The effect of rosuvastatin on incident pneumonia: results from the JUPITER trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence from observational studies have raised the possibility that statin treatment reduces the incidence of certain bacterial infections, particularly pneumonia. We analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial of rosuvastatin to examine this hypothesis. METHODS: We analyzed data from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled JUPITER trial (Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: an Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin). In this trial, 17,802 healthy participants (men 50 years and older and women 60 and older) with a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level below 130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L) and a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level of 2.0 mg/L or greater were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin or placebo. We evaluated the incidence of pneumonia on an intention-to-treat basis by reviewing reports of adverse events from the study investigators, who were unaware of the treatment assignments. RESULTS: Among 17,802 trial participants followed for a median of 1.9 years, incident pneumonia was reported as an adverse event in 214 participants in the rosuvastatin group and 257 in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.00). In analyses restricted to events occurring before a cardiovascular event, pneumonia occurred in 203 participants given rosuvastatin and 250 given placebo (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.97). Inclusion of recurrent pneumonia events did not modify this effect (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.98), nor did adjustment for age, sex, smoking, metabolic syndrome, lipid levels and C-reactive protein level. INTERPRETATION: Data from this randomized controlled trial support the hypothesis that statin treatment may modestly reduce the incidence of pneumonia. (ClinicalTrials.gov trial register no. NCT0023968.).
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".