Treatment of primary hypercholesterolemia: fluvastatin versus bezafibrate

Metagenomics and metabolomics analysis to investigate the effect of Shugan decoction on intestinal microbiota in irritable bowel syndrome rats

BACKGROUND

The effect of Shugan Decoction (SGD) on intestinal motility and visceral hypersensitivity in Water avoid stress (WAS)-induced diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) model rats has been confirmed. However, the mechanisms of its action involved in the treatment of IBS-D need to be further studied. Intestinal microbiota plays an important role in maintaining intestinal homeostasis and normal physiological function. Changes in the intestinal microbiota and its metabolites are thought to participate in the pathophysiological process of IBS.

AIM

This study aimed to analyze the influence of SGD on intestinal microbiota and fecal metabolites in IBS-D rats by multiple omics techniques, including metagenomic sequencing and metabolomics.

METHODS

We measured the intestinal motility and visceral sensitivity of three groups of rats by fecal pellets output and colorectal distension (CRD) experiment. In addition, metagenome sequencing analysis was performed to explore the changes in the number and types of intestinal microbiota in IBS-D model rats after SGD treatment. Finally, we also used untargeted metabolomic sequencing to screen the metabolites and metabolic pathways closely related to the therapeutic effect of SGD.

RESULTS

We found that compared with the rats in the control group, the fecal pellets output of the rats in the WAS group increased and the visceral sensitivity threshold was decreased (P < 0.05). Compared with the rats in the WAS group, the fecal pellets output of the SGD group was significantly decreased, and the visceral sensitivity threshold increased (P < 0.05). Besides, compared with the rats in the WAS group, the relative abundance of Bacteroidetes increased in SGD group, while that of Firmicutes decreased at the phylum level, and at the species level, the relative abundance of Bacteroides sp. CAG:714, Lactobacillus reuteri and Bacteroides Barnesiae in SGD group increased, but that of bacterium D42-87 decreased. In addition, compared with the WAS group, several metabolic pathways were significantly changed in SGD group, including Taurine and hypotaurine metabolism, Purine metabolism, Sulfur metabolism, ABC transporters, Arginine and proline metabolism and Bile secretion.

CONCLUSION

SGD can regulate specific intestinal microbiota and some metabolic pathways, which may explain its effect of alleviating visceral hypersensitivity and abnormal intestinal motility in WAS-induced IBS-D rats.

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.

Fluvastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectiveTo quantify the effects of various doses of fluvastatin on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol), and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.Secondary objectivesTo quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of fluvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in randomised placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 2 2017), MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase (1974 to February Week 2 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CDSR, DARE, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of fluvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and forty-five trials (36 placebo controlled and 109 before and after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of fluvastatin in 18,846 participants. The participants were of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and fluvastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of fluvastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 15% to 33%, total cholesterol by 11% to 25% and triglycerides by 3% to 17.5%. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 6.0% (95% CI 5.4 to 6.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 4.2% (95% CI 3.7 to 4.8) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 4.2% (95% CI 2.0 to 6.3) decrease in blood triglycerides. The quality of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, fluvastatin was about 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol. Very low quality of evidence showed no difference in WDAEs between fluvastatin and placebo in 16 of 36 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.52 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluvastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin is 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with fluvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 56% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Overlap of Dyspepsia in Patients with Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Impact of Clinical, Metabolic, and Psychosocial Characteristics

BACKGROUND

Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) and dyspepsia are highly prevalent in the general population with significant symptom overlap, while the interaction between both remains poorly understood.

AIM

To examine whether GERD overlapping dyspepsia would have an impact on clinical and psychological features as compared with GERD alone.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study in a GERD cohort (n = 868) that was previously recruited from a population-based GERD survey (n = 2752). We compared the clinical and psychological factors between patients with and without dyspeptic symptoms "epigastric pain or burning." All participants were evaluated with Reflux Disease Questionnaire score, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score, Taiwanese Depression Questionnaire score, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory score. Endoscopic findings were classified according to the Los Angeles classification.

