ArticlePloS one2015
Use of Fibrates Monotherapy in People with Diabetes and High Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Care: A French Nationwide Cohort Study Based on National Administrative Databases.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Major adverse cardiovascular event definitions used in observational analysis of administrative databases: a systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Simvastatin Versus Gemfibrozil for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events: A Retrospective Cohort Study of 223,699 Primary Care Patients.Clinical drug investigation · 2022Article
- Effect and safety of combination lipid-lowering therapies based on statin treatment versus statin monotherapies on patients with high risk of cardiovascular events.Aging medicine (Milton (N.S.W)) · 2018Review
- Hypertriglyceridemia in Diabetes Mellitus: Implications for Pediatric Care.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimAccording to guidelines, diabetic patients with high cardiovascular risk should receive a statin. Despite this consensus, fibrate monotherapy is commonly used in this population. We assessed the frequency and clinical consequences of the use of fibrates for primary prevention in patients with diabetes and high cardiovascular risk.
designRetrospective cohort study based on nationwide data from the medical and administrative databases of French national health insurance systems (07/01/08-12/31/09) with a follow-up of up to 30 months.
methodsLipid-lowering drug-naive diabetic patients initiating fibrate or statin monotherapy were identified. Patients at high cardiovascular risk were then selected: patients with a diagnosis of diabetes and hypertension, and > 50 (men) or 60 (women), but with no history of cardiovascular events. The composite endpoint comprised myocardial infarction, stroke, amputation, or death.
resultsOf the 31,652 patients enrolled, 4,058 (12.8%) received a fibrate. Age- and gender-adjusted annual event rates were 2.42% (fibrates) and 2.21% (statins). The proportionality assumption required for the Cox model was not met for the fibrate/statin variable. A multivariate model including all predictors was therefore calculated by dividing data into two time periods, allowing Hazard Ratios to be calculated before (HR < 540) and after 540 days (HR > 540) of follow-up. Multivariate analyses showed that fibrates were associated with an increased risk for the endpoint after 540 days: HR < 540 = 0.95 (95% CI: 0.78-1.16) and HR > 540 = 1.73 (1.28-2.32).
conclusionFibrate monotherapy is commonly prescribed in diabetic patients with high cardiovascular risk and is associated with poorer outcomes compared to statin therapy.
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.