Related trials
ACCELERATE, 2015 - evacetrapib vs placebo
IMPROVE-IT, 2014 - ezetimibe vs control
dal-OUTCOMES, 2012 - dalcetrapib vs placebo
dal-VESSEL, 2011 - dalcetrapib vs placebo
AIM-HIGH, 2011 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)
SHARP, 2010 - ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo
ARBITER-HALTS 6, 2010 - ezetimibe vs niacin
SEARCH, 2010 - simvastatin high dose vs simvastatin
ACCORD lipid, 2010 - fenofibrate vs placebo (on top simvastatine)
ACCORD lipid (subgroup Eye study), 2010 - fenofibrate vs placebo (on top simvastatine)
DEFINE, 2010 - anacetrapib vs placebo
Emmerich, 2009 - etofibrate vs placebo
Oxford Niaspan Study, 2009 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)
ARBITER 6-HALTS (niacin vs ezetimibe), 2009 - niacin vs ezetimibe
ARBITER 2, 2009 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)
JUPITER, 2008 - rosuvastatin vs placebo
SANDS, 2008 - aggressive treatment vs standard teatment
Tuttle, 2008 - low fat diet vs mediterranean-style diet
GISSI-HF rosuvastatine, 2008 - rosuvastatin vs placebo
METEOR, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo
RADIANCE 1, 2007 - torcetrapib vs placebo (on top of atorvastatin)
ILLUSTRATE, 2007 - torcetrapib vs placebo (on top of atorvastatin)
SAGE, 2007 - atorvastatin high dose vs pravastatin
Krum, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo
RADIANCE 2, 2007 - torcetrapib vs placebo (on top of atorvastatin)
See also:
All cardiovascular prevention clinical trials
All clinical trials of HDL increasing drugs
All clinical trials of clofibrate
|
|
Treatments
Studied treatment |
clofibric acid 1.6 g/day
|
Control treatment |
placebo
|
Patients
Patients |
newly diagnosed middle-aged (30- to 55-yr-old) patients with non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus |
Baseline characteristics |
Age (mean), yrs |
46 |
Women (%) |
44% |
Total cholesterol (mmol/l) |
5.71 mmol/L |
Diabetes(%) |
100% |
|
Method and design
Randomized effectives |
379 / 382 (studied vs. control) |
Design |
Parallel groups |
Blinding |
double-blind |
Follow-up duration |
5 years |
Geographic area |
Germany |
Primary endpoint |
NA |
Results
Endpoint
Studied treat. n/N
Control treat. n/N
Graph
RR [95% CI]
Coronary event
32 / 379
31 / 382
1,04 [0,65;1,67]
0
2
1.0
Relative risks
|
Endpoint |
Events (%) |
Relative Risk |
95% CI |
Endpoint definition in the trial |
Ref |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
Coronary event
|
32 / 379 (8,4%) |
31 / 382 (8,1%) |
1,04 |
[0,65;1,67] |
|
12545 |
The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
|
Reference(s) used for data extraction:
12545: Jun M, Foote C, Lv J, Neal B, Patel A, Nicholls SJ, Grobbee DE, Cass A, Chalmers J, Perkovic VEffects of fibrates on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Lancet 2010 May 10;:
0:
|
Endpoint |
studied treat. |
control treat. |
mean diff |
total cholesterol (at 1 y) |
5,96 (1,41) |
6,06 (1,4) |
-0,10 |
[-0,300;0,10] |
Absolute risk reduction (for a follow-up of 5 years)
|
Endpoint |
Events rate |
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
Coronary event |
8,44% |
8,12% |
0,33%
|
Meta-analysis of all similar trials:
cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for diabetic patients
cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for all chronical situations
HDL increasing drugs in cardiovascular prevention for all type of patients
Reference(s)
TrialResults-center ID |
TRC10780
|
Trials register # |
NA
|
-
Hanefeld M, Fischer S, Schmechel H, Rothe G, Schulze J, Dude H, Schwanebeck U, Julius U.
Diabetes Intervention Study. Multi-intervention trial in newly diagnosed NIDDM..
Diabetes Care 1991;14:308-17
Pubmed
|
Hubmed
| Fulltext
|