Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 5 mg in combination with fenofibric acid 135 mg in patients with mixed dyslipidemia - a phase 3 study

Comparative efficacy and safety of statin and fibrate monotherapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether in adults with dyslipidemia, statins reduce cardiovascular events, mortality, and adverse effects when compared to fibrates.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized trials of statin and fibrate monotherapy. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, WHO International Controlled Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through October 30, 2019. Trials that had a follow-up of at least 28 days, and reported mortality or a cardiovascular outcome of interest were eligible for inclusion. Efficacy outcomes were cardiovascular mortality and major cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included myalgia, serious adverse effects, elevated serum creatinine, and elevated serum alanine aminotransferase. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

RESULTS

We included 19 eligible trials that directly compared statin and fibrate monotherapy and reported mortality or a cardiovascular event. Studies had a limited duration of follow-up (range 10 weeks to 2 years). We did not find any evidence of a difference between statins and fibrates for cardiovascular mortality (OR 2.35, 95% CI 0.94-5.86, I2 = 0%; ten studies, n = 2657; low certainty), major cardiovascular events (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.80-1.65, I2 = 13%; 19 studies, n = 7619; low certainty), and myalgia (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.95-1.83, I2 = 0%; ten studies, n = 6090; low certainty). Statins had less serious adverse effects (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.91, I2 = 0%; nine studies, n = 3749; moderate certainty), less elevations in serum creatinine (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.08-0.36, I2 = 0%; six studies, n = 2553; high certainty), and more elevations in alanine aminotransferase (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.03-1.99, I2 = 44%; seven studies, n = 5225; low certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

The eligible randomized trials of statins versus fibrates were designed to assess short-term lipid outcomes, making it difficult to have certainty about the direct comparative effect on cardiovascular outcomes and mortality. With the exception of myalgia, use of a statin appeared to have a lower incidence of adverse effects compared to use of a fibrate.

Real-World Effectiveness of Therapy With Rosuvastatin Combined With Fenofibric Acid in a Sample of Colombian Patients With Mixed Dyslipidemia

Background

Ischemic heart disease is the leading cause of death in the world and is associated with dyslipidemia, high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, and other factors.

Objective

To determine the clinical effectiveness on the lipid profile of the rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid combination in Colombian patients with high cardiovascular risk and mixed dyslipidemia.

Methods

Longitudinal observational study in a random sample of patients with a diagnosis of mixed dyslipidemia and moderate, high, or very high cardiovascular risk who were treated with rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid. Anthropometric, clinical, laboratory, comorbidity, and pharmacological variables were identified. Effectiveness on the lipid profile was determined.

Results

A total of 386 patients were analyzed. They had a mean age of 60.8 ± 11.4 years, 53.1% were female, and 75.6% had high/very high cardiovascular risk. The initial evaluation showed a mean LDL cholesterol of 138.4 ± 67.1 mg/dL and triglycerides of 679.7 ± 573.6 mg/dL. At the end of follow-up, mean LDL cholesterol was 87.5 ± 41.2 mg/dL (reduced by 43.3%; P < .001), and triglycerides were 243.5 ± 170.5 mg/dL (reduced by 64.2%; P < .001). Only 35.4% (n = 73) of patients with very high risk reached the goal of metabolic control, compared to 61.6% (n = 53) with high risk and 55.4% (n = 46) with moderate risk. Belonging to the very high-risk group was associated with a lower probability of achieving the control goal (OR: 0.32; 95%CI: 0.192-0.539).

Conclusion

The combination of rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid is an effective option in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and high cardiovascular risk, providing a therapeutic alternative for those conditions that require it.

Systematic literature review and meta-analysis of dual therapy with fenofibrate or fenofibric acid and a statin versus a double or equivalent dose of statin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of fenofibrate and statin dual therapy versus a double or equivalent dose of statin monotherapy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was performed for publications before 1 January 2014 in MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS Previews, among others.

