cardiovascular prevention clinical trials results

acetylcysteine versus placebo
Tepel, 2003
acetylcysteine 600 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis for a minimum of 3 months 3 times weekly in an ambulatory centerdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 14.5 y
Germany
aggressive cholesterol-lowering versus moderate cholesterol-lowering
Post CABG (diabetic sub group), 1999
aggressive cholesterol-lowering
versus
moderate cholesterol-lowering
patients 1-11 years after CABGdouble blind
aggressive treatment versus standard teatment
SANDS, 2008
NCT00047424
aggressive targets of LDL-C of 70 mg/dL or lower and SBP of 115 mm Hg or lower
versus
standard targets of LDL-C of 100 mg/dL or lower and SBP of 130 mm Hg or lower
adults with type 2 diabetes open
Follow-up duration: 3 years
US
alirocumab versus ezetimibe (on top statin)
ODYSSEY OPTIONS I,
Alirocumab 75 mg with potential up-titration to 150 mg Q2W
versus
Ezetimibe 10 mg
high-cardiovascular-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled with atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg) or rosuvastatin (10 or 20 mg)
Follow-up duration: 24 wk
ODYSSEY OPTIONS II,
Alirocumab 75 mg with potential up-titration to 150 mg Q2W
versus
Ezetimibe 10 mg
high-cardiovascular-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled with atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg) or rosuvastatin (10 or 20 mg)
Follow-up duration: 24 wk
alirocumab versus ezetimibe alone
ODYSSEY MONO,
NCT01644474
Alirocumab 75 mg Q2W
versus
Ezetimibe 10 mg
hypercholesterolemic patients at moderate cardiovascular risk not receiving statins or other lipid-lowering therapydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 wk
alirocumab versus placebo (on top statins)
ODYSSEY Alternative,
NCT01709513
Alirocumab 75 mg with potential up-titration to 150 mg Q2W
versus
Ezetimibe 10 mg
statin-intolerant patientsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 wk
ODYSSEY COMBO,
NCT01644175
Alirocumab 75 mg with potential up-titration to 150 mg Q2W
versus
Placebo
high cardiovascular risk patients on maximally tolerated statin therapydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 52 wk
ODYSSEY COMBO II,
NCT01644188
Alirocumab 75 mg with potential up-titration to 150 mg Q2W
versus
Ezetimibe 10 mg
high cardiovascular risk patients with inadequately controlled hypercholesterolaemia on maximally tolerated doses of statinsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 104 wk
ODYSSEY FH 1,
NCT01623115
Alirocumab 75 mg with potential up-titration to 150 mg Q2W
versus
Placebo
patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled with current lipid-lowering therapydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 78 wk
ODYSSEY FH 2,
NCT01709500
Alirocumab 75 mg with potential up-titration to 150 mg Q2W
versus
Placebo
patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled with current lipid-lowering therapydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 78 wk
ODYSSEY HIGH FH ,
NCT01617655
Alirocumab 150 mg Q2W
versus
Placebo
patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled with current lipid-lowering therapy
Follow-up duration: 52–78 wk
ODYSSEY Long-Term, 2015
NCT01507831
alirocumab 150 mg as a 1-ml subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks for 78 weeks.
versus
placebo
patients at high risk for cardiovascular events who had LDL cholesterol levels of 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) or more and were receiving treatment with statins at the maximum tolerated dose (the highest dose associated with an acceptable side-effect profile), with or without other lipid-lowering therapy
Follow-up duration: 78 wk
alpha-linolenic acid versus placebo
ALPHA OMEGA (ALA), 2010
NCT00127452
margarine supplemented with plant-derived alpha-linolenic acid (with a targeted additional daily intake of 2 g of ALA)
versus
placebo
men and women with a history of myocardial infarction double-blind
Follow-up duration: 40 months
the Netherlands
Natvig, 1968
linseed oil, 10 ml /d (55% a-linolenic acid)
versus
placebo (sunflower oil, 10 ml/d (1.4% a-linolenic acid))
working men, though a few had had a previous MI or angina7ieªôq”double-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Norway
anacetrapib versus placebo
DEFINE, 2010
NCT00685776
anacetrapib 100mg fr 18 months
versus
placebo
patients with coronary heart disease or at high risk for coronary heart diseasedouble-blind
20 countries
REVEAL HPS-3 TIMI-55, 2017
NCT01252953
anacetrapib 100mg daily
versus
placebo
high risk patients already taking statinsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: median 4 years
REALIZE, 2015
NCT01524289
oral anacetrapib 100 mg for 52 weeks
versus
placebo
patients aged 18-80 years with a genotype-confirmed or clinical diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, on optimum lipid-lowering treatment for at least 6 weeks, and with an LDL-C concentration of 2·59 mmol/L or higher without cardiovascular disease or 1·81 mmol/L or higher with cardiovascular diseasedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 52 weeks
anticoagulant versus no anticoagulant
MacMillan, 1960

