Long-term safety and, tolerability profiles andlipid-modifying efficacy of ezetimibe coadministered with ongoing simvastatin treatment: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 48-week extension study

Low-Intensity Statin Plus Ezetimibe Versus Moderate-Intensity Statin for Primary Prevention: A Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study in Asian Population

BACKGROUND

While moderate-intensity statin therapy is recommended for primary prevention, statins may not be utilized at a recommended intensity due to dose-dependent adverse events, especially in an Asian population. However, evidence supporting the use of low-intensity statins in primary prevention is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to compare clinical outcomes between a low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin for primary prevention.

METHODS

This population-based retrospective cohort study used the Korean nationwide claims database (2002-2019). We included adults without atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases who received moderate-intensity statins or low-intensity statins plus ezetimibe. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. The safety outcomes were liver and muscle injuries and new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM). We used standardized inverse probability of treatment weighting (sIPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

In the sIPTW model, 1717 and 36 683 patients used a low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe and a moderate-intensity statin, respectively. In the PSM model, each group included 1687 patients. Compared with moderate-intensity statin use, low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe use showed similar risks of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.92, 95% CI = 0.81-1.12 in sIPTW and HR = 1.16, 95% CI = 0.87-1.56 in PSM model). Low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe use was associated with decreased risks of liver and muscle injuries (subHR [sHR] = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.74-0.96 and sHR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.77-0.97 in sIPTW; sHR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.72, 0.96 and sHR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.72-0.94 in PSM model, respectively). For new-onset DM and hospitalization of liver and muscle injuries, no difference was observed.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe may be an alternative to moderate-intensity statin for primary prevention. Our findings provide evidence on safety and efficacy of statin therapy in Asian population.

Long-term Efficacy and Safety of K-924 Pitavastatin/Ezetimibe Fixed-dose Combination in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia: A Phase III, Multi-center, Open-label Trial

AIM

Ezetimibe administration with ongoing statin therapy is an effective option for further lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Thus, we investigated the long-term efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination of pitavastatin/ezetimibe (K-924 LD: 2 mg/10 mg; K-924 HD: 4 mg/10 mg).

METHODS

We conducted a phase III, multicenter, open-label trial involving patients with hypercholesterolemia receiving pitavastatin (2 or 4 mg) who had not achieved their LDL-C management target. Patients were enrolled into the K-924 LD and HD groups based on whether they had received pitavastatin 2 and 4 mg, respectively, and treated for 52 weeks. K-924 was administered orally once daily. The primary objective was to examine the percent change in LDL-C from baseline at week 52 with last observation carried forward imputation (LOCF) in all patients.

RESULTS

Of the 109 patients evaluated, 62 and 47 were assigned to the K-924 LD and HD groups, respectively. In all patients, LDL-C decreased by -30.3±14.3% (p＜0.001) from baseline (134.4±37.9 mg/dL). Consequently, 91.8% and 37.5% of the patients for primary and secondary prevention reached their LDL-C management target, respectively. These results were consistent in both the K-924 LD and HD groups. In the safety analysis, a single adverse drug reaction occurred in a patient in the K-924 HD group.

CONCLUSION

After replacing pitavastatin monotherapy, K-924 was found to be effective and well-tolerated over 52 weeks. Thus, K-924 can contribute to intensifying LDL-C-lowering therapy without increasing the number of medications.

Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials Evaluating the Comparative Efficacy of Lipid-Lowering Therapies Added to Maximally Tolerated Statins for the Reduction of Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

Background Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels decreases major cardiovascular events and is recommended for patients at elevated cardiovascular risk. However, appropriate doses of statin therapy are often insufficient to reduce LDL-C in accordance with current guidelines. In such cases, treatment could be supplemented with nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted on randomized controlled trials of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy added to maximally tolerated statins, including statin-intolerant patients. The primary objective was to assess relative efficacy of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy in reducing LDL-C levels at week 12. Secondary objectives included the following: LDL-C level reduction at week 24 and change in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B at week 12. There were 48 randomized controlled trials included in the primary network meta-analysis. All nonstatin agents significantly reduced LDL-C from baseline versus placebo, regardless of background therapy. At week 12, evolocumab, 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W)/420 mg once a month, and alirocumab, 150 mg Q2W, were the most efficacious regimens, followed by alirocumab, 75 mg Q2W, alirocumab, 300 mg once a month, inclisiran, bempedoic acid/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination, and ezetimibe and bempedoic acid used as monotherapies. Primary end point results were generally consistent at week 24, and for other lipid end points at week 12. Conclusions Evolocumab, 140 mg Q2W/420 mg once a month, and alirocumab, 150 mg Q2W, were consistently the most efficacious nonstatin regimens when added to maximally tolerated statins to lower LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels and facilitate attainment of guideline-recommended risk-stratified lipoprotein levels.

Effects of Combined Lipid-Lowering Therapy on Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Variability and Cardiovascular Adverse Events in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

INTRODUCTION

To investigate the effect of combined lipid-lowering therapy on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) variability and cardiovascular adverse events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

METHODS

A total of 200 patients with acute coronary syndrome, admitted to the first Hospital of Hebei Medical University from January 2018 to June 2019, were randomly divided into the observation group (100 cases were treated with combined lipid-lowering drugs, including 10 mg/day atorvastatin and 10 mg/day ezetimibe) and the control group (100 cases were given an intensive statin regimen, including 40 mg/day atorvastatin). The levels of blood lipids, creatine kinase (CK), alanine transaminase (ALT), matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) were observed and compared between the two groups. Focus was laid on the concentration of the above-mentioned parameters and follow-up results including the drug safety and incidence of cardiovascular adverse events.