RESULTS

The difference in percentage change from baseline was in favor of dual therapy versus a double dose of statin monotherapy for triglycerides (difference -20%; standard error [SE] 2.6%) and HDL-C (8.7%; SE 1.2%), but not for LDL-C (8.4%; SE 1.5%), non-HDL-C (2.8%; SE 1.1%), total cholesterol (4.5%; SE 1.0%) and apolipoprotein B (2.6%; SE 1.1%). For high intensity statins, the difference in percentage change from baseline was in favor of dual therapy versus equivalent statin monotherapy for triglycerides (-17%; SE 2.6%) and for HDL-C (8.7%; SE 1.9%). The difference in percentage change from baseline for LDL-C was 6% (SE 1.7%), implying a greater reduction in LDL-C with statin monotherapy. For moderate intensity statins, the difference in percentage change from baseline was in favor of dual therapy versus equivalent statin monotherapy for triglycerides (-24.2%; SE 1.2%) and HDL-C (8.2%; SE 0.9%). LDL-C decreased 2.2% (SE 1.4%) more with dual therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

When aiming to change HDL-C or triglycerides, dual therapy is to be preferred to doubling the statin dose; conversely, doubling the statin dose is to be preferred when aiming to reduce LDL-C. If the aim is both to change HDL-C or triglycerides and to reduce LDL-C, the importance of the three outcomes may need to be weighed depending on the intensity of the statin. Combining high intensity statin therapy with fenofibrate improves the effect on HDL-C and triglycerides, but lowers the effect on LDL-C. Combining a moderate intensity statin with fenofibrate improves the effect on HDL-C and triglycerides without reducing the effect on LDL-C. There is a need for long-term randomized clinical trials to compare dual therapy versus doubling the statin dose to assess the importance of improvement in HDL-C and triglycerides versus improvement in LDL-C in terms of cardiovascular outcomes. Further, the addition of ezetimibe to statin/fenofibrate therapy may be of interest.

Safety and efficacy of fibrate-statin combination therapy compared to fibrate monotherapy in patients with dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. Treatment with fibrate, statins, or other lipid-lowering drugs prevents primary or recurrent cardiovascular events. However, all lipid-lowering drugs have side effects, which may become more severe if combination therapy is prescribed.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of published data to compare the safety and efficacy of fibrates alone, compared to fibrate-statin combinations, in patients with dyslipidemia. Six articles were assessed in terms of the efficacy of therapy and nine from the viewpoint of therapeutic safety.

RESULTS

In terms of efficacy, fibrate-statin combinations afforded significantly greater reductions in the levels of total cholesterol (SE=-2.248; 95% CI 1.986-2.510), LDL cholesterol (SE=-2.274; 95% CI 2.015-2.533), and triglycerides (SE=-0.465; 95% CI 0.272-0.658) compared to fibrate alone. In terms of safety, treatment with fibrate alone was associated with a significant decrease in the number of kidney-related adverse events (RR=-0.547; 95% CI 0.368-0.812), compared to treatment with fibrate-statin combinations.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that treatment with a fibrate-statin combination affords clinical benefits that are superior to treatment with fibrate alone, but increases the risk of side effects (particularly renal). Therapy should thus be carefully monitored.

Safety and efficacy of statin treatment alone and in combination with fibrates in patients with dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is treated with many effective lipid-lowering agents. Statins are often used alone or in combination with fibrates. Combination therapy is more effective due to their comparative actions, but the increased incidence of side effects should be considered carefully.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A meta-analysis of published data was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of statins alone versus statins plus fibrates in patients with dyslipidemia. In total, nine articles were assessed for efficacy analysis and ten articles were assessed for safety analysis.

