ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Treatment adherence, persistence, and effectiveness of fixed dose combination versus free combination therapy of rosuvastatin-ezetimibe as a lipid-lowering therapy.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- LDL-C Goal Attainment with Fixed-Dose Ezetimibe and Atorvastatin Versus High-Dose Atorvastatin in Chinese Patients: Subgroup Analysis of a Randomized Trial.Advances in therapy · 2026Trial
- Comparison of pharmacokinetics and safety of fixed-dose versus loose combination of atorvastatin/fenofibrate 10/145 mg in healthy Korean participants.Translational and clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Choosing the Right Non-Statin Therapy for the Right Patient - How To Sequence Advanced Lipid-Lowering Therapies.Current atherosclerosis reports · 2026Review
- The CARDIOLIPID Plan: A Cardiovascular Risk-centred Implementation Framework for the Diagnosis and Management of Dyslipidaemia: Experts' Proposal.European cardiology · 2026Review
- Chinese expert consensus on the choice of initial cholesterol-lowering strategy.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Real-World Effectiveness of Rosuvastatin-Ezetimibe Single Pill (RovazetJournal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Guidelines for dyslipidemia management recommend adding ezetimibe for patients with dyslipidemia inadequately controlled with statin monotherapy. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of statin and ezetimibe may improve persistence and adherence and hence reduce LDL-C further compared to free-combination treatment (FCT). The primary aim was to compare persistence/adherence with FDC versus FCT of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe (R/E); the secondary aim was to assess the impact of treatment adherence and persistence to LDL-C percentage reduction from baseline. An exploratory analysis assessed the impact of treatment adherence and persistence to incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). A subgroup analysis of patients on FDC of rosuvastatin 10 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg was also conducted. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed using the THIN® database from Belgium and France in individuals (aged ≥18 years who received R/E as FDC or FCT between January 01, 2017, and November 30, 2022). Persistence (time from landmark date to discontinuation, with the latter defined as >45 days gap between prescription fills) and adherence (having a proportion of days covered ≥80%) were defined. Subsequent analyses adopted propensity score matching or weighting, followed by Cox and logistic regression models. Results: A total of 15,643 treatment episodes (FDC: 11,300; FCT: 4,343) were selected. FDC R/E was associated with greater persistence (HR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.51-0.58) and higher odds of adherence (OR: 3.00, 95% CI: 2.70-3.30) than FCT R/E. Based on the regression analysis results, patients who were persistent to treatment had a 10% higher reduction in LDL-C values from baseline than those non persistent. Similarly, patients who were adherent had 9.6% higher reduction in LDL-C levels from baseline than those not adherent. No significant difference was observed in association between persistence/adherence and MACEs. A consistent trend was also observed in the subgroup analysis. Conclusions: In conclusion, FDC of R/E use was associated with higher treatment persistence and adherence than FCT of R/E. Patients persistent/adherent to treatment had greater LDL-C reductions than those who discontinued or did not follow treatment schedule. The limited number of MACEs suggests a cautious interpretation of exploratory MACE findings.
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.