Lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability of extended-release niacin/laropiprant in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia or mixed dyslipidaemia

NAD+ Precursors in Human Health and Disease: Current Status and Future Prospects

Significance: Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+) acts as a cofactor in many important biological processes. The administration of NAD+ precursors increases the intracellular NAD+ pool and has beneficial effects on physiological changes and diseases associated with aging in various organisms, including rodents and humans. Recent Advances: Evidence from preclinical studies demonstrating the beneficial effects of NAD+ precursors has rapidly increased in the last decade. The results of these studies have prompted the development of clinical trials using NAD+ precursors, particularly nicotinamide riboside (NR) and nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN). In addition, in vivo studies of NAD+ metabolism have rapidly progressed. Critical Issues: Several studies have demonstrated that the oral administration of NAD+ precursors, such as NR and NMN, is safe and significantly increases NAD+ levels in humans. However, the efficacy of these NAD+ precursors is lower than expected from the results of preclinical studies. In addition, the identification of the contribution of the host-gut microbiota interactions to NR and NMN metabolism has added to the complexity of NAD+ metabolism. Future Directions: Further studies are required to determine the efficacy of NAD+ precursors in humans. Further in vivo studies of NAD+ metabolism are required to optimize the effects of NAD+ supplementation. There is also a need for methods of delivering NAD+ precursors to target organs or tissues to increase the outcomes of clinical trials. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 39, 1133-1149.

Modified-release nicotinamide for the treatment of hyperphosphataemia in haemodialysis patients: 52-week efficacy and safety results of the phase III randomised controlled NOPHOS trial

BACKGROUND

We previously reported that modified-release nicotinamide (NAMR) was superior to placebo in reducing serum phosphate concentrations over 12 weeks in a large cohort of haemodialysis patients with hyperphosphataemia. Here, we report outcomes after 52 weeks of treatment.

METHODS

NOPHOS was a phase III, international, randomised, controlled, double-blind trial in parallel group design. NAMR (250-1500 mg/d) was investigated in comparison to placebo as an add-on therapy to an individual therapy with approved phosphate binders.

RESULTS

In the intention-to-treat population (NAMR: N = 539, placebo: N = 183), serum phosphate was significantly lower in the NAMR group compared to the placebo group at W24 (5.40 ± 1.55 mg/dl vs. 5.79 ± 1.37 mg/dl,  P < 0.001) with a mean difference of -0.39 mg/dl [95% CI -0.66, -0.13], but was comparable between the groups at W52 (mean difference -0.08 [95% CI -0.36, 0.20]). In the completer population (N = 358), statistical significance in favour of NAMR was reached at W24 and W52. The treatment effect was reduced in patients with high baseline serum intact parathyroid hormone (iPTH) compared to patients with low baseline serum iPTH. Compliant patients in the NAMR group had a more pronounced and sustained reduction in serum phosphate than non-compliant patients. NAMR treatment was associated with a significantly increased risk of thrombocytopenia, pruritus, anaemia, and diarrhoea. Herpes zoster occurred exclusively in patients randomised to NAMR.

CONCLUSIONS

NAMR combined with phosphate binders significantly reduced serum phosphate over the first 24 weeks of treatment, but the treatment effect was not maintained up to W52. Non-compliance may have contributed to reduced long-term efficacy. Several newly identified safety signals warrant further evaluation.

Dietary Micronutrient Status and Relation between Micronutrient Intakes and Overweight and Obesity among Non-Pregnant and Non-Lactating Women Aged 18 to 49 in China

