↓ Skip to main content

Effects of Extended-Release Niacin with Laropiprant in High-Risk Patients

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
1373 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
590 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effects of Extended-Release Niacin with Laropiprant in High-Risk Patients
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, July 2014
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1300955
Pubmed ID
Authors

Martin J Landray, Richard Haynes, Jemma C Hopewell, Sarah Parish, Theingi Aung, Joseph Tomson, Karl Wallendszus, Martin Craig, Lixin Jiang, Rory Collins, Jane Armitage

Abstract

Background Patients with evidence of vascular disease are at increased risk for subsequent vascular events despite effective use of statins to lower the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level. Niacin lowers the LDL cholesterol level and raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, but its clinical efficacy and safety are uncertain. Methods After a prerandomization run-in phase to standardize the background statin-based LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy and to establish participants' ability to take extended-release niacin without clinically significant adverse effects, we randomly assigned 25,673 adults with vascular disease to receive 2 g of extended-release niacin and 40 mg of laropiprant or a matching placebo daily. The primary outcome was the first major vascular event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary causes, stroke, or arterial revascularization). Results During a median follow-up period of 3.9 years, participants who were assigned to extended-release niacin-laropiprant had an LDL cholesterol level that was an average of 10 mg per deciliter (0.25 mmol per liter as measured in the central laboratory) lower and an HDL cholesterol level that was an average of 6 mg per deciliter (0.16 mmol per liter) higher than the levels in those assigned to placebo. Assignment to niacin-laropiprant, as compared with assignment to placebo, had no significant effect on the incidence of major vascular events (13.2% and 13.7% of participants with an event, respectively; rate ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.03; P=0.29). Niacin-laropiprant was associated with an increased incidence of disturbances in diabetes control that were considered to be serious (absolute excess as compared with placebo, 3.7 percentage points; P<0.001) and with an increased incidence of diabetes diagnoses (absolute excess, 1.3 percentage points; P<0.001), as well as increases in serious adverse events associated with the gastrointestinal system (absolute excess, 1.0 percentage point; P<0.001), musculoskeletal system (absolute excess, 0.7 percentage points; P<0.001), skin (absolute excess, 0.3 percentage points; P=0.003), and unexpectedly, infection (absolute excess, 1.4 percentage points; P<0.001) and bleeding (absolute excess, 0.7 percentage points; P<0.001). Conclusions Among participants with atherosclerotic vascular disease, the addition of extended-release niacin-laropiprant to statin-based LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events but did increase the risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by Merck and others; HPS2-THRIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00461630 .).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 149 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 590 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 5 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Ghana 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 575 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 82 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 70 12%
Student > Master 66 11%
Student > Bachelor 61 10%
Other 49 8%
Other 143 24%
Unknown 119 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 240 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 56 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 40 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 4%
Other 52 9%
Unknown 148 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 633. 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 12 April 2024.
All research outputs
#35,604
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#1,319
of 32,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#214
of 228,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#10
of 265 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 32,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 122.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 228,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 265 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.