Adherence With Statin Therapy in Elderly Patients With and Without Acute Coronary Syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Landmark clinical trials have demonstrated the survival benefits of statins, with benefits usually starting after 1 to 2 years of treatment. Research prior to these trials of older lipid-lowering agents demonstrated low levels of 1-year adherence. OBJECTIVE: To compare 2-year adherence following statin initiation in 3 cohorts of patients: those with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), those with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD), and those without coronary disease (primary prevention). DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study using linked population-based administrative data from Ontario. PATIENTS: All patients aged 66 years or older who received at least 1 statin prescription between January 1994 and December 1998 and who did not have a statin prescription in the prior year were followed up for 2 years from their first statin prescription. There were 22,379 patients in the ACS, 36,106 in the chronic CAD, and 85,020 in the primary prevention cohorts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to statins, defined as a statin being dispensed at least every 120 days after the index prescription for 2 years. RESULTS: Two-year adherence rates in the cohorts were only 40.1% for ACS, 36.1% for chronic CAD, and 25.4% for primary prevention. Relative to the ACS cohort, nonadherence was more likely among patients receiving statins in the chronic CAD (relative risk [RR], 1.14; 95% CI, 1.11-1.16) and primary prevention cohorts (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.87-1.96). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with and without recent ACS have low rates of adherence to statins. This suggests that many patients initiating statin therapy may receive no or limited benefit from statins because of premature discontinuation.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".