ライフサイエンスコーパス: prevention trial

1 re estimated from STAR and the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial.

2 in women with anorexia nervosa in a relapse-prevention trial.

3 ls: the Wheat Bran Fiber Trial and the Polyp Prevention Trial.

4 us women within the Calcium for Preeclampsia Prevention trial.

5 f colorectal cancer, necessitating a primary prevention trial.

6 ovide a rationale for selenium breast cancer prevention trial.

7 ated in a subset of patients in the Fracture Prevention Trial.

8 xt of the recently completed Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

9 in rural KwaZulu-Natal within a treatment-as-prevention trial.

10 with the publication of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

11 sults with the impact of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial.

12 the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction Prevention Trial.

13 cancer among all women in the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial.

14 y (HERS), a secondary coronary heart disease prevention trial.

15 5 mg) daily or to placebo in a secondary CHD prevention trial.

16 e Mammary Prevention.3 (MAP.3) breast cancer prevention trial.

17 fy participants closest to MCI for secondary prevention trials.

18 evaluating the efficacy of intervention and prevention trials.

19 ld be harnessed as an outcome measure for AD prevention trials.

20 be generally applicable to forthcoming bNAb prevention trials.

21 ew atopic dermatitis cases for use in future prevention trials.

22 served with antioxidant therapy in secondary prevention trials.

23 tudies and need to be assessed in randomised prevention trials.

24 y at-risk subjects for inclusion in diabetes prevention trials.

25 election of enriched patient populations for prevention trials.

26 e role of fibrillar Abeta imaging in primary prevention trials.

27 pregnancies and power the design of clinical prevention trials.

28 st HIV-1 are currently being tested in HIV-1 prevention trials.

29 o the statistical power and integrity of HIV prevention trials.

30 lenges of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention trials.

31 istical power and calculated outcomes of HIV prevention trials.

32 g patients' decisions about participation in prevention trials.

33 cruitment of patients with SLE into clinical prevention trials.

34 ofessional surveillance, or participation in prevention trials.

35 ologic studies and polyp recurrence in polyp-prevention trials.

36 otential for benefit from large-scale cancer prevention trials.

37 of mortality at levels similar to secondary prevention trials.

38 the populations represented in these primary-prevention trials.

39 oxicity for the coxibs in adenoma recurrence prevention trials.

40 ed by 48% (36-58; p<0.0001) in the tamoxifen prevention trials.

41 er in other animal models or in human cancer prevention trials.

42 ents and death in both primary and secondary prevention trials.

43 ced by both primary prevention and secondary prevention trials.

44 p reduce the risk of pregnancy in future HIV prevention trials.

45 -informed prioritization of drug targets for prevention trials.

46 Alzheimer disease (AD) for enrollment in AD prevention trials.

47 cally and methodologically heterogeneous CVD prevention trials.

48 r the success of recently launched secondary prevention trials.

49 coronary heart disease event in the primary prevention trials.

50 ross all trials, and within intervention and prevention trials.

51 increasingly being targeted for AD secondary prevention trials.

52 subjects at high risk of type 1 diabetes to prevention trials.

53 , contributing to lower recruitment rates in prevention trials.

54 set, and helpful for forthcoming therapeutic prevention trials.

55 ical intervention and be good candidates for prevention trials.

56 es also suggest the feasibility of secondary prevention trials.

57 isk factors and in research-driven clinical (prevention) trials.

58 meta-analysis of 23 407 patients in primary prevention trials (0.52%): 0.74% with rofecoxib (P =.04

59 ants enrolled in the HIVNET (HIV Network for Prevention Trials) 012 trial.

60 including coronary death or MI) for primary prevention trials (1.5% lower event rate [95% CI, 0.5%-2

61 Strong African American Families randomized prevention trial, 119 right-handed African American indi

62 54 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17,000 individuals at high average ri

63 ong participants (n = 1,905) in the US Polyp Prevention Trial (1991-1998) on colorectal adenoma recur

64 This study (Calcium for Preeclampsia Prevention Trial, 1992-1995) examines whether nulliparou

65 ne in the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (1993-2003).

66 participants enrolled in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (1993-2003).

67 from the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (1993-2003).

68 from the placebo arm of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (1993-2003).

69 en and risk factors from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, 1993-2003.

