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)

Pharmacokinetics of a Fixed-Dose Combination Product of Amlodipine, Losartan, Ezetimibe, and Rosuvastatin and Its Comparison with Co-administration of Four Individual Components in Healthy Participants

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess and compare the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of a fixed-dose combination product (FDCP) comprising four different drugs (two antihypertensive drugs, amlodipine and losartan, and two lipid-lowering agents, ezetimibe and rosuvastatin) with their separate tablets.

METHODS

A total of 60 participants were enrolled in this open-label, randomized, single-dose crossover study. Each participant received a single dose of FDCP and individual tablets during each period, with a 14-day washout period between the periods. The pharmacokinetic parameters of amlodipine, losartan, EXP3174 (an active metabolite of losartan), rosuvastatin, free ezetimibe, and total ezetimibe were evaluated and compared.

RESULTS

The pharmacokinetic profiles of amlodipine, losartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe after administration of the individual products were similar to those of FDCP. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve (AUC) of FDCP to individual tablets were within 0.8-1.25 for all six analytes. No clinically relevant changes were observed in the vital signs or physical, biochemical, hematological, electrocardiographic, or urinalysis findings during the study, and no serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that a newly developed FDCP containing amlodipine, losartan, ezetimibe, and rosuvastatin exhibited pharmacokinetic equivalence with the individual products and met the regulatory criteria. Both formulations were well tolerated.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial (NCT04322266) was retrospectively registered on 9 September 2019.

Rosuvastatin-Based Lipid-Lowering Therapy for the Control of LDL Cholesterol in Patients at High Vascular Risk

Vascular diseases are the leading cause of death in Spain. Hypercholesterolemia is not only a cardiovascular risk factor, but also underlies the etiopathogenesis of atherosclerosis. Therefore, reducing LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) to the goals recommended by clinical practice guidelines, is essential to decrease the risk of vascular complications. Despite this, current LDL-C control is scarce, even in subjects with high and very high risk. This is mainly due to an insufficient intensification of lipid-lowering treatment. In this context, it is essential to prescribe the appropriate therapy, adjusted to patient's needs based on their LDL-C and their vascular risk. Rosuvastatin, alone or in combination with ezetimibe, provides intensive LDL-C reductions (up to 50-55% and 60-75%, respectively), with a low risk of side effects and in an efficient manner, in patients both without and with established atherosclerotic vascular disease.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe in patients with dyslipidemia and hypertension: A randomized, double-blind, multicenter, therapeutic confirmatory, phase III clinical trial

This study aimed to compare and evaluate the efficacy of the blood pressure (BP) control and cholesterol-lowering effects and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, rosuvastatin, and ezetimibe versus rosuvastatin and ezetimibe double therapy or telmisartan single therapy in dyslipidemia patients with hypertension. After a wash-out/therapeutic lifestyle change period of ≥4 weeks, a total of 100 eligible patients were randomized and received one of three treatments for 8 weeks: (1) telmisartan 80 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (TRE), (2) rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg (RE), or (3) telmisartan 80 mg (T). The primary endpoint was the efficacy evaluation of TRE by comparing changes in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and mean percentage change in low-density lipoprotein-C (LDL-C) from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment. The least square (LS) mean (SE) changes in msSBP at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -23.02 (3.04) versus -7.18 (3.09) mmHg in the TRE and RE groups, respectively (p < .0001), and -25.80 (2.74) versus -14.92 (2.65) mmHg in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p = .0005). The percentage changes in the mean (SD) LDL-C at 8 weeks compared with baseline were -54.97% (3.49%) versus -0.17% (3.23%) in the TRE and T groups, respectively (p < .0001). No serious adverse events occurred, and no statistically significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions occurred among the three groups. TRE therapy significantly decreased msSBP and LDL-C compared to RE or T therapy with comparable safety and tolerability profiles.

Moderate-Intensity Rosuvastatin/Ezetimibe Combination versus Quadruple-Dose Rosuvastatin Monotherapy: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review

PURPOSE

There are few studies in the literature on the dosage of statin that equivalently reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to an ezetimibe combination and whether such regimens have differences in safety. We compared the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety of 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe to those of 20 mg rosuvastatin.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Sciences, and SCOPUS databases up to December 2021. Human studies investigating the two aforementioned regimens with a randomized controlled design were selected. Outcome variables included the percentage reduction in LDL-C and other lipid parameters and rates of composite adverse events (AEs), including muscle-related symptoms. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed after heterogeneity testing between studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The percentage LDL-C reduction did not differ between the combination and monotherapy groups [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.26; p=0.35]. The risk of composite AEs (odds ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.72; p=0.27) of the combination was not different compared to the monotherapy group. The percentage of total cholesterol reduction was greater in the combination group (SMD 0.22; p=0.02), whereas that of triglyceride reduction and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol elevation did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe had largely comparable lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability as 20 mg rosuvastatin.

Lipid-Lowering Efficacy of Combination Therapy With Moderate-Intensity Statin and Ezetimibe Versus High-Intensity Statin Monotherapy: A Randomized, Open-Label, Non-Inferiority Trial From Korea

Objective

This phase IV, multicenter, randomized controlled, open-label, and parallel clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and moderate intensity rosuvastatin combination therapy to that of high intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).

Methods

This study enrolled patients with ASCVD and after a four-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin and ezetimibe (RE 10/10 group) or high-intensity rosuvastatin (R20 group) only in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the difference in the percent change in the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline to 12 weeks between two groups after treatment.

Results

The study found that after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, the RE10/10 group had a greater reduction in LDL-C level compared to the R20 group (-22.9±2.6% vs. -15.6 ± 2.5% [p=0.041] and -24.2±2.5% vs. -12.9±2.4% [p=0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Moreover, a greater number of patients achieved the target LDL-C level of ≤70 mg/dL after the treatment period in the combination group (74.6% vs. 59.9% [p=0.012] and 76.2% vs. 50.8% [p<0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Importantly, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of overall adverse events and adverse drug reactions between two groups.

Conclusion

Moderate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy had better efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels without increasing adverse effects in patients with ASCVD than high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03494270.

A Bioequivalence Study of Ezetimibe/Rosuvastatin Fixed Dose Combination (10 mg/10 mg) Versus the Individual Formulations Taken Concomitantly

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the bioequivalence of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin fixed dose combination compared to the concomitant administration of individual formulations (ezetimibe and rosuvastatin) in Chinese healthy subjects under fasting conditions.

