ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2020
Cardiovascular Risk and Statin Eligibility in Primary Prevention: A Comparison between the Brazilian and the AHA/ACC Guidelines.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statin Associated With Physical Training: A Perfect Combination.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
- Gender- and age-related differences of statin use on incident dementia in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a Nationwide population-based cohort study.Lipids in health and disease · 2021Article
- Statin Use and Hypercholesterolemia: Are the Current Guidelines' Recommendations Being Followed?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2021Article
- Changes in Our Times and in Cholesterol Targets.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferences between the updated versions of the Brazilian Guideline on Dyslipidemias and the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Cholesterol Guideline regarding cardiovascular risk stratification and statin eligibility are unknown.
objectivesTo compare cardiovascular risk categorization and statin eligibility based on the Brazilian guideline with those based on the AHA/ACC guideline in primary prevention patients.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed individuals aged 40-74 years without high-risk conditions, with LDL-c 70 to < 190 mg/dL, not on lipid-lowering drugs, who underwent routine clinical assessment. Cardiovascular risk was stratified according to the Brazilian and the AHA/ACC guidelines. Subjects were considered eligible for statin therapy if LDL-c was at least 30 mg/dL above the target for the cardiovascular risk (Brazilian guideline) or the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was ≥7.5% (AHA/ACC guideline). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe study sample consisted of 18,525 subjects (69% male, age 48 ± 6 years). Among subjects considered at intermediate or high risk by the Brazilian guideline, over 80% would be in a lower risk category by the AHA/ACC guideline. Among men, 45% and 16% would be statin eligible by the Brazilian and the AHA/ACC guidelines criteria, respectively (p < 0.001). Among women, the respective proportions would be 16% and 1% (p < 0.001). Eighty-two percent of women and 57% of men eligible for statins based on the Brazilian guideline criterion would not be eligible according to the AHA/ACC guideline criterion.
conclusionsCompared with the AHA/ACC guideline, the Brazilian guideline classifies a larger proportion of primary prevention patients into higher-risk categories and substantially increases statin eligibility. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(3):440-449).
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.