Women between the ages of 18 and 49 are women of reproductive age, for whom physical health and nutritional status are closely related to successful pregnancy, good pregnancy outcomes and the nurturing of the next generation. Overweight and obesity have become important nutrition and health problems of women aged 18−49 years in China. In social life, non-pregnant and non-lactating Chinese women aged 18−49 are the most vulnerable and neglected group. At present, there are no research data on their dietary micronutrient intake, and the relationship between dietary micronutrient intake and overweight and obesity in China. However, non-pregnant and non-lactating women aged 18−49 are the best window of opportunity to implement strategies, correct nutrition and improve physical health. It remains to be explored whether their overweight and obesity are related to inadequate dietary micronutrient intake. The aim of this study was to evaluate dietary micronutrient intake in non-pregnant and non-lactating Chinese women aged 18−49 years, and to analyze the relationship between dietary micronutrient intake and overweight and obesity. Data were obtained from 2015 China Adult Chronic Disease and Nutrition Surveillance (CACDNS 2015). In CACDNS 2015, 12,872 women aged 18 to 49 years (excluding pregnant women and lactating mothers) were surveyed for a three-day 24 h dietary recall and a three-day household weighing of edible oil and condiments. The average daily dietary intake of micronutrients was calculated according to the Chinese food composition table. In 2015, the median intake of vitamin A, vitamin B1, vitamin B2, vitamin C and folate in non-pregnant and non-lactating women aged 18−49 years in China was 267.0 μg RE/day, 0.7 mg/day, 0.6 mg/day, 63.5 mg/day and 121.0 μg/day, respectively. The median mean intake of vitamin A, niacin, calcium and zinc in overweight/obese group was lower than that in non-overweight/obese group, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Multivariate Logistic regression analysis showed that vitamin A intake (Q3 vs. Q1: OR = 0.785, 95% CI: 0.702~0.878; Q4 vs. Q1: OR = 0.766, 95% CI: 0.679~0.865), niacin intake (Q2 vs. Q1: OR = 0.801, 95% CI: 0.715−0.898; Q3 vs. Q1: OR = 0.632, 95% CI: 0.554~0.721; Q4 vs. Q1: OR = 0.662, 95% CI: 0.568~0.772), Zinc intake (Q4 vs. Q1: OR = 0.786, 95% CI: 0.662~0.932) were a protective factor for overweight/obesity in women, while vitamin B2 intake (Q2 vs. Q1: OR = 1.256, 95% CI: 1.120~1.408; Q3 vs. Q1: OR = 1.416, 95% CI: 1.240~1.617; Q4 vs. Q1: OR = 1.515, 95% CI: 1.293−1.776), vitamin E intake (Q2 vs. Q1: OR = 1.114, 95% CI: 1.006−0.235; Q3 vs. Q1: OR = 1.162, 95% CI: 1.048~0.288; Q4 vs. Q1: OR = 1.234, 95% CI: 1.112−1.371) was a risk factor for overweight/obesity in females. The intakes of most dietary micronutrients in non-pregnant and non-lactating women aged 18−49 in China were low. The intakes of dietary vitamin A, niacin and zinc were negatively correlated with the risk of overweight/obesity, while the intakes of vitamin B2 and vitamin E were positively correlated with the risk of overweight/obesity.

Apolipoprotein B and Cardiovascular Disease: Biomarker and Potential Therapeutic Target

Apolipoprotein (apo) B, the critical structural protein of the atherogenic lipoproteins, has two major isoforms: apoB48 and apoB100. ApoB48 is found in chylomicrons and chylomicron remnants with one apoB48 molecule per chylomicron particle. Similarly, a single apoB100 molecule is contained per particle of very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), intermediate density lipoprotein, LDL and lipoprotein(a). This unique one apoB per particle ratio makes plasma apoB concentration a direct measure of the number of circulating atherogenic lipoproteins. ApoB levels indicate the atherogenic particle concentration independent of the particle cholesterol content, which is variable. While LDL, the major cholesterol-carrying serum lipoprotein, is the primary therapeutic target for management and prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, there is strong evidence that apoB is a more accurate indicator of cardiovascular risk than either total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol. This review examines multiple aspects of apoB structure and function, with a focus on the controversy over use of apoB as a therapeutic target in clinical practice. Ongoing coronary artery disease residual risk, despite lipid-lowering treatment, has left patients and clinicians with unsatisfactory options for monitoring cardiovascular health. At the present time, the substitution of apoB for LDL-C in cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines has been deemed unjustified, but discussions continue.

Emerging Pharmacotherapy to Reduce Elevated Lipoprotein(a) Plasma Levels

Lipoprotein(a) is a unique form of low-density lipoprotein. It is associated with a high incidence of premature atherosclerotic disease such as coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Plasma levels of this lipoprotein and its activities are highly variable. This is because of a wide variability in the size of the apolipoprotein A moiety, which is determined by the number of repeats of cysteine-rich domains known as "kringles." Although the exact mechanism of lipoprotein(a)-induced atherogenicity is unknown, the lipoprotein has been found in the arterial walls of atherosclerotic plaques. It has been implicated in the formation of foam cells and lipid deposition in these plaques. Pharmacologic management of elevated levels of lipoprotein(a) with statins, fibrates, or bile acid sequestrants is ineffective. The newer and emerging lipid-lowering agents, such as the second-generation antisense oligonucleotides, cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors offer the most effective pharmacologic therapy.

