Effects of fenofibrate and ezetimibe, both as monotherapy and in coadministration, on cholesterol mass within lipoprotein subfractions and low-density lipoprotein peak particle size in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia

The effect of lipid-lowering therapy on lipid-related residual risk factors: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Remnant cholesterol (RC) and nonhigh-density lipoprotein cholesterol (nonHDL-C) are key risk factors for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), with apolipoprotein B (apoB) and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] also contributing to its residual risk. However, real-world population-based evidence regarding the impact of current clinical LDL-C-centric lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) on achieving RC and nonHDL-C goals, as well as on modifying residual CVD risk factors is limited.

METHODS

This prospective observational study enrolled 897 CVD patients from September, 2020 to July, 2021. All participants had previously received low-/moderate-intensity LLT and were discharged with either low-/moderate-intensity LLT or high-intensity LLT. After a median follow-up of 3 months, changes in RC, nonHDL-C, and other biomarkers were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to analyze the impact of the LLT on goal attainment.

RESULTS

Among all patients, 83.50% transitioned to high-intensity LLT from low or moderate. After follow-up, the high-intensity group saw significantly greater reductions in RC (-20.51% vs. -3.90%, P = 0.025), nonHDL-C (-25.12% vs. 0.00%, P < 0.001), apoB (-19.35% vs. -3.17%, P < 0.001), triglycerides (-17.82% vs. -6.62%, P < 0.001), and LDL-C and total cholesterol. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that LDL-C reduction from current LLT was strongly correlated with nonHDL-C reduction (r = 0.87, P < 0.001). Patients who received high-intensity LLT had significant improvements in attainment of RC (from 44.2% to 60.7%, χ² = 39.23, P < 0.001) and nonHDL-C (from 19.4% to 56.9%, χ² = 226.06, P < 0.001) goals. Furthermore, multivariate logistic regression showed that high-intensity LLT was a protective factor for RC [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.45-0.97; P = 0.033] and nonHDL-C goal attainment (OR = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.75; P < 0.001), without a significant increase of adverse reactions.

CONCLUSION

Current levels of clinically prescribed LDL-C-centric treatment can reduce RC and other lipid-related residual risk factors, but high-intensity LLT is better at achieving nonHDL-C and RC goals than low-/moderate-intensity LLT, with a good safety profile. More targeted RC treatments are still needed to reduce residual lipid risk further.

The effect of rosuvastatin alone or in combination with fenofibrate or omega-3 fatty acids on lipoprotein(a) levels in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia

Introduction

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a strong, genetically determined, pathogenetic factor of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The aim of this post-hoc analysis was to compare the effect of hypolipidemic treatment on Lp(a) levels of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

Material and methods

We previously randomized patients with mixed hyperlipidemia (low-density lipoprotein [LDL-C] > 160 mg/dl and triglycerides > 200 mg/dl) to rosuvastatin monotherapy 40 mg/day (R group, n = 30) or rosuvastatin 10 mg/day combined with fenofibrate 200 mg/day (RF group, n = 30) or omega-3 fatty acids 2 g/day (RΩ group, n = 30). In the present post-hoc analysis, we included only the patients whose Lp(a) levels were assessed (16, 16 and 15 in the R, RF and RΩ groups, respectively). Lipid profile and Lp(a) were measured at baseline and after 3 months of treatment.

Results

Significant reductions in total cholesterol, LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and triglyceride levels were observed in all groups. A significant increase in Lp(a) levels was noted in the R (p = 0.017) and RF (p = 0.029) groups, while no significant difference was seen in the RΩ group (p = NS). Regarding Lp(a) elevations, no differences were found between groups. In the R group, a strong negative correlation between the changes in Lp(a) and LDL-C (r = -0.500, p = 0.049) was observed, while a significant negative correlation between the changes in Lp(a) and triglycerides (r = -0.531, p = 0.034) was noted in the RF group.