RESULTS

Before treatment, there was no significant difference in total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), CK, ALT, MMP-9, hsCRP and LDL-C between the two groups (P > 0.05). After 6 months, 12 months and 24 months of treatment, TC, HDL-C, CK, ALT, MMP-9, hsCRP and LDL-C were improved in both groups, and TC, HDL-C, CK, ALT, MMP-9, hsCRP and LDL-C in the observation group elicited greater results than those in the control group with significant difference (P < 0.05). In the course of treatment, the drug safety of the two groups was compared (P > 0.05), and the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events in the observation group was significantly lower than that in the control group (6.59% vs. 11.96%) (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with atorvastatin and ezetimibe potentially provides remarkable effects in terms of treating acute coronary syndrome, controlling the variation of LDL-C, alleviating the inflammatory state and reducing the incidence of cardiovascular adverse events with a safe profile. Combined lipid-lowering drugs are considered valid and alternative approaches for wide clinical practice.

Efficacy and Safety of Ezetimibe in Combination with Atorvastatin for Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Accompanied with Type 2 Diabetes: A Single-Center, Non-randomized Cohort Study

Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and hyperlipidemia are with high risk of myocardial infarction (MI) or coronary death events. The combined use of ezetimibe and atorvastatin could improve treatment efficacy and safety. To explore the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe in combination with atorvastatin for the treatment of patients with T2DM and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This was a non-randomized cohort study of 95 consecutive, treatment-naïve patients with T2DM and ACS treated at the Quanzhou First Hospital of Fujian Province between February 2014 and March 2016. According to the treatment strategy they selected, the patients were categorized into the atorvastatin (n = 46) and atorvastatin + ezetimibe (n = 49) groups. The patients were followed up at 2 weeks and 12 months. The primary endpoints included the incidence of adverse cardiovascular events and changed in blood lipids and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP). At 12 months, serum total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were significantly lower, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels were significantly higher in the atorvastatin + ezetimibe (EZ) group than in the atorvastatin group (all p < 0.05). The LDL-C control rate at 12 months was significantly higher in the atorvastatin + EZ group compared with the atorvastatin group (p = 0.006). Seven patients in the atorvastatin group were re-hospitalized for angina pectoris, while only one patient in the atorvastatin + EZ group was re-hospitalized for angina pectoris (p = 0.02). The efficacy of atorvastatin + EZ in treating T2DM patients accompanied with ACS was significantly higher than using atorvastatin alone. This combined strategy has good safety profile, and could be recommended for clinical application.

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DYSLIPIDEMIA AND PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

OBJECTIVE

The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

METHODS

Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols.

RESULTS

The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 203 (29.2 %) are EL 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 236 (34.0%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence).

CONCLUSION

This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other health care professionals, health-related organizations, and regulatory bodies can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of individuals with various lipid disorders. The recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously endorsed and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to individuals with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and youth with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions.

ABBREVIATIONS

4S = Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study A1C = glycated hemoglobin AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AAP = American Academy of Pediatrics ACC = American College of Cardiology ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome ADMIT = Arterial Disease Multiple Intervention Trial ADVENT = Assessment of Diabetes Control and Evaluation of the Efficacy of Niaspan Trial AFCAPS/TexCAPS = Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study AHA = American Heart Association AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AIM-HIGH = Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides trial ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level BIP = Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention trial BMI = body mass index CABG = coronary artery bypass graft CAC = coronary artery calcification CARDS = Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study CDP = Coronary Drug Project trial CI = confidence interval CIMT = carotid intimal media thickness CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG(s) = clinical practice guideline(s) CRP = C-reactive protein CTT = Cholesterol Treatment Trialists CV = cerebrovascular CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia FIELD = Secondary Endpoints from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes trial FOURIER = Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk trial HATS = HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HHS = Helsinki Heart Study HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HPS = Heart Protection Study HPS2-THRIVE = Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events trial HR = hazard ratio HRT = hormone replacement therapy hsCRP = high-sensitivity CRP IMPROVE-IT = Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial IRAS = Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study JUPITER = Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MACE = major cardiovascular events MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction MRFIT = Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program NHLBI = National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 Post CABG = Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft trial PROSPER = Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk trial QALY = quality-adjusted life-year ROC = receiver-operator characteristic SOC = standard of care SHARP = Study of Heart and Renal Protection T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides TNT = Treating to New Targets trial VA-HIT = Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol WHI = Women's Health Initiative.

Ezetimibe for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality events

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity, and high levels of blood cholesterol are thought to be the major modifiable risk factors for CVD. The use of statins is the preferred treatment strategy for the prevention of CVD, but some people at high-risk for CVD are intolerant to statin therapy or unable to achieve their treatment goals with the maximal recommended doses of statin. Ezetimibe is a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, whether it has a positive effect on CVD events remains uncertain. Results from clinical studies are inconsistent and a thorough evaluation of its efficacy and safety for the prevention of CVD and mortality is necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe for the prevention of CVD and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 27 June 2018, and two clinical trial registry platforms on 11 July 2018. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ezetimibe versus placebo or ezetimibe plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone in adults, with or without CVD, and which had a follow-up of at least 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and contacted trialists to obtain missing data. We performed statistical analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs randomising 23,499 participants. All included studies assessed effects of ezetimibe plus other lipid-modifying drugs compared with other lipid-modifying drugs alone or plus placebo. Our findings were driven by the largest study (IMPROVE-IT), which had weights ranging from 41.5% to 98.4% in the different meta-analyses.Ezetimibe with statins probably reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with statins alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.98; a decrease from 284/1000 to 267/1000, 95% CI 256 to 278; 21,727 participants; 10 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Trials reporting all-cause mortality used ezetimibe with statin or fenofibrate and found they have little or no effect on this outcome (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 21,222 participants; 8 studies; high-quality evidence). Adding ezetimibe to statins probably reduces the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95; a decrease from 105/1000 to 92/1000, 95% CI 85 to 100; 21,145 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence) and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; a decrease 32/1000 to 27/1000, 95% CI 23 to 31; 21,205 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Trials reporting cardiovascular mortality added ezetimibe to statin or fenofibrate, probably having little or no effect on this outcome (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 19457 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The need for coronary revascularisation might be reduced by adding ezetimibe to statin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; a decrease from 196/1000 to 184/1000, 95% 175 to 194; 21,323 participants; 7 studies); however, no difference in coronary revascularisation rate was observed when a sensitivity analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias.In terms of safety, adding ezetimibe to statins may make little or no difference in the risk of hepatopathy (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.35; 20,687 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether ezetimibe increase or decrease the risk of myopathy (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.38; 20,581 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence) and rhabdomyolysis, given the wide CIs and low event rate. Little or no difference in the risk of cancer, gallbladder-related disease and discontinuation due to adverse events were observed between treatment groups. For serum lipids, adding ezetimibe to statin or fenofibrate might further reduce the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol and triglyceride levels and likely increase the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; however, substantial heterogeneity was detected in most analyses.None of the included studies reported on health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggests that ezetimibe has modest beneficial effects on the risk of CVD endpoints, primarily driven by a reduction in non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke, but it has little or no effect on clinical fatal endpoints. The cardiovascular benefit of ezetimibe might involve the reduction of LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether ezetimibe increases the risk of adverse events due to the low and very low quality of the evidence. The evidence for beneficial effects was mainly obtained from individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD, predominantly with acute coronary syndrome) administered ezetimibe plus statins. However, there is limited evidence regarding the role of ezetimibe in primary prevention and the effects of ezetimibe monotherapy in the prevention of CVD, and these topics thus requires further investigation.

Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis on the Efficacy of Evolocumab and Other Therapies for the Management of Lipid Levels in Hyperlipidemia

BACKGROUND

The proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors evolocumab and alirocumab substantially reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) when added to statin therapy in patients who need additional LDL-C reduction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials of lipid-lowering therapies from database inception through August 2016 (45 058 records retrieved). We found 69 trials of lipid-lowering therapies that enrolled patients requiring further LDL-C reduction while on maximally tolerated medium- or high-intensity statin, of which 15 could be relevant for inclusion in LDL-C reduction networks with evolocumab, alirocumab, ezetimibe, and placebo as treatment arms. PCSK9 inhibitors significantly reduced LDL-C by 54% to 74% versus placebo and 26% to 46% versus ezetimibe. There were significant treatment differences for evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks at the mean of weeks 10 and 12 versus placebo (-74.1%; 95% credible interval -79.81% to -68.58%), alirocumab 75 mg (-20.03%; 95% credible interval -27.32% to -12.96%), and alirocumab 150 mg (-13.63%; 95% credible interval -22.43% to -5.33%) at ≥12 weeks. Treatment differences were similar in direction and magnitude for PCSK9 inhibitor monthly dosing. Adverse events were similar between PCSK9 inhibitors and control. Rates of adverse events were similar between PCSK9 inhibitors versus placebo or ezetimibe.

CONCLUSIONS

PCSK9 inhibitors added to medium- to high-intensity statin therapy significantly reduce LDL-C in patients requiring further LDL-C reduction. The network meta-analysis showed a significant treatment difference in LDL-C reduction for evolocumab versus alirocumab.

Effect of ezetimibe add-on therapy over 52 weeks extension analysis of prospective randomized trial (RESEARCH study) in type 2 diabetes subjects

BACKGROUND

Lowering cholesterol levels decreases the risk of atherosclerotic diseases. Effective ways to stably reduce LDL-C level are warranted in type 2 diabetic patients, a high-risk population for CVD, with various anti-diabetic therapeutic background. The RESEARCH study focuses on LDL-C reduction in this population along with modifications of the lipid profiles. We evaluated long-term ezetimibe add-on therapy in T2DM patients with hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

In a randomized, multicenter, open-label, prospective study, a total of 109 T2DM patients not attaining LDL-C target value despite first-line dose statin (10 mg of atorvastatin or 1 mg of pitavastatin) therapy in Japan were recruited. We investigated the difference in cholesterol lowering effect between ezetimibe (10 mg) add-on statin (EAT) group and double-dose statin (DST) group. Changes of parameters related to atherosclerotic event risks were assessed.

RESULTS

The reduction of LDL-C was larger in the EAT group (28.3%) than in the DST group (9.2%) at 52 weeks as well as the primary endpoint of 12 weeks. EAT achieved significant lower levels of TC and apo B, respectively. Both treatments attained significant reduction in sd-LDL-C or hsCRP on this long-term basis. Notably, sd-LDL-C in EAT reduced as low as 36.1 ± 14.9 mg/dl to reach near the threshold (35.0 mg/dl) for atherosclerosis with significantly higher achievement rate (55.6%) than DST treatment. Simultaneously, hsCRP reduction by EAT attained as low value as 0.52 ± 0.43 mg/l.

CONCLUSIONS

In the present 52-week long-term period, ezetimibe add-on therapy showed a robust advantage in lowering LDL-C and in attaining target LDL-C values compared with the doubling of statin dose. Moreover, it's meaningful that sd-LDL, powerfully atherogenic lipoprotein, exhibited prominent decrease consistently prominently by ezetimibe add-on therapy. DM patients with hypercholesterolemia are at high risk for CAD, and adding ezetimibe onto usual-dose statin treatment in Japan has been suggested as the first-line therapy for those DM patients who failed to attain the target LDL-C value (UMIN000002593).

Combination therapy with ezetimibe and simvastatin to achieve aggressive LDL reduction

A low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goal of less than 100 mg/dl is recommended for patients at moderate to high risk of cardiovascular disease with an optional LDL goal of less than 70 mg/dl for patients at a very high risk of cardiovascular disease. Most patients will require reductions in LDL of more than 50% in order to achieve these more aggressive goals. Only a few agents will lower LDL by at least 50%. This review will focus on the efficacy and safety ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministered as a therapy with enhanced LDL-lowering efficacy, while minimizing the adverse effects of statins in a wide range of patients. Ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 80 mg lowers LDL by approximately 60% and has been demonstrated to be superior to the highest doses of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin for lowering LDL and raising high-density lipoprotein.

