Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy for treatment of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe added on to rosuvastatin 5 or 10 mg versus up-titration of rosuvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia (the ACTE Study)

The present multicenter, 6-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, clinical trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of ezetimibe (10 mg) added to stable rosuvastatin therapy versus up-titration of rosuvastatin from 5 to 10 mg or from 10 to 20 mg. The study population included 440 subjects at moderately high/high risk of coronary heart disease with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels higher than the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III recommendations (<100 mg/dl for moderately high/high-risk subjects without atherosclerotic vascular disease or <70 mg/dl for high-risk subjects with atherosclerotic vascular disease). Pooled data demonstrated that ezetimibe added to stable rosuvastatin 5 mg or 10 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by 21%. In contrast, doubling rosuvastatin to 10 mg or 20 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by 5.7% (between-group difference of 15.2%, p <0.001). Individually, ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin 5 mg reduced LDL cholesterol more than did rosuvastatin 10 mg (12.3% difference, p <0.001), and ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL cholesterol more than did rosuvastatin 20 mg (17.5% difference, p <0.001). Compared to rosuvastatin up-titration, ezetimibe add-on achieved significantly greater attainment of LDL cholesterol levels of <70 or <100 mg/dl (59.4% vs 30.9%, p <0.001), and <70 mg/dl in all subjects (43.8% vs 17.5%, p <0.001); produced significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (p <0.001); and resulted in similar effects on other lipid parameters. Adverse experiences were generally comparable among the groups. In conclusion, compared to up-titration doubling of the rosuvastatin dose, ezetimibe 10 mg added to stable rosuvastatin 5 mg or 10 mg produced greater improvements in many lipid parameters and achieved greater attainment of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III recommended LDL cholesterol targets in subjects with elevated LDL cholesterol and at moderately high/high coronary heart disease risk.

Niemann-pick C1-like 1 (NPC1L1) protein in intestinal and hepatic cholesterol transport

Increased blood cholesterol is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Cholesterol homeostasis in the body is controlled mainly by endogenous synthesis, intestinal absorption, and hepatic excretion. Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 (NPC1L1) is a polytopic transmembrane protein localized at the apical membrane of enterocytes and the canalicular membrane of hepatocytes. It functions as a sterol transporter to mediate intestinal cholesterol absorption and counter-balances hepatobiliary cholesterol excretion. NPC1L1 is the molecular target of ezetimibe, a potent cholesterol absorption inhibitor that is widely used in treating hypercholesterolemia. Recent findings suggest that NPC1L1 deficiency or ezetimibe treatment also prevents diet-induced hepatic steatosis and obesity in addition to reducing blood cholesterol. Future studies should focus on molecular mechanisms underlying NPC1L1-dependent cholesterol transport and elucidation of how a cholesterol transporter modulates the pathogenesis of metabolic diseases.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of combination therapy with ezetimibe/statin vs. statin monotherapy in patients with and without diabetes: an analysis of pooled data from 27 clinical trials

AIM

This post hoc analysis compared the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg plus statin (EZE/statin) vs. statin monotherapy in hypercholesterolaemic patients with and without diabetes.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of 27 previously published, randomized, double-blind, active- or placebo-controlled clinical trials comprising 21 794 adult patients with (n = 6541) and without (n = 15253) diabetes receiving EZE/statin or statin alone for 4-24 weeks evaluated percentage change from baseline in lipids and other parameters. Consistency of the treatment effect across the subgroups was tested using treatment × subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made.

RESULTS

Treatment effects within both subgroups were generally consistent with the overall population. EZE/statin was more effective than statin alone in improving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TGs), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein (apo) B and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in the overall population and both subgroups. Patients with diabetes achieved significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C compared with non-diabetic patients. Incidences of adverse events or creatine kinase elevations were similar between groups. A small but significantly higher incidence of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase elevations was seen in patients receiving EZE/statin (0.6%) vs. statin monotherapy (0.3%) in the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with EZE/statin vs. statin monotherapy provided significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC, TG, non-HDL-C, apo B and hs-CRP and significantly greater increases in HDL-C, with a similar safety profile in patients with and without diabetes. Reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C were larger in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes.

Comparison of Effects of Morning Versus Evening Administration of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin on Serum Cholesterol in Patients with Primary Hypercholesterolemia

Background:

Ezetimibe, a first-in-its-class inhibitor of cholesterol absorption, is an effective agent for combined use with statins to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Ezetimibe in combination with simvastatin as a single-tablet formulation has proven to be highly effective in reducing serum LDL-C through the dual inhibition of cholesterol absorption and biosynthesis. The effect of time of administration on efficacy of this combination therapy has not been evaluated.

Objective:

To compare the effects of morning versus evening administration of ezetimibe/simvastatin on serum cholesterol levels of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Methods:

In this multicenter, open-label, randomized, 2-sequence, 2-period crossover study, patients with primary hypercholesterolemia randomly received ezetimibe/simvastatin 10 mg/20 mg once daily, either in the morning (within 1 hour of breakfast) or in the evening (within 1 hour of dinner) for 6 weeks.

Results:

Data on 171 patients (87 in the morning administration group and 84 in the evening administration group) were analyzed. A significant reduction (p ≤ 0.001) in the total cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, LDL-C, apo-lipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) from baseline was achieved after each treatment. Noninferiority of morning administration versus evening administration was shown in the percentage reduction of the LDL-C level from baseline (difference, –1.62%; 90% CI –4.94 to 1.70). No significant difference was found between groups with respect to the percentage of changes in other lipid parameters from baseline. Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the percentage of change in hs-CRP as an antiinflammatory marker between the morning and evening administration groups. The frequency of adverse events was similar between groups.

Conclusions:

Morning administration of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10 mg/20 mg is noninferior to evening administration with respect to LDL-C–lowering ability.

Comparative efficacy of the addition of ezetimibe to statin vs statin titration in patients with hypercholesterolaemia: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review and analyse evidence for cholesterol-lowering efficacy of at least 4 weeks of add-on ezetimibe vs doubling statin dose, in adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe-statin combination vs statin titration (January 1993 - March 2010). Studies were selected using predefined criteria. Two reviewers conducted screening of articles, critical appraisal and data extraction; a third reviewer resolved disagreements. The difference between treatments was analysed for four co-primary outcomes: mean percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC); and proportion of patients achieving LDL-C treatment goal. Data were combined by two sets of direct comparison fixed and random effects meta-analysis: (1) compared data in the same treatment period between groups; (2) compared the incremental change in lipid levels of add-on ezetimibe vs doubling statin dose. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 5080 patients were included in the meta-analyses. Data on simvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were analysed. Results for primary and secondary outcomes were in favour of the ezetimibe-statin combination. A significantly greater percentage reduction in LDL-C levels was achieved in patients treated with ezetimibe-statin vs statin monotherapy (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -14.1% [-16.1, -12.1], p < 0.001). Reduction in LDL-C levels attributed to add-on ezetimibe was significantly greater than that for statin dose doubling (WMD: -15.3% [-19.1, -11.4], p < 0.001). Achievement of LDL-C goal favoured add-on ezetimibe over statin titration and was statistically significant (odds ratio: LDL-C treatment goal 2.45 [1.95, 3.08], p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analyses were restricted by the limited number of studies with similar trial design and method of statin titration. Results indicate that add-on ezetimibe is significantly more effective in reducing LDL-C levels than doubling statin dose, enabling more patients to achieve LDL-C goal.