RESULTS

Among the GERD population, 107 subjects had overlapping "epigastric pain or burning" (GERD-D), and 761 did not have these symptoms (GERD alone). GERD-D subjects had more severe GERD symptoms and were more often associated with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (OR 3.54, 95% CI 1.92-6.52) as compared subjects with GERD alone. In addition, GERD-D subjects had lower quality of sleep (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.21), higher depression (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10), lower blood pressure (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.95), and higher serum total cholesterol levels (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.36-5.67) than GERD alone.

CONCLUSIONS

GERD-D subjects are characterized with worsening clinical symptoms as well as higher psychosocial, IBS, and metabolic comorbidities, but less erosive esophagitis. Our results indicate that clinical awareness of such overlapping condition would help optimize the management of GERD in clinical practice.

Comparison of the effects of fibrates versus statins on plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of head-to-head randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Raised plasma lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)) concentration is an independent and causal risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Several types of pharmacological approaches are under evaluation for their potential to reduce plasma Lp(a) levels. There is suggestive evidence that statins and fibrates, two frequently employed lipid-lowering drugs, can lower plasma Lp(a). The present study aims to compare the efficacy of fibrates and statins in reducing plasma concentrations of Lp(a) using a meta-analysis of randomized head-to-head trials.

METHODS

Medline and Scopus databases were searched to identify randomized head-to-head comparative trials investigating the efficacy of fibrates versus statins in reducing plasma Lp(a) levels. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model, with inverse variance weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as summary statistics. The impact of putative confounders on the estimated effect size was explored using random effects meta-regression.

RESULTS

Sixteen head-to-head comparative trials with a total of 1388 subjects met the eligibility criteria and were selected for this meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed a significantly greater effect of fibrates versus statins in reducing plasma Lp(a) concentrations (WMD, -2.70 mg/dL; 95% CI, -4.56 to -0.84; P = 0.004). Combination therapy with fibrates and statins had a significantly greater effect compared with statin monotherapy (WMD, -1.60 mg/dL; 95% CI, -2.93 to -0.26; P = 0.019) but not fibrate monotherapy (WMD, -1.76 mg/dL; 95% CI, -5.44 to +1.92; P = 0.349) in reducing plasma Lp(a) concentrations. The impact of fibrates versus statins in reducing plasma Lp(a) concentrations was not found to be significantly associated with treatment duration (P = 0.788).

CONCLUSIONS

Fibrates have a significantly greater effect in reducing plasma Lp(a) concentrations than statins. Addition of fibrates to statins can enhance the Lp(a)-lowering effect of statins.

Could statins be useful in the treatment of patients with migraine?

Migraine is a common and disabling neurological disorder. Studies have shown that patients with migraine (especially those with typical aura with migraine) have an unfavorable cardiovascular risk profile and an increased risk of early-onset (<45 years) ischemic stroke. Statins are effective hypolipidemic drugs that reduce cardiovascular-related morbidity and death in patients with or without established atherosclerotic vascular disease. We report a patient whose frequent attacks of typical aura with migraine completely resolved after the initiation of treatment with a statin. In this context, we comment on the possible effects of statins on the pathophysiology of migraine. We suggest that statins may be useful drugs in the treatment of migraine because they could reduce the increased cardiovascular risk in these patients and also attenuate migraine attacks. Only a randomized prospective study in this population could provide a definite answer to these speculations.

