Special Article
Analyses of Cancer Data from Three Ezetimibe Trials
N Engl J Med 2008; 359:1357-1366September 25, 2008
- Abstract
Background
Five years of statin therapy lowers low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol substantially and, over a 5-year period, results in reductions in the incidence of cardiovascular events. The Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00092677) has raised the hypothesis that adding ezetimibe to statin therapy for larger LDL cholesterol reductions might increase the incidence of cancer.
Methods
We compared the results of a hypothesis-generating analysis of the incidence of cancer in the SEAS trial of ezetimibe plus simvastatin in 1873 patients (mean follow-up after ezetimibe or matching placebo was begun, 4.1 years) with a hypothesis-testing analysis of cancer data from the two large ongoing trials of this regimen: the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP) (NCT00125593) with 9264 patients (mean follow-up, 2.7 years) and the Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) (NCT00202878), currently with 11,353 patients (mean follow-up, 1.0 year).
Results
In the SEAS trial, assignment to ezetimibe was associated with an increase in any new onset of cancer (101 patients in the active-treatment group vs. 65 in the control group) from several cancer sites. In SHARP and IMPROVE-IT combined, there was no overall excess of cancer (313 active-treatment vs. 326 control; risk ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.12; P=0.61) and no significant excess at any particular site. Among patients assigned to ezetimibe, there were more, albeit not significantly more, deaths from cancer (97, vs. 72 in the control group; P=0.07), but there were also fewer, although not significantly fewer, other cases of cancer (216, vs. 254 in the control group; P=0.08). There was no evidence of a trend in the risk ratio for incidence of or death from cancer with increasing duration of follow-up.
Conclusions
The available results from these three trials do not provide credible evidence of any adverse effect of ezetimibe on rates of cancer. Follow-up of longer duration will permit the balance of risks and benefits to be determined more reliably.
Media in This Article
Figure 1
Relative Risk of Onset of Cancer from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Meta-Analysis of Statin Trials, According to Year of Onset.Figure 2
Relative Risk of Onset of Cancer in the SEAS Trial and in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT, According to Year of Onset.Article Activity
- Article
The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' meta-analysis of individual data for more than 90,000 patients randomly assigned, in equal proportions, to receive either statin therapy or control treatment in 14 trials1 showed that use of statin therapy reduces the incidence of heart attack, stroke, and revascularization procedures by about one fifth for each reduction of 40 mg per deciliter (1 mmol per liter) in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. In contrast, on the basis of 5614 patients with onset of cancer after randomization in those trials, there was no evidence that lowering LDL cholesterol by an average of about 40 mg per deciliter by means of approximately 5 years of statin therapy increases the risk of developing a first cancer (which occurred in 2810 patients receiving a statin vs. 2804 controls; risk ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 1.04) (Figure 1Figure 1
Relative Risk of Onset of Cancer from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Meta-Analysis of Statin Trials, According to Year of Onset.). Nor was there a trend toward increased risk ratios for cancer among patients with lower levels of cholesterol or with increasing duration of statin treatment. When cancer was analyzed according to site, there was no significant excess of any particular type of cancer.In these trials, cancer developed and caused death in 2163 patients during the scheduled follow-up period; the relative risk for death from cancer in the statin group as compared with the control group was 1.01 (99% CI, 0.91 to 1.12).
Results of one of the trials had previously raised concern about a possible excess risk of breast cancer (affecting 9 women in the statin group vs. 0 in the placebo group; nominal P=0.004 before appropriate allowance was made for this being the most extreme result for any type of cancer).2 There was, however, no significant excess of breast cancer among the much larger number of women in other statin trials (96 women in the statin groups vs. 92 controls; risk ratio, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.73 to 1.40; P=0.6).1 Similarly, although another of the trials reported an apparent excess risk of cancer among people over 69 years of age (245 persons in the statin group vs. 199 in the placebo group, uncorrected P=0.02),3 there was again no significantly increased risk of cancer among the larger number of such patients in other statin trials (risk ratio vs. controls, 1.03; 99% CI, 0.91 to 1.16; P=0.4).1
These examples illustrate that unduly data-dependent emphasis on results that are unexpected and often extreme in particular studies can be misleading. They also reinforce the value of testing such unexpected hypothesis-generating findings independently with the use of a separate database larger than the one that generated the hypothesis in the first place.4,5
In the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00092677),6 which is reported on in this issue of the Journal, an apparent excess of about one half in the incidence of any new cancer was observed during mean follow-up of approximately 4 years among the 944 patients randomly assigned to ezetimibe plus simvastatin as compared with the 929 randomly assigned to placebo. This excess, however, is based on only 101 people and 65 people with cancer, respectively (Table 1Table 1
Numbers of Persons with Onset of Fatal or Nonfatal Cancer in the SEAS Trial and in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT.), so the range of uncertainty around the relative risk is wide (95% CI, 1.13 to 2.12; 99% CI, 1.02 to 2.33; uncorrected P=0.006 before any allowance is made for this being the hypothesis-generating result). If there were an adverse effect of ezetimibe plus simvastatin on the incidence of cancer, then given previous epidemiologic studies of cancer in humans7-9 and studies of chemical carcinogenesis in animals,10,11 the excess observed in the SEAS trial should be dominated by a few particular types of cancer and the relative risk should increase significantly with increasing duration of follow-up; neither of these is the case (Table 1 and Figure 2Figure 2Relative Risk of Onset of Cancer in the SEAS Trial and in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT, According to Year of Onset., respectively).To test this hypothesis of an increase in the overall incidence of cancer, the principal investigators of two larger clinical trials of ezetimibe plus simvastatin that are currently in progress — the Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP)12 (NCT00125593) and the Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT)13 (NCT00202878) — obtained the agreement of their independent data and safety monitoring committees to unblind the interim data on cancer (but not on any other outcomes) among more than 20,000 randomized patients for the analysis reported here.