Effects of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy on C-reactive protein levels in hypercholesterolemic patients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Ezetimibe alone does not decrease C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in hypercholesterolemic patients. However, several reports have suggested that ezetimibe might potentiate the effect of statin not only on cholesterol but also on CRP when administered together. We investigated the effect of ezetimibe on CRP levels in patients taking statins.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients who had not achieved recommended low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with statin therapy were divided into two groups, the ezetimibe group (n=60) and the control group (n=60). A third group of hypercholesterolemic patients without statin therapy was treated with statin (n=59). Patients with CRP level 10 mg/L were excluded. Lipid and CRP levels were measured before therapy commenced, and after 2 months of therapy.

RESULTS

Ezetimibe decreased cholesterol and LDL-C levels by 20.2% (p=0.000) and 28.1% (p=0.000) respectively. However, ezetimibe did not reduce CRP levels (from 0.83±0.68 to 1.14±1.21 mg/dL, p=0.11). CRP levels remained unchanged in the control group (p=0.42). In contrast, statin lowered CRP levels (from 0.82±0.73 to 0.65±0.57 mg/dL, p=0.008). In patients taking statins, changes in CRP levels were not associated with changes in LDL-C (r=-0.02, p=0.87), but with baseline CRP levels (r=-0.38, p=0.000).

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe failed to reduce CRP levels in hypercholesterolemic patients taking statins despite significant reduction of LDL-C. This finding suggests that the anti-inflammatory effect of statin may not be secondary to cholesterol reduction, but via other mechanisms.

Statin Myopathy: Significant Problem With Minimal Awareness by Clinicians and no Emphasis by Clinical Investigators

High cardiovascular risk patients need reduction of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to <70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L). Statins are optimal treatment but myopathy can be a limitation to their use. The incidence of statin-related myopathy is difficult to determine but up to 10.5% appears an appropriate estimate. Short-term trials report lower incidence than long-term trials. Statin-related myopathy may be influenced by genetics and tends to be dose-dependent. Ezetimibe can contribute to LDL-C reduction allowing a lower dose of statin to be used. Another approach is to administer rosuvastatin twice weekly. Statins have been shown to interfere with the cellular role of coenzyme Q10. Coenzyme Q10 supplementation may decrease or prevent statin myopathy, but this has not been proven. The occurrence of the most serious complication of myopathy—rhabdomyolysis—is very rare, but awareness of the problem, risks, and prevention are essential.

Effect of ezetimibe-simvastatine over endothelial dysfunction in dyslipidemic patients: assessment by 13N-ammonia positron emission tomography

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemias constitute an independent risk factor for the development of atherogenesis and they also predispose to the development of endothelial dysfunction (ED). Using PET with (13)N-ammonia, it is possible to quantify myocardial blood flow (MBF) in mL/min/g and to quantitatively evaluate ED. With the use of lipid lowering therapy it is possible to reduce ED and increase the MBF and the endothelial-dependent vasodilation index (ENDEVI). In this study, we aimed to evaluate with (13)N-ammonia PET the benefic effects of the combined treatment ezetimibe/simvastatine on the endothelial function of dyslipidemic patients after 8 weeks of treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fourteen consecutive patients with dyslipidemia diagnosis and 17 healthy volunteers were studied with a three phase [rest, Cold Pressor Test (CPT), and adenosine-induced hyperemia] (13)N-ammonia PET for MBF quantification assessment. A second PET study was performed in the dyslipidemic group after 8 weeks of treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatine (10/40 mg). Myocardial flow reserve (MFR), ENDEVI, and %ΔMBF were calculated.

RESULTS

Total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides concentrations were markedly altered in the dyslipidemic group and after 8 weeks of treatment these values improved. Dyslipidemic patients showed endothelial dysfunction when compared with the control group, (MFR 2.79 ± 0.94 vs 3.15 ± 0.48, P < 0.05 ; ENDEVI 1.28 ± 0.25 vs 1.53 ± 0.24, P < 0.05; and %ΔMBF 29.08 ± 24.62 vs 53 ± 24.60%, P < 0.05, respectively). After 8 weeks of treatment, we found a significant increase in all the endothelial function markers (MFR: 3.14 ± 0.86, P < 0.05, ENDEVI 1.65 ± 0.23, P < 0.05; %ΔMBF: 65.21 ± 23.43, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Dyslipidemic patients show endothelial dysfunction measured with (13)N-ammonia PET. Treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatine was effective improving the lipid profile as well as the endothelial function of these patients. PET may be a useful tool to monitor vascular reactivity and regression/progression of coronary atherosclerosis after pharmacologic interventions.

Attainment of Canadian and European guidelines' lipid targets with atorvastatin plus ezetimibe vs. doubling the dose of atorvastatin

BACKGROUND

Canadian and European treatment guidelines identify low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a primary treatment target for hypercholesterolaemia.

OBJECTIVES

This post hoc analysis compared ezetimibe 10 mg (ezetimibe) added to atorvastatin vs. doubling the atorvastatin dose on achievement of the 2009 Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and the 2007 Joint European Prevention Guidelines primary and optional secondary lipid targets and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) levels.

METHODS

After stabilisation on atorvastatin, hypercholesterolaemic patients at moderately high risk (MHR) for coronary heart disease (CHD) not at LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/l were randomised to atorvastatin 20 mg vs. doubling their atorvastatin dose to 40 mg; and patients at high risk (HR) for CHD not at LDL-C < 1.8 mmol/l were randomised to atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe vs. doubling their atorvastatin dose to 80 mg for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

When treated with atorvastatin plus ezetimibe, MHR and HR patients had greater attainment of LDL-C, most lipids and lipoproteins and/or hs-CRP targets compared with doubling their atorvastatin dose. More MHR and HR patients achieved dual targets of LDL-C and: Apolipoprotein (Apo) B, total cholesterol (total-C), total-C/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, triglycerides, Apo B/Apo A-I or hs-CRP with ezetimibe + atorvastatin treatment compared with doubling their atorvastatin dose.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrated greater achievement of single/dual treatment targets as set by Canadian and European treatment guidelines with ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 20 mg or 40 mg compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose to 40 mg or 80 mg in MHR and HR patients, respectively.

