CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 549Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthCancer, Lipids, and MetabolismAcute Myocardial Infarction Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association Between Baseline LDL-C Level and Total and Cardiovascular Mortality After LDL-C Lowering: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Open access
Navarese, Eliano P., Robinson, Jennifer G., Kowalewski, Mariusz, Kolodziejczak, Michalina, Andreotti, Felicita, Bliden, Kevin, Tantry, Udaya, Kubica, Jacek, Raggi, Paolo, Gurbel, Paul A.·2018·JAMA
DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.2525PMC PMC5933331
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Effects on specific fatal and nonfatal end points appear to vary for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering drug trials. Objective: To evaluate whether baseline LDL-C level is associated with total and cardiovascular mortality risk reductions. Data Sourcesand Study Selection: Electronic databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, TCTMD, ClinicalTrials.gov, major congress proceedings) were searched through February 2, 2018, to identify randomized clinical trials of statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9-inhibiting monoclonal antibodies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators abstracted data and appraised risks of bias. Intervention groups were categorized as "more intensive" (more potent pharmacologic intervention) or "less intensive" (less potent, placebo, or control group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary end points were total mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Random-effects meta-regression and meta-analyses evaluated associations between baseline LDL-C level and reductions in mortality end points and secondary end points including major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: In 34 trials, 136 299 patients received more intensive and 133 989 received less intensive LDL-C lowering. All-cause mortality was lower for more vs less intensive therapy (7.08% vs 7.70%; rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88 to 0.96]), but varied by baseline LDL-C level. Meta-regression showed more intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with greater reductions in all-cause mortality with higher baseline LDL-C levels (change in RRs per 40-mg/dL increase in baseline LDL-C, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.96]; P = .001; absolute risk difference [ARD], -1.05 incident cases per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -1.59 to -0.51]), but only when baseline LDL-C levels were 100 mg/dL or greater (P < .001 for interaction) in a meta-analysis. Cardiovascular mortality was lower for more vs less intensive therapy (3.48% vs 4.07%; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.89]) but varied by baseline LDL-C level. Meta-regression showed more intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with a greater reduction in cardiovascular mortality with higher baseline LDL-C levels (change in RRs per 40-mg/dL increase in baseline LDL-C, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.94]; P < .001; ARD, -1.0 incident cases per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -1.51 to -0.45]), but only when baseline LDL-C levels were 100 mg/dL or greater (P < .001 for interaction) in a meta-analysis. Trials with baseline LDL-C levels of 160 mg/dL or greater had the greatest reduction in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84]; P < .001; 4.3 fewer deaths per 1000 person-years) in a meta-analysis. More intensive LDL-C lowering was also associated with progressively greater risk reductions with higher baseline LDL-C level for myocardial infarction, revascularization, and MACE. Conclusions and Relevance: In these meta-analyses and meta-regressions, more intensive compared with less intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with a greater reduction in risk of total and cardiovascular mortality in trials of patients with higher baseline LDL-C levels. This association was not present when baseline LDL-C level was less than 100 mg/dL, suggesting that the greatest benefit from LDL-C-lowering therapy may occur for patients with higher baseline LDL-C levels.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2018.2525

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 58 references

2 of the 58 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. TiceJA; Institute for Clincal and Economic Review (ICER). Evolocumab for treatment of high cholesterol: clinical effectiveness: new evidence update. Institute for Clincal and Economic Review website. https://icer-review.org/material/pcks9-inhibitors-neu/. June 13, 2017. Accessed March 16, 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 549

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Navarese, E. P., Robinson, J. G., Kowalewski, M., Kolodziejczak, M., Andreotti, F., Bliden, K., Tantry, U., Kubica, J., Raggi, P., & Gurbel, P. A.
Affiliations
  • Inova Health System (US)
  • University of Iowa (US)
  • Antoni Jurasz University Hospital (PL)
  • Systematic Investigation and Research on Interventions and Outcomes (SIRIO) MEDICINE Cardiovascular Research Network
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • Nicolaus Copernicus University (PL)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Jennifer G.
ORCID
Venue
JAMA
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2018-04-17
Volume
319
Issue
15
Pages
1566
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
DOI
10.1001/jama.2018.2525
PMC
PMC5933331
OpenAlex
W2800876320
Semantic Scholar
e998030b0bef031f54619a07cde9f01df4ce9807
Cited by
549
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 81 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 56 · 2021: 76 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 26
FWCI
12.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Lipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Cancer, Lipids, and Metabolism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Acute Myocardial Infarction Research
Keywords
LDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol lowering, statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiac events, lipid-lowering therapy, dose-response relationship, treatment intensity, risk stratification, randomized controlled trials, meta-regression, risk of bias assessment, risk difference, relative risk, number needed to harm
MeSH terms
Ezetimibe, Proprotein Convertase 9, PCSK9 Inhibitors, Antibodies, Monoclonal, Anticholesteremic Agents, Cardiovascular Diseases, Humans, Cholesterol, LDL, Mortality, Regression Analysis, Risk, Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic, Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors

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.

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