ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2024
Comparative Effectiveness of Anti-Hyperlipidemic Drugs Monotherapy in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2024. 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.
- Long-Term Adherence and Drug Utilisation Patterns Among New Users of Anti-Hyperlipidemic Monotherapy: Development of a Risk Prediction Model.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Anti-hyperlipidemic drug treatments are effective in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. In a long-term retrospective inception cohort study, we aimed to assess the real-world comparative effectiveness of anti-hyperlipidemic monotherapies for primary prevention of cardiovascular events. Patients and Methods: Patients aged 18 years and older, who initiated primary prevention with anti-hyperlipidemic monotherapy, were selected from the University of Groningen IADB.nl dispensing database. In intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis we included all patients, whereas in per-protocol (PP) analysis we included both all patients independent of adherence (PPIA) and adherent patients (PPA). Study outcome was the time to first prescription of acute cardiac drug therapy measured by valid drug proxies to identify a first major cardiovascular event. We applied inverse probability of treatment-weighted (IPTW) analysis using Cox regression and time-varying Cox regression with simvastatin as the reference category to estimate the average treatment effect hazard ratios (HR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Atorvastatin users had significantly higher hazards compared to simvastatin users (HR range: 1.27 to 1.47, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.69). Similarly, Pravastatin users also exhibited increased hazards compared to simvastatin users (HR range: 1.41 to 1.56, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.04). Similar patterns were observed in patients with diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and asthma/COPD. No differences were found in the hazards of rosuvastatin, fluvastatin, fibrates, and simvastatin. Conclusion: Atorvastatin and pravastatin users had higher long-term rates of cardiovascular events compared to simvastatin monotherapy in primary prevention, the difference may be attributed to the confounding by severity, but also possibly due to differences in drug mechanisms or patient response. These findings could influence current guideline recommendations, suggesting a potential preference for simvastatin in primary prevention, underscoring the need for further research to explore long-term impacts and underlying mechanisms, especially in diverse populations.
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.