Serious Adverse Effects of Extended-release Niacin/Laropiprant: Results From the Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) Trial

PURPOSE

The Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) trial of patients at high risk of vascular disease found that adding extended-release niacin-laropiprant to intensive statin-based LDL-lowering therapy had no benefit on cardiovascular outcomes. However, the trial also identified previously unrecognized serious adverse effects (including new-onset diabetes, bleeding, and infection). Our objective was to explore the safety profile of niacin-laropiprant and examine whether any patients were at lower (or higher) risk of its adverse effects.

METHODS

HPS2-THRIVE was a randomized, double-blind trial of niacin-laropiprant (2000/40 mg/d) versus placebo among 25,673 patients at high risk of vascular disease. Information on all serious adverse events was collected during a median of 3.9 years of study treatment. Effects of niacin-laropiprant on new-onset diabetes, disturbances of diabetes control, bleeding, infection, and gastrointestinal upset were estimated by (1) time after randomization, (2) severity, (3) baseline characteristics, (4) baseline risk of the adverse event of interest, and (5) risk of major vascular event.

FINDINGS

The hazard ratio (HR) for new-onset diabetes with niacin/laropiprant was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.16-1.51; P < .001), which corresponded to an absolute excess of 4 people (95% CI, 2-6) developing diabetes per 1000 person-years in the study population as a whole. Among the 8299 participants with diabetes at baseline, the HR for serious disturbances in diabetes control was 1.56 (95% CI, 1.35-1.80), corresponding to an absolute excess of 12 (95% CI, 8-16) per 1000 person-years. The HR was 1.38 (95% CI, 1.17-1.63; P < .001) for serious bleeding, corresponding to an absolute excess of 2 (95% CI, 1-3) per 1000 person-years and 1.22 (95% CI, 1.11-1.34; P < .001) for serious infection, corresponding to an absolute excess of 4 (95% CI, 2-6) per 1000 person-years. The excess risks of these serious adverse events were larger in the first year after starting niacin-laropiprant therapy than in later years (except for the excess of infection, which did not appear to attenuate with time), and the risks of nonfatal and fatal events were similarly increased. The absolute excesses of each of these adverse effects were similar regardless of the baseline risk of the outcome.

IMPLICATIONS

Practitioners or patients considering the use of niacin (in addition to, or instead of, a statin) despite the lack of evidence of cardiovascular benefits (at least when added to effective statin therapy) should take account of the significant risks of these serious adverse effects when making such decisions. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00461630.

Niacin for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events

BACKGROUND

Nicotinic acid (niacin) is known to decrease LDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides, and increase HDL-cholesterol levels. The evidence of benefits with niacin monotherapy or add-on to statin-based therapy is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of niacin therapy versus placebo, administered as monotherapy or add-on to statin-based therapy in people with or at risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in terms of mortality, CVD events, and side effects.

SEARCH METHODS

Two reviewers independently and in duplicate screened records and potentially eligible full texts identified through electronic searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, two trial registries, and reference lists of relevant articles (latest search in August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that either compared niacin monotherapy to placebo/usual care or niacin in combination with other component versus other component alone. We considered RCTs that administered niacin for at least six months, reported a clinical outcome, and included adults with or without established CVD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers used pre-piloted forms to independently and in duplicate extract trials characteristics, risk of bias items, and outcomes data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or third party arbitration. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, sensitivity analyses based on risk of bias and different assumptions for missing data, and used meta-regression analyses to investigate potential relationships between treatment effects and duration of treatment, proportion of participants with established coronary heart disease and proportion of participants receiving background statin therapy. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs that were published between 1968 and 2015 and included 39,195 participants in total. The mean age ranged from 33 to 71 years. The median duration of treatment was 11.5 months, and the median dose of niacin was 2 g/day. The proportion of participants with prior myocardial infarction ranged from 0% (4 trials) to 100% (2 trials, median proportion 48%); the proportion of participants taking statin ranged from 0% (4 trials) to 100% (12 trials, median proportion 100%).Using available cases, niacin did not reduce overall mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.12; participants = 35,543; studies = 12; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.12; participants = 32,966; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), non-cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 32,966; studies = 5; I2 = 0%; high-quality evidence), the number of fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarctions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; participants = 34,829; studies = 9; I2 = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), nor the number of fatal or non-fatal strokes (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.22; participants = 33,661; studies = 7; I2 = 42%; low-quality evidence). Participants randomised to niacin were more likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects than participants randomised to control group (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.77; participants = 33,539; studies = 17; I2 = 77%; moderate-quality evidence). The results were robust to sensitivity analyses using different assumptions for missing data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggests that niacin does not reduce mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, the number of fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarctions, nor the number of fatal or non-fatal strokes but is associated with side effects. Benefits from niacin therapy in the prevention of cardiovascular disease events are unlikely.