70 c hyperplasia (BPH) in 4,770 Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (1994-2003) placebo-arm participants wh

71 Meanwhile, of 7 prevention trials, 2 suggested possible benefits.

72 In CVD primary and secondary prevention trials, 20-year CRC mortality was reduced amo

73 cipated in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (2001-2011) with present analyses compl

74 tty acids (SU.FOL.OM3) trial was a secondary prevention trial (2003-2009; n = 2501) in which individu

75 L lower LDL-C level; P = .008) and secondary prevention trials (4.6% lower event rate [95% CI, 2.9%-6

76 Of 18,882 men enrolled in the prevention trial, 9459 were randomly assigned to receive

77 cular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95,000 individuals at low average ris

78 of a randomized controlled trial, the Polyp Prevention Trial, a higher intake of one subclass, flavo

79 participated in the Calcium for Preeclampsia Prevention trial, a randomized study of nulliparous wome

80 In this large, primary-prevention trial among women, aspirin lowered the risk o

81 Tenofovir/emtricitabine HIV prevention trials among women in Africa have yielded var

82 , 2012, from among children attending an AOM prevention trial and children visiting local outpatient

83 y of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene) breast cancer prevention trial and in other clinical trials.

84 ar diagnostic technique has implications for prevention trials and for the early diagnosis of HCC.

85 ese differences may inform findings from HIV prevention trials and future implementation of antiretro

86 risk, which will inform the design of future prevention trials and guide prognostication.

87 omposite endpoints in venous thromboembolism-prevention trials and provide rationale for de-escalatio

88 bridge the gap between primary and secondary prevention trials and specifically included patients wit

89 uld improve subject selection into secondary prevention trials and visual assessment in clinical rout

90 Study II, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial, and a European study, Supplementation

91 nseling and testing and enrolled in an HIV-1 prevention trial, and index participants had a baseline

92 rs leading to an international breast cancer prevention trial, and insights into the intricate germli

93 sment, intermediate outcome determination in prevention trials, and regulation of tobacco products.

94 ether Tenofovir (TFV), used vaginally in HIV prevention trials, and Tenofovir alafenamide (TAF), an i

95 targeted communities or clinicians, primary prevention trials, and trials that reported events of no

96 Phase III metastasis-prevention trials are also underway in nonmetastatic CRP

97 rs might be more efficacious, and results of prevention trials are eagerly awaited.

98 Large, well-designed, community-based prevention trials are needed.

99 The first prevention trials are now beginning in patients with gen

100 analyses of 2 randomized controlled primary prevention trials (ASCOT [Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Out

101 In the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% prop

102 In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater

103 cebo group (n = 9457) in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial at 221 US centers were evaluated every

104 and Bowel Project (NSABP) P-1: Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) demonstrated the superiority of

105 cancer prevention trials, the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) of tamoxifen and Prostate Cancer

106 ecular targets for chemoprevention, clinical prevention trials, behavioral prevention research, publi

107 spirin versus control in primary (Thrombosis Prevention Trial, British Doctors Aspirin Trial) and sec

108 efined, referral into screening programs and prevention trials can be better targeted to reach famili

109 In CVD primary prevention trials, cancer mortality (relative risk [RR],

110 The 2 secondary prevention trials (CARE [Cholesterol And Recurrent Event

111 3.27; P = 8.4 x 10(-5)) in the Wuhan Smoking Prevention Trial cohort, and they replicated the associa

112 In the primary prevention trial, compared with placebo, pravastatin red

113 s with individual participant data from nine prevention trials comparing four selective oestrogen rec

114 All five randomised prevention trials comparing tamoxifen or raloxifene with

115 trial cancer were increased in all tamoxifen prevention trials (consensus relative risk 2.4 [1.5-4.0]

116 42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.55; P < .001) relative to prevention trials (d = 0.07; 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.28; P =

117 The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial demonstrated a 25% reduction in period

118 The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial demonstrated that use of finasteride is

119 al and limitations of using genetic data for prevention trial design.

120 tastatic or advanced cancer; complexities of prevention trial design; a relatively uncharted Food and

121 STAR was a double-blind, randomized phase 3 prevention trial designed to evaluate the relative effic

122 ong screened men enrolled in prostate cancer prevention trials, differences in risk factor estimates

123 The BCPP was a community-randomised HIV-prevention trial done in 30 communities across Botswana

124 ts, aged 55-84 years, in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial during 1994-2003.

125 Primary and secondary stroke prevention trials emphasize the importance of aggressive

126 Five primary prevention trials enrolling 1854 patients with NICM were

127 prospective end point in long-term secondary prevention trials evaluating the risks and benefits of a

128 Using evidence from a randomized depression prevention trial for older adults, the authors found tha

129 equisite for enrollment in several secondary prevention trials for AD, yet the precise effect of elev

130 mportant for the designs of future secondary prevention trials for Alzheimer disease.

