Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with lovastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia

Present and Future of Dyslipidaemia Treatment-A Review

One of the greatest burdens on the healthcare systems of modern civilization is cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). Therefore, the medical community is looking for ways to reduce the incidence of CVDs. Simple lifestyle changes from an unhealthy to a healthy lifestyle are the cornerstone of prevention, but other risk factors for cardiovascular disease are also being currently targeted, most notably dyslipidaemia. It is well known that lowering serum lipid levels, and in particular lowering elevated LDL-cholesterol, leads to a reduction in major cardiovascular events. Although the focus to date has been on LDL-cholesterol levels and lowering them with statin therapy, this is often not enough because of increased concentrations of other lipoprotein particles in the serum and residual cardiovascular risk. Since lowering LDL-cholesterol levels is successful in most cases, there has been a recent focus on lowering residual cardiovascular risk. In recent years, new therapeutic options have emerged that target triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, lipoprotein (a) and apolipoproteins C and B. The effects of these drugs on serious adverse cardiovascular events are not yet known, but recent studies with some of these drugs have shown significant results in lowering total lipid levels. The aim of this review is to present the current therapeutic options for the treatment of dyslipidaemia and to describe the newly approved drugs as well as the drugs that are still in development. Although at this stage we cannot say with certainty whether these agents will be approved and widely used, it is safe to say that our views on the treatment of dyslipidaemia are certainly changing.

Inclisiran—A Revolutionary Addition to a Cholesterol-Lowering Therapy

Hypercholesterolemia plays a crucial role in the development of atherosclerosis, but it remains an undertreated and underdiagnosed disease. Taking into consideration the high prevalence of lipid disorders, long duration of the asymptomatic course of the disease, life-threatening complications resulting from inaccurate therapy, and stringent treatment goals concerning LDL cholesterol level in the prevention of cardiovascular events, novel lipid-lowering therapies have been introduced in the last few years. In this article, a drug belonging to the group of small interfering RNA (siRNA) called inclisiran is described. It is a novel molecule that increases the number of LDL receptors (LDLRs) on the surface of hepatic cells by preventing the formation of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) responsible for the degradation of LDLRs. With great potential for lowering plasma LDL cholesterol level, high liver specificity, comfortable dosing regimen, and good tolerance without significant adverse effects, it could play an important part in future hypolipemic therapies.

Lipoprotein(a) and Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease, the Impact of Available Lipid-Lowering Medications on Lipoprotein(a): An Update on New Therapies

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence of existing and new pharmacological therapies for lowering lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) concentrations and their impact on clinically relevant outcomes.

METHODS

We searched for literature pertaining to Lp(a) and pharmacological treatments in PubMed. We reviewed articles published between 1963 and 2020.

RESULTS

We found that statins significantly increased Lp(a) concentrations. Therapies that demonstrated varying degrees of Lp(a) reduction included ezetimibe, niacin, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors, lipoprotein apheresis, fibrates, aspirin, hormone replacement therapy, antisense oligonucleotide therapy, and small interfering RNA therapy. There was limited data from large observational studies and post hoc analyses showing the potential benefits of these therapies in improving cardiovascular outcomes.

CONCLUSION

There are multiple lipid-lowering agents currently being used to treat hyperlipidemia that also have a Lp(a)-lowering effect. Two RNA therapies specifically targeted to lower Lp(a) are being investigated in phase 3 clinical trials and, thus far, have shown promising results. However, evidence is lacking to determine the clinical relevance of reducing Lp(a). At present, there is a need for large-scale, randomized, controlled trials to evaluate cardiovascular outcomes associated with lowering Lp(a).

Prevalence of statin intolerance: a meta-analysis

AIMS

Statin intolerance (SI) represents a significant public health problem for which precise estimates of prevalence are needed. Statin intolerance remains an important clinical challenge, and it is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. This meta-analysis estimates the overall prevalence of SI, the prevalence according to different diagnostic criteria and in different disease settings, and identifies possible risk factors/conditions that might increase the risk of SI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched several databases up to 31 May 2021, for studies that reported the prevalence of SI. The primary endpoint was overall prevalence and prevalence according to a range of diagnostic criteria [National Lipid Association (NLA), International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS)] and in different disease settings. The secondary endpoint was to identify possible risk factors for SI. A random-effects model was applied to estimate the overall pooled prevalence. A total of 176 studies [112 randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 64 cohort studies] with 4 143 517 patients were ultimately included in the analysis. The overall prevalence of SI was 9.1% (95% confidence interval 8.0-10%). The prevalence was similar when defined using NLA, ILEP, and EAS criteria [7.0% (6.0-8.0%), 6.7% (5.0-8.0%), 5.9% (4.0-7.0%), respectively]. The prevalence of SI in RCTs was significantly lower compared with cohort studies [4.9% (4.0-6.0%) vs. 17% (14-19%)]. The prevalence of SI in studies including both primary and secondary prevention patients was much higher than when primary or secondary prevention patients were analysed separately [18% (14-21%), 8.2% (6.0-10%), 9.1% (6.0-11%), respectively]. Statin lipid solubility did not affect the prevalence of SI [4.0% (2.0-5.0%) vs. 5.0% (4.0-6.0%)]. Age [odds ratio (OR) 1.33, P = 0.04], female gender (OR 1.47, P = 0.007), Asian and Black race (P < 0.05 for both), obesity (OR 1.30, P = 0.02), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.26, P = 0.02), hypothyroidism (OR 1.37, P = 0.01), chronic liver, and renal failure (P < 0.05 for both) were significantly associated with SI in the meta-regression model. Antiarrhythmic agents, calcium channel blockers, alcohol use, and increased statin dose were also associated with a higher risk of SI.

CONCLUSION

Based on the present analysis of >4 million patients, the prevalence of SI is low when diagnosed according to international definitions. These results support the concept that the prevalence of complete SI might often be overestimated and highlight the need for the careful assessment of patients with potential symptoms related to SI.