Safety and Tolerability of CSL112, a Reconstituted, Infusible, Plasma-Derived Apolipoprotein A-I, After Acute Myocardial Infarction: The AEGIS-I Trial (ApoA-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes I)

BACKGROUND

Human or recombinant apolipoprotein A-I (apoA-I) has been shown to increase high-density lipoprotein-mediated cholesterol efflux capacity and to regress atherosclerotic disease in animal and clinical studies. CSL112 is an infusible, plasma-derived apoA-I that has been studied in normal subjects or those with stable coronary artery disease. This study aimed to characterize the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of CSL112 in patients with a recent acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

The AEGIS-I trial (Apo-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes I) was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging phase 2b trial. Patients with myocardial infarction were stratified by renal function and randomized 1:1:1 to CSL112 (2 g apoA-I per dose) and high-dose CSL112 (6 g apoA-I per dose), or placebo for 4 consecutive weekly infusions. Coprimary safety end points were occurrence of either a hepatic safety event (an increase in alanine transaminase >3 times the upper limit of normal or an increase in total bilirubin >2 times the upper limit of normal) or a renal safety event (an increase in serum creatinine >1.5 times the baseline value or a new requirement for renal replacement therapy).

RESULTS

A total of 1258 patients were randomized, and 91.2% received all 4 infusions. The difference in incidence rates for an increase in alanine transaminase or total bilirubin between both CSL112 arms and placebo was within the protocol-defined noninferiority margin of 4%. Similarly, the difference in incidence rates for an increase in serum creatinine or a new requirement for renal replacement therapy was within the protocol-defined noninferiority margin of 5%. CSL112 was associated with increases in apoA-I and ex vivo cholesterol efflux similar to that achieved in patients with stable coronary artery disease. In regard to the secondary efficacy end point, the risk for the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events among the groups was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, 4 weekly infusions of CSL112 are feasible, well tolerated, and not associated with any significant alterations in liver or kidney function or other safety concern. The ability of CSL112 to acutely enhance cholesterol efflux was confirmed. The potential benefit of CSL112 to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events needs to be assessed in an adequately powered phase 3 trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02108262.

Niacin Alternatives for Dyslipidemia: Fool's Gold or Gold Mine? Part II: Novel Niacin Mimetics

Two cardiovascular outcome trials established niacin 3 g daily prevents hard cardiac events. However, as detailed in part I of this series, an extended-release (ER) alternative at only 2 g nightly demonstrated no comparable benefits in two outcome trials, implying the alternative is not equivalent to the established cardioprotective regimen. Since statins leave a significant treatment gap, this presents a major opportunity for developers. Importantly, the established regimen is cardioprotective, so the pathway is likely beneficial. Moreover, though effective, the established cardioprotective regimen is cumbersome, limiting clinical use. At the same time, the ER alternative has been thoroughly discredited as a viable substitute for the established cardioprotective regimen. Therefore, by exploiting the pathway and skillfully avoiding the problems with the established cardioprotective regimen and the ER alternative, developers could validate cardioprotective variations facing little meaningful competition from their predecessors. Thus, shrewd developers could effectively tap into a gold mine at the grave of the ER alternative. The GPR109A receptor was discovered a decade ago, leading to a large body of evidence commending the niacin pathway to a lower cardiovascular risk beyond statins. While mediating niacin's most prominent adverse effects, GPR109A also seems to mediate anti-lipolytic, anti-inflammatory, and anti-atherogenic effects of niacin. Several developers are investing heavily in novel strategies to exploit niacin's therapeutic pathways. These include selective GPR109A receptor agonists, niacin prodrugs, and a niacin metabolite, with encouraging early phase human data. In part II of this review, we summarize the accumulated results of these early phase studies of emerging niacin mimetics.