Combination therapy of statin and ezetimibe for the treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia

High-dose potent statin therapy in combination with ezetimibe is now standard practice for the treatment of adult patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (heFH), as the result of numerous studies in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or heFH. These studies have shown the combination to be both effective and safe in the short to medium term. Recently, short-term ezetimibe therapy has also been shown to be effective and safe in combination with statin therapy for children and adolescents with heFH. Effective statin-ezetimibe combination therapy is capable of achieving near-normal lipid profiles in heFH patients, with expected improvement in risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) and improved life expectancy resulting predominantly from reduction in levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. There are few data to support a pleiotropic action of ezetimibe with regard to CVD benefit, unlike therapy with statins. No serious and unexpected clinical adverse effects of combination statin-ezetimibe therapy have emerged till date, although data are limited in children and adolescents, for whom longer-term studies are required. Recent data suggesting possible proatherogenic effects of ezetimibe require confirmation. One large long-term randomized controlled clinical outcomes trial is in progress in non-FH patients to determine the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe therapy; it is unlikely that such a trial will ever be performed in patients with FH.

Treatment of dyslipidemia in HIV-infected patients

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Patients infected with HIV are at high risk for dyslipidemia, insulin resistance and cardiovascular disease. Therapies to reverse these risks are complex, sometimes controversial, and not uniformly effective.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

Pathophysiology of the lipid abnormalities in HIV is discussed, including the causes of alterations in triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and insulin resistance. We discuss the therapy of dyslipidemia in HIV using a combination of available clinical evidence and expert opinion based on extensive clinical experience, with discussions of lifestyle intervention and diet, conventional pharmacotherapy with lipid-lowering medications including statins, fibrates, niacin and thiazolidinediones for dyslipidemia, and newer therapeutic approaches including omega fatty acids, acipimox, growth hormone and leptin.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

A detailed understanding of the pathophysiology and rational or evidence-based approach to therapy of lipid abnormalities in patients infected with HIV.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with HIV is challenging and complicated by the risk of drug interactions. Appropriate therapy requires a sound understanding of pathophysiology and the principles of pharmacological and nonpharmacological therapeutic interventions. An evidence-based approach that combines lifestyle changes and drugs that are both safe and effective, singly and in combination, is described.

The role of bile acid sequestrants in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) continues to escalate globally. There is now abundant clinical trial evidence that the optimal treatment of CVD risk factors, with lifestyle changes aimed at weight loss in most patients, and pharmacologic management of dyslipidemia and hyperglycemia, can help mitigate the CVD burden. Yet more than 50% of patients are still not achieving glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Over the past 15 years, many novel and emerging drugs have made it possible to achieve optimal glycemic control, generally in combination therapy, without untoward effects of weight gain, hypoglycemia, and other adverse effects with traditional agents. Although the long-term efficacy and safety of some of the newer classes of agents are yet to be determined, bile acid sequestrants represent a unique long-standing class of agents. These drugs have the dual efficacy in glycemic control and LDL-C reduction, and an established record of long-term safety. Colesevelam HCl is the only drug approved for this dual indication and is an adjunct in the treatment of both hyperglycemia and hypercholesterolemia that frequently co-exist in adults with T2DM.

Safety of simvastatin and goal attainment for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in sultan qaboos university hospital

OBJECTIVES

Despite the scientific evidence of reducing cardiac events with HMG Co-A reductase inhibitors (statins) therapy in both primary and secondary preventions, these therapies continue to be underutilized in patients receiving convictional care. Simvastatin, a HMG Co-A inhibitor agent, is the most commonly used statin in Sultan Qaboos University Hospital. The aim of this study is to review the safety and the effectiveness of achieving LDL-C targets with Simvastatin according to the NCEP-ATP3 guidelines in patients with different cardiovascular risk categories at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted for 160 patients. Patients were identified by outpatient prescriptions provided by pharmacy department from April 2008 to May 2008.

RESULTS

98% of the patients were prescribed simvastatin 20 mg and only 2% received 40 mg. The mean age of patients was 57 years +/- 12. While 49% of the patients were male and 45% had diabetes mellitus, 50% had cardiovascular disease, 2.5% were smokers, 67% were hypertensive, and 3% had positive family history of coronary artery disease. 75% of patients were classified as high risk, 7% moderate risk and 18% low risk for coronary artery disease. Among all lipid profiles, only LDL-C was changed from baseline with simvastatin treatment in all patients (3.60±1.03 to 3.25±1.34 mmol/L). LDL-C level at baseline was higher in the high risk group (4.11±1.06 mmol/L) compared to low and moderate risk groups (3.68±0.89, 3.42±1.15) respectively. Achievement of LDL-C goals was achieved in only 43% for high risk, 50% in moderate risk, and 90% in low risk patients. There was no significant increase in liver enzymes and creatinine kinase.

CONCLUSION

This study identified that more than half of the high risk patients were not at the target LDL-C goals which place them at a continuous risk of coronary heart disease. More appropriate lipid lowering therapy using more potent statins or combination therapy should be optimized to improve achievement of LDL-C goals according to ATP-III guidelines.

Current concepts in triglyceride metabolism, pathophysiology, and treatment

It is becoming more evident that age, gender, and race play a significant role in the metabolic profiles that are seen among individuals in a clinical setting. It is important to understand these variances in metabolic profiles; and with these variances in mind it is now possible to understand why a single diet might not decrease cardiovascular disease risk profiles uniformly for everyone. Much is now understood about triglyceride metabolism and its contribution to energy storage. In this review we will focus on triglycerides; their production, metabolism and influence on daily life, as well as the various methods for the treatment of hypertryglyceridemia and prevention of its sequelae.

Dietary cholesterol reverses resistance to diet-induced weight gain in mice lacking Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1

Niemann-Pick C1-Like 1 (NPC1L1) mediates intestinal cholesterol absorption. NPC1L1 knockout (L1-KO) mice were recently shown to be resistant to high-fat diet (HFD)-induced obesity in one study, which was contrary to several other studies. Careful comparison of dietary compositions in these studies implies a potential role of dietary cholesterol in regulating weight gain. To examine this potential, wild-type (WT) and L1-KO mice were fed one of three sets of diets for various durations: (1) a HFD without added cholesterol for 5 weeks; (2) a high-carbohydrate diet with or without added cholesterol for 5 weeks; or (3) a synthetic HFD with or without added cholesterol for 18 weeks. We found that L1-KO mice were protected against diet-induced weight gain only on a diet without added cholesterol but not on a diet containing 0.16% or 0.2% (w/w) cholesterol, an amount similar to a typical Western diet, regardless of the major energy source of the diet. Food intake and intestinal fat absorption were similar between the two genotypes. Intestinal cholesterol absorption was blocked, and fecal cholesterol excretion increased in L1-KO mice. Under all diets, L1-KO mice were protected from hepatosteatosis. In conclusion, increasing dietary cholesterol restores diet-induced weight gain in mice deficient in NPC1L1-dependent cholesterol absorption.