Drug Interactions: What Are Important Drug Interactions for the Most Commonly Used Medications in Preventive Cardiology?

Significant drug interactions contribute to hospitalizations, mortality, and health care costs. They often are preventable with a basic understanding of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. More than quarter of Americans above the age of 40 years take a statin, the most commonly used lipid-lowering therapy in modern times. Because of their pharmacokinetics, statins interact with numerous other drugs and substances, often in a manner that differs from statin to statin. This article provides an overview of important drug interactions for the most commonly used medications in preventive cardiology, with an emphasis on clinically significant interactions involving statins.

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

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

Emerging Non-statin Treatment Options for Lowering Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a modifiable risk factor for the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Statins have been the gold standard for managing cholesterol levels and reducing the risks associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; however, many patients do not achieve their cholesterol goals or are unable to tolerate this drug class due to adverse drug events. Recent studies of non-statin cholesterol lowering drugs (i.e., ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors) have demonstrated cardiovascular benefits; and new drugs [i.e., bempedoic acid (BDA), inclisiran] have produced promising results in pre-clinical and clinical outcome trials. This narrative review aims to discuss the place in therapy of ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, BDA, and inclisiran and describe their relative pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles, efficacy and safety as monotherapy and combination therapy, and cardiovascular benefit(s) when used for hypercholesterolemia.

Statin therapy and lipoprotein(a) levels: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS 

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is a causal and independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). People with elevated Lp(a) are often prescribed statins as they also often show elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. While statins are well-established in lowering LDL-C, their effect on Lp(a) remains unclear. We evaluated the effect of statins compared to placebo on Lp(a) and the effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy on Lp(a).

METHODS AND RESULTS 

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with a statin and placebo arm. Medline and EMBASE were searched until August 2019. Quality assessment of studies was done using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). Mean difference of absolute and percentage changes of Lp(a) in the statin vs. the placebo arms were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. We compared effects of different types and intensities of statin therapy using subgroup- and network meta-analyses. Certainty of the evidence was determined using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Overall, 39 studies (24 448 participants) were included. Mean differences (95% confidence interval) of absolute and percentage changes in the statin vs. the placebo arms were 1.1 mg/dL (0.5-1.6, P < 0.0001) and 0.1% (-3.6% to 4.0%, P = 0.95), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the types of statins changed Lp(a) significantly compared to placebo (very low- to high-certainty evidence), as well as intensities of statin therapy (low- to moderate-certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION 

Statin therapy does not lead to clinically important differences in Lp(a) compared to placebo in patients at risk for CVD. Our findings suggest that in these patients, statin therapy will not change Lp(a)-associated CVD risk.

Associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review with pairwise, network, and dose-response meta-analyses

OBJECTIVE

To assess the associations between statins and adverse events in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and to examine how the associations vary by type and dosage of statins.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Studies were identified from previous systematic reviews and searched in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to August 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomised controlled trials in adults without a history of cardiovascular disease that compared statins with non-statin controls or compared different types or dosages of statins were included.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were common adverse events: self-reported muscle symptoms, clinically confirmed muscle disorders, liver dysfunction, renal insufficiency, diabetes, and eye conditions. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from cardiovascular disease as measures of efficacy.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A pairwise meta-analysis was conducted to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each outcome between statins and non-statin controls, and the absolute risk difference in the number of events per 10 000 patients treated for a year was estimated. A network meta-analysis was performed to compare the adverse effects of different types of statins. An E_max model based meta-analysis was used to examine the dose-response relationships of the adverse effects of each statin.

RESULTS

62 trials were included, with 120 456 participants followed up for an average of 3.9 years. Statins were associated with an increased risk of self-reported muscle symptoms (21 trials, odds ratio 1.06 (95% confidence interval 1.01 to 1.13); absolute risk difference 15 (95% confidence interval 1 to 29)), liver dysfunction (21 trials, odds ratio 1.33 (1.12 to 1.58); absolute risk difference 8 (3 to 14)), renal insufficiency (eight trials, odds ratio 1.14 (1.01 to 1.28); absolute risk difference 12 (1 to 24)), and eye conditions (six trials, odds ratio 1.23 (1.04 to 1.47); absolute risk difference 14 (2 to 29)) but were not associated with clinically confirmed muscle disorders or diabetes. The increased risks did not outweigh the reduction in the risk of major cardiovascular events. Atorvastatin, lovastatin, and rosuvastatin were individually associated with some adverse events, but few significant differences were found between types of statins. An E_max dose-response relationship was identified for the effect of atorvastatin on liver dysfunction, but the dose-response relationships for the other statins and adverse effects were inconclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, the risk of adverse events attributable to statins was low and did not outweigh their efficacy in preventing cardiovascular disease, suggesting that the benefit-to-harm balance of statins is generally favourable. Evidence to support tailoring the type or dosage of statins to account for safety concerns before starting treatment was limited.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020169955.

Effect of Ezetimibe Monotherapy on Plasma Lipoprotein(a) Concentrations in Patients with Primary Hypercholesterolemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Ezetimibe reduces plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels by up to 20%. However, its effect on plasma lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] concentrations in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia has not been defined.

