ReviewAtherosclerosis plus2026
LDL-cholesterol distance to target: A practical tool for guiding lipid-lowering treatment decisions.
Review in Atherosclerosis plus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is causal in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), still the leading causes of global morbidity and mortality. The 2025 update of the ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia recommends increasingly stringent, risk-based LDL-C targets. Beyond achieved LDL-C targets, cumulative exposure over time has emerged as a key determinant of ASCVD risk. Accordingly, treatment strategies should evolve from a traditional stepwise approach toward a more proactive, personalized, and target-oriented model; the recognized impact of cumulative LDL-C exposure further reinforces the importance of early, intensive, and sustained lipid lowering therapies (LLT). Despite this awareness and the availability of effective therapies, LDL-C control in clinical practice remains suboptimal. This gap is largely driven by the so called "therapeutic inertia", involving physician-related factors, patient barriers, and healthcare system constraints; accordingly, fewer than one-third of patients in secondary prevention achieve recommended LDL-C goals. A significant improvement in this situation requires structured treatment algorithms, multidisciplinary care, improved patient education, and integration of digital decision-support tools. A pragmatic framework to improve goal attainment is the estimation of "distance to target", which enables selection of LLT based on the required percentage reduction from baseline LDL-C levels. This approach facilitates alignment between the expected efficacy of available treatments and individual patient needs. While statins remain first-line therapy, combination regimens are frequently required-particularly in very high-risk patients-including ezetimibe, bempedoic acid, PCSK9 inhibitors, and inclisiran.
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.