versus
Borchegrevink, 1960

versus
Clausen, 1961

versus
Harvald, 1961

versus
Conrad, 1964

versus
Wasserman, 1966

versus
Loeliger, 1967

versus
Lovell, 1967

versus
Seaman, 1969

versus
Sorensen, 1969

versus
Meuwisse,, 1969

versus
Drapkin and Merskey, 1972

versus
any statin versus no statin
Sakamoto, 2006
any available statin
versus
no statin
Japanese patients with AMI within 96 hours of AMI onset open
Follow-up duration: up to 24 months
Japan
aspirin versus no treatment
British Doctor’s Trial, 1988
aspirin 500 mg/d
versus
no aspirin
apparently healthy male doctorsopen
Follow-up duration: 5.5 years
UK
PPP (diabetics sub group), 2003
aspirin 100mg daily
versus
control
men and women with diabetes and without a previous cardiovascular event aged >50 with >=1 risk factors for cardiovascular disease - sub group of diabetic patientsopen
Follow-up duration: 3.6 y
Italy
Primary Prevention Project, 2001
aspirin 100 mg/d
versus
no aspirin (open control)
men and women aged 50 years or greater, with at least one of the major recognised cardiovascular risk factors.Open
Follow-up duration: 3.6 y
Italy
JPAD, 2008
NCT00110448
low-dose aspirin (81 or 100 mg per day)
versus
no aspirin
patients with type 2 diabetes without a history of atherosclerotic diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 4.37 y median
Japan
aspirin versus placebo
AAA, 2009
ISRCTN66587262
aspirin 100mg daily
versus
placebo
men and women aged 50 to 80 years with asymptomatic atherosclerosis detected by low ankle brachial index (<=0.95)double blind
Follow-up duration: 8.2 y (mean)
UK, Scotland
CLIPS, 2007
oral aspirin 100 mg daily
versus
placebo
outpatients with stage I-II PAD documented by angiography or ultrasound, with ankle/brachial index <0.85 or toe index <0.6double blind
Follow-up duration: 20.7 months mean
Europe
PHS (diabetics sub group), 1989
aspirin 325 mg every other day
versus
placebo
healthy men (diabetic sub group of patients enrolled if PHS)double blind
Follow-up duration: 5 y
Physicians Health Study, 1989
NCT00000500
aspirin 325 mg every other day
versus
placebo
Healthy mendouble blind
Follow-up duration: 60.2 months
Munich B, 1975
Aspirine 1500 mg / jour pendant 24 mois
versus
Placebo
NAdouble blind
ETDRS, 1992
aspirin 650mg once daily
versus
placebo
patients with diabetes mellitus (Type I or II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 60 months
Thrombosis Prevention Trial, 1998
NCT00000614
aspirin 75 mg/d (controlled release)
versus
placebo
Men at high risk of CHDdouble blind
Follow-up duration: median 6.8y
UK
HOT, 1998
aspirin 75 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients aged 50-80 with hypertension and diastolic blood pressure between 100 mmHG and 115 mmHGDouble blind
Follow-up duration: mean 3.8 y (range 3.3-4.9y)
Europe, North and South America, and Asia
Munich A, 1975
Aspirine: 1500 mg / jour
versus
Placebo
Données non disponiblesdouble blind
CDPA, 1976
Aspirin (324 mg) 3x/d
versus
Placebo
MI survivorsDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.83 y
USA
Cardiff I, 1974
Aspirin (300 mg) 1x/d
versus
Placebo
MI survivorsDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
UK
Cardiff II, 1979
Aspirin (300 mg) 3x/d for one year
versus
Placebo
patients with myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
South Wales
Vogel, 1979
Aspirin (1.5 g daily) on an average period of 22 months
versus
Placebo
Double blind
Follow-up duration: 1.75 y (mean)
Germany
AMIS, 1980
NCT00000491
Aspirin (500 mg) 2x/d for at least 3 years
versus
Placebo
men and women who had had a documented myocardial infarctionDouble blind
Follow-up duration: > 3 y
USA
GAMIS, 1980
Aspirin (500 mg) 3x/d for 2 years
versus
Placebo
patients who had survived a myocardial infarction for 30-42 days Double blind
Follow-up duration: 2 y
Germany, Austria,
PARIS, 1980
Aspirin (324 mg) 3x/d
versus
Placebo
patients who had recovered from myocardial infarction Double blind
Follow-up duration: 41 mo
USA, UK
JAMIS, 1999
Aspirin (81 mg) 1x/d
versus
No antiplatelets
patients with AMI within 1 month from the onset of symptomsOpen
Follow-up duration: 1.3 y (mean)
Japan
WHS (diabetics sub group), 2005
aspirin 100mg on alternate days
versus
placebo
healthy women 45 years of age or older - diabetics sub groupsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 10.1 y
US
POPADAD aspirin, 2008
ISRCTN53295293
aspirin 100mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with diabetes mellitus and asymptomatic peripheral arterial diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: nov 1997 - jul 2001
Scotland
Women’s Health Study, 2005
aspirin 100mg daily
versus
placebo
initially healthy women 45 years of age or olderDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 10.1 y mean (range 8.2 to 10.9
SAPAT, 1992
aspirin 75 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with stable chronic angina pectorisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 50 months
Sweden
DAMAD, 1989
aspirin alone (330 mg 3 times daily) or in combination with dipyridamole (75 mg 3 times daily)
versus
placebo
patients with early diabetic retinopathydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3 y
Schoop, 1983
groupe 1 : Aspirine 990 mg / j (pour mémoire : groupe 2 : Aspirine 990 mg / j + dipyridamole 225 mg/j)
versus
Placebo
AOMI stade non précisédouble blind
Follow-up duration: <5 y
Hess, 1985
groupe 1 : Aspirine 330 mg / j (pour mémoire : groupe 2 : Aspirine 330 mg / j + dipyridamole 75 mg / j)
versus
Placebo
AOMI stade non précisésingle blind
aspirin + dipyridamol versus placebo
Hess (2), 1985
Aspirine Dipyridamole 330 mg / j 225 mg / j
versus
Placebo
patients with occlusive arterial disease in the lower extremitiesdouble blind
Schoop (2), 1983
Aspirine Dipyridamole 990 mg / j 225 mg /j
versus
Placebo
AOMI stade non précisédouble blind
VA study, 1986
Aspirine + Dipyridamole 975 mg / j 225 mg /j
versus
Placebo
non-insulin-dependent diabetic men with either a recent amputation for gangrene or active gangrenedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 46 months
atorvastatin versus placebo
SALTIRE, 2005
atorvastatin 80mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with calcific aortic stenosisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 25 mo (7-36)
ASCOT (diabetics sub group), 2003
10 mg atorvastatin
versus
placebo
hypertensive patients with no history of coronary heart disease (CHD) but at least three cardiovascular risk factors
Deutsche Diabetes Dialyse Studie (4D), 2005
atorvastatin 20mg daily
versus
matching placebo
patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on maintenance hemodialysisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4 y (median)
ASPEN, 2006
atorvastatin 10mg daily
versus
placebo
patients s with type 2 diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels below contemporary guideline targetsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4y
SPARCL, 2006
NCT00147602
atorvastatin 80mg daily
versus
placebo
patients who had had a stroke or TIA within one to six months before study entry, had low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 2.6 to 4.9 mmol per liter, and had no known coronary heart diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4.9y (median)
Strey, 2005
atorvastatin 40mg
versus
placebo
patients with stable, symptomatic heart failure (New York Heart Association Class II or III) and a left ventricular ejection fraction <40%
Follow-up duration: 6 weeks
ASCOT, 2003
atorvastatin 10mg/d
versus
placebo
hypertensive patients aged 40-79 years with at least three other cardiovascular risk factorsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.3 years
UK et Scandinavie
MIRACL, 2001
Atorvastatin, 80 mg (early initiation)
versus
Placebo
unstable angina or non–Q-wave acute MIDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 and 4 months
Europe, North America, South Africa, and Australasia
ASPEN, 2006
atorvastatin 10mg
versus
placebo
subjects with type 2 diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels below contemporaryguideline targetsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4 year
14 countries
ASPEN (primary prevention sub group), 2006
atorvastatin 10mg
versus
placebo
subjects with type 2 diabetes and LDL cholesterol levels below contemporary guideline targets; primary prevention subgroup double blind
Follow-up duration: 4 year
14 countries
macin, 2005
atorvastatin 40 mg daily for 30 days
versus
placebo
patients admitted within 48 hours of onset of ACS with CRP levels > or =1.4 mg/dLdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
Mohler III, 2003
Atorvastatine: 10 mg/ jour ou 80 mg/ jour pendant 12 mois (groupes 1 et 2).
versus
placebo
Stade de la madie : II , stable pendant au moins 6 mois.Double aveugle
Follow-up duration: 1 an
CARDS, 2004
NCT00327418
atorvastatin 10mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with type 2 diabetes without high concentrations of LDL-cholesterol and at least one of the following: retinopathy, albuminuria, current smoking, or hypertension.double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.9 years
UK, Irelande
Mohler, 2003
atorvastatin (10 mg per day)
versus
placebo
patients with intermittent claudicationdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Atorvastatin versus placebo
ASCOT (women subgroup) , 2003
Atorvastatin 10 mg daily
versus
placebo
hypertensive patients (aged 40-79 years with at least three other cardiovascular risk factors) - subgroup of womendouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.3 y
Europe
atorvastatin versus pravastatin
PROVE IT - TIMI 22, 2004
80 mg of atorvastatin daily (intensive therapy).
versus
40 mg of pravastatin daily (standard therapy)
patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 daysdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 24 mo (18-36 mo)
UK, US, AUstralia, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Canada
atorvastatin versus usual care
Colivicchi, 2002
Atorvastatin, 80 mg daily early initiation
versus
Usual care
unstable angina pectoris or non-Q-wave myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 3, and 6 months
Italy
ESTABLISH, 2004
Atorvastatin, 20 mg early initiation
versus
Usual care
patients with ACS undergoing emergency coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventionopen
Follow-up duration: 1, 4, and 6 months
Japan
GREACE, 2002
atorvastatin 10-80 mg/d
versus
usual care
patients with established coronary heart diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 3 years mean
atorvastatin high dose versus angioplasty
AVERT, 1999
atorvastatin 80 mg/d
versus
recommended percutaneous revascularization procedure(angioplasty) followed by usual care, whichcould include lipid-lowering treatment
patients referred for percutaneous revascularization, with stable coronary artery disease, relatively normal left ventricular function, asymptomatic or mild-to-moderate angina, and a serum level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of at least 115 mg per deciliter (3.0 mmol per liter) open
Follow-up duration: 1.5 years
US, Europe
atorvastatin high dose versus atorvastatin
TNT (diabetic sub group), 2006
atorvastatin 80 mg daily
versus
atorvastatin 10 mg daily
patients with stable coronary heart disease double blind
Follow-up duration: 4.9 y
TNT, 2005
NCT00327691
80 mg of atorvastatin daily
versus
10 mg of atorvastatin daily
Chronic coronary artery disease LDL cholesterol < 3.4 mmol/Ldouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4.9 years
14 countries
atorvastatin high dose versus lovastatin
Vascular basis, 2005
atorvastatin (80 mg) with or without vitamin C and E
versus
low dose lovastatin (5 mg)
Chronic coronary artery diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
atorvastatin high dose versus pravastatin
PROVE-IT, 2004
atorvastatin 80 mg daily
versus
Pravastatin 40 mg
acute myocardial infarction (with or without electrocardiographic evidence of ST-segment elevation) or highrisk unstable angina) in the preceding 10 daysdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
8 countries
REVERSAL, 2004
atorvastatin 80 mg daily
versus
Pravastatin(40 mg)
Chronic coronary artery diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.5 years
SAGE, 2007
atorvastatin 80 mg daily
versus
pravastatin(40 mg)
Chronic coronary artery diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 years
atorvastatin high dose versus simvastatin
IDEAL, 2005
NCT00159835
atorvastatin 80mg daily
versus
simvastatine 20mg/j
Men and women aged 80 years or younger with a history of a definite myocardial infarction and who qualified for statin therapy according to national guidelinesopen
Follow-up duration: 4.8 years
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden
beta carotene versus placebo
ATBC 2nd prev subgroup (b carotene), 1998
synthetic beta carotene 20 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients enroled in the ATBC trial and who had angina pectoris in the Rose chest pain questionnaire at baseline double-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.79 y
Finland
ATBC beta carotene, 1994
beta carotene 20mg four times daily
versus
placebo
male smokers 50 to 69 years of age from southwestern Finland double-blind
Follow-up duration: 6.1 median (range 5-8y)
Southwestern Finland
CARET beta carotene, 1996
combination of 30 mg of beta carotene per day and 25,000 IU of retinol (vitamin A) in the form of retinyl palmitate per day
versus
placebo
smokers, former smokers, and workers exposed to asbestosdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 4 y
USA
NSCP (Green) beta carotene, 1999
beta carotene 30mg four times daily
versus
placebo
residents of Nambourdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.5 y
Queensland, Australia
PHS beta carotene, 1996
beta carotene 50 mg on alternate days
versus
placebo
male physicians, 40 to 84 years of age with no history of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient cerebral ischemiadouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 y
USA
SCP beta carotene, 1990
beta carotene 50mg four times daily
versus
placebo
Age <85 years (most <65 years); previous non-melanoma skin cancer; 69% maledouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.02 years
USA
WACS beta-caroten, 2007
NCT00000541
beta carotene (Lurotin) 50 mg every two days
versus
placebo
female health professionals at increased risk (40 years or older with a history of CVD or 3 or more CVD risk factors) double blind
Follow-up duration: 9.4 years
WHS beta carotene, 1999
NCT00000479
beta carotene 50mg four times daily
versus
placebo
female health professionals, aged 45 years or older and without a history of cancer (except nonmelanoma skin cancer), coronary heart disease, or cerebrovascular diseasedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.1y (range 0 - 2.72y)
USA
bezafibrate versus placebo
LEADER trial, 2000
Bezafibrate: 400 mg/ jour pour les hommes avec créatininémie < 135 micromole/litre
versus
placebo de même aspect
Stade de la maladie : II.Double aveugle
Follow-up duration: 5 ans
BECAIT, 1996
bezafibrate 200 mg three times daily
versus
placebo
dyslipidaemic male survivors of myocardial infarction who were younger than 45 years at the time of the eventdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5.0 years
Sweden
BIP, 2000
bezafibrate 400 mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with a previous myocardial infarction or stable angina, total cholesterol of 180 to 250 mg/dL, HDL-C < or =45 mg/dL, triglycerides < or =300 mg/dL, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol < or =180 mg/dL double blind
Follow-up duration: 6.2 y
Israel
LEADER, 2002
bezafibrate 400 mg daily
versus
placebo
men with lower extremity arterial diseasedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.6y
UK
SENDCAP, 1998
bezafibrate 400 mg daily
versus
placebo
type 2 diabetic subjects without a history of clinical cardiovascular double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.0 years
UK
cerivastatin versus placebo
Laufs, 2004
cerivastatin 0.4 mg
versus
placebo
patients with heart failure NYHA II-III caused by non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathydouble blind
Follow-up duration: mean 20 weeks
cholestyramine versus control
STARS (cholestyramine), 1992
cholestyramine
versus
diet
patients with angina or past myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 3 years
cholestyramine versus placebo
LRC, 1984
cholestyramine 24 g daily
versus
placebo
asymptomatic middle-aged men with primary hypercholesterolemia (type II hyperlipoproteinemia)double blind
Follow-up duration: 7.4 years
USA
NHLBI (Brensike), 1984
NCT00000594
cholestyramine
versus
placebo
patients with Type II hyperlipoproteinemia and coronary artery disease double blind
Follow-up duration: 5.0 y
clofibrate versus placebo
Acheson, 1972
clofibrate
versus
placebo
cerebral vascular disease NA
Follow-up duration: 6 years
UK
Begg, 1971
clofibrate
versus
placebo
peripheral arteriopathy
Follow-up duration: 3.5 y
CDP Clofibrate, 1975
clofibrate 1.8 mg/d
versus
placebo
men, 30-64 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6.2 years
USA
Cullen, 1974
clofibrate
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 2 years
Hanefeld, 1991
clofibric acid 1.6 g/day
versus
placebo
newly diagnosed middle-aged (30- to 55-yr-old) patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus double-blind
Follow-up duration: 5 years
Germany
Harrold, 1969
clofibrate
versus
placebo
diabetic retinopathy double-blind
Follow-up duration: 1 years
Newcastle, 1971
clofibrate 1.5-2 g daily
versus
placebo
Hommes et femmes < 65 ans double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.6 y
UK
Scottish, 1971
clofibrate 1.6-2 g daily
versus
placebo
Hommes et femmes, de 40 à 69 ansdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.4 years
Scotland
VA Neurology Section, 1974
clofibrate
versus
placebo
treatment of cerebrovascular disease
Follow-up duration: 1.8 years
USA
WHO clofibrate, 1978
clofibrate 1.6 g daily
versus
olive oil
primary prevention, Hommes, de 30 à 59 ans double blind
Follow-up duration: 5.3 years
Scotland, Hungary, Czech Republic
clofibtate+niacin versus placebo
Carlson (Stockholm), 1977
clofibrate, 1 g twice daily, and nicotinic acid 1 g three times daily
versus
control
survivors of a myocardial infarction below 70 years of age open
Follow-up duration: 5 years
Sweden
clopidogrel versus aspirin
ASCET,
NCT00222261
clopidogrel 75 mg once daily for two years
versus
Aspirin 160 mg once daily for two years
patients with documented coronary heart disease and treated with aspirinopen
CAPRIE, 1996
clopidogrel 75 mg once daily
versus
aspirin 325 mg once daily
patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease manifested as either recent ischaemic stroke, recent myocardial infarction, or symptomatic peripheral arterial diseaseDouble blind
Follow-up duration: mean 1.91 years
16 countries
CAPRIE (PAD subgroup), 1996
Clopidogrel 75 mg
versus
Aspirine 325 mg
patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease manifested as either recent ischaemic stroke, recent myocardial infarction, or symptomatic peripheral arterial diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.91 y
clopidogrel versus placebo (on top aspirin)
CHARISMA, 2006
NCT00050817
clopidogrel (75 mg per day) plus low-dose aspirin (75 to 162 mg per day)
versus
placebo plus low-dose aspirin
patients with either clinically evident cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factorsDouble blind
Follow-up duration: median 28 months
32 countries
cloricromene versus placebo
CRAMPS, 2000
Cloricromène : 100 mg, 2 fois / jour / voie orale + aspirine : 160 mg / jour pendant 6 mois .
versus
placebo + aspirine: 160 mg/ jour pendant 6 mois.
Stade de la maladie : II, pendant 3.1 années d'ancienneté en moyenne dans les 2 groupes double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
colestipol versus placebo
Gross, 1973
colestipol
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 1.0 years
Gundersen, 1976
colestipol 10g twice daily
versus
placebo
hypercholesterolemic patients double-blind
Follow-up duration: 0.8 years
Ruoff, 1978
colestipol
versus
placebo
hypercholesterolemic patients
Follow-up duration: 3.2 years
Ryan, 1974
colestipol15 g/day
versus
placebo
patients with hypercholesterolemia
Follow-up duration: 3.0 years
UCS (Dorr), 1978
colestipol hydrochloride 32 mg/dl
versus
placebo
Hommes et femmes, > 18 ans double blind
Follow-up duration: 1.9 years
colestipol+clofibrate versus placebo
SCOR, 1990
colestipol (15 to 30mg/d) + clofibrate (2g/d)
versus
diet
patients with primary hypercholesterolemia
Follow-up duration: 2.0 years
colestipol-niacin versus placebo
CLAS, 1987
Colestipol + Niacin 30 g / j 3-12 g / j (titré sur chaque patient sur la base de la baisse de cholestérol sanguin)
versus
placebo: methyl cellulose
Patients coronariens avec antécédent de revascularisation chirurgicale coronarienne.Non déterminable
Follow-up duration: 2 ans
CLAS, 1987
colestipol + niacin
versus
placebo
nonsmoking men aged 40 to 59 years with previous coronary bypass surgerydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
combination versus placebo
PHS II (multivitamin), 2012
NCT00270647
Daily multivitamin
versus
placebo
male US physicians initially aged 50 years or olderdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 11.2y (median)
USA
POPADAD (antioxydant), 2008
ISRCTN53295293
antioxidant capsule containing (alpha-tocopherol 200 mg, ascorbic acid 100 mg, pyridoxine hydrochloride 25 mg, zinc sulphate 10 mg, nicotinamide 10 mg, lecithin 9.4 mg, and sodium selenite 0.8 mg)
versus
placebo
patients with diabetes mellitus and asymptomatic peripheral arterial diseasedouble blind
Scotland
HATS, 2001
antioxidant-therapy (vitamins)
versus
placebo
patients with coronary disease, low HDL cholesterol levels and normal LDL cholesterol double-blind
USA, Canada
MVP, 1997
multivitamins (30,000 IU of beta carotene, 500 mg of vitamin C, and 700 IU of vitamin E) for four weeks before and six months after angioplasty
versus
placebo
patient undergoing angioplastydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 6 montsh
Canada
HPS antioxidant, 2002
antioxidant vitamin supplementation (600 mg vitamin E, 250 mg vitamin C, and 20 mg -carotene daily)
versus
matching placebo
UK adults (aged 40–80) with coronary disease, other occlusive arterial disease, or diabetesdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: jul 1994 - may 1997
UK
PHS II beta carotene, 2003
NCT00270647
400 IU of vitamin E every other day and 500 mg of vitamin C daily
versus
placebo
US male physicians enrolled, aged 50 years or olderdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 8 years
SUVIMAX, 2005
single daily capsule of combination of antioxydants: 120 mg of ascorbic acid, 30 mg of vitamin E, 6 mg of beta carotene, 100 ìg of selenium, and 20 mg of zinc
versus
matched placebo
women aged 35-60 years and men aged 45-60 yearsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 7.5 years
France
WAVE (Waters), 2002
400 IU of vitamin E twice daily plus 500 mg of vitamin C twice daily
versus
placebo
postmenopausal women with at least one 15% to 75% coronary stenosisdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.8 years
US, Canada
combined estrogen and progestogen versus placebo
Schulman (NHLBI) (estrogen-progestogen), 2002
NCT00000601
intravenous estrogen followed by oral conjugated estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone for 21 days
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women with unstable angina double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
USA, Brazil
EAGAR, 2006
NCT00000605
estradiol +/-medroxyprogesterone
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women who had undergone coronary artery bypass graftdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 33 months
USA, Canada
ERA (estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone), 2000
NCT00000549
estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone acetate ( 0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen plus 2.5 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate per day)
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women with established coronary atherosclerosis double-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.6y
USA
EVTET, 2000
2 mg estradiol plus 1 mg norethisterone acetate, 1 tablet daily
versus
placebo
postmenopausal women younger than 70 years who had suffered previous DVT or PEdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
Norway
Hall, 1998
transdermal 17 beta-estradiol at a dose of 50 micrograms per 24 h alone for 18 days followed by 10 days of combined treatment with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 5 mg orally
versus
placebo
postmenopausal women with coronary artery disease aged 44–75 yearsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
Sweden
HERS, 1998
NCT00319566
Premarin .625 mg daily plus medroxyprogesterone 2.5 mg daily
versus
placebo
women with coronary disease, younger than 80 years, and postmenopausal with an intact uterusdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.1 y
US
WAVE, 2002
NCT00000555
0.625 mg/d of conjugated equine estrogen (plus 2.5 mg/d of medroxyprogesterone acetate for women who had not had a hysterectomy)
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women, up to age 86, with angiographically documented coronary artery disease of at least 15 percent, but no more than 75 percent occlusiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2.8 y
United States, Canada
WELL-HART (estrogen-progestin), 2003
NCT00000559
17 beta-estradiol plus sequentially administered medroxyprogesterone acetate
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women with angiographically-documented coronary disease double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.3 y
USA
WHI, 2002
conjugated equine estrogens, 0.625 mg/d, plus medroxyprogesterone acetate, 2.5 mg/d, in 1 tablet
versus
placebo
postmenopausal women aged 50-79 years with an intact uterus at baselinedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 5.2 y
USA
WHISP, 2006
oral oestradiol-17beta 1 mg plus norethisterone acetate 0.5 mg daily
versus
placebo
post-menopausal women >55 years were enrolled between 2 and 28 days after an acute coronary syndromedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
UK
WISDOM, 2007
ISRCTN63718836
combined estrogen and progestogen
versus
placebo
postmenopausal women aged 50-69 double-blind
Follow-up duration: 11.9 months
UK, Australia, New Zealand
coumarin congeners versus placebo
Sixty Plus Reinfarction, 1980
acenocoumarin orphenprocoumon
versus
placebos
elderly patients who had been on anticoagulants ever since their primary myocardial infarction double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
dalcetrapib versus placebo
dal-VESSEL, 2011
dalcetrapib 600 mg daily
versus
placebo
men and women with coronary heart disease or coronary heart disease risk equivalents with HDL-cholesterol levels <50 mg/dLdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 weeks
dal-OUTCOMES, 2012
NCT00658515
dalcetrapib 600 mg daily beginning 4 to 12 weeks after an index ACS event
versus
placebo
patients with recent acute coronary syndromedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 31 montsh (median)
27 countries
darapladib versus placebo
SOLID-TIMI 52,
NCT01000727