Testing the usefulness of the number needed to treat to be harmed (NNTH) in benefit-risk evaluations: case study with medicines withdrawn from the European market due to safety reasons

OBJECTIVE

To explore the usefulness of number needed to treat to be harmed (NNTH), in benefit-risk assessments, by studying the agreement between NNTH values and withdrawals of medicines from European market due to safety reasons.

METHODS

Medicines with data from longitudinal studies were included. Studies were identified from European Medicines Agency's Reports. Meta-analyses were performed to pool odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence-intervals (CI). Published control event rates were applied to ORs to calculate NNTHs (95%CI) for selected adverse events.

RESULTS

NNTH (95%CI) decreased from pre- to post-marketing for the eight medicines included: peripheral neuropathy (∞ vs. 12[non-significant; NS] with almitrine; heart valve disease with benfluorex (∞ vs. NNTH ranging from 7[4-13] to 7[5-9]); myopathy (-4096[NS] vs. 797[421-1690]), new-onset diabetes (113[NS] vs. 390[425-778]), bleeding (∞ vs. 517[317-1153]), and infection (∞ vs. 253[164-463]) with niacin-laropiprant; psychiatric disorders (12[7-34] vs. 9[5-24]) with rimonabant; myocardial infarction (MI) [-1305 vs. 270[89-4362]) with rofecoxib; MI (-510 vs. NNTH ranging from 152[55-4003] to 568[344-1350]) with rosiglitazone; cardiovascular events (∞ vs. 245[129-1318]) with sibutramine; and liver injury (∞ vs. 5957[NS]) with ximelagatran.

CONCLUSION

NNTH have potential of use as a supportive tool in benefit-risk re-evaluations of medicines and may help regulators to making decisions on drug safety.

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB levels are inter-correlated and all predict risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or high TG. These levels are lowered by extended-release niacin (ERN), and changes in the ratios of these levels may affect ASCVD risk. This analysis examined the effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) on the relationships between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM.

METHODS

T2DM patients (n = 796) had LDL-C ≥1.55 and <2.97 mmol/L and TG <5.65 mmol/L following a 4-week, lipid-modifying run-in (~78 % taking statins). ApoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were assessed after randomized (4:3), double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo for 12 weeks. Pearson correlation coefficients between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C were computed and simple linear regression models were fitted for apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C at baseline and Week 12, and the correlations between measured apoB and measured vs predicted values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C were studied.

RESULTS

LDL-C and especially non-HDL-C were well correlated with apoB at baseline, and treatment with ERN/LRPT increased these correlations, especially between LDL-C and apoB. Despite the tighter correlations, many patients who achieved non-HDL-C goal, and especially LDL-C goal, remained above apoB goal. There was a trend towards greater increases in these correlations in the higher TG subgroup, non-significant possibly due to the small number of subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

ERN/LRPT treatment increased association of apoB with LDL-C and non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. Lowering LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB with niacin has the potential to reduce coronary risk in patients with T2DM.

Effect of Extended-Release Niacin on High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL) Functionality, Lipoprotein Metabolism, and Mediators of Vascular Inflammation in Statin-Treated Patients

Background

The aim of this study was to explore the influence of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRP) versus placebo on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) antioxidant function, cholesterol efflux, apolipoprotein B100 (apoB)-containing lipoproteins, and mediators of vascular inflammation associated with 15% increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Study patients had persistent dyslipidemia despite receiving high-dose statin treatment.

