tional study with blinded end points. The open label design did permit bias in the investigators, interpretation and response to adverse events that might occur, but the similarity in adverse events in the treatment arms suggests that this did not occur AMPA inhibition to any significant degree. The blinded end points assured the validity of the findings on the lipid and lipoprotein effects of the 3 therapies. The study was also limited in that the number of patients was too small and the duration of follow up was too short to reach any conclusions on the comparative safety of RSV20 and RSV40 versus ATV80 and much too small and short to permit an exploration of clinical outcomes benefits.
Uncertainty about the level of LDL cholesterol necessary to decrease clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome, as pointed out by Morrissey et al,15 and the potential increased risk associated with high dose statin use in patients with acute coronary syndrome emphasize the need for further large scale, longterm trials in patients Hesperadin 422513-13-1 with acute coronary syndrome to explore further the risk benefit ratio of high versus standard dose statin therapy in relation to the level of achieved lipid decrease and clinical outcomes. Another limitation of the study is its applicability to the broad range of patients with acute coronary syndrome, given the large portion of patients who did not meet the entry criteria.
Because the exclusion criteria focused on secondary causes of hypercholesterolemia, safety issues with use of statins, and the presence of significant medical conditions that might prevent a patient from safely taking statin therapy for the 12 week duration of the trial, the findings of the study are most applicable to more stable subjects with acute coronary syndrome who are candidates for high dose statin therapy. between missingness and a participant,s characteristic was based on the assignment of a probability of missingness of a CIMT measurement to each participant. This probability was based on the product of the difference between a participant,s characteristic and the corresponding mean value and the strength of the relation between a characteristic and the probability of missingness. In the MAR scenarios, the strength of these relations was defined as a 1%, 2%, or 4% increase in probability of missingness, per 5 years of age, per 5 points of BMI, and per baseline 0.
33 mm CIMT. For example, a relation between age and having a missing CIMT value with a strength of 4% implied that a missing CIMT measurement will be allocated, on average, with a 4% higher probability to a participant aged 65 than to a participant aged 60. Thus, missing values for CIMT measurements were generated based on the probability of missing values per participant, with the overall percentage of missing values always equal to the predefined values of 10%, 20%, 40%, and 60% missing values. For missingness related to treatment allocation, the MAR mechanism was defined as a 2, 3, or 5 times increased probability of any missing values for participants allocated to Rosuvastatin when compared with allocation to placebo. 2.5. Statistical analyses LME analyses were performed on bootstrapped data sets without missing values and on bootstrapped data sets after generating missing values. All a
Other articles you might like;