versus
dicoumarol versus no anticoagulant
Apenstrom and Korsan-Bengtsen, 1964

versus
diet versus control
NORDIET,
healthy Nordic diet
versus
control diet (subjects’ usualWestern diet)
mildly hypercholesterolaemic subjects
Sweden
BARON,

versus
HPT,

versus
Kumanyika,

versus
TAIM,

versus
DISH,

versus
Burr (DART 2), 2003
dietary advice (to eat more oily fish)
versus
No such dietary advice or capsules
men being treated for anginaopen
Follow-up duration: 36-108 months
UK
Burr (DART), 1989
dietary advice (to eat more oily fish)
versus
No such dietary advice or capsulesish)ag
post-MIopen
Follow-up duration: 24 months
UK
Mate-Jimenez, 1991
diet advice
versus
no advice
people with inactive Crohn’s diseaseopen with blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 24months
Spain
diet versus usual diet
Black, 1994
diet with 20 percent of total caloric intake as fat
versus
usual diet
patients with nonmelanoma skin canceropen
Follow-up duration: 2.0 years
DART (Burr), 1989
diet advice
versus
usual diet
men who had recovered from MI open, blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Finnish Mental Hospital (Miettinen), 1985
cholesterol-lowering diet (low in saturated fats and cholesterol and relatively high in polyunsaturated fats)
versus
usual diet
middle-aged institionalized women without CHDopen, blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 6.0 years
Finland
Finnish Mental Hospital (Turpeinen), 1979
cholesterol-lowering diet (low in saturated fats and cholesterol and relatively high in polyunsaturated fats)
versus
usual diet
middle-aged institutionalized men without CHDopen, blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 6.0 years
Finland
Goteborg, 1986
multifactorial intervention programme
versus
no intervention
men, 47-55 years old at entryopen
Follow-up duration: 10 years
Sweden
Göteborg (Wilhelmsen), 1986
multifactorial intervention programme
versus
usual care
men, 47-55 years old at entryopen
Follow-up duration: 10.0 years
Hjermann, 1981
diet
versus
usual diet
healthy, normotensive men at high risk of coronary heart disease open
Follow-up duration: 6.5 years
Sweden
Kallio, 1979
diet (multifactorial intervention programme)
versus
usual diet
patients below 65 years who had an acute myocardial infarction open
Follow-up duration: 3.0 years
Los Angeles VA (Dayton), 1969
diet
versus
usual diet
men in domicilary care, age>55, with or without CHDdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 8.0 y
USA
Minnesota coronary survey (Frantz), 1975
cholesterol lowering diet
versus
control diet
Adult residents ofmental hospitals; no illness restrictions, no cholesterol concentration requirementsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1.1 y (max 4.5y)
USA
MRC low fat, 1965

versus
open
Follow-up duration: 3 y
MRC Soya, 1968
Régime pauvre en graisses saturées + 85 g/j d'huile de soja
versus
usual diet
ambulatory men with recent MIopen, blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 3.5 y
MRFIT, 1982
multifactor intervention program
versus
usual diet
high-risk men aged 35 to 57 yearsopen
Follow-up duration: 6.5 y
Ornish, 1990
low-fat vegetarian diet, stopping smoking, stress management training, and moderate exercise
versus
usual-care
Patients with angiographically documented coronary artery diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 1.0 y
USA
Oslo Diet Heart Study (Leren), 1966
diet
versus
usual care
middle-aged ambulatory men with prior MIopen, blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 5 y (11y)
Rose, 1965
Régime restreint en graisses + 80 g/j huile de maïs
versus
usual diet
men, <70 yearsopen
Follow-up duration: 1.2 years
Singh, 1992
strict diet
versus
usual diet
patients with suspected acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 2.0 years
STARS (St Thomas, diet), 1992
dietary advice
versus
usual diet
patients with angina or past myocardial infarction open, blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 3.0 years
Veterans Ad. (Dayton), 1969
cholesterol lowering diet
versus
usual diet
men in domicilary care, age>55, with or without CHDdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.6 and 8 y
USA
WHI low fat, 2005
NCT00000611
dietary modification intervention to promote dietary change with the goals of reducing intake of total fat to 20% of energy and increasing consumption of vegetables and fruit to at least 5 servings daily and grains to at least 6 servings daily
versus
usual diet
postmenopausal women, aged 50 to 79 years, without prior breast canceropen
Follow-up duration: 8.1y mean
US
WHO Collaborative, 1986
multifactorial prevention
versus
usual diet
middle-aged men open
Follow-up duration: 5.5 years
Belgium, Italy, Poland, UK
Woodhill, 1966
diet
versus
usual diet
men, 30-59 yearsopen
Follow-up duration: < 7 years
dipyridamol versus control
Atlanta (Sbar), 1967
dipyridamole 150mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with angina pectorisdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Wirecki, 1967
dipyridamole 150mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with angina pectorisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 7 months
Becker, 1967
dipyridamole 225mg daily
versus
placebo
double-blind
Follow-up duration: 5 months
dipyridamol versus placebo
Kinsella, 1962
dipyridamole 37.5 mg and 100mg daily
versus
placebo
double-blind
Follow-up duration: 0.5 months
Leiberman, 1964
dipyridamole 100mg daily
versus
placebo
double blind
Follow-up duration: >3 months
Zion, 1961
Dipyridamole 37.5mg
versus
placebo
patients with angina pectorisdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 0.5 months
Dewar, 1961
Dipyridamole 100mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with angina pectorisdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 0.5 months
Neumann, 1964
dipyridamole 150mg daily
versus
placebo
elderly with precordial paindouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1.5 months
Foulds, 1960
Dipyridamole 200mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with angina pectorisdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1 months
Igloe, 1970
Dipyridamole 200mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with angina pectorisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2-7 months
dipyridamol + aspirin versus aspirin
PARIS, 1980
Aspirin (324 mg) + dipyridamole (75 mg) 3x/d
versus
Aspirin (324 mg) 3x/d
patuents who had recovered from myocardial infarction Double blind
Follow-up duration: 41 months
USA and GB
dipyridamol + aspirin versus placebo
PARIS, 1980
Aspirin (324 mg) + dipyridamole (75 mg) 3x/d
versus
Placebo
patients who had recovered from myocardial infarction Double blind
Follow-up duration: 41 months (mean)
USA and UK
PARIS-II, 1986
Aspirin (330 mg) + dipyridamole (75 mg) 3x/d
versus
Placebo
patients who had recovered from myocardial infarction, suffered from 4 weeks to 4 months previouslyDouble blind
Follow-up duration: 23.4 months
USA and UK
Efamol marine versus placebo
Veale, 1994
Efamol marine capsules, 12/d (0.4g/d EPA + DHA plus 0.5g/d gamma-linoleic acid (notomega-3))TP
versus
placebo (capsules containing liquid paraffin and vitamin E, 12/d, appeared identical)
people with chronic stable plaque psoriasis and inflammatory arthritisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 9 months
UK
Esapent versus placebo
Maresta, 2002
Esapent capsules, 6/d for 2 mo, then 3/d (5.1g/d EPA + DHA initially, later 2.6g/d)
versus
placebo (identical olive oil capsules, 6/d for 2 mo, then 3/d)
undergoing planned PTCABdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 7 months
Italy
Sirtori, 1998
Esapent fish oil capsules 3/d for first 2 mo, 2/d after that (2.6g/dEPA + DHA initially, then 1.8g/d)
versus
placebo (olive oil capsules 3/d for first 2 mo, 2/d after that)
people with raised triglycerides plus glucose intolerance, non-insulindependant diabetes or hypertensiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Italy
Eskisol versus placebo
Rossing, 1996
Eskisol fish oil emulsion 21 ml/d (4.6g EPA +DHA)
versus
placebo (olive oil emulsion 21 ml/d)
people with insulin dependant diabetes, diabetic nephropathy and normalBPdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Denmark
estrogen versus placebo
EPAT, 2001
micronized 17beta-estradiol (1 mg/d)
versus
placebo
postmenopausal women 45 years of age or older without preexisting cardiovascular disease and with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of 3.37 mmol/L or greater (>/=130 mg/dL)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2 y
USA
ERA (estrogen alone ), 2000
NCT00000549
estrogen alone (0.625 mg of conjugated estrogen per day)
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women with established coronary atherosclerosisdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.6y
USA
ESPRIT, 2002
oestradiol valerate 2 mg daily
versus
placebo
postmenopausal women, age 50-69 years who had survived a first myocardial infarctiondouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
England and Wales
Schulman (NHLBI) (estrogen alone), 2002
NCT00000601
intravenous followed by oral conjugated estrogen for 21 days, intravenous estrogen followed by oral conjugated estrogen plus medroxyprogesterone for 21 days
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women with unstable anginadouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
USA, Brazil
WELL-HART (estrogen alone), 2003
NCT00000559
micronized 17beta-estradiol alone
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women with angiographically-documented coronary diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.3 y
USA
WEST, 2001
estrogen therapy (1 mg of estradiol-17beta per day)
versus
placebo
postmenopausal women who had recently had an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attackdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.8 y
USA
CDP estrogen 2.5, 1975
estrogen 2.5 mg daily
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 4.7 years
CDP estrogen 5, 1975
estrogen 5.0 mg daily
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 1.5 years
Marmorstein, 1962
estrogen
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 5.0 y
Stamler, 1963
estrogen
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 5.0 years
VA Neurology Section (estrogen), 1966
estrogen
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 1.4 years
estrogen or thyroxine versus placebo
VA drugs (Estrogen or thyroxine), 1968
estrogen or thyroxine
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 3.2 years
etofibrate versus placebo
Emmerich, 2009
etofibrate 1g/j
versus
placebo
patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant diabetic retinopathydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Germany
evacetrapib versus placebo
ACCELERATE, 2017
NCT01687998
evacetrapib at adose of 130 mg
versus
placebo
Patients at a High-Risk for Vascular Outcomes who had at least one of the following conditions: an acutecoronary syndrome within the previous 30 to 365 days, cerebrovascular atheroscleroticdisease, peripheral vascular arterial disease, or diabetes mellitus with coronaryartery diseasedouble-blind
37 countries
evolocumab versus ezetimibe alone
GAUSS 2,
NCT01763905
evolocumab 140 mg every two weeks (Q2W) or evolocumab 420 mg once monthly (QM)
versus
ezetimibe 10 mg
patients with statin intolerance
evolocumab versus placebo
GAUSS 1, 2012
NCT01375764