OBJECTIVE

Therefore, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess this effect based on the available randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed and SCOPUS databases from inception until 28 February 2017 to identify RCTs that investigated the effect of ezetimibe monotherapy on plasma Lp(a) concentrations in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. We pooled mean percentage changes in plasma Lp(a) concentrations as a mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 2337 patients met the selection criteria and were included in the analysis. Overall pooled analysis suggested that ezetimibe 10 mg significantly reduced plasma Lp(a) concentrations in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia by - 7.06% (95% CI - 11.95 to - 2.18; p = 0.005) compared with placebo. No significant heterogeneity was observed (χ² = 5.34; p = 0.5). Excluding one study from the analysis resulted in insignificant differences between the two groups (p = 0.2). Meta-regression did not find a significant association between the mean percentage changes in Lp(a) and other potential moderator variables, which included the mean percentage changes of LDL-C concentrations (p = 0.06) and baseline Lp(a) mean values (p = 0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe monotherapy (10 mg/day) showed a small (7.06%) but statistically significant reduction in the plasma levels of Lp(a) in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. According to current literature, this magnitude of reduction seems to have no clinical relevance. However, further studies are warranted to clarify the mechanism mediating this effect of ezetimibe and to investigate its efficacy in combination with other drugs that have shown promise in lowering Lp(a) levels.

Impact of ezetimibe on plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations as monotherapy or in combination with statins: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of this meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials was to assess the effect of ezetimibe on plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations. Only randomized placebo-controlled trials investigating the impact of ezetimibe treatment on cholesterol lowering that include lipoprotein(a) measurement were searched in PubMed-Medline, SCOPUS, Web of Science and Google Scholar databases (from inception to February 26th, 2018). A random-effects model and generic inverse variance method were used for quantitative data synthesis. Sensitivity analysis was conducted using the leave-one-out method. A weighted random-effects meta-regression was performed to evaluate the impact of potential confounders on lipoprotein concentrations. This meta-analysis of data from 10 randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials (15 treatment arms) involving a total of 5188 (3020 ezetimibe and 2168 control) subjects showed that ezetimibe therapy had no effect on altering plasma Lp(a) concentrations (WMD: -2.59%, 95% CI: -8.26, 3.08, p = 0.370; I2 = 88.71%, p(Q) < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, no significant alteration in plasma Lp(a) levels was observed either in trials assessing the impact of monotherapy with ezetimibe versus placebo (WMD: -4.64%, 95% CI: -11.53, 2.25, p = 0.187; I2 = 65.38%, p(Q) = 0.005) or in trials evaluating the impact of adding ezetimibe to a statin versus statin therapy alone (WMD: -1.04%, 95% CI: -6.34, 4.26, p = 0.700; I2 = 58.51%, p(Q) = 0.025). The results of this meta-analysis suggest that ezetimibe treatment either alone or in combination with a statin does not affect plasma lipoprotein(a) levels.

Dyslipidemia: Reduction in Estimated Risk for Coronary Artery Disease After Use of Ezetimibe with a Statin

Background:

The aim of lipid-lowering treatment is to reduce the risk for cardiovascular events. Patients not at target lipid levels while on hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statin) monotherapy are at increased cardiovascular risk.

Objective:

To describe the impact of coadministration of ezetimibe with a statin on the estimated 10 year risk for coronary artery disease (E-RCAD) in patients with hypercholesterolemia and above-target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels after statin monotherapy.

Methods:

Post hoc analysis was conducted of a prospective, open-label, single-cohort, multicenter Canadian study of 953 patients who were treated for 6 weeks with ezetimibe 10 mg/day coadministered with their current statin at an unaltered dose. For each patient, E-RCAD at baseline and at 6 weeks was calculated using the Framingham model. The primary outcome measure of the analysis was the change in E-RCAD.

Results:

A total of 825 patients with data at baseline and 6 weeks were included in the analysis. There were 423 (51.3%) patients with hypertension, 107 (13.0%) with diabetes mellitus but not metabolic syndrome, 160 (19.4%) with metabolic syndrome but not diabetes mellitus, and 235 (28.5%) with both diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome. After 6 weeks of ezetimibe coadministration with statin therapy, mean E-RCAD was reduced by 4.1% from 15.6% to 11.5%, which is equivalent to a 25.3% risk reduction (p < 0.001). Of the 225 (27.3%) patients with high E-RCAD (≥20.1%) at baseline, 144 (64.0%) converted to a lower E-RCAD category (p < 0.001). Patients with both diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome experienced the highest mean percent reduction in E-RCAD of –29.4% (p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

For patients with above-target LDL-C levels while on statin monotherapy, coadministration of ezetimibe with the statin is effective in significantly reducing the E-RCAD.

Review: Ezetimibe — clinical and pharmacological profile

The launch of ezetimibe, a novel cholesterol absorption inhibitor in 2003 may well herald the dawn of combination therapy in the management of dyslipidaemia. The recent identification of NPC 1L1 as the probable specific sterol permease involved in intestinal cholesterol absorption is an important breakthrough in the understanding of the mechanisms of cholesterol absorption. Combination of statin therapy with blockade of exogenous cholesterol absorption (the so called dual inhibition of cholesterol metabolism) is discussed together with the potential for tailoring therapy to the physiological profile of patients' cholesterol metabolism.

Effect of the Combination of Ezetimibe and Simvastatin on Gluconeogenesis and Oxygen Consumption in the Rat Liver

The aim of this work was to investigate the effects of chronic treatment with the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin on gluconeogenesis in rat liver. Rats were treated daily for 28 days with the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin (10/40 mg/kg) by oral gavage. To measure gluconeogenesis and the associated pathways, isolated perfused rat liver was used. In addition, subcellular fractions, such as microsomes and mitochondria, were used for complementary measures of enzymatic activities. Treatment with the combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe resulted in a decrease in gluconeogenesis from pyruvate (-62%). Basal oxygen consumption of the treated animals was higher (+22%) than that of the control rats, but the resulting oxygen consumption that occurred after pyruvate infusion was 43% lower in animals treated with the combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe. Oxygen consumption in the livers from treated animals was completely inhibited by cyanide (electron transport chain inhibitor), but not by proadifen (cytochrome P450 inhibitor). Chronic treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin decreased the activity of the key enzymes glucose-6-phosphatase and fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase by 59% and 45%, respectively, which is probably the major reason for the decreased gluconeogenesis seen in ezetimibe-/simvastatin-treated rats. It is also possible that part of the effect of this combination on gluconeogenesis and on the oxygen consumption is related to the impairment of mitochondrial energy transduction.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of ezetimibe on glucose metabolism in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia

Background

Recent evidence points to an increased incidence of new-onset diabetes and a negative impact on glucose parameters with statin use. This study examined the safety of ezetimibe vs placebo for change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c (primary endpoint), glycoalbumin, and fasting plasma glucose (secondary endpoints) in Japanese subjects with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia.

