Trial reportYonsei medical journal2025
Prognostic Implication of LDL-C Variability and Its Association with Lipid-Lowering Strategies: Insights from the RACING and LODESTAR Trials.
Trial report in Yonsei medical journal, 2025. 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.
- Lipid Profile Management in Secondary Prevention in Spain: Data from the BDCAP Registry in Spain (LIPIDSPAIN).Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
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
purposeWe aimed to compare the visit-to-visit variability in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) according to different lipid-lowering strategies and evaluate its prognostic implications using data from previous trials. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe analyzed two randomized clinical trials: the RACING trial and the LODESTAR trial. LDL-C variability was evaluated using standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation, and variation independent of mean. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization.
resultsAmong the 6800 patients included, when compared with patients randomized to high-intensity statins, LDL-C variability was similar in the group randomized to moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination, but it was higher in those randomized to treat-to-target strategy. The variability in LDL-C (by SD) was a predictor of primary endpoint even after adjustment for lipid-lowering strategy and mean LDL-C (hazard ratio 1.024; 95% confidence interval 1.014 to 1.035;
conclusionCompared to high-intensity statin therapy, LDL-C variability was not increased with the moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy; however, it was increased in the treat-to-target strategy. Even among those treated with moderate- or high-intensity statins or statins with a target LDL-C levels of 50-70 mg/dL, increased LDL-C variability was associated with higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes.
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.