versus
statin-intolerant patients
evolocumab versus placebo (on top statins)
DESCARTES, 2014
NCT01516879
evolocumab (420 mg) every 4 weeks
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 52 weeks
FOURIER, 2017
NCT01764633
evolocumab (either 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg monthly)
versus
placebo
patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL cholesterol levels of 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) or higher who were receiving statin therapydouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.2 years
LAPLACE 2, 2014
NCT01763866
evolucumab + statin
versus
placebo + statin
LAPLACE-TIMI 57,
NCT01380730
subcutaneous injections of AMG 145 70 mg, 105 mg, or 140 mg,
versus
placebo
RUTHERFORD-1,
NCT01375751
AMG 145 350 mg, AMG 145 420 mg
versus
placebo
heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients
RUTHERFORD-2, 2015
NCT01763918
subcutaneous evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks, evolocumab 420 mg monthly
versus
placebo
heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia
ezetimibe versus control
IMPROVE-IT, 2014
NCT00202878
10 mg/day of ezetimibe and 40 mg/day of simvastatin
versus
simvastatin 40 mg/day
subjects with stabilized high-risk acute coronary syndrome double blind
Follow-up duration: 5.68 years
39 countries
ezetimibe versus niacin
ARBITER-HALTS 6, 2010
addition of ezetimibe (10 mg/daily) to statin therapy
versus
extended-release niacin 2000 mg/daily
patients at high risk for vascular disease but with LDL-cholesterol levels <100 mg/dL and moderately low HDL-cholesterol levels (<50 mg/dL)open
Follow-up duration: 14 months
ezetimibe versus placebo
Enhance, 2008
ezetimibe 10mg + simvastatin daily
versus
simvastatin 80mg daily
patients with familial hypercholesterolemiadouble blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
ezetimibe+simvastatin versus placebo
SEAS, 2008
NCT00092677
simvastatin 40mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with mild-tomoderate, asymptomatic aortic stenosisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 52.2 mo
Europe
SHARP, 2010
NCT00125593
Simvastatin 20mg/Ezetimibe 10mg
versus
placebo
patients with established chronic kidney disease (dialysis or pre-dialysis)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.9 years
20 countries
fenofibrate versus placebo
FIELD, 2005
ISRCTN64783481
fenofibrate 200 mg daily
versus
placebo
aged 50-75 years, with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and not taking statin therapy at study entry
Follow-up duration: 5y
DAIS, 2001
fenofibrate 200 mg/day
versus
placebo
men and women with type 2 diabetes and coronary atherosclerosis double-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.3 years
Canada, Finland, France, Sweden
FIELD, 2005
ISRCTN64783481
fenofibrate 200mg/d
versus
Placebo
participants aged 50-75 years, with type 2 diabetes mellitus, and not taking statin therapy at study entrydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5 years
Australia, New Zealand, Finland
fenofibrate versus placebo (on top simvastatine)
ACCORD lipid, 2010
NCT00000620
fenofibrate on top simvastatin
versus
placebo (on top simvastatine)
high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes double-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.7y
United States and Canada
ACCORD lipid (subgroup Eye study), 2010
NCT00000620
fenofibrate on top simvastatin
versus
placebo (on top simvastatine)
high-risk patients with type 2 diabetes double-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.7y
United States and Canada
fish oil versus control
Bemelmans, 2002
a-lin rich margarine (80% fat of which 15% was a-lin)
versus
linoleic rich margarine (80% fat of which 0.3% was a-lin), identical in taste and packaging
patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors (10 yr IHD risk ~20%)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
the Netherlands
Brox, 2001
seal oil - 15 ml/d (2.6g EPA + DHA)
versus
no supplement
dyslipidaemiaopen with blind assessment
Franzen, 1993
fish oil capsules, 9g/d (1.8g EPA + 1.4g DHA daily)
versus
olive oil capsules
people with angiographically determined CHDgdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Katan, 1997
Fish oil capsules, all took 9 per day (1.1g omega-3 fats low dose, 2.2g medium dose, 3.3g high dose per day)
versus
9 olive and palm oil capsules (0g omega-3 fats per day)j
healthy monksNA
Follow-up duration: 12 months
The Netherland
Malaguarnera, 1999
EPA + DHA daily (3g/d EPA + DHA) plus IFNa subcutaneously
versus
IFNa subcutaneously only
chronic hepatitis with ALT =2x normal limit for =12 mo open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Italy
Shimizu, 1995
EPA-ethyl capsules 3/d (0.9g/d EPA)
versus
no treatment
people with non-insulin dependant diabetesopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Japan
Terano, 1999
DHA capsules, 6/d (4.3g/d DHA)
versus
no treatment
dementia of CVDopen with blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 12 months
japan
fish oil versus placebo
Almallah, 1998
fish oil extract, 15 ml/d (5.6g EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (sunflower oil, 15 ml/d)
people with distal procto-collitis (ulcerative colitis)single blind and outcome ass.
Follow-up duration: 6 months
UK
Borchgrevink, 1966
linseed oil 10 ml/d initially, later raised to 20 or 30 ml/d (4.5g/d a-lin, later 9 or 13.5 g/d)
versus
placebo (corn oil, 10 ml/d initially, later raised to 20 or 30 ml/d)
men with impending or recent myocardial infarctionage/pdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: mean 10 months (range 3-16 mo)
Norway
Dry, 1991
Liparmonyl (1g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo
people with asthmadouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
France
Geusens, 1994
high and ow dose fish oil capsules
versus
placebo (olive oil capsules, 6/d)
people with active rheumatoid arthritis on NSAIDs or DMARDsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Belgium
Leaf, 1994
fish oil concentrate capsules 10x1 g/d (6.9g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (corn oil capsules 10x1 g/d with 0.4% fish oil to maintain blinding (0.003g/d EPA + DHA))
people undergoing angioplastydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
US
Loeschke, 1996
fish oil capsules 6x1 g/d (5.1g/d omega-3 fats), with orange flavour
versus
placebo (maize oil capsules 6x1 g/d with orange flavour)
people with ulcerative colitis, in remissiondouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
Germany
Lorenz-Meyer, 1996
ethyl ester fish oil concentrate capsules 6x1 g daily (5.1g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (corn oil capsules 6x1 g daily)
people with Crohn’s disease in remissiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Sacks (TOHP 1), 1994
NCT00000528
fish oil
versus
placebo
double blinddouble-blind
von Schacky, 1999
concentrated fish oil capsules, 6/d for first 3 mo, 3/d for rest of study (4g/d EPA +DHA + DPA+ a-lin for first 3 mo, then 2g/d)
versus
placebo (capsules containing fat which replicated the fat composition of the average European diet, 6/d forfirst 3 mo, 3/d for rest of study, opaque soft gelatine capsules identical to fish capsules)
people with angiographically proven coronary artery diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
Germany
fluvastatin versus placebo
LIPS (diabetic sub group), 2002
fluvastatin
versus
placebo
patients (aged 18-80 years) with stable or unstable angina or silent ischemia following successful completion of their first PCI who had baseline total cholesterol levels between 135 and 270 mg/dLdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.9y
ALERT (diabetic sub group), 2003
fluvastatin
versus
placebo
renal transplant recipients with total cholesterol 4·0–9·0 mmol/Ldouble blind
ALERT, 2003
fluvastatin
versus
placebo
renal transplant recipients with total cholesterol 4·0–9·0 mmol/L.double blind
Follow-up duration: 5.1 years
FLARE (elderly subgroup), 1999
Fluvastatin 80mg
versus
CAD requiring PCI, subgroup of age 65-80 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 0.8y
LIPS (sub groups), 2002
Fluvastatin, 80 mg
versus
Placebo
patients with unstable angina and successful first percutaneous coronary interventiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1, 4, and 6 months
Europe, Canada, and Brazil
ALERT, 2003
fluvastatin 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
renal transplant recipients with total cholesterol 4.0-9.0 mmol/Ldouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 5.1 years
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway,
LIPS (elderly subgroup), 2002
Fluvastatin 80mg
versus
CAD requiring PCI, subgroup of age 65-80 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.9y
FLORIDA, 2002
Fluvastatin, 80 mg (early initiation)
versus
Placebo
patients with an AMI and total cholesterol of <6.5 mmol.ldouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1, 4, and 6 months
The Netherlands
BCAPS, 2001
fluvastatin 40 mg once daily
versus
placebo
subjects who had carotid plaque but no symptoms of carotid artery diseasedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.0 years
Sweden
FLARE, 1999
fluvastatin 40 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
successful coronary balloon angioplastydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 40 weeks
HYRIM, 2005
fluvastatin 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
drug-treated hypertensive men aged 40-74 years with total cholesterol 4.5-8.0 mmol/L, triglycerides <4.5 mmol/L, body mass index 25-35 kg/m2, and a sedentary lifestyledouble blind
Follow-up duration: 4 year
Norway
LCAS, 1997
fluvastatin 20 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
men and women aged 35 to 75 years with angiographic CHD and mean low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol of 115 to 190 mg/dl despite dietdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.5 years
LIPS, 2002
fluvastatin, 80 mg/d
versus
placebo
patients (aged 18-80 years) with stable or unstable angina or silent ischemia following successful completion of their first PCI who had baseline total cholesterol levels between 3.5-7.0 mmol/L and with fasting triglyceride levels of less than 4.5 mmol/Ldouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.9 years
Europe, Canada, and Brazil
Riegger et al., 1999
fluvastatin 40 mg (o.a.d. or b.i.d.)
versus
placebo
hyperlipidaemic patients with symptomatic, clinically-diagnosed (exercise-ECG) coronary heart disease double blind
Follow-up duration: 1.0 years
folic acid versus control
FOLARDA (Liem), 2004
folic acid 5 mg per day for 1 year
versus
usual care
patients with acute MI and total cholesterol >6.5 mmol/l open
Follow-up duration: 1 year
The Netherlands
GOES (Liem), 2003
folic acid 0.5 mg per day
versus
usual care
patients with stable coronary artery diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 24 months
The Netherlands
folic acid versus placebo
CSPPT, 2015
NCT00794885
enalapril 10 mg / folic acid 0.8 mg daily
versus
Enalapril maleate 10 mg daily
patients with primary hypertension double-blind
China
CHAOS-2, 2002
folic acid 5 mg per day (for 2 years)
versus
placebo
patient with CHDdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.7 y
folic acid, B12 versus control
NORVIT (folic acid + B12) (Bonaa), 2006
NCT00266487
folic acid 0.8mg and B12 0.4 mg daily
versus
no folic acid and B12
men and women who had had an acute myocardial infarction within seven days before double-blind
Follow-up duration: 36 months
Norway
folic acid, B12 versus placebo
WENBIT (folic ac,B12), 2008
NCT00354081
folic acid 0.8mg, vit B12 0.4mg daily
versus
placebo
adult participants undergoing coronary angiography double blind
Follow-up duration: 38.4 mo
Norway
SEARCH, 2007
NCT00124072
folic acid 2mg/d + vitamin B12 1mg/d
versus
placebo
patients survivors of myocardial infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 7 years
UK
folic acid, vit B12 and vit B6 versus control
NORVIT (folic acid, B12 and vit B6) (Bonaa), 2006
NCT00266487
0.8 mg of folic acid, 0.4 mg of vitamin B12, and 40 mg of vitamin B6
versus
placebo
men and women who had had an acute myocardial infarction within seven days double-blind
Follow-up duration: 36 months
Norway
folic acid, vit B12 and vit B6 versus placebo
VITATOPS, 2010
NCT00097669ÐX&
folic acid and vitamins B12 and B6 in a single tablet
versus
placebo
patients with recent stroke or TIA (within the past seven months)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.4 y
20 countries
SU.FOL.OM3,
ISRCTN41926726
supplementation with natural foLate, vitamin B6 and B12
versus
placebo
patients with coronary or cerebral event within the previous 12 monthsdouble-blind
France
HOPE-2 (Lonn), 2006
NCT00106886
folic acid, 2.5 mg, vitamin B6,50 mg and vitamin B12, 1mg
versus
placebo
patients 55 years of age or older who had vascular disease or diabetes and additional risk factors for atherosclerosisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: Jan 2000 - dec 2000
13 countries
WAFACS, 2008
NCT00000541
folic acid 2.5mg, vitamin B6 50mg, and vitamin B12 1mg daily
versus
placebo
women aged 42 years or older, with either a history of CVD or 3 or more coronary risk factorsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 7.3 y
US
gemfibrozil versus placebo
HHS (diabetic sub group), 1987
gemfibrozil 600mg twice daily
versus
placebo
asymptomatic middle-aged men (40 to 55 years of age) with primary dyslipidemia (non-HDL cholesterol greater than or equal to 200 mg per deciliter double blind
VA-HIT (diabetic sub group), 1999
gemfibrozil 1200 mg per day
versus
placebo
men with coronary heart disease, an HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.0 mmol per liter) or less, and an LDL cholesterol level of 140 mg per deciliter (3.6 mmol per liter) or less.double blind
Follow-up duration: 5.1 y
Helsinki (HHS), 1987
gemfibrozil 1,2 g/d
versus
placebo
asymptomatic middle-aged men (40 to 55 years of age) with primary dyslipidemia (non-HDL cholesterol greater than or equal to 200 mg per deciliter [5.2 mmol per liter]double blind
Follow-up duration: 5 years
Finland
HHS (Frick)(secondary prev subgroup), 1993
gemfibrozil 600 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
individuals who exhibited symptoms and signs of possible coronary heart disease double blind
Follow-up duration: 5.0 years
Sweden
LOCAT, 1997
gemfibrozil 1200 mg/d
versus
placebo
post-coronary bypass men, who had an HDL cholesterol concentration < or = 1.1 mmol/L and LDL cholesterol < or = 4.5 mmol/Ldouble blind
Follow-up duration: 32 months
Germany
VA-HIT, 1999
NCT00283335
gemfibrozil 1.2g daily
versus
placebo
men with coronary heart disease, an HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.0 mmol per liter) or less, and an LDL cholesterol level of 140 mg per deciliter (3.6 mmol per liter) or lessdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5.1 years
USA
HiEPA versus placebo
Hawthorne, 1992
HiEPA oil, 10 ml x 2/d (5.6g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (olive oil, 10 ml x 2/d (0g/d EPA + DHA))
people with ulcerative colitisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
UK
high dose - folic acid, vit B12 and vit B6 versus low dose - folic acid, vit B12 and vit B6
VISP (Toole), 2004
high-dose of folic acid, pyridoxine (vitamin B6), and cobalamin (vitamin B12)
versus
low-dose of folic acid, pyridoxine (vitamin B6), and cobalamin (vitamin B12)
adults with nondisabling cerebral infarctiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 y
United States, Canada, Scotland
hormonal replacement therapy versus placebo
PEPI, 1995
NCT00000466
estrogen replacement therapy
versus
placebo
Postmenopausal women, ages 45 to 64double blind
Follow-up duration: 3 years
USA
intensive lipid-lowering therapy versus diet
FATS, 1990
NCT00000512
intensive lipid-lowering therapy with various drugs
versus
placebo
men no more than 62 years of age who had apolipoprotein B levels greater than or equal to 125 mg per deciliter, documented coronary artery disease, and a family history of vascular diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 2.5 years
Japan
ketanserine versus placebo
Thulesius, 1987
Ketanserin 60 mg / j pdt 2 semaines 120 mg / j ensuite
versus
Placebo
patients with intermittent claudication (stade II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Walden, 1991
Ketanserin 60 mg / j pdt 1 mois 120 mg / j ensuite
versus
Placebo
patients with intermittent claudication (stade II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 15 months
PACK, 1996
Ketanserin 40 mg / j pdt 1 mois 80 mg / j ensuite
versus
Placebo
patients over 40 years old who had had documented intermittent claudication for at least two months and in whom the ratio of systolic blood pressure in the ankle to that in the arm was less than or equal to 0.85 in both arteries of at least one footdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
lovastatin versus placebo
ACAPS, 1994
NCT00000469
lovastatin 20mg daily
versus
placebo
men and women, 40 to 79 years old, with early carotid atherosclerosis and moderately elevated LDL cholesterol.double blind
Follow-up duration: 2.8 years
USA
AFCAPS/TexCAPS (diabetic sub group), 1998
lovastatin
versus
placebo
men and women without clinically evident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with average total cholesterol (TC) and LDL-C levels and below-average high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levelsdouble blind
AFCAPS/TexCAPS, 1998
lovastatin 20-40 mg/d
versus
placebo
men and women without clinically evident atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with average total cholesterol (TC) and LDL-C levels and below-average high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levelsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5.2 years
USA
CCAIT, 1994
lovastatin begun at 20 mg/d and titrated to 40 and 80 mg during the first 16 weeks to attain a fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol < or = 130 mg/dL
versus
placebo
patients with diffuse but not necessarily severe coronary atherosclerosis documented on a recent arteriogram and with fasting serum cholesterol between 220 and 300 mg/dL double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Canada
CRISP 20mg, 1994
NCT00000477
lovastatin 20mg daily
versus
placebo
elderly (mean 71y) with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels greater than 4.1 and less than 5.7 mmol/L double blind
Follow-up duration: 1 years
CRISP 40mg, 1994
NCT00000477
lovastatin 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
elderly (mean 71y) with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels greater than 4.1 and less than 5.7 mmol/L double blind
Follow-up duration: 1 years
Excel, 1991
lovastatin (20 mg once daily, 40 mg once daily, 20 mg twice daily, or 40 mg twice daily)
versus
placebo
patients with moderate hypercholesterolemiadouble blind
Follow-up duration: 0.9 years
MARS, 1993
NCT00116870
lovastatin 80 mg/day
versus
placebo
patients, 37 to 67 years old, with total cholesterol ranging from 4.92 to 7.64 mmol/L (190 to 295 mg/dL) and angiographically defined coronary artery disease double blind
Follow-up duration: 2.0y
Weintraub, 1994
lovastatin 40 mg orally twice daily
versus
placebo
patients undergoing PTCA double blind
Follow-up duration: 0.5 years
Lovastatin versus placebo
AFCAPS (women subgroup) , 1998
Lovastatin 20–40 mg daily
versus
placebo
men and postmenopausal women without clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) who had average low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and below average high-density lipoprotein cholesterol - subgroup of womendouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5.2 y
US
lovastatin versus usual care
CLAPT, 1999
lovastatin begun at 20 mg daily and tritrated up to 80 mg daily
versus
usual care
patients underwenting PTCA open (blind assessement)
Follow-up duration: 2.0 years
Sahni, 1991
lovastatin 20-40mg/d
versus
conventional therapy alone
patients undergoing successful PTCA open
Follow-up duration: 2 years
low fat diet versus mediterranean-style diet
Tuttle, 2008
low-fat
versus
Mediterranean-style diets
First MI survivorsopen
Follow-up duration: 24 months
MaxEPA versus control
Bellamy, 1992
MaxEPA capsules (3g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
no treatment
people referred for coronary angioplastyNA
Follow-up duration: 7 months
UK
Dehmer, 1998
MaxEPA capsules, 18/d (5.4g EPA + DHA daily)
versus
no treatment
men undergoing coronary angioplasty imagopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
US
Kaul, 1992
MaxEPA capsules, 10/d (3g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
no treatment
people undergoing angioplastyopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
India
MaxEPA versus placebo
Bairati, 1992
MaxEPA, 15 capsules/d (4.5g EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (olive oil, 15 capsules/d)
patients undergoing planned angioplastydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 7 months
Canada
Greenfield, 1993
MaxEPA capsules, 12/d for first month, then 6/d (3.7g/d initially, then 1.9g EPA + DHAdaily), all with peppermint oil to disguise taste
versus
placebo (olive oil capsules, 12/d for first month, then 6/d. Looked like MaxEPA and had added peppermint oil)
people with stable ulcerative colitismagdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
UK
Lau, 1993
MaxEPA 10x 1g capsules daily (2.8g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (air-filled capsules, 10/d)
people with rheumatoid arthritispdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
UK
Lau, 1995
MaxEPA 10x 1g capsules daily (2.8g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (air-filled capsules, 10/d)
people with rheumatoid arthritis double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Hong Kong
Nye, 1990
MaxEPA capsules 12/d (2.2g EPA)
versus
placebo (olive oil capsules, 12/d, identical to MaxEPA)
people undergoing angioplastydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
New Zealand
Singh, 1997
MaxEPA fish oil capsules 6/d (1.8g EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (aluminium hydroxide 100 mg/d)
people with suspected acute MIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
India
Skoldstam, 1992
MaxEPA fish oil capsules 10/d (3.0g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (vegetable oil capsules 10/d)
people with rheumatoid arthritisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Sweden
Thien, 1993
MaxEPA capsules, 18/d (5.4g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (olive oil capsules 18/d)
hayfever and asthmadouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Australia
Mediterranean diet versus control
Lyon,

