PDF factsheet
      Z

cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for all chronical situations, clinical trials results

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
atorvastatin versus placebo
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)
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
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
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
atorvastatin versus usual care
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, 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
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
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
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
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
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
estrogen versus placebo
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
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 (on top statins)
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+simvastatin versus placebo
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
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
fluvastatin versus placebo
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
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,
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
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
gemfibrozil versus placebo
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
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
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
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, 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 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
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
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
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
pravastatin versus control
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
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
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
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
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 usual care
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
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
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
rosuvastatin versus placebo
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
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
Node, 2003
simvastatin 10mg/d
versus
placebo
patients with symptomatic, nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy
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
MAAS, 1994
simvastatin 20 mg daily
versus
placebo
patients with coronary heart disease double blind
Follow-up duration: 4 y
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)
thyroxine versus placebo
CDP tyroxine, 1975
thyroxine
versus
placebo

Follow-up duration: 3.0 years
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

  Options


in first

in second

  Filter