Efficacy and safety of mipomersen, an antisense inhibitor of apolipoprotein B, in hypercholesterolemic subjects receiving stable statin therapy

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mipomersen in hypercholesterolemic subjects taking stable statin therapy.

BACKGROUND

Mipomersen is an apolipoprotein (apo) B synthesis inhibitor that has demonstrated significant reductions in apo B and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in Phase 1 clinical trials in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

A randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation Phase 2 study was designed to evaluate the effects of mipomersen in hypercholesterolemic subjects taking stable statin therapy. Seventy-four subjects were enrolled sequentially into 1 of 6 dose cohorts at a 4:1 (active/placebo) ratio. Subjects received 7 doses of 30 to 400 mg over 5 weeks in the first 5 cohorts and 15 doses of 200 mg over 13 weeks in the sixth cohort. Pre-specified end points included percentage change from baseline in apo B and LDL cholesterol. Safety was assessed with laboratory test results and by the incidence and severity of adverse events.

RESULTS

The apo B and LDL cholesterol were reduced by 19% to 54% and 21% to 52%, respectively, at doses of 100 mg/week mipomersen and higher in the 5-week treatment cohorts. Efficacy seemed to increase upon treatment for 13 weeks at a dose of 200 mg/week. Injection site reactions (mild to moderate erythema [90%]) and hepatic transaminase increases (17%) were the most common adverse events, leading to discontinuation in 2 subjects and 1 subject, respectively. In the 13-week treatment cohort, 5 of 10 subjects (50%) had elevations >or=3x the upper limit of normal, 4 of which persisted on 2 consecutive occasions.

CONCLUSIONS

Mipomersen might hold promise for treatment of patients not reaching target LDL cholesterol levels on stable statin therapy. Further studies are needed to address the mechanisms and clinical relevance of transaminase changes after mipomersen administration. (Dose-Escalating Safety Study in Subjects on Stable Statin Therapy; NCT00231569).

Ezetimibe added to atorvastatin compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease with diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome or neither

AIM

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) are both associated with increased risk for atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD). Thus, it is useful to know the relative efficacy of lipid-altering drugs in these patient populations.

METHODS

A double-blind, parallel group trial of adult patients with hypercholesterolaemia at high-CHD risk receiving atorvastatin 40 mg/day compared atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (ezetimibe) vs. doubling atorvastatin to 80 mg. This post hoc analysis reports lipid efficacy results in patients grouped by diagnosis of T2DM, MetS without T2DM or neither. Per cent change from baseline at week 6 was assessed for LDL-C, total cholesterol, HDL-C , non-HDL-C , Apo A-I, Apo B and triglycerides. Safety was monitored through clinical and laboratory adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Compared with doubling atorvastatin, atorvastatin plus ezetimibe resulted in greater reductions in LDL-C, triglycerides, Apo B, non-HDL-C, total cholesterol and lipid ratios in the T2DM, MetS and neither groups. Treatment effects were of similar magnitude across patient groups with both treatments, except triglycerides, which were slightly greater in the T2DM and MetS groups vs. neither group. Changes in HDL-C , Apo A-I and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were comparable for both treatments in all three groups. Safety and tolerability profiles were generally similar between treatments and across patient groups, as were the incidence of liver and muscle AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with doubling atorvastatin to 80 mg, addition of ezetimibe to atorvastatin 40 mg produced greater improvements in multiple lipid parameters in high-CHD risk patients with T2DM, MetS or neither, consistent with the significantly greater changes observed in the full study cohort (clinical trial # NCT00276484).

Population-based health-economic evaluation of the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in Finland

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of generic atorvastatin 20 mg (A20), branded rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10), generic simvastatin 40 mg (S40) and the combination of generic S40 + branded ezetimibe 10 mg (S40 + EZ10) for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in Finnish patients not meeting the target goal of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with S40.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A probabilistic Markov model was employed to evaluate the costs and health outcomes of the different therapies based on the cardiovascular events avoided. The model included Framingham risk equations, Finnish population characteristics, event rates, quality of life estimates, resource use and unit costs. The LDL-C lowering efficacies were gathered from a systematic literature review, based on a search of Medline carried out in June 2008 (no time limit).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and incremental cost per life year gained (LYG).

RESULTS

The efficacy (LDL-C decrease) gained from switching S40 to S40 + EZ10 was consistent in the literature review, whereas the LDL-C decrease gained from switching S40 to A20/R10 was uncertain. The incremental cost per QALY gained from switching generic S40 was lowest for S40 + EZ10 (22,841 euros [24,017 euros] and 26,595 euros [46,686 euros] for diabetic and non-diabetic men [women], respectively). The respective incremental cost per QALY gained for S40 + EZ10 vs. A20 were 19,738 euros (21,405 euros) and 23,596 euros (40,087 euros). A20 dominated R10. Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier with a willingness-to-pay value of 30,000 euros per QALY gained, the probability of cost-effectiveness for switching generic S40 to S40 + EZ10 was 100% for men and diabetic women. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were robust.

CONCLUSIONS

In the Finnish secondary prevention population that is not at goal on S40, switching generic S40 to S40 + EZ10 is more cost-effective than switching S40 to generic A20 or R10.

Short-term ezetimibe is well tolerated and effective in combination with statin therapy to treat elevated LDL cholesterol in HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Ezetimibe inhibits intestinal absorption of cholesterol.

METHODS

Multicentered double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study to determine the short-term safety, efficacy, and tolerability of ezetimibe in combination with ongoing statin therapy in HIV-infected adults with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Participants on stable HAART with fasting LDL-C at least 130 mg/dl and stable statin were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg daily or placebo for 12 weeks followed by 4 weeks of washout and then 12 weeks with alternative study assignment. Percentage and absolute change in LDL-C (primary endpoint), total cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein B, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein were compared. Changes in clinical symptoms and safety laboratory measurements were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-four participants enrolled: 70% men, median age 49 years, 43% White/Non-Hispanic, median CD4 cell count 547 cells/microl, and 95% HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml. Median (interquartile range) percentage change in LDL-C was -20.8% (-25.4, -10.7) with ezetimibe and -0.7% (-10.3,18.6) with placebo; the median within-participant effect of ezetimibe was -14.1% (-33.0, -5.0; P < 0.0001). Median difference in absolute LDL-C values between ezetimibe and placebo was -32 mg/dl (-58, -6, P < 0.0001). Significant differences in within-participant effect of ezetimibe were noted for total cholesterol -18.60% (-27.22, -11.67, P < 0.001), non-HDL-C -23.18% (-33.14, -14.36, P < 0.0001), and apolipoprotein B -8.73% (-18.75, 1.99, P = 0.02). No significant changes seen in HDL-C, triglyceride, or high sensitivity C-reactive protein. Ezetimibe was well tolerated. Adverse events were similar between phases.

