↓ Skip to main content

2017 Focused Update of the 2016 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Non-Statin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk…

Overview of attention for article published in JACC, September 2017
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 (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
163 X users
facebook
8 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
335 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1314 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
2017 Focused Update of the 2016 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on the Role of Non-Statin Therapies for LDL-Cholesterol Lowering in the Management of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk A Report of the American College of Cardiology Task Force on Expert Consensus Decision Pathways
Published in
JACC, September 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.745
Pubmed ID
Authors

Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, Pamela B. Morris, Christie M. Ballantyne, Kim K. Birtcher, David D. Daly, Sondra M. DePalma, Margo B. Minissian, Carl E. Orringer, Sidney C. Smith

Abstract

In 2016, the American College of Cardiology published the first expert consensus decision pathway (ECDP) on the role of non-statin therapies for low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Since the publication of that document, additional evidence and perspectives have emerged from randomized clinical trials and other sources, particularly considering the longer-term efficacy and safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in secondary prevention of ASCVD. Most notably, the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) trial and SPIRE-1 and -2 (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events), assessing evolocumab and bococizumab, respectively, have published final results of cardiovascular outcomes trials in patients with clinical ASCVD and in a smaller number of high-risk primary prevention patients. In addition, further evidence on the types of patients most likely to benefit from the use of ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome has been published. Based on results from these important analyses, the ECDP writing committee judged that it would be desirable to provide a focused update to help guide clinicians more clearly on decision making regarding the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities. In the following summary table, changes from the 2016 ECDP to the 2017 ECDP Focused Update are highlighted, and a brief rationale is provided. The content of the full document has been changed accordingly, with more extensive and detailed guidance regarding decision making provided both in the text and in the updated algorithms. Revised recommendations are provided for patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities on statin therapy for secondary prevention. The ECDP writing committee judged that these new data did not warrant changes to the decision pathways and algorithms regarding the use of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in primary prevention patients with LDL-C <190 mg/dL with or without diabetes mellitus or patients without ASCVD and LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL not due to secondary causes. Based on feedback and further deliberation, the ECDP writing committee down-graded recommendations regarding bile acid sequestrant use, recommending bile acid sequestrants only as optional secondary agents for consideration in patients intolerant to ezetimibe. For clarification, the writing committee has also included new information on diagnostic categories of heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, based on clinical criteria with and without genetic testing. Other changes to the original document were kept to a minimum to provide consistent guidance to clinicians, unless there was a compelling reason or new evidence, in which case justification is provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 163 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 1,314 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 1314 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 203 15%
Student > Master 139 11%
Student > Postgraduate 97 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 79 6%
Other 77 6%
Other 258 20%
Unknown 461 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 394 30%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 148 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 137 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 28 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 2%
Other 107 8%
Unknown 480 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 138. 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 18 July 2019.
All research outputs
#305,901
of 25,795,662 outputs
Outputs from JACC
#697
of 16,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,416
of 324,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC
#18
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,795,662 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. 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 324,519 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 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 93% of its contemporaries.