Methods
Contributing Trials and Data
In the hypothesis-generating SEAS trial, 1873 patients with aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg of ezetimibe plus 40 mg of simvastatin daily in a single pill or to receive placebo.6 The first 196 of these patients were initially assigned to simvastatin alone or to placebo but were soon switched to simvastatin plus ezetimibe or placebo.6 For these 196 patients, our analyses are from the time of this switch. Recruitment was conducted between 2001 and 2004 and, as planned, follow-up was completed in March 2008 (yielding a mean follow-up of 4.1 years [7636 person-years] for the ezetimibe comparison). Patients were 45 to 85 years of age (mean, 68) at baseline, and 61% were men.
The SHARP trial is comparing 10 mg of ezetimibe plus 20 mg of simvastatin daily as a single pill and placebo in patients with chronic kidney disease.12 Randomization of 9264 patients took place from 2003 through 2007, with unblinded data available in July 2008, for a mean follow-up period of 2.7 years (24,937 person-years). Patients were at least 40 years of age (mean, 61) at baseline, and 63% were men.
The IMPROVE-IT trial is comparing 10 mg of ezetimibe plus 40 mg of simvastatin daily as a single pill and, as a control, 40 mg of simvastatin daily in patients with acute coronary syndrome.13 Recruitment started late in 2005 and is ongoing, with unblinded data available in July 2008 for 11,353 (of a planned total of up to 18,000) randomized patients during a mean follow-up period of 1.0 year (11,564 person-years). Patients were at least 50 years of age (median, 62) at baseline, and 77% were men.
After the preliminary results from the SEAS trial became known in July 2008, the principal investigators of SHARP and IMPROVE-IT made the decision to ask the data and safety monitoring committees of those trials to make the interim cancer data available for analysis, without knowledge of the unblinded results of either trial. Given the robust evidence from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' meta-analysis that prolonged statin therapy does not materially affect rates of cancer,1 both SHARP and IMPROVE-IT permit a relevant test of the effect of ezetimibe on the incidence of cancer.
The current analyses are of the numbers of patients in the three studies who were recorded as having onset of cancer after the treatment period began. As in the prospectively planned Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' meta-analysis,1 any cancers that were known to be recurrences of preexisting cancers were to be excluded. Of the 169 patients (102 in the active-treatment group and 67 in the control group) with cancer included in the preliminary SEAS analysis that was reported to the Food and Drug Administration in July, subsequent inquiry found that 9 had received the diagnosis of this cancer before the randomized comparison of ezetimibe started (with 2 in the active-treatment group and 3 in the control group having died and 2 in each group still alive), and these patients were excluded. Six additional survivors were found, since the preliminary analyses, to have had onset of cancer during the study period (three in the active-treatment group and three in the control group). This left 166 patients for the current analysis of onset of cancer (101 in the active-treatment group and 65 in the control group).
Information was sought about the primary site of each cancer (coded according to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision) and about how long after randomization the first diagnosis occurred. For the few patients known to have died of cancer who were not recorded as having the disease on the date when last seen, the time of onset was estimated to be halfway between the date when last seen and the date of death.
Statistical Analysis
We compared the number of patients observed to have cancer (O) among patients randomly assigned to ezetimibe in each trial with the number that would have been expected (E) if all randomized patients in that trial had been at equal risk, using standard formulas for 2-by-2 tables14-16 to calculate the variance (V) of (O–E). For the analyses of the incidence of cancer in the ezetimibe trials, the values of (O–E) and V were calculated separately for each year (year 0 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 3, and >3), relating onset of cancer in that year to the numbers of patients without cancer who were still being followed at the start of that year, and were then summed over all the study years (yielding a log-rank analysis16 with respect to year of cancer onset). Analyses of death from cancer by year relate the number of deaths in each year from a cancer with onset during the study to the number of patients who were still alive and being followed at the start of that year.
