MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Managing comorbidities in oncology: A multisite randomized controlled trial of continuing versus discontinuing statins in the setting of life-limiting illness.

2014· article· en· W2582375203 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy Pickar Abernethy, Jean S. Kutner, Patrick J. Blatchford, Christine Ritchie, Diane L. Fairclough, Laura C. Hanson, Janet Bull

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDeprescribingPolypharmacyQuality of life (healthcare)StatinRandomized controlled trialLife expectancyInternal medicineRandomizationPhysical therapyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

LBA9514 Background: For patients with life-threatening illness such as advanced cancer, optimal management of longstanding medications prescribed for comorbid illness is uncertain. Risks may outweigh benefits; e.g., benefits from HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors (“statins”) may take years to accrue and may not be relevant for a person with limited prognosis. Is it safe to discontinue statins for the patient with less than a year to live? Methods: This was a multicenter, unblinded pragmatic trial. At enrollment, participants were randomized (1:1) to discontinue or continue their statin medication. Eligible patients were adults with advanced life-limiting illness on a statin for ≥3 months for primary or secondary prevention, a life expectancy of greater than one month, and evidence of recent deterioration in performance status. Outcomes measured at baseline and at least monthly included survival, cardiovascular-related events, quality of life (QOL), symptoms, and polypharmacy. Rate of death within 60 days of randomization was the primary outcome. Results: 381 patients were enrolled (189 discontinue statins; 192 continue statins). Mean age was 74 years (SD 12); 22% were cognitively impaired; 49% had cancer as the primary diagnosis; and, 69% had used statins for >5 years. Rate of death within 60 days was not statistically different between groups (discontinue vs. continue, 23.8% vs. 20.3%, 90% CI -3.5% to 10.5%, p=0.36). The group discontinuing statins had longer median time-to-death (229 days [90% CI 186–332] vs. 190 days [90% CI 170-257]; p=0.60). Total QOL was significantly better among the group discontinuing statins (McGill QOL: 7.11 vs. 6.85, p=0.037) and there were fewer symptoms in this group (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale: 25.2 vs. 27.4, p=0.128). People in the discontinue statins group took significantly fewer medications (10.1 vs. 10.8, p = 0.034). Few participants in either group experienced cardiovascular events (13 vs. 11). Conclusions: In the setting of life-limiting illness such as advanced cancer, it is unlikely that harm will accrue when statins being used for primary or secondary prevention are discontinued; these patients may even benefit. Clinical trial information: NCT01415934.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.342
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→