ArticlePloS one2024
Adherence to cardiovascular medications and risk of cardiovascular disease in breast cancer patients: A causal inference approach in the Pathways Heart Study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWomen with breast cancer (BC) are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). We examined adherence to CVD medications and their association with major CVD events over 14 years of follow-up in the Pathways Heart Study, a prospective study of 4,776 stage I-III BC patients diagnosed from 2005-2013.
methodsEligibility included being alive 6 months post-BC diagnosis, with dyslipidemia, hypertension, or diabetes at diagnosis along with ≥1 prior outpatient order or dispensing for a statin, anti-hypertensive, or diabetes medication, respectively, in the 30 months prior. Medication adherence was measured from pharmacy data to calculate cumulative average adherence (CAA). Incident heart failure (HF), ischemic heart disease (IHD), and stroke were determined via validated diagnosis and procedure codes. Working marginal structural models (MSM) fitted with inverse probability weighting evaluated the effect of adherence regimens on the hazards for each CVD event, while controlling for baseline and time-varying confounders. MSM parameterizations included: 1) CAA<100% versus CAA = 100% (ref), 2) CAA<80% versus CAA≥80% (ref) and 3) CAA<80% versus 80%≤CAA<100% versus CAA = 100%.
resultsPoor statin adherence (CAA<80%) was associated with higher risk of composite CVD (HR = 2.54; 95% CI: 1.09, 5.94) versus CAA≥80%. Poor statin adherence was also associated with a higher risk of stroke (HR = 8.13; 95% CI: 2.03, 32.51) but not risk of IHD and HF. Further, compared with perfect adherence (CAA = 100%), good adherence (80%≤CAA<100%) was associated with lower risk (HR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.13, 0.92) while poor adherence (CAA<80%) was associated with higher risk of composite CVD (HR = 2.45; 95% CI: 1.05, 5.70). Levels of adherence to anti-hypertensives and diabetes medications had mixed or null associations with risk of CVD.
conclusionsMaintaining good adherence (≥80%) to statins after BC treatment is beneficial for cardiovascular health in patients with dyslipidemia. Future studies should determine factors associated with lower adherence to statins and ways to improve adherence.
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.