Combination of moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe versus high-intensity statins alone for primary prevention of cardiovascular events
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Combination of a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe can lead to similar reductions in cardiovascular events as monotherapy with a high-intensity statin in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The comparative effectiveness of these two cholesterol-lowering strategies in the primary prevention setting is unknown. Purpose To compare incident ASCVD events associated with a combination of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe versus monotherapy with a high-intensity statin in adults without prior history of cardiovascular disease. Methods We conducted a new-user active comparator retrospective population-based cohort study in Canada. We included all adults aged ≥ 67 years (eligible for drug coverage) with a first prescription of either a combination of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe ("combination therapy") or high-intensity statin alone between January 2010 and December 2022. Patients were excluded if they had not received any prior lipid lowering therapies or had a history of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure, peripheral vascular disease or prior coronary revascularisation at any time before or within 3 months of treatment initiation. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for MI or stroke, or coronary revascularization. An inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score was used to account for confounding (demographics, comorbidities, laboratory tests, other medications). Results Among 67,884 patients (mean age: 74.0±5.5y; 53% females), 8,798 (13%) initiated combination therapy and 59,086 (87%) initiated a high-intensity statin. At 1 year, after weighting, the mean achieved LDL-C was ~1.9 mmol/L in both groups. The median follow-up was 6.5 years. The cumulative incidence of the primary outcome at 10 years in the weighted cohort was 32.7% in the combination therapy group and 36.1% in the high-intensity statin group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.82 to 0.92; p<0.001; absolute risk reduction: 3.5%; 95% CI: 0.8 to 6.1; Figure 1). This result was primarily driven by a lower risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.91; p<0.001; Figure 2) and stroke (cause-specific [cs] HR: 0.86; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; p=0.04), whereas no differences were observed in the risk of MI (csHR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82 to 1.15) or coronary revascularization (csHR: 0.97; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.11). Conclusion The combination of moderate-intensity statins with ezetimibe was associated with a lower risk of incident ASCVD compared with high-intensity statins alone among primary prevention patients in a real-world setting. These results were driven by a lower risk of all-cause death and stroke, but not coronary events. The influence of statin intolerance on the allocated strategy and adherence to therapy cannot be addressed in this analysis, which, along with verifying these estimates, may be best determined in a prospective randomized trial.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».