A Clinical Review of Statin-Associated Myopathy

Objective: To review the epidemiology, clinical features, proposed mechanisms, risk factors, and management of statin-associated myopathy. Data Sources: Literature searches were conducted in PubMed (1948 to April 2013), TOXLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to April 2013), and Google Scholar using the terms statin, hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, myopathy, myalgia, safety, and rhabdomyolysis. Results were limited to English publications. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All relevant original studies, guidelines, meta-analyses, and reviews of statin-associated myopathy and safety of statins were assessed for inclusion. References from selected articles were reviewed to identify additional citations. Data Synthesis: The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors remain one of the most effective medications for reducing low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol. Statins are well tolerated by most patients; however, it is estimated that 10% to 15% of patients develop statin-related muscle adverse effects known as statin-associated myopathy. Although clinicians may be aware of statin-associated myopathy, they may not be aware of its clinical presentation. Providers should assess individual patient risk factors before choosing the appropriate statin. A variety of skeletal muscle aches that may not present as a danger to the patient, may affect patient adherence and quality of life. There are several steps that providers can take to properly treat and manage patients with myalgia complaints. Conclusions: Statin-associated myopathy is a clinical problem that contributes to statin therapy discontinuation. Patients who are statin intolerant may be treated with alternative treatment options such as low-dose statins, switching statins, using alternative dosing strategies in statins with longer half-lives, non-statin lipid-lowering agents, and complementary therapies.

The efficacy of Ezetimibe added to ongoing Fibrate-Statin therapy on postprandial lipid profile in the patients with type 2 Diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia in diabetes mellitus can be followed by endothelial dysfunction, impaired vascular compliance and increased cardiovascular complications. So focus on better control of postprandial hypertriglyceridemia is as important as controlling fasting triglyceride level in type 2 DM.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of ezetimibe adding to fibrate or statin on postprandial hypertriglyceridemia.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled clinical trial, 47 subjects with type 2 diabetes and hypertiglyceridemia were enrolled and divided in three treatment groups including Gemfibrozil 1200mg/d + placebo(group A), Ezetimibe10mg/d + Gemfibrozile 1200mg/d(group B) or Ezetimibe10mg/d + Atorvastatin10mg/d (group C) for a 6- week period. Oral fat loading test were performed in the initiation and also at the end of the study and lipid profile and APOB were measured.

RESULTS

Fasting and postprandial serum triglyceride (TG) decreased significantly with all the three treatment groups with no difference between them in the percent of TG reduction. Although serum total cholesterol decreased significantly in all the three groups of treatment its reduction was more prominent in group C(-38.1% ± 11.2%in group C vs. -16.5% ± 19.6% and -7.2% ± 10.7% in groups B & A respectively, p < 0.0001 ). Fasting serum HDL increased significantly only by Gemfibrozil (23.4% ± 28.4% vs. 6.4% ± 18.9% and 1.8% ± 17.7%, p < 0.05 ). Fasting serum APOB was reduced only in ezetimibe containing groups (B &C).

CONCLUSION

Adding ezetimibe to gemfibrozil has no additional effect on reducing postprandial TG but ezetimibe can potentiate the effect of low-dose atorvastatin on lowering TG and LDL-c.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin: a guide to its clinical use in hypercholesterolemia

Ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy combines two lipid-lowering compounds with complementary mechanisms of action, thereby blocking the two sources of plasma cholesterol and improving lipid profiles. Ezetimibe/simvastatin is an effective and generally well tolerated adjunct to dietary therapy for markedly reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and improving other lipid parameters across diverse patient populations. Dual treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin is more effective than monotherapy with an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin), and the addition of ezetimibe to current statin therapy is more effective than doubling the statin dose.

Double-dose pravastatin versus add-on ezetimibe with low-dose pravastatin - effects on LDL cholesterol, cholesterol absorption, and cholesterol synthesis in Japanese patients with hypercholesterolemia (PEAS study)

AIM

This study compared the effect of doubling the dose of pravastatin with that of adding ezetimibe to low-dose pravastatin on the LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) level and on cholesterol absorption and synthesis markers. The tolerability of the 2 regimens was also compared.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, open-label, parallel-group trial. Subjects were aged from 20 to 74 years and had an LDL-C ≥ 120 mg/dL despite pravastatin therapy at 5-10 mg/day. They were randomly allocated to receive either add-on ezetimibe (10 mg/day) or double-dose pravastatin, and follow-up was performed for 12 weeks. The primary endpoints were the changes of LDL-C and apolipoprotein (apo) B levels after 12 weeks of treatment. Cholesterol absorption and synthesis markers were also determined.

RESULTS

LDL-C and apo B decreased by 16% and 14% in the ezetimibe add-on group versus 5.9% and 4.4%, respectively, in the pravastatin double-dose group. The between-group differences of these decreases were highly significant. Cholesterol absorption markers (sitosterol, campesterol, and cholestanol) were reduced by 48%, 36%, and 10%, respectively, in the ezetimibe add-on group, and were increased by 17%, 14%, and 6%, respectively, in the pravastatin double-dose group. Lathosterol (a cholesterol synthesis marker) increased by 76% in the ezetimibe add-on group and by 24% in the pravastatin double-dose group. The difference was statistically significant. No serious adverse effect was observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ezetimibe to low-dose pravastatin achieves greater decreases in LDL-C, apo B, and cholesterol absorption markers than doubling the dose of pravastatin.

Intestinal sterol transporters and cholesterol absorption inhibition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Statin therapy is the mainstay of lipid-lowering therapy; however, many patients, particularly those at high risk, do not achieve sufficient LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering. Thus, there remains an unmet medical need for more effective and well tolerated lipid-lowering agents. Guidelines recommend combining additional lipid-lowering agents with a complementary mode of action for these patients. One approach to complementing statin therapy is combination with inhibitors that block the intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol. This review summarizes what is currently known about intestinal sterol transporters and cholesterol absorption inhibitors (CAIs).

