Trial reportBMJ open diabetes research & care2020
Effect of CETP inhibition with evacetrapib in patients with diabetes mellitus enrolled in the ACCELERATE trial.
Trial report in BMJ open diabetes research & care, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of CETP inhibitors on new-onset diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2022Pooled it
- Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibitors: State of the Science.Current cardiology reports · 2026Review
- The Role of APOA-I in Alzheimer's Disease: Bridging Peripheral Tissues and the Central Nervous System.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The relationship of glycosylated hemoglobin A1c and Apolipoprotein A‑1 ratio on short-term prognosis in STEMI patients following PCI: a retrospective study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibitors and Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Review
- Dysfunctional High-Density Lipoproteins in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Molecular Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- HDL Cholesterol and Non-Cardiovascular Disease: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- High Density Lipoproteins and Diabetes.Cells · 2021Review
- Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9, Angiopoietin-Like Protein 8, Sortilin, and Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein-Friends of Foes for Psoriatic Patients at the Risk of Developing Cardiometabolic Syndrome?International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular risk. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition with evacetrapib results in a marked increase in HDL and reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. We evaluated the impact of treatment with evacetrapib versus placebo in the subset of 8236 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the Assessment of Clinical Effects of Cholesteryl Ester Transfer Protein Inhibition with Evacetrapib in Patients at a High Risk for Vascular Outcomes trial. METHODS AND
resultsTime to first occurrence of any component of the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and hospitalization for unstable angina was compared among patients with DM randomized to treatment with evacetrapib (n=4127) or placebo (n=4109) over a median of 26 months of follow-up. The mean baseline LDL at initiation was 80 mg/dL with a mean baseline HDL of 44 mg/dL. In patients with DM, evacetrapib resulted in a 131% mean increase in HDL levels and a 32% mean decrease in LDL at 3 months that was sustained during the course of the trial. At 6 months, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels were lower with evacetrapib than placebo (7.08% vs 7.15%, p=0.023). Composite event rates were higher in patients with DM than without DM (Kaplan-Meier estimates: 15.2% vs 10.6%, HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.64, p<0.001). In the DM group, event rates for the composite endpoint (14.5% evacetrapib vs 16% placebo, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.07, p=0.38) and individual components of the composite were similar for both evacetrapib and placebo groups. No significant treatment interaction between treatment assignment and diabetes status was noted.
conclusionDespite a favorable increase in HDL, and decreases in LDL and HbA1c levels in patients with DM, we observed no benefits of treatment with evacetrapib on prespecified clinical outcomes in this high-risk population.
Indexed as
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.