ArticleJournal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea)2021
Reassessment of Inclusion Criteria in the 2013 the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association Cholesterol Guidelines for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention.
Article in Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statin Therapy and Myasthenic Crisis: Is It a Transient Signal or a Clinically Meaningful Risk?Journal of clinical neurology (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Article
- Medical Management of Dyslipidemia for Secondary Stroke Prevention: Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background and purposeThe American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC-AHA) have released new guidelines and expanded indications for statin treatment. We aimed to reveal the clinical efficacy of each indication in the guidelines using a large-scale national cohort.
methodsWe used National Health Screening Cohort data to determine the proportions of participants for whom statin therapy would be recommended using the different guidelines. We assessed the cumulative incidence rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) using the Cox proportional-hazards model.
resultsUnder the 2013 ACC-AHA guidelines, 111,600 participants were additionally eligible to receive statins, compared with 50,023 participants according to the Third Adult Treatment Panel (ATP-III). Most of the additional statin-eligible participants in the ACC-AHA guidelines were indicated by their 10-year cardiovascular disease risk. The increase in statineligible participants in the ACC-AHA guidelines mainly involved elderly patients aged 60-75 years. Among participants not requiring statin, participants who were eligible for a statin under the ACC-AHA guidelines had a significantly higher hazard ratio of MACE when compared with those eligible under the ATP-III guidelines. Among the not-recommended groups, patients with diabetes and low-density lipoprotein <70 mg/dL constituted the group with the highest risk of MACE.
conclusionsThe 2013 ACC-AHA guidelines increase the number of statin-eligible participants, especially among the elderly. These guidelines provide a stronger recommendation for statins to high-risk groups, but it remains necessary to consider the characteristics of the population in the risk equation. In addition, the aggressive use of statin in diabetes patients and further studies of older subjects are needed.
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.