As is conventional for testing hypotheses, two-sided P values are used: the nominal P value is calculated as the probability of the chi-square statistic with 1 degree of freedom exceeding (|O–E|–0.5)2÷V. (Use of this continuity correction of 0.5 for P value and confidence-interval calculations is appropriate, although it makes the P values slightly less extreme than those calculated by more approximate methods such as the Cox regressions used in the SEAS article.6) To correct for the multiplicity of tests in the analyses of site-specific cancer, the nominal P value was corrected by multiplying it (where appropriate) by the number of comparisons being made.17 The one-step estimate of the event rate ratio (i.e., the risk ratio) for cancer is provided by the formula exp[(O–E)÷V]). Since (O–E)÷V has a variance of 1÷V, the continuity-corrected 95% confidence interval for the risk ratio is exp{[O–E]÷V±[0.5÷V+1.96÷√V]}. Risk ratios are given with 95% confidence intervals for the overall results and, to make some allowance for multiplicity of comparisons, with 99% confidence intervals (replacing 1.96 in the formula above by 2.576) for subgroup results. Any trend in the log risk ratio between the time periods considered was assessed by means of a standard multigroup chi-square test for trend.
Results
Hypothesis-Testing Analyses of the Incidence of Cancer
The SHARP and IMPROVE-IT trials, with a total of 20,617 randomized patients, include about four times the number of patients for whom development of a new cancer was recorded as does the SEAS trial with 1873 patients and involve more than four times the person-years of follow-up (36,501 vs. 7636) (Table 1). If ezetimibe did increase the incidence of cancer by about 50%, then an increase should have been clearly apparent in the aggregate data from these two hypothesis-testing trials. Instead, 313 cancer cases were recorded among the patients who had been assigned to receive ezetimibe, as compared with 326 among those who had not (P=0.61), yielding a risk ratio of 0.96, with a comparatively narrow 95% confidence interval of 0.82 to 1.12 that robustly excludes a 50% increase (Figure 2).
When an unexpected hypothesis generated by one study is being tested by other studies, an uncorrected test of the combined results from the hypothesis-generating and hypothesis-testing studies is not statistically appropriate.4,5 It is only the results from the hypothesis-testing studies on their own that provide an unbiased test of the new hypothesis. Even so, when newly diagnosed (i.e., incident) cancers in all three trials were considered together, there was still no significant excess: 414 in the active-treatment groups as compared with 391 in the control groups (risk ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.22; P=0.46).
Site-Specific Cancers
In the SEAS trial, there were no significant increases of any particular types of cancer: the largest absolute excesses were of skin cancer (affecting 18 patients [2 with melanoma] in the active-treatment group vs. 8 [3 with melanoma] in the control group; uncorrected P=0.08) and prostate cancer (21 vs. 13 patients, uncorrected P=0.24). Table 1 shows the sites in 16 broad groups; finer subdivision yielded smaller numbers of cases per site but revealed no excesses greater than those of skin and prostate cancer. In contrast, in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT, these patterns were reversed: during the follow-up period, there were fewer, albeit not significantly fewer, patients receiving a diagnosis of skin cancer (74 patients in the active-treatment group [13 with melanoma], vs. 89 in the control group [16 with melanoma]) or a diagnosis of prostate cancer (25 vs. 36, respectively). As would be expected if active treatment has no real effect on the incidence of any type of cancer, about half the 16 site-specific results in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT favor ezetimibe and about half do not, with only 1 of these 16 comparisons (that for kidney cancer, which occurred in 25 patients in the active-treatment group vs. 11 in the control group) reaching nominal significance (uncorrected P=0.03 [before being multiplied by 16 to correct for the multiplicity of tests], corrected P=0.48).
Time Trends in the Risk Ratio
Previous experience with the epidemiologic characteristics of the incidence of cancer in humans7-9 and with chemical carcinogenesis in laboratory animals10,11 shows that a causative factor that substantially increases the incidence of cancer would be expected to produce an increasing relative risk over time. But there was no evidence of a trend in the relative risk of cancer with increasing duration of follow-up in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT (P=0.84) (Figure 2) or in all three trials together (P=0.47). The cancers in IMPROVE-IT all occurred within less than 2 years; in SHARP, however, 3894 patients and 1022 patients have been followed for at least 3 years and 4 years, respectively. About half the apparent excess incidence of cancer in the SEAS trial was observed within 2 years after treatment was started, during which period there were more than five times the number of patients with cancer in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT as in the SEAS study, without any apparent excess (Figure 2). Moreover, more than 3 years after randomization, there was little apparent difference in incidence of cancer in the SEAS trial (19 patients with cancer in the active-treatment group vs. 17 in the control group), in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT (20 vs. 24), or in all three together (39 vs. 41).
