ReviewCardiovascular drugs and therapy2026
Comparing the 2025 ESC/EAS Focused Update and the 2026 ACC/AHA Dyslipidemia Guideline: Convergences, Divergences, and Practical Implications.
Review in Cardiovascular drugs and therapy, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the 2025 ESC/EAS Focused Update and the 2026 ACC/AHA Dyslipidemia Guideline, with emphasis on convergences, divergences, and their practical implications for lipid management.
methodsNarrative comparative review of the two original guideline documents, organized around risk estimation, treatment goals, biomarkers, coronary artery calcium, non-statin therapy, secondary prevention, and clinical implementation.
resultsThe two documents share a common direction of travel: earlier recognition of risk, broader use of non-statin therapies, and more sustained lowering of atherogenic burden. The ESC/EAS update preserves a target-based framework and emphasizes faster intensification, especially after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The ACC/AHA guideline broadens the field from cholesterol management to dyslipidemia, gives greater operational weight to apoB, non-HDL-C, and coronary artery calcium (CAC), and embeds treatment decisions within a more differentiated phenotypic framework.
conclusionThe documents often support similar therapeutic decisions, but they differ in how risk is refined, how residual atherogenic burden is interpreted, and how treatment is intensified. The ESC/EAS text places greater emphasis on earlier treatment intensification within an established framework, whereas the ACC/AHA guideline provides a broader and more differentiated management framework.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42287590What 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.