Methods and Results

In a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial, we compared the effect of ERN/LRP with placebo in 27 statin-treated dyslipidemic patients who had not achieved National Cholesterol Education Program-ATP III targets for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We measured fasting lipid profile, apolipoproteins, cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) activity, paraoxonase 1 (PON1) activity, small dense LDL apoB (sdLDL-apoB), oxidized LDL (oxLDL), glycated apoB (glyc-apoB), lipoprotein phospholipase A2 (Lp-PLA2), lysophosphatidyl choline (lyso-PC), macrophage chemoattractant protein (MCP1), serum amyloid A (SAA) and myeloperoxidase (MPO). We also examined the capacity of HDL to protect LDL from in vitro oxidation and the percentage cholesterol efflux mediated by apoB depleted serum. ERN/LRP was associated with an 18% increase in HDL-C levels compared to placebo (1.55 versus 1.31 mmol/L, P<0.0001). There were significant reductions in total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, total serum apoB, lipoprotein (a), CETP activity, oxLDL, Lp-PLA2, lyso-PC, MCP1, and SAA, but no significant changes in glyc-apoB or sdLDL-apoB concentration. There was a modest increase in cholesterol efflux function of HDL (19.5%, P=0.045), but no change in the antioxidant capacity of HDL in vitro or PON1 activity.

Conclusions

ERN/LRP reduces LDL-associated mediators of vascular inflammation, but has varied effects on HDL functionality and LDL quality, which may counter its HDL-C-raising effect.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01054508.

Niacin therapy and the risk of new-onset diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective

Previous studies have suggested that niacin treatment raises glucose levels in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk of developing diabetes. We undertook a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data from randomised trials to confirm whether an association exists between niacin and new-onset diabetes.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1975 to 2014, for randomised controlled trials of niacin primarily designed to assess its effects on cardiovascular endpoints and cardiovascular surrogate markers. We included trials with ≥50 non-diabetic participants and average follow-up of ≥24 weeks. Published data were tabulated and unpublished data sought from investigators. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for new-onset diabetes with random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity between trials was assessed using the I² statistic.

Results

In 11 trials with 26 340 non-diabetic participants, 1371 (725/13 121 assigned niacin; 646/13 219 assigned control) were diagnosed with diabetes during a weighted mean follow-up of 3.6 years. Niacin therapy was associated with a RR of 1.34 (95% CIs 1.21 to 1.49) for new-onset diabetes, with limited heterogeneity between trials (I²=0.0%, p=0.87). This equates to one additional case of diabetes per 43 (95% CI 30 to 70) initially non-diabetic individuals who are treated with niacin for 5 years. Results were consistent regardless of whether participants received background statin therapy (p for interaction=0.88) or combined therapy with laropiprant (p for interaction=0.52).

Conclusions

Niacin therapy is associated with a moderately increased risk of developing diabetes regardless of background statin or combination laropiprant therapy.

Effects of formulation design on niacin therapeutics: mechanism of action, metabolism, and drug delivery

Niacin is a highly effective, lipid regulating drug associated with a number of metabolically induced side effects such as prostaglandin (PG) mediated flushing and hepatic toxicity. In an attempt to reduce the development of these adverse effects, scientists have investigated differing methods of niacin delivery designed to control drug release and alter metabolism. However, despite successful formulation of various orally based capsule and tablet delivery systems, patient adherence to niacin therapy is still compromised by adverse events such as PG-induced flushing. While the primary advantage of orally dosed formulations is ease of use, alternative delivery options such as transdermal delivery or polymeric micro/nanoparticle encapsulation for oral administration have shown promise in niacin reformulation. However, the effectiveness of these alternative delivery options in reducing inimical effects of niacin and maintaining drug efficacy is still largely unknown and requires more in-depth investigation. In this paper, we present an overview of niacin applications, its metabolic pathways, and current drug delivery formulations. Focus is placed on oral immediate, sustained, and extended release niacin delivery as well as combined statin and/or prostaglandin antagonist niacin formulation. We also examine and discuss current findings involving transdermal niacin formulations and polymeric micro/nanoparticle encapsulated niacin delivery.

Safety and tolerability of extended-release niacin-laropiprant: Pooled analyses for 11,310 patients in 12 controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) showed that adding extended-release niacin-laropiprant (ERN-LRPT) to statin provided no incremental cardiovascular benefit vs placebo (PBO). ERN-LRPT was also associated with an excess of serious adverse experiences (AEs), some of which were unexpected (infections and bleeding). These findings led to the withdrawal of ERN-LRPT from all markets.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the safety profile of ERN-LRPT vs the comparators ERN alone and statins in the ERN-LRPT development program to assess whether similar safety signals were observed to those seen in HPS-THRIVE and whether these might be attributed to ERN or LRPT.