Effect of Fenofibrate on Lipoprotein(a) in Hypertriglyceridemic Patients

We investigated the effect of fenofibrate on lipoprotein(a)levels in hypertriglyceridemic patients and the parameters relating to its effect. Patients with a triglyceride level >/=300 mg/dL or with a triglyceride level >/=200 mg/dL and a high density lipoprotein cholesterol level </=40 mg/dL were treated either with 200 mg of fenofibrate(Fenofibrate group, n = 56) or with general measures (Control group,n = 56). Lipid and lipoprotein levels were measured at baseline and 2 months. Baseline lipoprotein(a) levels were negatively correlated with triglyceride (r = 20.30, P = 0.001) and alanine aminotransferase levels (r = 20.24, P = 0.012). Fenofibrate therapy increased lipoprotein(a) level from 9.4 6 10.6 to 15.6 6 17.5 mg/dL (P = 0.000). The more triglyceride levels decreased, the more lipoprotein(a) levels increased in all subjects (r = 20.46, P = 0.000) and in Control (r =20.35, P = 0.008) and Fenofibrate groups (r = 20.35, P = 0.008). Fenofibrate elevated lipoprotein(a) level greater in patients with a normal liver function. When Fenofibrate group was divided into two subgroups according to the degree of percentage change in lipoprotein(a) level, change in triglyceride level and alanine aminotransferase level were independent predictors by forward logistic regression analysis. In summary, fenofibrate therapy increases lipoprotein(a) level,and this elevation is associated with change in triglyceride level and liver function.

Efficacy and tolerability of fluvastatin and bezafibrate in patients with hyperlipidemia and persistently high triglyceride levels

Hyperlipidemia is an important cardiovascular risk factor. Lipid-lowering therapy has been shown to decrease morbidity and mortality in these patients. Combination therapy with a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor and a fibric-acid derivative has been reported to be more efficacious to reduce low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides but may be associated with an increased risk of myositis. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of fluvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, alone and in combination with bezafibrate, a fibric-acid derivative. In a randomized controlled trial with 454 hypercholesterolemic patients (mean cholesterol, 8.6 +/- 1.6 mM), fluvastatin (20 mg/day) significantly lowered total plasma cholesterol levels (-12.5%; p < 0.0001 vs. placebo), LDL cholesterol (-14%; p < 0.0001), and triglycerides (-4%; p = 0.05). A small increase in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels (3%, NS) also was observed. Combination therapy with fluvastatin and bezafibrate (400 mg/day) in 71 patients with persistent hypertriglyceridemia during treatment with the statin resulted in a more pronounced reduction in triglyceride (-47%; p < 0.0001) and total cholesterol levels (-15%; p < 0.0001) than did fluvastatin alone. Furthermore, the additional bezafibrate significantly increased HDL cholesterol (+5%; p < 0.001). No significant increases in creatine phosphokinase levels or in frequency of myalgia were observed. In summary, fluvastatin decreases both cholesterol and triglyceride levels. In patients with persistent hypertriglyceridemia, combination therapy with fluvastatin and bezafibrate may be safely used to lower triglyceride and cholesterol levels more efficiently.

Efficacy of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme a reductase inhibitors in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolemia: a meta-analysis of clinical trials

Recent studies have documented the long-term impact of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors on mortality and morbidity related to coronary heart disease, establishing the link between lowering cholesterol levels and reducing cardiac events. Our study was a comparative literature review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of four HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors-fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin-used in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolemia. The data sources for our meta-analysis of the efficacy of these cholesterol-lowering agents were 52 randomized, double-masked clinical trials with at least 25 patients per treatment arm. The results showed all four agents to be effective in reducing blood cholesterol levels. We computed summary efficacy estimates for all published dose strengths for the four agents. Fluvastatin 20 mg/d reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels by 21.0% and total cholesterol (total-C) levels by 16.4%; fluvastatin 40 mg/d reduced these levels by 23.1% and 17.7%, respectively. Lovastatin 20 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 24.9% and total-C levels by 17.7%; lovastatin 80 mg/d reduced these levels by 39.8% and 29.2%, respectively. Pravastatin 10 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 19.3% and total-C levels by 14.0%; pravastatin 80 mg/d reduced these levels by 37.7% and 28.7%, respectively. Simvastatin 2.5 mg/d reduced LDL-C levels by 22.9% and total-C levels by 15.7%; simvastatin 40 mg/d reduced these levels by 40.7% and 29.7%, respectively. The results of our meta-analysis can be used in conjunction with treatment objectives and comparative cost-effectiveness data for these agents to decide appropriate therapeutic alternatives for individual patients.

