Living Knowledge · Confidence Timeline
ezetimibe lowers LDL cholesterol in hyperlipidaemia
Scientific confidence changes as new graded, independent evidence accumulates. This timeline shows how the evidence for this claim has evolved — what changed, why it changed, and which scientific dimension moved.
Confidence
79%
Uncertainty 76%–83% (±4%)
Evidence coverage
Substantial71%
25 evidence families12 independent groupsRegulatory standing: approvedLast meaningful update: 7 May 2025
What changed, and why
- Quiet period29 Oct 2025 – 1 Dec 2025No confidence movement
2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
- Confidence
- 79% → 79%
- Uncertainty
- ±4% → ±4%
- Coverage
- 71% → 71%
Confidence was unchanged at 79%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 71%.
- Quiet period6 Nov 2022 – 28 Mar 2025No confidence movementCoverage 77% → 71%
9 evidence events retrieved. 6 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction) and 3 were regulatory events (separate axis).
New supporting evidence
- Confidence
- 78% → 79%
- Uncertainty
- ±4% → ±4%
- Coverage
- 77% → 77%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 79% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 77%.
- Quiet period5 Oct 2021 – 5 Aug 2022No confidence movementCoverage 79% → 77%
5 evidence events retrieved. 5 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 77% → 78%
- Uncertainty
- ±4% → ±4%
- Coverage
- 79% → 79%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 78% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 79%.
- Confidence increased
- Quiet period14 Dec 2020 – 15 Mar 2021No confidence movement
2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
Coverage-only evidence
- Confidence
- 77% → 77%
- Uncertainty
- ±4% → ±4%
- Coverage
- 81% → 79%
Confidence was unchanged at 77% — 1 coverage-only item (on-topic, no readable direction) was retrieved but did not change it. Evidence coverage fell from 81% to 79%.
- Coverage decreased
New supporting evidence
- Confidence
- 76% → 77%
- Uncertainty
- ±4% → ±4%
- Coverage
- 81% → 81%
Confidence was unchanged at 77%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 81%.
New supporting evidence
- Confidence
- 76% → 76%
- Uncertainty
- ±4% → ±4%
- Coverage
- 81% → 81%
Confidence was unchanged at 76%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 81%.
- Quiet period6 Aug 2018 – 22 Feb 2019No confidence movement
2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 75% → 76%
- Uncertainty
- ±4% → ±4%
- Coverage
- 81% → 81%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 76% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 81%.
- Confidence increased
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 74% → 75%
- Uncertainty
- ±5% → ±4%
- Coverage
- 80% → 81%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 75% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 81%.
- Confidence increased
- Quiet period12 Feb 2018 – 26 May 2018No confidence movementCoverage 83% → 80%
4 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction) and 1 was a regulatory event (separate axis).
- Regulatory eventSeparate axis
Confidence was unchanged at 74%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 83%. 1 regulatory event was recorded on the separate regulatory-standing axis and did not change efficacy confidence.
New supporting evidence
- Confidence
- 74% → 74%
- Uncertainty
- ±5% → ±5%
- Coverage
- 83% → 83%
Confidence was unchanged at 74%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 83%.
New well-powered no-effect evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 79% → 74%
- Uncertainty
- ±5% → ±5%
- Coverage
- 83% → 83%
Confidence decreased by 5 points to 74% after 1 well-powered no-effect result was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 83%.
- Confidence decreased
New supporting evidence
- Confidence
- 78% → 79%
- Uncertainty
- ±5% → ±5%
- Coverage
- 82% → 83%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 79% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 83%.
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 76% → 78%
- Uncertainty
- ±5% → ±5%
- Coverage
- 81% → 82%
Confidence increased by 2 points to 78% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 82%.
- Confidence increased
- Quiet period1 Feb 2017 – 31 May 2017No confidence movement
3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
- Confidence
- 76% → 76%
- Uncertainty
- ±6% → ±5%
- Coverage
- 80% → 81%
Confidence was unchanged at 76%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 81%.
