-
Circulation Jun 2019Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with...
2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA Guideline on the Management of Blood Cholesterol: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Since 1980, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and American Heart Association (AHA) have translated scientific evidence into clinical practice guidelines with recommendations to improve cardiovascular health. These guidelines, which are based on systematic methods to evaluate and classify evidence, provide a foundation for the delivery of quality cardiovascular care. The ACC and AHA sponsor the development and publication of clinical practice guidelines without commercial support, and members volunteer their time to the writing and review efforts. Clinical practice guidelines provide recommendations applicable to patients with or at risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD). The focus is on medical practice in the United States, but these guidelines are relevant to patients throughout the world. Although guidelines may be used to inform regulatory or payer decisions, the intent is to improve quality of care and align with patients’ interests. Guidelines are intended to define practices meeting the needs of patients in most, but not all, circumstances, and should not replace clinical judgment. Recommendations for guideline-directed management and therapy, which encompasses clinical evaluation, diagnostic testing, and both pharmacological and procedural treatments, are effective only when followed by both practitioners and patients. Adherence to recommendations can be enhanced by shared decision-making between clinicians and patients, with patient engagement in selecting interventions on the basis of individual values, preferences, and associated conditions and comorbidities. The ACC/AHA Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines strives to ensure that the guideline writing committee both contains requisite expertise and is representative of the broader medical community by selecting experts from a broad array of backgrounds, representing different geographic regions, sexes, races, ethnicities, intellectual perspectives/biases, and scopes of clinical practice, and by inviting organizations and professional societies with related interests and expertise to participate as partners or collaborators. The ACC and AHA have rigorous policies and methods to ensure that documents are developed without bias or improper influence. The complete policy on relationships with industry and other entities (RWI) can be found online. Beginning in 2017, numerous modifications to the guidelines have been and continue to be implemented to make guidelines shorter and enhance “user friendliness.” Guidelines are written and presented in a modular knowledge chunk format, in which each chunk includes a table of recommendations, a brief synopsis, recommendation-specific supportive text and, when appropriate, flow diagrams or additional tables. Hyperlinked references are provided for each modular knowledge chunk to facilitate quick access and review. More structured guidelines–including word limits (“targets”) and a web guideline supplement for useful but noncritical tables and figures–are 2 such changes. This Preamble is an abbreviated version, with the detailed version available online. The reader is encouraged to consult the full-text guideline for additional guidance and details, since the executive summary contains mainly the recommendations.
Topics: Anticholesteremic Agents; Biomarkers; Cardiology; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol; Consensus; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Hyperlipidemias; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30586774
DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625 -
Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy Jun 2022Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction, associated with the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction, associated with the presence of restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities. Cannabis has been used to alleviate symptoms associated with ASD.
METHOD
We carried out a systematic review of studies that investigated the clinical effects of cannabis and cannabinoid use on ASD, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA checklist). The search was carried out in four databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Scopus, and Web of Science. No limits were established for language during the selection process. Nine studies were selected and analyzed.
RESULTS
Some studies showed that cannabis products reduced the number and/or intensity of different symptoms, including hyperactivity, attacks of self-mutilation and anger, sleep problems, anxiety, restlessness, psychomotor agitation, irritability, aggressiveness perseverance, and depression. Moreover, they found an improvement in cognition, sensory sensitivity, attention, social interaction, and language. The most common adverse effects were sleep disorders, restlessness, nervousness and change in appetite.
CONCLUSION
Cannabis and cannabinoids may have promising effects in the treatment of symptoms related to ASD, and can be used as a therapeutic alternative in the relief of those symptoms. However, randomized, blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials are necessary to clarify findings on the effects of cannabis and its cannabinoids in individuals with ASD.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), code 164161.
Topics: Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Autism Spectrum Disorder; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Humans; Psychomotor Agitation
PubMed: 34043900
DOI: 10.47626/2237-6089-2020-0149 -
Psychopharmacology Jun 2022± 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and psilocybin are currently moving through the US Food and Drug Administration's phased drug development process for... (Review)
Review
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVES
± 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and psilocybin are currently moving through the US Food and Drug Administration's phased drug development process for psychiatric treatment indications: posttraumatic stress disorder and depression, respectively. The current standard of care for these disorders involves treatment with psychiatric medications (e.g., selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), so it will be important to understand drug-drug interactions between MDMA or psilocybin and psychiatric medications.