METHODS

This was a phase I, randomized, open-label, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study conducted in healthy Chinese participants under fasting conditions. Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ from test and individual reference formulations were evaluated to assess bioequivalence. The safety assessments included adverse events (AEs)/treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), potential clinically significant abnormalities (PCSAs) in vital signs, 12-lead electrocardiogram (12-ECG), and clinical laboratory parameters.

RESULTS

Of the 68 subjects enrolled, 67 were treated. Systemic exposure to rosuvastatin based on Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ was similar in both treatments, with respective arithmetic values 12.4 ng/ml, 117 ng·h/mL, and 120 ng·h/mL for test formulation and 12.7 ng/ml, 120 ng·h/mL, and 123 ng·h/mL for reference formulations. Similarly, systemic exposure to unconjugated ezetimibe was 4.14 ng/ml, 89.7 ng·h/mL, and 102 ng·h/mL for the test formulation and 3.80 ng/ml, 89.7 ng·h/mL, and 102 ng·h/mL for reference formulations. Systemic exposure to total ezetimibe was 70.5 ng/ml, 664 ng·h/mL, and 718 ng·h/mL for test formulation and 60.2 ng/ml, 648 ng·h/mL, and 702 ng·h/mL for reference formulations. The point estimates for rosuvastatin unconjugated ezetimibe and total ezetimibe were in the acceptable range of 0.80-1.25. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Fixed dose combination of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin (10 mg/10 mg) achieved bioequivalence with reference to commercial tablets.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTR20202108.

Anti-Obesity Actions of Two Separated Aqueous Extracts From Arbutus (Arbutus unedo) and Hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna) Fruits Against High-Fat Diet in Rats via Potent Antioxidant Target

Arbutus unedo and Crataegus monogyna are widely distributed throughout the Mediterranean basin and commonly used in folk medicine against a wide range of diseases. Therefore, the present study has been designed to evaluate the anti-obesity potential of two aqueous extracts of the fruits of A. unedo (AUAE) and C. monogyna (CMAE). Male Wistar rats were supplied with a standard diet (SD), high-fat diet (HFD), HFD with the two separated extracts at the same dose (300 mg/kg, BW, p. o.), or HFD with atorvastatin-(ATOR) (2.1 mg/kg, BW, p. o.) for 12 weeks. Lipid profile and the liver and kidney linked-markers were assessed. Besides, obesity-related disorders' biomarkers were measured. AUAE, CMAE, and ATOR were observed to reduce significantly total body and organ weights following HFD-induced obese rat models. Likewise, epididymal and abdominal adipose tissue weights were noticeably decreased in HFD rats treated with both extracts and ATOR. Added to that, biochemical and metabolic changes were normalized by significant attenuation of lipid peroxidation accompanied with an increase of thiol-group concentrations and antioxidant status. More importantly, a modulation in trace element levels was revealed when compared with HFD group. Altogether, current study concluded that AUAE and CMAE could be potential candidates for the prevention and treatment of obesity and related disturbs induced by HFD.

Efficacy and Safety of Coadministered Ezetimibe-Rosuvastatin plus Telmisartan in South Korean Patients with Dyslipidemia and Hypertension: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Phase III Trial

BACKGROUND

The introduction of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) is expected to improve treatment compliance.

METHODS

There were 181 subjects who were randomized to three groups: ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg, ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg, and telmisartan 80 mg. The primary outcomes were change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and percentage change in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to baseline at week 8.

RESULTS

The least-square mean (SE) in MSSBP changes between the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg group and the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg group were -25.81 (2.34) mmHg and -7.66 (2.45) mmHg. There was a significant difference between the two groups (-18.15 (2.83) mmHg, 95% CI -23.75 to -12.56, p < 0.0001). Changes in least-square mean (SE) in LDL-C between the ezetimibe-rosuvastatin 10/20 mg + telmisartan 80 mg group and the telmisartan 80 mg group were -63.82 (2.87)% and -2.48 (3.12)%. A significant difference was observed between the two groups (-61.34 (3.33)%, 95% CI -67.91 to -54.78, p < 0.0001). No serious adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe-rosuvastatin plus telmisartan treatment is effective and safe when compared to either ezetimibe-rosuvastatin or telmisartan.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions and Tolerability of Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe: A Randomized, Phase 1, Crossover Study in Healthy Chinese Participants

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe has promising clinical benefits with a significant safety and tolerability profile. However, there is a lack of clinical data supporting the drug-drug interaction (DDI) in Chinese population. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess the potential pharmacokinetic DDI between rosuvastatin and ezetimibe in a Chinese population.

METHODS

In this randomized, open-label, phase 1 study, 12 healthy volunteers were randomized to three treatment groups: 10 mg rosuvastatin plus 10 mg ezetimibe, 10 mg rosuvastatin alone, and 10 mg ezetimibe alone under fasting conditions. The plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe were determined, and the pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. Primary endpoints were peak plasma concentration (C_max), area under the curve from zero to last measurement (AUC_0-t), and area under the curve from zero to infinity (AUC_0-∞) that were log-transformed, and co-administration was compared with monotherapy to evaluate the DDI.

RESULTS

The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of rosuvastatin with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were 0.94 (0.80-1.12) for C_max, 0.96 (0.85-1.08) for AUC_0-t, and 0.96 (0.86-1.07) for AUC_0-∞ when administered in combination with ezetimibe versus administered alone. The GMRs of unconjugated ezetimibe and total ezetimibe with 90% CIs were 1.15 (1.00-1.32) and 0.93 (0.80-1.07) for C_max, 0.96 (0.84-1.10) and 0.95 (0.83-1.08) for AUC_0-t, and 1.06 (0.96-1.18) and 0.94 (0.80-1.11) for AUC_0-∞, respectively, when administered in combination with rosuvastatin versus administered alone.

CONCLUSION

Co-administration of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe showed no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions in a healthy Chinese population.

Projected impact of treatment intensification with statin, ezetimibe, and statin plus ezetimibe fixed-dose combination on MACE across six countries

AIMS

The 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) dyslipidaemia guidelines recommend achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholestrol (LDL-C) goals based on an individual's risk. We aimed to evaluate the impact of guideline adoption with statin, ezetimibe, and statin plus ezetimibe fixed-dose combination (FDC) on LDL-C goal achievement and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across six countries.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A simulation model with a five-year horizon (2020-2024) was developed based on Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Global Burden of Disease Study database with a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario representing status quo, intervention scenario-1 representing treatment with statin and ezetimibe as separate agents, and intervention scenario-2 representing treatment with statin or statin plus ezetimibe FDC. MACE was defined as the composite of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The mean population LDL-C was reduced from 4.25 mmol/L in the BAU scenario, to 3.65 mmol/L and 3.59 mmol/L in intervention scenarios-1 and -2, respectively. Compared with BAU, intervention scenarios-1 and-2 resulted in relative reduction of MACE by 5.4% and 6.4% representing ∼3.7 and 4.4 million MACE averted, respectively, across six countries over 5 years. The absolute benefit in terms of MACE averted was highest for China, whereas France had highest relative reduction in MACE with both intervention scenarios compared with BAU.

