ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2019
Comparative effectiveness of statins in secondary prevention among the older people aged 75 years and over.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and persistent physical disability in older adults.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2022 · on this mapTrial
- Clinical impact of statin intensity according to age in patients with acute myocardial infarction.PloS one · 2022Article
- Statin-specific inhibition of Rab-GTPase regulates cPKC-mediated IKs internalization.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Background While there is clear evidence for the benefit of statins in the secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, there is a lack of research on the effects of statin regimens in older patients aged 75 years and over. Objectives To compare the effectiveness of statin regimens in the secondary prevention of ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events among patients aged 75 years and over. Setting Claims data from the South Korean National Health Insurance Database from 2006 to 2014. Methods This retrospective cohort study included patients aged 75-100 years with a prior history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease who began statin therapy in 2009-2011. Propensity score matching and the Cox proportional hazards regression model were used to compare the effectiveness of the statin regimens in secondary prevention. Main outcome measure The hazard ratios for ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality. Results Neither high nor low-intensity statin therapy significantly differed from moderate-intensity statin therapy in preventing ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events or all-cause mortality. Of the moderate-intensity statin therapies, the use of 10 mg rosuvastatin was more strongly associated with a reduced risk of ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events than was 10 mg atorvastatin [HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.64-0.98), p = 0.029]. Subgroup analysis revealed that the protective effects of 10 mg rosuvastatin against ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were more obvious for patients who were 75-79 years old, those who were statin-adherent, those who did not have diabetes mellitus at baseline, and those who were non-adherent to aspirin or antiplatelet drugs during the selection and follow-up periods. Conclusion The results of this study support the preferential prescription of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin over moderate-intensity atorvastatin for the secondary prevention of ischemic cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events in older patients aged ≥ 75 years.
Indexed as
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.