↓ Skip to main content

A Reappraisal of the Risks and Benefits of Treating to Target with Cholesterol Lowering Drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Drugs, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
7 patents

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
A Reappraisal of the Risks and Benefits of Treating to Target with Cholesterol Lowering Drugs
Published in
Drugs, June 2013
DOI 10.1007/s40265-013-0072-9
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one cause of death globally, and lipid modification, particularly lowering of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc), is one of the cornerstones of prevention and treatment. However, even after lowering of LDLc to conventional goals, a sizeable number of patients continue to suffer cardiovascular events. More aggressive lowering of LDLc and optimization of other lipid parameters like triglycerides (TG) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc) have been proposed as two potential strategies to address this residual risk. These strategies entail use of maximal doses of highly potent HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and combination therapy with other lipid modifying agents. Though statins in general are fairly well tolerated, adverse events like myopathy are dose related. There are further risks with combination therapy. In this article, we review the adverse effects of lipid modifying agents used alone and in combination and weigh these effects against the evidence demonstrating their efficacy in reducing cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and all cause mortality. For patients with established CVD, statins are the only group of drugs that have shown consistent reductions in hard outcomes. Though more aggressive lipid lowering with high dose potent statins can reduce rates of non fatal events and need for interventions, the incremental mortality benefits remain unclear, and their use is associated with a higher rate of drug related adverse effects. Myopathy and renal events have been a significant concern with the use of high potency statin drugs, in particular simvastatin and rosuvastatin. For patients who have not reached target LDL levels or have residual lipid abnormalities on maximal doses of statins, the addition of other agents has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes and carries an increased risk of adverse events. The clinical benefits of drugs to raise HDLc remain unproven. In patients without known cardiovascular disease, there is conflicting evidence as to the benefits of aggressive pursuit of numerical lipid targets, particularly with respect to all cause mortality. Certainly, in statin intolerant patients, alternative agents with a low side effect profile are desirable. Bile acid sequestrants are an effective and safe choice for decreasing LDLc, and omega-3 fatty acids are safe agents to decrease TG. There remains an obvious need to design and carry out large scale studies to help determine which agents, when combined with statins, have the greatest benefit on cardiovascular disease with the least added risk. These studies should be designed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes rather than surrogate endpoints, and require a comprehensive assessment and reporting of safety outcomes.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 103 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 17 16%
Unknown 28 27%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 32%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Engineering 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 5%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 33 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 09 August 2022.
All research outputs
#6,316,625
of 23,053,169 outputs
Outputs from Drugs
#1,085
of 3,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,422
of 198,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drugs
#7
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,053,169 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 198,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.