Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10852644›Full record

ReviewDrugs2000

Lipid-lowering treatment in coronary artery disease: how low should cholesterol go?

P H Jones

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Drugs, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

P H JonesSection of Atherosclerosis and Lipid Research, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. jones@bcm.tmc.edu
Baylor College of Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The randomised clinical trial data, which supports preventing coronary heart disease (CHD) events by lowering low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, is substantial, consistent and highly significant. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), which are the preferred medications for lowering LDL-C levels, are well tolerated, with greater efficacy than other lipid-altering medications. In 1993, the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines recommended LDL-C target levels to be achieved with therapy in high-risk individuals. In particular, the LDL-C goal of therapy in patients with CHD was < or = 100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/L), with no specific guidance as to the lower limit or whether additional clinical benefit could be expected. Because little clinical trial data existed at that time to offer support, and because some epidemiological data raised concern about the potential detriments associated with very low total cholesterol and LDL-C levels, the NCEP Adult Treatment Panel remained appropriately vague on the 'how low should you go' question. In the last few years, several additional clinical trials have provided sufficient efficacy and safety data to re-examine that question. Analyses of on-treatment LDL-C levels and subsequent CHD events from three landmark trials with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors suggest that progressively lower LDL-C levels are associated with lower CHD events in a curvilinear fashion. The Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (Post-CABG) trial and Atorvastatin Versus Revascularisation Trial (AVERT) examined a more intensive versus less intensive drug regimen for LDL-C reduction, and concluded that the more aggressively treated patients had better angiographic and end-point outcomes. Most importantly, there did not appear to be any change in noncardiovascular end-points associated with lower LDL-C levels. In several ongoing clinical trials, patients with CHD have been randomised to receive HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors with targets for LDL-C levels of 100 mg/dl versus 75 mg/dl (1.94 mmol/L). These trials have sufficient patient numbers and power to definitely determine if reducing LDL-C levels to approximately 75 mg/dl can provide an acceptable benefit-to-risk-ratio.

Indexed as

AnimalsCholesterolCoronary DiseaseHumansHypolipidemic AgentsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCholesterolHypolipidemic Agents

Identifiers

PMID10852644
OpenAlexW276989936

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.