Methods

This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-site trial. Adults with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia whose LDL-C measured <140 mg/dl (subjects receiving lipid-lowering drugs) or <160 mg/dl (subjects not receiving lipid-lowering drugs) at the start of the screening phase, were randomized after a 5-week wash-out period to ezetimibe 10 mg or placebo (1:1) for 24 weeks. Changes in HbA1c, glycoalbumin and fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 24 were evaluated. The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.5% for HbA1c.

Results

Overall, 152 subjects were randomized (75 to ezetimibe and 77 to placebo). From baseline to 24 weeks, HbA1c significantly increased in both the ezetimibe and placebo groups (between-treatment difference 0.08 [95% CI: −0.07 to 0.23]). Ezetimibe was statistically non-inferior to placebo. At 24 weeks, the mean change from baseline in glycoalbumin levels (between-treatment differences 0.00 [95% CI: −0.47, 0.47]) and fasting plasma glucose (between-treatment differences −4.8 [95% CI: −12.1, 2.1]) were similar in both treatment groups.

Conclusions

These results suggest that ezetimibe 10 mg does not result in dysregulation of glucose metabolism in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia over 24 weeks of treatment.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01611883.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12944-015-0036-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effect of pretreatment of ezetimibe/simvastatin on arterial healing and endothelialization after drug-eluting stent implantation in a porcine coronary restenosis model

Background and Objectives

We sought to evaluate the effect of the early use of ezetimibe/simvastatin (Vytorin®) on arterial healing and endothelialization after the implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES) in a porcine model of coronary restenosis.

Materials and Methods

A total of 20 pigs (40 coronary arteries) were randomly allocated to a pretreatment or no treatment group. The pretreatment group (n=20) received oral ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 mg) daily for 7 days before stenting and the no pretreatment group (n=20) did not. All pigs were treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 mg) daily after stenting for 4 weeks. Stenting was performed using a bare-metal stent (BMS, n=10) and three types of DES: biolimus A9-eluting stent (BES, n=10), zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES, n=10), and everolimus-eluting stents (EES, n=10). Four weeks later, pigs underwent a follow-up coronary angiography and were sacrificed for histopathologic analysis.

Results

There were no significant differences between the pretreatment and no pretreatment groups in the internal elastic lamina area, lumen area, neointima area, stenotic area, injury score, fibrin score, and inflammation score. In both groups, the fibrin score was higher in pigs with DES than in BMS, particularly in ZES and EES. The inflammatory score was not different between DES and BMS.

Conclusion

In a porcine model of coronary restenosis, pretreatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin before DES implantation failed to improve arterial healing and endothelialization compared to treatment after stenting.

The GALAXY Program: an update on studies investigating efficacy and tolerability of rosuvastatin for reducing cardiovascular risk

The GALAXY Program is a series of clinical studies investigating the efficacy and tolerability of rosuvastatin in line with the hypothesis that the statin with the greatest efficacy for improving the atherogenic lipid profile and beneficially modifying inflammatory markers will also slow progression of atherosclerosis and improve cardiovascular outcomes. Completed studies report that rosuvastatin is more effective than comparator statins in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, improving the lipid profile and enabling patients to achieve lipid goals, including revised, more stringent goals, even in high-risk patients. Studies have also reported that rosuvastatin can arrest and even regress atherosclerosis. Ongoing outcomes studies will determine whether these beneficial effects of rosuvastatin translate into reduced morbidity and mortality.

RESEARCH (Recognized effect of Statin and ezetimibe therapy for achieving LDL-C Goal), a randomized, doctor-oriented, multicenter trial to compare the effects of higher-dose statin versus ezetimibe-plus-statin on the serum LDL-C concentration of Japanese type-2 diabetes patients design and rationale

Aims

Hypercholesterolemia coexisting with diabetes still requires clinical intervention to manage the high risk of cardiovascular disease it poses. No second-step strategy is established, however, for cases where strong statins fail to bring cholesterol down to target levels. In this study we seek to demonstrate the superior effect of ezetimibe in combination with strong statins to reduce LDL-C in Japanese patients suffering from both T2DM and hyper LDL-cholesterolemia.

Methods

T2DM outpatients (109 patients from 16 institutes) who failed to achieve the target LDL-C value were recruited and randomly assigned to two groups, a double-dose-statin group and ezetimibe-plus-statin group. Follow-ups were scheduled at 0, 12, 26, and 52 weeks. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in the level of LDL-C from baseline to 12 weeks.

Interim results

We could successfully create randomized (gender, age, LDL-C, HbA1c, etc.) two groups except for slight differences in apolipoprotein-B and sd-LDL.

Conclusions

RESEARCH is the first prospective, parallel-group, multicenter study comparing a double dose of strong statin with ezetimibe plus strong statin for T2DM patients. The RESEARCH study will provide reliable evidence with which to establish a clinical strategy for diabetics who fail to achieve the target LDL-C value.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of genetic screening for the Taq1B polymorphism in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease

Coronary heart disease is a major health priority area in Australia. Cholesterol-lowering agents are generally considered to be cost effective for the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. There is growing evidence, however, that the effectiveness of statins varies from one individual to another. The Taq1B polymorphism is an example of a genetic polymorphism that is thought to influence the effectiveness of statins. The aim of the current analysis is to estimate the cost-effectiveness of genetically screening coronary heart disease and stroke patients for the Taq1B polymorphism, and prescribing statin treatment to those with the B1B2 or B2B2 forms of the gene. A health sector perspective was adopted with a maximum acceptable cost-effectiveness ratio set at AUS$50,000/disability-adjusted life year. There is an 89% probability that screening and prescribing statins to those with the B1B2 and B2B2 alleles is more cost effective than prescribing statins to all patients. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetics in major areas of medicine provides useful information to help in resource allocation and decision making. Economic evaluations similar to this one will be required in the future as the results of further clinical trials to establish the effectiveness of statins based on genotype become available.

