Intensity of and Adherence to Lipid‐Lowering Therapy as Predictors of Major Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The effectiveness of lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is affected by both intensity and adherence. This study evaluated the associations of LLT intensity, adherence, and the combination of these 2 aspects of LLT management with the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with coronary heart disease. Methods and Results This is an observational study of all adults who suffered a myocardial infarction or had coronary revascularization during 2012 to 2018 and initiated LLT in Stockholm, Sweden. Study exposures were LLT adherence (proportion of days covered), LLT intensity (expected reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), and the combined measure of adherence and intensity. At each LLT fill, adherence and intensity during the previous 12 months were calculated. The primary outcomes were MACE (nonfatal myocardial infarction or stroke and death); secondary outcomes were low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment and individual components of MACE. We studied 20 490 patients aged 68±11 years, 75% men, mean follow-up 2.6±1.1 years. Every 10% increase in 1-year adherence, intensity, or adherence-adjusted intensity was associated with a lower risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.96]; HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.96]; and HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.89-0.94], respectively) and higher odds of attaining low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals (odds ratio [OR],1.12 [95% CI, 1.10-1.15]; OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.34-1.51], and OR, 1.16 [95% CI, 1.19-1.24], respectively). Among patients with good adherence (≥80%), the risk of MACE was similar with low-moderate and high-intensity LLT despite differences in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment with the treatment intensities. Discontinuation ≥1 year increased the risk markedly (HR,1.66 [95% CI, 1.23-2.22]). Conclusions In routine care, good adherence to LLT was associated with the greatest benefit for patients with coronary heart disease. Strategies that improve adherence and use of intensive therapies could substantially reduce cardiovascular risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".