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)

SEARCH, 2010 - simvastatin high dose vs simvastatin

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

SHARP, 2010 - ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo

ARBITER-HALTS 6, 2010 - ezetimibe vs niacin

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

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

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

Emmerich, 2009 - etofibrate vs placebo

GISSI-HF rosuvastatine, 2008 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

JUPITER, 2008 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

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

SANDS, 2008 - aggressive treatment vs standard teatment

CORONA, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

Krum, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

SAGE, 2007 - atorvastatin high dose vs pravastatin

METEOR, 2007 - rosuvastatin vs placebo

MEGA, 2006 - pravastatin vs control

ASPEN, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo

Patti et al., 2006 - preoperative atorvastatin vs placebo

Chello et al., 2006 - preoperative atorvastatin vs placebo

SPARCL, 2006 - atorvastatin vs placebo

Vascular basis, 2005 - atorvastatin high dose vs lovastatin

WHI low fat, 2005 - diet vs usual diet



See also:

  • All cardiovascular prevention clinical trials
  • All post myocardial infarction clinical trials
  • All clinical trials of cholesterol lowering intervention
  • All clinical trials of atorvastatin high dose
  •  
     SAGE study, 2007 TRC6977 
    download pdf: atorvastatin high dose | cholesterol lowering intervention for cardiovascular prevention

    Treatments

    Studied treatment atorvastatin 80 mg daily
    Control treatment pravastatin(40 mg)
    Treatments description
    HDL change 55 v. 32% 

    Patients

    Patients Chronic coronary artery disease
    Baseline characteristics
    Age (mean), yrs 72 
    LDL (mmol/l) 3.78 
    Diabetes(%) 23 

    Method and design

    Randomized effectives 446 / 445 (studied vs. control)
    Design Parallel groups
    Blinding double blind
    Follow-up duration 1 years
    Primary endpoint Total duration of ischemia onambulatoryECG


    Results

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

    All cause death

    6 / 446
    18 / 445
    0,33 [0,13;0,83]

    Cardiovascular death

    4 / 446
    10 / 445
    0,40 [0,13;1,26]

    Coronary death

    2 / 446
    6 / 445
    0,33 [0,07;1,64]

    stroke (fatal and non fatal)

    1 / 446
    3 / 445
    classic 0,33 [0,03;3,19]

    MACE

    36 / 446
    50 / 445
    0,72 [0,48;1,08]

    Non fatal MI

    16 / 446
    17 / 445
    0,94 [0,48;1,84]

    Rhabdomyolysis

    0 / 446
    0 / 445
    classic 1,00 [0,00;254,66]

    Death from cancer

    0 / 446
    2 / 445
    classic 0,11 [0,00;6,89]

    Myopathy

    0 / 446
    0 / 445
    classic 1,00 [0,00;254,66]

    Coronary death and non fatal MI

    22 / 446
    27 / 445
    0,81 [0,47;1,41]

    Adverse events

    48 / 446
    46 / 445
    1,04 [0,71;1,53]

    non cardiovascular death

    2 / 446
    6 / 445
    0,33 [0,07;1,64]
    0 2 1.0

    Relative risks
    Endpoint Events (%) Relative Risk 95% CI Endpoint definition
    in the trial
    Ref
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    All cause death 6 / 446 (1,3%) 18 / 445 (4,0%) 0,33 [0,13;0,83] 12 months 
    Cardiovascular death 4 / 446 (0,9%) 10 / 445 (2,2%) 0,40 [0,13;1,26]  
    Coronary death 2 / 446 (0,4%) 6 / 445 (1,3%) 0,33 [0,07;1,64]  
    stroke (fatal and non fatal) 1 / 446 (0,2%) 3 / 445 (0,7%) 0,33 [0,03;3,19]  
    MACE 36 / 446 (8,1%) 50 / 445 (11,2%) 0,72 [0,48;1,08] MACE (with hospitalization for unstable nagina) 
    Non fatal MI 16 / 446 (3,6%) 17 / 445 (3,8%) 0,94 [0,48;1,84]  
    Rhabdomyolysis 0 / 446 (0,1%) 0 / 445 (0,1%) 1,00 [0,02;50,18]  
    Death from cancer 0 / 446 (0,1%) 2 / 445 (0,4%) 0,25 [0,01;5,52]  
    Myopathy 0 / 446 (0,1%) 0 / 445 (0,1%) 1,00 [0,02;50,18]   0
    Coronary death and non fatal MI 22 / 446 (4,9%) 27 / 445 (6,1%) 0,81 [0,47;1,41]  
    Adverse events 48 / 446 (10,8%) 46 / 445 (10,3%) 1,04 [0,71;1,53]  
    non cardiovascular death 2 / 446 (0,4%) 6 / 445 (1,3%) 0,33 [0,07;1,64]  
    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 1 years)
    Endpoint Events rate Absolute risk
    reduction (ARR)
    Studied treat. Control treat.
    All cause death 1,35% 4,04% -2,70%
    Cardiovascular death 8,97‰ 2,25% -1,35%
    Coronary death 4,48‰ 1,35% -0,90%
    stroke (fatal and non fatal) 2,24‰ 6,74‰ -0,45%
    MACE 8,07% 11,24% -3,16%
    Non fatal MI 3,59% 3,82% -0,23%
    Coronary death and non fatal MI 4,93% 6,07% -1,13%
    Adverse events 10,76% 10,34% 0,43%
    non cardiovascular death 4,48‰ 1,35% -0,90%

    Meta-analysis of all similar trials:

    cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for all chronical situations

    cholesterol lowering intervention in cardiovascular prevention for patients with prior MI or with CHD

    cholesterol lowering intervention in post myocardial infarction for all type of patients



    Reference(s)

    TrialResults-center ID TRC6977
    Trials register # NA
    • Deedwania P, Stone PH, Bairey Merz CN, Cosin-Aguilar J, Koylan N, Luo D, Ouyang P, Piotrowicz R, Schenck-Gustafsson K, Sellier P, Stein JH, Thompson PL, Tzivoni D. Effects of intensive versus moderate lipid-lowering therapy on myocardial ischemia in older patients with coronary heart disease: results of the Study Assessing Goals in the Elderly (SAGE).. Circulation 2007;115:700-7
      Pubmed | Hubmed | Fulltext

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

    Tweet this  |  Facebook  |  notify a friend

    100Heart and vessels