Conclusions

Rosuvastatin and/or fenofibrate treatment increases Lp(a) levels in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. Novel therapies should target Lp(a) level reduction to decrease the residual ASCVD risk in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor α in Lipoprotein Metabolism and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) are a group of ligand-binding transcription factors with pivotal action in regulating pleiotropic signaling pathways of energetic metabolism, immune responses and cell proliferation and differentiation. A significant body of evidence indicates that the PPARα receptor is an important modulator of plasma lipid and lipoprotein metabolism, with pluripotent effects influencing the lipid and apolipoprotein cargo of both atherogenic and antiatherogenic lipoproteins and their functionality. Clinical evidence supports an important role of PPARα agonists (fibric acid derivatives) in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia and/or low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels, although the effects of clinical trials are contradictory and point to a reduction in the risk of nonfatal and fatal myocardial infarction events. In this manuscript, we provide an up-to-date critical review of the existing relevant literature.

Role of lipoprotein(a) in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: A review of current and emerging therapies

Lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), is structurally like low-density lipoprotein (LDL) but differs in that it contains glycoprotein apolipoprotein(a) [apo(a)]. Due to its prothrombotic and proinflammatory properties, Lp(a) is an independent risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and aortic valve stenosis. Lp(a) levels are genetically determined, and it is estimated that 20%-25% of the global population has an Lp(a) level ≥50 mg/dL (or ≥125 nmol/L). Diet and lifestyle interventions have little to no effect on Lp(a) levels. Lipoprotein apheresis is the only approved treatment for elevated Lp(a) but is time-intensive for the patient and only modestly effective. Pharmacological approaches to reduce Lp(a) levels and its associated risks are of significant interest; however, currently available lipid-lowering therapies have limited effectiveness in reducing Lp(a) levels. Although statins are first-line agents to reduce LDL cholesterol levels, they modestly increase Lp(a) levels and have not been shown to change Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk. Alirocumab, evolocumab, and inclisiran reduce Lp(a) levels by 20-25%, yet the clinical implications of this reduction for Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk are uncertain. Niacin also lowers Lp(a) levels; however, its effectiveness in mitigating Lp(a)-mediated ASCVD risk remains unclear, and its side effects have limited its utilization. Recommendations for when to screen and how to manage individuals with elevated Lp(a) vary widely between national and international guidelines and scientific statements. Three investigational compounds targeting Lp(a), including small interfering RNA (siRNA) agents (olpasiran, SLN360) and an antisense oligonucleotide (pelacarsen), are in various stages of development. These compounds block the translation of messenger RNA (mRNA) into apo(a), a key structural component of Lp(a), thereby substantially reducing Lp(a) synthesis in the liver. The purpose of this review is to describe current recommendations for screening and managing elevated Lp(a), describe the effects of currently available lipid-lowering therapies on Lp(a) levels, and provide insight into emerging therapies targeting Lp(a).

Main differences between two highly effective lipid-lowering therapies in subclasses of lipoproteins in patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background

Large observational studies have shown that small, dense LDL subfractions are related to atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. This study assessed the effects of two highly effective lipid-lowering therapies in the atherogenic subclasses of lipoproteins in subjects with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

Methods

Patients of both sexes admitted with their first myocardial infarction and submitted to pharmacoinvasive strategy (N = 101) were included and randomized using a central computerized system to receive a daily dose of simvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or rosuvastatin 20 mg for 30 days. Intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) subfractions were analysed by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (Lipoprint System) on the first (D1) and 30th days (D30) of lipid-lowering therapy. Changes in LDL and IDL subfractions between D1 and D30 were compared between the lipid-lowering therapies (Mann-Whitney U test).

Results

The classic lipid profile was similar in both therapy arms at D1 and D30. At D30, the achievement of lipid goals was comparable between lipid-lowering therapies. Cholesterol content in atherogenic subclasses of LDL (p = 0.043) and IDL (p = 0.047) decreased more efficiently with simvastatin plus ezetimibe than with rosuvastatin.