CONCLUSION

The 2019 ESC/EAS guideline-based treatment intensification with strategies based on statin, ezetimibe, and statin plus ezetimibe FDC is estimated to result in a substantial population-level benefit in terms of MACE averted compared with BAU.

Combination Therapy of Ezetimibe and Rosuvastatin for Dyslipidemia: Current Insights

Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of death around the world with various efforts being made to reduce risk in patients through preventive measures. One major method for prevention has been managing cholesterol, particularly low-density lipoprotein to decrease atherosclerotic plaque burden, potentially decreasing future cardiac complications. Statins have been the gold standard therapy for hypercholesterolemia treatment due to their ease of dosing, limited drug interactions, and favorable safety profile. Unfortunately, statin therapy alone is not always effective enough to adequately control a patient’s elevated lipid levels and combination therapy may be warranted. Ezetimibe is commonly added to regimens to help augment cholesterol lowering by inhibiting the absorption of cholesterol. The recent approval of a combination tablet of high-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe has introduced a potentially more beneficial option for cholesterol management in addition to the only available combination of moderate intensity simvastatin and ezetimibe. We aimed to identify potential beneficial effects of ezetimibe by comparing its use in combination with high-intensity rosuvastatin compared to a statin therapy alone or in combination with moderate intensity simvastatin through a literature review. The current evidence indicated that combination therapy outperformed statin monotherapy in reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and patients were more likely to achieve their target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal level. This suggests rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination holds a potential place in therapy for patients requiring a more aggressive reduction in cholesterol to help prevent atherosclerotic disease.

Is it Time for Single-Pill Combinations in Dyslipidemia?

Despite the availability of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) that are safe and effective, the overall rate of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control at a population level in real-life studies is low. Higher-intensity treatment, earlier intervention, and longer-term treatment have all been shown to improve outcomes. However, in clinical practice, actual exposure to LLT is a product of the duration and intensity of, and adherence to, the treatment. To increase exposure to LLTs, the European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommended a stepwise optimization of LLTs by increasing statin intensity to the maximally tolerated dose, with subsequent addition of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. Evidence from randomized controlled trials performed in a range of patients suggested that adding ezetimibe to statins rather than doubling the statin dose resulted in significantly more patients at LDL-C goal and significantly fewer patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events. In addition, data showed that combination treatments effectively increased exposure to LLT. Despite these data and recommendations, optimization of LLT is often limited to increasing statin dose. Therapeutic inertia and poor treatment adherence are significant and prevalent barriers to increasing treatment exposure. They are known to be influenced by pill burden and complexity of treatment. Single-pill combinations provide a strategic approach that supports the intensification of treatment without increasing pill burden or treatment complexity. Single-pill combinations, compared with free associations, have been shown to increase the adherence to LLT and the percentage of patients at LDL-C goal.

A Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate Efficacy and Safety of New-Formulation Zenon (Rosuvastatin/Ezetimibe Fixed-Dose Combination) in Primary Hypercholesterolemia Inadequately Controlled by Statins

OBJECTIVE

In primary hypercholesterolemia many people treated with statins do not reach their plasma LDL-C goals and are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of a new fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe (R/E) in this population.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-controlled, parallel-arm study of FDC R/E in people with primary hypercholesterolemia at very high risk (VHR) or high risk (HR) of CVD, inadequately controlled with 20 mg or 10 mg stable daily dose of rosuvastatin or equipotent dose of another statin. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of FDC R/E versus rosuvastatin monotherapy uptitrated to 40 mg (R40) or 20 mg (R20) in reduction of LDL-C after 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Randomized VHR participants (n = 244) were treated with R40, R40/E10, or R20/E10; randomized HR participants (n = 208) received R10/E10 or R20. In VHR participants, superiority of R40/E10 and R20/E10 versus R40 was demonstrated on LDL-C percent change from baseline to Week 6 with least squares mean differences (LSMD) of -19.66% (95% CI: -29.48% to -9.84%; P < .001) and -12.28% (95% CI: -22.12% to -2.44%; P = .015), respectively. In HR participants, superiority of R10/E10 over R20 was not demonstrated (LSMD -5.20%; 95% CI: -15.18% to 4.78%; P = .306), despite clinically relevant LDL-C reduction with R10/E10. No unexpected safety findings were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this study suggest that R/E FDCs improve LDL-C reduction and goal achievement in people with primary hypercholesterolemia inadequately controlled with statins and at VHR/HR of CVD.

The safety and efficacy of Ezetimibe Plus Statins on ASVD and Related Diseases

It is well known that atherosclerotic vascular disease (ASVD) in the elderly is a global disease with high morbidity, mortality and disability, and plasma LDL-C correction is the most important strategy for ASVD control. However, a large proportion of patients failed to achieve their ideal LDL-C goals after statins use. Ezetimibe, a newly non-statin lipid-lowering agent, is an inhibitor of exogenous cholesterol absorption. Whereby, ezetimibe plus statins may reduce LDL-C more strongly than statins alone. Differed from any other papers published previously, which only involved ezetimibe plus statins for coronary heart disease, the highlight of this paper is to summarize the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe plus statins in all kinds of ASVD subtypes and their related diseases, mainly included aortic atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular and peripheral artery diseases. Obviously, this paper is inimitable, which will provide the readers an important reference, especially in treating the elderly with multi-organs atherosclerosis.

Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe for the treatment of dyslipidemia and hypercholesterolemia

Introduction: Statins are powerful lipid-lowering agents which reduce cardiovascular (CV)-related morbidity and mortality. However, a large proportion of patients cannot attain the target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, despite receiving maximally tolerated doses of high-intensity statins. Also, adherence to treatment may be reduced due to statin-induced myopathy or other side effects. For these reasons, guidelines recommend adding the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe.Areas covered: Authors discuss the main pharmacological characteristics of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe, their lipid-lowering and pleiotropic effects, as well as the clinical effects of the fixed dose combination of these drugs when used to treat dyslipidemia.Expert opinion: The rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination is safe and effective in patients with hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidemia with or without diabetes and with or without cardiovascular disease. This drug combination enabled higher proportions of patients to achieve recommended LDL-C goals than rosuvastatin monotherapy or the simvastatin/ezetimibe combination, without additional adverse events. Despite the lack of additional CV outcomes data and comparisons with atorvastatin/ezetimibe, rosuvastatin/ezetimibe appears as a potent and generally well-tolerated drug combination eligible for the management of hypercholesterolemia and dyslipidemia in adults. Recently, the 40 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe fixed combination was approved and is also evaluated.

Fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe: treating hypercholesteremia according to cardiovascular risk

Introduction: Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with lipid-lowering therapies has been associated with a decrease in the frequency of cardiovascular events.Areas covered: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed (MEDLINE), using the MeSH terms [Rosuvastatin] + [Ezetimibe] + [Dyslipidemia] + [treatment]. Original data from clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies and more useful reviews were selected.Expert opinion: While statins continue to be the cornerstone of dyslipidemia management, many patients do not attain LDL-C targets with high-intensity statins alone. Rosuvastatin is a high-intensity statin with a low risk of adverse effects and drug-drug interactions and proven benefits in the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe have complementary mechanisms of action that enhance their ability to reduce LDL-C levels. Various studies have shown that the combination of rosuvastatin 10-40 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg enables considerable reductions in LDL-C (up to 60-75%) with a good safety profile in a broad spectrum of patients with hypercholesterolemia, including those at high risk and those with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In addition, a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe may improve adherence to medication. In this review, the available evidence on the combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is updated.

Rosuvastatin/Ezetimibe: A Review in Hypercholesterolemia

Rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combines two lipid-lowering agents: rosuvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (i.e. statin) with particularly strong inhibitory effects on hepatic cholesterol synthesis, and ezetimibe, which inhibits the intestinal absorption of cholesterol. A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe is indicated as an adjunctive therapy to diet for the management of primary hypercholesterolemia in adults in numerous countries worldwide. In well-designed clinical trials evaluating the therapeutic efficacy of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe administered as either separate agents or as an FDC, rosuvastatin/ezetimibe was significantly more effective than rosuvastatin monotherapy (including at double the dose of rosuvastatin) or simvastatin/ezetimibe in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol in adults with hypercholesterolemia. Furthermore, rosuvastatin/ezetimibe enabled significantly higher proportions of patients to achieve recommended LDL-C levels than rosuvastatin monotherapy or simvastatin/ezetimibe. Rosuvastatin/ezetimibe did not significantly differ from rosuvastatin monotherapy with respect to incidences of treatment-related or serious adverse events in these short-term trials and displayed a similar safety profile to simvastatin/ezetimibe. While additional cardiovascular outcomes data and head-to-head comparisons with atorvastatin/ezetimibe would be of interest, rosuvastatin/ezetimibe is a potent and generally well-tolerated drug combination that extends the range of options available for the pharmacological management of primary hypercholesterolemia in adults.

The efficacy and safety of statin in combination with ezetimibe compared with double-dose statin in patients with high cardiovascular risk: A meta-analysis

Currently, statins are the first-line therapies for dyslipidemia and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, however, their hypolipidemic effects have not been satisfactory. We performed a meta-analysis to compare lipid-lowering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and statin combination therapy with double-dose statin monotherapy in patients with high cardiovascular risk. Fourteen studies involving 3105 participants were included in the final analysis; 1558 (50.18%) participants received ezetimibe and statin combination therapy and 1547 (49.82%) received double-dose statin monotherapy. Eight studies reported the percentages of changes in several lipid parameters from baseline to endpoint in both groups. Lipid parameters changed more significantly in patients coadministered with ezetimibe and statin (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]: MD = -9.39, 95% CI -13.36 to -5.42; non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [non-HDL-C]: MD = -10.36, 95% CI -14.23 to -6.50; total cholesterol [TC]: MD = -8.11, 95% CI -10.95 to -5.26; and triglyceride [TG]: MD = -5.96, 95% CI -9.12 to -2.80), with moderate to high heterogeneity among the studies. Two out of fourteen studies investigated several different statins. Our subgroup analysis showed that, compared with double-dose atorvastatin monotherapy, ezetimibe and atorvastatin combination therapy significantly decreased LDL-C, non-HDL-C, TC, and TG levels by 14.16%, 14.01%, 11.06%, and 5.96%, respectively (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the incidence of laboratory-related adverse events (AEs) between statin combination therapy and monotherapy. Overall, ezetimibe and statin combination therapy significantly decreased LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and TC levels in patients with high cardiovascular risk, among which ezetimibe combined with atorvastatin had the best therapeutic effect. Compared with ezetimibe and statin combination therapy, double-dose statin monotherapy did not increase the risk of AEs.

An expert opinion paper on statin adherence and implementation of new lipid-lowering medications by the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy: Barriers to be overcome

Benefits and safety on statins have been well-established over 20 years of research. Despite this, the vast majority of patients are not adequately treated and do not achieve the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol target levels. This is mainly due to poor adherence, which is associated with dangerous and sometimes fatal outcomes. To increase adherence and prevent worse outcomes, a combination therapy with lower dosage of statins and new lipid-lowering drugs may be used. However, the implementation of new lipid-lowering drugs in European countries is still at the beginning. For these reasons, the aim of this position paper is to give an up-to-date indication from the ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy in order to discuss the barriers towards statins adherence and new lipid-lowering drugs implementation in Europe.

The Bioequivalence and Effect of Food on the Pharmacokinetics of a Fixed-Dose Combination Tablet Containing Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe in Healthy Japanese Subjects

Certain patient populations are unable to achieve the recommended low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goals with statin monotherapy alone. Such patients may benefit from concomitant therapy with ezetimibe (EZE) 10 mg added on to a statin. To this end, fixed‐dose combination (FDC) tablets containing EZE 10 mg and rosuvastatin (ROS) 2.5 mg (EZE/ROS2.5) and EZE 10 mg and ROS 5 mg (EZE/ROS5) have been developed for treatment of hypercholesterolemia. The purpose of the series of clinical studies reported herein was to evaluate the potential food effect (MK‐0653H, protocol 836 (P836)) and the bioequivalence between FDC and co‐administration of EZE and ROS in healthy Japanese subjects under fasted and fed conditions (MK‐0653H, protocol 835 (P835) and MK‐0653H, protocol 846 (P846), respectively). These studies show there is no clinically relevant food effect on EZE exposure following single oral administration of the FDC EZE/ROS5 in healthy Japanese subjects; however, ROS exposure was decreased in the fed state under conditions used to evaluate the maximum food effect. Following single oral administration of individual ROS tablets under the same conditions, the magnitude of decrease in ROS exposure was comparable to that seen with FDC, suggesting that the effect of food on ROS exposure was similar between the FDC tablet and co‐administration of individual EZE and ROS tablets. The FDC EZE/ROS5 was generally well tolerated in healthy Japanese subjects under fasted and fed conditions.

A Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active Comparator Clinical Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy With Ezetimibe and Rosuvastatin Versus Rosuvastatin Monotherapy in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia: I-ROSETTE (Ildong Rosuvastatin & Ezetimibe for Hypercholesterolemia) Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

Combination therapy with ezetimibe and statins is recommended in cases of statin intolerance or insufficiency. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin versus those of rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

I-ROSETTE (Ildong ROSuvastatin & ezETimibe for hypercholesTElolemia) was an 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, Phase III randomized controlled trial conducted at 20 hospitals in the Republic of Korea. Patients with hypercholesterolemia who required medical treatment according to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines were eligible for participation in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 10 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 5 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg, or rosuvastatin 5 mg in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio. The primary end point was the difference in the mean percent change from baseline in LDL-C level after 8 weeks of treatment between the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin and rosuvastatin treatment groups. All patients were assessed for adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs.

FINDINGS

Of 396 patients, 389 with efficacy data were analyzed. Baseline characteristics among 6 groups were similar. After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, the percent changes in adjusted mean LDL-C levels at week 8 compared with baseline values were -57.0% (2.1%) and -44.4% (2.1%) in the total ezetimibe/rosuvastatin and total rosuvastatin groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The LDL-C-lowering efficacy of each of the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin combinations was superior to that of each of the respective doses of rosuvastatin. The mean percent change in LDL-C level in all ezetimibe/rosuvastatin combination groups was >50%. The number of patients who achieved target LDL-C levels at week 8 was significantly greater in the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin group (180 [92.3%] of 195 patients) than in the rosuvastatin monotherapy group (155 [79.9%] of 194 patients) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs, adverse drug reactions, and serious AEs; laboratory findings, including liver function test results and creatinine kinase levels, were comparable between groups.

IMPLICATIONS

Fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin significantly improved lipid profiles in patients with hypercholesterolemia compared with rosuvastatin monotherapy. All groups treated with rosuvastatin and ezetimibe reported a decrease in mean LDL-C level >50%. The safety and tolerability of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin therapy were comparable with those of rosuvastatin monotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02749994.

Ezetimibe in high-risk, previously treated statin patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of lipid efficacy

PURPOSE

While statins are used as first-line treatments for high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia, statin monotherapy is often insufficient to achieve target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Second-line treatment options include up-titration of statin dose, switching to a more potent statin, or combination therapy, e.g., with ezetimibe. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin monotherapy versus doubling the dosage or switching to a higher-potency statin in a population of patients with hypocholesterolemia at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and who had been previously treated with a statin.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed and evidence bases were established for populations of atorvastatin-, simvastatin-, and rosuvastatin-experienced patients using eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Based on the available data, we constructed networks of evidence and conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) within each statin population. The primary outcome of interest was percent change from baseline in LDL-C. Changes in total cholesterol were explored as a secondary outcome.

FINDINGS

Across all patient populations, 35 RCTs were identified and included in the evidence base. Among patients on simvastatin therapy, the addition of ezetimibe resulted in a mean difference (MD) in LDL-C of - 13.62% (95% CrI - 19.99, - 6.91; see table below) compared to doubling the starting dose of simvastatin. In the population of patients on atorvastatin therapy, the addition of ezetimibe resulted in an MD in LDL-C of - 14.71% (95% CrI - 16.46, - 12.95) compared to doubling the starting dose of atorvastatin. The addition of ezetimibe to rosuvastatin resulted in an MD in LDL-C of - 14.96% (95% CrI - 17.79, - 12.11), compared to doubling the starting rosuvastatin dose. Similar trends were observed for changes in total cholesterol.

IMPLICATIONS

Given the available data, the addition of ezetimibe to ongoing simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin monotherapy offers greater reduction in LDL-C among patients at high risk of CVD compared to doubling the initial statin dose.

Effect of fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: MRS-ROZE (Multicenter Randomized Study of ROsuvastatin and eZEtimibe)

AIM

We aimed to compare the effects of fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin to rosuvastatin alone in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, including a subgroup analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or metabolic syndrome (MetS).

METHOD

This multicenter eight-week randomized double-blind phase III study evaluated the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe 10 mg plus rosuvastatin, compared with rosuvastatin alone in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Four hundred and seven patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who required lipid-lowering treatment according to the ATP III guideline were randomized to one of the following six treatments for 8 weeks: fixed-dose combinations with ezetimibe 10 mg daily plus rosuvastatin (5, 10, or 20 mg daily) or rosuvastatin alone (5, 10, or 20 mg daily).

RESULTS

Fixed-dose combination of ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin significantly reduced LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels compared with rosuvastatin alone. Depending on the rosuvastatin dose, these fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin provided LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride reductions of 56%-63%, 37%-43%, and 19%-24%, respectively. Moreover, the effect of combination treatment on cholesterol levels was more pronounced in patients with DM or MetS than in non-DM or non-MetS patients, respectively, whereas the effect of rosuvastatin alone did not differ between DM vs non-DM or MetS vs non-MetS patients.

CONCLUSION

Fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe and rosuvastatin provided significantly superior efficacy to rosuvastatin alone in lowering LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels. Moreover, the reduction rate was greater in patients with DM or MetS.

A lipidologist perspective of global lipid guidelines and recommendations, part 2: Lipid treatment goals

Having knowledge of worldwide areas of harmonization and consensus regarding lipid guidelines and recommendations may provide clinicians a more global perspective on lipid management. This review examines 8 international scientific/medical organizations that have issued lipid guidelines, recommendations, and position papers: the National Lipid Association (2014), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2014), International Atherosclerosis Society (2013), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (2013), Canadian Cardiovascular Society (2013), Japan Atherosclerosis Society (2012), European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (2012), and Adult Treatment Panel III (2001/2004). Part 1 of this perspective focused on sentinel components of these lipid guidelines and recommendations as applied to the role of atherogenic lipoprotein cholesterol levels, primary lipid target of therapy, other primary and secondary lipid treatment targets, and assessment of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. This part 2 examines goals of lipid-altering therapy. While lipid guidelines and recommendations may differ regarding ASCVD risk assessment and lipid treatment goals, lipid guidelines and recommendations generally agree on the need to reduce atherogenic lipoprotein cholesterol levels, with statins being the first-line treatment of choice.

