Evidence mapPaperPMID 15330739Full record

ArticleExpert opinion on pharmacotherapy2004

Atorvastatin versus pravastatin: intensive versus moderate lipid lowering.

Sheila A Doggrell

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Expert opinion on pharmacotherapy, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sheila A DoggrellThe University of Queensland, School of Biomedical Sciences, QLD 4072, Australia. s_doggrell@yahoo.com
University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With so many statins available for clinical use in coronary artery syndromes, there has been much discussion about which is the best. Two recent trials have compared the clinical outcomes of intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin 80 mg/day and standard lowering with pravastatin 40 mg/day. In the Pravastatin or Atorvastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy (PROVE IT) trial, patients with acute coronary artery syndromes were enrolled, and pravastatin lowered the low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol to 2.46 mmol/l, whereas atorvastatin lowered it to 1.60 mmol/l. Associated with this, there was a lower rate of clinical events (myocardial infarction, revascularisation) over 2 years with atorvastatin than pravastatin (22.4 versus 26.3%, respectively). The Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) trial also enrolled patients requiring angiography, and pravastatin lowered the LDL-cholesterol to 2.84 mmol/l, whereas atorvastatin lowered the LDL-cholesterol to 2.04 mmol/l. In the REVERSAL trial, atheroma volume progressed with pravastatin by 2.7% whilst remaining stable in the atorvastatin group (-0.4%) over 18 months. Thus, atorvastatin 80 mg/day causes a greater reduction in LDL-cholesterol than pravastatin 40 mg/day, and this is associated with a reduced progression of atheroma and reduced clinical events. As a consequence of these findings, the National Cholesterol Education Programme and European guidelines for LDL-cholesterol levels should be lowered.

Identifiers

PMID15330739
OpenAlexW2162674292

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.