CONCLUSION

The present short-term study found adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy was well tolerated and effective in reducing LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B. Adding ezetimibe to statin therapy offers reasonable treatment option for HIV-infected patients with elevated LDL-C.

The efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and low-dose simvastatin as a primary treatment for dyslipidemia in renal transplant recipients

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The efficacy and safety of a combination of ezetimibe and low-dose statin as primary treatment for dyslipidemia in renal transplant patients were evaluated prospectively.

METHODS

The study enrolled 77 renal transplant recipients with dyslipidemia. They were given ezetimibe (10 mg) and simvastatin (10 mg) for 6 months as the initial treatment for dyslipidemia. Efficacy and safety were evaluated using lipid profiles, trough calcineurin inhibitor levels, allograft function, and adverse effects. The effects on proteinuria and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Ezetimibe and low-dose simvastatin significantly decreased the levels of total cholesterol (34.6%), triglyceride (16.0%), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (47.6%), and 82.5% of the patients reached the target LDL-C level of <100 mg/dL. No significant change in the trough calcineurin inhibitor levels or allograft function occurred, and no serious adverse effects were observed. Fourteen patients (18.2%) discontinued treatment; eight patients (11.7%) developed muscle pain or weakness without an increase in creatinine kinase levels, and two patients (2.6%) developed elevated liver transaminase levels. The proteinuria and hsCRP levels did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe and low-dose statin treatment is safe and effective as a primary treatment for dyslipidemia in renal transplant patients.

Impact of ezetimibe on cholesterol subfractions in dyslipidemic cardiac transplant recipients receiving statin therapy

BACKGROUND

Ezetimibe decreases cholesterol in cardiac transplant recipients intolerant to statins therapy. The effects of ezetimibe in addition to statins therapy and its relationship with the magnitude of dyslipidemia and statins utilization have not been studied in cardiac transplant recipients.

METHODS

The design of this investigation was a retrospective case control study. Twenty-two patients receiving the combination of therapy of statins plus ezetimibe were compared with 43 patients treated with statins only. The endpoints were assessed after three months of follow-up.

RESULTS

The addition of ezetimibe decreased low density lipoprotein-cholesterol by 25% compared with a 4% increase in patients receiving statins only. The impact of ezetimibe was similar regardless of the magnitude of dyslipidemia or statins dosage. Ezetimibe increase high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol only in patients with baseline HDL-cholesterol above 1.3 mM/L (p < 0.05). There was an asymptomatic, but significant increase in creatinine kinase level [+31.4 +/- 8.1 (ezetimibe) vs. + 1.5 +/- 5.0 mM/L (placebo); p = 0.005].

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe therapy provides a significant reduction in most cholesterol subfractions regardless of the magnitude of dyslipidemia and statins dosage.

New options in the treatment of lipid disorders in HIV-infected patients

Since the introduction of HAART, there was a remarkably change in the natural history of HIV disease, leading to a notable extension of life expectancy, although prolonged metabolic imbalances could significantly act on the longterm prognosis and outcome of HIV-infected persons, and there is an increasing concern about the cardiovascular risk in this population. Current recommendations suggest that HIV-infected perons undergo evaluation and treatment on the basis of the Third National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (NCEP ATP III) guidelines for dyslipidemia, with particular attention to potential drug interactions with antiretroviral agents and maintenance of virologic control of HIV infection. While a hypolipidemic diet and physical activity may certainly improve dyslipidemia, pharmacological treatment becomes indispensable when serum lipid are excessively high for a long time or the patient has a high cardiovascular risk, since the suspension or change of an effective antiretroviral therapy is not recommended. Moreover, the choice of a hypolipidemic drug is often a reason of concern, since expected drug-drug interactions (especially with antiretroviral agents), toxicity, intolerance, effects on concurrent HIV-related disease and decrease patient adherence to multiple pharmacological regimens must be carefully evaluated. Often the lipid goals of patients in this group are not achieved by the therapy recommended in the current lipid guidelines and in this article we describe other possibilities to treat lipid disorders in HIV-infected persons, like rosuvastatin, ezetimibe and fish oil.

Intestinal lipid absorption

Our knowledge of the uptake and transport of dietary fat and fat-soluble vitamins has advanced considerably. Researchers have identified several new mechanisms by which lipids are taken up by enterocytes and packaged as chylomicrons for export into the lymphatic system or clarified the actions of mechanisms previously known to participate in these processes. Fatty acids are taken up by enterocytes involving protein-mediated as well as protein-independent processes. Net cholesterol uptake depends on the competing activities of NPC1L1, ABCG5, and ABCG8 present in the apical membrane. We have considerably more detailed information about the uptake of products of lipid hydrolysis, the active transport systems by which they reach the endoplasmic reticulum, the mechanisms by which they are resynthesized into neutral lipids and utilized within the endoplasmic reticulum to form lipoproteins, and the mechanisms by which lipoproteins are secreted from the basolateral side of the enterocyte. apoB and MTP are known to be central to the efficient assembly and secretion of lipoproteins. In recent studies, investigators found that cholesterol, phospholipids, and vitamin E can also be secreted from enterocytes as components of high-density apoB-free/apoAI-containing lipoproteins. Several of these advances will probably be investigated further for their potential as targets for the development of drugs that can suppress cholesterol absorption, thereby reducing the risk of hypercholesterolemia and cardiovascular disease.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in high-risk family medicine patients

BACKGROUND

The Adult Treatment Panel III guideline recommends a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of <100mg/dl for patients with coronary heart disease or risk equivalence (ie, other forms of atherosclerotic vascular disease [peripheral vascular disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm, cerebrovascular disease], diabetes). An optional LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl is recommended for patients considered "very high risk." This category is not well defined, and clinical interpretation of this category varies.

METHODS

To define this category and to determine eligibility for an LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl, 5 definitions of "very high risk" were developed. Patients with coronary heart disease or risk equivalence within the University of Colorado Family Medicine system over the course of 2 years were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes (n=445). Their medical records were evaluated retrospectively. Patients characterized as "very high risk" according to the 5 definitions were assessed for LDL-C <70mg/dl goal attainment.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients did not have LDL-C measurements and were excluded. Using the 5 definitions, we discovered that prevalence as "very high risk" was 10.8% (atherosclerotic vascular disease [AVD] plus smoking), 19.1% (AVD plus diabetes), 21.5% (AVD plus metabolic syndrome plus uncontrolled hypertension or smoking), 47.1% (AVD plus metabolic syndrome), and 67.2% (All AVD), P < .0001. LDL-C <70mg/dl was attained in 26.7%, 46.3%, 31.1%, 39.1%, and 35.2%, respectively (P=.13).

