MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reduction in C-Reactive Protein and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Cardiovascular Event Rates After Initiation of Rosuvastatin: A Prospective Study of the Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin Trial

2009· article· en· W1970932673 on OpenAlexaff
Paul M. Ridker, Francisco Antônio Helfenstein Fonseca, Jacques Genest, Antonio M. Gotto, John J.P. Kastelein, Wolfgang Köenig, Peter Libby, Alberto Lorenzatti, Jean MacFadyen, Børge G. Nordestgaard, James Shepherd, James T. Willerson, Robert J. Glynn

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRosuvastatinHazard ratioUnstable anginaInternal medicinePlaceboRosuvastatin CalciumMyocardial infarctionCardiologyCholesterolPopulationC-reactive proteinRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalInflammation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two previous trials have reported that the best clinical outcomes in treatment of acute coronary ischemia among patients receiving statins occurred in those who achieved low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol <1.8 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) <2 mg/L. Despite these findings, the added benefits of reduced hsCRP concentrations remain controversial. The Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the effects of rosuvastatin 20 mg versus placebo on several prespecified cardiovascular end points according to on-treatment concentrations of LDL cholesterol (≥1.8 mmol/L or <1.8 mmol/L) and hsCRP (≥2 mg/L or <2 mg/L). The study population was comprised of 15,548 initially healthy men and women. Prespecified end points were rates of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, admission for unstable angina, arterial revascularization, or cardiovascular death. The maximum follow-up period was 5 years (median: 1.9 years). All events arising after randomization were included. The data were adjusted for baseline LDL cholesterol and other risk factors at study entry. Compared with placebo, there was a 55% reduction in vascular events among patients treated with rosuvastatin who achieved LDL cholesterol <1.8 mmol/L (event rate: 1.11 vs. 0.51 per 100 person-years; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.33–0.59, P < 0.0001) and a 62% reduction in those achieving hsCRP <2 mg/L (event rate: 0.42 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.24–0.54, P < 0.0001). Despite a weak correlation between LDL cholesterol and hsCRP reductions in individual patients (r values: <0.15), there was a 65% reduction in vascular events among participants receiving rosuvastatin who achieved both LDL cholesterol <1.8 mmol/L and hsCRP <2 mg/L (event rate: 0.38 per 100 person-years); adjusted HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.23–0.54), compared with a 33% reduction in those who achieved one or neither target (event rate: 0.74 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49–0.84) (P across treatment groups <0.0001). At a target of LDL cholesterol <1.8 mmol/L and hsCRP <1 mg/L, there was a 79% reduction in cardiac events (event rate: 0.24 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.09–0.51). Irrespective of the lipid end point used, there was a similar pattern of risk reduction with achieved hsCRP concentrations. These findings indicate that reduction in both LDL cholesterol and hsCRP to targeted levels is predictive of improved event-free survival in a population of healthy adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207