Efficacy and safety of adding alirocumab to rosuvastatin versus adding ezetimibe or doubling the rosuvastatin dose in high cardiovascular-risk patients: The ODYSSEY OPTIONS II randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare lipid-lowering efficacy of adding alirocumab to rosuvastatin versus other treatment strategies (NCT01730053).

METHODS

Patients receiving baseline rosuvastatin regimens (10 or 20 mg) were randomized to: add-on alirocumab 75 mg every-2-weeks (Q2W) (1-mL subcutaneous injection via pre-filled pen); add-on ezetimibe 10 mg/day; or double-dose rosuvastatin. Patients had cardiovascular disease (CVD) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) or CVD risk factors and LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L). In the alirocumab group, dose was blindly increased at Week 12 to 150 mg Q2W (also 1-mL volume) in patients not achieving their LDL-C target. Primary endpoint was percent change in calculated LDL-C from baseline to 24 weeks (intent-to-treat).

RESULTS

305 patients were randomized. In the baseline rosuvastatin 10 mg group, significantly greater LDL-C reductions were observed with add-on alirocumab (-50.6%) versus ezetimibe (-14.4%; p < 0.0001) and double-dose rosuvastatin (-16.3%; p < 0.0001). In the baseline rosuvastatin 20 mg group, LDL-C reduction with add-on alirocumab was -36.3% compared with -11.0% with ezetimibe and -15.9% with double-dose rosuvastatin (p = 0.0136 and 0.0453, respectively; pre-specified threshold for significance p < 0.0125). Overall, ∼80% alirocumab patients were maintained on 75 mg Q2W. Of alirocumab-treated patients, 84.9% and 66.7% in the baseline rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg groups, respectively, achieved risk-based LDL-C targets. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 56.3% of alirocumab patients versus 53.5% ezetimibe and 67.3% double-dose rosuvastatin (pooled data).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of alirocumab to rosuvastatin provided incremental LDL-C lowering versus adding ezetimibe or doubling the rosuvastatin dose.

Alirocumab as Add-On to Atorvastatin Versus Other Lipid Treatment Strategies: ODYSSEY OPTIONS I Randomized Trial

CONTEXT

Despite current standard of care, many patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) still have elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Alirocumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody inhibitor of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of adding alirocumab vs other common lipid-lowering strategies.

DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Patients (n = 355) with very high CVD risk and LDL-C levels of 70 mg/dL or greater or high CVD risk and LDL-C of 100 mg/dL or greater on baseline atorvastatin 20 or 40 mg were randomized to one of the following: 1) add-on alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) sc; 2) add-on ezetimibe 10 mg/d; 3) double atorvastatin dose; or 4) for atorvastatin 40 mg regimen only, switch to rosuvastatin 40 mg. For patients not achieving protocol-defined LDL-C goals, the alirocumab dose was increased (blinded) at week 12 to 150 mg Q2W.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary end point was percentage change in calculated LDL-C from baseline to 24 weeks (intent to treat).

RESULTS

Among atorvastatin 20 and 40 mg regimens, respectively, add-on alirocumab reduced LDL-C levels by 44.1% and 54.0% (P < .001 vs all comparators); add-on ezetimibe, 20.5% and 22.6%; doubling of atorvastatin dose, 5.0% and 4.8%; and switching atorvastatin 40 mg to rosuvastatin 40 mg, 21.4%. Most alirocumab-treated patients (87.2% and 84.6%) achieved their LDL-C goals. Most alirocumab-treated patients (86%) maintained their 75-mg Q2W regimen. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 65.4% of alirocumab patients vs 64.4% ezetimibe and 63.8% double atorvastatin/switch to rosuvastatin (data were pooled).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding alirocumab to atorvastatin provided significantly greater LDL-C reductions vs adding ezetimibe, doubling atorvastatin dose, or switching to rosuvastatin and enabled greater LDL-C goal achievement.

Lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin is one of the most potent statins and is currently widely prescribed. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of rosuvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of rosuvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Secondary objectives To quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of rosuvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 10 of 12, 2014 in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 5 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 44), Web of Science Core Collection (1970 to 5 November 2014) and BIOSIS Citation Index (1969 to 31 October 2014). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of rosuvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and eight trials (18 placebo-controlled and 90 before-and-after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of rosuvastatin in 19,596 participants. Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg/day caused LDL-cholesterol decreases of 46% to 55%, when all the trials were combined using the generic inverse variance method. The quality of evidence for these effects is high. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 to 80 mg, revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol. When compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was about three-fold more potent at reducing LDL-cholesterol. There was no dose-related effect of rosuvastatin on blood HDL-cholesterol, but overall, rosuvastatin increased HDL by 7%. There is a high risk of bias for the trials in this review, which would affect WDAEs, but unlikely to affect the lipid measurements. WDAEs were not statistically different between rosuvastatin and placebo in 10 of 18 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.47).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The total blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of rosuvastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Rosuvastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with atorvastatin, this represents a three-fold greater potency. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with rosuvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 44% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Achieving goal lipid levels with ezetimibe plus statin add-on or switch therapy compared with doubling the statin dose. A pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, statin titration, switching from statin monotherapy to a more potent statin or to ezetimibe/simvastatin.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of patient-level data from 17 double-blind, active or placebo-controlled studies of 8667 hypercholesterolemic adults randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg added to ongoing statins, statin titration (doubling), or switching from ongoing statins to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or to ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 and 40 mg). Percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was estimated by analysis of variance. Percent of patients who achieved LDL-C and other guideline-recommended targets, and target lipid levels by baseline distance to goal were evaluated.

RESULTS

LDL-C percent change from baseline was -26.0 for ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, -27.6 for switching from ongoing statin to ezetimibe/simvastatin, -19.7 for switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg, and -9.7 for dose doubling of the ongoing statin. For patients within 0.8 mmol/L (30 mg/dL) of the target at baseline, LDL-C target attainment rates were 75.9% for adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin, 72.8% for switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin, 61.8% for switching to rosuvastatin, and 44.3% for statin dose-doubling. Similarly, improvements in other lipids and achievement of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B targets among this patient group were largest for ezetimibe added to ongoing statins and switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin; switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg and statin dose-doubling were less effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy appeared to be an effective option for patients who do not achieve lipid-lowering goals on statins alone.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added to atorvastatin versus atorvastatin uptitration or switching to rosuvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