RESULTS

In the efficacy analysis, a combination of statins and fibrates provided significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol (SE = 0.430; 95% CI 0.315-0.545), LDL cholesterol (SE = 0.438; 95% CI 0.321-0.555) and triglycerides (SE = 0.747; 95% CI 0.618-0.876), and a significantly greater increase in HDL cholesterol (SE = 0.594; 95% CI 0.473-0.715) than treatment with statins alone. In the safety analysis, treatment with statins alone was associated with a significant reduction in the numbers of total adverse events (RR = 0.665; 95% CI 0.539-0.819), liver-related adverse events (RR = 0.396; 95% CI 0.206-0.760) and kidney-related adverse events (RR = 0.146; 95% CI 0.075-0.285).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that treatment with statins plus fibrates provides clinical benefits over treatment with statins alone but increased risks, especially of hepatic or renal side effects, should be monitored carefully.

Does combination therapy with statins and fibrates prevent cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients with atherogenic mixed dyslipidemia?

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with the development and progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins have an established efficacy in the management of dyslipidemia primarily by decreasing the levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and thus decreasing CVD risk. They also have a favorable safety profile. Despite the statin-mediated benefit of CVD risk reduction a residual CVD risk remains, especially in T2DM patients with high triglyceride (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) values. Fibrates decrease TG levels, increase HDL-C concentrations, and improve many other atherosclerosis-related variables. Fibrate/statin co-administration improves the overall lipoprotein profile in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and may reduce the residual CVD risk during statin therapy. However, limited data exists regarding the effects of statin/fibrate combination on CVD outcomes in patients with T2DM. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study the statin/fibrate combination did not significantly reduce the rate of CVD events compared with simvastatin/placebo in patients with T2DM. However, it did show a possible benefit in a pre-specified analysis in the subgroup of patients with high TG and low HDL-C levels. Furthermore, in the ACCORD study the simvastatin/fenofibrate combination significantly reduced the rate of progression of retinopathy compared with statin/placebo administration in patients with T2DM. The present review presents the available data regarding the effects of statin/fibrate combination in patients with T2DM and atherogenic mixed dyslipidemia.

A Review of Currently Available Fenofibrate and Fenofibric Acid Formulations

Fenofibrate is a third-generation fibric acid derivative indicated as a monotherapy to reduce elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B; to increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with primary hyperlipidemia or mixed dyslipidemia; and to reduce triglycerides in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia. In this review, the key characteristics of available fenofibrate formulations are examined. A literature search was conducted, focusing on comparative studies examining bioavailability, food effects, absorption, and lipid efficacy. Fenofibrate is highly lipophilic, virtually insoluble in water, and poorly absorbed. Coadministration with meals was necessary to maximize bioavailability of early formulations. Micronized and nanoparticle formulations of fenofibrate with reduced particle sizes were developed, resulting in greater solubility, improved bioavailability, and in some cases, the ability to be given irrespective of food. A recently introduced hydrophilic choline salt of fenofibric acid also can be taken without regard to meals, is absorbed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, has the highest bioavailability among marketed formulations, and is approved for coadministration with a statin. Differences in bioavailability of fenofibrate formulations have resulted in low-dose (40 - 67) mg and standard-dose (120 - 200 mg) formulations. Different formulations are not equivalent on a milligram-to-milligram basis. In order to prevent medication errors, resulting in underdosing or overdosing with attendant consequences, it is important for healthcare providers to recognize that the formulations of fenofibrate and fenofibric acid that are currently available vary substantially in relation to food effect, equivalency on a milligram-to-milligram basis, and indication to be coadministered with a statin.

Adverse events of statin-fenofibric acid versus statin monotherapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with mixed dyslipidemia can benefit from the combination of fenofibric acid (FA) with statins, but concerns about adverse events make physicians reluctant to prescribe the combination therapy.

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and adverse events in patients taking statins and FA.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify studies that reported adverse events. Finally, five trials covering 2704 patients were selected in this study.