Cancer Outcome
Among the patients in the active-treatment groups in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT, there was an excess, albeit not significant, of deaths from cancer with onset during the studies (97 deaths, vs. 72 in the control groups; P=0.07), but there was a shortfall, also not significant, in the number of other patients with onset of cancer during the studies (216 patients, vs. 254 in the control group; P=0.08) (Figure 3Figure 3
Relative Risk of Onset of Cancer in the SEAS Trial and in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT, According to Recorded Outcome.), a proportion of whom will eventually also die of it. No significant excesses of death from any particular type of cancer were observed in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT (or in the SEAS trial [Table 2Table 2
Numbers of Deaths from Cancer in the SEAS Trial and in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT.]). The largest absolute excess in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT was of death from lung cancer (21 patients in the active-treatment group, vs. 12 in the control group), but this finding was not reinforced by the patients with lung cancer recorded who were not, at least not yet, known to have died of it (12 and 16 patients, respectively) or by the results for onset of lung cancer in the SEAS trial (7 and 10 patients, respectively) (Table 1 and Table 2).When all three trials were considered together, there was a nominally significant excess of death from cancer among the patients assigned to receive ezetimibe as compared with the controls (134 vs. 92; risk ratio, 1.45; 99% CI, 1.02 to 2.05; uncorrected P=0.007). This P value for all three studies together does not, however, provide an unbiased test of the hypothesis generated by the SEAS trial. Moreover, this apparent excess of deaths from cancer is not reinforced by the shortfall in the numbers, in the three active-treatment groups, with onset of cancer that has not, at least not yet, been recorded as causing death (280 patients, vs. 299 controls). Nor was there any evidence of a trend in the relative risk of death from cancer over time in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT alone (P=0.25) (Figure 4Figure 4
Relative Risk of Death from Cancer in the SEAS Trial and in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT, According to Year of Onset.) or in all three trials together (P=0.54).Discussion
Many clinical trials of new drugs for a variety of conditions are in progress at any given time, and these trials routinely monitor not only the outcomes that are expected to be affected by the trial treatments but also many outcomes that are completely unrelated to the trial treatments. Each year, this monitoring may generate many thousands of analyses of associations between a treatment and an unrelated outcome. On the basis of chance alone, many conventionally significant associations (e.g., those with P<0.01 or even P<0.001) of particular drugs with particular outcomes will arise that misleadingly suggest an unexpected benefit or hazard (as happened with statin therapy2,3). Against this background, trial results with such P values that indicate an unexpected hazard should generally be treated not as good evidence of a hazard but merely as a finding that generates a hypothesis that should be tested by means of statistically independent evidence, preferably based on much larger numbers of relevant outcomes.4,5
Previous large-scale randomized trials have shown that substantial lowering of LDL cholesterol through various statin regimens is not itself associated with any significant effects on the rates of cancer during approximately 5 years of treatment and follow-up (Figure 1).1 For the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy, the unexpected hypothesis raised by the SEAS results was that the overall incidence of cancer might be increased by about 50% (with about half of this excess being seen within less than 2 years after the start of the study treatment). This hypothesis came from a subsidiary analysis; the overall incidence of cancer was not prespecified as a primary outcome or even a secondary outcome in the SEAS trial. In aggregate, the hypothesis-testing SHARP and IMPROVE-IT trials involve about four times as much information about the incidence of cancer as does the hypothesis-generating SEAS trial. In the analysis of SHARP and IMPROVE-IT (or of all three trials together), there was no significant excess incidence of cancer, either overall or at any particular site, and there was no suggestion of an emerging trend with longer treatment and follow-up periods. Epidemiologic knowledge about chemical causes of cancer in humans7-9 suggests that a large proportional increase in the incidence of several types of solid tumor over a small fraction of the human life span is implausible.
Considered in isolation, the observation that there were more deaths, albeit not significantly more, from cancer among patients receiving ezetimibe in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT might be cause for concern. But, as was the case for newly diagnosed cancers, there were no significant excesses of death from any particular type of cancer. Moreover, the number of other cases of cancer was lower, though not significantly so, in the active-treatment groups as compared with the control groups. A factor that truly increased the risk of death from cancer substantially and rapidly (as compared with the usual induction time of, e.g., lung cancer by smoking8,9) would also be likely to increase the incidence of cancer substantially over the same timescale. Hence, the tendency seen in SHARP and IMPROVE-IT for the relative risks of death from cancer and of cancers that have not yet caused death to be opposite in direction from one another is not good evidence for the implausible hypothesis that the tested treatment rapidly affects the risk of death from cancer but not the incidence of cancer. This is a wholly new hypothesis and is not the hypothesis that was generated by the SEAS trial (indeed, the SEAS trial does not support it), and strong, independent evidence would be required before it ceased to be implausible.