RECENT FINDINGS

The only lipid-lowering agent currently available that specifically targets an intestinal sterol transporter (Niemann-Pick C1-like 1) is the CAI, ezetimibe. It is effective in lowering LDL-C, both when given alone and when combined with a statin. Clinical outcome data with ezetimibe combined with simvastatin have recently become available, and definitive evidence that the incremental LDL-C lowering attributable to the ezetimibe component reduces cardiovascular events beyond simvastatin alone is currently under study. Other novel CAIs have been evaluated based upon the structure and properties of ezetimibe, but none remain in development.

SUMMARY

Additional lipid-lowering agents are needed to fulfill an unmet medical need for those patients who do not achieve optimal LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy. The inhibition of cholesterol absorption is an important therapeutic strategy to reduce cholesterol levels. Based upon the demonstrated lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe, several CAIs have been identified; all to date have been discontinued due to limited efficacy.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Changes in cholesterol absorption and cholesterol synthesis caused by ezetimibe and/or simvastatin in men

This study evaluates changes in cholesterol balance in hypercholesterolemic subjects following treatment with an inhibitor of cholesterol absorption or cholesterol synthesis or coadministration of both agents. This was a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled, four-period crossover study to evaluate the effects of coadministering 10 mg ezetimibe with 20 mg simvastatin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) on cholesterol absorption and synthesis relative to either drug alone or placebo in 41 subjects. Each treatment period lasted 7 weeks. Ezetimibe and ezetimibe/simvastatin decreased fractional cholesterol absorption by 65% and 59%, respectively (P < 0.001 for both relative to placebo). Simvastatin did not significantly affect cholesterol absorption. Ezetimibe and ezetimibe/simvastatin increased fecal sterol excretion (corrected for dietary cholesterol), which also represents net steady state cholesterol synthesis, by 109% and 79%, respectively (P < 0.001). Ezetimibe, simvastatin, and ezetimibe/simvastatin decreased plasma LDL-cholesterol by 20, 38, and 55%, respectively. The coadministered therapy was well tolerated. The decreases in net cholesterol synthesis and increased fecal sterol excretion yielded nearly additive reductions in LDL-cholesterol for the coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Long-term (48-week) safety of ezetimibe 10 mg/day coadministered with simvastatin compared to simvastatin alone in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministration therapy compared to simvastatin monotherapy in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

After completing a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial, 10-armed study comparing ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg; or placebo, 768 patients entered a 48-week extension, with randomized, blinded, reassignment of the simvastatin 10 mg, ezetimibe, and placebo groups to one of the ezetimibe/simvastatin groups. Patients previously receiving ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapy, or simvastatin 20, 40, and 80 mg monotherapy continued the same therapies in this 7-arm extension study. During the extension study, investigators assessed adverse events (AEs).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Ezetimibe/simvastatin (n = 539) and simvastatin monotherapy (n = 229) groups generally had a similar incidence of all clinical AEs (73 vs. 69%), treatment-related AEs (14 vs. 11%), clinical serious AEs (SAE) (5.2 vs. 2.6%), treatment-related SAEs (0.2 vs. 0%), discontinuations due to all clinical AEs (4.5 vs. 2.6%) and discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs (2.8 vs. 2.2%), respectively. The incidence of total laboratory-related AEs for the ezetimibe/simvastatin and simvastatin monotherapy groups was also similar (12.2 vs. 11.9%), as was treatment-related laboratory AEs (6.2 vs. 5.3%), laboratory SAEs (0 vs. 0%), treatment-related laboratory SAEs (0 vs. 0%), discontinuations due to laboratory AEs (3.0 vs. 0.9%) and discontinuations due to treatment-related laboratory AEs (3.0 vs. 0.4%), respectively. There were no cases of myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, or serious hepatotoxicity observed in any group during this extension study.

CONCLUSIONS

During this 48-week extension study, the coadministration of ezetimibe/simvastatin was generally as well tolerated as simvastatin monotherapy. The direct application of study observations to clinical practice is limited by patient selection criteria and dosage regime, which randomly applied relatively high doses rather than titration which often occurs in clinical practice.

Review of side-effect profile of combination ezetimibe and statin therapy in randomized clinical trials

Effective treatment to achieve target lipid parameters in high-risk patients may require combination drug therapies. Concerns regarding risks associated with such combination therapies may limit their use. A systematic overview of randomized controlled trials to assess risks associated with combination statin and ezetimibe therapy was performed. Eighteen trials were identified, including 14,471 patients. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 48 weeks. Compared with statin monotherapy, combination therapy did not result in significant absolute increases in risks of myalgias (risk difference -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.06 to -0.01), creatine kinase increases (risk difference 0.011, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04), rhabdomyolysis (risk difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.004), transaminase increases (risk difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.005), gastrointestinal adverse events (risk difference 0.005, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04), or discontinuations because of an adverse event (risk difference -0.005, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02). In conclusion, based on available randomized trials, the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy did not increase the risk of myalgias, creatine kinase increases, rhabdomyolysis, transaminase increases, gastrointestinal adverse events, or discontinuations because of an adverse event. Additional trials are necessary to ensure that results of clinical trials are consistent with routine clinical practice, particularly in older patients with more co-morbid conditions and patients on higher statin doses.

Ezetimibe: cholesterol lowering and beyond

Ezetimibe is a cholesterol absorption inhibitor that blocks the intestinal absorption of both biliary and dietary cholesterol. It appears to exert its effect by blocking intestinal sterol transporters, specifically Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 proteins, thereby inhibiting the intestinal absorption of cholesterol, phytosterols and certain oxysterols. Ezetimibe monotherapy and in combination with statin therapy is primarily indicated for lowering LDL-cholesterol levels. In addition, it may favorably affect other parameters that could potentially further reduce atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk, such as raising HDL-cholesterol and lowering levels of triglycerides, non-HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and remnant-like particle cholesterol. Further effects of ezetimibe include a reduction in circulating phytosterols and oxysterols and, when used in combination with statins, a reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The clinical significance of the LDL-cholesterol lowering and other effects of ezetimibe is being evaluated in clinical outcome studies.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and ezetimibe plus statin therapy in patients aged under 65, 65–74 and 75 years and older

Although the greatest burden of cardiovascular disease occurs after age 65 years, limited efficacy and safety data are available for cholesterol-lowering drugs in elderly patients. We undertook a pooled analysis of individual data from 13,282 patients aged 18–93 years in 16 published trials of ezetimibe and ezetimibe added on to or coadministered with a statin (ezetimibe/statin). Overall, ezetimibe reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 20% compared with placebo and ezetimibe/statin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 17% compared with a statin alone, with consistent treatment effects across age groups (<65, 65–74 and ≥75 years). Rates of any adverse or drug-related adverse events were also similar across age groups. We conclude that the lipid efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and ezetimibe/statin in those aged 65–74 and 75 years and older are similar to those observed in patients aged under 65 years.

