MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999226510 · doi:10.1002/clc.4960261106

Differential effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein A‐I are consistent across hypercholesterolemic patient subgroups

2003· review· en· W1999226510 on OpenAlexaff
Michael H. Davidson, Leiv Ose, Jiří Fröhlich, Russell Scott, Carlos A. Dujovne, Iván Darío Escobar, Marcelo Chiara Bertolami, Frank Cihon, Darbie Maccubbin, Michele Mercuri

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cardiology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimvastatinAtorvastatinMedicineApolipoprotein BInternal medicineCholesterolEndocrinologyLipoproteinHigh-density lipoprotein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In addition to lowering plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), statins also raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). HYPOTHESIS: Recent studies have shown that treatment with simvastatin results in larger increases in HDL-C than those seen with atorvastatin. The results of three clinical studies are analyzed, comparing the effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on HDL-C and apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I) in the total cohort and in several subgroups of hypercholesterolemic patients. The three studies were all multicenter, randomized clinical trials that included simvastatin (20-80 mg) and atorvastatin (10-80 mg) treatment arms. The subgroup analyses performed were gender; age (< 65 and > or = 65 years); baseline HDL-C (male: < 40 or > or = 40 mg/dl; female: < 45 or > or = 45 mg/dl), baseline LDL-C (< 160 or > or = 160 mg/dl), and baseline triglycerides (< 200 or > or = 200 mg/dl). RESULTS: Both drugs produced similar increases in HDL-C levels at low doses; however, at higher drug doses (40 and 80 mg), HDL-C showed a significantly greater increase with simvastatin than with atorvastatin (p < 0.05 to < 0.001). Therefore, while HDL-C remained consistently elevated across all doses of simvastatin, there appeared to be a pattern of decreasing HDL-C with an increasing dose of atorvastatin. A similar negative dose response pattern was also observed with apo A-I in atorvastatin-treated patients, suggesting a reduction in the number of circulating HDL particles at higher doses. Both drugs reduced LDL-C and triglycerides in a dose-dependent fashion, with atorvastatin showing slightly greater effects. The differential effects of atorvastatin and simvastatin on HDL-C and apo A-I were observed for both the whole study cohorts and all subgroups examined; thus, no consistent treatment-by-subgroup interactions were observed. CONCLUSION: The data presented show that, across different hypercholesterolemic patient subgroups, simvastatin increases HDL-C and apo A-I more than atorvastatin at higher doses, with evidence of a negative dose response effect on HDL-C and apo A-I with atorvastatin, but not simvastatin.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical CardiologySame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207