Cited by 1,483Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 81 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 7 of the 21 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Association Between Lowering LDL-C and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction Among Different Therapeutic Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: The comparative clinical benefit of nonstatin therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between lowering LDL-C and relative cardiovascular risk reduction across different statin and nonstatin therapies. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched (1966-July 2016). The key inclusion criteria were that the study was a randomized clinical trial and the reported clinical outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI). Studies were excluded if the duration was less than 6 months or had fewer than 50 clinical events. Studies of 9 different types of LDL-C reduction approaches were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently extracted and entered data into standardized data sheets and data were analyzed using meta-regression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The relative risk (RR) of major vascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, acute MI or other acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, or stroke) associated with the absolute reduction in LDL-C level; 5-year rate of major coronary events (coronary death or MI) associated with achieved LDL-C level. RESULTS: A total of 312 175 participants (mean age, 62 years; 24% women; mean baseline LDL-C level of 3.16 mmol/L [122.3 mg/dL]) from 49 trials with 39 645 major vascular events were included. The RR for major vascular events per 1-mmol/L (38.7-mg/dL) reduction in LDL-C level was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.71-0.84; P < .001) for statins and 0.75 (95% CI, 0.66-0.86; P = .002) for established nonstatin interventions that work primarily via upregulation of LDL receptor expression (ie, diet, bile acid sequestrants, ileal bypass, and ezetimibe) (between-group difference, P = .72). For these 5 therapies combined, the RR was 0.77 (95% CI, 0.75-0.79, P < .001) for major vascular events per 1-mmol/L reduction in LDL-C level. For other interventions, the observed RRs vs the expected RRs based on the degree of LDL-C reduction in the trials were 0.94 (95% CI, 0.89-0.99) vs 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.92) for niacin (P = .24); 0.88 (95% CI, 0.83-0.92) vs 0.94 (95% CI, 0.93-0.94) for fibrates (P = .02), which was lower than expected (ie, greater risk reduction); 1.01 (95% CI, 0.94-1.09) vs 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.91) for cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors (P = .002), which was higher than expected (ie, less risk reduction); and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.34-0.71) vs 0.61 (95% CI, 0.58-0.65) for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (P = .25). The achieved absolute LDL-C level was significantly associated with the absolute rate of major coronary events (11 301 events, including coronary death or MI) for primary prevention trials (1.5% lower event rate [95% CI, 0.5%-2.6%] per each 1-mmol/L lower LDL-C level; P = .008) and secondary prevention trials (4.6% lower event rate [95% CI, 2.9%-6.4%] per each 1-mmol/L lower LDL-C level; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this meta-regression analysis, the use of statin and nonstatin therapies that act via upregulation of LDL receptor expression to reduce LDL-C were associated with similar RRs of major vascular events per change in LDL-C. Lower achieved LDL-C levels were associated with lower rates of major coronary events.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2016.13985

Cites

81 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

7 of 21 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 54 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 16
30 of 30
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The comparative clinical benefit of nonstatin therapies that reduce LDL-C remains uncertain.

    “The comparative clinical benefit of nonstatin therapies that reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains uncertain.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Major vascular event components (cardiovascular death, acute MI or other acute coronary syndrome, coronary revascularization, and stroke) have been shown to be reduced by therapies that lower LDL-C.

    “because all these events have been shown to be reduced by therapies to lower LDL-C.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Fibrates substantially reduce levels of very low-density lipoprotein, an atherogenic particle that contains both cholesterol and triglycerides.

    “Fibrates also substantially reduce levels of very low-density lipoprotein, an atherogenic particle that contains both cholesterol and triglycerides.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The therapies classified as acting predominantly via upregulation of LDL receptor expression indeed act predominantly through that mechanism.

    “among the trials of statins and established nonstatin therapies that ultimately act predominantly via upregulation of LDL receptor expression”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The absolute risk reduction observed in a given trial depends in part on the patient population, the end point, and the duration of follow-up.

    “Second, the absolute risk reduction observed in a given trial will depend in part on the patient population, the end point, and the duration of follow-up”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • IMPROVE-IT citation points to a different trial

    Minor

    The text cites reference 53 for IMPROVE-IT, but reference 53 in the provided list is the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, not IMPROVE-IT.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 79 references

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. [7]7. Hegele RA, Gidding SS, Ginsberg HN, et al. Nonstatin low-density lipoprotein-lowering therapy and cardiovascular risk reduction. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2015;35(11):2269-2280.
  2. [8]8. US Food and Drug Administration. Withdrawal of approval of indications related to the coadministration with statins in applications for niacin extended-release tablets and fenofibric acid delayed-release capsules. Fed Regist. 2016;81(74): 22612-22613.
  3. [22]22. GISSI Prevenzione Investigators. Results of the low-dose (20 mg) pravastatin GISSI Prevenzione trial in 4271 patients with recent myocardial infarction. Ital Heart J. 2000;1(12):810-820.
  4. [25]25. Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease. Lancet. 1994;344(8934):1383-1389.
  5. [33]33. Shepherd J, Blauw GJ, Murphy MB, et al. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER). Lancet. 2002;360(9346): 1623-1630.
  6. [34]34. ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care. JAMA. 2002;288(23):2998-3007.
  7. [37]37. Colhoun HM, Betteridge DJ, Durrington PN, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with atorvastatin in type 2 diabetes in the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study (CARDS). Lancet. 2004;364(9435):685-696.
  8. [41]41. Pedersen TR, Faergeman O, Kastelein JJ, et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2005;294(19):2437-2445.
  9. [44]44. Nakamura H, Arakawa K, Itakura H, et al. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with pravastatin in Japan (MEGA Study). Lancet. 2006; 368(9542):1155-1163.
  10. [46]46. Armitage J, Bowman L, Wallendszus K, et al. Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction. Lancet. 2010;376(9753): 1658-1669.
  11. [50]50. Dorr AE, Gundersen K, Schneider JC Jr, et al. Colestipol hydrochloride in hypercholesterolemic patients. J Chronic Dis. 1978;31(1):5-14.
  12. [53]53. The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial results, 1: reduction in incidence of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1984;251(3):351-364.
  13. [63]63. Grundy SM. Dyslipidaemia in 2015. Nat Rev Cardiol. 2016;13(2):74-75.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,481

Metadata

Authors
Silverman, M. G., Ference, B. A., Im, K., Wiviott, S. D., Giugliano, R. P., Grundy, S. M., Braunwald, E., & Sabatine, M. S.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • TIMI Study Group, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
Corresponding author
Sabatine, Marc S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2016-09-27
Volume
316
Issue
12
Pages
1289
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2465758073
Cited by
1,483
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 111 · 2025: 163 · 2024: 182 · 2023: 202 · 2022: 152 · 2021: 151 · 2020: 170 · 2019: 152 · 2018: 115 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 13
FWCI
23.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007604)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
LDL cholesterol lowering, cardiovascular risk reduction, statins, non-statin lipid-lowering therapy, LDL receptor upregulation, ezetimibe, bile acid sequestrants, ileal bypass, dietary intervention, myocardial infarction, major vascular events, coronary revascularization, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, acute coronary syndrome, LDL cholesterol targets
MeSH terms
Hypolipidemic Agents, Cardiovascular Diseases, Female, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Myocardial Infarction, Niacin, Receptors, LDL, Up-Regulation, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors, Stroke, Risk Reduction Behavior

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-19, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-19 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review