Evidence mapPaperPMID 24728455Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

Effect of HDL-raising drugs on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-regression.

Navjot Kaur, Avaneesh Pandey, Harish Negi, Nusrat Shafiq, Srinivas Reddy, Harpreet Kaur, Neelima Chadha, Samir Malhotra

Open access · goldFull text readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. HDL meets triglyceride.Journal of lipid research · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Foundations of Lifestyle Medicine and its Evolution.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2024
    Article
  19. Does Elevated High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Protect Against Cardiovascular Disease?The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism · 2024
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Navjot KaurDepartment of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Avaneesh PandeyDepartment of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Harish NegiDepartment of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Nusrat ShafiqDepartment of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Srinivas ReddyDepartment of Cardiology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Harpreet KaurICMR- Advanced centre for evidence based child health, Advance Paediatric Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Neelima ChadhaDr. Tulsi Das Library, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Samir MalhotraDepartment of Pharmacology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, India.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSubstantial residual cardiovascular risk remains after optimal LDL lowering in patients of established coronary artery disease. A number of therapeutic agents that raise HDL-C have been tested in clinical trials to cover this risk. However, the results of clinical trials are conflicting.

objectivesTo determine whether raising HDL-C with pharmacologic therapies translates into beneficial cardiovascular outcomes and to find out if this change was proportional to the percentage change in HDL levels.

methodsElectronic and printed sources were searched up to August, 2013 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using at least one of the HDL raising therapies for secondary prevention of adverse cardiovascular events over optimal LDL levels. Data from eligible studies were pooled for the following outcomes: all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, hospitalization for unstable angina, non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization and ischemic stroke. Mantel Haensnzel fixed effect model was used preferentially. Meta-regression was done to see the correlation of change in HDL levels and cardiovascular outcomes. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated.

resultsA total of 12 RCTs including 26,858 patients with follow up period ranging from 1 year to 6.2 years were included in the analysis. Pooled analysis showed no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the treatment and control group (Pooled OR 1.07; 95% CI 0.98-1.16, p = 0.15). No significant difference was found between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Similarly no correlation was seen between percentage change in HDL and adverse cardiovascular outcomes on meta-regression analysis.

conclusionIncreasing HDL levels via pharmacological manipulation beyond optimal lipid lowering therapy for secondary prevention is not beneficial.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesCase-Control StudiesCholesterol, HDLEndpoint DeterminationHumansHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsOdds RatioPublication BiasTreatment OutcomeCholesterol, HDLHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID24728455
PMCPMC3984171
OpenAlexW2007490518

What Socratic holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
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.