The first double-blind placebo controlled study failed to show a reduction in neointimal hyperplasia detected by IVUS after 6 months of treatment with probucol versus placebo nor in restenosis rate detected by QCA. The rate of development of CIMT was slowed by therapy with pioglitazone versus glimipride at all time points during the 72 week follow-up time. 3. Conclusion and discussion The main interest of cardiovascular experts in surrogate stop details as a proxy for clinical outcomes stems from the fact the evaluation of the result of therapy on surrogate outcomes is often faster and takes a smaller Anastrozole ic50 variety of patients to show. Therefore, the reward of fast approval that turn out to be safe and effective needs to be balanced against harms that may happen later when drugs approved on the basis of surrogate end points turn out to have major safety issues or to lack efficacy. Besides, the clearly recognized natural limitations of non-invasive imaging modalities in addition to quantitative coronary angiography in providing an exact Papillary thyroid cancer estimate of plaque burden can clearly distort the connection of clinical outcomes and surrogate endpoints. One of the current imaging methods, determining plaque progression/regression since it produces good quality pictures of the early atherosclerotic plaques, vessel wall, and coronary lumen with quantitative identification of most atheroma factors and is effective at correlating increments in atheroma volume to future MACE. Nevertheless, IVUS remains an invasive imaging modality with limited access in certain catheterization price AG-1478 labs and regardless of the high quality images it provides, it doesn’t overcome the inherent limitation of surrogate endpoints and medication related adverse events highlighted above. Furthermore, the disparity between the results of the traditional IVUS and IVUS radiofrequency dimensions inferred in the afore-mentioned darapladib research, warrants further research into which outcome measure to use and which one translates into adverse clinical outcomes. Consequently, given all of the current limitations in different imaging techniques available to assess the intrinsic limitations with surrogate endpoints, and plaque volume and composition, one should be careful in using the outcomes of surrogate end-point tests in patient care. Astute cardiovascular scientists are currently using the available imaging modalities in learning the pleiotropic effects of FDA approved medications that possess good safety profile through the use of surrogate endpoints that will hopefully translate to useful clinical outcomes and enhance the on label usage of medications. Saying all that, using surrogate endpoints in assessing the effectiveness of novel pharmacologic therapies in reducing negative clinical cardio-vascular outcomes remains controversial.