ArticleF1000Research2014
CETP inhibitors and cardiovascular disease: Time to think again.
Article in F1000Research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic review and Meta-Analysis of Mendelian randomisation analyses of Abdominal aortic aneurysms.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2021Review
- UnripeNutrients · 2020Article
- Harnessing publicly available genetic data to prioritize lipid modifying therapeutic targets for prevention of coronary heart disease based on dysglycemic risk.Human genetics · 2016Article
- CETP Inhibition: Past Failures and Future Hopes.Clinical Medicine Insights. Cardiology · 2016Review
- Cholesteryl ester transfer protein: ace of spades, queen of hearts, or the joker?Frontiers in pharmacology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) lowers plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration and raises high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, suggesting it might prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). From the outset, however, the concept has been controversial owing to uncertainty about its effects on HDL function and reverse cholesterol transport (RCT). Although there has long been good evidence that CETP inhibition reduces atherosclerosis in rabbits, the first information on CETP as a CVD risk factor in a prospectively followed cohort was not published until after the first Phase 3 trial of a CETP inhibitor had begun. The worrying finding that CVD incidence was related inversely to plasma CETP has since been reproduced in each of five further prospective cohort studies. Similar results were obtained in subjects on or off statin therapy, for first and second CVD events, and for mortality as well as CVD morbidity. Additionally, two recent studies have found alleles of the CETP gene that lower hepatic CETP secretion to be associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction. Meanwhile, CETP gene transfer in mice was found to increase RCT from peripheral macrophages in vivo, and human plasma with high CETP activity was shown to have a greater capacity to remove cholesterol from cultured cells than plasma with low activity. This mounting evidence for a protective function of CETP has been given remarkably little attention, and indeed was not mentioned in several recent reviews. It appears to show that CETP inhibition does not test the HDL hypothesis as originally hoped, and raises a pressing ethical issue regarding two Phase 3 trials of inhibitors, involving more than forty thousand subjects, which are currently in progress. As the weight of evidence now clearly supports an adverse effect of CETP inhibition on CVD, an urgent review is needed to determine if these trials should be discontinued.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.