Sarano 2003.

Methods	8‐week dietary washout period 16‐week before and after trial
Participants	56 men and women with coronary artery disease with type 2 diabetes mellitus controlled with oral medication LDL‐C = 4.1 mmol/L (159 mg/dL) Triglycerides > 2.3 mmol/L (204 mg/dL) 30 men and women with coronary artery disease and mixed hyperlipidaemia without diabetes mellitus all participants ranged in age from 40‐70 years 40 participants received fluvastatin Included patients were on a standard lipid‐lowering diet and those with type 2 diabetes a diet with reduced carbohydrate content Inclusion criteria: unstable angina, MI, coronary bypass surgery, balloon angioplasty within 6 months of study, type 1 diabetes mellitus, uncontrolled diabetes, renal dysfunction, hepatic dysfunction no exclusion criteria cholelithiasis and triglycerides > 4.5 mmol/L (399 mg/dL) Fluvastatin 40 mg/day baseline TC : 7.88 mmol/L (305 mg/dL) Fluvastatin 40 mg/day baseline LDL‐C : 5.45 mmol/L (211 mg/dL) Fluvastatin 40 mg/day baseline HDL‐C : 1.01 mmol/L (39 mg/dL) Fluvastatin 40 mg/day baseline triglycerides: 3.14 mmol/L (278 mg/dL)
Interventions	Fluvastatin 40 mg/day Fenofibrate 200 mg/day
Outcomes	per cent change from baseline at 4 weeks of serum TC, LDL‐C, HDL‐C, and triglycerides
Source of Funding	unknown
Notes	Fenofibrate 200 mg/day group was not included in the efficacy analysis SDs were imputed by the method of Furukawa 2006
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Controlled before and after design
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	Controlled before and after design
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Lipid parameter measurements unlikely influenced by lack of blinding
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) LDL‐cholesterol	Low risk	Lipid parameters were measured in a remote laboratory
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) WDAEs	High risk	No comparison possible
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All participants were included in the efficacy analysis
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	LDL‐C outcome was reported
Other bias	Unclear risk	Source of funding was not reported