A head-to-head comparison of the cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates in different types of primary hyperlipidemia

The objective of this study was to compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. Estimates of lipid modification achieved due to drug therapy were based on published head-to-head comparisons of specific HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates in randomized, double-blind studies. We used a validated coronary heart disease (CHD) prevention computer model to estimate the costs and benefits of lifelong lipid modification. The patients were middle-aged men and women who were free of CHD, with either primary type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia. The intervention used were specific HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and fibrates at several dosages, which reduced total cholesterol 11-34% and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 1-29%. The main outcome measure was the cost per year of life saved after discounting benefits and costs by 5% annually. The lifetime cost effectiveness of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, simvastatin) and fibrates (bezafibrate, fenofibrate, gemfibrozil) for the treatment of primary hyperlipidemia varied according to patient population, the effectiveness of each drug in modifying lipid levels, and the price of each drug. The estimates of cost per year of life saved for HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors range from $19,886 to $73,632, and $16,955 to $59,488 for fibrates according to gender and type of primary hyperlipidemia. Fluvastatin 20 mg/day was significantly more cost effective than gemfibrozil 1200 mg/day for male patients with type IIa hyperlipidemia. Simvastatin 17.3 mg/day or 20 mg/day yielded similar cost-effectiveness ratios compared with fibrates among type II hyperlipidemic patients. However, micronized fenofibrate was more cost effective than simvastatin 20 mg/day among type IIb patients. The cost effectiveness of lipid therapy varies widely and can be maximized by selecting specific drugs for specific lipid abnormalities.

Cost-effectiveness of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor therapy in the managed care era

More than $100 billion is spent in the United States each year on cardiovascular disease, primarily for hospitalizations and revascularization procedures. This is more than for any other disease state. As the clinical practice of medicine shifts from the paradigm of private practice to the managed care environment, cost-effectiveness is becoming increasingly important. A primary measure in analyzing cost-effectiveness is the cost-effectiveness ratio, or the dollar cost per unit of improvement for a given expenditure. This measure allows healthcare planners to compare completely different interventions. With approximately 52 million adult U.S. citizens having elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, lipid-lowering therapy---with diet or 3-hydroxy-3methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors---is an important consideration for primary care physicians and managed care providers. The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) III indicates that 75-88% of adults who have coronary artery disease (CAD) risk factors or CAD require only a moderate (20--30%) reduction in LDL cholesterol levels to reach National Cholesterol Education Program goals. The clinical literature shows that all 4 of the currently available HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors can provide appropriate, moderate LDL cholesterol reductions within their recommended dosage ranges. For the majority of patients who need a 20--30% reduction in LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg once daily provides the most cost-effective HMG-CoA therapy, expressed as cost of therapy per 1% LDL cholesterol reduction. For patients who need a >30% LDL cholesterol reduction, a high-dose HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (e.g., simvastatin 20 or 40 mg/day) or a combination of a lower-dose HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor and a bile acid resin is the preferred initial therapy. Although a true cost-effectiveness analysis would incorporate morbidity and mortality data from clinical trials, analysis using intermediate endpoints, such as LDL cholesterol reduction, suggests that fluvastatin is the preferred initial HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor for the treatment of moderate hyperlipidemia.

Fluvastatin: a review of its pharmacology and use in the management of hypercholesterolaemia

