipidaemia into treatment (n = 38) and control (n = 36) groups. Of them, 30 participants in each group completed the trial. The participants of any sex aged between 30 and 60 years, with serum total cholesterol (TC) ≥200 mg/dl and/or serum triglycerides (TG) ≥150 mg/dl and/or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level ≥130 mg/dl and/or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) level <40 mg/dl were enrolled in this study. The participants of the treatment group were treated with JF (10 gm/day) once and atorvastatin (20 mg/day) was given to the control group for 90 days once at night daily. RESULTS We observed a significant reduction (treatment group versus control group) in mean serum TC by 22.89% versus 19.36%, TG by 29.90% versus 23.26% and LDL-C by 29.16% versus 27.92% from baseline (p < 0.05). But the change in mean serum HDL-C levels post-treatment was insignificant in both groups (p > 0.05). On intergroup comparison, the magnitude of the difference of mean TC, TG, LDL-C and HDL-C levels between the groups was not statistically significant (p > 0.00.05). CONCLUSIONS This study concluded that JF and atorvastatin were equally effective in controlling dyslipidaemia. They were tolerated well by all participants and found safe during the course of treatment.
-
2.
Efficacy and Tolerability of Pitavastatin Versus Pitavastatin/Fenofibrate in High-risk Korean Patients with Mixed Dyslipidemia: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blinded, Parallel, Therapeutic Confirmatory Clinical Trial.
Ihm, SH, Chung, WB, Lee, JM, Hwang, BH, Yoo, KD, Her, SH, Song, WH, Chae, IH, Park, TH, Kim, JH, et al
Clinical therapeutics. 2020;(10):2021-2035.e3
Abstract
PURPOSE Dyslipidemia is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins are known to effectively reduce not only low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level but also death and nonfatal myocardial infarction due to coronary heart disease. The risk for CVD from atherogenic dyslipidemia persists when elevated triglyceride (TG) and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are not controlled with statin therapy. Therefore, statin/fenofibrate combination therapy is more effective in reducing CVD risk. Here, we assessed the efficacy and tolerability of pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and a high risk for CVD. METHODS This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, therapeutic-confirmatory clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination therapy with pitavastatin/fenofibrate 2/160 mg in Korean patients with a high risk for CVD and a controlled LDL-C level (<100 mg/dL) and a TG level of 150-500 mg/dL after a run-in period with pitavastatin 2 mg alone. In the 8-week main study, 347 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive pitavastatin 2 mg with or without fenofibrate 160 mg after a run-in period. In the extension study, patients with controlled LDL-C and non-HDL-C (<130 mg/dL) levels were included after the completion of the main study. All participants in the extension study received the pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy for 16 weeks for the assessment of the tolerability of long-term treatment. FINDINGS The difference in the mean percentage change in non-HDL-C from baseline to week 8 between the combination therapy and monotherapy groups was -12.45% (95% CI, -17.18 to -7.72), and the combination therapy was associated with a greater reduction in non-HDL-C. The changes in lipid profile, including apolipoproteins, fibrinogen, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 were statistically significant with combination therapy compared to monotherapy at all time points. Furthermore, the rates of achievement of non-HDL-C and apolipoprotein B targets at week 8 in the combination therapy and monotherapy groups were 88.30% versus 77.98% (P = 0.0110) and 78.94% versus 68.45% (P = 0.0021), respectively. The combination therapy was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of statin monotherapy. IMPLICATIONS In these Korean patients with mixed dyslipidemia and a high risk for CVD, combination therapy with pitavastatin/fenofibrate was associated with a greater reduction in non-HDL-C compared with that with pitavastatin monotherapy, and a significantly improvement in other lipid levels. Moreover, the combination therapy was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of statin monotherapy. Therefore, pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy could be effective and well tolerated in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03618797.
-
3.
Alirocumab vs usual lipid-lowering care as add-on to statin therapy in individuals with type 2 diabetes and mixed dyslipidaemia: The ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA randomized trial.