New supporting evidence
- Confidence
- 75% → 76%
- Uncertainty
- ±6% → ±6%
- Coverage
- 79% → 80%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 76% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 79% to 80%.
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period19 Nov 2015 – 1 Dec 2015No confidence movement
4 evidence events retrieved. 4 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 74% → 75%
- Uncertainty
- ±6% → ±6%
- Coverage
- 78% → 79%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 75% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 78% to 79%.
- Confidence increased
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period1 Jul 2015 – 1 Jul 2015No confidence movement
1 evidence event retrieved. 1 was coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 71% → 74%
- Uncertainty
- ±7% → ±6%
- Coverage
- 76% → 78%
Confidence increased by 2 points to 74% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 76% to 78%.
- Confidence increased
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period1 Jun 2015 – 1 Jun 2015No confidence movement
1 evidence event retrieved. 1 was coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
Coverage-only evidence
- Confidence
- 71% → 71%
- Uncertainty
- ±7% → ±7%
- Coverage
- 81% → 76%
Confidence was unchanged at 71% — 1 coverage-only item (on-topic, no readable direction) was retrieved but did not change it. Evidence coverage fell from 81% to 76%.
- Coverage decreased
- Quiet period1 Apr 2015 – 1 Apr 2015No confidence movementCoverage 80% → 81%
1 evidence event retrieved. 1 duplicated or fell outside the claim scope.
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 69% → 71%
- Uncertainty
- ±7% → ±7%
- Coverage
- 79% → 80%
Confidence increased by 3 points to 71% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 79% to 80%.
- Confidence increased
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period1 Nov 2014 – 1 Nov 2014No confidence movement
1 evidence event retrieved. 1 was coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 65% → 69%
- Uncertainty
- ±8% → ±7%
- Coverage
- 77% → 79%
Confidence increased by 4 points to 69% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 77% to 79%.
- Confidence increased
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period1 May 2014 – 31 May 2014No confidence movement
2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 62% → 65%
- Uncertainty
- ±9% → ±8%
- Coverage
- 77% → 77%
Confidence increased by 3 points to 65% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 77%.
- Confidence increased
- Quiet period29 Oct 2013 – 4 Dec 2013No confidence movement
3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 59% → 62%
- Uncertainty
- ±10% → ±9%
- Coverage
- 75% → 77%
Confidence increased by 4 points to 62% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±10% to ±9%. Evidence coverage rose from 75% to 77%.
- Confidence increased
- Uncertainty narrowed
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period1 Jul 2013 – 1 Jul 2013No confidence movement
2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 57% → 59%
- Uncertainty
- ±10% → ±10%
- Coverage
- 73% → 75%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 59% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 73% to 75%.
- Confidence increased
- Coverage increased
Coverage-only evidence
- Confidence
- 57% → 57%
- Uncertainty
- ±10% → ±10%
- Coverage
- 80% → 73%
Confidence was unchanged at 57% — 1 coverage-only item (on-topic, no readable direction) was retrieved but did not change it. Evidence coverage fell from 80% to 73%.
- Coverage decreased
- Quiet period8 May 2012 – 1 Jul 2012No confidence movement
2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New well-powered no-effect evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 62% → 57%
- Uncertainty
- ±11% → ±10%
- Coverage
- 78% → 80%
Confidence decreased by 4 points to 57% after 1 well-powered no-effect result was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 78% to 80%.
- Confidence decreased
- Coverage increased
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 60% → 62%
- Uncertainty
- ±11% → ±11%
- Coverage
- 75% → 78%
Confidence increased by 1 point to 62% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 75% to 78%.
- Confidence increased
- Coverage increased
New well-powered no-effect evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 70% → 60%
- Uncertainty
- ±13% → ±11%
- Coverage
- 71% → 75%
Confidence decreased by 10 points to 60% after 1 well-powered no-effect result was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±13% to ±11%. Evidence coverage rose from 71% to 75%.
