ArticleCurrent treatment options in cardiovascular medicine2006
Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering in the prevention of CHD: how low should we go?
Article in Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association study of BUD13-ZNF259 gene rs964184 polymorphism and hemorrhagic stroke risk.International journal of clinical and experimental medicine · 2015Article
- Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Prevention and Management.American journal of lifestyle medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The past 12 years have seen the publication of numerous randomized placebo-controlled studies using statins to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) to assess the efficacy of cholesterol lowering on cardiovascular events. Initial studies predominantly evaluated mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarctions and coronary heart disease (CHD) death in patients with known or presumed established coronary disease and moderately elevated to very elevated serum cholesterol concentrations. Subsequent investigations studied a broader spectrum of cardiovascular events as a composite primary end point in both primary and secondary prevention strategies in subjects with lower mean entry serum LDLC concentrations. These studies have generally shown a reduction in a composite end point of cardiovascular events, although not necessarily the more restricted end points used in previous studies. Although the LDLC mantra "lower is better" has been popularized in advertising and continuing medical education and suggested as an option in "very high risk" patients by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel, the precise target level for LDLC for optimal treatment has not been rigorously defined. Serum LDLC less than 100 mg/dL seems reasonable for patients with known atherosclerosis or at high risk for atherosclerosis (diabetes or presence of multiple risk factors). Serum LDLC less than 70 mg/dL may be a reasonable goal in the setting of acute coronary syndromes, but there are many problems with the data on which this recommendation is made. Furthermore, many advocates of "lower is better" seem oblivious to the potential downsides of more aggressive lipid-lowering therapy. The LDLC target in lower risk primary prevention is less clear. What is obvious is that moderate-dose statin therapy can lower CHD risk in primary prevention and secondary prevention with minimal side effects, and with the imminent availability of several generic statins, with great cost-effectiveness.
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.