ArticleInternational journal of clinical practice2016
Lipid-lowering treatment patterns in patients with new cardiovascular events - estimates from population-based register data in Sweden.
Article in International journal of clinical practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of lipid-lowering treatment intensity and adherence on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a recent myocardial infarction: a Swedish register-based study.Upsala journal of medical sciences · 2022Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess treatment patterns of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in patients with hyperlipidaemia or prior cardiovascular (CV) events who experience new CV events.
methodsA retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted using Swedish medical records and registers. Patients were included in the study based on a prescription of LLT or CV event history and followed up for up to 7 years for identification of new CV events and assessment of LLT treatment patterns. Patients were stratified into three cohorts based on CV risk level. All outcomes were assessed during the year following index (the date of first new CV event). Adherence was defined as medication possession ratio (MPR) > 0.80. Persistence was defined as no gaps > 60 days in supply of drug used at index.
resultsOf patients with major cardiovascular disease (CVD) history (n = 6881), 49% were not on LLT at index. Corresponding data for CV risk equivalent and low/unknown CV risk patients were 37% (n = 3226) and 38% (n = 2497) respectively. MPR for patients on LLT at index was similar across cohorts (0.74-0.75). The proportions of adherent (60-63%) and persistent patients (56-57%) were also similar across cohorts. Dose escalation from dose at index was seen within all cohorts and 2-3% of patients switched to a different LLT after index while 5-6% of patients augmented treatment by adding another LLT.
conclusionsAlmost 50% of patients with major CVD history were not on any LLT, indicating a potential therapeutic gap. Medication adherence and persistence among patients on LLT were suboptimal.
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.