- Confidence decreased
- Uncertainty narrowed
- Coverage increased
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 64% → 70%
- Uncertainty
- ±16% → ±13%
- Coverage
- 67% → 71%
Confidence increased by 6 points to 70% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±16% to ±13%. Evidence coverage rose from 67% to 71%.
- Confidence increased
- Uncertainty narrowed
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period1 Dec 2011 – 1 Feb 2012No confidence movement
3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
Coverage-only evidence
- Confidence
- 64% → 64%
- Uncertainty
- ±16% → ±16%
- Coverage
- 80% → 67%
Confidence was unchanged at 64% — 1 coverage-only item (on-topic, no readable direction) was retrieved but did not change it. Evidence coverage fell from 80% to 67%.
- Coverage decreased
New contradicting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 71% → 64%
- Uncertainty
- ±13% → ±16%
- Coverage
- 75% → 80%
Confidence decreased by 7 points to 64% after 1 contradictory result was incorporated. Uncertainty widened from ±13% to ±16%. Evidence coverage rose from 75% to 80%.
- Confidence decreased
- Uncertainty widened
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period1 Jun 2010 – 1 Mar 2011No confidence movement
3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 67% → 71%
- Uncertainty
- ±15% → ±13%
- Coverage
- 67% → 75%
Confidence increased by 4 points to 71% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±15% to ±13%. Evidence coverage rose from 67% to 75%.
- Confidence increased
- Uncertainty narrowed
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period1 Mar 2009 – 1 Feb 2010No confidence movement
4 evidence events retrieved. 4 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 56% → 67%
- Uncertainty
- ±20% → ±15%
- Coverage
- 67% → 67%
Confidence increased by 12 points to 67% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±20% to ±15%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 67%.
- Confidence increased
- Uncertainty narrowed
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 45% → 56%
- Uncertainty
- ±33% → ±20%
- Coverage
- 50% → 67%
Confidence increased by 11 points to 56% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±33% to ±20%. Evidence coverage rose from 50% to 67%.
- Confidence increased
- Uncertainty narrowed
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period16 Feb 2007 – 1 May 2008No confidence movement
8 evidence events retrieved. 8 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
New supporting evidence
Major change- Confidence
- 0% → 45%
- Uncertainty
- ±45% → ±33%
- Coverage
- 0% → 50%
Confidence increased by 45 points to 45% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±45% to ±33%. Evidence coverage rose from 0% to 50%.
- Confidence increased
- Uncertainty narrowed
- Coverage increased
- Quiet period27 Jul 2001 – 8 Nov 2006No confidence movement
21 evidence events retrieved. 21 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).
Coverage-only evidence
- Confidence
- 0% → 0%
- Uncertainty
- ±45% → ±45%
Confidence for this claim was first established at 0% from 1 coverage-only item (on-topic, no readable direction).
