Yield of Dual Therapy With Statin and Ezetimibe in the Treat Stroke to Target Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In atherosclerotic stroke, lipid-lowering treatment with a target LDL (low-density lipoprotein) cholesterol of <70 compared with 100±10 mg/dL reduced the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events. This post hoc analysis explored the relative effects of the combination of statin and ezetimibe (dual therapy) and statin monotherapy in achieving the lower LDL cholesterol target and in reducing the risk of major vascular events, as compared with the higher target group. Methods: Patients with ischemic stroke in the previous 3 months or transient ischemic attack within the previous 15 days and evidence of cerebrovascular or coronary artery atherosclerosis were randomly assigned to a target LDL cholesterol of <70 or 100±10 mg/dL, using statin and/or ezetimibe as needed. The primary outcome was the composite of ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction, new symptoms requiring urgent coronary or carotid revascularization, and vascular death. Cox regression model including lipid-lowering therapy as a time varying variable, after adjustment for randomization strategy, age, sex, index event (stroke or transient ischemic attack), and time since the index event. Results: Among 2860 patients enrolled, patients who were on dual therapy during the trial in the lower target group had a higher baseline LDL cholesterol as compared to patients on statin monotherapy (141±38 versus 131±36, respectively, P <0.001). In patients on dual therapy and on statin monotherapy, the achieved LDL cholesterol was 66.2 and 64.1 mg/dL respectively, and the primary outcome was reduced during dual therapy as compared with the higher target group (HR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.39–0.91]; P =0.016) but not during statin monotherapy (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.70–1.20]; P =0.52), with no significant increase in intracranial bleeding. Conclusions: In the TST trial (Treat Stroke to Target), targeting an LDL cholesterol of < 70 mg/dL with a combination of statin and ezetimibe compared with 100±10 mg/dL consistently reduced the risk of subsequent stroke. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01252875. URL: clinicaltrialsregister.eu ; Unique identifier: EUDRACT2009-A01280-57.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".