A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind 14-week extension study examining the long-term safety and efficacy profile of the ezetimibe/simvastatin combination tablet

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) tablet and SIMVA monotherapy. This was an extension study of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. Protocol-compliant patients who completed the 12-week base study were eligible to enter a randomised, double-blind, 14-week extension study and were administered 1 of 8 daily treatments: EZE/SIMVA 10/10-, 10/20-, 10/40- or 10/80-mg, or SIMVA 10-, 20-, 40- or 80-mg. Patients receiving these treatments during the base study remained on the same treatment in the extension. Patients administered placebo or EZE 10-mg monotherapy during the base study were re-randomised to EZE/SIMVA 10/10 mg or SIMVA 80 mg. The primary analysis was mean per cent change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline to extension study end-point. Mean changes from baseline in LDL-C of -38.8% and -53.7% were observed for pooled SIMVA and pooled EZE/SIMVA respectively. The between treatment difference of -14.9% (95% confidence interval: -16.4, -13.3) was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The incremental LDL-C lowering effect of EZE/SIMVA compared with the corresponding dose of SIMVA alone was consistent across the dose range (p < 0.001 for each between-group comparison). More patients receiving EZE/SIMVA than SIMVA achieved LDL-C concentrations < 100 mg/dl and < 70 mg/dl (p < 0.001 for both goals). EZE/SIMVA was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to SIMVA monotherapy. There were no significant between-group differences in the incidences of clinically significant elevations in liver transaminase or creatine kinase levels. In conclusion, EZE/SIMVA had a comparable safety and tolerability profile and was more efficacious than SIMVA monotherapy for up to 6 months.

The effect of simvastatin, ezetimibe and their combination on the lipid profile, arterial stiffness and inflammatory markers

OBJECTIVE

Arterial stiffness and highly sensitive C-reactive protein (hsCRP) serum level predict the risk for cardiovascular events. The most commonly used drugs for lowering cholesterol levels, the statins, also have anti-inflammatory effects and can decrease arterial stiffness. Ezetimibe is the first drug of a new class of cholesterol absorption inhibitors in common use and, to date, its effect on arterial stiffness has not yet been studied. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of simvastatin and ezetimibe, both singly and in combination, on arterial stiffness and hsCRP serum concentration in hypercholesterolemic patients.

METHODS

Forty hypercholesterolemic patients were studied. Group1 comprised previously untreated patients, who received simvastatin at doses of 40 mg/day during the study; group 2 comprised patients previously treated with simvastatin at 40 mg/day, who received simvastatin at 80 mg/day during the study; group 3 consisted of patients previously untreated, who received ezetimibe at doses of 10 mg/day during the study; group 4 comprised patients previously treated with simvastatin at 40 mg/day, who received simvastatin at 40 mg/day and ezetimibe at 10 mg/day during the study. Arterial stiffness expressed as the Augmentation Index (AIx) (assessed by pulse wave analysis), the lipid profile and the hsCRP level were measured at baseline and after 3 months of treatment.

RESULTS

The reduction in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) after treatment was significantly greater in groups 1 and 4 (39.9 and 35.7%) than in groups 2 and 3 (17.7 and 16.9%; p = 0.005). The AIx decreased significantly only in group 1 patients, from 30.2 +/- 8.3% before treatment to 21.6 +/- 6.5% after treatment (p < 0.001). Changes in hsCRP paralleled the changes in AIx, with a significant decrease in patients in group 1 only, from 2.8 +/- 2.5 mg/L before treatment to 1.6 +/- 1.5 mg/L after treatment (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe as a monotherapy had no effect on arterial stiffness or hsCRP, while the administration of simvastatin at 40 mg per day improved arterial stiffness and CRP. However, increasing the dose of simvastatin or administering ezetimibe in combination with simvastatin had no beneficial effects on arterial stiffness.

Non-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-associated actions of ezetimibe: an overview

Ezetimibe, an intestinal cholesterol absorption inhibitor, lowers circulating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels both when administered as monotherapy and in combination with other hypolipidaemic drugs, mostly statins. This review focuses on the effects of ezetimibe on non-LDL-C-associated variables. In most studies, ezetimibe effectively reduced triglyceride and increased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The authors also consider the effect of ezetimibe on other variables such as C-reactive protein levels, insulin sensitivity and endothelial function. Ezetimibe is useful in patients with sitosterolaemia (a rare inherited disorder) as it significantly reduces plasma phytosterol concentrations. Ezetimibe fulfils two of the three essential characteristics of any drug (efficacy and safety). However, clinical studies are required to provide evidence of its ability to reduce vascular events.