View all evidence · 122 items in the ledger
- trialNCT03884452 — A Phase III Efficacy And Safety Study of Ezetimibe (SCH58235) 10 mg inneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT03867110 — A Phase 3, Double-Blind Efficacy and Safety Study of Ezetimibe (SCH 58neutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT03882905 — A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study to EneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT03867318 — A Phase III Double-Blind Efficacy and Safety of Ezetimibe (SCH 58235) neutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT03882892 — Long-Term, Safety and Tolerability Study of SCH 58235 or Placebo in AdneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT03882996 — Long-Term, Open-Label, Safety and Tolerability Study of Ezetimibe (SCHneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00651144 — SCH 058235: Assessment of a Multiple-Dose Drug Interaction Between EzeneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT03885921 — Long-Term, Open-Label, Safety and Tolerability Study of SCH 58235 in AneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00653276 — An Open-Label, 2-Period, Crossover Study to Determine the Effect of MuneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00652301 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled,4-Period, Crossover StuneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00651274 — A Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel Groups, Placebo-Controlled Study CneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00652444 — Effect Of Ezetimibe Coadministration With Simvastatin In A Middle EastneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00651404 — A Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel Groups, Placebo-Controlled Study CneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00650819 — A Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized, Active-controlled Parallel GrneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00651963 — Open Label Study Evaluating The Use Of Combination Therapy Of EzetimibneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00079638 — Comparative Efficacy Evaluation of Lipid Levels When Treated With NiasneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00653445 — A 6wk Open-Label, Randomised, Multicentre, Phase IIIb, Parallel Group neutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00185107 — A Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, ParallelneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00651014 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Study to EneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00202904 — A Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel Groups, Placebo-Controlled Study CneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00319449 — A Single Center, Randomized, Parallel Groups, Placebo-Controlled StudyneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00101439 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, 2-Period, Crossover StneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00268697 — A Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Randomized, Parallel Group, Multicenter,neutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00405067 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active Controlled, Parallel-Group Study tosupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change in LDL-C at 12 Weeks Therapy Compared to Baseline Between Treatments' (Baseline and 12 weeks of treatment): drug -46.2% vs placebo -29.9% (Δ -16.300000000000004%).
- trialNCT00423488 — A Multicenter, Randomized, Parallel-Groups, Double-Blind Placebo ContrneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00652847 — Randomized Parallel Group Trial Of The Efficacy And Safety Of EzetimibneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00466401 — Phase 4 Study on Effect of Ezetimibe on Platelet Aggregation and LDL TneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00440154 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled,EzetimineutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT01103648 — Synergistic Effect of Simvastatin and Ezetimibe on Lipid and Pro-inflaneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00203476 — A Prospective, Open Label Comparison of Ezetimibe, Niacin, and ColestineutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00276484 — A Multicenter, Rand., Double-Blind, Titration Study to Evaluate & CompneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00753883 — A Randomized, Open-Labeled, Parallel Group Comparison Study to EvaluatneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00525824 — A 12-week Open-label, Randomised, Parallel-group, Multicentre, Phase IsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) After 6 Weeks Combination Treatment': drug arm -59.72% (vs an active comparator, not placebo).
- trialNCT00762229 — Prospective Evaluation of LDL Levels in Patients Converted From Zetia neutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00794677 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, 2-Period, Crossover StneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00639158 — A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Prospective Study Comparing tsupportsStructured CT.gov secondary outcome 'Mean Percent Change in Very Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (VLDL-C) From Baseline to Final Visit' (Baseline to 12 weeks (final visit)): drug -57.8% vs placebo -41.1% (Δ -16.699999999999996%, p< 0.001).
- trialNCT00701727 — Ezetimibe Reverse Cholesterol Transport (RCT) Pilot StudyneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00653523 — Open-label, Long-term Study of Coadministration of Ezetimibe and SimvaneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00654095 — Open-label, Long-term Study of Coadministration of Ezetimibe and AtorvneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00863265 — Regulation of Cholesterol Absorption: LDL Cholesterol Response to a ConeutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00871351 — Ezetimibe Phase IV Clinical Study in Patients With HypercholesterolemisupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change in Low-Density Lipoprotein - Cholesterol (LDL-C) Values': drug arm -25.8% (vs an active comparator, not placebo).
- trialNCT01384058 — The Effect of Ezetimibe 10 mg, Simvastatin 20 mg and the Combination oneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00664469 — INdians Followed for INtensive Lipid Lowering Treatment and Its safetYneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00972829 — Tolerability and Lipid Lowering Effect of Weekly/Biweekly Crestor in SneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT01218204 — A Study to Investigate the Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics and contradictsStructured CT.gov result — drug arm significantly did NOT reduce LDL cholesterol (+6.03%).