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

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

Relative Efficacy of Antilipemic Agents in Non–High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction

The investigators sought to summarize the percentage reduction in non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) achieved with various antilipemic regimens and to determine whether certain antilipemic regimens have been proven more effective in lowering non-HDL-C. A search of MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Iowa Drug Information Service Database from 1970 to May 2011 was performed. Criteria were used to exclude studies not published in English, studies with methodology limitations, and studies with variables that may affect efficacy beyond the antilipemic agent administered. Only randomized, controlled trials comparing medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration were reviewed to determine whether significant differences in percentage reduction in non-HDL-C had been observed between different medication regimens. A total of 51 trials reported data that could be used to determine the range of percentage reduction in non-HDL-C achieved by select antilipemic regimens. Of these 51 trials, 38 provided head-to-head comparisons of antilipemic regimens. Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are the most potent 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) in lowering non-HDL-C. Adding ezetimibe, fibric acid derivatives, and omega-3 fatty acids to antilipemic monotherapy may result in further reduction in non-HDL-C. Subjects with certain characteristics (eg, nonwhite) were not prevalent in these studies.

The burden and management of dyslipidemia: practical issues

The objective of this study is to describe briefly the burden of dyslipidemia, and to discuss and present strategies for health professionals to improve dyslipidemia management, based on a review of selected literature focusing on interventions for dyslipidemia treatment adherence. Despite the availability of effective lifestyle and pharmaceutical therapies for dyslipidemias, they continue to present a significant economic burden in the United States. Adherence to evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of dyslipidemias is unsatisfactory. The reasons for medication nonadherence are complex and specific to each patient. The lack of progress in achieving optimal lipid targets is caused by many factors: patient (medication adherence, cost of medication, literacy), medication (adverse effects, complexity of regimen), provider (lack of adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines, poor communication), and the US healthcare system (being focused on acute care rather than prevention, lack of continuity of care, general lack of use of an electronic health record). Combined interventions that target each part of the system have been effective in improving treatment adherence and achieving lipid goals. Patients, providers, pharmacists, and employers all play a role in management of dyslipidemia. No single approach will solve the complex issue of improving dyslipidemia management. The required lifestyle changes are known and effective medications are available. The challenge is for all interested parties-including nurses, nurse practitioners, doctors, pharmacists, other health care professionals, employers, and health plans-to help patients achieve behavioral changes.

Effect of High-Dose Statin Versus Low-Dose Statin Plus Ezetimibe on Endothelial Function

Background:

Combining low-dose statin and ezetimibe reduces the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) similar to high-dose statin. However, whether there is a difference in the effect of these 2 lipid-lowering regimes on endothelial function is still controversial.

Methods:

We performed a systematic search of databases (MEDLINE [1950 to September 2011], EMBASE [1966 to September 2011]) and references of identified studies. Completely published randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of high-dose statin with low-dose stain plus ezetimibe on endothelial function (flow-mediated dilation [FMD] method) were included in this study.

Results:

Six trials with a total of 213 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled weighted mean difference of FMD did not differ between the 2 lipid-lowering regimes (0.22%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.85%-1.29%, P = .68). Furthermore, no significant reduction in LDL-C and C-reactive protein (CRP) occurred with high-dose statin versus low-dose statin plus ezetimibe (pooled weighted mean differences of LDL-C and CRP were −4.12 mg/dL, 95% CI: −9.54-1.12 mg/dL, P = .12, and −0.02 mg/L, 95% CI: −0.31-0.27 mg/L, P = .89, respectively).

Conclusions:

Based on the currently available evidence, combining a low-dose statin with ezetimibe may provide similar beneficial effects on endothelial function as high-dose statin.

Response by sex to statin plus ezetimibe or statin monotherapy: a pooled analysis of 22,231 hyperlipidemic patients

Background

Despite documented benefits of lipid-lowering treatment in women, a considerable number are undertreated, and fewer achieve treatment targets vs. men.

Methods

Data were combined from 27 double-blind, active or placebo-controlled studies that randomized adult hypercholesterolemic patients to statin or statin+ezetimibe. Consistency of treatment effect among men (n = 11,295) and women (n = 10,499) was assessed and percent of men and women was calculated to evaluate the between-treatment ability to achieve specified treatment levels between sexes.

Results

Baseline lipids and hs-CRP were generally higher in women vs. men. Between-treatment differences were significant for both sexes (all p < 0.001 except apolipoprotein A-I in men = 0.0389). Men treated with ezetimibe+statin experienced significantly greater changes in LDL-C (p = 0.0066), non-HDL-C, total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C, apolipoprotein A-I (all p < 0.0001) and apolipoprotein B (p = 0.0055) compared with women treated with ezetimibe+statin. The odds of achieving LDL-C < 100 mg/dL, apolipoprotein B < 90 mg/dL and the dual target [LDL-C < 100 mg/dL & apoliprotein B < 90 mg/dL] was significantly greater for women vs. men and the odds of achieving hs-CRP < 1 and < 2 mg/L and dual specified levels of [LDL-C < 100 mg/dL and hs-CRP < 2 mg/L] were significantly greater for men vs. women. Women reported significantly more gall-bladder-related, gastrointestinal-related, and allergic reaction or rash-related adverse events (AEs) vs. men (no differences between treatments). Men reported significantly more CK elevations (no differences between treatments) and hepatitis-related AEs vs. women (significantly more with ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. statin).

