MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045351174 · doi:10.14740/jocmr2124w

Efficacy of Statin Monotherapy or in Combination With Coenzyme A Capsule in Patients With Metabolic Syndrome and Mixed Dyslipidemia

2015· article· en· W2045351174 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiangtao Lai, Bifeng Wu, Tianming Xuan, Shudong Xia, Zhong Liu, Jun-zhu Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological diseases and metabolism
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest China Hospital, Sichuan UniversitySichuan UniversityQilu Hospital of Shandong UniversityCentral South UniversityXiangya Hospital, Central South UniversityShandong University
KeywordsDyslipidemiaMedicineStatinMetabolic syndromeCapsuleSimvastatinInternal medicinePharmacologyObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients with metabolic syndrome are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease. Combination lipid-lowering therapy is often needed in patients with metabolic syndrome and mixed dyslipidemia. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of statin combined with a new hypolipidemic agent, coenzyme A (CoA) with moderate-dose statin monotherapy in subjects with metabolic syndrome and mixed dyslipidemia by evaluating data from a subgroup of patients with metabolic syndrome and mixed dyslipidemia from a previously conducted randomized study. METHODS: In the present post hoc analysis, 212 patients were included, receiving statin monotherapy (n = 94) or statin combined with CoA 400 U/day (n = 118) for 8 weeks. The lipoprotein profile was determined at baseline and week 8 visits. Attainment of low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) < 100 mg/dL, non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) < 130 mg/dL, and the combined goal of these two parameters was also evaluated. RESULTS: The mean percent change was more prominent with CoA plus statin compared with placebo plus statin in triglyceride (TG) (-32.5% vs. -8.7%, respectively; P = 0.0002), total cholesterol (-9.6% vs. -3.6%, P = 0.013), LDL-C (-7.5% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.033), and non-HDL-C (-14.3% vs. -6.4%, P = 0.011). Treatment with CoA plus statin resulted in larger percentages of participants attaining lipid goals for LDL-C (70.3% vs. 56.4%, P = 0.044), non-HDL-C (60.2% vs. 45.7%, P = 0.039), and the combined goal of LDL-C and non-HDL-C (57.6% vs. 42.6%, P = 0.038) than statin monotherapy. CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate that CoA plus statin therapy was more effective in improving lipoprotein parameters than statin alone in patients with metabolic syndrome and mixed hyperlipidemia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicNeurological diseases and metabolismFrench-language works237,207