RESULTS

There were significant decreases in TG and increases in HDL-C in patients receiving combination therapy compared with statin monotherapy. The incidence of hepatic toxicity (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.17-10.83; P < 0.05) and increased creatinine (OR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.28-8.11; P < 0.05) was significantly higher in the FA + low-dose statin group than in the corresponding statin monotherapy. The incidence of CK elevations and muscle-associated AEs was not statistically different between the two groups. The adverse events in the FA + moderate-dose statin group were almost identical to those in the FA + low-dose statin group.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, combination therapy could improve the blood lipid profile. Addition of FA to statins therapy is more frequently associated with hepatic and renal toxicity than muscle-associated AEs. Therefore patients taking the combination of FA with statins should have liver enzyme and renal function monitored. However, we still need large-scale and long follow-up period RCTs to definitively confirm the adverse events of FA-statin therapy.

Study design, rationale, and baseline characteristics: evaluation of fenofibric acid on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type IIb dyslipidemia with residual risk in addition to atorvastatin therapy (FIRST) trial

PURPOSE

Elevated triglycerides (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels contribute to cardiovascular disease risk and can be effectively treated with fenofibric acid. A trial is under way to evaluate the effect of once-daily fenofibric acid or placebo on carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) progression in patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels achieved through atorvastatin treatment, but with high TG and low HDL-C levels.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind study, 682 patients were randomized to once-daily delayed-release capsules of choline fenofibrate 135 mg (fenofibric acid [Trilipix(®); Abbott, North Chicago, IL]) or placebo plus atorvastatin treatment after a 2- to 10-week diet and atorvastatin run-in period. Key inclusion criteria included age ≥45 years; posterior-wall common CIMT ≥0.7 mm on at least one side at baseline; fasting results of TG ≥150 mg/dL, and HDL-C ≤45 mg/dL for men or HDL-C ≤55 mg/dL for women at screening while receiving atorvastatin; controlled LDL-C; and known coronary heart disease (CHD) or a CHD risk equivalent. The primary efficacy variable is the rate of change from baseline through week 104 in the mean posterior-wall intima-media thickness of the common carotid arteries (composite value of left and right sides).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial is the first to examine the effect of fenofibric acid on CIMT and the first CIMT trial to select patients with controlled LDL-C and elevated TG and low HDL-C as inclusion criteria. Also, this trial will prospectively evaluate the effect of treatment on LDL particles and address shortcomings of previous CIMT trials.

A review of time courses and predictors of lipid changes with fenofibric acid-statin combination

Fibrates activate peroxisome proliferator activated receptor α and exert beneficial effects on triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low density lipoprotein subspecies. Fenofibric acid (FA) has been studied in a large number of patients with mixed dyslipidemia, combined with a low- or moderate-dose statin. The combination of FA with simvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin resulted in greater improvement of the overall lipid profile compared with the corresponding statin dose. The long-term efficacy of FA combined with low- or moderate- dose statin has been demonstrated in a wide range of patients, including patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, or elderly subjects. The FA and statin combination seems to be a reasonable option to further reduce cardiovascular risk in high-risk populations, although trials examining cardiovascular disease events are missing.

Attainment of goal/desirable lipid levels in patients with mixed dyslipidemia after 12 weeks of treatment with fenofibric acid and rosuvastatin combination therapy: a pooled analysis of controlled studies

BACKGROUND

Goal/desirable lipid levels are underachieved in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. These patients may have substantial residual risk of cardiovascular disease even while receiving optimal LDL-C-lowering therapy and may require additional therapy to improve multiple lipid/lipoprotein levels.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate attainment of goal/desirable levels of lipids/lipoproteins after 12-week treatment with combination rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid versus rosuvastatin monotherapy.

METHODS

This was a post hoc analysis of patients with mixed dyslipidemia who enrolled in one of two randomized controlled trials, and were treated (N = 2066) with rosuvastatin (5, 10, or 20 mg), fenofibric acid 135 mg, or rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid for 12 weeks. Data were pooled across doses of rosuvastatin as monotherapy and combination therapy.