versus
Mediterranean diet with EOVV versus control
PREDIMED (olive oil), 2013
ISRCTN35739639
Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil
versus
control diet (advice to reduce dietary fat)
participants who were at high cardiovascular risk, but with no cardiovascular diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 4.8 years
Spain
Mediterranean diet with nuts versus control
PREDIMED (nuts), 2013
ISRCTN35739639
Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts
versus
control diet (advice to reduce dietary fat)
participants who were at high cardiovascular risk, but with no cardiovascular disease open
Follow-up duration: 4.8 years
Spain
Multiple risk factor interventions versus control
CELL, 1995
intensive" health care advice through six group sessions
versus
usual care
subjects aged 30-59 years, with at least two cardiovascular risk factors in addition to moderately high lipid concentrations: total cholesterol > or = 6.5 mmol/l on three occasions, triglycerides < 4.0 mmol/l, and ratio of low density lipoprotein cholesterol to high density lipoprotein cholesterol > 4.0open
Follow-up duration: 18 months
Family Heart, 1994
Nurse led programme using a family centred approach with follow up according to degree of risk. Counselling on diet, weight, smoking, exercise, alcohol
versus
control
men aged 40-59 and their partners double-blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
UK
Göteborg Study, 1986
multifactorial intervention programme on coronary heart disease
versus
no intervention
random sample of men age 47-55 yopen
Follow-up duration: 11.8 yr
Sweden
HDFP, 1979
NCT00000498
Stepped care: Antihypertensive drugs, diet, smoking advice, weight control, exercise
versus
usual primary care
persons with high blood pressure open
Follow-up duration: 5 yr
USA
Helsinki Businessmen Study, 1985
Multifactorial prevention of cardiovascular diseases
versus
no intervention
healthy men 40-58 y at high riskopen
Follow-up duration: 5 yr
Finland
Johns Hopkins, 1983
health education interventions
versus
control
hypertensives men and womenopen
Follow-up duration: 5 yr
USA
Meland, 1997
patient-centred, self-directive intervention of lifestyle changes in general practice
versus
conventional care
men with high coronary heart disease risk open
Follow-up duration: 1 y
MRFIT, 1982
NCT00000487?acronym=
special intervention (SI) program consisting of stepped-care treatment for hypertension, counseling for cigarette smoking, and dietary advice for lowering blood cholesterol levels
versus
no intervention
high-risk men aged 35 to 57 yearsopen
Follow-up duration: 6 yr
Oslo, 1981
recommendation to lower their blood lipids by change of diet and to stop smoking
versus
no intervention
healthy, normotensive men at high risk of coronary heart disease open
Follow-up duration: 5 yr
Oslo, Norway
OXCHECK, 1994
health checks by nurses
versus
no intervention
patients from general practice aged 35-64 years open
Follow-up duration: 3 yr
UK
WHO Factories, 1982
multifactorial prevention of coronary heart disease
versus
no intervention
men employed in 80 factories in Belgium, Italy, Poland, and the UK open
Follow-up duration: 6 years
Belgium, Italy, Poland, and the UK
niacin versus control
VA drugs, 1968
niacin
versus
double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.2 years
niacin versus ezetimibe
ARBITER 6-HALTS (niacin vs ezetimibe), 2009
NCT00397657
extended-release niacin 1 g/d, titrated to max tolerable dose up to 2 g/d (HDL-focused strategy)
versus
ezetimibe 10 mg/d (LDL-focused strategy)
patients with known coronary or vascular disease or coronary risk equivalentsopen
Follow-up duration: 14 months
US
niacin versus placebo
CDP niacin, 1975
niacin 3 mg/d
versus
placebo
Hommes, de 30 à 64 ans double blind
Follow-up duration: 6.2 years
niacin versus placebo (on top statin)
AIM-HIGH, 2011
NCT00120289
high-dose, extended-release niacin in gradually increasing doses up to 2000 mg daily (+ simvastatin)
versus
placebo
patients with a history of cardiovascular disease, high triglycerides, and low levels of HDL cholesteroldouble blind
Follow-up duration: 32 months
US, Canada
HPS 2-Thrive,
NCT00461630
2 g of extended-release niacin and 40 mg of laropiprant
versus
placebo
patients with vascular diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.9y (median)
UK, Scandinavia, China
Oxford Niaspan Study, 2009
NCT00232531
niacin 2g daily (added to statin therapy)
versus
placebo (statins alone)
patients with low HDL-C (<40 mg/dl) and either a type 2 diabetes with coronary heart disease or a carotid/peripheral atherosclerosisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
USA
ARBITER 2, 2009
long-acting niacin target dose of 1 g/day (added to statin therapy)
versus
placebo
patients with known coronary artery disease and well controlled on statin therapydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
USA
HATS, 2001
simvastatin plus niacin
versus
placebo
patients with coronary disease, low HDL cholesterol levels and normal LDL cholesterol levels double blind
Follow-up duration: 3 y
USA, Canada
niacin+colestipol versus control
UCSF SCOR, 1990
Niacin 0–7.5 g colestipol 15–20 g
versus
Conventional therapy
patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia
Follow-up duration: 26 months
niacin+colestipol versus placebo
FATS, 1990
niacin (1 g four times a day) and colestipol (10 g three times a day)
versus
placebo (or colestipol if the low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol level was elevated)
men no more than 62 years of age with apolipoprotein B levels greater than or equal to 125 mg per deciliter, documented coronary artery disease, and a family history of vascular diseasedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.5 years
niacin+ezetimibe versus simvastatin+ezetimibe
Guyton, 2008
Niacin 2 g ezetimibe 10 mg simvastatin 20 mg
versus
Ezetimibe 10 mg simvastatin 20 mg
patients with type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemiadouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 weeks
nicoumalone or phenprocoumon versus placebo
ASPECT, 1994
anticoagulant (nicoumalone or phenprocoumon)
versus
placebo
hospital survivors of myocardial infarction
Follow-up duration: 37 months
Omacor versus control
Eritsland, 1996
Omacor capsules, 4/d (3.3g EPA + DHA daily)
versus
no treatment
people admitted for coronary bypass graftingopen
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Norway
GISSI-P, 1999
Omacor gelatine capsules, 1/d (0.9g/d EPA + DHA daily)
versus
no treatment
people with recent myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: median 40 months
Italy
Omacor versus placebo
Johansen, 1999
Omacor capsules, 6/d (5g EPA + DHA daily)
versus
placebo (corn oil capsules, 6/d)
people about to undergo elective coronary angioplastydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6.5 months
Norway
Nilsen, 2001
Omacor capsules 4/d (3.5g EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (corn oil capsules, 4/d)
people with acute myocardial infarction 4-8 days agoe/pjdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
Norway
omega-3 Fatty acids versus control
OMEGA, 2009
NCT00251134
omega-3 fatty acids 1g daily (and standard medical therapy)
versus
standard medical therapy alone
Patients within 3-14 days after a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)open
Follow-up duration: 1 year
Germany
omega-3 Fatty acids versus placebo
ALPHA OMEGA (EPA DHA), 2010
NCT00127452
400 mg per day supplement of the fish oil fatty acids EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) via enriched margarines
versus
placebo
men and women with a history of myocardial infarction double-blind
Follow-up duration: 40 months
the Netherlands
Risk and Prevention Study, 2013
NCT00317707.)
n-3 fatty acids (1 g daily)
versus
placebo (olive oil)
men and women with multiple cardiovascular risk factors or atherosclerotic vascular disease but not myocardial infarction double-blind
Follow-up duration: 5 year (median)
omega-3 fatty acids versus placebo
GISSI HF fatty acid, 2008
NCT00336336.
n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) 1 g daily
versus
placebo
Patients with NYHA classes II to IV heart failure, whatever the cause and the LVEF and already receiving optimized recommended therapy with no clear indication or contraindication to cholesterollowering therapy double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.9y median (IQR 3-4.4)
Italy
pactimibe versus placebo
CAPTIVATE, 2009
NCT00151788
pactimibe 100mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and carotid atherosclerosis double blind
Follow-up duration: 15 months (mean)
United States, Canada, Europe, South Africa, Israel
ACTIVATE, 2006
NCT00185042
pactimibe 100 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with angiographicallydocumented coronary diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 18 months
partial ileum bypass surgery versus no surgery
POSCH, 1990
NCT00000490
partial ileum bypass surgery
versus
no surgery
survivors to a first myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 9.7 years
phenprocoumon versus placebo
Breddin, 1980