Ray, KK, Leiter, LA, Müller-Wieland, D, Cariou, B, Colhoun, HM, Henry, RR, Tinahones, FJ, Bujas-Bobanovic, M, Domenger, C, Letierce, A, et al
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2018;(6):1479-1489
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
AIM: To compare alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitor, with usual care (UC) in individuals with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and mixed dyslipidaemia not optimally managed by maximally tolerated statins in the ODYSSEY DM-DYSLIPIDEMIA trial (NCT02642159). MATERIALS AND METHODS The UC options (no additional lipid-lowering therapy; fenofibrate; ezetimibe; omega-3 fatty acid; nicotinic acid) were selected prior to stratified randomization to open-label alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (with increase to 150 mg every 2 weeks at week 12 if week 8 non-HDL cholesterol concentration was ≥2.59 mmol/L [100 mg/dL]) or UC for 24 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change in non-HDL cholesterol from baseline to week 24. RESULTS The randomized population comprised 413 individuals (intention-to-treat population, n = 409; safety population, n = 412). At week 24, the mean non-HDL cholesterol reductions were superior with alirocumab (-32.5% difference vs UC, 97.5% confidence interval -38.1 to -27.0; P < .0001). Overall, 63.6% of alirocumab-treated individuals were maintained on 75 mg every 2 weeks. Alirocumab also reduced LDL cholesterol (-43.0%), apolipoprotein B (-32.3%), total cholesterol (-24.6%) and LDL particle number (-37.8%) at week 24 vs UC (all P < .0001). Consistent with the overall trial comparison, alirocumab reduced non-HDL cholesterol to a greater degree within each UC stratum at week 24. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events was 68.4% (alirocumab) and 66.4% (UC). No clinically meaningful effect on glycated haemoglobin, or change in number of glucose-lowering agents, was seen. CONCLUSIONS In individuals with T2DM and mixed dyslipidaemia on maximally tolerated statin, alirocumab showed superiority to UC in non-HDL cholesterol reduction and was generally well tolerated.
-
4.
Metabolic Alterations Associated with Atorvastatin/Fenofibric Acid Combination in Patients with Atherogenic Dyslipidaemia: A Randomized Trial for Comparison with Escalated-Dose Atorvastatin.
Han, JS, Kim, K, Jung, Y, Lee, JH, Namgung, J, Lee, HY, Suh, J, Hwang, GS, Lee, SH
Scientific reports. 2018;(1):14642
Abstract
In the current study, the metabolic effects of atorvastatin dose escalation versus atorvastatin/fenofibric acid combination were compared using metabolomics analyses. Men and women with combined hyperlipidaemia were initially prescribed atorvastatin (10 mg, ≥4 weeks). Patients who reached low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol targets, but had triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels ≥150 mg/dL and <50 mg/dL, respectively, were randomized to receive atorvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg/fenofibric acid 135 mg for 12 weeks. Metabolite profiling of serum was performed and changes in metabolites after drug treatment in the two groups were compared. Analysis was performed using patients' samples obtained before and after treatment. Of 89 screened patients, 37 who met the inclusion criteria were randomized, and 34 completed the study. Unlike that in the dose-escalation group, distinct clustering of both lipid and aqueous metabolites was observed in the combination group after treatment. Most lipid metabolites of acylglycerols and many of ceramides decreased, while many of sphingomyelins increased in the combination group. Atorvastatin dose escalation modestly decreased lysophosphatidylcholines; however, the effect of combination therapy was variable. Most aqueous metabolites decreased, while L-carnitine remarkably increased in the combination group. In conclusion, the atorvastatin/fenofibric acid combination induced distinct metabolite clustering. Our results provide comprehensive information regarding metabolic changes beyond conventional lipid profiles for this combination therapy.
-
5.
Pitavastatin versus pravastatin in adults with HIV-1 infection and dyslipidaemia (INTREPID): 12 week and 52 week results of a phase 4, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, superiority trial.
