Living Knowledge · Confidence Timeline

ezetimibe lowers LDL cholesterol in hyperlipidaemia

Scientific confidence changes as new graded evidence accumulates and corroboration from distinct sources is detected. This timeline shows how the evidence for this claim has evolved — what changed, why it changed, and which scientific dimension moved.

Confidence
79%
Uncertainty 73%–86% (±7%)
Evidence coverage
Substantial75%
25 evidence families12 source groupsRegulatory standing: approvedLast meaningful update: 7 May 2025
0%50%100%
supporting no-effect contradicting coverage-only— confidence┄ evidence coverage

What changed, and why

  • Quiet period29 Oct 2025 – 31 Dec 2025
    No confidence movement

    2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Confidence
    79% → 79%
    Uncertainty
    ±7% → ±7%
    Coverage
    74% → 75%

    Confidence was unchanged at 79%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 75%.

  • Quiet period16 Dec 2022 – 28 Mar 2025
    No confidence movement
    Coverage 78% → 74%

    8 evidence events retrieved. 5 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction) and 3 were regulatory events (separate axis).

  • Coverage-only evidence

    Confidence
    79% → 79%
    Uncertainty
    ±7% → ±7%
    Coverage
    81% → 78%

    Confidence was unchanged at 79% — 1 coverage-only item (on-topic, no readable direction) was retrieved but did not change it. Evidence coverage fell from 81% to 78%.

    • Coverage decreased

  • New supporting evidence

    Confidence
    78% → 79%
    Uncertainty
    ±7% → ±7%
    Coverage
    80% → 81%

    Confidence increased by 1 point to 79% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 81%.

  • Quiet period5 Oct 2021 – 5 Aug 2022
    No confidence movement
    Coverage 82% → 80%

    5 evidence events retrieved. 5 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    77% → 78%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±7%
    Coverage
    82% → 82%

    Confidence increased by 1 point to 78% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 82%.

    • Confidence increased
  • Quiet period17 Feb 2020 – 15 Mar 2021
    No confidence movement
    Coverage 84% → 82%

    3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Confidence
    76% → 77%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±8%
    Coverage
    84% → 84%

    Confidence was unchanged at 77%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 84%.

  • New supporting evidence

    Confidence
    76% → 76%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±8%
    Coverage
    83% → 84%

    Confidence was unchanged at 76%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 84%.

  • Quiet period6 Aug 2018 – 22 Feb 2019
    No confidence movement

    2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    75% → 76%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±8%
    Coverage
    83% → 83%

    Confidence increased by 1 point to 76% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 83%.

    • Confidence increased

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    74% → 75%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±8%
    Coverage
    82% → 83%

    Confidence increased by 1 point to 75% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 83%.

    • Confidence increased
  • Quiet period12 Feb 2018 – 26 May 2018
    No confidence movement
    Coverage 85% → 82%

    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 85%. 1 regulatory event was recorded on the separate regulatory-standing axis and did not change efficacy confidence.

  • New supporting evidence

    Confidence
    74% → 74%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±8%
    Coverage
    85% → 85%

    Confidence was unchanged at 74%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 85%.

  • New well-powered no-effect evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    79% → 74%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±8%
    Coverage
    84% → 85%

    Confidence decreased by 5 points to 74% after 1 well-powered no-effect result was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 85%.

    • Confidence decreased

  • New supporting evidence

    Confidence
    78% → 79%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±8%
    Coverage
    83% → 84%

    Confidence increased by 1 point to 79% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 84%.

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    76% → 78%
    Uncertainty
    ±8% → ±8%
    Coverage
    83% → 83%

    Confidence increased by 2 points to 78% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 83%.

    • Confidence increased
  • Quiet period1 Feb 2017 – 31 May 2017
    No confidence movement

    3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Confidence
    76% → 76%
    Uncertainty
    ±9% → ±8%
    Coverage
    82% → 83%

    Confidence was unchanged at 76%. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 83%.

  • New supporting evidence

    Confidence
    75% → 76%
    Uncertainty
    ±9% → ±9%
    Coverage
    81% → 82%

    Confidence increased by 1 point to 76% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage was unchanged at 82%.

  • Quiet period19 Nov 2015 – 1 Dec 2015
    No confidence movement

    4 evidence events retrieved. 4 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    74% → 75%
    Uncertainty
    ±9% → ±9%
    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 period1 Jul 2015 – 1 Jul 2015
    No confidence movement

    1 evidence event retrieved. 1 was coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    71% → 74%
    Uncertainty
    ±10% → ±9%
    Coverage
    79% → 80%

    Confidence increased by 2 points to 74% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 79% to 80%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period1 Jun 2015 – 1 Jun 2015
    No confidence movement

    1 evidence event retrieved. 1 was coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • Coverage-only evidence

    Confidence
    71% → 71%
    Uncertainty
    ±10% → ±10%
    Coverage
    83% → 79%

    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 83% to 79%.

    • Coverage decreased
  • Quiet period1 Apr 2015 – 1 Apr 2015
    No confidence movement
    Coverage 82% → 83%

    1 evidence event retrieved. 1 duplicated or fell outside the claim scope.