Conclusions

Lipid-lowering therapy with simvastatin plus ezetimibe was associated with a better pattern of lipoprotein subfractions than rosuvastatin monotherapy. This finding was noted despite similar effects in the classic lipid profile and may contribute to residual cardiovascular risk.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02428374, registered on 28/09/2014.

Small dense low-density lipoprotein-lowering agents

Metabolic disorders, including obesity, diabetes, and hyperlipidemia, as well as cardiovascular diseases (CVD), particularly atherosclerosis, are still leading causes of death worldwide. Plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) are currently being considered as a critical risk factor for the diseases mentioned above, especially atherosclerosis. Because of the heterogeneous nature of LDL, many studies have already been conducted on its subclasses, especially small dense LDL (sdLDL). According to available evidence, sdLDL levels can be considered as an ideal alternative to LDL levels for monitoring CVD and early diagnosis of atherosclerosis. Recently, several researchers have focused on factors that are able to decrease sdLDL levels and improve health quality. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to describe the production process of sdLDL particles and review the effects of pharmaceutical and dietary agents as well as lifestyle on sdLDL plasma levels. In brief, their mechanisms of action are discussed. Apparently, cholesterol and LDL-lowering compounds are also effective in the reduction of sdLDL levels. In addition, improving lipid profile, especially the reduction of triglyceride levels, appropriate regimen, and lifestyle can decrease sdLDL levels. Therefore, all the aforementioned parameters should be taken into consideration simultaneously in sdLDL levels reducing strategies.

Causes and Consequences of Hypertriglyceridemia

Elevations in plasma triglyceride are the result of overproduction and impaired clearance of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins-very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL) and chylomicrons. Hypertriglyceridemia is characterized by an accumulation in the circulation of large VLDL-VLDL₁-and its lipolytic products, and throughout the VLDL-LDL delipidation cascade perturbations occur that give rise to increased concentrations of remnant lipoproteins and small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL). The elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in hypertriglyceridemia is believed to result from the exposure of the artery wall to these aberrant lipoprotein species. Key regulators of the metabolism of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins have been identified and a number of these are targets for pharmacological intervention. However, a clear picture is yet to emerge as to how to relate triglyceride lowering to reduced risk of atherosclerosis.

Effect of ezetimibe on low- and high-density lipoprotein subclasses in sitosterolemia

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Sitosterolemia displays high plasma total sterols [high plant sterols (PS) + normal to high total cholesterol (TC)] with normal to moderately elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. High LDL, intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) and very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particles, low high-density lipoprotein (HDL), and increased non-HDL and the ratios of TC and triglycerides (TG) to HDL can increase the risk for atherosclerosis. Ezetimibe (EZE) can reduce plasma PS and TC levels in sitosterolemia, but its effect on lipoprotein subclasses has not been previously reported.

METHODS

Sitosterolemia patients (n = 8) were taken off EZE for 14 weeks (OFF EZE) and placed on EZE (10 mg/d) for 14 weeks (ON EZE). Serum lipids were measured enzymatically and lipoprotein subclasses were assessed by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.

RESULTS

EZE reduced (p < 0.05) total sterols (-12.5 ± 4.1%) and LDL-sterol (-22.7 ± 5.7%) and its sterol mass of large VLDL (-24.4 ± 4.5%), VLDL remnants (-21.1 ± 7.9%) and large IDL (-22.4 ± 7.2%) compared to OFF EZE. EZE did not affect large LDL subclasses or mean LDL particle size (273.8 ± 0.6 vs. 274.6 ± 0.3 Å). EZE increased HDL-sterol (25.5 ± 8.0%, p = 0.008) including intermediate (34 ± 14%, p = 0.02) and large (33 ± 16%, p = 0.06) HDL. EZE reduced non-HDL-sterol (-21.8± 5.0%), total sterols/HDL (-28.2 ± 5.5%) and TG/HDL (-27.4 ± 6.5%, all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EZE improves VLDL and HDL subfraction distribution, thereby reducing the atherogenic lipid profile, thus providing potential clinical benefit in sitosterolemia beyond TC and PS reduction.