Aberg, JA, Sponseller, CA, Ward, DJ, Kryzhanovski, VA, Campbell, SE, Thompson, MA
The lancet. HIV. 2017;(7):e284-e294
Abstract
BACKGROUND People living with HIV-1 infection are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than seronegative adults. Treatment of dyslipidaemia with statins has been challenging in people with HIV because of an increased potential for drug interactions due to competing cytochrome P450 metabolism between statins and commonly used antiretroviral agents. Neither pitavastatin nor pravastatin depend on cytochrome P450 for primary metabolism. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of pitavastatin versus pravastatin in adults with HIV and dyslipidaemia. METHODS In the INTREPID (HIV-infected patieNts and TREatment with PItavastatin vs pravastatin for Dyslipidemia) randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 4 trial (INTREPID, we recruited adults aged 18-70 years with controlled HIV (with CD4 counts >200 cells per μL and HIV-1 RNA <200 copies per mL) on antiretroviral therapy for at least 6 months and dyslipidaemia (LDL cholesterol 3·4-5·7 mmol/L and triglycerides ≤4·5 mmol/L) from 45 sites in the USA and Puerto Rico. Patients being treated with darunavir, or who had homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia or any condition causing secondary dyslipidaemia, or a history of statin intolerance, diabetes, or coronary artery disease were not eligible. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to pitavastatin 4 mg or pravastatin 40 mg with matching placebos once daily orally for 12 weeks, followed by a 40 week safety extension. Randomisation was stratified by viral hepatitis B or C coinfection and computer-generated. Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was percentage change in fasting serum LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 and the primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis included all patients who took at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01301066. FINDINGS Between Feb 23, 2011, and March 29, 2013, we randomly assigned 252 patients to the pitavastatin (n=126) or pravastatin group (n=126). LDL cholesterol reduction was 31·1% with pitavastatin and 20·9% with pravastatin (least squares mean difference -9·8%, 95% CI -13·8 to -5·9; p<0·0001) at 12 weeks. At week 52, four patients (3%) in the pitavastatin group and six (5%) in the pravastatin group had virological failure, with no significant difference between treatments. Both treatments had neutral effects on glucose metabolism parameters. 85 patients treated with pitavastatin (68%) and 88 patients treated with pravastatin (70%) reported treatment-emergent adverse events, and these caused study discontinuation in six patients (5%) versus five patients (4%). No serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant and none were treatment-related according to investigator assessment. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea in the pitavastatin group (n=12, 10%) and upper respiratory tract infection in the pravastatin group (n=14, 11%). 11 treatment-emergent serious adverse events were noted in seven patients (6%) in the pitavastatin group (atrial septal defect, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chest pain, diverticulitis, enterovesical fistula, gastroenteritis, viral gastroenteritis, herpes dermatitis, multiple fractures, respiratory failure, and transient ischaemic attack) and four events in three patients (2%) in the pravastatin group (cerebrovascular accident, arteriosclerosis coronary artery, myocardial infraction, and muscle haemorrhage). In the pravastatin treatment group, one additional patient discontinued due to an adverse event (prostate cancer that was diagnosed during the screening period, 42 days before first dose of study treatment, and therefore was not a treatment-emergent adverse event). INTERPRETATION The INTREPID results support guideline recommendations for pitavastatin as a preferred drug in the treatment of dyslipidaemia in people with HIV. FUNDING Kowa Pharmaceuticals America and Eli Lilly and Company.
-
6.
Efficacy and safety of fixed dose combination of atorvastatin and hydroxychloroquine: a randomized, double-blind comparison with atorvastatin alone among Indian patients with dyslipidemia.
Pareek, A, Chandurkar, N, Thulaseedharan, NK, Legha, R, Agarwal, M, Mathur, SL, Salkar, HR, Pednekar, S, Pai, V, Sriram, U, et al
Current medical research and opinion. 2015;(11):2105-17
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin + hydroxychloroquine fixed-dose combination tablets in comparison with atorvastatin alone in treatment of dyslipidemia. METHODS This double-blind, randomized, out-patient study was conducted in 328 patients with primary dyslipidemia having low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 130 mg/dL (3.37 mmol/L) to ≤ 250 mg/dL (6.48 mmol/L) and triglycerides ≤ 400 mg/dL (4.52 mmol/L). Eligible patients were randomized to receive either atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 167) or atorvastatin 10 mg + hydroxychloroquine 200 mg (n = 161) for 24 weeks. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION CTRI/2010/091/006138. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES To compare percentage change in LDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) from baseline to Week 12 and Week 24 between groups. To compare mean change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose (FBG), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (Hs-CRP), and percentage of patients achieving lipid goals at Week 12 and Week 24. RESULTS At Week 24, percentage reduction in LDL-C (-32.52 [-36.13 to -28.91] vs -39.54 [-43.25 to -35.83]; p = 0.008), TC (-24.41 [-27.10 to -21.72] vs -29.30 [-32.07 to -26.54]; p = 0.013), and non-HDL-C (-30.37 [-33.71 to -27.04] vs -36.76 [-40.18 to -33.33]; p = 0.009) was significantly greater in combination treated patients. Both the treatments showed a significant reduction in triglycerides at Week 24 from baseline, however, this reduction was not statistically significantly different between treatment groups. No significant change in HDL-C was observed in patients from both the treatment groups. At Week 24, change in HbA1c (0.22 [0.07 to 0.37] vs -0.13 [-0.28 to 0.03]; p = 0.002) and FBG was also statistically significant in favor of combination therapy (0.37 [0.07 to 0.67] vs -0.29 [-0.59 to 0.03]; p = 0.003), whereas no statistically significant difference was observed in change in Hs-CRP (p = 0.310). Significantly more patients from the combination group achieved LDL-C and TC goals. Exploratory analysis in patients with pre-diabetes showed development of diabetes in 8 patients (15.09%) from the monotherapy group and 1 patient (1.96%) from the combination group (p = 0.034). Study medications were generally safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSION Based on study results and widely reported pleiotropic benefits, hydroxychloroquine could emerge as a potential drug for combination with statins for treatment of dyslipidemia. Long duration studies with larger sample sizes are required to further explore the role of hydroxychloroquine as adjunct to statins in reducing risk of cardiovascular events and prevention of statin-induced diabetes.
