Trial-Results center  
Clinical trial results database in Heart and vessels Feedback    Home


Related trials

IMPROVE-IT, 2014 - ezetimibe vs control

AIM-HIGH, 2011 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)

ACCORD lipid, 2010 - fenofibrate vs placebo (on top simvastatine)

SHARP, 2010 - ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo

ARBITER-HALTS 6, 2010 - ezetimibe vs niacin

SEARCH, 2010 - simvastatin high dose vs simvastatin

Oxford Niaspan Study, 2009 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)

Emmerich, 2009 - etofibrate vs placebo

ARBITER 6-HALTS (niacin vs ezetimibe), 2009 - niacin vs ezetimibe

ARBITER 2, 2009 - niacin vs placebo (on top statin)

GISSI-HF rosuvastatine, 2008 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

JUPITER, 2008 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

SANDS, 2008 - aggressive treatment vs standard teatment

Tuttle, 2008 - low fat diet vs mediterranean-style diet

SAGE, 2007 - atorvastatin high dose vs pravastatin

Yamada, 2007 - atorvastatin vs control

METEOR, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

Krum, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

CORONA, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

Chello et al., 2006 - preoperative atorvastatin vs placebo

ASPEN, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo

Sola, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo

SPARCL, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo

Patti et al., 2006 - preoperative atorvastatin vs placebo

MEGA, 2006 - pravastatin vs control



See also:

  • All cardiovascular prevention clinical trials
  • All heart failure clinical trials
  • All clinical trials of cholesterol lowering intervention
  • All clinical trials of rosuvastatin
  •  
     CORONA study, 2007 TRC6786 
    [NCT00206310] download pdf: rosuvastatin | cholesterol lowering intervention for heart failure

    Treatments

    Studied treatment rosuvastatin 10mg/d
    Control treatment placebo

    Patients

    Patients patients at least 60 years of age with NYHA class II, III, or IV ischemic, systolic heart failure

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 2514 / 2497 (studied vs. control)
    Design Parallel groups
    Blinding double blind
    Follow-up duration 32.9 months median
    Primary endpoint cardiovascular death, MI, stroke


    Results

    Endpoint Studied treat.
    n/N
    Control treat.
    n/N
    Graph RR [95% CI]

    new-onset diabetes

    100 / 1771
    88 / 1763
    1,13 [0,86;1,49]

    Non fatal MI

    115 / 2514
    141 / 2497
    0,81 [0,64;1,03]

    Fatal stroke

    35 / 2514
    32 / 2497
    1,09 [0,67;1,75]

    Cardiovascular death

    488 / 2514
    487 / 2497
    1,00 [0,89;1,11]

    Coronary event

    554 / 2514
    588 / 2497
    0,94 [0,85;1,04]

    Non vascular death

    138 / 2514
    159 / 2497
    0,86 [0,69;1,08]

    cardiovascular events

    692 / 2514
    732 / 2497
    0,94 [0,86;1,03]

    All cause death

    728 / 2514
    759 / 2497
    0,95 [0,87;1,04]

    Fatal MI

    15 / 2514
    9 / 2497
    classic 1,66 [0,73;3,78]

    Non fatal stroke

    89 / 2514
    104 / 2497
    0,85 [0,64;1,12]
    0 2 1.0

    Relative risks
    Endpoint Events (%) Relative Risk 95% CI Endpoint definition
    in the trial
    Ref
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    new-onset diabetes 100 / 1771 (5,6%) 88 / 1763 (5,0%) 1,13 [0,86;1,49] sub group 
    Non fatal MI 115 / 2514 (4,6%) 141 / 2497 (5,6%) 0,81 [0,64;1,03]  
    Fatal stroke 35 / 2514 (1,4%) 32 / 2497 (1,3%) 1,09 [0,67;1,75]  
    Cardiovascular death 488 / 2514 (19,4%) 487 / 2497 (19,5%) 1,00 [0,89;1,11]  
    Coronary event 554 / 2514 (22,0%) 588 / 2497 (23,5%) 0,94 [0,85;1,04]  
    Non vascular death 138 / 2514 (5,5%) 159 / 2497 (6,4%) 0,86 [0,69;1,08]  
    cardiovascular events 692 / 2514 (27,5%) 732 / 2497 (29,3%) 0,94 [0,86;1,03]  
    All cause death 728 / 2514 (29,0%) 759 / 2497 (30,4%) 0,95 [0,87;1,04]  
    Fatal MI 15 / 2514 (0,6%) 9 / 2497 (0,4%) 1,66 [0,73;3,78]  
    Non fatal stroke 89 / 2514 (3,5%) 104 / 2497 (4,2%) 0,85 [0,64;1,12]  
    The primary endpoint (if exists) appears in blod characters
    Reference(s) used for data extraction:
  • 0:
  • 11590: Lipinski MJ, Cauthen CA, Biondi-Zoccai GG, Abbate A, Vrtovec B, Khan BV, Vetrovec GWMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of statins versus placebo in patients with heart failure.Am J Cardiol 2009;104:1708-16

  • Endpoint studied treat. control treat. mean diff

    Absolute risk reduction (for a follow-up of 32.9 months median)
    Endpoint Events rate Absolute risk
    reduction (ARR)
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    new-onset diabetes 5,65% 4,99% 0,66%
    Non fatal MI 4,57% 5,65% -1,07%
    Fatal stroke 1,39% 1,28% 0,11%
    Cardiovascular death 19,41% 19,50% -0,09%
    Coronary event 22,04% 23,55% -1,51%
    Non vascular death 5,49% 6,37% -0,88%
    cardiovascular events 27,53% 29,32% -1,79%
    All cause death 28,96% 30,40% -1,44%
    Fatal MI 5,97‰ 3,60‰ 0,24%
    Non fatal stroke 3,54% 4,16% -0,62%

    Meta-analysis of all similar trials:

    cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for all chronical situations

    cholesterol lowering intervention in heart failure for all type of patients

    cholesterol lowering intervention in heart failure for elderly



    Reference(s)

    TrialResults-center ID TRC6786
    Trials register # NCT00206310
    Study web site link ,
    • Kjekshus J, Apetrei E, Barrios V, Böhm M, Cleland JG, Cornel JH, Dunselman P, Fonseca C, Goudev A, Grande P, Gullestad L, Hjalmarson A, Hradec J, Jánosi A, Kamenský G, Komajda M, Korewicki J, Kuusi T, Mach F, Mareev V, McMurray JJ, Ranjith N, Schaufelberg. Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure.. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2248-61
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

    (c) 2004-2016 TrialResults-center - All Rights Reserved

    Tweet this  |  Facebook  |  notify a friend

    100Heart and vessels