METHODS
In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we queried the MEDLINE database via PubMed for publications of human studies in English spanning between the first synthesis of psilocybin (1958) and December 2020. We used 163 search terms containing 22 psychiatric medication classes, 135 specific psychiatric medications, and 6 terms describing MDMA or psilocybin.
RESULTS
Forty publications were included in our systematic review: 26 reporting outcomes from randomized controlled studies with healthy adults, 3 epidemiologic studies, and 11 case reports. Publications of studies describe interactions between MDMA (N = 24) or psilocybin (N = 5) and medications from several psychiatric drug classes: adrenergic agents, antipsychotics, anxiolytics, mood stabilizers, NMDA antagonists, psychostimulants, and several classes of antidepressants. We focus our results on pharmacodynamic, physiological, and subjective outcomes of drug-drug interactions.
CONCLUSIONS
As MDMA and psilocybin continue to move through the FDA drug development process, this systematic review offers a compilation of existing research on psychiatric drug-drug interactions with MDMA or psilocybin.
Topics: Adult; Drug Interactions; Hallucinogens; Humans; N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine; Psilocybin; Psychotherapy; Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic
PubMed: 35253070
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-022-06083-y -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Feb 2021To present an updated overview on the safety of concurrent use of food, herbal or dietary supplement and warfarin. (Review)
Review
AIMS
To present an updated overview on the safety of concurrent use of food, herbal or dietary supplement and warfarin.
METHODS
A systematic literature review was performed on 5 databases from inception up to 31 December 2019. These interactions were classified depending on the likelihood of interaction and supporting evidences.
RESULTS
A total of 149 articles describing 78 herbs, food or dietary supplements were reported to interact with warfarin. These reports described potentiation with 45 (57.7%) herbs, food or dietary supplements while 23 (29.5%) reported inhibition and 10 (12.8%) reported limited impact on warfarin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Twenty unique herb and dietary supplements also reported to result in minor bleeding events, such as purpura and gum bleeding as well as major events such as intracranial bleeding that led to death.
CONCLUSION
While most food, herbs and supplements can be safely taken in moderation, healthcare professionals should be aware of the increased risk of bleeding when taking several food and herbs. These include Chinese wolfberry, chamomile tea, cannabis, cranberry, chitosan, green tea, Ginkgo biloba, ginger, spinach, St. John's Wort, sushi and smoking tobacco. Patients should be counselled to continue to seek advice from their healthcare professionals when starting any new herbs, food or supplement.
Topics: Dietary Supplements; Ginkgo biloba; Herb-Drug Interactions; Humans; Phytotherapy; Warfarin
PubMed: 32478963
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14404 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Nov 2021The objective of this paper is to systematically review the literature on drug-drug interactions with warfarin, with a focus on patient-important clinical outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The objective of this paper is to systematically review the literature on drug-drug interactions with warfarin, with a focus on patient-important clinical outcomes.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE and the International Pharmaceutical Abstract (IPA) databases were searched from January 2004 to August 2019. We included studies describing drug-drug interactions between warfarin and other drugs. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. We synthesized pooled odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), comparing warfarin plus another medication to warfarin alone. We assessed the risk of bias at the study level and evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
RESULTS
Of 42 013 citations identified, a total of 72 studies reporting on 3 735 775 patients were considered eligible, including 11 randomized clinical trials and 61 observational studies. Increased risk of clinically relevant bleeding when added to warfarin therapy was observed for antiplatelet (AP) regimens (OR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.56-1.94), many antimicrobials (OR = 1.63; 95% CI 1.45-1.83), NSAIDs including COX-2 NSAIDs (OR = 1.83; 95% CI 1.29-2.59), SSRIs (OR = 1.62; 95% CI 1.42-1.85), mirtazapine (OR = 1.75; 95% CI 1.30-2.36), loop diuretics (OR = 1.92; 95% CI 1.29-2.86) among others. We found a protective effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) against warfarin-related gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding (OR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.64-0.73). No significant effect on thromboembolic events or mortality of any drug group used with warfarin was found, including single or dual AP regimens.
CONCLUSIONS
This review found low to moderate certainty evidence supporting the interaction between warfarin and a small group of medications, which result in increased bleeding risk. PPIs are associated with reduced hospitalization for upper GI bleeding for patients taking warfarin. Further studies are required to better understand drug-drug interactions leading to thromboembolic outcomes or death.
