Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the effectiveness and safety of nine lipid lowing agents in the national essential drug list (2000) and provide evidence for the adjustment and selection of essential drugs Methods Based on principles of health technology assessment (HTA) and evidence based medicine, we searched for all published clinical studies about these drugs from the following databases: MEDLINE (19662002.8), The Cochrane Library, EMBASE (19742002), CBMdisk (19792002.8) and VIP (19892002.8), the database of National Center for Adverse Drug Reaction(ADR) Monitoring of China and the database of WHO Uppsala drug monitoring center. Included studies were appraised, analyzed and compared for the reduction of triglyceride (TC) or low density lipoprotein (LDL C), the prevention for the coronary events and the incidence of ADR. Results The results from comparative trials for lipid lowing agents showed that the equivalent dose of statins for 25% reduction of LDL C was atorvastatin 10 mg/d, simvastatin 20 mg/d, pravastatin 40mg/d, lovastatin 40 mg/d, cerivastatin 0.3 mg/d and fluvastatin 80 mg/d. It was difficult to compare fenofibrate with gemfibrozil, acipimox with statins or fibrates based on available data. The study on the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events showed that pravastatin and lovastatin were effective in primary prevention, and long term use could reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease.Gemfibrozil could reduce the mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) but the overall mortality was not changed. Pravastatin, simvastatin, atorvastatin, fluvastatin, gemfibrozil and fenofibrate had a confirmed effect in secondary prevention. Data from large scale clinical trials and the reports from ADR monitoring center of England, America, Canada and Australia suggested that the statins which had rare ADR were safe and tolerated. Rhabdomyolysis was rare but had a serious adverse reaction associated with statins. The rate of fatal rhabdomyolysis related to cerivastatin was the highest among 6 statins. The safety of simvastatin, lovastatin and atorvastatin was lower than cerivastatin but higher than simvastatin and atorvastatin. The number of ADR reports of fenofibrate was fewer than that of gemfibrozil. Conclusions At present, the best evidence focused on pravastatin, simvastatin and lovastatin are widely used and have a confirmed safety and efficacy. Atorvastatin, fluvastatin and fenofibrate still need more data to confirm their effects on coronary heart disease prevention. The drugs which were shown to be inferior or insufficient evidence are cerivastatin, gemfibrozil and acipimox.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".