PubMed · 16616551
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Cesare R Sirtori. 2006-04-08. The FIELD study.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68500-0
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: There is considerable evidence that statins can reduce cardiovascular events. Currently high-risk patients are treated to a target cholesterol concentration. An alternative prescribing strategy (the 'fire-and-forget' approach) would instead deploy low-dose statins more widely. It has been suggested that for the same cost this approach might prevent more cardiovascular events. We have compared the treat-to-target and fire-and-forget statin prescribing strategies with respect to adherence and cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We used a population-based record-linkage database containing several data sets linked by a unique patient identifier. We identified two cohorts of patients. Patients in the treat-to-target cohort were prescribed a statin, and subsequent measurement of their cholesterol was followed by upward titration of their statin dose if necessary. Patients in the fire-and-forget cohort were prescribed a statin, but no further cholesterol measurement was observed during the follow-up period. FINDINGS: Adherence to statin treatment in patients treated to target was significantly better than in patients treated on a fire-and-forget basis (adjusted odds ratio 2.51, 95%CI 2.26-2.78). We found a lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) event rate in patients treated to target than in fire-and-forget patients (hazard ratio of CVD or cardiovascular death 0.41 (0.35-0.48) even after adjustment was made for adherence and baseline CVD risk). INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that adherence to statins is worse in patients treated on a fire-and-forget basis than in patients treated to a target cholesterol concentration, and that this prescribing strategy is associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes.
Kidney failure and chronic kidney disease (CKD) are associated with accelerated cardiovascular disease, apparently because of a high burden of traditional vascular risk factors and possibly nontraditional risk factors such as inflammation, chronic volume overload, and abnormal calcium-phosphate metabolism. Although the burden of cardiovascular disease in CKD patients is well documented, potentially beneficial therapies appear to be underused in mild to moderate CKD and are relatively understudied in those with kidney failure. This review describes the epidemiology and pathophysiology of cardiovascular disease in CKD. We also discuss the clinical and public health implications of current knowledge and outline opportunities for further research.
In many ways, adjustment for publication bias in meta-analysis parallels adjustment for ascertainment bias in genetic studies. We investigate a previously published simulation-based method for dealing with complex ascertainment bias and show that it can be modified for use in meta-analysis when publication bias is suspected. The method involves simulating sets of pseudo-data under the assumed model using guesses for the unknown parameters. The pseudo-data are subjected to the same selection criteria as are believed to have operated on the original data. A conditional likelihood is then used to estimate the adjusted values of the unknown parameters. This method is used to re-analyse a published meta-analysis of the effect of the MTHFR gene on homocysteine levels. Simulation studies show that the pseudo-data method is unbiased; they give an indication of the number of pseudo-data values required and suggest that a two-stage adjustment produces less variable estimates. This method can be thought of as an example of the selection model approach to publication bias correction. As the selection mechanism must be assumed, it is important to investigate the sensitivity of any conclusions to this assumption.