Hypercholesterolemic patients (n = 1,547) at high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥100 and ≤160 mg/dl while treated with atorvastatin 10 mg/day entered a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, clinical trial using two 6-week study periods. Period I compared the efficacy/safety of (1) adding ezetimibe 10 mg (ezetimibe) to stable atorvastatin 10 mg, (2) doubling atorvastatin to 20 mg, or (3) switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg. Subjects in the latter 2 groups who persisted with elevated LDL-C levels (≥100 and ≤160 mg/dl) after period I, entered period II; subjects on atorvastatin 20 mg had ezetimibe added to their atorvastatin 20 mg, or uptitrated their atorvastatin to 40 mg; subjects on rosuvastatin 10 mg switched to atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe or uptitrated their rosuvastatin to 20 mg. Some subjects on atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe continued the same treatment into period II. At the end of period I, ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL-C significantly more than atorvastatin 20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg (22.2% vs 9.5% or 13.0%, respectively, p <0.001). At the end of period II, ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 20 mg reduced LDL-C significantly more than atorvastatin 40 mg (17.4% vs 6.9%, p <0.001); switching from rosuvastatin 10 mg to ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 20 mg reduced LDL-C significantly more than uptitrating to rosuvastatin 20 mg (17.1% vs 7.5%, p <0.001). Relative to comparative treatments, ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 10 mg (period I) or atorvastatin 20 mg (period II) produced significantly greater percent attainment of LDL-C targets <100 or <70 mg/dl, and significantly greater percent reductions in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, most lipid and lipoprotein ratios, and apolipoprotein B (except ezetimibe plus atorvastatin 20 vs atorvastatin 40 mg). Reports of adverse experiences were generally similar among groups. In conclusion, treatment of hypercholesterolemic subjects at high cardiovascular risk with ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg produced significantly greater improvements in key lipid parameters and significantly greater attainment of LDL-C treatment targets than doubling atorvastatin or switching to (or doubling) rosuvastatin at the compared doses.

Effects of ezetimibe on serum polyunsaturated fatty acids in patients with coronary artery disease

Residual risk of cardiovascular disease might stem, at least partially, from low serum concentrations of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of ezetimibe on serum lipids and PU-FAs in patients with coronary artery disease who were intolerant of new or high-dose statin therapy. The study population consisted of 13 patients who were intolerant of new statin therapy and 10 patients who were intolerant of high-dose statin therapy for the treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Patients who were intolerant of high-dose statin therapy continued taking a statin, but at a lower dose during the study period. Blood samples were collected before and 12 weeks after ezetimibe (10 mg). We measured serum lipids and PUFAs including dihomo-γ-linolenic acid, arachidonic acid (AA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid. Ezetimibe significantly decreased LDL cholesterol (138 ± 19 mg/dL to 97 ± 34 mg/dL, P < 0.01), but did not significantly affect high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, or any of the PUFAs measured during the follow-up period. Consequently, it did not affect the ratio of EPA to AA (0.40 ± 0.17 to 0.43 ± 0.18, P = ns) or the ratio of n-3 PUFA to n-6 PUFA (1.10 ± 0.39 to 1.09 ± 0.36, P = ns) during the follow-up period. Ezetimibe in combination with a low-dose statin, or as monotherapy in statin-intolerant patients, decreased LDL cholesterol, but did not significantly affect serum PUFA concentrations in patients with coronary artery disease.

Efficacy of combination of Ezetimibe 10 mg and rosuvastatin 2.5 mg versus rosuvastatin 5 mg monotherapy for hypercholesterolemia in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

Statins are used to treat hypercholesterolemia in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, but many of these patients fail to achieve the target LDL-C level. Recent reports have suggested that a synergistic effect can be obtained by concomitant administration of the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe and a statin. However, in patients with type 2 diabetes who are already being treated with satins, it remains unclear whether it is more effective to add ezetimibe or to increase the statin dose. Therefore, this study was performed to examine the effects of these two regimens on LDL-C and lipoproteins.

METHODS

The subjects were type 2 diabetic patients under treatment with rosuvastatin (2.5 mg daily), who had LDL-C levels ≥80 mg/dL. They were randomly allocated to a group that received add-on therapy with ezetimibe at 10 mg/day (combination group, n = 40) or an increase of the rosuvastatin dose to 5 mg/day (dose escalation group, n = 39). These two groups were compared at baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

The percent change of LDL-C was -31% in the combination group and -12% in the dose escalation group. Both groups showed a significant decrease, but the decrease was greater in the combination group. In both groups, there was a significant decrease in the levels of small dense LDL-C, oxidized LDL and remnant-like lipoprotein cholesterol. For all of these parameters, the percent changes were greater in the combination group. Only the combination group showed a significant decrease of triglycerides. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with reaching an LDL-C level <80 mg/dL. As a result, add-on therapy with ezetimibe was extracted as a factor related to improvement of LDL-C.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with increasing the dose of rosuvastatin, the combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe not only achieves quantitative but also qualitative improvement of serum lipid levels in type 2 diabetic patients, suggesting that this combination could suppress the progression of atherosclerosis.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000011005.

A comparison of efficacy and safety of an ezetimibe/simvastatin combination compared with other intensified lipid-lowering treatment strategies in diabetic patients with symptomatic cardiovascular disease

The low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering efficacy of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZ/S) 10/20 mg versus doubling the run-in statin dose (to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg) or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg in subjects with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes was assessed. Endpoints included percentage change in LDL-C and percentage of patients achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Significantly greater reductions in LDL-C occurred when switching to EZ/S versus statin doubling in the overall population and in subjects treated with simvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg (all p < 0.001). The LDL-C reduction was numerically greater when switching to EZ/S versus switching to rosuvastatin (p = 0.060). Significantly more subjects reached LDL-C <70 mg/dL with EZ/S (54.5%) versus statin doubling (27.0%) or rosuvastatin (42.5%) in the overall population (all p < 0.001) and within each stratum (all p < 0.001). Switching to EZ/S provided significantly greater reductions in LDL-C versus statin doubling and significantly greater achievement of LDL-C targets versus statin doubling or switching to rosuvastatin.

Regulation of cholesterol homeostasis

Hypercholesterolemia is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease. It is caused by a disturbed balance between cholesterol secretion into the blood versus uptake. The pathways involved are regulated via a complex interplay of enzymes, transport proteins, transcription factors and non-coding RNA's. The last two decades insight into underlying mechanisms has increased vastly but there are still a lot of unknowns, particularly regarding intracellular cholesterol transport. After decades of concentration on the liver, in recent years the intestine has come into focus as an important control point in cholesterol homeostasis. This review will discuss current knowledge of cholesterol physiology, with emphasis on cholesterol absorption, cholesterol synthesis and fecal excretion, and new (possible) therapeutic options for hypercholesterolemia.

