ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2007
Impact of high dose statin trials on hospital prescribers.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe PROVE-IT and REVERSAL studies established that an intensive 80 mg/day dose of atorvastatin was superior to pravastatin 40 mg/day for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) following acute coronary syndromes and in limiting the progression of coronary atherosclerosis. We have evaluated the impact of the results from these studies on statin prescribing by hospital doctors in the 2 years following their publication. METHODS AND
resultsUsing a nationwide database, 18,894 patients receiving a total of 23,750 hospital discharge prescriptions for atorvastatin were identified between September 2002 and December 2005. From this cohort, patients newly commenced on, switched to, or dose titrated on atorvastatin by a hospital prescriber were identified. The mean daily atorvastatin dose on discharge was calculated for each month and the results were analysed using a segmented regression analysis. There was a significant and sustained increase in the mean atorvastatin dose used by hospital prescribers. This resulted in an increase of 12 mg, (95% CI 10.6, 13.4) in the mean dose prescribed by December 2005. This was attributable largely to a 16.4% (95% CI 13.5, 19.3), 17.2% (95% CI 14.0, 20.5) and 8.8% (95% CI 7.4, 10.2) increase in the prescribing of the 20 mg, 40 mg and 80 mg/day dosages, respectively.
conclusionThe PROVE-IT and REVERSAL studies have had a significant impact on hospital prescribers' choice of atorvastatin dose. It is likely that this has been the result of both the publication and effective promotion of results from these trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.