SynthesisPeerJ2026
Effectiveness and safety of atorvastatin/ ezetimibe fixed-dose combination in hypercholesterolemia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many patients fail to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets with statin monotherapy, calling for a combination of statins and ezetimibe. This systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluated the comparative effectiveness and safety of atorvastatin monotherapy, atorvastatin/ezetimibe free-equivalent combination (AS/EZ FEC), and fixed-dose combination (AS/EZ FDC) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Methods: Randomized controlled trials were retrieved from electronic databases. Primary outcomes were the percentage change in LDL-C from baseline and LDL-C goal attainment, analyzed using mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Treatments were ranked Results: AS/EZ FDC reduced LDL-C more than AS alone (MD -13.94%, 95% CI [-18.90% to -9.10%]), with similar results for AS/EZ FEC (MD -12.41%, 95% CI [-14.61% to -10.22%]). SUCRA rankings for LDL-C reduction were FDC (86.2%), FEC (63.8%), and AS (0.0%). For LDL-C goal attainment, the RR was 1.87 (95% CI [1.47-2.39]) for FEC Conclusion: AS/EZ combination therapies provide greater improvements in LDL-C reduction and goal attainment compared with AS monotherapy, with FDC ranking highest in LDL-C reduction. Treatment with AS/EZ FEC or FDC did not increase the risk of adverse events compared to AS monotherapy and was well tolerated. These findings support FDC use when intensive LDL-C lowering is required.
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.