Pharmacotherapy of hypercholesterolaemia: statins in clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this article is to evaluate the roles of the lipid-lowering class of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) in reducing cardiovascular events and to review their mechanism of action based on in vitro and in vivo studies. The clinical outcome of 15 major clinical trials has been critically reviewed and summarised; all showed a high degree of efficacy and safety. Statins, either in active or prodrug forms, are potent inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase, have good absorption rate and their bioavailability depends on their lipophobicity and concomitant use with meals. Abdominal discomfort is the most commonly reported adverse effect. Although the incidence is low, myopathy with or without rhabdomyolysis may be considered a serious adverse effect of statins. A combination of a statin with gemfibrozil seems to increase the risk of this adverse event, particularly in patients with renal impairment. Combination therapy with several other agents, frequently administered to cardiovascular patients, has also been reviewed. Statin therapy is considered highly cost effective in secondary prevention, but it is less cost effective in primary prevention. This factor may underline the rationale for developing other safe and effective agents with an improved cost effectiveness profile. The pleiotropic non-lipid lowering effects of statins may include their anti-oxidant and antithrombotic potential as well as restoration of endothelial function. Statins may also be beneficial in the treatment of osteoporosis. Fewer studies have investigated statins' effects on the quality of lipoprotein particles, the activities of cholesteryl ester transfer protein and lecithin:cholesterol acyltransferase as well as their possible synergistic effects with n-3 fatty acids, anti-oxidants and aspirin in reducing cardiovascular events.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".