Fluvastatin, a member of the group of drugs known as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, is used in the treatment of patients with hypercholesterolaemia. In clinical trials in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia, fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg/day achieved marked reductions from baseline in serum levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol (19 to 31%) and total cholesterol (15 to 21%), along with modest declines in serum triglyceride levels (1 to 12%) and small increases in high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol levels (2 to 10%). These beneficial effects on the serum lipid profile were similar to those demonstrated with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, although direct comparative trials are limited. Concomitant administration of fluvastatin plus another lipid-lowering agent, such as a bile acid sequestrant, a fibrate or nicotinic acid, usually reduced serum levels of total cholesterol and LDL-cholesterol by at least a further 5 to 10% from baseline compared with fluvastatin monotherapy. Fluvastatin has a similar tolerability profile to that of other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Gastrointestinal disturbances, which are usually mild and transient, were the most frequently reported adverse events with fluvastatin in clinical trials. Persistent elevation of serum transaminase levels occurred in approximately 1% of fluvastatin recipients, which is similar to the rate for other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. Unlike other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, which have been infrequently associated with myopathy and rarely with rhabdomyolysis, these events have not been associated with fluvastatin to date, although fluvastatin has not been used as extensively as agents such as lovastatin. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors other than fluvastatin, when given in combination with drugs such as fibrates, nicotinic acid, cyclosporin or erythromycin, can increase the risk of these potentially serious adverse events. Thus far, myopathy or rhabdomyolysis have not been reported among patients receiving fluvastatin concomitantly with any of these drugs. Therefore, fluvastatin can be given with caution in combination with fibrates, nicotinic acid, cyclosporin or erythromycin. In conclusion, fluvastatin has similar efficacy and tolerability profiles to other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, which are among the most effective agents available for treating patients with hypercholesterolaemia. Pharmacoeconomic studies performed to date suggest an advantage for fluvastatin over other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, predominantly because of its relatively low acquisition costs (at least in those countries in which the evaluations were conducted). Thus, fluvastatin is effective and well tolerated in patients with hypercholesterolaemia and appears to have an economic advantage over other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, primarily as a result of its relatively low acquisition costs.

Open-label study to assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvastatin versus bezafibrate for hypercholesterolemia

Increased levels of total cholesterol and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are associated with the development of coronary artery disease, which has become a worldwide public health problem. Clinical trials show that, in the long term, effective lowering of total cholesterol and raising of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) can slow atherosclerosis progression and reduce coronary artery disease risk. This study evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fluvastatin versus bezafibrate (slow release) in patients with cholesterol > 241 mg/dL (6.2 mmol/liter) not responding to dietary treatment alone (cholesterol < 300 mg/day for 8 weeks). Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A (13 women, 7 men; mean age, 47.8 +/- 9.7 years; range, 30-70) received 40 mg fluvastatin once daily with their evening meal; group B (14 women, 6 men; mean age, 45 +/- 11 years, range, 25-68) received 400 mg bezafibrate once daily with either breakfast or their evening meal. After 12 weeks of treatment, the mean cholesterol decrease in group A was 27% (from 271 +/- 51.4 to 197.4 +/- 24.3 mg/dL; p < 0.001) versus 8% (from 278.6 +/- 33.2 to 255.8 +/- 20.3 mg/dL; p < 0.005) in group B. At the same time point, LDL-C was significantly decreased in group A (from 197.9 +/- 49 to 107.5 +/- 27.6 mg/dL; p < 0.001) but not in group B (from 181.6 +/- 39.6 to 173.3 +/- 24.3 mg/dL).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Effects of fluvastatin on lipid profile and apolipoproteins in Chinese patients with hypercholesterolemia

The effects of fluvastatin treatment on lipid profile and apolipoproteins were assessed in a group of 31 Chinese patients with hypercholesterolemia, maintained on a constant low-fat diet. Some patients had the additional cardiovascular risk factors of hypertension and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, and 6 patients had familial hypercholesterolemia. Baseline lipid levels were measured after a 4-week placebo period, and these were repeated after 4 weeks of treatment with fluvastatin 20 mg daily, and after 4 weeks of treatment with fluvastatin 40 mg daily. Total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B were each reduced to the same extent with the 2 doses of fluvastatin (-20%, -26%, and -20%, respectively). Triglycerides and very low density lipoprotein cholesterol were also reduced by about 12% with the 2 doses of fluvastatin. Apo A-I was increased by 7% and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was increased by 10% with the 40 mg dose. The increase in HDL-C was due to increases in both HDL2-C (18%) and HDL3-C (7%). Lipoprotein(a) levels did not show any significant change with the 2 doses of fluvastatin in this short-term study. One patient developed reversible asymptomatic elevation of liver enzymes with the higher dose of fluvastatin; otherwise the drug was well tolerated and no patients had to be withdrawn from the study.