- paperCombined effects of ezetimibe and phytosterols on cholesterol metabolism: a randomized, controlled fneutralOn-topic, but the abstract's conclusion/results state no clear weight-loss outcome (aim, adjacent outcome, or mechanism only).
- trialNCT02304926 — Study of Lipoprotein Subfractions, Inflammation, Oxidative Stress and neutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT01597700 — A RANDOMIZED, BALANCED, OPEN LABEL, CROSSOVER, TWO PERIOD, TWO TREATMEneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT01236430 — A Study to Evaluate the Definitive Bioequivalence of SCH 900068 With MneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT01375777 — A Randomized, Placebo- and Ezetimibe-controlled, Dose-ranging Study tosupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 12' (Baseline and Week 12): drug -14.26% vs placebo -3.71% (Δ -10.55%).
- trialNCT01370590 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Multicenter, Crossover no_effectStructured CT.gov result (N=406) — no statistically significant effect on LDL cholesterol (drug -54%). Well-powered null: counts against the claim.
- trialNCT00867165 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Placebo-Controlled EfficacsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percentage Change From Baseline in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 12' (Baseline and Week 12): drug -27.7% vs placebo -0.95% (Δ -26.74%, p<0.001).
- trialNCT01370603 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Multicenter, Crossover no_effectStructured CT.gov result (N=328) — no statistically significant effect on LDL cholesterol (drug -58.9%). Well-powered null: counts against the claim.
- trialNCT01375764 — A Randomized, Multicenter Study to Evaluate Tolerability and Efficacy neutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT00843661 — Coadministration of Ezetimibe With Fenofibrate Versus Pravastatin MononeutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00965055 — Atorvastatin vs. Atorvastatin/Ezetimibe in Patients With Hypo-responseneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT01154036 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Multicenter Study of PasupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (LDL-C) (Phase I)': drug arm -24.8% (vs an active comparator, not placebo).
- trialNCT01644474 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Group Study toneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT01723735 — A Randomized, Partial Blind, 3 Parallel Groups Study of the PharmacodyneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT01516879 — A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Multicenter Study to EsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in LDL-C at Week 52' (Baseline and Week 52): drug -50.14% vs placebo +6.83% (Δ -56.97%, p<0.001).
- trialNCT01763827 — A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo and Ezetimibe-controlled, MulticenneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT01763905 — A Double-blind, Randomized, Multicenter Study to Evaluate Safety and EneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT01763866 — A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo and Ezetimibe Controlled, MulticenneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT01611883 — Examination of the Effect of Ezetimibe on Glucose Metabolism - RandomisupportsStructured CT.gov secondary outcome 'Percent Change in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) From Baseline' (Baseline and Week 24): drug -22.79% vs placebo -1.75% (Δ -21.05%, p<0.001).
- trialNCT01730040 — A Randomized, Double-Blind Study of the Efficacy and Safety of AlirocuneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT01730053 — A Randomized, Double-Blind Study of the Efficacy and Safety of REGN727neutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT01890967 — A Phase 2 Efficacy and Safety Dose-Ranging Study of LY3015014 in PatiesupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percentage Change From Baseline in Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C)' (Baseline, Week 16): drug -14.9% vs placebo +7.6% (Δ -22.5%).
- trialNCT01941836 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel Group, Multicenter Study to EvaluneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00908011 — A Prospective, Randomized Study to Determine the Effect of Ezetimibe ineutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT02055976 — A Phase 2 Double Blind, Parallel Group, Placebo Controlled, RandomizedsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Fasting Low Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Day 85' (Baseline, Day 85): drug -18.56% vs placebo -5.91% (Δ -12.649999999999999%).
- paperEfficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy in children with heterozygous familial or nonfamilial hsupportsEfficacy on the claim outcome reported in the results.
- paperA randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of ezetimibe on glucose metabolisneutralOn-topic, but the abstract's conclusion/results state no clear weight-loss outcome (aim, adjacent outcome, or mechanism only).
