ArticleClinical drug investigation2008
Retrospective comparison of the effectiveness of a fenofibrate 145 mg formulation compared with the standard 160 mg tablet.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Nanopharmaceuticals (part 1): products on the market.International journal of nanomedicine · 2014Review
- A Review of Currently Available Fenofibrate and Fenofibric Acid Formulations.Cardiology research · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare changes in lipid levels (total cholesterol [total-C], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], triglycerides [TG], and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]) for patients who switched from standard fenofibrate 160 mg (requiring dosing with food) to fenofibrate 145 mg with no food effect (NFE).
methodsThe analyses were performed using an electronic medical records dataset from 1 January 2003 to 31 July 2005. Patients were eligible for the analysis if they had a diagnosis of hypertension, dyslipidaemia or diabetes mellitus, were written a prescription for standard fenofibrate 160 mg during the period 1 May 2004 to 30 April 2005, and were written a subsequent prescription for fenofibrate 145 mg NFE at least 60 days after first receiving the 160 mg dose. The outcomes measured were lipid levels: total-C, LDL-C, HDL-C and TG.
results491 patients who switched from standard fenofibrate 160 mg to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE met all of the inclusion criteria. Patients who changed therapy to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE from standard fenofibrate 160 mg showed a beneficial response in lipid levels. Statistically significant patient-specific changes in lipid levels were observed for the change from baseline to standard fenofibrate 160 mg for three lipid levels (total-C, HDL-C and TG). Statistically significant changes were observed for the switch to fenofibrate 145 mg NFE for three lipid levels (total-C, LDL-C and TG).
conclusionsMore patients treated in an outpatient clinical practice had better lipid results when prescribed fenofibrate 145 mg NFE than those prescribed standard fenofibrate 160 mg, suggesting that a less restrictive dosing regimen improves lipid outcomes.
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.