ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2014
Trends in statin therapy initiation during the period 2000-2010 in Israel.
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the relationship between statin use and risk of ovarian cancer.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2020Pooled it
- Trends in the Incidence of Early- and Late-Onset Dementia in 2011-2019: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.Dementia and geriatric cognitive disorders · 2026Article
- Time trends in statin use and incidence of recurrent cardiovascular events in secondary prevention between 1999 and 2013: a registry-based study.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this population-based study is to describe trends in the characteristics and treatment patterns of statin initiators over the first decade of the 21st century.
methodsNew statin use was studied retrospectively using the database of Maccabi Healthcare Services (MHS), a large Israeli health maintenance organization. Statin initiators were defined as MHS members aged ≥ 30 years who first purchased statins between 2000 and 2010. The starting dose was calculated in simvastatin equivalents based on the World Health Organization's daily defined dose index. Persistence was calculated as the percentage of days covered (PDC) with statins during the first year of therapy.
resultsStatin initiation peaked in 2005 and decreased from 38.6 to 18.6 per 1,000 in the period 2005-2010. The average age at therapy initiation decreased from 58.9 (± 12.0) to 54.5 (± 11.7) years, and the average (SD) baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) decreased from 4.2 (± 1.1) to 4.0 (± 0.9) mmol/l during the study period. Women were on average 3 years older than men at treatment initiation, with a higher baseline LDL-C. Among statin initiators, the prevalence of ischemic heart disease (IHD) decreased from 17.8 to 6.7 %, and diabetes prevalence increased from 8.6 to 15.7 %, peaking in 2008 (18.0 %). The PDC with statins ranged between 52.9 and 57.7 %. Simvastatin use at initiation increased from 27.5 % in 2000 to >90 % since 2002. Starting dose increased from 18.5 (± 8.9) to 24.3 (± 13.7) mg simvastatin equivalent.
conclusionsAmong the study population, statin initiators were increasingly characterized by a lower cardiovascular risk-namely, younger individuals without IHD and with a lower baseline LDL-C. These trends underscore the important shift towards statin initiation for primary prevention, as well as the need to balance between benefits and the potential side effect of statins.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24463538What 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.