Conclusions

These results suggest that small sex-related differences may exist in response to lipid-lowering treatment and achievement of specified lipid and hs-CRP levels, which may have implications when managing hypercholesterolemia in women.

Effects of simvastatin, atorvastatin, ezetimibe, and ezetimibe + simvastatin combination on the inflammatory process and on the liver metabolic changes of arthritic rats

In this study, simvastatin, atorvastatin, ezetimibe, and ezetimibe + simvastatin combination were administered to arthritic rats, first to determine their effects on the inflammatory response, employing a low-dose adjuvant-induced arthritis model in rats. Arthritis was induced by the subcutaneous injection of a suspension of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (100 μg) in mineral oil [complete Freund's adjuvant used (CFA)] into the plantar surface of the hind paws. Simvastatin(40 mg/kg), atorvastatin(10 mg/kg), ezetimibe(10 mg/kg), ezetimibe(10 mg/kg) + simvastatin(20 mg/kg or 40 mg/kg) were given intragastrically and the treatment began on the day of CFA injection and continued daily up to the 28th day after arthritis induction. The ezetimibe + simvastatin combination was more effective in reducing the inflammatory response in arthritic rats than in atorvastatin, simvastatin, or ezetimibe monotherapy. The observed effect seems to be cholesterol-independent as there were no changes in plasma cholesterol levels. In spite of the benefits on joint lesions, treatment with ezetimibe + simvastatin combination caused a marked increment in liver, kidneys, spleen size, and plasma transaminases activities. Therefore, animals treated with the ezetimibe(10 mg/kg) + simvastatin(40 mg/kg) combination were also submitted to liver perfusion experiments. In this regard, ezetimibe + simvastatin did not improve the liver metabolic alterations seen in control arthritic rats, on the contrary, a worsening was observed in liver production of glucose from alanine, as well as in oxygen uptake. All of these metabolic changes appear to be induced by treatment with ezetimibe + simvastatin combination, as the same metabolic effects were observed in normal and treated arthritic animals.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of combination therapy with ezetimibe/statin vs. statin monotherapy in patients with and without diabetes: an analysis of pooled data from 27 clinical trials

AIM

This post hoc analysis compared the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg plus statin (EZE/statin) vs. statin monotherapy in hypercholesterolaemic patients with and without diabetes.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of 27 previously published, randomized, double-blind, active- or placebo-controlled clinical trials comprising 21 794 adult patients with (n = 6541) and without (n = 15253) diabetes receiving EZE/statin or statin alone for 4-24 weeks evaluated percentage change from baseline in lipids and other parameters. Consistency of the treatment effect across the subgroups was tested using treatment × subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made.

RESULTS

Treatment effects within both subgroups were generally consistent with the overall population. EZE/statin was more effective than statin alone in improving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TGs), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein (apo) B and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in the overall population and both subgroups. Patients with diabetes achieved significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C compared with non-diabetic patients. Incidences of adverse events or creatine kinase elevations were similar between groups. A small but significantly higher incidence of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase elevations was seen in patients receiving EZE/statin (0.6%) vs. statin monotherapy (0.3%) in the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with EZE/statin vs. statin monotherapy provided significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC, TG, non-HDL-C, apo B and hs-CRP and significantly greater increases in HDL-C, with a similar safety profile in patients with and without diabetes. Reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C were larger in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes.

The ezetimibe controversy: implications for clinical practice

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains the primary target of lipid-lowering therapy. Achieving LDL-C goals as outlined by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III can be difficult with statins alone; therefore, adjunctive therapy is often indicated to reduce cardiovascular risk. Ezetimibe, a potent inhibitor of intestinal cholesterol absorption, has been shown to be safe, tolerable and effective at lowering LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B, each of which has been correlated with improved clinical outcomes, alone or in combination with a statin. However, because of randomized trials that demonstrated mixed results about atherosclerotic plaque regression via carotid intima-media thickness and a concern about cancer risk, ezetimibe's role in lipid therapy has been questioned. Currently, a large randomized controlled trial is in progress to answer if ezetimibe improves clinical outcomes in patients with high-risk acute coronary syndrome. A smaller trial in patients with chronic kidney disease demonstrated reduced clinical events, including myocardial infarction, stroke and revascularization for patients taking the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin versus those taking statin or placebo alone. In this paper, we review the trials that have led to the ezetimibe controversy and then discuss the possible role of ezetimibe in specific patient populations until the results of ongoing clinical trials are known.

Emerging therapies for atherosclerosis prevention and management

Atherosclerosis is a chronic immunoinflammatory disease involving medium and large arteries, resulting from a complex interaction between genetic and environmental risk factors. Acute atherosclerotic vascular disease largely results from thrombosis that supervenes on a disrupted atherosclerotic plaque. A healthy lifestyle coupled with management of modifiable risk factors reduces the adverse clinical consequences of atherothrombosis. Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels using statins and other agents is the primary pharmacologic approach to stabilize atherosclerosis, but a large residual risk burden remains, stimulating the search for additional therapies for atherosclerosis management. This review focuses on new and emerging therapeutic strategies targeting atherosclerosis.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg in coronary heart disease patients

BACKGROUND

Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the primary goal of therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease (CHD).

METHODS

This double blind placebo-controlled study enrolled patients 18 to 75 years of age with primary hypercholesterolemia and established CHD who were taking a stable daily dose of simvastatin 20 mg. Patients were randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (eze/simva; n = 56) or simvastatin 40 mg (simva; n = 56) for 6 weeks. Percent change from baseline in LDL-C, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides were assessed by use of the Student t test. The percent of patients achieving LDL-C less than 100 mg/dL (<2.6 mmol/L) or less than 80 mg/dL (<2.0 mmol/L) was analyzed via logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, age, and gender.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Treatment with eze/simva combination resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, and triglycerides versus doubling the dose of simva to 40 mg (all P < .01). Significantly more patients achieved LDL-C less than 100 mg/dL (<2.6 mmol/L) and less than 80 mg/dL (<2.0 mmol/L) with ezetimibe/simvastatin versus doubling the dose of simva to 40 mg (73.2% vs 25.0%; P < .001) for simvastatin. Changes in HDL-C were similar between treatments. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In high-risk CHD patients with hypercholesterolemia, treatment with eze/simva combination resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as greater achievement of recommended LDL-C targets, compared with doubling the simvastatin dose to 40 mg over the 6-week period. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00423579).