Consequently, the currently available results do not provide credible evidence of any adverse effect on cancer of the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy. In light of these findings and a review of interim data on the other outcomes that were available to them (but that remain unavailable to the investigators and all others), the independent data and safety monitoring committees of both SHARP and IMPROVE-IT have recommended that those trials continue to their scheduled end dates early in the next decade. Continuation of these trials, with regular interim analyses of unblinded data (including increased surveillance for safety) by their data and safety monitoring committees, will permit even more reliable evidence to emerge about the effects of combined ezetimibe and statin therapy (which produces a larger reduction in LDL cholesterol than can be achieved by monotherapy), not only on cancer but also — and, perhaps, most important — on the heart attacks, strokes, and other major vascular outcomes that this treatment may be found to prevent.18
The publication of these interim cancer results is a sign of an important and growing problem in the conduct of major clinical trials. Previously, established methods for monitoring interim safety and efficacy data in trials have generally worked well to help ensure that patients are appropriately protected and that treatments are reliably evaluated,19,20 and interim results have been made public only if clear evidence of benefit or harm emerged before the scheduled end of the study. Recently, as in the present case, the unusual levels of public discussion of the safety of drugs have led to public disclosure of interim results to reassure patients and their doctors. The need for such premature disclosure of interim findings could be lessened in the future by the initiation of larger, more definitive outcome trials earlier in the life cycle of potentially important new drugs and devices.21
These analyses were initiated, conducted, interpreted, and reported (here and, in preliminary form, to the Food and Drug Administration in July) by the authors, independently of any pharmaceutical company. Although the Clinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU) are conducting SHARP and the Duke Clinical Research Institute is conducting IMPROVE-IT (in collaboration with the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group), they are doing so independently of the study funders (Merck and Schering-Plough).
The CTSU has a policy of not accepting any honoraria or consultancy fees that directly or indirectly come from industry, although costs of taking part in scientific meetings can be paid. Oxford University is applying for a patent on a genetic test to predict statin-induced myopathy.
Dr. Clare reports having a salaried role as statistician in the IMPROVE-IT trial and Dr. Califf reports receiving consulting fees from Merck and Schering-Plough that are donated to his university and to not-for-profit charities. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
This article (10.1056/NEJMsa0806603) was published at www.nejm.org on September 2, 2008.
We thank the patients who have agreed to take part in these trials, the collaborating institutions and investigators, and the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) investigators for unpublished cancer-incidence data.
Source Information
From the Clinical Trial Service Unit & Epidemiological Studies Unit (CTSU), Oxford University, Oxford, United Kingdom (R.P., J.E., M.L., C.B., R. Collins); and the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC (R. Clare, R. Califf).
Address reprint requests to the CTSU, Richard Doll Bldg., University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, United Kingdom, or at secretary@ctsu.ox.ac.uk.
- References
References
1
Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) Collaborators
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline2
Sacks FM ,Pfeffer MA ,Moye LA , et al. The effect of pravastatin on coronary events after myocardial infarction in patients with average cholesterol levels. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1001-1009
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline3
Shepherd J ,Blauw GJ ,Murphy MB , et al. Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:1623-1630
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline4
Collins R ,Armitage J . High-risk elderly patients PROSPER from cholesterol-lowering therapy. Lancet 2002;360:1618-1619
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline5
Collins R ,MacMahon S . Reliable assessment of the effects of treatment on mortality and major morbidity. I. Clinical trials. Lancet 2001;357:373-380
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline6
Rossebo AB ,Pedersen TR ,Boman K , et al. Intensive lipid lowering with simvastatin and ezetimibe in aortic stenosis. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1343-1356
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline7
Doll R ,Peto R . The causes of cancer: quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Inst 1981;66:1191-1308
Web of Science | Medline8
Tomatis L, ed. Cancer: causes, occurrence and control. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1990. (IARC scientific publications no. 100.)
9
Doll R ,Peto R . Cigarette smoking and bronchial carcinoma: dose and time relationships among regular smokers and lifelong non-smokers. J Epidemiol Community Health 1978;32:303-313
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline10
Peto R, Pike MC, Day NE, et al. Guidelines for simple, sensitive significance tests for carcinogenic effects in long-term animal experiments. In: Long-term and short-term screening assays for carcinogens: a critical appraisal. IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risk of chemicals to humans. Suppl. 2. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1980:311-85.
11
Peto R ,Gray R ,Brantom P ,Grasso P . Dose and time relationships for tumor induction in the liver and esophagus of 4080 inbred rats by chronic ingestion of N-nitrosodiethylamine or N-nitrosodimethylamine. Cancer Res 1991;51:6452-6469
Web of Science | Medline12
Baigent C ,Landry M . Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP). Kidney Int 2003;63:Suppl 84:S207-S210
CrossRef | Web of Science13
Cannon CP, Giugliano RP, Blazing MA, et al. Rationale and design of IMPROVE IT (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial): comparison of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Am Heart J (in press).
14
Mantel N ,Haenszel W . Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 1959;22:719-748
Web of Science | Medline15
Peto R ,Pike MC ,Armitage P , et al. Design and analysis of randomised clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer 1976;34:585-612
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline16
Peto R ,Pike MC ,Armitage P , et al. Design and analysis of randomised clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. II. Analysis and examples. Br J Cancer 1977;35:1-39
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline17
Hochberg Y, Tamhane A. Multiple comparison procedures. New York: Wiley, 1987.
18
Drazen JM ,Jarcho JA ,Morrissey S ,Curfman GD . Cholesterol lowering and ezetimibe. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1507-1508
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline19
Ellenberg SS, Fleming TR, DeMets DL, eds. Data monitoring committees in clinical trials: a practical perspective. Chichester, England: John Wiley, 2002.
