ArticleKorean circulation journal2025
Escalating Lipid Therapy After Achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL With Moderate-Intensity Statins in High-Risk Patients.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2025. 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.
- Pharmacogenetic Associations with Statin Regimen Modification, Intolerance, and Adverse Outcomes in Coronary Artery Disease Patients.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Navigating the Gray Zone: Is Intensive Lipid-Lowering Always Necessary in Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease?Korean circulation journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesGuidelines recommend target levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and intensive lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) in high-risk patients. However, the value of escalating LLT when the LDL-C targets are achieved with moderate-intensity statins is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the benefits of LLT escalation in this population.
methodsIn this retrospective propensity score-matched study, we screened data from two university hospitals between 2006 and 2021. Of the 54,069 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), 3,205 who achieved LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL with moderate-intensity statins were included. After 1:3 matching, 1,315 patients (339 with LLT escalation and 976 without) were ultimately examined. The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)1 (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal ischemic stroke) and all-cause death.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 5.7 years, the MACCE1 rate was not significantly lower in the escalation group than in the non-escalation group (9.8 and 14.3/1,000 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-1.09; p=0.11). Kaplan-Meier curves showed similar results (log-rank p=0.11). The risk of all-cause death did not differ between the groups. MACCE2 rate, which additionally includes coronary/peripheral revascularization, was lower in the escalation group (24.5 and 35.4/1,000 person-years, respectively; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.52-0.94; p=0.017).
conclusionsLLT escalation did not significantly lower hard cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause death in patients with ASCVD achieving LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL with moderate-intensity statins. However, it had benefit in reducing revascularization rates in this population.
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.