ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2020
Impact of the 2019 European Guidelines on Diabetes in Clinical Practice: Real and Simulated Analyses of Lipid Goals.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2020. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- How Did the Updated 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society Risk Categorization for Patients with Diabetes Affect the Risk Perception and Lipid Goals? A Simulated Analysis of Real-life Data from EPHESUS Study.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2023Article
- Accelerated Ovarian Aging Among Type 2 Diabetes Patients and Its Association With Adverse Lipid Profile.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent European guidelines on diabetes, prediabetes, and cardiovascular disease developed for the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in collaboration with the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) significantly changed some concepts on risk stratification, lipid goals, and recommendations for the use of lipid-lowering drugs. The objectives of this work were to describe the lipid-lowering treatment prescribed for patients with diabetes and to determine the percentage of patients that achieved the lipid goals recommended by the 2019 ESC/EASD Guidelines on Diabetes in real and simulated scenarios.
methodsA multicenter, cross-sectional study was performed. Subjects >18 years with type 2 diabetes were included. The recommendations of the 2019 ESC/EASD Guidelines were followed. The real and simulated (ideal setting using adequate doses of statins ± ezetimibe) scenarios were analyzed.
resultsOverall, 528 patients were included. In total, 62.5% of patients received statins (17.1% high intensity). Most patients were stratified as "very high risk" (54.2%) or "high risk" (43.4%). Only 13.3% achieved the double lipid goal (LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals according to the risk categories). In the simulation analysis, the proportion of subjects that did not reach the therapeutic objective decreased in all risk strata, although a considerable proportion of subjects persisted outside the target.
conclusionThe difficulty of achieving lipid goals in diabetic patients was considerable when applying the new guidelines. The situation would improve if we optimized treatment, but the prescription of new lipid-lowering drugs could be limited by their high cost.
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.