MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156193257 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehr035

Intensive statin therapy compared with moderate dosing for prevention of cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis of >40 000 patients

2011· review· en· W2156193257 on OpenAlexaff
Edward J. Mills, Christopher O’Regan, Oghenowede Eyawo, Ping Wu, Fergal P. Mills, Otávio Berwanger, Matthias Briel

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRelative riskDosingInternal medicineConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisMyocardial infarctionStatinClinical endpointClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Statin therapy is associated with important benefits for patients at risk of, and with, established cardiovascular disease. There is widespread interest in whether intensive dosing of statins yields larger treatment effects. We aimed to determine if intensive dosing is clinically important using a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). METHODS: We conducted comprehensive searches of electronic databases from inception to December 2010. We included any RCT evaluating a larger dose with a clinically common dose. Two reviewers independently extracted data, in duplicate. We performed random-effects meta-analysis and a trial sequential analysis. RESULTS: We identified 10 RCTs enrolling a total of 41 778 participants. Trials followed patients for a mean of 2.5 years. We did not find statistically significant effects on all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.83-1.03, P = 0.14, I(2) = 38%] or cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths (RR 0.89, 95% CI, 0.78-1.01, P = 0.07, I(2) = 34%). When we pooled the composite endpoint of coronary heart disease (CHD) death plus non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), we found a significant protective effect of intensive statin dosing (RR 0.90, 95% CI, 0.84-0.96, P ≤ 0.0001, I(2) = 0%). We also found a significant effect on non-fatal MIs (RR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.76-0.89, P ≤ 0.0001, I(2) = 0%) and a significant reduction in the composite of fatal and non-fatal strokes (excluding transient ischaemic attacks) reported in 10 RCTs (RR 0.86, 95% CI, 0.77-0.96, P = 0.006, I(2) = 0%). A subgroup analysis of three trials examining acute coronary syndrome patients found significant effects on all-cause (RR 0.75, 95% CI, 0.61-0.91, P = 0.005, I(2) = 0%) and CVD mortality (RR 0.74, 95% CI, 0.59-0.94, P = 0.013, I(2) = 0%) with intensive dosing. Applying an analysis of optimal information size on the primary analysis, we found that the evidence for CHD death plus non-fatal MIs is conclusive. The evidence for CVD deaths alone is not yet conclusive. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that intensive statin therapy reduces the risk of non-fatal events and may have a role in reducing mortality.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.014
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.144 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations146
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207