Persistence and determinants of statin therapy among middle‐aged patients for primary and secondary prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Statins have been shown to significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), and also in patients with dyslipidaemia when statins are taken regularly. Middle-aged patients have the highest level of forecasting benefit and little is known about persistence rate of these therapies in a real-life setting. The objective was to evaluate the persistence rate of middle-aged patients initiating a statin therapy and its relation with several determinants for primary and secondary prevention. METHODS: A cohort was reconstructed using the RAMQ databases. All patients aged 50-64 years-old who received at least one statin prescription between 1 January, 1998 and 31 December, 2000 for a new intention of treatment for dyslipidaemia were included in the cohort and followed up until 30 June, 2001. The date of the first prescription of statin was defined as the index date. There were 4316 patients in the secondary prevention (CAD diagnosis) and 13,642 patients in primary prevention cohort. The cumulative persistence rate was estimated using Kaplan-Meier, and Cox regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratio of ceasing statins. RESULTS: We found that persistence with statins had fallen to 71% after 6 months of treatment, and had declined to 45% after 3 years in the secondary prevention cohort; the corresponding figures were 65% and 35% in the primary prevention cohort. Our results suggest that patients with dyslipidaemia in primary prevention compared with those in secondary prevention (HR: 1.18; 1.11-1.25) are less likely to be persistent. Patients with other cardiovascular risk factors such as age (HR: 0.99; 0.98-0.99), diabetes (HR: 0.84; 0.79-0.90), hypertension (HR: 0.76; 0.72-0.80) were most likely to be persistent with statins. We observed lower persistence in patients who have used the greatest number of pharmacies and prescribing physicians. CONCLUSION: This analysis indicates that barriers to persistence occur early in the therapeutic course. Overall persistence with statins is low, and particularly among patients with few other cardiovascular risk factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".