-
7.
Improvement in Renal Function and Reduction in Serum Uric Acid with Intensive Statin Therapy in Older Patients: A Post Hoc Analysis of the SAGE Trial.
Deedwania, PC, Stone, PH, Fayyad, RS, Laskey, RE, Wilson, DJ
Drugs & aging. 2015;(12):1055-65
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Improvement in renal function and decreases in serum uric acid (SUA) have been reported following prolonged high-intensity statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor) therapy. This post hoc analysis of the SAGE trial examined the effect of intensive versus less intensive statin therapy on renal function, safety, and laboratory parameters, including SUA, in elderly coronary artery disease (CAD) patients (65-85 years) with or without chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS Patients were randomized to atorvastatin 80 mg/day or pravastatin 40 mg/day and treated for 12 months. Patients were stratified using Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs) in CKD (eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) and non-CKD populations. RESULTS Of the 893 patients randomized, 858 had complete renal data and 418 of 858 (49%) had CKD (99% Stage 3). Over 12 months, eGFR increased with atorvastatin and remained stable with pravastatin (+2.38 vs. +0.18 mL/min/1.73 m(2), respectively; p < 0.0001). MDRD eGFR improved significantly in both CKD treatment arms; however, the increased eGFR in patients without CKD was significantly greater with atorvastatin (+2.08 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) than with pravastatin (-1.04 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). Modest reductions in SUA were observed in both treatment arms, but a greater fall occurred with atorvastatin than with pravastatin (-0.52 vs. -0.09 mg/dL, p < 0.0001). Change in SUA correlated negatively with changes in eGFR and positively with changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Reports of myalgia were rare (3.6% CKD; 5.7% non-CKD), and there were no episodes of rhabdomyolysis. Elevated serum alanine and aspartate transaminase to >3 times the upper limit of normal occurred in 4.4% of atorvastatin- and 0.2% of pravastatin-treated patients. CONCLUSION Intensive management of dyslipidemia in older patients with stable coronary heart disease may have beneficial effects on renal function and SUA.
-
8.
A Trial of Pitavastatin Versus Rosuvastatin for Dyslipidemia in Chronic Kidney Disease.
Abe, M, Maruyama, N, Maruyama, T, Okada, K, Soma, M
Journal of atherosclerosis and thrombosis. 2015;(12):1235-47
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
AIM: To determine the lipid lowering effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and safety of rosuvastatin compared with pitavastatin in dyslipidemic patients with concurrent renal disorders. METHODS This single-center, prospective, open-label, randomized, 12-month study evaluated rosuvastatin (2.5 mg) and pitavastatin (1 or 2 mg) in 134 dyslipidemic patients with concurrent chronic kidney disease (CKD; rosuvastatin group, n=68; pitavastatin group, n=66). Lipid parameters [i.e., low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), etc.], renal function parameters [i.e., estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), etc.], glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were measured at enrollment (baseline), month 6, and month 12. RESULTS The mean daily dose of rosuvastatin and pitavastatin was 2.5 mg and 1.4 mg, respectively. All lipid parameters were significantly more improved in the rosuvastatin group. eGFR improved from baseline in the rosuvastatin group (p < 0.0001) and showed no tendency to worsen in the pitavastatin group (p=0.2232). In multiple regression analysis (n=134), it was significantly associated with a percent change in total cholesterol (β=0.2296; p=0.0112), smoking (β=0.1927; p=0.0224), and HbA1c (β=-0.1606; p=0.0585). Hs-CRP was significantly improved in both groups. An analysis eliminating the influence of antidiabetic medication showed a significant difference between groups in the change of HbA1c at month 6 from baseline (p=0.0016). No subjects in either group had new onset of diabetes mellitus. The cost of statin medication required to reduce LDL-C by 10 mg/dL was significantly lower for 2.5 mg of rosuvastatin (p=0.0116). CONCLUSIONS Rosuvastatin 2.5 mg had superior lipid lowering and cost effectiveness in dyslipidemic patients with concurrent CKD.(UMIN ID UMIN000005812).