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

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

Effect of rosuvastatin monotherapy or in combination with fenofibrate or ω-3 fatty acids on lipoprotein subfraction profile in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia and metabolic syndrome

BACKGROUND

Raised triglycerides (TG), decreased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and a predominance of small dense low density lipoproteins (sdLDL) are characteristics of the metabolic syndrome (MetS).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of high-dose rosuvastatin monotherapy with moderate dosing combined with fenofibrate or ω-3 fatty acids on the lipoprotein subfraction profile in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia and MetS.

METHODS

We previously randomised patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > 160 and TG > 200 mg/dl to rosuvastatin monotherapy 40 mg/day (R group, n = 30) or rosuvastatin 10 mg/day combined with fenofibrate 200 mg/day (RF group, n = 30) or ω-3 fatty acids 2 g/day (Rω group, n = 30). In the present study, only patients with MetS were included (24, 23 and 24 in the R, RF and Rω groups respectively). At baseline and after 12 weeks of treatment, the lipoprotein subfraction profile was determined by polyacrylamide 3% gel electrophoresis.

RESULTS

The mean LDL size was significantly increased in all groups. This change was more prominent with RF than with other treatments in parallel with its greater hypotriglyceridemic capacity (p < 0.05 compared with R and Rω). A decrease in insulin resistance by RF was also noted. Only RF significantly raised HDL-C levels (by 7.7%, p < 0.05) by increasing the cholesterol of small HDL particles. The cholesterol of larger HDL subclasses was significantly increased by R and Rω.

CONCLUSIONS

All regimens increased mean LDL size; RF was the most effective. A differential effect of treatments was noted on the HDL subfraction profile.

Kinetic analysis of thermal stability of human low density lipoproteins: a model for LDL fusion in atherogenesis

Fusion of modified LDL in the arterial wall promotes atherogenesis. Earlier we showed that thermal denaturation mimics LDL remodeling and fusion, and revealed kinetic origin of LDL stability. Here we report the first quantitative analysis of LDL thermal stability. Turbidity data show sigmoidal kinetics of LDL heat denaturation, which is unique among lipoproteins, suggesting that fusion is preceded by other structural changes. High activation energy of denaturation, E(a) = 100 ± 8 kcal/mol, indicates disruption of extensive packing interactions in LDL. Size-exclusion chromatography, nondenaturing gel electrophoresis, and negative-stain electron microscopy suggest that LDL dimerization is an early step in thermally induced fusion. Monoclonal antibody binding suggests possible involvement of apoB N-terminal domain in early stages of LDL fusion. LDL fusion accelerates at pH < 7, which may contribute to LDL retention in acidic atherosclerotic lesions. Fusion also accelerates upon increasing LDL concentration in near-physiologic range, which likely contributes to atherogenesis. Thermal stability of LDL decreases with increasing particle size, indicating that the pro-atherogenic properties of small dense LDL do not result from their enhanced fusion. Our work provides the first kinetic approach to measuring LDL stability and suggests that lipid-lowering therapies that reduce LDL concentration but increase the particle size may have opposite effects on LDL fusion.

