4.2 Article

Adherence to statin therapy and the incidence of ischemic stroke in patients with diabetes

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 25, 期 2, 页码 161-169

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3936

关键词

statins; adherence; ischemic stroke; pharmacoepidemiology; pharmacoepidemiology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeWe aimed to quantify for the first time the relationship between statin adherence and ischemic stroke (IS) in patients with diabetes. MethodsUsing Finnish health registers, we assembled a cohort of 52868 statin initiators with diabetes in 1995-2006. We conducted a nested case-control analysis matching cases with IS with up to four controls for age, sex, date of statin initiation and follow-up duration. Adjusted rate ratios for IS were estimated with conditional logistic regression. Additional potential confounders were considered with inverse probability weighting and the role of unmeasured confounding using external adjustment. Statin adherence was measured as the proportion of days covered (PDC). ResultsAmong 1703 cases and 6799 controls, good adherence to statins (PDC80%) was associated with a 23% decreased incidence of IS (95%CI 14-32%) compared with poor adherence (PDC<80%). This association remained broadly unchanged when stratified by sex, age, history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or IS. There was a dose-response relationship between adherence level and the risk of IS (RR 0.63 [0.53-0.75] for PDC80% versus PDC<20%, P for trend <0.0001). Among patients with good adherence, those initiating with low intensity statin therapy had a 15% lower incidence (95%CI 2-27%) and those initiating with moderate intensity therapy a 29% lower incidence (16-41%) of IS compared with those with poor adherence who initiated with low intensity therapy. Our sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of the results. ConclusionsIn diabetes, poor statin adherence may considerably increase the risk of IS both in primary and secondary prevention of IS. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据