Improvement of endothelial damage and regeneration indexes in patients with coronary artery disease after 4 weeks of statin therapy

BACKGROUND

In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), higher numbers of circulating endothelial progenitor cells (EPC) favourably influence clinical outcome. Controversially, increased apoptosis of endothelial cells (EC) may reflect vascular damage. Statins have been shown to improve vascular damage and enhance EPC function and numbers. The availability of ezetimibe, a potent novel cholesterol absorption inhibitor, allows to distinguish between lipid-lowering and pleiotropic properties of statins.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

43 patients with CAD were assigned to receive either: de novo atorvastatin (group A; n=17), ezetimibe as add-on to chronic statin therapy (group B; n=14), or dose escalation of atorvastatin (group C; n=12) over 4 weeks. Circulating apoptotic EC (CD45-CD146+vWF+Annexin-V+) and EPC (CD34+KDR+) were quantified using flow cytometry. LDL cholesterol levels were significantly reduced in all treatment arms. Both statin groups, group A and group C, showed significantly reduced circulating apoptotic EC by 50% each (p<0.01). On the other hand, there was a significant doubling in the numbers of circulating EPC in group A and group C (p<0.005, each). Consequently, the endothelial damage-index calculated from numbers of circulating apoptotic mature EC related to EPC numbers, was improved in group A by 79% (p<0.01) and in group C by 70% (p<0.05). In contrast, sole LDL reduction by ezetimibe exerted no effect on any of the different circulating endothelial cell types.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the improvement in numbers of EPC and reduction of mature apoptotic EC after 4 weeks of statin therapy, document a novel pleiotropic effect of statin therapy in patients with CAD.

Model system for the analysis of cell surface expression of human ABCA1

BACKGROUND

The ABCA1 protein plays a pivotal role in reverse cholesterol transport, by mediating the generation of HDL particles and removing cellular cholesterol. Both the proper expression of ABCA1 in the plasma membrane and the internalization along with apoA-I are required for function. Therefore, we developed a model system to investigate the effect of clinically relevant drugs on the cell surface appearance of ABCA1.

RESULTS

By retroviral transduction system, we established stable mammalian cell lines expressing functional and non-functional ABCA1 variants, tagged with an extracellular hemagglutinin epitope. After characterization of the expression, proper localization and function of different ABCA1 variants, we followed quantitatively their cell surface expression by immunofluorescent staining, using flow cytometry. As expected, we found increased cell surface expression of ABCA1 after treatment with a calpain inhibitor, and observed a strong decrease in plasma membrane ABCA1 expression upon treatment with a trans-Golgi transport inhibitor, Brefeldin A. We tested cholesterol level lowering drugs and other potential inhibitors of ABCA1. Here we demonstrate that ezetimibe affects ABCA1 cell surface expression only in the case of a functional ABCA1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model system allows a quantitative detection of cell surface expression of ABCA1, screening of substrates or specific inhibitors, and investigating transport regulation.

Short-term ezetimibe is well tolerated and effective in combination with statin therapy to treat elevated LDL cholesterol in HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Ezetimibe inhibits intestinal absorption of cholesterol.

METHODS

Multicentered double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study to determine the short-term safety, efficacy, and tolerability of ezetimibe in combination with ongoing statin therapy in HIV-infected adults with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Participants on stable HAART with fasting LDL-C at least 130 mg/dl and stable statin were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg daily or placebo for 12 weeks followed by 4 weeks of washout and then 12 weeks with alternative study assignment. Percentage and absolute change in LDL-C (primary endpoint), total cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein B, and high sensitivity C-reactive protein were compared. Changes in clinical symptoms and safety laboratory measurements were assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-four participants enrolled: 70% men, median age 49 years, 43% White/Non-Hispanic, median CD4 cell count 547 cells/microl, and 95% HIV RNA less than 50 copies/ml. Median (interquartile range) percentage change in LDL-C was -20.8% (-25.4, -10.7) with ezetimibe and -0.7% (-10.3,18.6) with placebo; the median within-participant effect of ezetimibe was -14.1% (-33.0, -5.0; P < 0.0001). Median difference in absolute LDL-C values between ezetimibe and placebo was -32 mg/dl (-58, -6, P < 0.0001). Significant differences in within-participant effect of ezetimibe were noted for total cholesterol -18.60% (-27.22, -11.67, P < 0.001), non-HDL-C -23.18% (-33.14, -14.36, P < 0.0001), and apolipoprotein B -8.73% (-18.75, 1.99, P = 0.02). No significant changes seen in HDL-C, triglyceride, or high sensitivity C-reactive protein. Ezetimibe was well tolerated. Adverse events were similar between phases.

CONCLUSION

The present short-term study found adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy was well tolerated and effective in reducing LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B. Adding ezetimibe to statin therapy offers reasonable treatment option for HIV-infected patients with elevated LDL-C.