A review of the role of apolipoprotein C-II in lipoprotein metabolism and cardiovascular disease

The focus of this review is on the role of apolipoprotein C-II (apoC-II) in lipoprotein metabolism and the potential effects on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We searched PubMed/Scopus for articles regarding apoC-II and its role in lipoprotein metabolism and the risk of CVD. Apolipoprotein C-II is a constituent of chylomicrons, very low-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Apolipoprotein C-II contains 3 amphipathic α-helices. The lipid-binding domain of apoC-II is located in the N-terminal, whereas the C-terminal helix of apoC-II is responsible for the interaction with lipoprotein lipase (LPL). At intermediate concentrations (approximately 4 mg/dL) and in normolipidemic subjects, apoC-II activates LPL. In contrast, both an excess and a deficiency of apoC-II are associated with reduced LPL activity and hypertriglyceridemia. Furthermore, excess apoC-II has been associated with increased triglyceride-rich particles and alterations in HDL particle distribution, factors that may increase the risk of CVD. However, there is not enough current evidence to clarify whether increased apoC-II causes hypertriglyceridemia or is an epiphenomenon reflecting hypertriglyceridemia. A number of pharmaceutical interventions, including statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, nicotinic acid, and orlistat, have been shown to reduce the increased apoC-II concentrations. An excess of apoC-II is associated with increased triglyceride-rich particles and alterations in HDL particle distribution. However, prospective trials are needed to assess if apoC-II is a CVD marker or a risk factor in high-risk patients.

Combinations of ezetimibe with nonstatin drug regimens affecting lipid metabolism

In this article we discuss the available data on the effects of combined therapy of ezetimibe with agents affecting lipid metabolism other than statins. We consider studies evaluating the effects of combined therapy of ezetimibe with bile acid sequestrants, fenofibrate, niacin, n-3 fatty acids, plant sterols, orlistat, metformin, acarbose and glitazones. Combination of ezetimibe with bile acid sequestrants (especially colesevelam) was shown to have additional effects on lipid parameters in patients with hyperlipidemia. Combination of ezetimibe with fenofibrate may be a good approach to improve the overall lipid profile of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. The addition of ezetimibe to niacin-based therapy can be useful for high-risk patients with dyslipidemia who are not achieving their assigned treatment goals. For patients who cannot tolerate statins there are useful combinations of ezetimibe with other drugs affecting lipid metabolism. These combinations improve many metabolic parameters, but more trials should be carried out to reach more robust conclusions about their effects on cardiovascular disease prevention.

Fenofibrate plus simvastatin (fixed-dose combination) for the treatment of dyslipidaemia

INTRODUCTION

Statin use results in a significant reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. However, patients still have residual CVD risk, even if they are receiving optimal statin treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This review, based on a Pubmed/Scopus search, discusses the available evidence regarding the use of a fixed-dose fenofibrate plus simvastatin combination. This combination is useful for patients with mixed dyslipidaemia because it improves the overall lipoprotein profile. Although in clinical trials the rate of adverse events was not significantly greater than monotherapy, patients who receive combination treatment should be monitored carefully. Furthermore, in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Study, this combination did not result in a significant reduction of CVD events compared with simvastatin monotherapy. However, a possible benefit in this trial was observed in the subgroup of patients with high triglyceride and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

EXPERT OPINION

The fixed-dose fenofibrate plus simvastatin combination treatment produces additive results and is safe when patients are properly monitored. Existing evidence appears to support the addition of fenofibrate to simvastatin treatment for the reduction of residual CVD risk in patients with atherogenic dyslipidaemia. However, this combination did not lead to better clinical outcomes in the absence of dyslipidaemia.

The effect of simvastatin alone versus simvastatin plus ezetimibe on the concentration of small dense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in subjects with primary hypercholesterolemia

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of simvastatin alone versus simvastatin plus ezetimibe on small dense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (sdLDL-C) concentration in subjects with primary hypercholesterolemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with LDL-C levels above those recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III were randomized to open-label simvastatin 40 mg (n = 50) or simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg as a fixed combination (n = 50) daily. LDL particle size (estimated by electrophoresis), sdLDL-C levels, and lipid profile were blindly assessed at baseline and 3 months.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov NCT00932620.