131 Major prevention trials for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are now f

132 With the onset of prevention trials for individuals at high risk for Alzhe

133 ive or universal) and treatment or indicated prevention trials (for children diagnosed or above the c

134 atic Alzheimer's disease to join the ongoing prevention trials, for which mAbs continue to serve as t

135 One large primary prevention trial found that a Mediterranean diet resulte

136 ; 216 total deaths) from exclusively primary prevention trials found a significant reduction in prima

137 Data Synthesis: Two primary prevention trials found no difference in all-cause morta

138 The Stroke Prevention Trial has confirmed that utilization of trans

139 The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial has provided the first firm evidence th

140 outcome in clinical trials and toxicity in a prevention trial have shifted focus away from these cycl

141 Observational cohort studies and a secondary prevention trial have shown an inverse association betwe

142 ividuals who are likely to enroll in primary prevention trials have a high socioeconomic status, heal

143 Recent primary prevention trials have also failed to consistently demon

144 large-scale Alzheimer disease (AD) secondary prevention trials have begun to target individuals at th

145 Primary and secondary prevention trials have extensively examined beta-caroten

146 Although some smaller targeted prevention trials have found that depression risk can be

147 Three fairly large secondary prevention trials have not confirmed the previously repo

148 population-based, Phase III prostate cancer prevention trials have shown a significant benefit for 5

149 Washington Virology Research Clinic) and HIV prevention trials (HIV Prevention Trials Network 039 and

150 In Uganda, the HIV Network for Prevention Trials (HIVNET) 012 study recently demonstrat

151 man Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Network for Prevention Trials (HIVNET) 012 trial in Uganda, 6-8 week

152 The HIV Network for Prevention Trials (HIVNET) 012 trial showed that NVP res

153 as a secondary risk marker and in secondary prevention trials (ie, with folate/B vitamins) to determ

154 or interpreting the results of ongoing HIV-1 prevention trials.IMPORTANCE HIV remains a major public

155 land Coronary Prevention Study was a primary prevention trial in 45- to 64-year-old men with high low

156 's Prevention Initiative Generation Study, a prevention trial in cognitively unimpaired APOE-e4/e4 ho

157 cotland Coronary Prevention Study, a primary prevention trial in hypercholesterolemic men) exhibited

158 minished since the publication of the Stroke Prevention Trial in Sickle Cell Anemia (STOP trial) in 1

159 Although the Stroke Prevention Trial in Sickle Cell Anemia (STOP) demonstrat

160 The Stroke Prevention Trial in Sickle Cell Anemia (STOP) was a rand

161 The Stroke Prevention Trial in Sickle Cell Anemia (STOP) was a rand

162 pants enrolled in the RESPECT study - an HIV prevention trial in Tanzania that used cash awards to in

163 e data from partners participating in an HIV prevention trial in Uganda and Zambia.

164 s a longitudinal, randomized atherosclerosis prevention trial in which repeated dietary counseling ai

165 Secondary prevention trials in AD have already begun in both genet

166 volved a review of the primary and secondary prevention trials in calcineurin inhibitor withdrawal.

167 Prevention trials in preclinical AD require longer and l

168 anifestations of AD, and to inform secondary prevention trials in preclinical AD.

169 Prevention trials in SLE face serious challenges, includ

170 the barriers to participation in randomized prevention trials in SLE.

171 However, prevention trials in these countries are inadequate in b

172 Specifically, in a colon adenoma prevention trial, in all cases tested, individuals who d

173 Key post-myocardial infarction primary prevention trials include the European Myocardial Infarc

174 Several secondary prevention trials, including the Antiarrhythmics Versus

175 uvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial indicate that tamoxifen can reduce the

176 Evidence from prevention trials is now critical to establishing a caus

177 nd the Multi-Domain Intervention Alzheimer's Prevention Trial (MAPT-18F AV45-PET; n = 23) cohorts.

178 In the SOLVD Prevention Trial, multivariate analyses demonstrated mod

179 Using data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (n = 5,986), we evaluated prostate-spec

180 Pooled analysis of these secondary prevention trials (n = 256 patients with NICM) indicated

181 Lessons learned from randomized prevention trials need to be implemented with appropriat

182 The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 052 study, which showed

183 The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 052 trial demonstrated

184 An interim analysis of data from the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 052 trial showed that a

185 pproach to estimate HIV incidence in the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 064 study.

