Abstract W P269: High vs. Moderate-intensity Statin Therapy After Ischemic Stroke: Findings from PROSPER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current treatment guidelines recommend high-intensity statin therapy for patients with a history of stroke. However, older patients with higher comorbidity were under-represented in trials and dosing varies in clinical practice. We compared the effectiveness of high vs moderate-intensity statins on clinical outcomes in older patients from the GWTG-Stroke registry. Methods: We studied statin-naïve ischemic stroke patients ≥65 years from GWTG-Stroke linked to Medicare claims from 2008-2011 who were discharged on statins. Outcomes included home time days (days alive and not in acute or post-acute care facility), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), mortality, all-cause, stroke and CV readmission within 2 years of discharge. We estimated unadjusted and adjusted associations between statin intensity and outcomes using negative binomial and Cox proportional hazards models. Inverse-weighted estimates of the probability of high-intensity statin (IPW) were used to adjust for treatment selection. Results: Of 29,631 ischemic stroke patients discharged on statins, 9,145 (31%) received high-intensity statins. Patients receiving high-intensity statins were younger and had higher LDL-C compared with patients on moderate-intensity statins. The high-intensity statin group had 5 fewer home time days and higher all-cause readmission within 2 years, but other observed outcomes were similar (Table). Except for a slightly higher hazard of all-cause readmission with high-intensity statin use, there were no significant differences in MACE, hemorrhagic stroke, or other outcomes after IPW adjustment (Table). Conclusions: We found no differences in MACE or home time days within 2 years of initiation of high vs. moderate-intensity statin therapy following ischemic stroke. These findings can inform patients and clinicians regarding the risk-benefit associated with statin dosing after ischemic stroke.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".