Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 505

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long-Term Adherence to Evidence-Based Secondary Prevention Therapies in Coronary Artery Disease

Open access
Newby, L. Kristin, Allen LaPointe, Nancy M., Chen, Anita Y., Kramer, Judith M., Hammill, Bradley G., DeLong, Elizabeth R., Muhlbaier, Lawrence H., Califf, Robert M.·2006·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Studies have examined the use of evidence-based therapies for coronary artery disease (CAD) in the short term and at hospital discharge, but few have evaluated long-term use. Methods and Results— Using the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease for the years 1995 to 2002, we determined the annual prevalence and consistency of self-reported use of aspirin, β-blockers, lipid-lowering agents, and their combinations in all CAD patients and of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) in those with and without heart failure. Logistic-regression models identified characteristics associated with consistent use (reported on ≥2 consecutive follow-up surveys and then through death, withdrawal, or study end), and Cox proportional-hazards models explored the association of consistent use with mortality. Use of all agents and combinations thereof increased yearly. In 2002, 83% reported aspirin use; 61%, β-blocker use; 63%, lipid-lowering therapy use; 54%, aspirin and β-blocker use; and 39%, use of all 3. Consistent use was as follows: For aspirin, 71%; β-blockers, 46%; lipid-lowering therapy, 44%; aspirin and β-blockers, 36%; and all 3, 21%. Among patients without heart failure, 39% reported ACEI use in 2002; consistent use was 20%. Among heart failure patients, ACEI use was 51% in 2002 and consistent use, 39%. Except for ACEIs among patients without heart failure, consistent use was associated with lower adjusted mortality: Aspirin hazard ratio (HR), 0.58 and 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.54 to 0.62; β-blockers, HR, 0.63 and 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.67; lipid-lowering therapy, HR, 0.52 and 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.65; all 3, HR, 0.67 and 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.77; aspirin and β-blockers, HR, 0.61 and 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.65; and ACEIs among heart failure patients, HR, 0.75 and 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.84. Conclusions— Use of evidence-based therapies for CAD has improved but remains suboptimal. Although improved discharge prescription of these agents is needed, considerable attention must also be focused on understanding and improving long-term adherence.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.105.505636

Cites

1 of 1 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

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 505

Metadata

Authors
Newby, L. K., Allen LaPointe, N. M., Chen, A. Y., Kramer, J. M., Hammill, B. G., DeLong, E. R., Muhlbaier, L. H., & Califf, R. M.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2006-01-17
Volume
113
Issue
2
Pages
203-212
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2130321587
Cited by
505
References
1
FWCI
25.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Long-Term Adherence to Evidence-Based Secondary Prevention Therapies in Coronary Artery Disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.105.505636
The paper
Newby, L. K., Allen LaPointe, N. M., Chen, A. Y., Kramer, J. M., Hammill, B. G., DeLong, E. R., Muhlbaier, L. H., & Califf, R. M. (2006). Long-Term Adherence to Evidence-Based Secondary Prevention Therapies in Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.105.505636

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.