Identification and Management of Statin-Associated Symptoms in Clinical Practice: Extension of a Clinician Survey to 12 Further Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Statins are the first-choice pharmacological treatment for patients with hypercholesterolemia and at risk for cardiovascular disease; however, a minority of patients experience statin-associated symptoms (SAS) and are considered to have reduced statin tolerance. The objective of this study was to establish how patients with SAS are identified and managed in clinical practice in Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted (2015-2016) among clinicians (n = 60 per country; Croatia: n = 30) who are specialized/experienced in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. Participants were asked about their experience of patients presenting with potential SAS and how such patients were identified and treated. RESULTS: Muscle-related symptoms were the most common presentation of potential SAS (average: 51%; range across countries [RAC] 17-74%); other signs/symptoms included persistent elevation in transaminases. To establish whether symptoms are due to statins, clinicians required rechallenge after discontinuation of statin treatment (average: 77%; RAC 40-90%); other requirements included trying at least one alternative statin. Clinicians reported that half of high-risk patients with confirmed SAS receive a lower-dose statin (average: 53%; RAC 43-72%), and that most receive another non-statin lipid-lowering therapy with or without a concomitant statin (average: 65%; RAC 52-83%). CONCLUSIONS: The specialists and GPs surveyed use stringent criteria to establish causality between statin use and signs or symptoms, and persevere with statin treatment where possible.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".