CONCLUSION

Classifying patients as "very high risk" is highly variable depending on individual definitions, but this does not appear to alter the rates of attaining an LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl. When the Adult Treatment Panel IV guidelines are developed and issued, simplicity and clarity will be important in assisting clinicians in defining patient risk and developing LDL-C goals.

Statin and ezetimibe combination therapy in cardiovascular disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the available data regarding the benefits of combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe in patients with cardiovascular disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Extensive evidence, mostly in statin outcome trials, has shown that the magnitude of cardiovascular benefit is directly proportional to the degree of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction. As such, aggressive target goals for LDL-C levels have been established by guideline committees. Although statins are considered first-line agents in lipid therapy, LDL-C targets are difficult to achieve with statin therapy alone. Ezetimibe, a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, has been shown to be well tolerated and effective in lowering LDL-C. Adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy leads to a substantial additional reduction in LDL-C, facilitating the achievement of target goals.

SUMMARY

The combination of ezetimibe, a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, and statins has been shown to be well tolerated and effective in lowering LDL-C and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to target goals. Whether this greater LDL-C reduction translates into reduced cardiovascular events is the subject of ongoing clinical trials. Until such data is available, ezetimibe seems to be a reasonable choice for a second-line, lipid-lowering agent in patients on a potent statin who are not at their LDL-C goal.

Tolerability and effects on lipids of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin or simvastatin for twelve months: results from two open-label extension studies in hypercholesterolemic patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of these studies was to assess the long-term tolerability and effects on lipids of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin or simvastatin during treatment of hypercholesterolemic patients.

METHODS

Two separate 12-month, open-label extension studies enrolled patients who had successfully completed one of three 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin, lovastatin, or simvastatin. In the extensions, the initial dose of each drug administered was 10 mg/d, with the option to up-titrate the statins if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals were not met. Tolerability was assessed using monitoring of clinical and laboratory adverse events (AEs). Changes from baseline in LDL-C, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 436 patients received ezetimibe + pravastatin 10 to 40 mg/d, including patients from the parent studies who received coadministration treatment but did not continue in the extension studies; 359 patients received ezetimibe + simvastatin 10 to 80 mg/d in the extension study. The majority of patients in both studies were white (ezetimibe + pravastatin, 374 [86%]; ezetimibe + simvastatin, 314 [87%]) and female (ezetimibe + pravastatin, 246 [56%]; ezetimibe + simvastatin, 210 [58%]). The mean ages were 55.7 and 57.7 years and the mean body mass indexes were 29.4 and 28.8 kg/m2 in the ezetimibe + pravastatin and ezetimibe + simvastatin studies, respectively. The most commonly reported AEs with ezetimibe + pravastatin were upper respiratory tract infection (78 [18%]), headache (47 [11%]), musculoskeletal pain (45 [10%]), arthralgia (43 [10%]), and sinusitis (42 [10%]); with ezetimibe + simvastatin, they were upper respiratory tract infection (67 [19%]), arthralgia (39 [11%]), and musculoskeletal pain (37 [10%]). AEs considered treatment related were reported in 98 (22%) and 80 (22%) patients in the ezetimibe + pravastatin and ezetimibe + simvastatin studies, respectively. Serious AEs were reported in 29 patients (7%) who received ezetimibe + pravastatin and 36 patients (10%) who received ezetimibe + simvastatin; <1% were considered treatment related in either study. Forty-one (9%) and 29 patients (8%), respectively, were withdrawn due to AEs. One death occurred due to cardiopulmonary arrest in the ezetimibe + simvastatin study and was not considered treatment related. Percentage changes from baseline in LDL-C were -36.5% and -40.4% in patients who received ezetimibe + pravastatin and ezetimibe + simvastatin.

CONCLUSION

In these 12-month, open-label extension studies in these patients with hypercholesterolemia, ezetimibe + pravastatin or simvastatin was generally well tolerated. Both treatments were associated with maintaining improvements in lipid parameters throughout the studies in these patients.

Add-on therapy for hypercholesterolemia: a pilot comparison of two gastrointestinally-acting agents in statin-treated patients

BACKGROUND

Both colesevelam hydrochloride (colesevelam) and ezetimibe monotherapy have been reported to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) approximately 15-17% in patients with hypercholesterolemia. When statin therapy is inadequate to reach desired LDL-C goals, the choice of add-on therapy, while multifactorial, must consider efficacy of additional LDL-C reduction.

OBJECTIVE

To provide pilot study data in assessing the relative potential of ezetimibe or colesevelam to further reduce LDL-C in statin-treated patients.

METHODS

Fourteen patients with hypercholesterolemia, who at baseline were on treatment with a stable regimen of low- to moderate-dose statin therapy, were randomized to receive colesevelam HCl 3.75 g/day or ezetimibe 10 mg/day as add-on therapy (AOT). At the end of 6 weeks, each patient was crossed over to the alternative AOT.

RESULTS

LDL cholesterol fell an additional 21.0% on colesevelam (P < .001) and 28.3% on ezetimibe (P <.001) with a 7.3% difference between AOTs (P <.02). Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) fell an additional 15.1% on colesevelam (P <.001) and 25.6% on ezetimibe (P <.001) with a 10.5% difference between AOTs (P <.001). The non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio fell an additional 15.3% on colesevelam (P <.01) and 22.8% on ezetimibe (P <.001) with a 7.5% difference between AOTs (P <.02). Zero of 10 and six of 10 secondary prevention patients reached an LDL-C level of <70 mg/dl on colesevelam and ezetimibe respectively (P <.005).

CONCLUSION

Colesevelam HCl and ezetimibe are both effective AOTs in patients on statin therapy. The superior further improvement in the lipid panel with ezetimibe compared to colesevelam was demonstrated in this placebo uncorrected crossover pilot study.