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    69% → 71%
    Uncertainty
    ±11% → ±10%
    Coverage
    81% → 82%

    Confidence increased by 3 points to 71% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±11% to ±10%. Evidence coverage rose from 81% to 82%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period1 Nov 2014 – 1 Nov 2014
    No confidence movement

    1 evidence event retrieved. 1 was coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    65% → 69%
    Uncertainty
    ±13% → ±11%
    Coverage
    80% → 81%

    Confidence increased by 4 points to 69% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±13% to ±11%. Evidence coverage rose from 80% to 81%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period1 May 2014 – 31 May 2014
    No confidence movement

    2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    62% → 65%
    Uncertainty
    ±14% → ±13%
    Coverage
    79% → 80%

    Confidence increased by 3 points to 65% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±14% to ±13%. Evidence coverage rose from 79% to 80%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period29 Oct 2013 – 4 Dec 2013
    No confidence movement

    3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    59% → 62%
    Uncertainty
    ±16% → ±14%
    Coverage
    77% → 79%

    Confidence increased by 4 points to 62% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±16% to ±14%. Evidence coverage rose from 77% to 79%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period1 Jul 2013 – 1 Jul 2013
    No confidence movement

    2 evidence events retrieved. 2 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    57% → 59%
    Uncertainty
    ±16% → ±16%
    Coverage
    75% → 77%

    Confidence increased by 1 point to 59% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 75% to 77%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Coverage increased

  • Coverage-only evidence

    Confidence
    57% → 57%
    Uncertainty
    ±16% → ±16%
    Coverage
    82% → 75%

    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 82% to 75%.

    • Coverage decreased
  • Quiet period8 May 2012 – 1 Jul 2012
    No 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
    ±16% → ±16%
    Coverage
    80% → 82%

    Confidence decreased by 4 points to 57% after 1 well-powered no-effect result was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 80% to 82%.

    • Confidence decreased
    • Coverage increased

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    60% → 62%
    Uncertainty
    ±16% → ±16%
    Coverage
    78% → 80%

    Confidence increased by 1 point to 62% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Evidence coverage rose from 78% to 80%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Coverage increased

  • New well-powered no-effect evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    70% → 60%
    Uncertainty
    ±14% → ±16%
    Coverage
    75% → 78%

    Confidence decreased by 10 points to 60% after 1 well-powered no-effect result was incorporated. Uncertainty widened from ±14% to ±16%. Evidence coverage rose from 75% to 78%.

    • Confidence decreased
    • Uncertainty widened
    • Coverage increased

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    64% → 70%
    Uncertainty
    ±17% → ±14%
    Coverage
    71% → 75%

    Confidence increased by 6 points to 70% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±17% to ±14%. Evidence coverage rose from 71% to 75%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period1 Dec 2011 – 1 Feb 2012
    No confidence movement

    3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • Coverage-only evidence

    Confidence
    64% → 64%
    Uncertainty
    ±17% → ±17%
    Coverage
    83% → 71%

    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 83% to 71%.

    • Coverage decreased

  • New contradicting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    71% → 64%
    Uncertainty
    ±14% → ±17%
    Coverage
    80% → 83%

    Confidence decreased by 7 points to 64% after 1 contradictory result was incorporated. Uncertainty widened from ±14% to ±17%. Evidence coverage rose from 80% to 83%.

    • Confidence decreased
    • Uncertainty widened
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period1 Jun 2010 – 1 Mar 2011
    No confidence movement

    3 evidence events retrieved. 3 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    67% → 71%
    Uncertainty
    ±16% → ±14%
    Coverage
    75% → 80%

    Confidence increased by 4 points to 71% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±16% to ±14%. Evidence coverage rose from 75% to 80%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period1 Mar 2009 – 1 Feb 2010
    No confidence movement

    4 evidence events retrieved. 4 were coverage-only (on-topic, no readable direction).

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    56% → 67%
    Uncertainty
    ±21% → ±16%
    Coverage
    67% → 75%

    Confidence increased by 12 points to 67% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±21% to ±16%. Evidence coverage rose from 67% to 75%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased

  • New supporting evidence

    Major change
    Confidence
    45% → 56%
    Uncertainty
    ±36% → ±21%
    Coverage
    50% → 67%

    Confidence increased by 11 points to 56% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±36% to ±21%. Evidence coverage rose from 50% to 67%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period16 Feb 2007 – 1 May 2008
    No 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% → ±36%
    Coverage
    0% → 50%

    Confidence increased by 45 points to 45% after 1 independent supporting evidence family was incorporated. Uncertainty narrowed from ±45% to ±36%. Evidence coverage rose from 0% to 50%.

    • Confidence increased
    • Uncertainty narrowed
    • Coverage increased
  • Quiet period27 Jul 2001 – 8 Nov 2006
    No 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
Scored by Confidence Engine methodology v1.11.0 (snapshot build 10 — a cache generation, not a methodology version). 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.
Full methodology & known limitations →
Computed 2026-09-20 · not medical advice.