- trialNCT01603758 — Reverse Cholesterol Transport in HumansneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- paperEzetimibe Added to Statin Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndromes.supportsEfficacy on the claim outcome reported in the conclusion.
- trialNCT01644188 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel Group Study to Evaluate the EfficneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT02260648 — A Double-Blind Efficacy and Safety Study of Evacetrapib in CombinationsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline to Week 12 in Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) Measured by Beta Quantification' (Baseline, Week 12): drug -27.31% vs placebo -3.75% (Δ -23.56%).
- trialNCT03288038 — A Multi-center, Randomized, Double-blind, Phase III Clinical Trial to neutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT00955227 — Can Cholesterol Lowering Drugs Influence Circulating Omega-3 Fatty AcineutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT02103049 — The Impact of Ezetimibe on Biochemical Markers of Cardiovascular Risk neutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT02227784 — The Addition of Evacetrapib to Atorvastatin Compared to Placebo, High neutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT02550288 — A Phase III, Randomized, Active Comparator-controlled Clinical Trial tsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 12' (Baseline and Week 12): drug -59.2% vs placebo -19.3% (Δ -39.9%, p<0.001).
- trialNCT02741245 — A Phase III, Randomized, Active Comparator-controlled, Clinical Trial supportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percentage Change From Baseline in Low-density Lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)' (Baseline and Week 12): drug -60.5% vs placebo -18.7% (Δ -41.8%, p<0.001).
- trialNCT02749994 — A Clinical Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of a Combination TneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT02642159 — A Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel Group Study to Evaluate the EfficacneutralStructured CT.gov result — no clinically-meaningful LDL cholesterol change in the drug arm (-0.3%).
- trialNCT01709513 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Double-Dummy, Active-Controlled Study to EneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT03051100 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel Group Study tsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 6' (Baseline; Week 6): drug -63.6% vs placebo -3.1% (Δ -60.5%, p<0.001).
- paperLow-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, episupportsEfficacy on the claim outcome reported in the conclusion. Synthesis of prior trials — not independent replication.
- trialNCT01984424 — A Double-blind, Randomized, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety ano_effectStructured CT.gov pre-specified outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Very Low-density Lipoprotein' (N=511) — no significant effect on LDL cholesterol (Δ -4.65 [-12.25–2.94], p=0.37). Well-powered null: counts against the claim.
- trialNCT02748057 — A Phase III, Open-label, Clinical Trial to Assess the Long Term SafetysupportsStructured CT.gov secondary outcome 'Percentage Change From Baseline in Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (LDL-C)': drug arm -33.8% (vs an active comparator, not placebo).
- regulatoryFDA — approved—Regulatory standing (separate axis) — never inflates evidential confidence.
- trialNCT03001076 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Parallel Group, MulticneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT05681247 — Study on the Bioavailability and Bioequivalence of Ezetimibe Tablets ineutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- regulatoryFDA — approved—Regulatory standing (separate axis) — never inflates evidential confidence.
- trialNCT02634580 — A Double-blind, Randomized, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Safety aneutralStructured CT.gov outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in VLDL-C at the Mean of Weeks ' — non-significant (Δ -0.67 [-15.22–13.87], p=0.93) but underpowered (N=61): coverage only, not evidence of absence.
- trialNCT03337308 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Parallel Group Study to Evaluate the EfficsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline to Week 12 in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C)' (Baseline; Week 12): drug -36.2% vs placebo +1.8% (Δ -38%, p<0.001).
- trialNCT02984982 — A Randomized, Open-label, Blinded Intravascular Ultrasound Analysis, PsupportsStructured CT.gov secondary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Calculated Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol at Week 12 and Week 36': drug arm -64.53% (vs an active comparator, not placebo).
- trialNCT02715726 — A Randomized, Double-blind, Parallel Group Study to Evaluate the EfficneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT02890992 — An 8-Week Open-Label, Sequential, Repeated Dose-Finding Study to EvaluneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT02476006 — A Multi-country, Multicenter, Single-arm, Open-label Study to DocumentsupportsStructured CT.gov secondary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline in Calculated Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 12': drug arm -54.84% (single-arm, no control).
