MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of micronized fenofibrate versus atorvastatin in the treatment of dyslipidaemic patients with low plasma HDL‐cholesterol levels: a 12‐week randomized trial

2002· article· en· W2077338443 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean‐Pierre Després, Isabelle Lemieux, H. Salomon, D. Delaval

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Internal Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalBell (Canada)
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsFenofibrateAtorvastatinMedicineRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCholesterolGastroenterologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Després J‐P, Lemieux I, Salomon H, Delaval D (CHUL Research Center, Ste‐Foy, Québec, Laval Hospital Research Center, Ste‐Foy, Québec, Canada and Laboratoires Fournier, Garches, France). Effects of micronized fenofibrate versus atorvastatin in the treatment of dyslipidaemic patients with low plasma HDL‐cholesterol levels: a 12‐week randomized trial. J Intern Med 2002; 251: 490–499. Background. Studies have suggested that raising low levels of high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C) may be an important target for the prevention of coronary heart disease. Objective. To compare the ability of micronized fenofibrate and atorvastatin to increase plasma HDL‐C levels. Design. Multicentre, randomized open‐label study. Settings. The study was conducted in 19 centres across the UK and Canada. Subjects. One hundred and eighty‐one patients were randomized and the full analysis set included 165 nondiabetic patients with low HDL‐C (women <46 mg dL −1 , i.e. 1.2 mmol L −1 and men <43 mg dL −1 , i.e. 1.1 mmol L −1 ): 86 patients in the atorvastatin group and 79 patients in the micronized fenofibrate group. Interventions. Micronized fenofibrate (200 mg day −1 , 87 patients) or atorvastatin (10 mg day −1 , 94 patients) for a period of 12 weeks. Main outcome measures. Percent change in HDL‐C levels. Results. After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean percent change from baseline in HDL‐C was significantly higher in the micronized fenofibrate group (13.3%) compared with the atorvastatin group (5.3%, P =0.0003). The magnitude of such relative change was inversely related to the baseline HDL‐C levels only in the micronized fenofibrate group. Furthermore, in the fenofibrate treatment group, 50.9% of the patients (29 of 57 patients) with a baseline HDL‐C <40 mg dL −1 achieved a plasma HDL‐C level above 40 mg dL −1 after 12 weeks of treatment versus 27.9% of the patients (19 of 68 patients) in the atorvastatin group ( P =0.01). Conclusions. On the basis of (1) the greater impact of fenofibrate than atorvastatin on HDL‐C levels and (2) the greater proportion of dyslipidemic patients achieving HDL‐C levels above 40 mg dL −1 with fenofibrate than atorvastatin, it is suggested that micronized fenofibrate should be considered as a good therapeutic option to treat dyslipidemic patients with low HDL‐C and moderately elevated LDL‐C concentrations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.227 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized 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

Citations44
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Internal MedicineSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207