Pooled analyses of effects on C-reactive protein and low density lipoprotein cholesterol in placebo-controlled trials of ezetimibe monotherapy or ezetimibe added to baseline statin therapy

Inflammation is associated with coronary artery disease (CAD), and statins reduce the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein (CRP). The effects of ezetimibe, alone or in combination with statins, on CRP and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were examined in 2 pooled analyses of randomized, placebo-controlled trials of ezetimibe 10 mg/day in patients with hypercholesterolemia: 6 12-week trials as monotherapy (n = 1,372) and 7 6- to 8-week trials as add-on to baseline statin therapy (n = 3,899). Mean percentage changes from baseline in CRP and LDL cholesterol were examined using analysis of variance in patients with CRP < or =10 mg/L. Effects within subgroups (age, gender, race, body mass index, diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, CAD, baseline CRP or lipids, and statin potency) and correlations between CRP and LDL cholesterol were also examined. Reduction in CRP by ezetimibe monotherapy was numerically greater than with placebo (treatment difference 6%, p = 0.09). Added to statin therapy, ezetimibe was associated with a significant additional reduction in CRP (treatment difference 10%, p <0.001). Treatment effects were generally consistent across subgroups for the 2 analyses. With monotherapy and add-on to statin therapy, LDL cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe was significantly greater than with placebo (treatment differences -19% and -23%, respectively, p <0.001). Spearman's correlation coefficients among baseline values and percentage changes from baseline in CRP and LDL cholesterol ranged from -0.007% to 0.13%. In conclusion, the addition of ezetimibe to statin treatment provides significantly enhanced CRP reductions over and above those achieved with statin monotherapy. Correlations between changes in CRP and changes in LDL cholesterol were weakly positive and significant only when ezetimibe was added to statin treatment. The effects of ezetimibe monotherapy are not well defined. The effects of ezetimibe on CRP were consistent across patient subgroups.

Secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events after ischemic stroke

Atherosclerotic vascular disease is the leading cause of ischemic stroke, resulting in occlusive or severely stenotic lesions of major intracranial or extracranial arteries and narrowing of small penetrating arteries of the brain. Atherosclerosis of the coronary arteries (ie, coronary artery disease) is an indirect cause of cardioembolic stroke secondary to myocardial infarction. Ischemic heart disease may also be complicated by atrial fibrillation and cardioembolic stroke. Prevention of recurrent stroke and other ischemic events, including myocardial infarction, is a key component of treatment for patients with symptomatic ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Prevention of recurrent stroke involves controlling those factors that promote the course of atherosclerosis, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and smoking, as well as such local interventions as carotid endarterectomy and endovascular treatment. Nevertheless, administration of antiplatelet agents remains the core of management for preventing recurrent stroke and other cardiovascular events in at-risk patients.

Secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events after ischemic stroke

Atherosclerotic vascular disease is the leading cause of ischemic stroke, resulting in occlusive or severely stenotic lesions of major intracranial or extracranial arteries and narrowing of small penetrating arteries of the brain. Atherosclerosis of the coronary arteries (ie, coronary artery disease) is an indirect cause of cardioembolic stroke secondary to myocardial infarction. Ischemic heart disease may also be complicated by atrial fibrillation and cardioembolic stroke. Prevention of recurrent stroke and other ischemic events, including myocardial infarction, is a key component of treatment for patients with symptomatic ischemic cerebrovascular disease. Prevention of recurrent stroke involves controlling those factors that promote the course of atherosclerosis, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and smoking, as well as such local interventions as carotid endarterectomy and endovascular treatment. Nevertheless, administration of antiplatelet agents remains the core of management for preventing recurrent stroke and other cardiovascular events in at-risk patients.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added on to atorvastatin (40 mg) compared with uptitration of atorvastatin (to 80 mg) in hypercholesterolemic patients at high risk of coronary heart disease

The percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol after the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 40 mg was compared with uptitration to atorvastatin 80 mg. In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, adult hypercholesterolemic patients using atorvastatin 40 mg/day were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or uptitration to atorvastatin 80 mg. After 6 weeks of treatment, compared with atorvastatin 80 mg, atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe significantly reduced the primary end point of LDL cholesterol by -27% versus atorvastatin 80 mg by -11% (p <0.001), as well as significantly reduced non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, and triglycerides significantly more than atorvastatin 80 mg (all p <0.001). Percentages of change in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A-I were similar between groups. Significantly more patients treated with atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe reached LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl versus patients treated with atorvastatin 80 mg (74% vs 32%; p <0.001). Safety and tolerability profiles and incidence of liver and muscle adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. In conclusion, these results showed that adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin 40 mg was significantly more effective than uptitrating to atorvastatin 80 mg at lowering LDL cholesterol and other lipid parameters. Both treatments were generally well tolerated (clinical trial no. NCT00276484).

A randomised trial of three counselling strategies for lifestyle changes in patients with hypercholesterolemia treated with ezetimibe on top of statin therapy (TWICE)

AIMS

To compare the impact of three patient counselling strategies for lifestyle changes and to assess the safety and efficacy of ezetimibe on top of statin therapy in hypercholesterolemic high risk patients.

METHODS

Open, cluster randomized 3-parallel group trial. Physicians were randomized between patient motivation on: diet or physical exercise or both. Counselling was adapted to the patient's baseline Prochaska stage of change. High cardiovascular risk patients, with LDL-C above or equal to 3 mmol/L despite statin therapy for at least 3 months, were enrolled. Ezetimibe (10mg/day) and patient counselling were started at the same time. Target goal was defined as total cholesterol less than 5 mmol/L and LDL-C above 3 mmol/L.

RESULTS

Overall 428 physicians enrolled 1,496 patients. At baseline, LDL-C was 3.9+/-0.9 mmol/L and total cholesterol was 6.1+/-1.1 mmol/L. LDL-C decreased by -30.4+/-19.3% and 869 (62%) patients achieved target goal. No difference was shown between randomisation groups. However, improvements in diet consumption patterns were more easily obtained than improvement in physical activity stage of change in non-active patient at baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

The marked short-term impact (-30%) on LDL-C, although similar between the three groups, slightly exceeds usual LDL-C reductions achieved by this dose of ezetimibe. Decreasing fat consumption seems easier than increasing physical activity. This study confirms the good efficacy, short-term tolerability and safety of ezetimibe on top of statins.

Rationale and design of IMPROVE-IT (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial): comparison of ezetimbe/simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND

Reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) improves clinical outcomes in patients with chronic coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). The combination of ezetimibe/simvastatin produces greater reductions in LDL-C compared to simvastatin monotherapy. The IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-control trial designed to test the hypothesis that the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy, using ezetimibe/simvastatin, will translate into increased clinical benefit on cardiovascular outcomes relative to simvastatin monotherapy in patients with ACS.

STUDY DESIGN

The study will recruit up to 18,000 moderate- to high-risk patients stabilized after ACS. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to once-daily doses of either ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg or simvastatin monotherapy 40 mg. Follow-up visits are at 1 and 4 months, and every 4 months thereafter. If consecutive measures of LDL-C are >79 mg/dL at follow-up visits, the simvastatin dose will be increased to 80 mg in a double-blind manner. The primary end point is the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, rehospitalization for unstable angina, coronary revascularization (occurring at least 30 days after randomization), or stroke. Patients will be followed for a minimum of 2.5 years and until at least 5,250 patients experience a primary end point.