versus
patients who had survived a myocardial infarction for 30-42 days double-blind
picotamide versus placebo
Cocozza, 1995
picotamide 300 mg TID
versus
placebo
normotensive diabetic patients with asymptomatic mild or moderate nonstenotic (< 50%) carotid atherosclerotic lesions and negative history of cerebrovascular ischemic eventsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
Italy
Coto, 1989
Picotamide 900 mg / j
versus
Placebo
patients with peripheral occlusive arterial disease of the lower limbs at functional stage II of the Fontaine classificationdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
ADEP, 1993
Picotamide 600 mg / j
versus
Placebo
patients with peripheral obstructive arterial disease (stade II+)double blind
Follow-up duration: 18 months
Neirotti, 1994
Picotamide 900 mg / j
versus
Placebo
patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD) at functional stage 2 of the Fontaine classification and with intermittent claudication for at least six months double blind
Follow-up duration: 18 months
Pikasol versus placebo
Bonnema, 1995
Pikasol fish oil capsules, 6x1 g/d (3.3g EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (olive oil capsules, 6x1 g/d)
people with insulin treated diabetes and microalbuminureakÒýÛ•£Kdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
Denmark
pitavastatin versus atorvastatin
JAPAN ACS, 2009
NCT00242944
pitavastatin 4 mg daily
versus
atorvastatin 20mg daily
patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing IVUS-guided percutaneous coronary intervention open
Follow-up duration: 8-12 months
Japan
policosanol versus control
Batista, 1996
policosanol
versus

Follow-up duration: 1.7 years
Castano, 2001
policosanol 10 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
intermittent claudicationdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Más, 1999
policosanol 5mg titrted up for 10mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with type II hypercholesterolemia and additional coronary risk factorsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 24 weeks
polypill versus error
TIPS, 2009
NCT00443794
Polycap
versus
Polycap components in eight formulations
subjects aged 45 to 80 years of age with at least one additional cardiovascular risk factordouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3 months
pravastatin versus control
FAST Fukuoka pravastatin, 2002
pravastatin 10 mg/day
versus
control group (diet alone)
asymptomatic hypercholesterolemic patients open
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Japan
MEGA, 2006
NCT00211705
pravastatin 10 mg daily (20 mg per day if the total cholesterolconcentration did not decrease to 5·69 mmol/L or less)
versus
control
patients with hypercholesterolaemia (total cholesterol 5·69–6·98 mmol/L) and no history of coronary heart disease or strokeopen, blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 5.3 y
Japan
pravastatin versus placebo
LAMIL, 1997
Pravastatin, 10-20 mg (starting at D3)
versus
Placebo
patients suffering an acute myocardial infarction double blind
Follow-up duration: 1 and 3 months
Belgium
Pravastatin versus placebo
CARE (elderly subgroup), 1998
Pravastatin 40mg
versus
MI 3–20 months, subgroup of age 65-75 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5.0y
pravastatin versus placebo
RECIFE, 1999
Pravastatin, 40 mg
versus
Placebo
Patients with acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina and total cholesterol levels at admission >=5.2 mmol/L or LDL >=3.4 mmol/L double blind
Follow-up duration: 1.5 months
Canada
Pravastatin versus placebo
LIPID (elderly sub group), 2001
Pravastatin 40mg
versus
MI or unstable angina, subgroup of age 65-75 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6.1y
pravastatin versus placebo
PROSPER diabetic (sub group), 2002
pravastatin 40mg daily
versus
placebo
mena and women aged 70–82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.2y mean
LIPID (diabetic sub group), 1998
pravastatin 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with a history of myocardial infarction or hospitalization for unstable angina and initial plasma total cholesterol levels of 155 to 271 mg per deciliterdouble blind
Follow-up duration: mean 6.1y
Australia, New Zealand
CARE (diabetic sub group), 1998
pravastatin
versus
placebo
men and postmenopausal women between 21 to 75 years of age, with MI between 3 and 20 months before randomization and plasma total cholesterol values <240mg/dL, LDL-C levels between 115 and 174mg/dL, and triglycerides <350mg/dL
WOSCOPS (diabetic sub group), 1996
pravastatin 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
men aged 45-64 years with no history of myocardial infarction and plasma total cholesterol concentrations of 6.5-8.0 mmol/L at initial screeningdouble blind
Follow-up duration: mean 4.9y
PAIS, 2001
Pravastatin, 40 mg (initiated within 48 hours of hospital admission)
versus
Placebo
patients with acute coronary syndromesdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 and 3 months
The Netherlands
Pravastatin versus placebo
PLAC I (elderly sub group), 1995
Pravastatin 40mg
versus
Angiographic CAD or recent MI, subgroup of age 65-75 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2.3y
REGRESS (elderly subgroup), 1995
Pravastatin 40mg
versus
Angiographic CAD, subgroup of age 65-70 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2.0y
pravastatin versus placebo
PACT, 2004
Pravastatin, 20-40 mg within 24 hours of the onset of symptoms in
versus
Placebo
patients with unstable angina, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction within 24 hours of the onset of symptomsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 months
Australia
CAIUS, 1996
pravastatin 40mg/d
versus
placebo
asymptomatic patients with hypercholesterolemia and at least one 1.3 < IMT < 3.5 mm in the carotid arteriesdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3 years
Italy
CARE, 1996
pravastatin 40 mg/d
versus
placebo
men and women with myocardial infarction who had plasma totalcholesterol levels below 240 mg per deciliter (mean,209) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterollevels of 115 to 174 mg per deciliterdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5 years
USA, Canada
KAPS, 1995
pravastatin 40mg/d
versus
placebo
Hypercholesterolemics men with serum LDL-C > or = 4.0 mmol/L and total cholesterol < 7.5 mmol/Ldouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3 years
Finland
LIPID, 1998
pravastatin 40 mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with previous myocardial infarction or unstable angina and a baseline plasma cholesterol concentration of 4.0-7.0 mmol/Ldouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6.1 years
Australie et Nouvelle Zélande
PACT, 2004
pravastatin initiated within 24 hours of onset of synmptoms and for 4 weeks
versus
placebo
patients with unstable angina, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction <24 hoursdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 30 days
PHYLLIS, 2004
pravastatin (40 mg per day)
versus
placebo
hypertensive, hypercholesterolemic patients with asymptomatic carotid atherosclerosis double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.6 y
Italy
PLAC I, 1995
pravastatin 40mg daily
versus
placebo
men and women with coronary artery disease and mild to moderate elevations in cholesterol levelsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3 y
United States
PLAC II, 1995
pravastatin 20-40mg daily
versus
placebo
coronary patients (men and women )double blind
Follow-up duration: 3 y
United States
PMSG, 1993
pravastatin 20 mg once daily
versus
placebo
patients with hypercholesterolemia(serum total cholesterol concentrations of 5.2 to 7.8 mmol/liter) and > or = 2 additional risk factors for atherosclerotic coronary artery diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 26 weeks
PREVEND IT, 2004
pravastatin 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
subjects with microalbuminuriadouble blind
Follow-up duration: 46 months
the Netherlands
PROSPER, 2002
pravastatin 40mg daily
versus
placebo
men and women aged 70-82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular diseasedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.2 years
Ecosse, Irelande, Pays bas
PROSPER (primary prevention subgroup), 2002
pravastatin 40mg/d
versus
placebo
men and women aged 70-82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease; primary prevention subgroup double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.2 years
Ecosse, Irelande, Pays bas
REGRESS, 1995
pravastatin 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
symptomatic men with normal to moderately elevated serum cholesterol levelsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Netherlands
WOSCOPS, 1995
pravastatine 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
men aged 45-64 yr with no history of myocardial infarction and with raised plasma cholesterol levels (LDL cholesterol of at least 155 mg/dL, total cholesterol of at least 252 mg/dL) double blind
Follow-up duration: 4.9 years
Scotland
Pravastatin versus placebo
ALLHAT (women subgroup) , 2002
Pravastatin 40 mg daily
versus
control
Ambulatory persons, aged 55 years or older, with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 120 to 189 mg/dL (100 to 129 mg/dL if known CHD) and triglycerides lower than 350 mg/dL- subgroup of womenopen
Follow-up duration: 4.8 y
US
MEGA (women subgroup) , 2006
Pravastatin 10–20 mg daily
versus
control
patients with hypercholesterolaemia (total cholesterol 5.69-6.98 mmol/L) and no history of coronary heart disease or stroke- subgroup of womenopen
Follow-up duration: 5.3 y
Japan
pravastatin versus usual care
L-CAD, 2000
Pravastatin, 20-40 mg (strating on average at D6)
versus
Usual care
patients with acute coronary syndrome open
Follow-up duration: 1, 4, and 6 months
Germany
GISSI P (diabetic sub group), 2000
pravastatin 20 mg daily
versus
usual care
recent acute myocardial infarction patients (< or = 6 months) with total blood cholesterol > or = 200 mg/dl open
Follow-up duration: median 24.3 months
ALLHAT-LLT (diabetic sub group), 2002
pravastatin
versus
usual care
Ambulatory persons aged 55 years or older, with lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 120 to 189 mg/dL (100 to 129 mg/dL if known CHD) and triglycerides lower than 350 mg/dLopen
PTT, 2002
Pravastatin, 40 mg
versus
Usual care
patients who underwent coronary balloon angioplasty of the infarct-related artery during the first month of acute myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 1 and 6 months
Turkey
ALLHAT, 2002
NCT00000542
pravastatin 40mg/d
versus
usual care
aged 55 years or older, moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive participants with at least 1 additional CHD risk factoropen
Follow-up duration: 4.8 years
USA, Puerto Rico, Canada
OACIS-LIPID, 2008
pravastatin 10 mg/daily
versus
no pravastatin
patients with AMI who had plasma total cholesterol levels of 200-250 mg/dl and triglyceride levels <300 mg/dlopen
Follow-up duration: 9 months
GISSI Prevenzione, 2000
low-dose pravastatin regimen 20 mg daily
versus
control
recent acute myocardial infarction patients (<= 6 months) with total blood cholesterol >= 200 mg/dl and < 250 mg/dl and after a period of 3–6 months showed plasma cholesterol levels >=200 mg/ dL despite adequate dietary recommendationsopen
Follow-up duration: 23 months (mean)
Italy
KLIS, 2000
pravastatin 10-20 mg/day
versus
conventional treatment
Japanese men aged 45-74 years with serum total cholesterol of > or = 220 mg/dl (5.69 mmol/l), primary prevenionopen
Follow-up duration: 5 years
Japan
pravastatin high dose versus pravastatin
PROVE IT TIMI 22 (diabetic sub group), 2006
pravastatin 80mg daily
versus
pravastatin 40mg daily
patients hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 daysdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months mean
probucol versus control
FATS Fukosawa (probucol), 2002
probucol 500 mg/day
versus
diet alone
asymptomatic patients with hypercholesterolemiaopen
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Japan
probucol versus placebo
PQRST, 1994
Probucol 1 g / j pendant 3 ans
versus
placebo, de même aspect(2 tablettes par jour)pendant 3 ans
Stade II: 70%Double aveugle
Follow-up duration: 3 ans
Probucol versus placebo
McCaughan, 1981
probucol
versus
placebo
hypercholesterolemic mendouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1 year
probucol versus placebo
PQRST, 1994
probucol 0.5 g twice daily
versus
placebo
hypercholesterolemic patients with visible atherosclerosis double blind
Follow-up duration: 3 y
Probucol versus placebo
Tardif, 1997
probucol 500 mg
versus
placebo
patients undergoing PTCAopen
Follow-up duration: 0.5 years
Promega versus control
Milner, 1989
Promega 9 capsules/d (4.5g EPA + DHA)
versus
no treatment
people about to undergo angioplastyopen with blind assessment
Follow-up duration: 6 months
US
Promega versus placebo
Connor, 1993
Promega oil, 15g/d (6g/d EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (Olive oil, 15g/d)
people with non-insulin dependant diabetes and hypertiglyceridaemiadouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
US
Sacks (HARP), 1995
Promega capsules 12x1 g/d (6.0g EPA + DHA + DPA)
versus
placebo (olive oil capsules, 12x1 g/d)
people with angiographically documented CHD DPA)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 29 months
US
PurEPA versus placebo
Belluzzi, 1996
PurEPA 3 enteric coated capsules/d (0.9g EPA + DHA)
versus
placebo (Mixed TG 3 enteric coated capsules)
established Crohn’s disease, in remissiondouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
rimonabant versus placebo
STRADIVARIUS, 2008
NCT00124332
rimonabant 20 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with abdominal obesity and the metabolic syndromedouble-blind
North America, Europe, and Australia
CRESCENDO, 2010
NCT00263042
rimonabant 20 mg
versus
placebo
patients patients with abdominal obesity and with previously manifest or increased risk of vascular diseasedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 13.8 months
42 countries
rimonabant 20mg versus placebo
RIO europe 20mg, 2005
rimonabant 20mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with body-mass index 30 kg/m2 or greater, or body-mass index greater than 27 kg/m2 with treated or untreated dyslipidaemia, hypertension, or bothtž-dtDouble blind
Europe and USA
Rio-lipid 20 mg, 2005
rimonabant 20 mg daily
versus
placebo
overweight or obese patients (body-mass index 27 to 40) with untreated dyslipidemia (triglyceride levels >1.69 to 7.90 mmol per liter, or a ratio of cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol of >4.5 among women and >5 among men)Double blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
worlwide (8 countries)
RIO-North America 20 mg, 2006
NCT00029861
rimonabant 20mg daily
versus
placebo
obese (body mass index >=30) or overweight (body mass index >=27 and treated or untreated hypertension or dyslipidemia) adult patientsDouble blind
US and Canada
rimonabant 20mg versus rimonabant 5mg
RIO europe (20 vs 5 mg), 2005

