Related trials
IMPROVE-IT, 2014 - ezetimibe vs control
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)
ARBITER 6-HALTS (niacin vs ezetimibe), 2009 - niacin vs ezetimibe
ARBITER 2, 2009 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)
Emmerich, 2009 - etofibrate vs placebo
Oxford Niaspan Study, 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
SAGE, 2007 - atorvastatin high dose vs pravastatin
Krum, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo
CORONA, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo
METEOR, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo
TNT (sub group), 2006 - atorvastatin high dose vs atorvastatin
MEGA, 2006 - pravastatin vs control
PROVE IT TIMI 22 (diabetic sub group), 2006 - pravastatin high dose vs pravastatin
SPARCL, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo
ASPEN, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo
ASPEN, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo
See also:
All cardiovascular prevention clinical trials
All diabetes type 2 clinical trials
All clinical trials of cholesterol lowering intervention
All clinical trials of aggressive treatment
|
|
Treatments
Studied treatment |
aggressive targets of LDL-C of 70 mg/dL or lower and SBP of 115 mm Hg or lower
for achieving lipid goals, if lifestyle modification was unsuccessful, use of a statin drug was initiated. If the LDL-C goal was not reached with statin use, combination therapy with ezetimibe was initiated. In addition, the non�HDL-C goals were addressed using fish oil, fenofibrate, or niacin.
For achieving BP goals, step 1 drugs were angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB), in case of intolerance to ACE inhibitors. Step 2 was use of hydrochlorothiazide. Steps 3 to 5 added calcium channel blockers, -blockers, and then -blockers and other vasodilators.
|
Control treatment |
standard targets of LDL-C of 100 mg/dL or lower and SBP of 130 mm Hg or lower
|
Patients
Patients |
adults with type 2 diabetes |
Inclusion criteria |
men and women with type 2 diabetes; aged 40 years or older; documented type 2 diabetes, plus LDL-C of at least 100 mg/dL and SBP greater than 130 mm Hg within the previous 12 months |
Exclusion criteria |
New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, SBP greater than 180mmHg, liver transaminase levels more than twice the upper limit of normal, or diagnosis of primary hyperlipidemia or hypercholesterolemia due to hyperthyroidism or nephrotic syndrome |
Baseline characteristics |
Age (mean), yrs |
56 y |
Women (%) |
66% |
Total cholesterol (mmol/l) |
184 mg/dL |
LDL (mmol/l) |
104 mg/dL |
HDL (mmol/l) |
46 mg/dL |
Triglycerides (mg/dl) |
163 mg/dL |
Diabetes(%) |
100% |
BMI (kg/m2) |
33 |
|
Method and design
Randomized effectives |
252 / 247 (studied vs. control) |
Design |
Parallel groups |
Blinding |
open |
Follow-up duration |
3 years |
Number of centre |
4 |
Geographic area |
US |
Hypothesis |
Superiority |
Primary endpoint |
common carotid artery intimal medial thickness (IMT) |
Results
Endpoint
Studied treat. n/N
Control treat. n/N
Graph
RR [95% CI]
cardiovascular events
11 / 252
8 / 247
classic
1,35 [0,55;3,29]
Adverse events
74 / 252
55 / 247
1,32 [0,98;1,78]
non cardiovascular death
2 / 252
4 / 247
classic
0,49 [0,09;2,65]
0
2
1.0
Relative risks
|
Endpoint |
Events (%) |
Relative Risk |
95% CI |
Endpoint definition in the trial |
Ref |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
cardiovascular events
|
11 / 252 (4,4%) |
8 / 247 (3,2%) |
1,35 |
[0,55;3,29] |
|
0 |
Adverse events
|
74 / 252 (29,4%) |
55 / 247 (22,3%) |
1,32 |
[0,98;1,78] |
serious adverse events |
0 |
non cardiovascular death
|
2 / 252 (0,8%) |
4 / 247 (1,6%) |
0,49 |
[0,09;2,65] |
|
0 |
The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
|
Reference(s) used for data extraction:
0:
|
Endpoint |
studied treat. |
control treat. |
mean diff |
Absolute risk reduction (for a follow-up of 3 years)
|
Endpoint |
Events rate |
Absolute risk reduction (ARR) |
Studied treat. |
Control treat. |
cardiovascular events |
4,37% |
3,24% |
1,1%
|
Adverse events |
29,37% |
22,27% |
7,1%
|
non cardiovascular death |
7,94‰ |
1,62% |
-0,83%
|
Meta-analysis of all similar trials:
cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for all chronical situations
cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for diabetic patients
cholesterol lowering intervention in diabetes type 2 for diabetic patients with or withour hypercholesterolemia
Reference(s)
TrialResults-center ID |
TRC8901
|
Trials register # |
NCT00047424
|
-
Fleg JL, Mete M, Howard BV, Umans JG, Roman MJ, Ratner RE, Silverman A, Galloway JM, Henderson JA, Weir MR, Wilson C, Stylianou M, Howard WJ.
Effect of Statins Alone Versus Statins Plus Ezetimibe on Carotid Atherosclerosis in Type 2 Diabetes The SANDS (Stop Atherosclerosis in Native Diabetics Study) Trial..
J Am Coll Cardiol 2008 Dec 16;52:2198-205
- 10.1016/j.jacc.2008.10.031
Pubmed
|
Hubmed
| Fulltext
-
Howard BV, Roman MJ, Devereux RB, Fleg JL, Galloway JM, Henderson JA, Howard WJ, Lee ET, Mete M, Poolaw B, Ratner RE, Russell M, Silverman A, Stylianou M, Umans JG, Wang W, Weir MR, Weissman NJ, Wilson C, Yeh F, Zhu J.
Effect of lower targets for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol on atherosclerosis in diabetes: the SANDS randomized trial..
JAMA 2008;299:1678-89
Pubmed
|
Hubmed
| Fulltext
|