RESULTS

Both simvastatin 40 mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg decreased total cholesterol (-31% and -36%, respectively), LDL-C (-43% and -49%, respectively), triglycerides (-17% and -19%, respectively), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C; -40% and -46%, respectively), large LDL-C (-40 and -44%, respectively) and sdLDL-C levels (-42% and -46%, respectively, all p < 0.000 vs baseline) and increased LDL particle size (+0.5% and +0.7%, respectively, both p < 0.05 vs baseline). The changes in total cholesterol, LDL-C and non-HDL-C were greater in the simvastatin/ezetimibe group (all p < 0.05). Changes in triglycerides, large LDL-C, sdLDL-C levels and LDL particle size were similar in the two groups. In multivariate analysis, baseline sdLDL-C and triglyceride levels, but not the choice of treatment, were significantly and independently correlated with the changes in sdLDL-C levels.

CONCLUSION

The combination of simvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg is similarly effective to simvastatin 40 mg in improving sdLDL-C concentration and LDL particle size in subjects with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Dyslipidaemia of obesity, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus: the case for residual risk reduction after statin treatment

Dyslipidaemia is frequently present in obesity, metabolic syndrome (MetS) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The predominant features of dyslipidaemia in these disorders include increased flux of free fatty acids (FFA), raised triglyceride (TG) and low high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, a predominance of small, dense (atherogenic) low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) particles and raised apolipoprotein (apo) B values Posprandial hyperlipidaemia may also be present. Insulin resistance (IR) appears to play an important role in the pathogenesis of dyslipidaemia in obesity, MetS and T2DM. The cornerstone of treatment of this IR-related dyslipidaemia is lifestyle changes and in diabetic patients, tight glycaemic control. In addition to these measures, recent clinical trials showed benefit with statin treatment. Nevertheless, a substantial percentage of patients treated with statins still experience vascular events. This residual vascular risk needs to be addressed. This review summarizes the effects of hypolipidaemic drug combinations (including statins with cholesterol ester protein inhibitors, niacin, fibrates or fish oil, as well as fibrate-ezetimibe combination) on the residual vascular risk in patients with obesity, MetS or T2DM.

Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading?

BACKGROUND

Some patients administered cholesterol-lowering therapies may experience an increase in the proportion of small LDL particles, which may be misinterpreted as a worsening of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk. This study assessed the lipid effects of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin or doubling the atorvastatin dose on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (and the cholesterol content of LDL subclasses), LDL particle number (approximated by apolipoprotein B), and LDL particle size. This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of hypercholesterolemic, high atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk patients. After stabilization of atorvastatin 40 mg, 579 patients with LDL-C >70 mg/dL were randomized to 6 weeks of ezetimibe + atorvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg. Efficacy parameters included changes from baseline in LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and lipoprotein subclasses (Vertical Auto Profile II) and pattern for the overall population, as well as patient subgroups with baseline triglyceride levels <150 mg/dL or ≥150 mg/dL.

RESULTS

Both treatments significantly reduced LDL-C (and the cholesterol content of most LDL subfractions [LDL1-4]) apolipoprotein B, non-HDL-C levels, but did not reduce the proportion of smaller, more dense LDL particles; in fact, the proportion of Pattern B was numerically increased. Results were generally similar in patients with triglyceride levels <150 or ≥150 mg/dL.

CONCLUSIONS

When assessing the effects of escalating cholesterol-lowering therapy, effects upon Pattern B alone to assess coronary heart disease risk may be misleading when interpreted without considerations of other lipid effects, such as reductions in LDL-C, atherogenic lipoprotein particle concentration, and non-HDL-C levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

(Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: Clinical trial # NCT00276484).