186 The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 067/Alternative Dosing

187 We used data from the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 068 study in rural Sout

188 81% ART coverage target, as part of the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 071 Population Effects

189 HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) 074 evaluated human imm

190 The HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) Study 073 (HPTN 073) as

191 earch Clinic) and HIV prevention trials (HIV Prevention Trials Network 039 and Partners in Prevention

192 mmunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition (HIV Prevention Trials Network 039), acyclovir had a smaller

193 The HIV Prevention Trials Network 052 study enrolled serodiscord

194 ssion of HIV infection and data from the HIV Prevention Trials Network 052 study, we projected the co

195 uples and a randomized controlled trial (HIV Prevention Trials Network 052) show that antiretroviral

196 In The HIV Prevention Trials Network 061 study, 155 human immunodef

197 ersal ART initiation was provided in the HIV Prevention Trials Network 071 (PopART) trial in South Af

198 12 clinical research sites of the HIV Prevention Trials Network and AIDS Clinical Trials Group

199 rus type 2 (HSV-2)-seropositive persons (HIV Prevention Trials Network study 039).

200 The recently completed HIV prevention trials network study 052 is a landmark collab

201 The HIV Prevention Trials Network Study 077 evaluated changes in

202 ative study, a randomized controlled primary prevention trial of 14 749 postmenopausal asymptomatic w

203 The WHI included a randomized primary-prevention trial of estrogen plus progestin in 16,608 po

204 Conclusion In this large prevention trial of male physicians, daily multivitamin

205 In this primary prevention trial of nondiabetic individuals with low LDL

206 d that it is feasible to conduct a secondary prevention trial of periodontal therapy in patients who

207 ntion Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin) primary prevention trial of rosuvastatin 20 mg compared with pla

208 g double-blind, placebo-controlled secondary prevention trial of the benefits and risks of antioxidan

209 However, investigators in the Diabetes Prevention Trial of Type 1 Diabetes (DPT-1) have detecte

210 ata for risk prediction and to enrich future prevention trials of AD.

211 ely disappointing results from several large prevention trials of beta-carotene.

212 subgroup analysis of the major CHD secondary prevention trials of lipid-lowering with regard to the b

213 Prevention trials of measures to halt or delay cognitive

214 In two large secondary prevention trials of pravastatin, risk reduction was not

215 Prior primary prevention trials of statin therapy that used cholestero

216 ide Randomized Antibiotic Envelope Infection Prevention Trial) offers an opportunity to evaluate the

217 Strong African American Families randomized prevention trial or to a control condition.

218 studies (relative risk 1.9 [1.4-2.6] in the prevention trials; p<0.0001) and with raloxifene.

219 le-blind, placebo-controlled, primary cancer prevention trial; participants were Finnish male smokers

220 nasteride or placebo) of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) and from clinically localized pr

221 To date, the Prostate Cancer Prevention trial (PCPT) is the only reported phase III r

222 rial (BCPT) of tamoxifen and Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) of finasteride, concluded with s

223 Reanalysis of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) suggests that high-grade cancer

224 In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), finasteride significantly reduc

225 ndomized trials, such as the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), Reduction by Dutasteride of Pro

226 the finasteride group of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT), we evaluated the impact of pros

227 te cancer prevention trials (Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial [PCPT] and Selenium and Vitamin E Cance

228 Initiative, a randomized controlled primary prevention trial (planned duration, 8.5 years) in which

229 resymptomatic biomarkers now makes secondary prevention trials possible.

230 The Polyp Prevention Trial (PPT) was a multicenter randomized clin

231 actors in a multicenter, randomized, primary-prevention trial (PREDIMED-Plus) based on an intensive w

232 Two of the 3 secondary prevention trials presented subgroup estimates for ICD e

233 he placebo arms of two large prostate cancer prevention trials (Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial [PCP

234 mmunity is initiated in infancy, and primary prevention trials require children at high genetic risk

235 d risk of all-cause mortality across primary prevention trials (RR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.89, 1.00).

