Meta-regression of trials using carotid intima–media thickness (CIMT) as a surrogate end point leads to unreliable results owing to heterogeneity in methods, interventions, and outcomes of pooled trials. CIMT will continue to be a worthwhile surrogate trial end point supported by two decades of technical progress and clinical atherosclerosis research.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $4.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Greenland, P. et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 56, 2182–2199 (2010).
Costanzo, P. et al. Does carotid intima–media thickness regression predict reduction of cardiovascular events? A meta-analysis of 41 randomized trials. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 56, 2006–2020 (2010).
Taylor, A. J. et al. Extended-release niacin or ezetimibe and carotid intima–media thickness. N. Engl. J. Med. 361, 2113–2122 (2009).
Lorenz, M. W. et al. for the PROG-IMT Study Group. Individual progression of carotid intima media thickness as a surrogate for vascular risk (PROG-IMT): Rationale and design of a meta-analysis project. Am. Heart J. 159, 730–736e2 (2010).
Smilde, T. J. et al. Effect of aggressive versus conventional lipid lowering on atherosclerosis progression in familial hypercholesterolaemia (ASAP): a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial. Lancet 357, 577–581 (2001).
Tendal, B. et al. Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study. BMJ 339, b3128 (2009).
Goldberger, Z. D. et al. Are changes in carotid intima–media thickness related to risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction? A critical review and meta-regression analysis. Am. Heart J. 160, 701–714 (2010).
LeLorier, J., Grégoire, G., Benhaddad, A., Lapierre, J. & Derderian, F. Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 536–542 (1997).
A. J. Taylor is a consultant for Abbott. M. L. Bots and J. J. P. Kastelein declare no competing interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Taylor, A., Bots, M. & Kastelein, J. Meta-regression of CIMT trials—data in, garbage out. Nat Rev Cardiol 8, 128–130 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2011.12
Comparative Effectiveness of Risk Markers for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment in Intermediate-Risk Individuals: Coronary Artery Calcium vs “The Rest”?
Current Cardiovascular Imaging Reports (2013)