versus
rimonabant 5mg versus placebo
RIO europe 5mg, 2005
5 mg rimonabant
versus
placebo
patients with body-mass index 30 kg/m2 or greater, or body-mass index greater than 27 kg/m2 with treated or untreated dyslipidaemia, hypertension, or bothdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
rivaroxaban versus aspirin
COMPASS (rivaroxaban alone), 2017
NCT01776424
Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily alone
versus
aspirin 100 mg once daily
Patients With Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease
rivaroxaban + aspirin versus aspirin
COMPASS (rivaroxaban + aspirin), 2017
NCT01776424
rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily)
versus
aspirin 100 mg once daily
Patients With Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease double-blind
Follow-up duration: 23 months
rosuvastatin versus placebo
JUPITER (elderly sub group), 2009
rosuvastatin 20mg daily
versus
placebo
healthy individuals aged >=70 years with normal LDL cholesterols but with CRP levels >=2.0 mg/dLdouble blind
Follow-up duration: double-blind
ASTRONOMER, 2010
ISRCTN 32424163
rosuvastatin 40 mg daily
versus
placebo
asymptomatic patients with mild to moderate aortic stenosis and no clinical indications for cholesterol loweringdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.5 y
AURORA, 2009
rosuvastatin 10 mg daily
versus
placebo
in patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis double blind
Follow-up duration: 3.2 y mean (max 5.6y)
HOPE 3, 2016
NCT00468923
rosuvastatin 10 mg per day
versus
placebo
subjects who did not have cardiovascular disease and were at intermediate riskdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 5.6 years
21 countries
CORONA, 2007
NCT00206310
rosuvastatin 10mg/d
versus
placebo
patients at least 60 years of age with NYHA class II, III, or IV ischemic, systolic heart failuredouble blind
Follow-up duration: 32.9 months median
Krum, 2007
rosuvastatine 40mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with systolic (LVEF<40%) CHF of ischemic or nonischemic etiologydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Australia
GISSI-HF rosuvastatine, 2008
NCT00336336
low-dose rosuvastatin 10 mg daily
versus
placebo
Patients with NYHA classes II to IV heart failure, whatever the cause and the LVEF and already receiving optimized recommended therapy with no clear indication or contraindication to cholesterollowering therapydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 3.9y median (IQR 3-4.4)
Italy
JUPITER, 2008
NCT00239681
rosuvastatin 20 mg daily
versus
placebo
apparently healthy individuals with low LDL-cholesterol levels of less than 130 mg per deciliter but elevated C-reactive-protein (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg per liter or higher)double blind
Follow-up duration: median 1.9 year
26 countries
METEOR, 2007
NCT00225589
rosuvastatin 40mg daily
versus
placebo
individuals, with either age (mean, 57 years) as the only coronary heart disease risk factor or a 10-year Framingham risk score of less than 10%, modest CIMT thickening (1.2-<3.5 mm), and elevated LDL cholesterol double-blind
USA, Europe
Rosuvastatin versus placebo
JUPITER (women subgroup) , 2008
Rosuvastatin 20 mg daily
versus
placebo
apparently healthy men and women with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels of less than 130 mg/dL and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels of 2.0 mg/L or higher - subgroup of womendouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1.9 y
26 countries
simvastatin versus control
Hong, 2005
simvastatin
versus
no treatment
patients with ischemic heart failure who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (left ventricular [LV] ejection fraction <40%)open
Follow-up duration: 1 year
simvastatin versus ezetimibe
Landmesser, 2005
simvastatin 10mg/d
versus
ezetimibe 10mg/d
patients with chronic heart failure
simvastatin versus placebo
4S, 1994
simvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d, target CT between 3 et 5.2 mmol/l
versus
placebo
patients with angina pectoris or previous myocardial infarction and serum cholesterol 5.5-8.0 mmol/L on a lipid-lowering diet double blind
Follow-up duration: 5.4 years
Scandinavia
Mondillo, 2003
simvastatine: 40 mg/ jour pendant 6 mois.
versus
placebo
Stade de la maladie: II.Double aveugle
Follow-up duration: 6 mois
Aronow , 2003
simvastatine 40 mg/j
versus
placebo
Stade IINon déterminable
Follow-up duration: 1 an
HPS (diabetic sub group), 2002
simvastatin 40mg daily
versus
placebo
Men and women diabetes aged about 40–80 years with non-fasting blood total cholesterol concentrations of at least 3·5 mmol/L (135 mg/dL)double blind
4S (diabetic sub group), 1999
simvastatin
versus
placebo
diabetic men and women aged 35 to 70 years with previous MI or active, stable angina pectoris and with serum total cholesterol level between 5.5 to 8.0 mmol/L and serum triglyceride level <=2.5 mmol/Ldouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5.4y
Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden
4S (elderly subgroup), 1997
Simvastatin 20-40mg
versus
MI 6 months or stable angina, subgroup of age 65-70 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5.4y
HPS (elderly subgroup), 2002
Simvastatin 40mg
versus
Vascular disease or diabetes, subgroup of age 65-80 ydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5.0y
Node, 2003
simvastatin 10mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with symptomatic, nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy
HPS (post troke sub group), 2004
simvastatin 40mg daily
versus
placebo
adults with cerebrovascular disease, total cholesterol >=3·5 mmol/L and without coronaro disease (n=1820)double blind
A to Z, 2004
Simvastatin, 40-80 mg early initiation
versus
Placebo
patient with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS)Double aveugle
Follow-up duration: 4 months
41 countries
Ren, 2009
simvastatin (40 mg/d for 4 weeks)
versus
placebo
patients with unstable angina pectoris double-blind
CIS, 1997
simvastatin 40 mg
versus
placebo
men with documented coronary artery disease and hypercholesterolaemia double blind
Follow-up duration: 2.3 years
HPS, 2002
simvastatin 40 mg/d
versus
placebo
adults (aged 40-80 years) with coronary disease, other occlusive arterial disease, or diabetedouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5 years
UK
HPS (diabetic primary prevention sub group), 2003
simvastatin 40 mg/d
versus
placebo
adults (aged 40-80 years) with diabetes (primary prevention subgroup) double blind
Follow-up duration: 5 years
UK
MAAS, 1994
simvastatin 20 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with coronary heart disease double blind
Follow-up duration: 4 y
Simvastatin versus placebo
HPS (women subgroup) , 2002
Simvastatin 40 mg
versus
placebo
UK adults (aged 40-80 years) with coronary disease,other occlusive arterial disease, or diabetes - subgroup of women without CHDdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 5 y
UK
simvastatin high dose versus simvastatin
SEARCH, 2010
NCT00124072
simvastatin 80 mg daily
versus
simvastatin 20mg daily
MI survivors
Follow-up duration: 6.7 years (mean)
sodium reduction versus control
HPT, 1990
dietary counseling
versus
no dietary counseling
normotensive healthy men and women aged 25 to 49 years, with diastolic blood pressures of 78 to 89 mm Hgopen
Follow-up duration: 3 years
USA
TOHP I, 1992
sodium reduction
versus
unmasked nonintervention controls
men and women, aged 30 through 54 years, with diastolic blood pressure from 80 through 89 mm Hg open
Follow-up duration: 18 months
USA
TOHP II, 1997
sodium reduction intervention
versus
control
overweight people with high-normal blood pressureopen
Follow-up duration: 3-4 years
USA
Chang, 2006
potassium-enriched salt
versus
control
elderly veteransopen
Follow-up duration: 31 mo
USA
Morgan, 1978
moderate restriction of salt
versus
control
patients with a diastolic blood-pressure between 95 and 109 mm Hg open
Follow-up duration: 2 years
Australia
TONE, 1998
reduced sodium intake
versus
control
older persons with hypertensionopen
Follow-up duration: 29 months
USA
Alli, 1992
low-sodium diet
versus
usual diet
previously undiagnosed mildly hypertensive patients open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
Arroll, 1995
salt restriction
versus
without salt restriction
healthy adult volunteers with a sedentary lifestyle and on pharmacological therapy for hypertension open
Follow-up duration: 6 months
New Zealand
Costa, 1981
low-salt diet
versus
control
young patients with borderline hypertension open
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Italy
DISH, 1985
sodium-restriction
versus
control
normotensive subjectopen
Follow-up duration: 56 weeks
Kumanyika, 1993
reduce dietary sodium to 80 mmol (1800 mg)/24 h
versus
Morgan, 1987
reduced sodium intake
versus
control
hypertensive patients previously well-controlled on drug therapyopen
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Australia
Paterna, 2008
low-sodium diet plus oral furosemide (250-500 mg, b.i.d.)
versus
normal-sodium diet plus oral furosemide 250-500 mg, b.i.d. (twice a day) and fluid intake of 1000 ml per day
compensated CHF patients open
Follow-up duration: 180 days
Silman, 1993
restricted sodium diet
versus
control
patients who had a sustained diastolic blood pressure of 95 to 104 mm Hg and who had no treatment for it for at least 13 months before the trialopen
Follow-up duration: 13 months
UK
Thaler, 1982
salt-restriction
versus
control
subjects aged 64 or less with a systolic blood pressure 138-179 mmHg including those on antihypertensive treatmentopen
New Zealand
strategy to increase HDL cholesterol versus placebo
AFREGS, 2005
Niacin 0.25–3 g gemfibrozil 1.2 g cholestyramine 2 g
versus
placebo
military retirees younger than 76 years of age with low HDL cholesterol levels and angiographically evident coronary diseasedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 30 months
succinobucol versus placebo
ARISE, 2008
NCT00066898
succinobucol 300 mg once daily
versus
placebo
patients with recent (14-365 days) acute coronary syndromes already managed with conventional treatmentsdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 24 mo (range 12-36 mo)
Canada, US, UK, South Africa
sulfinyrazone versus placebo
Dutch, 1980
sulfinyrazone
versus

