| Title |
LDL Cholesterol Goals in High-Risk Patients: How Low Do We Go and How Do We Get There?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Drugs, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40265-013-0028-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joost Besseling, Julian van Capelleveen, John J. P. Kastelein, G. Kees Hovingh |
| Abstract |
It is widely recognised that low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is one of the most important and modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors) have consistently been shown to decrease both LDL-C and CVD risk in almost all patient categories, with the exception of heart and kidney failure as well as advanced aortic stenosis. As a consequence, statins have become the cornerstone in current prevention guidelines. In patients who do not reach the LDL-C target, combination therapy with additional LDL-C lowering drugs (e.g. ezetimibe, bile acid sequestrants or fibrates) should be considered. Guidelines provide different LDL-C levels to strive for, depending on the CVD risk. In this review, we describe the rationale for these LDL-C targets and how these goals might be reached by current and future therapies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 37 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 43% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 10% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,266,089
of 22,701,287 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#2,790
of 3,250 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,093
of 196,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#26
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,701,287 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,250 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 196,101 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.