Statins and myotoxicity: a therapeutic limitation

Hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors represent the most successful class of drugs for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia and dyslipidaemia implicated in the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease and atherosclerosis. However, the popular profile of statins in terms of efficacy has been maligned by its adverse events. The myotoxicity, ranging from mild myopathy to serious rhabdomyolysis, associated with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, during treatment of hypercholesterolaemia is of paramount importance. Rhabdomyolysis is a rare but idiosyncratic muscle wasting disorder of different etiologies. Statin-associated rhabdomyolysis causes skeletal muscle injury by self-perpetuating events leading to fatal irreversible renal damage through a series of biochemical reactions. Preferential distribution and action of statins in liver could be the key to minimise myotoxicity concerns. Hepato-specific distribution of statins is governed by various factors such as physicochemical properties, pharmacokinetic properties and selective transporter-mediated uptake in liver rather in extrahepatic cells. The interactions of statins with concomitant drugs of different classes merit attention for their safety profile. Although pharmacokinetic as well as pharmacodynamic interactions have been implicated in pathophysiology of statin-induced muscle wasting, the underlying mechanism is not clearly understood. Besides, pharmacokinetic and phramcodynamic factors, statin-associated myotoxcity may also implicate pharmacogenomic factors. The pharmacogenomics characterised by CYP polymorphism and other genetic factors is responsible for inter-individual variations to efficacy and tolerability of statins. The pathophysiological mechanisms may include statin-induced differences in cholesterol:phospholipid ratio, isoprenoid levels, small GTP binding proteins and apoptosis. However, the present understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms, does not offer a reliable approach to address the same at preclinical level. Although statin-associated myotoxicity affects compliance, quality of life of patient and discontinuation rate, yet the low incidence of myotoxicty including rhabdomyolysis and less severity of commonly occurring myopathy and myalgia do not raise doubts about the clinical efficacy and tolerability of statins. Medical management of myotoxicity seems to be pivotal for the proper compliance of patients with statin treatment. The appropriate and judicious use of drugs would substantially reduce the likelihood of developing clinically important myopathy.

Pharmacological regulation of low density lipoprotein receptor expression: Current status and future developments

Plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol are considered to be a major risk factor for the development of cardiovascular diseases. The LDL receptor is the key component in the maintenance of cholesterol homeostasis in the body, playing a pivotal role by regulating the hepatic catabolism of LDL cholesterol. Many clinical studies using statins, which up-regulate the LDL receptor expression via a feedback mechanism, have demonstrated that the reduction of LDL cholesterol levels lowers the incidence of cardiovascular events in both primary and secondary prevention. In this context, new strategies designed to increase hepatic LDL receptor activity can be considered as attractive opportunities for future therapy. Several potential new drugs have been described in the last decade to up-regulate LDL receptor expression in vitro and in vivo, thus allowing the identification of new transcriptional and post-transcriptional mechanisms.

Coronary artery disease prognosis and C-reactive protein levels improve in proportion to percent lowering of low-density lipoprotein

This editorial outlines the data supporting aggressive lipid goals and options for treating low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol to a range of approximately 30 to 70 mg/dl. The physiologically normal cholesterol range is approximately 30 to 70 mg/dl for native hunter-gatherers, healthy human neonates, free-living primates, and virtually all wild mammals. Randomized statin trials in patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and stable coronary artery disease have demonstrated that cardiovascular events are reduced and cardiovascular survival optimized when LDL cholesterol is reduced to <70 mg/dl. Secondary prevention trials have shown a decrease in all-cause mortality in proportion to the magnitude of LDL cholesterol reduction. An original analysis of available data shows that the ability of a lipid-lowering therapy to reduce the C-reactive protein level is closely correlated with its efficacy in LDL cholesterol reduction. Randomized trial data have shown no relation between either percentage LDL cholesterol decrease or final LDL cholesterol level achieved and the risk for myopathy or hepatic transaminase elevations associated with statins. Therefore, intensive LDL cholesterol reduction to levels of 30 to 70 mg/dl should be pursued in subjects with or at high risk for coronary artery disease.

Comparison of the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profiles of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in older versus younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: A post Hoc analysis of subpopulations from three pooled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the need for effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapies for primary hypercholesterolemia in older patients, there is a relative paucity of published data on such treatments in this population.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a post hoc analysis to examine the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profile of simvastatin (SIMVA) monotherapy, and the coadministration of ezetimibe (EZE) and SIMVA (EZE/SIMVA) in older (ie, aged>or=65 years) versus younger (ie, aged<65 years) patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

We analyzed pooled data from 3 previously published, similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After a 6- to 8-week washout, a 4-week dietary stabilization period, and a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 145 to 250 mg/dL were randomized to EZE/SIMVA 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg; SIMVA 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; EZE 10 mg; or placebo for 12 weeks. In this post hoc analysis, the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B (apo B), triglycerides (TG), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) for EZE/SIMVA (pooled across doses) versus SIMVA alone (pooled across doses) was compared between older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Tolerability was assessed by adverse event reports and laboratory and vital signs assessments throughout the study.

RESULTS

A total of 3083 patients aged 20 to 87 years were included in the 3 studies (2320 were aged<65 years and 763 were aged>or=65 years). Baseline lipid values and patient characteristics were similar among all treatment groups for patients aged<65 years versus those aged>or=65 years except that there was a higher percentage of females (62% vs 50%) and patients with hypertension (46% vs 29%) in the older versus younger subgroup (both, P<0.001). EZE/SIMVA was associated with greater improvements than SIMVA alone in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, TG, and hs-CRP (all, P<0.001); these effects did not appear to differ between the older and younger sub-groups (all, P=NS). Changes in HDL-C did not differ significantly between the EZE/SIMVA and SIMVA groups. More patients receiving EZE/SIMVA than SIMVA monotherapy achieved the target LDL-C level<100 mg/dL (P<0.001), regardless of age subgroup (77% vs 41% for patients aged<65 years and 85% vs 48% for patients aged>or=65 years). In the younger sub-group, the incidence of creatinine phosphokinase (CK) elevations>or=10x the upper limit of normal (ULN) was <I% in the placebo, SIMVA, and EZE/SIMVA groups and 0% in the EZE group; in the older subgroup, no CK elevations>or=10x ULN were reported. In younger patients, the incidence of consecutive alanine amino-transferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels>or=3x ULN was 0% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 2% for EZE/SIMVA; in older patients, it was 1% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 0% for EZE/SIMVA.