RESULTS

Compared with rosuvastatin monotherapy, combination therapy had comparable effects in achieving risk-stratified LDL-C goals; however, measures of total atherogenic burden were improved because significantly greater percentages of patients attained non-HDL-C goal in high- (62.9% vs 50.4%, P = .006) and moderate-risk groups (87.6% vs 80.4%, P = .016) and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) <90 mg/dL in high-risk group (59.8% vs 43.8%, P < .001). In the overall population, more patients treated with the combination therapy achieved desirable levels of HDL-C >40/50 mg/dL in men/women (P < .001), triglycerides <150 mg/dL (P < .001), and ApoB <90 mg/dL (P < .001), compared with rosuvastatin monotherapy. Furthermore, combination therapy resulted in significantly greater percentages of patients achieving simultaneous specified levels of LDL-C + non-HDL-C (P < .015); LDL-C + HDL-C + TG (P < .001); and LDL-C + HDL-C + triglycerides + non-HDL-C + ApoB (P < .001), compared with rosuvastatin monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid may be more efficacious than rosuvastatin alone in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

Non-lipid effects of rosuvastatin-fenofibrate combination therapy in high-risk Asian patients with mixed hyperlipidemia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the non-lipid effects of rosuvastatin-fenofibrate combination therapy with rosuvastatin monotherapy in high-risk Asian patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

METHODS

A total of 236 patients were initially screened. After six weeks of diet and life style changes, 180 of these patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two regimens: rosuvastatin 10 mg plus fenofibrate 160 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg. The primary outcome variables were the incidences of muscle or liver enzyme elevation. The patients were followed for 24 weeks during drug treatment and for an additional four weeks after drug discontinuation.

RESULTS

The rates of the primary outcome variables were similar between the two groups (2.8% and 3.9% in the combination and the rosuvastatin groups, respectively, p=1.00). The combination group had more, but not significantly, common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (13.3% and 5.6%, respectively) and drug discontinuation due to AEs (10.0% and 3.3%, respectively) than the rosouvastatin group. Combination therapy was associated with higher elevations in homocysteine, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine, whereas elevation in alanine aminotransferase was greater in the rosuvastatin group. Leukocyte count and hemoglobin level decreased to a greater extent in the combination group. The combination group showed greater reductions in TG and elevation in HDL-cholesterol.

CONCLUSION

In our study population, the rosuvastatin-fenofibrate combination resulted in comparable incidences of myo- or hepatotoxicity as rosuvastatin monotherapy. However, this combination may need to be used with caution in individuals with underlying pathologies such as renal dysfunction (NCT01414803).

Achievement of lipid targets with the combination of rosuvastatin and fenofibric Acid in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) attaining individual and combined targets of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) after treatment with rosuvastatin (R) + fenofibric acid (FA) compared with corresponding-dose R monotherapy.

Methods

This post hoc analysis evaluated data from the T2DM subset of patients with mixed dyslipidemia (LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL, HDL-C <40/50 mg/dL in men/women, and TG ≥150 mg/dL) from 2 randomized studies. Patients included in the analysis (N = 456) were treated with R (5, 10, or 20 mg), FA 135 mg, or R (5, 10, or 20 mg) + FA 135 mg for 12 weeks. Attainment of LDL-C <100 mg/dL, HDL-C >40/50 mg/dL in men/women, TG <150 mg/dL, non-HDL-C <130 mg/dL, ApoB <90 mg/dL, and the combined targets of these parameters was assessed.