Treating mixed hyperlipidemia and the atherogenic lipid phenotype for prevention of cardiovascular events

Statins reduce cardiovascular events and cardiovascular and total mortality in persons at risk for and with coronary disease, but there remains a significant residual event rate, particularly in those with the atherogenic lipid phenotype that is characterized by a low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and increase in non-HDL cholesterol. Large outcome trials designed to assess the value of combining statins with other agents to target HDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol will not be completed for a few years, but there is ample evidence for the clinician to consider combination therapy. The choices for therapies to supplement statins include niacin, fibrates, and omega-3 fatty acids. We present the argument that after therapeutic lifestyle changes, the first priority should be the maximally tolerated effective dose of a potent statin. Evidence supports the addition of niacin as the second agent. In some situations, high-dose omega-3 fatty acid therapy could be the first agent added to statins. Although fibrate monotherapy alone or in combination with non-statin low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering agents can be effective in mixed hyperlipidemia when statins are not tolerated, the combination of statin+fibrate should be considered second-line therapy until the efficacy and safety are established.

Effect of ezetimibe/atorvastatin combination on oxidized low density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with coronary artery disease or coronary artery disease equivalent

Ezetimibe is effective in providing additional low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol lowering when coadministered with statins, but its effect beyond LDL cholesterol lowering is unknown. Oxidized LDL (ox-LDL) is a better predictor of adverse cardiovascular events than standard lipid parameters. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of ezetimibe on ox-LDL. A total of 100 patients with coronary artery disease or coronary artery disease equivalent were randomized to atorvastatin 40 mg/day and ezetimibe 10 mg/day or to atorvastatin 40 mg/day and placebo. LDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol subfractions, and ox-LDL were measured at baseline and after 8 weeks of therapy. The ezetimibe group had a larger reduction in total LDL cholesterol compared to placebo. This was due mainly to a larger reduction in large buoyant LDL (24% vs 10%, p = 0.008). Ox-LDL level did not change in the placebo group (50 +/- 13 vs 51 +/- 13 U/L), while it decreased in the ezetimibe group, from 51 +/- 13 to 46 +/- 10 U/L (p = 0.01 vs baseline and p = 0.02 vs final level in placebo). The change in ox-LDL correlated significantly with those in total LDL and in large buoyant LDL (r = 0.6 and r = 0.5, respectively, p <0.01 for both), but not with that of small dense LDL, high-density lipoprotein, or very low density lipoprotein. In conclusion, this study demonstrates that ezetimibe decreases ox-LDL cholesterol through reductions in total LDL cholesterol and in large buoyant LDL cholesterol.

Effect of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with atorvastatin on lipoprotein subclasses in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia

AIM

To evaluate the effects of the usual starting and next higher doses of ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin on the cholesterol content of lipoprotein subclasses in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia.

METHODS

This post hoc analysis compared the effects of treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg/day and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg/day vs. atorvastatin 40 mg/day on the cholesterol content of lipoprotein subclasses in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 1013) and in subgroups of patients with triglyceride (TG) levels <200 mg/dl (n = 600) and >or=200 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l) (n = 413).

RESULTS

Ezetimibe/simvastatin significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) subclasses LDL(1)-C, LDL(2)-C and LDL(3)-C; real LDL-C (LDL-C(r)); intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol (IDL-C), IDL(1)-C, IDL(2)-C; very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), VLDL(3)-C; and remnant-like lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) from baseline more than atorvastatin at all dose comparisons (p < 0.01) in the mITT population. Significant improvements were also observed in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) subclass HDL(3)-C at the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs. atorvastatin 20 mg and highest dose comparisons (p < 0.001) and in VLDL(1 + 2)-C at the lowest and highest dose comparisons (p < 0.001). Changes in LDL(4)-C and LDL-C subclass patterns (A, B and I) were comparable for both treatments. Generally, similar results were observed for patients with TG levels <200 and >or=200 mg/dl (2.3 mmol). For both treatments, notable differences between TG subgroups were that patients with elevated TGs had smaller reductions in LDL(2)-C, slightly smaller decreases in all IDL subclasses and greater decreases in all VLDL-C subclasses than those with lower TG levels. Frequency of pattern B was also reduced more in patients with higher TGs for both treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe/simvastatin reduced the cholesterol content of most lipoprotein subclasses from baseline with generally similar efficacy in patients with low and high TGs. Despite the different mechanism of action of ezetimibe, the response to ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin treatment related to these lipoprotein subclasses was generally consistent with the overall effects of these therapies on the major lipid/lipoprotein classes. The clinical significance of these results awaits further study.