- trialNCT03531905 — A Randomized Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Bempedoic AcsupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Percent Change From Baseline to Week 12/End of Study (EOS) in Low-density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C)' (Baseline; Week 12): drug -38.8% vs placebo +0.9% (Δ -39.6%, p<0.001).
- trialNCT03510715 — An Open-Label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab neutralStructured CT.gov result — no clinically-meaningful LDL cholesterol change in the drug arm (-4.1%).
- trialNCT04397653 — Phase IV Study for Efficacy and Safety of Evolocumab Added to EzetimibneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT03933293 — A Phase 2 Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of PCSK9 InhibitorneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT04770389 — A Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized Phase 2 Study to EvaluasupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Mean Percent Change in Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) From Baseline to Day 57: Obicetrapib in Combination With Ezetimibe Compared to Placebo [Friedewald]' (8 weeks): drug -45.63% vs placebo -0.17% (Δ -44.92%, p<0.0001).
- trialNCT04643093 — Orient Pharma Co., Ltd.neutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT04638400 — Comparison of Effects of Simvastatin Versus Ezetimibe on IntracellularneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT03750760 — Early Alirocumab to Reduce LDL-C in Myocardial InfarctionneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT04659525 — Phase IV Study for Efficacy and Safety of Evolocumab Added to EzetimibneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT03510884 — A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study Followed by an OpneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT05266586 — A Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 2 Study to EvalusupportsStructured CT.gov primary outcome 'Mean Percent Change in Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol (LDL-C) for Combination Treatment Group Compared With the Placebo Group [Friedewald]' (12-weeks): drug -59.07% vs placebo -0.83% (Δ -58.38%, p<.0001).
- paperSmall Interfering RNA to Reduce Lipoprotein(a) in Cardiovascular Disease.neutralOn-topic, but the abstract's conclusion/results state no clear weight-loss outcome (aim, adjacent outcome, or mechanism only).
- regulatoryFDA — filed—Regulatory standing (separate axis) — never inflates evidential confidence.
- trialNCT05970679 — A Randomized, Double Blind, Parallel, Multi-center, Phase 3 Clinical TneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT05795517 — A Phase 2 ,Multicentre, Randomised, Double Blind Double Simulation, PlneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- regulatoryFDA — filed—Regulatory standing (separate axis) — never inflates evidential confidence.
- trialNCT05763875 — A Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo- and Active-Comparator Controlled neutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- regulatoryFDA — filed—Regulatory standing (separate axis) — never inflates evidential confidence.
- trialNCT06005597 — A Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Randomized, Phase 3 Study to EvaluneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- trialNCT06450366 — A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study to Evaluate the Efficacy andneutralResults posted but no readable target outcome — coverage only.
- paperFixed-dose combination of obicetrapib and ezetimibe for LDL cholesterol reduction (TANDEM): a phase supportsEfficacy on the claim outcome reported in the conclusion.
- trialNCT06742853 — A Phase 1, Randomized, Single-blind, Placebo-controlled Study to InvesneutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
- trialNCT04701242 — Ezetimibe Utilization Early After Acute Myocardial Infarction. "EzAMI neutralNo posted results — existence/phase are not direction.
View methodology and known limitations
Engine methodology v1.7.0. Methodology-version changes are recorded separately from new evidence; a change in engine version reinterprets existing evidence and is not a new scientific discovery.
- Engine constants are calibrated against a small anchor set — coarse, not authoritative.
- Evidence is skewed toward the drug's sponsor; genuinely independent replication is the honest ceiling.
- Paper direction is extracted from abstracts; the hedged tail stays neutral (coverage, not confidence).
- Regulatory approval is tracked on a separate axis and never inflates evidential confidence.
Computed 2026-08-05 · not medical advice.