|
| Study | | Medication | Imaging modality | Follow-up (months) | Outcome | Result | -value |
|
| SCAT [18] | 394 | Simvastatin versus Placebo | QCA | 47.8 | mean diameter (mm) | −0.07 versus −0.14 | .004 |
| minimum diameter (mm) | −0.09 versus −0.16 | .001 |
| % diameter stenosis (%) | +1.67 versus +3.83 | .0003 |
|
|
Brown et. al. [35] | 160 | Simvastatin + niacin + antioxidants versus placebo | QCA | 36 | % diameter stenosis | +0.7 ± 3.2 versus
+3.9 ± 5.2; P < .005 | P = .02 for the difference b/w Simvastatin + Niacin + antioxidants and Simvastatin+Niacin alone |
| Simvastatin + niacin versus placebo | −0.4 ± 2.8 versus
+3.9 ± 5.2; P < .001 | |
|
| CLAS [34] | 162 | Colestipol/niacin | QCA | 24 | % diameter stenosis (%) | 0.3 ± 5.9 versus 2.7 ± 5.8 | .02¶ |
| MLD (mm) | −0.01 ± 0.22 versus −0.09 ± 0.26 | .04¶ |
|
| REVERSAL [14] | 654 | 80 mg atorvastatin versus 40 mg pravastatin | IVUS | 18 | atheroma volume (%) | −0.4 versus +2.7 | .02 |
|
| METEOR [42] | 984 | Rosuvastatin versus placebo | B-ultrasound | 24 | CIMT (mm/yr) | −0.0014 versus +0.0131 | P < .001 |
|
| ESTABLISH [36] | 70 | Atorvastatin versus placebo | IVUS | 6 | plaque volume (%) | −13.1 ± 12.8 versus +8.7 ± 14.9 | <.0001 |
|
| ENHANCE [40] | 720 | Simvastatin versus Simvastatin + ezetimibe | B-ultrasound | 24 | CIMT (mm) | 0.0058 ± 0.0037 versus 0.0111 ± 0.0038 | .29 |
|
| SANDS [41] | 499 | Standard Rx : LDL <100 with statin alone | B-ultrasound | 36 | CIMT (mm) | +0.039 | P < .0001 between standard Rx. and aggressive Rx. |
| Aggressive Rx : LDL <70 with Statin alone versus Statin + ezetimibe | −0.025 versus −0.012; P = .999 | |
|
| LACMART [37] | 18 | LDL-apheresis + HMG-CoA | IVUS | 12 | MLD (mm) | +0.12 versus −0.08 | .008 |
| reductase I versus HMG-CoA reductase I | plaque area (mm2) | −0.69 versus +0.88 | .017 |
|
| ASTEROID [28] | 349 | Rosuvastatin | IVUS | 24 | Mean PAV (%) | −0.98 ± 3.15 | <.001¶ |
| Median total atheroma volume (%) | −6.8 | <.001¶ |
|
| Schartl et al. [39] | 131 | Atorvastatin versus | IVUS | 12 | Plaque volume (mm3) | 1.2 ± 30.4 versus 9.6 ± 28.1 | .191 |
| Usual care | Plaque echogenicity index (%) | 42.2 versus 10.1 | .021 |
|
| DAIS [44] | 731 | Fenofibrate versus placebo | QCA | 36 | MLD (mm) | −0.06 ± 0.01 versus −0.10 ± 0.016 | .029 |
|
| FIELD [45] | 170 | Fenofibrate versus placebo | CIMT | 60 | CIMT (mm/yr) | 0.140 versus 0.098 | .722 |
|
| Zhu et al. [46] | 594 | Fenofibrate versus placebo | CIMT | 24 | CIMT/D % | 12.98 ± 2.62 versus 12.12 ± 2.26 | P < .05 |
|
| SENDCAP [47] | 164 | Bezafibrate versus placebo | CIMT | 36 | CIMT (mm) | 0.06 ± 0.38 versus 0.02 ± 0.41 | P = .5 |
|
| ACTIVATE [48] | 534 | ACAT inhibitor (pactimibe) versus placebo | IVUS | 18 | PAV (%) | 0.69 versus 0.59 | .77 |
| Net atheroma volume (mm3) | −1.3 versus −5.6 | .03 |
|
| A-PLUS [49, 50] | 525 | ACAT inhibitor (avasimibe) versus Placebo | IVUS | 24 | PAV (%) | +0.4 versus +0.83 | NS |
|
| Nissen et al. [52] | 123 | Recombinant Apo A-1 Milano/phospholipid complex (ETC-216) | IVUS | 5 wks | PAV (%) | −1.06 ± 3.17 | .02 (active) ¶ |
| +0.14 ± 3.09 | .97 (placebo) ¶ |
| atheroma volume (mm3) | −14.1 | <.001¶ |
|
| Surrey et al. [56] | 330 | Lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 inhibitor (Darapladib) | IVUS | 12 | Atheroma volume (mm3) | −4.9 ± 32.7 versus −5.0 ± 28.0 | .95 |
| IVUS-RF | Necrotic core volume (mm3) | −0.5 mm3; P = .71¶ versus +4.5; P = .009¶ | .012 |
|