-
9.
Comparison of atorvastatin, pitavastatin and rosuvastatin for residual cardiovascular risk using non-fasting blood sampling.
Kakuda, H, Matoba, M, Nakatoh, H, Nagao, S, Takekoshi, N
Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. 2014;(4):285-95
Abstract
BACKGROUND Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major cardiovascular risk. However, some patients show symptoms of coronary heart disease (CHD) even though their LDL-C is strictly controlled. Therefore, it is important to treat other risk factors. METHODS Some 129 outpatients with dyslipidemia who were treated with either atorvastatin 10 mg/day (ATO), pitavastatin 2 mg/day (PIT), or rosuvastatin 2.5 mg/day (ROS) were enrolled. After informed consent was obtained, these patients were switched to another statin. Lipid profiles and lipoprotein fraction by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) were compared between before and after 3 months of treatment with non-fasting blood sample. RESULTS LDL-C did not show any significant changes after switching and was maintained around 2.59 mmol/L in all groups. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was significantly increased in group ATO→PIT (1.43→1.54 mmol/L, p = 0.0010) and ROS→PIT (1.46→1.57 mmol/L, p = 0.0004), and was significantly decreased in group PIT→ATO (1.44→1.36 mmol/L, p = 0.0290). Apolipoprotein A-I (Apo A-I) and preheparin lipoprotein lipase (LPL) mass showed similar changes in HDL-C. Changes in HDL-C showed a significant positive correlation with those in Apo A-I and preheparin LPL mass, and a little but significant negative correlation with changes in Lp(a) and intermediate density lipoprotein (IDL) fraction. CONCLUSIONS ATO, PIT, and ROS have comparable effect on LDL-C lowering. Changes in HDL-C were similar to those in Apo A-I and preheparin LPL mass, and PIT was the most effective treatment in increasing HDL-C, Apo A-I, and preheparin LPL mass.
-
10.
Personalised physician learning intervention to improve hypertension and lipid control: randomised trial comparing two methods of physician profiling.
O'Connor, PJ, Magid, DJ, Sperl-Hillen, JM, Price, DW, Asche, SE, Rush, WA, Ekstrom, HL, Brand, DW, Tavel, HM, Godlevsky, OV, et al
BMJ quality & safety. 2014;(12):1014-22
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
PURPOSE To assess the impact of personalised physician learning (PPL) interventions using simulated learning cases on control of hypertension and dyslipidaemia in primary care settings. METHODS A total of 132 primary care physicians, 4568 eligible patients with uncontrolled hypertension, and 15 392 eligible patients with uncontrolled dyslipidaemia were cluster-randomised to one of three conditions: (a) no intervention, (b) PPL-electronic medical record (EMR) intervention in which 12 PPL cases were assigned to each physician based on observed patterns of care in the EMR in the previous year, or (c) PPL-ASSESS intervention in which 12 PPL cases were assigned to each physician based on their performance on four standardised assessment cases. General and generalised linear mixed models were used to account for clustering and to model differences in patient outcomes in the study arms. RESULTS Among patients with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline, 49.1%, 46.6% and 47.3% (p=0.43) achieved blood pressure (BP) targets at follow-up. Among patients with uncontrolled dyslipidaemia at baseline, 37.5%, 37.3% and 38.1% (p=0.72) achieved low density lipoprotein cholesterol targets at follow-up in PPL-EMR, PPL-ASSESS and the control group, respectively. Although systolic (BP) (p<0.001) and lipid (p<0.001) values significantly improved during the study, the group-by-time interaction term showed no differential change in systolic BP values (p=0.51) or lipid values (p=0.61) among the three study arms. No difference in intervention effect was noted when comparing the PPL-EMR with the PPL-ASSESS intervention (p=0.47). CONCLUSIONS The two PPL interventions tested in this study did not lead to improved control of hypertension or dyslipidaemia in primary care clinics during a mean 14-month follow-up period. This null result may have been due in part to substantial overall improvement in BP and lipid control at the study sites during the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT00903071.