20
DAMOCLES Study Group
Web of Science | Medline21
Califf RM ,Harrington RA ,Madre LK ,Peterson ED ,Roth D ,Schulman KA . Curbing the cardiovascular disease epidemic: aligning industry, government, payers, and academics. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26:62-74
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
- Citing Articles (58)
Citing Articles
1
Giugliano, Robert P., . (2011) Niacin at 56 Years of Age — Time for an Early Retirement?. New England Journal of Medicine 365:24, 2318-2320
Full Text2
A. S. Wierzbicki. (2011) The ezetimibe Jonah: the trials and tribulations of an unlucky drug. International Journal of Clinical Practice 65:12, 1207-1208
CrossRef3
Harry R. Davis, Andrew M. Tershakovec, Joanne E. Tomassini, Thomas Musliner. (2011) Intestinal sterol transporters and cholesterol absorption inhibition. Current Opinion in Lipidology 22:6, 467-478
CrossRef4
Katherine A. Lyseng-Williamson. (2011) Ezetimibe/Simvastatin: A Guide to its Clinical Use in Hypercholesterolemia. American Journal Cardiovascular Drugs1
CrossRef5
Jeffrey S. Berns. (2011) A SHARP Study, But With Blunted Conclusions. Seminars in Dialysis 24:6, 684-685
CrossRef6
Norela V. Ocampo, Javad Tafreshi, Christopher L. Hauschild, Ramdas G. Pai. (2011) Cardiovascular Medications and Risk of Cancer. The American Journal of Cardiology 108:7, 1045-1051
CrossRef7
Claudio Marelli, Candace Gunnarsson, Susan Ross, Sara Haas, Donna F. Stroup, Paul Cload, Paul Clopton, Anthony N. DeMaria. (2011) Statins and Risk of Cancer. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 58:5, 530-537
CrossRef8
Jennifer G. Robinson, Anne C. Goldberg. (2011) Treatment of adults with Familial Hypercholesterolemia and evidence for treatment: Recommendations from the National Lipid Association Expert Panel on Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Journal of Clinical Lipidology 5:3, S18-S29
CrossRef9
J.L. Díaz Díaz, M. Suárez Tembra, J.A. Díaz Peromingo, M. Pena Seijo, T. Martínez Ramonde, A. Pose Reino. (2011) Eficacia y seguridad de ezetimiba en unidades de riesgo vascular. Revista Clínica Española 211:6, 283-290
CrossRef10
Colin Baigent, Martin J Landray, Christina Reith, Jonathan Emberson, David C Wheeler, Charles Tomson, Christoph Wanner, Vera Krane, Alan Cass, Jonathan Craig, Bruce Neal, Lixin Jiang, Lai Seong Hooi, Adeera Levin, Lawrence Agodoa, Mike Gaziano, Bertram Kasiske, Robert Walker, Ziad A Massy, Bo Feldt-Rasmussen, Udom Krairittichai, Vuddidhej Ophascharoensuk, Bengt Fellström, Hallvard Holdaas, Vladimir Tesar, Andrzej Wiecek, Diederick Grobbee, Dick de Zeeuw, Carola Grönhagen-Riska, Tanaji Dasgupta, David Lewis, William Herrington, Marion Mafham, William Majoni, Karl Wallendszus, Richard Grimm, Terje Pedersen, Jonathan Tobert, Jane Armitage, Alex Baxter, Christopher Bray, Yiping Chen, Zhengming Chen, Michael Hill, Carol Knott, Sarah Parish, David Simpson, Peter Sleight, Alan Young, Rory Collins. (2011) The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trial. The Lancet 377:9784, 2181-2192
CrossRef11
Michel Farnier. (2011) Safety review of combination drugs for hyperlipidemia. Expert Opinion on Drug Safety 10:3, 363-371
CrossRef12
M. Benn, A. Tybjaerg-Hansen, S. Stender, R. Frikke-Schmidt, B. G. Nordestgaard. (2011) Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and the Risk of Cancer: A Mendelian Randomization Study. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 103:6, 508-519
CrossRef13
Christoph H Saely, Veronika Drexel, Alexander Vonbank, Heinz Drexel. (2011) Lipid management in Type 2 diabetes: the case for combination therapy?. Therapy 8:2, 129-141
CrossRef14
Nkechinyere Ijioma, Jennifer G Robinson. (2011) Lipid-lowering effects of ezetimibe and simvastatin in combination. Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy 9:2, 131-145
CrossRef15
Carlos A. Dujovne, Craig D. Williams, Matthew K. Ito. (2011) What Combination Therapy with a Statin, If Any, Would You Recommend?. Current Atherosclerosis Reports 13:1, 12-22
CrossRef16
Finn Akerström, Luis Rodríguez-Padial. (2011) The IMPROVE-IT trial: current status and potential clinical implications of ezetimibe. Clinical Investigation 1:1, 137-144
CrossRef17
Paul Nestel. 2011. Drugs that affect lipid metabolism. , 921-934.
