Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Events in Older Patients With Myocardial Infarction Prescribed Intensive-Dose and Moderate-Dose Statins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines recommend intensive-dose statins for patients with acute coronary syndrome, but recent data about the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus have raised concerns about its use. Our main objective was to evaluate the association between intensive statin therapy and new-onset diabetes mellitus in patients with myocardial infarction and to evaluate the association of intensive statin therapy with long-term adverse clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A propensity score-matched cohort was created consisting of 17 080 patients with myocardial infarction aged >65 years old, hospitalized in Ontario, Canada, from 2004 to 2010. Clinical outcomes were compared in patients prescribed intensive-dose versus moderate-dose statins at hospital discharge. At 5 years, 13.6% of patients receiving intensive-dose statins and 13.0% of patients receiving moderate-dose statins had new-onset diabetes, which was not significantly different (P=0.19). By contrast, the 5-year rate of death or acute coronary syndrome was significantly lower at 44.8% in the intensive-dose statin group compared with 46.5% in the moderate-dose group (P=0.044). The reduction in combined clinical outcome was driven mainly by a significantly lower rate of acute coronary syndrome (P=0.039) associated with intensive-dose statins. No significant difference in mortality rates (34.8% in both groups) was observed between the treatment groups during the study period (P=0.89). CONCLUSIONS: In older patients with myocardial infarction, we found intensive-dose statin therapy to be effective in reducing repeat hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome. The rate of new-onset diabetes mellitus at long term was not significantly different between intensive-dose and moderate-dose statins.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".