METHODS

Postrandomization safety data from 12 clinical studies, 12 to 52 weeks in duration and involving 11,310 patients, were analyzed across 3 treatments: (1) ERN-LRPT; (2) ERN-NSP (ERN, Merck & Co, Inc or Niaspan [NSP], Abbott Laboratories); and (3) statin-PBO (statin or PBO).

RESULTS

The safety profiles of ERN-LRPT and ERN-NSP were similar, except for less flushing with ERN-LRPT. Nonflushing AEs reported more frequently with ERN-LRPT or ERN-NSP than with statin-PBO were mostly nonserious and typical of niacin (nausea, diarrhea, and increased blood glucose). There was no evidence for an increased risk of serious AEs related to diabetes, muscle, infection, or bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled data from 11,310 patients revealed that, except for reduced flushing, the safety profile of ERN-LRPT was similar to that of ERN-NSP; LRPT did not appear to adversely affect the side-effect profile of ERN. The inability to replicate the unexpected AE findings in HPS2-THRIVE could be because of the smaller sample size and substantially shorter duration of these studies.

Effect of alirocumab, a monoclonal proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 antibody, on lipoprotein(a) concentrations (a pooled analysis of 150 mg every two weeks dosing from phase 2 trials)

Lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)] is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, with limited treatment options. This analysis evaluated the effect of a monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9, alirocumab 150 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W), on Lp(a) levels in pooled data from 3 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 studies of 8 or 12 weeks' duration conducted in patients with hypercholesterolemia on background lipid-lowering therapy (NCT01266876, NCT01288469, and NCT01288443). Data were available for 102 of 108 patients who received alirocumab 150 mg Q2W and 74 of 77 patients who received placebo. Alirocumab resulted in a significant reduction in Lp(a) from baseline compared with placebo (-30.3% vs -0.3%, p <0.0001). Median percentage Lp(a) reductions in the alirocumab group were of a similar magnitude across a range of baseline Lp(a) levels, resulting in greater absolute reductions in Lp(a) in patients with higher baseline levels. Regression analysis indicated that <5% of the variance in the reduction of Lp(a) was explained by the effect of alirocumab on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. In conclusion, pooled data from 3 phase 2 trials demonstrate substantive reduction in Lp(a) with alirocumab 150 mg Q2W, including patients with baseline Lp(a) >50 mg/dl. Reductions in Lp(a) only weakly correlated with the magnitude of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering.

Mechanism of action of anti-hypercholesterolemia drugs and their resistance

Coronary artery disease is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. One of the significant causes of this disease is hypercholesterolemia which is the result of various genetic alterations that are associated with the accumulation of specific classes of lipoprotein particles in plasma. A number of drugs are used to treat hypercholesterolemia like statin, fibrate, bile acid sequestrants, niacin, ezetimibe, omega-3 fatty acids and natural extracts. It has been observed that these drugs show diverse response in different individuals. The present review explains the mechanism of action of these drugs as well as mechanism of its lesser effectiveness or resistance in some individuals. There are various identified genetic variations that are associated with diversity in the drugs response. Therefore, present study helps to understand the ethiology of drug mechanism and resistance developed against drugs used to treat hypercholesterolemia.

Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients

BACKGROUND

Patients with evidence of vascular disease are at increased risk for subsequent vascular events despite effective use of statins to lower the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level. Niacin lowers the LDL cholesterol level and raises the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level, but its clinical efficacy and safety are uncertain.

METHODS

After a prerandomization run-in phase to standardize the background statin-based LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy and to establish participants' ability to take extended-release niacin without clinically significant adverse effects, we randomly assigned 25,673 adults with vascular disease to receive 2 g of extended-release niacin and 40 mg of laropiprant or a matching placebo daily. The primary outcome was the first major vascular event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, death from coronary causes, stroke, or arterial revascularization).

