Evidence map›Statins × lipids›PMID 21492764›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American College of Cardiology2011

Cardiovascular event reduction and adverse events among subjects attaining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <50 mg/dl with rosuvastatin. The JUPITER trial (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin).

Judith Hsia, Jean G MacFadyen, John Monyak, Paul M Ridker

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2011. The graph read 1 number from its abstract, feeding 1 cell of the map: it finds no clear difference in 1. Cited by 79 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

1number the graph read from it
1cell of the map it votes in
79citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
20.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

← favours the treatmentfavours the comparator →
1 · no effect
Lipidsno clear difference · against placebo · ascvd, dyslipidemiafeeds one cell of the map
HR 0.760.57 to 1.00
RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 2 years (range up to 5 years), rates of the primary trial endpoint were 1.18, 0.86, and 0.44 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (n = 8,150) and rosuvastatin groups without LDL-C <50 mg/dl (n = 4,000) or with LDL-C <50 mg/dl (n = 4,154), respectively (fully-adjusted hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 1.00 for subjects with no LDL-C <50 mg/dl vs. placebo and 0.35, 95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.49 for subjects attaining LDL-C <50 mg/dl; p for trend <0.0001).
FeedsStatins×lipids

clause the extractor read what became the number

2 · Its place on the map

Where it lands on the map

Rows are treatments, columns are outcomes. The coloured squares are the cells this paper feeds, coloured by the vote it casts there. Click one to jump to what this paper adds to it.

supports the treatmentfavours the comparatorno clear differenceread, but no usable result
3 · What it changes

What it adds to each cell

For every cell the paper feeds: the belief in the claim with and without this paper, and this paper's estimate drawn against every other readable study in the cell. The ringed dot is this paper.

Statins×lipids

InconclusiveOpen on the map →What to test next →

38 readable studies in this cell: 27 favour the treatment, 5 find no difference, 6 favour the comparator.

Belief with this paper
0.50contested · 21 families support, 7 contradict · against placebo
Without it
0.50This paper does not move the number.
← favours the comparatorfavours the treatment →
1 · no effect
This paper · 2011
HR 0.760.57 to 1.00
The effect of a locally adapted, secondary stroke risk factor self-man…PMID 27349906 · 2016
OR 5.982.81 to 12.8
Association between lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with …PMID 20543522 · 2010
HR 0.57
The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimib…PMID 21663949 · 2011
IRR 0.830.74 to 0.94
Predictors of new-onset diabetes in patients treated with atorvastatin…PMID 21453832 · 2011
HR 1.371.08 to 1.75
Reduction in C-reactive protein and LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular…PMID 19329177 · 2009
HR 0.380.26 to 0.56
Pitavastatin effects on lipids in relation to major adverse cardiovasc…PMID 41936375 · 2026
RR 0.320.30 to 0.34
4 · 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.

5 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

79 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 231 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Statins for the primary prevention of venous thromboembolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Statins for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Statins, mood, sleep, and physical function: a systematic review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2014
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

19 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

6 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

7 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Judith HsiaAstraZeneca LP, 1800 Concord Pike, Wilmington, DE 19850-5437, USA. judith.hsia@astrazeneca.com
Jean G MacFadyen
John Monyak
Paul M Ridker
AstraZeneca (United States) · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

8 · The paper itself

Abstract

The marked sentences are the ones the graph read a number from.

objectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the impact on cardiovascular and adverse events of attaining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels <50 mg/dl with rosuvastatin in apparently healthy adults in the JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) trial.

backgroundThe safety and magnitude of cardiovascular risk reduction conferred by treatment to LDL-C levels below current recommended targets remain uncertain.

methodsA cohort of 17,802 apparently healthy men and women with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥2 mg/l and LDL-C <130 mg/dl were randomly allocated to rosuvastatin 20 mg daily or placebo, and followed up for all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and adverse events. In a post-hoc analysis, participants allocated to rosuvastatin were categorized as to whether or not they had a follow-up LDL-C level <50 mg/dl.

resultsDuring a median follow-up of 2 years (range up to 5 years), rates of the primary trial endpoint were 1.18, 0.86, and 0.44 per 100 person-years in the placebo group (n = 8,150) and rosuvastatin groups without LDL-C <50 mg/dl (n = 4,000) or with LDL-C <50 mg/dl (n = 4,154), respectively (fully-adjusted hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 1.00 for subjects with no LDL-C <50 mg/dl vs. placebo and 0.35, 95% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.49 for subjects attaining LDL-C <50 mg/dl; p for trend <0.0001). For all-cause mortality, corresponding event rates were 0.67, 0.65, and 0.39 (p for trend = 0.004). Rates of myalgia, muscle weakness, neuropsychiatric conditions, cancer, and diabetes mellitus were not significantly different among rosuvastatin-allocated participants with and without LDL-C <50 mg/dl.

conclusionsAmong adults with LDL-C <130 mg/dl and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein ≥2 mg/l, rosuvastatin-allocated participants attaining LDL-C <50 mg/dl had a lower risk of cardiovascular events without a systematic increase in reported adverse events.

Indexed as

AgedBiomarkersCardiovascular DiseasesCholesterol, LDLCohort StudiesFemaleFluorobenzenesFollow-Up StudiesHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsMaleMiddle AgedPyrimidinesRosuvastatin CalciumSulfonamidesBiomarkersCholesterol, LDLFluorobenzenesHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsPyrimidinesRosuvastatin CalciumSulfonamides

Identifiers

PMID21492764
OpenAlexW166112863

What Socratic holds

Texttitle and abstract
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.