Follow-up duration: 32 months
suloctidil versus placebo
Adriaensen, 1976
Suloctidil 200 mg / j
versus
Placebo
patients suffering from intermittent claudication ( stade II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 2 months
Verhaeghe, 1981
Suloctidil 200 mg / j
versus
Placebo
patients with intermittent claudication (stade II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Jones, 1982
Suloctidil 300 mg / j
versus
Placebo
patients suffering from intermittent claudication (stade II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Holm, 1984
Suloctidil 300 mg / j
versus
Placebo
AOMI stade IIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2.75 y
Super EPA versus placebo
Reis, 1991
Super EPA capsules 12x1 g/d (7.0g EPA + DHA + a-lin) ORPromega capsules 12x1 g/d (6.0g EPA + DHA + a-lin)
versus
placebo (olive oil capsules, 12x1 g/d)
people undergoing angioplastydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
US
thyroxine versus placebo
CDP tyroxine, 1975
thyroxine
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 3.0 years
ticagrelor versus clopidogrel
EUCLID, 2016
NCT01732822
ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily)
versus
clopidogrel (75 mg once daily)
patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease
Follow-up duration: 30 months (median)
ticagrelor versus placebo (on top aspirin)
PEGASUS 60mg, 2015
NCT01225562
ticagrelor at a dose of 60 mg twice daily
versus
placebo
patients who had had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 years earlierdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.75 y (median)
PEGASUS 90mg, 2015
NCT01225562
ticagrelor at a dose of 90 mg twice daily
versus
patients who had had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 years earlier double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.75 y (median)
ticlopidine versus placebo
Ellis, 1986
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
AOMI stade IIdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Hurlow, 1980
Ticlopidine : 100 -500 mg / jour pendant 2 mois.
versus
Placebo
Données non disponiblesdouble blind
Berglund, 1985
ticlopidine 500 mg daily
versus
placebo
middle-aged men with stable incapacitating angina pectorisdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 2m
Krause, 1980
Ticlopidine : 500 mg pendant 4 mois
versus
Placebo
Données non disponiblesdouble blind
Birmingham-A, 1979
ticlopidine 100, 250, 500 mg
versus

Follow-up duration: 2 months
Katsumara, 1982
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
patients with ischemic ulcers due to chronic arterial occlusiondouble blind
Follow-up duration: 6 semaines
London diabetes, 1983
ticlopidine 500mg
versus

Follow-up duration: 12 months
Aukland, 1982
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
men with atherosclerotic intermittent claudication and haemorheological abnormalitiesdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
TIMAD, 1984
ticlopidine 500mg
versus

Follow-up duration: 32m
Stiegler, 1984
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
AOMI stade IIdouble blind
BTRS, 1992
ticlopidine 500mg/d
versus
placebo
insulin-treated diabetics with background retinopathydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 48 months
Nyberg, 1984
ticlopidine 500mg daily
versus
placebo
insulin dependent diabetes complicated by nephropathydouble blind
Follow-up duration: 12 months
Cloarec, 1986
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
AOMI stade non précisédouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1 y
Arcan, 1988
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
patients with chronic intermittent claudication due to obstructive peripheral vascular disease (stade II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 6 months
Balsano, 1989
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
patients with intermittent claudication (stade II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 21 months
STIMS, 1990
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
patients with intermittent claudication (stade II)double blind
Follow-up duration: 5.6 y
EMATAP, 1993
Ticlopidine 500 mg/j
versus
Placebo
AOMI stade non précisédouble blind
torcetrapib versus placebo
RADIANCE 1, 2007
NCT00136981
atorvastatin combined with 60 mg of torcetrapib
versus
atorvastatin monotherapy
patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia open
Follow-up duration: 24 months
ILLUMINATE, 2007
NCT00134264
torcetrapib 60mg daily plus atorvastatin (at a dose established during the runinperiod)
versus
atorvastatin alone
patients at highcardiovascular riskdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 1.52y
7 countries
RADIANCE 2, 2007
torcetrapib 60mg daily (on top of atorvastatin attitrated dose)
versus
placebo +atorvastatin attitrated dose
patients with mixed dyslipidaemiadouble blind
Follow-up duration: 24 months
North America and Europe
ILLUSTRATE, 2007
NCT00134173
atorvastatin plus 60 mg of torcetrapib daily
versus
atorvastatin monotherapy
patients with coronary diseaseopen
Follow-up duration: 24 months
North America and Europe
various drugs versus placebo
HARP, 1994
NCT00000461
Various drugs (pravastatin, nicotinic acid, cholestyramine, and gemfibrozil stepwise as needed to reach the specified goal (total cholesterol < or = 4.1 mmol/L, ratio of LDL/high-density-lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol < or = 2.0)
versus
placebo
normocholesterolaemic patients with coronary heart disease open
Follow-up duration: 2.5 years
various drugs versus usual care
SCRIP, 1994
NCT00000508
multifactor risk reduction (Various drugs)
versus
usual care
patients with angiographically defined coronary atherosclerosis open
Follow-up duration: 4.0 years
vit B6 versus control
NORVIT (vit B6) (Bonaa), 2006
NCT00266487
vit B6 40 mg daily
versus
no vit B6
men and women who had had an acute myocardial infarction within seven days double-blind
Follow-up duration: 36 months
Norway
vit B6 versus placebo
WENBIT (vit B6), 2008
NCT00354081
vit B6 40mg daily
versus
placebo
adult participants undergoing coronary angiography double blind
Follow-up duration: 38.4 mo
Norway
vitamin C versus placebo
PHS II vitamin C, 2008
NCT00270647
vitamin C 500mg daily
versus
placebo
US male physicians aged 50 years or olderdouble blind
Follow-up duration: 8 years (mean)
US
WACS vitamin C, 2007
NCT00000541
vitamin C (ascorbic acid) 500 mg/d
versus
placebo
female health professionals at increased risk (40 years or older with a history of CVD or 3 or more CVD risk factors) double blind
Follow-up duration: 9.4 years
US
vitamin E versus control
GISSI, 1999
vitamin E 300mg/d
versus
no vitamine E
patients with recent (3 months) myocardial infarctionopen
Follow-up duration: 3.5y
Italy
PPP, 2001
vitamin E (300 mg/day)
versus
no vitamin E
men and women aged 50 years or greater, with at least one of the major recognised cardiovascular risk factorsopen
Follow-up duration: 3.6y
Italy
vitamin E versus placebo
CHAOS, 1996
vitamin E 400-800UI/d (alpha tocopherol)
versus
identical placebo
patients with angiographically proven coronary atherosclerosisdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 1.5y
UK
SPACE, 2000
vitamin E 800 IU daily
versus
matching placebo
Haemodialysis patients aged 40–75 years with pre-existing cardiovascular disease double -blind
Follow-up duration: 1.42 years
Israel
HOPE, 2000
vitamin E 400IU/d from natural sources
versus
matching placebo
women and men 55 years of age or older who were at high risk for cardiovascular events because they had cardiovascular disease or diabetes in addition to one other risk factor.double-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.5y
Multinational: Canada, USA, Europe, South America
ATBC vitamin E, 1994
vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol) 50mg/d
versus
placebo
male smokers 50 to 69 years of age from southwestern Finland double-blind
Follow-up duration: 6.1 median (range 5-8y)
Southwestern Finland
WACS vitamin E, 2007
NCT00000541
vitamin E (600IU every two days)
versus
placebo
female health professionals at increased risk (40 years or older with a history of CVD or 3 or more CVD risk factors) double blind
Follow-up duration: 9.4 years
US
WHS vitamin E, 2005
NCT00000479
vitamin E 600 IU every other day (á-tocopherol)
versus
placebo
apparently healthy US women aged at least 45 yearsdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 10.1 y
US
PHS II vitamin E, 2008
NCT00270647
vitamin E 400IU every two days
versus
placebo
US male physicians aged 50 years or older double blind
Follow-up duration: 8 years (mean)
US
HOPE renal insufficiency subgroup, 2004
vitamin E 400 IU/day, natural
versus
placebo
patients with either known cardiovascular disease or diabetes and at least one additional coronary risk factor and renal insufficiency (sub group)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 4.5y
North and South America, Europe
ASAP, 2000
d-alpha-tocopherol 91 mg (136 IU) twice daily
versus
placebo
smoking and nonsmoking men and postmenopausal women aged 45-69 years with serum cholesterol >= 5.0 mmol/ldouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3 years
Finland
ATBC 2nd prev subgroup (vitamin E), 1998
alpha tocopherol (vitamin E) 50 mg/day
versus
placebo
patients enroled in the ATBC trial and who had angina pectoris in the Rose chest pain questionnaire at baselinedouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 3.79 y
Finland
AREDS, 2001
daily supplementation of antioxidants (500 mg of vitamin C, 400 IU of vitamin E, and 15 mg of beta carotene)
versus
placebo
patients with age-related lens opacities and visual acuity lossdouble-blind
Follow-up duration: 6.3 y
USA
Linxian, 1993
beta carotene, vitamin E, and selenium
versus
Apparently healthy Individuals of ages 40-69
Follow-up duration: 5y
vorapaxar versus placebo (on top aspirin)
TRA-2P TIMI 50, 2012
NCT00526474
vorapaxar (SCH 530348) 2.5-mg daily
versus
placebo (added to the existing standard of care for preventing heart attack and stroke (eg, aspirin, clopidogrel)
patients with a known history of atherosclerosis (MI, ischemic stroke, or peripheral vascular disease)double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.5 y (median)
TRA-2P TIMI 50 (no prior stroke sub group), 2012
vorapaxar (SCH 530348) 2.5-mg daily
versus
placebo (added to the existing standard of care for preventing heart attack and stroke (eg, aspirin, clopidogrel)
patients with a known history of atherosclerosis (MI, ischemic stroke, or peripheral vascular disease), sub group of patient with no prior stroke double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.5 y (median)
TRA-2P TIMI 50 (MI subgroup), 2012
NCT00526474
vorapaxar (SCH 530348) 2.5-mg daily
versus
placebo (added to the existing standard of care for preventing heart attack and stroke (eg, aspirin, clopidogrel)
prespecified subgroup of patients with a qualifying myocardial infarction among the overall population of patients with a known history of atherosclerosis (MI, ischemic stroke, or peripheral vascular disease) double-blind
Follow-up duration: 2.5 y (median)
multinational
warfarin versus placebo
Thrombosis Prevention trial (Warfarin), 1998
NCT00000614
warfarin started at 2.5mg/d adjusted for a target INR 1.5
versus
placebo
men aged between 45 years and 69 years at high risk of IHD double blind
Follow-up duration: median 6.8 y
UK
WARIS, 1990
warfarin
versus
placebo
patients who had recovered from acute myocardial infarction (mean interval from the onset of symptoms to randomization, 27 days) double-blind
Follow-up duration: 37 months
warfarin + aspirin versus placebo
Thrombosis Prevention trial (W plus A), 1998
NCT00000614
warfarin adjusted dose for INR of 1.5 + aspirin 75 mg daily
versus
placebo
men aged between 45 years and 69 years at high risk of IHD double blind
Follow-up duration: median 6.8 y
UK