Therapeutic strategies to deplete macrophages in atherosclerotic plaques

Macrophages can be found in all stages of atherosclerosis and are major contributors of atherosclerotic plaque development, progression and destabilization. Continuous recruitment of monocytes drives this chronic inflammatory disease, which can be intervened by several strategies: reducing the inflammatory stimulus by lowering circulating lipids and promoting cholesterol efflux from plaque, direct and indirect targeting of adhesion molecules and chemokines involved in monocyte adhesion and transmigration and inducing macrophage death in atherosclerotic plaques in combination with anti-inflammatory drugs. This review discusses the outlined strategies to deplete macrophages from atherosclerotic plaques to promote plaque stabilization.

Dyslipidemia: Management Using Optimal Lipid-Lowering Therapy

Objective:

To evaluate current approaches and explore emerging research related to dyslipidemia management.

Data Sources:

MEDLINE (2004-April 2012) was searched for randomized controlled trials using the terms dyslipidemia and lipid-lowering therapy or statin (>1000 hits). Separate searches (MEDLINE, Google) identified meta-analyses (2010–2011), disease prevalence statistics, and current consensus guidelines (2004–July 2011). Additional references were identified from the publications reviewed.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

English-language articles on large multi-center trials were evaluated.

Data Synthesis:

National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines for the reduction of cardiovascular risk recommend the attainment of specific low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non–HDL-C) target values, based on an individual's 10-year risk of coronary heart disease or global risk. For most patients unable to achieve recommended lipid level goals with therapeutic lifestyle changes, statins are the first option for treatment. Results of large, well-controlled clinical trials have demonstrated that statins are effective in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in diverse populations, including patients with diabetes and the elderly, and that intensive statin therapy provides more effective lipid goal attainment and significantly greater risk reduction in patients with coronary artery disease. Stalin therapy is generally well tolerated but may increase the risk of myopathy. Statin use has been associated with increases in hepatic transaminases and an increased risk of diabetes, although the absolute risk of diabetes is low compared with the risk reduction benefit. Combination therapy including a statin may be appropriate for certain populations, but the risk reduction benefits of combination therapy remain unclear. Ezetimibe is an important treatment option for patients with hypercholesterolemia who do not tolerate intensive statin therapy. Although fibrates or niacin improves overall lipid profiles in patients with hypertriglyceridemia or dyslipidemia who are receiving statin therapy, their efficacy in reducing cardiovascular risk remains questionable and their use raises safety and tolerability concerns.

Conclusions:

Intensifying lifestyle changes and statin dose should be utilized first in patients not achieving their LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals.

Safety profile of statins alone or combined with ezetimibe: a pooled analysis of 27 studies including over 22,000 patients treated for 6-24 weeks

Aims:  The aim of this analysis was to assess the overall safety and tolerability profiles of various statins + ezetimibe vs. statin monotherapy and to explore tolerability in sub-populations grouped by age, race, and sex. Methods:  Study-level data were combined from 27 double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-comparator trials that randomized adult hypercholesterolemic patients to statin or statin + ezetimibe for 6-24 weeks. In the full cohort, % patients with AEs within treatment groups (statin: N = 10,517; statin + ezetimibe: N = 11,714) was assessed by logistic regression with terms for first-/second-line therapy (first line = drug-naïve or rendered drug-naïve by washout at study entry; second line = ongoing statin at study entry or statin run-in), trial within first-/second-line therapy, and treatment. The same model was fitted for age (< 65, ≥ 65 years), sex, race (white, black, other) and first-/second-line subgroups with additional terms for subgroup and subgroup-by-treatment interaction. Results:  In the full cohort, the only significant difference between treatments was consecutive AST or ALT elevations ≥ 3 × upper limit of normal (ULN) (statin: 0.35%, statin + ezetimibe: 0.56%; p = 0.017). Significantly more subjects reported ≥ 1 AE; drug-related, hepatitis-related and gastrointestinal-related AEs; and CK elevations ≥ 10 × ULN (all p ≤ 0.008) in first-line vs. second-line therapy studies with both treatments. AEs were generally similar between treatments in subgroups, and similar rates of AEs were reported within age and race subgroups; however, women reported generally higher AE rates. Conclusions:  In conclusion, in second-line studies, ongoing statin treatment at study entry likely screened out participants for previous statin-related AEs and tolerability issues. These results describe the safety profiles of widely used lipid-lowering therapies and encourage their appropriate and judicious use in certain subpopulations.

A review of the rationale for additional therapeutic interventions to attain lower LDL-C when statin therapy is not enough

Statins alone are not always adequate therapy to achieve low-density lipoprotein (LDL) goals in many patients. Many options are available either alone or in combination with statins that makes it possible to reach recommended goals in a safe and tolerable fashion for most patients. Ezetimibe and bile acid sequestrants reduce cholesterol transport to the liver and can be used in combination. Niacin is very effective at lowering LDL, beyond its ability to raise high-density lipoprotein and shift LDL particle size to a less atherogenic type. When statins cannot be tolerated at all, red yeast rice can be used if proper formulations of the product are obtained. Nutrients can also be added to the diet, including plant stanols and sterols, soy protein, almonds, and fiber, either individually or all together as a portfolio diet. A clear understanding of how each of these strategies works is essential for effective results.

Evaluation of safety and tolerance of microencapsulated Lactobacillus reuteri NCIMB 30242 in a yogurt formulation: a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

Probiotic organisms have shown promise in treating diseases. Previously, we have reported on the efficacy of microencapsulated Lactobacillus reuteri NCIMB 30242 in a yogurt formulation at lowering serum cholesterol levels in otherwise healthy hypercholesterolemic adults. This study investigates the safety and toxicology of oral ingestion of microencapsulated L. reuteri NCIMB 30242 in a yogurt formulation. A randomized group of 120 subjects received a dose of 5 × 10(10) CFU microencapsulated L. reuteri NCIMB 30242 in yogurt (n=59) or placebo yogurt (n=61) twice/day for 6 weeks. Clinical chemistry and hematological parameters of safety were analyzed. Fecal samples were collected at these time points for the analysis of deconjugated bile acids. The frequency, duration and intensity of adverse events (AEs) and clinical significance of safety parameters were recorded for both groups. No clinically significant differences between the probiotic yogurt and placebo yogurt treated groups were detected in either the blood clinical chemistry or hematology results and there was no significant increase in fecal deconjugated bile acids (P>0.05) between treated and control groups. The frequency and intensity of AEs was similar in the two groups. These results demonstrate the safe use of this formulation in food.