CrossRef18
Joseph E. Thomas, Andrew M. Tershakovec, Charlotte Jones-Burton, Reza A. Sayeed, JoAnne M. Foody. (2010) Lipid Lowering for Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Older Adults. Drugs & Aging 27:12, 959-972
CrossRef19
M. J. Bolland, A. Grey, G. D. Gamble, I. R. Reid. (2010) Investigating harms in clinical trials - no easy task. International Journal of Clinical Practice 64:13, 1719-1722
CrossRef20
SHARP Collaborative Group. (2010) Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP): Randomized trial to assess the effects of lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol among 9,438 patients with chronic kidney disease. American Heart Journal 160:5, 785-794.e10
CrossRef21
M. H. Ahmed, C. D. Byrne. (2010) Potential therapeutic uses for ezetimibe beyond lowering LDL-c to decrease cardiovascular events. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 12:11, 958-966
CrossRef22
Peter P Toth, Alberico Catapano, Joanne E Tomassini, Andrew M Tershakovec. (2010) Update on the efficacy and safety of combination ezetimibe plus statin therapy. Clinical Lipidology 5:5, 655-684
CrossRef23
Chris J Packard. (2010) Optimizing lipid-lowering therapy in the prevention of coronary heart disease. Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology 3:5, 649-661
CrossRef24
Drazen, Jeffrey M., Wood, Alastair J.J., . (2010) Don't Mess with the DSMB. New England Journal of Medicine 363:5, 477-478
Full Text25
Anthony S Wierzbicki, Adie Viljoen, John B Chambers. (2010) Aortic stenosis and lipids: does intervention work?. Current Opinion in Cardiology 25:4, 379-384
CrossRef26
Maurizio Averna, Augusto Zaninelli, Cristina Le Grazie, Gian Franco Gensini. (2010) Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg in coronary heart disease patients. Journal of Clinical Lipidology 4:4, 272-278
CrossRef27
Abhaya Gupta, Veronique Guyomard, M. Justin S. Zaman, Habib U. Rehman, Phyo Kyaw Myint. (2010) Systematic review on evidence of the effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Advances in Therapy 27:6, 348-364
CrossRef28
Wm.J. Howard. (2010) The role of ezetimibe in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: Where do we stand after ARBITER 6-HALTS. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases 20:5, 295-300
CrossRef29
Robert M. Califf, Yuliya Lokhnygina, Christopher P. Cannon, Michael E. Stepanavage, Carolyn H. McCabe, Thomas A. Musliner, Richard C. Pasternak, Michael A. Blazing, Robert P. Giugliano, Robert A. Harrington, Eugene Braunwald. (2010) An update on the IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) design. American Heart Journal 159:5, 705-709
CrossRef30
Antonio Maiques Galan, Carlos Brotons Cuixart. (2010) Opciones terapéuticas farmacológicas de la dislipemia. Atención Primaria 42:2, 115-120
CrossRef31
Byron F. Vandenberg, Jennifer Robinson. (2010) Management of the Patient with Statin Intolerance. Current Atherosclerosis Reports 12:1, 48-57
CrossRef32
Erin McNamara, Michael C. Archer. (2010) Ezetimibe reverses the inhibitory effects of dietary cholesterol on mammary tumorigenesis in rats. International Journal of CancerNA-NA
CrossRef33
Elisabeth R. Garwood, Anjali S. Kumar, Frederick L. Baehner, Dan H. Moore, Alfred Au, Nola Hylton, Chris I. Flowers, Judy Garber, Beth-Ann Lesnikoski, E. Shelley Hwang, Olofunmilao Olopade, Elisa Rush Port, Michael Campbell, Laura J. Esserman. (2010) Fluvastatin reduces proliferation and increases apoptosis in women with high grade breast cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 119:1, 137-144
CrossRef34
S. Trompet, J. W. Jukema, M. B. Katan, G. J. Blauw, N. Sattar, B. Buckley, M. Caslake, I. Ford, J. Shepherd, R. G. J. Westendorp, A. J. M. de Craen. (2009) Apolipoprotein E Genotype, Plasma Cholesterol, and Cancer: A Mendelian Randomization Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 170:11, 1415-1421
CrossRef35
Ian Hamilton-Craig, Karam Kostner, David Colquhoun, Stan Woodhouse. (2009) At Sea with SEAS: The First Clinical Endpoint Trial for Ezetimibe, Treatment of Patients with Mild to Moderate Aortic Stenosis, Ends with Mixed Results and More Controversy. Heart, Lung and Circulation 18:5, 343-346
CrossRef36
Terje R. Pedersen. (2009) Lipid-lowering drugs and risk for cancer. Current Atherosclerosis Reports 11:5, 350-357
CrossRef37
Califf, Robert M., Harrington, Robert A., Blazing, Michael A., . (2009) Premature Release of Data from Clinical Trials of Ezetimibe. New England Journal of Medicine 361:7, 712-717
Full Text38