CONCLUSION

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 previously published large clinical trials suggests that EZE/SIMVA was well tolerated and associated with improved lipid profiles in both older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Reaching goal in hypercholesterolaemia: dual inhibition of cholesterol synthesis and absorption with simvastatin plus ezetimibe

Lowering serum cholesterol levels reduces the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD)-related events. Statins are commonly prescribed as first-line treatment but many patients at high-risk for CHD still fail to reach their cholesterol or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with statin monotherapy. National and international guidelines for the prevention of CHD recommend the modification of lipid profiles and particularly LDL-C [e.g. the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III; 2001) and Third Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (2003) Guidelines]. Several recent clinical trials indicated an added benefit from aggressive lowering of LDL-C levels. Based on these findings, the NCEP ATP III revised the LDL-C target from < 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) to < 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) (optional target) for very high-risk patients and < 130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L) to < 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) for moderately high-risk patients. For patients who fail to achieve their LDL-C target, inhibiting the two main sources of cholesterol - synthesis and uptake - can produce more effective lipid lowering, allowing more patients to reach their LDL-C goal. Ezetimibe is a highly-selective inhibitor of cholesterol absorption and simvastatin is an evidence-based inhibitor of cholesterol synthesis. The LDL-C-lowering efficacy of targeting both major sources of cholesterol with ezetimibe plus simvastatin was demonstrated in several multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with hypercholesterolaemia. For patients who do not reach their cholesterol goal with a statin, adding ezetimibe 10 mg significantly reduces LDL-C compared with statin monotherapy. Thus, this treatment option may help patients reach the new 'stricter' cholesterol goals. This review, based on a Medline database search from January 2000 to August 2005, considers the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe and discusses the role of this agent for patients who fail to achieve guideline cholesterol goals with statin monotherapy.

Liquid chromatography–negative ion electrospray tandem mass spectrometry method for the quantification of ezetimibe in human plasma

A simple, reliable and sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method (LC-MS/MS) was developed and validated for quantification of free and total ezetimibe in human plasma. The analyte and internal standard (13C6-ezetimibe) were extracted by liquid-liquid extraction with methyl tert-butyl ether. The reversed-phase chromatographic separation was performed on a Capcell C18 column, and the plasma extract was eluted with a gradient consisting of acetonitrile and 5 mM ammonium acetate. The analyte was detected using negative ionization by multiple reaction monitoring mode. The mass transition pairs of m/z 408.5-->270.8 and m/z 414.5-->276.8 were used to detect ezetimibe and internal standard, respectively. The assay exhibited linear ranges from 0.02 to 20 ng/ml for free ezetimibe and 0.25 to 250 ng/ml for total ezetimibe in human plasma. Acceptable precision and accuracy were obtained for concentrations of the calibration standard and quality control. The validated method was successfully used to analyze human plasma samples for application in a pharmacokinetic study.

Inhibition of lipid synthesis through activation of AMP kinase: an additional mechanism for the hypolipidemic effects of berberine

The alkaloid drug berberine (BBR) was recently described to decrease plasma cholesterol and triglycerides (TGs) in hypercholesterolemic patients by increasing expression of the hepatic low density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR). Using HepG2 human hepatoma cells, we found that BBR inhibits cholesterol and TG synthesis in a similar manner to the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) activator 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide 1-beta-ribofuranoside (AICAR). Significant increases in AMPK phosphorylation and AMPK activity were observed when the cells were incubated with BBR. Activation of AMPK was also demonstrated by measuring the phosphorylation of acetyl-CoA carboxylase, a substrate of AMPK, correlated with a subsequent increase in fatty acid oxidation. All of these effects were abolished by the mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase inhibitor PD98059. Treatment of hyperlipidemic hamsters with BBR decreased plasma LDL cholesterol and strongly reduced fat storage in the liver. These findings indicate that BBR, in addition to upregulating the LDLR, inhibits lipid synthesis in human hepatocytes through the activation of AMPK. These effects could account for the strong reduction of plasma TGs observed with this drug in clinical trials.

Cardiología preventiva y rehabilitación

Preventive cardiology occupies a central place in medicine today. The subject monopolizes a large proportion of epidemiological studies and clinical trials involving a range of drugs. Moreover, preventive cardiology provided the initial impetus for regarding genetic epidemiology as a basis for disease prevention. The aim of this article was to summarize just some of the publications that have appeared during the last few months, with special emphases on obesity and diabetes mellitus as the pre-eminent risk factors for disease, and on their combination as part of the so-called metabolic syndrome.

Beyond guidelines: achieving the optimum in LDL cholesterol control

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite clear treatment guidelines, a major part of the population is not achieving the recommended LDL cholesterol target levels. This fact is more prominent among high-risk populations in which the majority of patients are untreated or undertreated.

RECENT FINDINGS

The review will elaborate on the key issues of treating large populations: patient compliance, drug efficacy, cost-benefit, and physician quality of care.

SUMMARY

A programme aimed at improving control of hyperlipidemia should address all four issues. The primary care physician should be empowered and given tools for optimizing treatment.

Optimal lipid modification: the rationale for combination therapy

BACKGROUND

An emphasis on more aggressive lipid-lowering, particularly of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, to improve patient outcomes has led to an increased use of combination lipid-lowering drugs. This strategy, while potentially beneficial, has triggered concerns regarding fears of adverse effects, harmful drug interactions, and patient nonadherence.

OBJECTIVE

To present key data regarding combination lipid-altering therapy including use, rationale, major trials, benefits, potential adverse effects, compliance issues, and limitations.

METHOD

Literature was obtained from MEDLINE (1966 - June 2005) and references from selected articles.

RESULTS

A substantial body of evidence from epidemiological data and clinical trials indicates that aggressive lipid modification, especially low-density lipoprotein reduction, is associated with reduced cardiovascular events. Numerous studies utilizing various combinations of cholesterol-lowering agents including statin/fibrate, statin/niacin, statin/bile acid resin, and statin/ezetimibe have demonstrated significant changes in the lipid profile with acceptable safety. Long-term trials of combination therapy evaluating clinical outcomes or surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease, while limited, are promising.

CONCLUSION

Combining lipid-altering agents results in additional improvements in lipoproteins and has the potential to further reduce cardiovascular events beyond that of monotherapy.