Trial reportDrugs & aging2014
Secondary prevention medication after myocardial infarction: persistence in elderly people over the course of 1 year.
Trial report in Drugs & aging, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Methods and validity indicators for measuring adherence to statins in secondary cardiovascular prevention: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- The impact of age on the implementation of evidence-based medications in patients with coronary artery disease and its prognostic significance: a retrospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Observational
- Evidence-based interventions in primary care following acute coronary syndrome in Australia and New Zealand: a systematic scoping review.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2016Article
- Lipid-modifying therapy in the elderly.Vascular health and risk management · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPersistent use of guideline-recommended drugs after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is frequently reported to be inadequate in the elderly and scarce knowledge exists about factors that influence persistence in outpatient care. Our aim was to evaluate drug use and its predictors in survivors of AMI above 64 years from hospital discharge to 1-year post-AMI.
methodsIn a single-centre randomised controlled trial, discharge medication of 259 patients with AMI was obtained from medical records at hospital stay. Follow-up drug use and use of the healthcare system were self-reported to study nurses over 1 year in 3-month intervals. Predictors for persistence were modelled with multivariate logistic regression analysis considering demographics, co-morbidities and treatment characteristics.
resultsAt discharge, 99.2 % of the patients used anti-platelets, 86.5 % beta blockers, 95.0 % statins and 90.4 % angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers. Use of the combination of all four drug classes decreased from discharge to 1 year post-AMI from 74.1 to 37.8 % and was significantly reduced by age ≥75 years (odds ratio [OR] 0.49; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.29-0.85) and ten or more visits with general practitioners (GPs) over 1 year (OR 0.29; 95 % CI 0.17-0.51). Persistence from month 3 to 12 was significantly associated with drug use at discharge for the single drug classes, but not for the drug combination.
conclusionOlder age and frequent GP visits are associated with decreased use of the guideline-recommended drug combination after AMI. Further research is needed to specify underlying reasons and develop measures to improve persistence.
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.