Usefulness of statin-ezetimibe combination to reduce the care gap in dyslipidemia management in patients with a high risk of atherosclerotic disease

Lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is a fundamental step in the comprehensive management of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The combination of a statin with ezetimibe usually provides additional LDL cholesterol lowering compared to statin monotherapy. This open-label observational study evaluated the impact of a 26-week treatment program with uptitration of statin dosages and incorporation of ezetimibe 10 mg therapy in 2,577 men and women (median age 64 years) with hypercholesterolemia and an LDL cholesterol level >2.5 mmol/L (97 mg/dl). Attainment of an LDL cholesterol target of 2.5 mmol/L (97 mg/dl) increased with consecutive visits (63%, 67%, and 71% at the second, third, and final visits, respectively). Current guideline-recommended LDL cholesterol value <2.0 mmol/L (77 mg/dl) was achieved by 36%, 40%, and 41% of the group at the same consecutive follow-up sessions. Median LDL cholesterol decreased from 3.0 mmol/L (116 mg/dl) at baseline to 2.1 mmol/L (81 mg/dl) at the end of the 26-week monitoring period. Favorable changes were concomitantly observed for median total cholesterol (5.1 to 4.1 mmol/L [197 to 159 mg/dl]), total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (4.2 to 3.3), and triglyceride (1.6 to 1.4 mmol/L [142 to 124 mg/dl]). Of those who attended visit 4, 48% exhibited LDL cholesterol lowering of > or =1 mmol/L (39 mg/dl) compared to baseline levels. In conclusion, an algorithm-based statin uptitration/ezetimibe combination regimen is useful to increase LDL cholesterol lowering where statin monotherapy has not achieved target lipid values.

Effects of ezetimibe and simvastatin on apolipoprotein B metabolism in males with mixed hyperlipidemia

Sixteen hyperlipidemic men were enrolled in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, cross-over study to evaluate the effect of ezetimibe 10 mg and simvastatin 40 mg, coadministered and alone, on the in vivo kinetics of apolipoprotein (apo) B-48 and B-100 in humans. Subjects underwent a primed-constant infusion of a stable isotope in the fed state. The coadministration of simvastatin and ezetimibe significantly reduced plasma concentrations of cholesterol (-43.0%), LDL-C (-53.6%), and triglycerides (-44.0%). Triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRL) apoB-48 pool size (PS) was significantly decreased (-48.9%) following combination therapy mainly through a significant reduction in TRL apoB-48 production rate (PR) (-38.0%). The fractional catabolic rate (FCR) of VLDL and LDL apoB-100 were significantly increased with all treatment modalities compared with placebo, leading to a significant reduction in the PS of these fractions. We also observed a positive correlation between changes in TRL apoB-48 PS and changes in TRL apoB-48 PR (r = 0.85; P < 0.0001) with combination therapy. Our results indicate that treatment with simvastatin plus ezetimibe is effective in reducing plasma TRL apoB-48 levels and that this effect is most likely mediated by a reduction in the intestinal secretion of TRL apoB-48. Our study also indicated that the reduction in LDL-C concentration following combination therapy is mainly driven by an increase in FCR of apoB-100 containing lipoproteins.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in high-risk family medicine patients

BACKGROUND

The Adult Treatment Panel III guideline recommends a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of <100mg/dl for patients with coronary heart disease or risk equivalence (ie, other forms of atherosclerotic vascular disease [peripheral vascular disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm, cerebrovascular disease], diabetes). An optional LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl is recommended for patients considered "very high risk." This category is not well defined, and clinical interpretation of this category varies.

METHODS

To define this category and to determine eligibility for an LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl, 5 definitions of "very high risk" were developed. Patients with coronary heart disease or risk equivalence within the University of Colorado Family Medicine system over the course of 2 years were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes (n=445). Their medical records were evaluated retrospectively. Patients characterized as "very high risk" according to the 5 definitions were assessed for LDL-C <70mg/dl goal attainment.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients did not have LDL-C measurements and were excluded. Using the 5 definitions, we discovered that prevalence as "very high risk" was 10.8% (atherosclerotic vascular disease [AVD] plus smoking), 19.1% (AVD plus diabetes), 21.5% (AVD plus metabolic syndrome plus uncontrolled hypertension or smoking), 47.1% (AVD plus metabolic syndrome), and 67.2% (All AVD), P < .0001. LDL-C <70mg/dl was attained in 26.7%, 46.3%, 31.1%, 39.1%, and 35.2%, respectively (P=.13).

CONCLUSION

Classifying patients as "very high risk" is highly variable depending on individual definitions, but this does not appear to alter the rates of attaining an LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl. When the Adult Treatment Panel IV guidelines are developed and issued, simplicity and clarity will be important in assisting clinicians in defining patient risk and developing LDL-C goals.

Ezetimibe monotherapy for cholesterol lowering in 2,722 people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To study the evidence on the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy for the treatment of primary (heterozygous familial and non-familial) hypercholesterolaemia.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Eleven electronic bibliographic databases covering the biomedical, scientific and grey literature were searched from inception and supplemented by contact with experts in the field. Two reviewers independently determined the eligibility of RCTs, with a minimum treatment duration of 12 weeks, which compared ezetimibe monotherapy (10 mg per day) with placebo.

RESULTS

In the absence of data from clinical outcome trials, surrogate endpoints such as changes in lipid concentrations were used as indicators of clinical outcomes. A meta-analysis of eight randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials (all 12 weeks) showed that ezetimibe monotherapy was associated with a statistically significant mean reduction in LDL cholesterol (from baseline to endpoint) of -18.58%, (95% CI: -19.67 to -17.48, P < 0.00001) compared with placebo. Significant (P < 0.00001) changes were also found in total cholesterol (-13.46%, 95% CI: -14.22 to -12.70), HDL cholesterol (3.00%, 95% CI: 2.06-3.94) and triglyceride levels (-8.06%, 95% CI: -10.92 to -5.20). Ezetimibe monotherapy appeared to be well tolerated with a safety profile similar to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

In a meta-analysis restricted to short-term trials in hypercholesterolaemia, significant potentially favourable changes in lipid and lipoprotein levels relative to baseline occurred with ezetimibe monotherapy. Further long-term studies with cardiovascular and other clinical outcome data are needed to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe more fully.