SUMMARY

IMPROVE-IT will determine whether the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy, using ezetimibe/simvastatin, improves cardiovascular outcomes compared with simvastatin monotherapy in patients after ACS. In addition, the difference in achieved LDL-C levels between the groups will provide data on whether the target for LDL-C lowering should be reduced further.

Long-term safety and tolerability of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients: a randomized, 12-month double-blind extension study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term safety and tolerability and to further evaluate the effect of ezetimibe plus simvastatin on LDL-C, HDL-C, and triglyceride levels in subjects with primary hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

This was a 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled extension study that enrolled patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who had successfully completed the 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin. The initial dose administered to patients in the extension was ezetimibe 10 mg coadministered with simvastatin 10 mg with the option to up-titrate statin dosage if LDL-C goals were not met. Safety and tolerability were assessed through clinical and laboratory adverse experiences (AEs). Changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglyceride levels were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, 87 patients were randomized to receive ezetimibe + simvastatin and 22 were randomized to receive simvastatin and placebo. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported for 72/87 (83%) ezetimibe + simvastatin-treated patients and for 17/22 (77%) simvastatin-treated patients. The most commonly reported AEs in the simvastatin treatment group were hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux, and musculoskeletal pain (each reported by 3/22 [14%] patients); and in the ezetimibe + simvastatin group were upper respiratory tract infection (16/87 [18%]), arthralgia and musculoskeletal pain (both reported by 10/87 [11%] patients). Drug-related AEs were reported for 3/22 (14%) simvastatin-treated patients and 21/87 (24%) patients in the coadministration group. AEs considered serious by the investigator were reported by 2/22 (9%) patients taking simvastatin monotherapy and by 20/87 (23%) patients taking ezetimibe + simvastatin. Discontinuations due to AEs occurred in no patients taking simvastatin monotherapy and in 7/87 (8%) patients taking ezetimibe + simvastatin. Percent change ± standard deviation from baseline in LDL-C was -29% ± 15.4 and -44% ± 14.2 in subjects taking simvastatin monotherapy and ezetimibe + simvastatin, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin was generally well-tolerated and no new safety concerns were raised. Both treatments effectively maintained improvements in lipid parameters throughout the course of the studies. Interpretation of these results was limited by the small convenience sample included in the trial.

Statin plus ezetimibe treatment in clinical practice: the SI-SPECT (Slovenia (SI) Statin Plus Ezetimibe in Cholesterol Treatment) monitoring of clinical practice study

BACKGROUND

Poor results from lipid-lowering therapy are mainly due to inadequate dosing and increased adverse effects with high-dose statin monotherapy or drug combinations.

OBJECTIVES

The SI-SPECT (Slovenia (SI) Statin Plus Ezetimibe in Cholesterol Treatment) study evaluated the effectiveness of either ezetimibe (EZE) 10 mg as monotherapy or co-administered with on-going statin treatment (S + EZE) in clinical practice.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 1053 dyslipidaemic patients (52% men, age 60.3 years, 42.9% with CHD, 32.0% with diabetes mellitus and 69.6% with hypertension) were enrolled. The majority (n=986; 93.6%) were treated with EZE as 'add-on' to their already prescribed statin, the rest only received EZE (n=67).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline lipid levels were compared with those obtained 16 weeks after initiating treatment.

RESULTS

Total (TC) and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), as well as triglycerides (TG) decreased significantly with S + EZE (by 25.3%, 31.4% and 28.9%, respectively; p<0.0001 for all comparisons), while monotherapy with EZE resulted in a decrease of 20.8% for TC (p<0.0001), 28.0% for LDL-C (p<0.0001) and 28.8% for TG (p=0.016). At the end of the study 43.9% of patients achieved target TC (<5.0 mmol/L for primary prevention and <4.5 mmol/L for secondary prevention), 50.5% target LDL-C (<3.0 mmol/L for primary prevention and <2.5 mmol/L for secondary prevention) and 61.6% target TG (<2.0 mmol/L). The overall incidence of adverse effects during the treatment period, and probably related to EZE use, was low (n=6, 0.6% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) S + EZE combination therapy was effective and safe irrespective of the statin used, (2) the S + EZE combination resulted in significantly more patients reaching their recommended target lipid levels and (3) the lipid-lowering efficacy of EZE in monotherapy as well as of the S + EZE combination was related to initial lipid values. The much greater decrease of TG than expected could be, at least in part, due to better control/compliance regarding diet and drug treatment during the study and adherence to the need for an overnight fast before sampling.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 40 mg vs. ezetimibe 10 mg in the treatment of patients with homozygous sitosterolaemia

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of ezetimibe (EZE) 40 mg/day on non-cholesterol sterol plasma concentrations in patients with homozygous sitosterolaemia (HoS).

METHODS

This was a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel group study. Twenty-seven patients (> or = 18 years) with HoS and plasma sitosterol levels > 5 mg/dl who had been taking EZE 10 mg/day for > or = 6 months prior to enrolment received open-label EZE 10 mg/day for the duration of the study and were randomised 1 : 1 to blinded EZE 30 mg/day (4 x EZE 10 mg tablets; n = 13) or placebo (1 x EZE 10 mg tablet and 3 x matching placebo tablets; n = 14) for 26 weeks. Patients were permitted to remain on other ongoing treatments (e.g. bile salt-binding resin, statin and/or low sterol diet). End-points included median per cent between-group changes from baseline in plasma sitosterol, campesterol, lathosterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) sterols, LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) measured by gas-liquid chromatography, and Achilles tendon thickness size measured radiographically.

RESULTS

Ezetimibe 40 mg/day resulted in median per cent changes from baseline in plasma sitosterol levels of 3.3% vs. -10% in the EZE 10 mg/day group, in plasma campesterol of -0.5% vs. -9.7% in the EZE 10 mg/day group, and in plasma lathosterol of 0.8% vs. 1.1% in the EZE 10 mg/day group (p = ns for all between-group differences). Median per cent changes in the EZE 40 mg/day and EZE 10 mg/day groups, respectively, were 1.3% and 0% for LDL sterols and 2.5% and 4.4% for LDL-C (p = ns for both between-group differences). At study end-point, Achilles tendon thickness remained unchanged in the EZE 40 mg/day group and increased slightly in the EZE 10 mg/day group (2.2%), yielding a non-significant between-group difference of -2.2%. EZE 40 mg/day was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HoS, treatment with EZE 40 mg/day for 26 weeks was no more effective at reducing plasma plant sterol concentrations vs. EZE 10 mg/day. EZE 40 mg/day had a safety and tolerability profile similar to EZE 10 mg/day.