Topics: Anticoagulants; Drug Interactions; Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage; Humans; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Warfarin
PubMed: 33769581
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14833 -
Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2021Levothyroxine (l-thyroxine, l-T4) is a drug of choice for treating congenital and primary hypothyroidism. Although clinically significant interactions between l-T4 and... (Review)
Review
Levothyroxine (l-thyroxine, l-T4) is a drug of choice for treating congenital and primary hypothyroidism. Although clinically significant interactions between l-T4 and food can alter the safety and efficacy of the treatment, they still seem to be generally underestimated by patients, physicians and pharmacists. This review aimed to investigate the effects of meals, beverages, and dietary supplements consumption on l-T4 pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, to identify the most evident interactions, and to perform the recommendations for safe co-administering of l-T4 and food. A total of 121 studies were identified following a systematic literature search adhering to PRISMA guidelines. After full-text evaluation, 63 studies were included. The results proved that l-T4 ingestion in the morning and at bedtime are equally effective, and also that the co-administration of l-T4 with food depends on the drug formulation. We found limited evidence for l-T4 interactions with coffee, soy products, fiber, calcium or iron supplements, and enteral nutrition but interestingly they all resulted in decreased l-T4 absorption. The altered l-T4 efficacy when ingested with milk, juices, papaya, aluminium-containing preparations, and chromium supplements, as well as observed enhancement effect of vitamin C on l-T4 absorption, shall be further investigated in larger, well-designed studies. Novel formulations are likely to solve the problem of coffee, calcium and iron induced malabsorption of l-T4. Maintaining a proper time interval between l-T4 and food intake, especially for coffee and calcium, or iron supplements, provides another effective method of eliminating such interactions.
PubMed: 33801406
DOI: 10.3390/ph14030206 -
Molecular Psychiatry Aug 2023The serotonin hypothesis of depression is still influential. We aimed to synthesise and evaluate evidence on whether depression is associated with lowered serotonin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The serotonin hypothesis of depression is still influential. We aimed to synthesise and evaluate evidence on whether depression is associated with lowered serotonin concentration or activity in a systematic umbrella review of the principal relevant areas of research. PubMed, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched using terms appropriate to each area of research, from their inception until December 2020. Systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large data-set analyses in the following areas were identified: serotonin and serotonin metabolite, 5-HIAA, concentrations in body fluids; serotonin 5-HT receptor binding; serotonin transporter (SERT) levels measured by imaging or at post-mortem; tryptophan depletion studies; SERT gene associations and SERT gene-environment interactions. Studies of depression associated with physical conditions and specific subtypes of depression (e.g. bipolar depression) were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted the data and assessed the quality of included studies using the AMSTAR-2, an adapted AMSTAR-2, or the STREGA for a large genetic study. The certainty of study results was assessed using a modified version of the GRADE. We did not synthesise results of individual meta-analyses because they included overlapping studies. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020207203). 17 studies were included: 12 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 1 collaborative meta-analysis, 1 meta-analysis of large cohort studies, 1 systematic review and narrative synthesis, 1 genetic association study and 1 umbrella review. Quality of reviews was variable with some genetic studies of high quality. Two meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining the serotonin metabolite, 5-HIAA, showed no association with depression (largest n = 1002). One meta-analysis of cohort studies of plasma serotonin showed no relationship with depression, and evidence that lowered serotonin concentration was associated with antidepressant use (n = 1869). Two meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining the 5-HT receptor (largest n = 561), and three meta-analyses of overlapping studies examining SERT binding (largest n = 1845) showed weak and inconsistent evidence of reduced binding in some areas, which would be consistent with increased synaptic availability of serotonin in people with depression, if this was the original, causal abnormaly. However, effects of prior antidepressant use were not reliably excluded. One meta-analysis of tryptophan depletion studies found no effect in most healthy volunteers (n = 566), but weak evidence of an effect in those with a family history of depression (n = 75). Another systematic review (n = 342) and a sample of ten subsequent studies (n = 407) found no effect in volunteers. No systematic review of tryptophan depletion studies has been performed since 2007. The two largest and highest quality studies of the SERT gene, one genetic association study (n = 115,257) and one collaborative meta-analysis (n = 43,165), revealed no evidence of an association with depression, or of an interaction between genotype, stress and depression. The main areas of serotonin research provide no consistent evidence of there being an association between serotonin and depression, and no support for the hypothesis that depression is caused by lowered serotonin activity or concentrations. Some evidence was consistent with the possibility that long-term antidepressant use reduces serotonin concentration.
