Impact of Ezetimibe Coadministered With Statins on Cardiovascular Events Following Acute Coronary Syndrome: A 3-Year Population-Based Retrospective Cohort Study in Taiwan

Risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients with cervical spondylosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Cervical spondylosis (CS) is reported to be associated with increased sympathetic activity and hypertension. However, the cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of patients with CS are largely unknown.

METHODS

A national insurance claims dataset of 22 million enrollees in Taiwan during 1999-2010 was used as the research database. We identified 27,948 patients with CS and age-, sex-, and comorbidity-matched controls. By using multivariate logistic regression analysis after adjustment for potential cardiovascular (CV) confounders, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to quantify the association between CS and acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

RESULTS

A total of 744 ACS events were identified among the 27,948 patients with CS. The overall incidence of ACS was 4.27 per 1000 person-years in the CS cohort and 3.90 per 1000 person-years in the non-CS cohort, with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.13 (95% CI = 1.08-1.18). The aHRs of ACS were 1.08 (95% CI = 1.03-1.15) in the CS cohort without myelopathy and 1.20 (95% CI = 1.13-1.28) in the CS cohort with myelopathy, compared with the non-CS cohort. Compared with patients with CS without neurological signs, patients with CS receiving rehabilitation exhibited a 0.67 aHRs of ACS (95% CI = 0.59-0.76), whereas those with neurological signs receiving spinal decompression exhibited 0.73 aHRs of ACS (95% CI = 0.63-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

CS is associated with an increased risk of ACS. Receiving treatment for CS, either rehabilitation or spinal decompression, is associated with less risk of ACS.

Ezetimibe Attenuates Atherosclerosis Associated with Lipid Reduction and Inflammation Inhibition

Background

Ezetimibe, as a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, has been shown protecting against atherosclerosis when combined with statin. However, side by side comparison has not been made to evaluate the beneficial effects of ezetimibe alone versus statin. Herein, the study aimed to test whether ezetimibe alone would exhibit similar effects as statin and the combination therapy would be necessary in a moderate lesion size.

Methods and Results

ApoE-/- male mice that were fed a saturated-fat supplemented diet were randomly assigned to different therapeutic regimens: vehicle, ezetimibe alone (10 mg/kg/day), atorvastatin (20 mg/kg/day) or combination of ezetimibe and atorvastatin through the drinking water. On 28 days, mice were sacrificed and aorta and sera were collected to analyze the atherosclerotic lesion and blood lipid and cholesterol levels. As a result, ezetimibe alone exerted similar protective effects on atherosclerotic lesion sizes as atorvastatin, which was mediated by lowering serum cholesterol concentrations, inhibiting macrophage accumulation in the lesions and reducing circulatory inflammatory cytokines, such as monocyte chemoattractant protein (MCP-1) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α). In contrast to ezetimibe administration, atorvastatin alone attenuated atherosclerotic lesion which is dependent on its anti-inflammation effects. There were no significance differences in lesion areas and serum concentrations of cholesterol, oxidized LDL and inflammatory cytokines between combination therapy and monotherapy (either ezetimibe or atorvastatin). There were significant correlations between the lesion areas and serum concentrations of cholesterol, MCP-1 and TNF-α, respectively. However, there were no significant correlations between the lesion areas and serum concentrations of TGF-β1 and oxLDL.

Conclusions

Ezetimibe alone played the same protection against a moderate atherosclerotic lesion as atorvastatin, which was associated with lowering serum cholesterol, decreasing circulating inflammatory cytokines, and inhibiting macrophage accumulation in the lesions.

Impact of combination therapy with statin and ezetimibe on secondary prevention for post-acute myocardial infarction patients in the statin era

BACKGROUND

Little is known concerning the effect of ezetimibe for secondary prevention in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients. In this study, we investigated the secondary prevention effect of ezetimibe for post-MI patients.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of Assessing Lipophilic vs. hydrophilic Statin therapy for Acute MI (ALPS-AMI study). The patients were divided into two groups: those administered a statin to control low density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), the ezetimibe(-) group, and those administered ezetimibe in addition to a statin to control LDL-C, the ezetimibe(+) group. The endpoints were Major Adverse Cardiac and Cerebrovascular Event (MACCE), including all-cause death, recurrence of MI, stroke, and heart failure requiring hospitalization, and MACCE with revascularization.

RESULTS

The ezetimibe(+) and ezetimibe(-) groups contained 113 and 337 patients, respectively. Incidences of MACCE and MACCE with revascularization were lower in the ezetimibe(+) group than in the ezetimibe(-) group (2.6% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.002; 23.0% vs. 36.7%, p = 0.014, respectively). Moreover, logistic regression analysis revealed ezetimibe(+) was a significant negative predictor of MACCE (OR 0.208, 95% CI 0.048 to 0.903, p = 0.047) and MACCE with revascularization (OR 0.463, 95% CI 0.258 to 0.831, p = 0.008). The preventive effect of ezetimibe against MACCE was observed in both moderate- and high-intensity lipid lowering treatment groups (0% vs. 17%; p = 0.077, 3.1% vs. 9.4%; p = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

In lipid-lowering therapy post-MI, ezetimibe and statin combination therapy improved MACCE with or without revascularization compared with statin monotherapy. These findings suggest that post-MI secondary prevention should be more intensive.

Assessment of lipophilic vs. hydrophilic statin therapy in acute myocardial infarction – ALPS-AMI study

BACKGROUND

Statins reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events, but no randomized trial has investigated the best statins for secondary prevention. We compared the efficacy of hydrophilic pravastatin with that of lipophilic atorvastatin in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective, multicenter study enrolled 508 patients (410 men; mean age, 66.0 ± 11.6 years) with AMI who were randomly assigned to atorvastatin (n=255) or pravastatin (n=253). The target control level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was <100 mg/dl, and patients were followed for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the composite of death due to any cause, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, unstable angina or congestive heart failure requiring hospital admission, or any type of coronary revascularization. The primary endpoint occurred in 77 patients (30.4%) and in 80 patients (31.4%) in the pravastatin and atorvastatin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.181; 95% confidence interval: 0.862-1.619; P=0.299), whereas greater reductions in serum total cholesterol and LDL-C were achieved in the atorvastatin group (P<0.001 for each). Changes in hemoglobin A1c, brain natriuretic peptide, and creatinine were not significant between the 2 regimens, and safety and treatment adherence were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

On 2-year comparison of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins there was no significant difference in prevention of secondary cardiovascular outcome.