Results

Treatment with R + FA resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving optimal levels of HDL-C (46.8% vs. 20.8%, P = 0.009 for R 10 mg + FA), TG (60.0% vs. 34.0%, P = 0.02 for R 10 mg + FA; 54.0% vs. 26.4%, P = 0.005 for R 20 mg + FA), non-HDL-C (55.1% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.04 for R 5 mg + FA), ApoB (58.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.02 for R 5 mg + FA); and the combined targets of LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG (28.3% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.02 for R 10 mg + FA) and all 5 parameters (26.1% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.03 for R 10 mg + FA) than corresponding-dose R monotherapies.

Conclusions

A significantly greater proportion of T2DM patients achieved individual and combined lipid targets when treated with the combination of R + FA than corresponding-dose R monotherapies.

Opening a new lipid "apo-thecary": incorporating apolipoproteins as potential risk factors and treatment targets to reduce cardiovascular risk

Statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) represent the cornerstone of drug therapy to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. However, even optimal statin management of LDL cholesterol leaves many patients with residual cardiovascular risk, in part because statins are more effective in reducing LDL cholesterol than apolipoprotein B (Apo B). Apo B may be a better marker of atherogenic risk than LDL cholesterol because Apo B measures the total number of all atherogenic particles (total atherosclerotic burden), including LDL, very low-density lipoprotein, intermediate-density lipoprotein, remnant lipoproteins, and lipoprotein(a). To determine whether Apo B is a better indicator of baseline cardiovascular risk and residual risk after lipid therapy compared with LDL cholesterol, a MEDLINE search of the literature published in English from January 1, 1975, through December 1, 2010, was conducted. On the basis of data from most population studies, elevated Apo B was more strongly associated with incident coronary heart disease than similarly elevated LDL cholesterol. Apo B was also a superior benchmark (vs LDL cholesterol) of statins' cardioprotective efficacy in both primary-prevention and secondary-prevention trials. To minimize cardiovascular risk among persons with hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidemia, the best available evidence suggests that intensive therapy with statins should be initiated to achieve the lowest possible Apo B level (with adequate drug toleration) and then other therapies (eg, niacin, bile acid resins, ezetimibe) added to potentiate these Apo B-lowering effects. In future consensus lipid-lowering treatment guidelines, Apo B should be considered as an index of residual risk, a potential parameter of treatment efficacy, and a treatment target to minimize risk of coronary heart disease.

Effects of combination therapy with rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (≥ 2 mg/L). cmb@bcm.tmc.edu

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) correlate with an increased risk for cardiovascular events. Combination therapy with a statin and a fibrate may be more effective than statin monotherapy for reducing hsCRP, especially in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the treatment effects of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid combination therapy compared with individual monotherapies in mixed dyslipidemic patients with baseline hsCRP ≥2 mg/L versus <2 mg/L and to determine the effects of long-term treatment with rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid combination therapy on hsCRP and other lipids for patients with hsCRP ≥2 mg/L after treatment with rosuvastatin monotherapy.

METHODS

Data for the post hoc analysis were derived from two 12-week controlled studies and a 52-week extension study. Patients were treated with fenofibric acid 135 mg; rosuvastatin 5, 10, 20, or 40 mg; or rosuvastatin 5, 10, or 20 mg and fenofibric acid 135 mg in the controlled studies; and with rosuvastatin 20 mg and fenofibric acid 135 mg in the extension study.

RESULTS

In this analysis, 65% (1416/2182) of patients had pretreatment baseline hsCRP ≥2 mg/L. Among all treatment groups, larger decreases in hsCRP were observed in patients with greater baseline hsCRP; however, improvements in other lipids/apolipoprotein were comparable between the baseline hsCRP categories. Among patients with high hsCRP (≥2 mg/L) remaining after 12 weeks of rosuvastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg monotherapy, hsCRP was reduced by ∼36% after switching to rosuvastatin 20 mg and fenofibric acid 135 mg for up to 52 weeks, and ∼36% of patients shifted from hsCRP ≥2 mg/L to <2 mg/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Combination therapy with rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid may be effective for improving the inflammatory biomarker, hsCRP as well as other lipid abnormalities in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and high hsCRP.