Victor L. Serebruany. (2009) Aggressive chronic platelet inhibition with prasugrel and increased cancer risks: revising oral antiplatelet regimens?. Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 23:4, 411-417
CrossRef39
Jeremiah P Depta, Richard A Krasuski. (2009) Therapy and clinical trials. Current Opinion in Lipidology 20:3, 262-263
CrossRef40
David Preiss, Naveed Sattar. (2009) Lipids, lipid modifying agents and cardiovascular risk: a review of the evidence. Clinical Endocrinology 70:6, 815-828
CrossRef41
Joseph S Thompson, Aditya Sood, Rohit Arora. (2009) Statins and Cancer: A Potential Link?. American Journal of Therapeutics1
CrossRef42
A. Pandor, R. M. Ara, I. Tumur, A. J. Wilkinson, S. Paisley, A. Duenas, P. N. Durrington, J. Chilcott. (2009) Ezetimibe monotherapy for cholesterol lowering in 2,722 people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Internal Medicine 265:5, 568-580
CrossRef43
William Clifford Roberts. (2009) Evaluating Lipid-Lowering Trials in the Twenty-First Century. The American Journal of Cardiology 103:9, 1325-1328
CrossRef44
Brian Godman, Ulrich Schwabe, Gisbert Selke, Björn Wettermark. (2009) Update of Recent Reforms in Germany to Enhance the Quality and Efficiency of Prescribing of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Lipid-Lowering Drugs. PharmacoEconomics 27:5, 435-438
CrossRef45
Ewa Dembowski, Michael H Davidson. (2009) Statin and ezetimibe combination therapy in cardiovascular disease. Current Opinion in Endocrinology, Diabetes and Obesity 16:2, 183-188
CrossRef46
Firas J. Al Badarin, Iftikhar J. Kullo, Stephen L. Kopecky, Randal J. Thomas. (2009) Impact of Ezetimibe on Atherosclerosis: Is the Jury Still Out?. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 84:4, 353-361
CrossRef47
Alawi A. Alsheikh-Ali, Richard H. Karas. (2009) Ezetimibe, and the combination of ezetimibe/simvastatin, and risk of cancer: A post-marketing analysis. Journal of Clinical Lipidology 3:2, 138-142
CrossRef48
F. J. Al Badarin, I. J. Kullo, S. L. Kopecky, R. J. Thomas. (2009) Impact of Ezetimibe on Atherosclerosis: Is the Jury Still Out?. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 84:4, 353-361
CrossRef49
Alawi A. Alsheikh-Ali, Richard H. Karas. (2009) The relationship of statins to rhabdomyolysis, malignancy, and hepatic toxicity: Evidence from clinical trials. Current Atherosclerosis Reports 11:2, 100-104
CrossRef50
(2009) Analyses of Cancer Data from Three Ezetimibe Trials. New England Journal of Medicine 360:1, 86-87
Full Text51
José M. Ordovas. (2009) Simvastatin-ezetimibe and aortic valve stenosis: No benefit with unforeseen harm?. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 3:1, 3-4
CrossRef52
Bengt Fellström, Hallvard Holdaas, Alan G. Jardine, Maria K. Svensson, Mattis Gottlow, Roland E. Schmieder, Faiez Zannad. (2009) Cardiovascular disease in patients with renal disease: the role of statins. Current Medical Research and Opinion 25:1, 271-285
CrossRef53
Steen D. Kristensen, Helmut Baumgartner, Barbara Casadei, Helmut Drexler, Eric Eeckhout, Gerasimos Filippatos, Keith A.A. Fox, Joep Perk, Luc A. Pierard, Don Poldermans, Heribert Schunkert, Panos E. Vardas, Ernst E. van der Wall, Kim Fox, Jeroen J. Bax. (2008) Highlights of the 2008 Scientific Sessions of the European Society of Cardiology. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 52:24, 2032-2042
CrossRef54
James H. O'Keefe, Kevin A. Bybee, Carl J. Lavie. (2008) Is Carotid Intima-Media Thickness a Reliable Clinical Predictor?–Reply–I. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 83:11, 1300-1301
CrossRef55
J. Stebbing, A. K. Asghar, P. Holmes, M. Bower, H. L. Isenman, M. Nelson. (2008) Use of ezetimibe during HIV infection. Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 63:1, 218-220
CrossRef56
Drazen, Jeffrey M., D'Agostino, Ralph B., Ware, James H., Morrissey, Stephen, Curfman, Gregory D., . (2008) Ezetimibe and Cancer — An Uncertain Association. New England Journal of Medicine 359:13, 1398-1399
Full Text57
Fleming, Thomas R., . (2008) Identifying and Addressing Safety Signals in Clinical Trials. New England Journal of Medicine 359:13, 1400-1402
Full Text58
Rossebø, Anne B., Pedersen, Terje R., Boman, Kurt, Brudi, Philippe, Chambers, John B., Egstrup, Kenneth, Gerdts, Eva, Gohlke-Bärwolf, Christa, Holme, Ingar, Kesäniemi, Y. Antero, Malbecq, William, Nienaber, Christoph A., Ray, Simon, Skjærpe, Terje, Wachtell, Kristian, Willenheimer, Ronnie, . (2008) Intensive Lipid Lowering with Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis. New England Journal of Medicine 359:13, 1343-1356
Full Text
- Letters