236 umber of incident pregnancies may render HIV prevention trial sample sizes inadequate by as much as 5

237 trial size, duration, and cost--of enriching prevention trial samples by combining clinical informati

238 The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) and the Physician's Health Stu

239 The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) Eye Endpoints Study was an anc

240 report of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) found no reduction in risk of

241 he large-scale Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) showed that antioxidants faile

242 er risk in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) through unknown mechanisms whi

243 cillary to the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), a randomized clinical trial o

244 CE) trial, and Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), have provided practitioners w

245 cancer in the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT), plays an integral role in thy

246 en) Selenium and Vitamin E [prostate] Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

247 design of the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT; testing vitamin E and selenium

248 trolled trial (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) of 35,533 men from 427 partic

249 ial [PCPT] and Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) were examined to define incid

250 les individualized risk estimates for better prevention trial selection.

251 The results from the TN-10 teplizumab prevention trial show that the diagnosis of type 1 diabe

252 Analysis of the Polyp Prevention Trial showed an association between an isorha

253 Another large, Phase III prostate cancer prevention trial showed no benefit for either selenium o

254 n con Dieta Mediterranea) randomized primary prevention trial showed that a Mediterranean diet enrich

255 The tamoxifen prevention trials showed a 38% (95% CI 28-46; p<0.0001)

256 Primary and secondary prevention trials suggest that statins possess favorable

257 important to consider in upcoming secondary prevention trials targeting CN individuals at high risk

258 ng the possibility of early intervention and prevention trials, targeting MCI and cognitively healthy

259 ed, double-blind, placebo-controlled primary prevention trial testing the effects of beta-carotene an

260 The outcomes of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (testing finasteride) and the design of

261 has been demonstrated by the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial that a chemoprevention strategy using a

262 aluating Rosuvastatin), a randomized primary prevention trial that compared rosuvastatin treatment to

263 ticle reviews multiple secondary and primary prevention trials that have expanded the indications for

264 INTERPRETATION: In the JUPITER primary prevention trial, the cardiovascular and mortality benef

265 Data sources were the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial, the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and En

266 Two large-scale, phase III cancer prevention trials, the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (B

267 Specifically, in the primary prevention trials, the number needed to treat to prevent

268 In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the ag

269 rrent adenoma during the course of the Polyp Prevention Trial to determine baseline concentrations of

270 te the feasibility of a randomized secondary prevention trial to test whether treatment of periodonta

271 We used data from venous thromboembolism prevention trials to evaluate the causal effect of venou

272 children with ADHD sets the stage for early prevention trials to reduce risk for later depression an

273 consider in deciding about participating in prevention trials, to uncover concerns about SLE trials,

274 rimary end point were analyzed: the Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) and the TrialNet oral in

275 alleles among individuals from the Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1) clinical trial, which te

276 cipate in the intervention phase of Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 (DPT-1).

277 Among those at high risk (with a Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 Risk Score [DPTRS] >=6.75), the

278 n trial progressors to T1D from the Diabetes Prevention Trial-Type 1 with at least one FPIR measureme

279 ng 9,559 participants in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (United States and Canada, 1994-2003).

280 The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial used the 5alpha-reductase inhibitor fin

281 dividuals is critical for upcoming secondary prevention trials using cognitive outcomes.

282 may be one reason why cardiovascular disease prevention trials using these vitamins have reported con

283 ther the Wheat Bran Fiber Trial or the Polyp Prevention Trial was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.78, 1.06).

284 The estimate from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial was 99,441 person-years over the first

285 d to determine eligibility for breast cancer prevention trials was greatly increased relative to prev

286 y outcome-related analysis from a randomized prevention trial, we examined the long-term influence of

287 In the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial, we randomly assigned 18,882 men 55 yea

288 Participants in the double-blind primary prevention trial were randomly assigned to receive 40 mg

289 ND METHODS Raw data from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial were used to model chemopreventive trea

290 Randomized controlled primary or secondary prevention trials were considered for inclusion.

291 titis as a secondary outcome, such as asthma prevention trials, were included.

292 se nevirapine from a Ugandan perinatal HIV-1 prevention trial when 496 babies were followed up to age

293 ons could be useful in active-controlled HIV prevention trials where low HIV incidence is expected.

294 ol study within the Calcium for Preeclampsia Prevention trial, which involved healthy nulliparous wom

295 tate cancer among men in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial who had a PSA level of 4.0 ng per milli

296 ects who would benefit from participation in prevention trials who have one islet antibody by traditi

297 y published results from the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial: Who are the best candidates for finast

298 Several studies, including a large primary prevention trial with NSAIDs, are still in progress.

299 research is warranted before costly dementia prevention trials with statins are undertaken.

300 Chinese Han population in the Wuhan Smoking Prevention Trial (Wuhan, China, 1998-1999), the authors