Dyslipidemia following kidney transplantation: diagnosis and treatment

Lipid abnormalities are a common complication of kidney transplantation, occurring in up to 60% of patients. In fact, impairment of lipid metabolism is often present before renal transplantation due to the uremic state. After transplantation and recovery of renal function, lipid disturbances usually persist but show a different profile due to the various effects of immunosuppressive drugs on lipid metabolism. Actually, steroids, calcineurin inhibitors, and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors usually lead to quantitative and qualitative abnormalities of very low-density, low-density, and high-density lipoproteins. As cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death in renal transplant recipients, management of dyslipidemia and other traditional risk factors, such as smoking, arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity, is of great importance to prevent cardiovascular complications and chronic allograft dysfunction. This review addresses the causes of dyslipidemia, the role of immunosuppressive drugs, and current recommendations to manage lipid disorders in renal transplant recipients.

Update on the clinical utility of fenofibrate in mixed dyslipidemias: mechanisms of action and rational prescribing

Mixed dyslipidemia is a common lipid disorder characterized by the presence of an atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype due to abnormalities in various atherogenic and anti-atherogenic lipoproteins. Despite the link between the decrease of LDL-cholesterol by statin treatment and the prevention of cardiovascular disease, a high residual risk is observed in statin trials. This residual risk is partly explained by lipoprotein abnormalities other than LDL. Fenofibrate exerts a favorable effect on the atherogenic lipid profile of mixed dyslipidemia and can effectively reduce cardiovascular disease in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. Fenofibrate may offer important treatment alternatives as a second-line therapy in several circumstances: in combination with a statin for patients with mixed dyslipidemias not at goals on statin mono-therapy; in monotherapy for patients intolerant or with contraindication to statin therapy; and in combination with other drugs (ezetimibe, colesevelam) for patients with mixed dyslipidemias, known intolerance, or contraindication to statin and not at goals on fenofibrate monotherapy. However, the role of fenofibrate-statin therapy and of other therapies involving fenofibrate in cardiovascular risk reduction strategies remains to be established.

The effects of ezetimibe on LDL-cholesterol: quantitative or qualitative changes?

Ezetimibe represents the first of a new class of agents, the cholesterol absorption inhibitors, able to reduce low-density lipoproteins (LDL)-cholesterol by 15-25% from baseline in monotherapy and on top of statins and fibrates. To-date all the data regarding the efficacy of ezetimibe comes from the studies of its lipid-lowering power. Yet, recent findings from the ENHANCE study on atherosclerosis progression showed that the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia did not affect the mean change in carotid intima-media thickness, although a significant reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels was present. Therefore, we cannot exclude that ezetimibe is treating mainly LDL-cholesterol and not the underlying dyslipidemia. Reviewing all available evidences on the effects on atherogenic small, dense LDL, it seems that ezetimibe produce quantitative rather than qualitative changes in LDL, with small net effects on LDL subclass distribution. Yet, we cannot exclude that clinical and laboratory factors influenced this result. We found important differences in the methodology used to measure LDL size and subfractions and this represents a crucial point, since these methods cannot be fully used interchangeably. In addition, it is reasonable to imagine that ezetimibe may be more effective on small, dense LDL in subjects with hypertriglyceridemia. Further formal cardiovascular event outcome trials are underway and this will provide additional insights into the long-term effects of ezetimibe. Future prospective studies are also needed to clarify to which extent ezetimibe is able to reduce atherogenic dyslipidemia, beyond LDL-cholesterol levels.