| Title |
Long-Term Use of Cardiovascular Drugs Challenges for Research and for Patient Care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
JACC, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.07.018 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Xavier Rossello, Stuart J. Pocock, Desmond G. Julian |
| Abstract |
Little is known about the benefits and risks of the long-term use of cardiovascular drugs. Evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) rarely goes beyond a few years of follow-up, but patients are often given continuous treatment with multiple drugs well into old age. We focus on 4 commonly used cardiovascular drug classes: aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors given to patients after myocardial infarction. However, the issues raised apply more broadly to all long-term medications across cardiovascular diseases and the whole of medicine. The evidence and limitations of RCTs are addressed, as well as current practice in pre-licensing trials, the increasing problems of polypharmacy (especially in the elderly), the lack of trial evidence for withdrawal of drugs, the role of regulatory authorities and other stakeholders in this challenging situation, and the potential educational solutions for the medical profession. We conclude with a set of recommendations on how to improve the situation of long-term drug use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 71 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 13 | 18% |
| Canada | 7 | 10% |
| Spain | 6 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 2 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| El Salvador | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 10 | 14% |
| Unknown | 27 | 38% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 47 | 66% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 15 | 21% |
| Scientists | 7 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 144 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 143 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 11% |
| Researcher | 15 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 25 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 29% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 8% |
| Unknown | 58 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 75. 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 17 January 2019.
All research outputs
#583,211
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#1,488
of 16,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,465
of 277,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#21
of 251 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,932 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 277,525 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 251 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 91% of its contemporaries.