Clinical trials of lipid-modifying agents:design considerations

Bibliography

• Lewington S, Whitlock G, Clarke R et al.: Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta?analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths. Lancet 370(9602), 1829–1839 (2007). n Excellent example of large-scale prospective epidemiology that helps to inform the design of clinical trials.
   Google Scholar
• Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering therapy and of antioxidant vitamin supplementation in a wide range of patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease death: early safety and efficacy experience. Eur. Heart J. 20(10), 725–741 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 360(9326), 7–22 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• The largest randomized trial of statin therapy in 20,000 high-risk individuals showing consistent benefits of lipid lowering in a wide range of people, including diabetics, the elderly and people with below average LDL?C.
   Google Scholar
• Randomised trial of cholesterol lowering in 4444 patients with coronary heart disease: the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S). Lancet 344(8934), 1383–1389 (1994).
   Google Scholar
• Shepherd J, Cobbe SM, Ford I et al.: Prevention of coronary heart disease with pravastatin in men with hypercholesterolemia. West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med. 333(20), 1301–1307 (1995).
   Google Scholar
• Collaboration CTT: Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet 376(9753), 1670–1681 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Updated comprehensive individual patient data meta-analysis providing very robust evidence for the efficacy and safety of statins.
   Google Scholar
• Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration: Major lipids, apolipoproteins, and risk of vascular disease. JAMA 302(18), 1993–2000 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• Comprehensive analysis of 300,000 people without vascular disease in 68 observational studies showing assocations between lipids, apolipoproteins and vascular risk.
   Google Scholar
• JBS 2: Joint British Societies’ guidelines on prevention of cardiovascular disease in clinical practice. Heart 91(Suppl. 5), V1–V52 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Executive Summary of the Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA 285(19), 2486–2497 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). JAMA 288(23), 2998–3007 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Cannon CP, Steinberg BA, Murphy SA, Mega JL, Braunwald E: Meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes trials comparing intensive versus moderate statin therapy. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 48(3), 438–445 (2011).
   Google Scholar
• SEARCH Collaborative Group: Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial. Lancet 376(9753), 1658–1669 (2010).
   Google Scholar
• Keech A, Simes RJ, Barter P et al.: Effects of long-term fenofibrate therapy on cardiovascular events in 9795 people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus (the FIELD study): randomised controlled trial. Lancet 366(9500), 1849–1861 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Collins R, MacMahon S: Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity, I: clinical trials. Lancet 357(9253), 373–380 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Detailed review of design considerations for randomized trials.
   Google Scholar
• Barter PJ, Caulfield M, Eriksson M et al.: Effects of torcetrapib in patients at high risk for coronary events. N. Engl. J. Med. 357(21), 2109–2122 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P et al.: Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples. Br. J. Cancer 35(1), 1–39 (1977).
   Google Scholar
• Fox KA, Birkhead J, Wilcox R, Knight C, Barth J: British Cardiac Society Working Group on the definition of myocardial infarction. Heart 90(6), 603–609 (2004).
   Google Scholar
• Antman E, Bassand J-P, Klein W et al.: Myocardial infarction redefined – a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction: the Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 36(3), 959–969 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Lang JM, Buring JE, Rosner B, Cook N, Hennekens CH: Estimating the effect of the run-in on the power of the Physicians’ Health Study. Stat. Med. 10(10), 1585–1593 (1991).
   Google Scholar
• Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L et al.: Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet 353(9153), 611–616 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Peto R: Failure of randomisation by ‘sealed’ envelope. Lancet 354(9172), 73 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Pocock SJ, Simon R: Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 31(1), 103–115 (1975).
   Google Scholar
• Granger CB, Vogel V, Cummings SR et al.: Do we need to adjudicate major clinical events? Clin. Trials 5(1), 56–60 (2008).
   Google Scholar