Supplement 1: PRISMA checklist Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page # TITLE Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 1 ABSTRACT Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. 5 INTRODUCTION Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. 6 Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). 6 METHODS Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. No Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. 6 Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched. 6-7
period) and provide the citations. Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). 9 Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. 9-11 Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. NA Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). 9 Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). NA DISCUSSION Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). 12-13 Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). 14 Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. 14 FUNDING Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 4
Wu 2011 USA 1o (69.4%) & 2o (30.6%) 1yr Mean 0.61 (SD 0.32) (n=1705) Valdez 2005 USA 1o (75%) & 2o (25%) popn NR Mean 0.96 (SD 0.23) (n=819) 1o primary; 2o secondary; % percentage; AMI acute myocardial infarction; CAD coronary artery disease; CHD coronary heart disease; combo combination; CV cardiovascular; CVD cardiovascular disease; IHD ischemic heart disease; LLT lipid lowering therapy; MI myocardial infarction; mth month; n total number of patients; NR not reported; PDC proportion of days covered; popn population; SD standard deviation; USA United States of America; yr year eTable 5: Summary of persistence with lipid lowering therapy – dichotomous outcomes (n=22) Study ID Time point Country CVD history Outcome Definition Persistence (%) n Primary prevention in the general population (i.e. population not selected on basis of previous events of CVD risk) Svensson 2015 Europe (Denmark) MI (7.0%); unstable angina (2.0%); HF (3.0%); angina/IHD (10.0%) 3 yrs Dichotomous - number (%) of patients in a persistence category Persistent patients continued statin treatment 84% (n=161646) Latry 2011 Europe (France) No history 15 mths Dichotomous - number (%) of patients in a persistence category Percentage of patients still treated at the end of the period 44.3% (n=3560) Husser 2005 N. America (USA) NR 12 mths Dichotomous - number (%) of patients in a persistence category Percentage of a group given a specific therapy that continues on that treatment Any Statin: 35% (n= 140) Atorvastatin: 36% (n=80) Fluvastatin: 100% (n=3)