↓ Skip to main content

Fibrates for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
144 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.
Title
Fibrates for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009580.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Deren Wang, Bian Liu, Wendan Tao, Zilong Hao, Ming Liu

Abstract

Fibrates are a class of drugs characterised by mainly lowering high triglyceride, raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and lowering the small dense fraction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Their efficacy for secondary prevention of serious vascular events is unclear, and to date no systematic review focusing on secondary prevention has been undertaken. To assess the efficacy and safety of fibrates for the prevention of serious vascular events in people with previous cardiovascular disease (CVD), including coronary heart disease and stroke. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2014) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (OVID, 1980 to 2014 week 41), the China Biological Medicine Database (CBM) (1978 to 2014), the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1979 to 2014), Chinese Science and Technique Journals Database (VIP) (1989 to 2014). We also searched other resources, such as ongoing trials registers and databases of conference abstracts, to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which a fibrate (for example gemfibrozil, fenofibrate) was compared with placebo or no treatment. We excluded RCTs with only laboratory outcomes. We also excluded trials comparing two different fibrates without a placebo or no-treatment control. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted the data. We contacted authors of trials for missing data. We included 13 trials involving a total of 16,112 participants. Eleven trials recruited participants with history of coronary heart disease, two trials recruited participants with history of stroke, and one trial recruited participants with a mix of people with CVD. We judged overall risk of bias to be moderate. The meta-analysis (including all fibrate trials) showed evidence for a protective effect of fibrates primarily compared to placebo for the primary composite outcome of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and vascular death (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 0.94; participants = 16,064; studies = 12; I(2) = 45%, fixed effect). Fibrates were moderately effective for preventing MI occurrence (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.93; participants = 13,942; studies = 10; I(2) = 24%, fixed effect). Fibrates were not effective against all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.06; participants = 13,653; studies = 10; I(2) = 23%), death from vascular causes (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.05; participants = 13,653; studies = 10; I(2) = 11%, fixed effect), and stroke events (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.16; participants = 11,719; studies = 6; I(2) = 11%, fixed effect). Excluding clofibrate trials, as the use of clofibrate was discontinued in 2012 due to safety concerns, the remaining class of fibrates were no longer effective in preventing the primary composite outcome (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.03; participants = 10,320; studies = 7; I(2) = 50%, random effects). However, without clofibrate data, fibrates remained effective in preventing MI (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94; participants = 8304; studies = 6; I(2) = 47%, fixed effect). There was no increase in adverse events with fibrates compared to control. Subgroup analyses showed the benefit of fibrates on the primary composite outcome to be consistent irrespective of age, gender, and diabetes mellitus. Moderate evidence showed that the fibrate class can be effective in the secondary prevention of composite outcome of non-fatal stroke, non-fatal MI, and vascular death. However, this beneficial effect relies on the inclusion of clofibrate data, a drug that was discontinued in 2002 due to its unacceptably large adverse effects. Further trials of the use of fibrates in populations with previous stroke and also against a background treatment with statins (standard of care) are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

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 %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 143 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 21%
Unspecified 22 15%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 8%
Other 45 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 65 45%
Unspecified 35 24%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 5%
Other 20 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#899,908
of 13,248,851 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,830
of 10,536 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,535
of 281,722 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#104
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,248,851 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,536 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 281,722 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.