Topics: Humans; Depression; Serotonin; Receptor, Serotonin, 5-HT1A; Tryptophan; Hydroxyindoleacetic Acid; Antidepressive Agents; Serotonin Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins
PubMed: 35854107
DOI: 10.1038/s41380-022-01661-0 -
JAMA Internal Medicine May 2022Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been widely recommended for glucose control and cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Association of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Use With Risk of Gallbladder and Biliary Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.
IMPORTANCE
Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) have been widely recommended for glucose control and cardiovascular risk reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes, and more recently, for weight loss. However, the associations of GLP-1 RAs with gallbladder or biliary diseases are controversial.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the association of GLP-1 RA treatment with gallbladder and biliary diseases and to explore risk factors for these associations.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library (inception to June 30, 2021), websites of clinical trial registries (July 10, 2021), and reference lists. There were no language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the use of GLP-1 RA drugs with placebo or with non-GLP-1 RA drugs in adults.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers independently extracted data according to the PRISMA recommendations and assessed the quality of each study with the Cochrane Collaboration risk-of-bias tool. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated using random or fixed-effects models, as appropriate. The quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the composite of gallbladder or biliary diseases. Secondary outcomes were biliary diseases, biliary cancer, cholecystectomy, cholecystitis, and cholelithiasis. Data analyses were performed from August 5, 2021, to September 3, 2021.
RESULTS
A total of 76 RCTs involving 103 371 patients (mean [SD] age, 57.8 (6.2) years; 41 868 [40.5%] women) were included. Among all included trials, randomization to GLP-1 RA treatment was associated with increased risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases (RR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.23-1.52); specifically, cholelithiasis (RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.10-1.47), cholecystitis (RR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14-1.62), and biliary disease (RR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.08-2.22). Use of GLP-1 RAs was also associated with increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases in trials for weight loss (n = 13; RR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.64-3.18) and for type 2 diabetes or other diseases (n = 63; RR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.14-1.43; P <.001 for interaction). Among all included trials, GLP-1 RA use was associated with higher risks of gallbladder or biliary diseases at higher doses (RR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.36-1.78) compared with lower doses (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.73-1.33; P = .006 for interaction) and with longer duration of use (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.26-1.56) compared with shorter duration (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48-1.31; P = .03 for interaction).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs found that use of GLP-1 RAs was associated with increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases, especially when used at higher doses, for longer durations, and for weight loss.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO Identifier: CRD42021271599.
Topics: Adult; Cholecystitis; Cholelithiasis; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Female; Glucagon-Like Peptide 1; Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Weight Loss
PubMed: 35344001
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0338 -
Phytotherapy Research : PTR May 2018Anxiety and depression are prevalent among cancer patients, with significant negative impact. Many patients prefer herbs for symptom relief to conventional medications... (Review)
Review
Anxiety and depression are prevalent among cancer patients, with significant negative impact. Many patients prefer herbs for symptom relief to conventional medications which have limited efficacy/side effects. We identified single-herb medicines that may warrant further study in cancer patients. Our search included PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, Embase, and Cochrane databases, selecting only single-herb randomized controlled trials between 1996 and 2016 in any population for data extraction, excluding herbs with known potential for interactions with cancer treatments. One hundred articles involving 38 botanicals met our criteria. Among herbs most studied (≥6 randomized controlled trials each), lavender, passionflower, and saffron produced benefits comparable to standard anxiolytics and antidepressants. Black cohosh, chamomile, and chasteberry are also promising. Anxiety or depressive symptoms were measured in all studies, but not always as primary endpoints. Overall, 45% of studies reported positive findings with fewer adverse effects compared with conventional medications. Based on available data, black cohosh, chamomile, chasteberry, lavender, passionflower, and saffron appear useful in mitigating anxiety or depression with favorable risk-benefit profiles compared to standard treatments. These may benefit cancer patients by minimizing medication load and accompanying side effects. However, well-designed larger clinical trials are needed before these herbs can be recommended and to further assess their psycho-oncologic relevance.
Topics: Anti-Anxiety Agents; Anxiety; Anxiety Disorders; Combined Modality Therapy; Depression; Depressive Disorder; Herbal Medicine; Humans; Neoplasms; Phytotherapy; Plant Extracts; Plants, Medicinal; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29464801
DOI: 10.1002/ptr.6033 -
JAMA Apr 2018Effects on specific fatal and nonfatal end points appear to vary for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering drug trials. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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.
Topics: Antibodies, Monoclonal; Anticholesteremic Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Confounding Factors, Epidemiologic; Ezetimibe; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Mortality; PCSK9 Inhibitors; Regression Analysis; Risk
PubMed: 29677301
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.2525