RESULTS

During a median follow-up period of 3.9 years, participants who were assigned to extended-release niacin-laropiprant had an LDL cholesterol level that was an average of 10 mg per deciliter (0.25 mmol per liter as measured in the central laboratory) lower and an HDL cholesterol level that was an average of 6 mg per deciliter (0.16 mmol per liter) higher than the levels in those assigned to placebo. Assignment to niacin-laropiprant, as compared with assignment to placebo, had no significant effect on the incidence of major vascular events (13.2% and 13.7% of participants with an event, respectively; rate ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.03; P=0.29). Niacin-laropiprant was associated with an increased incidence of disturbances in diabetes control that were considered to be serious (absolute excess as compared with placebo, 3.7 percentage points; P<0.001) and with an increased incidence of diabetes diagnoses (absolute excess, 1.3 percentage points; P<0.001), as well as increases in serious adverse events associated with the gastrointestinal system (absolute excess, 1.0 percentage point; P<0.001), musculoskeletal system (absolute excess, 0.7 percentage points; P<0.001), skin (absolute excess, 0.3 percentage points; P=0.003), and unexpectedly, infection (absolute excess, 1.4 percentage points; P<0.001) and bleeding (absolute excess, 0.7 percentage points; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among participants with atherosclerotic vascular disease, the addition of extended-release niacin-laropiprant to statin-based LDL cholesterol-lowering therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events but did increase the risk of serious adverse events. (Funded by Merck and others; HPS2-THRIVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00461630.).

Effect of niacin on FGF23 concentration in chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Elevated serum phosphorus and FGF23 are independent cardiovascular risk factors in patients with chronic kidney disease. In a randomized controlled trial of patients with dyslipidemia assigned to either extended release niacin (ERN) alone, ERN combined with the selective prostaglandin D2 receptor subtype 1 inhibitor laropiprant (ERN-L) or placebo, niacin lowered serum phosphorus; however, it is not known if it lowers FGF23 concentrations.

METHODS

This is an ancillary study to a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial among patients with dyslipidemia and an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of 30-74 ml/min/1.73 m(2). Participants were randomized to ERN-L (n = 162), ERN (n = 97), or placebo (n = 68) in a 3:2:1 ratio for 24 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in serum FGF23 concentrations, and secondary outcomes were changes in other mineral metabolism parameters.

RESULTS

Both the ERN and ERN-L groups showed significant declines in serum phosphorus, calcium and calcium·phosphorus product at 24 weeks compared to placebo. A significant decline from baseline (10.9%, p < 0.01) in the serum FGF23 concentration was observed in the ERN group compared to placebo, but not in the ERN-L group compared to placebo (p = 0.36 and 0.97 for ERN-L and placebo, respectively), despite equivalent declines in serum phosphorus. Similarly, the most marked declines in PTH occurred in the ERN-only group versus placebo; no change in PTH was observed in the ERN-L group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this ancillary study of hyperlipidemic patients with an eGFR of 30-74 ml/min/1.73 m(2), ERN alone but not in combination with laropiprant lowered FGF23 and PTH concentrations. If confirmed, niacin may provide a novel strategy to decrease phosphorus, FGF23, and PTH concentrations in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant, simvastatin, and the combination on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL cholesterol, and non-HDL cholesterol in patients with dyslipidemia

BACKGROUND

Statins modify correlations between apolipoprotein B (apoB) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and apoB and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C); however, it is not known whether niacin-based therapies have similar effects.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of extended-release niacin (ERN)/laropiprant (LRPT), simvastatin (SIMVA), and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA (pooled ERN/LRPT + SIMVA) on apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations in dyslipidemic patients.

METHODS

This post-hoc analysis of a 12-week study evaluated the apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations in dyslipidemic patients randomized equally to double-blind ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg, SIMVA 10, 20, or 40 mg, or ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIMVA (10, 20, or 40 mg) once daily for 4 weeks. At week 5, doses were doubled in all groups except SIMVA 40 mg (unchanged) and ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIMVA 40 mg (switched to ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg + SIMVA 40 mg). Simple linear regression analyses were used to calculate LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels corresponding to known apoB baseline values (ie, in untreated patients) and following treatment.

RESULTS

The apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were higher and the predicted LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels for a known apoB value were considerably lower following treatment with ERN/LRPT, SIMVA and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA compared with untreated patients at baseline.

CONCLUSION

Greater dissociation of apoB, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C targets occur following treatment with ERN/LRPT, SIMVA, and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA in patients with dyslipidemia. The achievement of more aggressive LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals in patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy may further reduce coronary risk by normalizing apoB-containing atherogenic lipoproteins.

Role of Glitazars in atherogenic dyslipidemia and diabetes: Two birds with one stone?

A triad of high triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and elevated small dense low-density lipoprotein particles occurring in a patient with type 2 diabetes is referred to atherogenic diabetic dyslipidemia (ADD). Despite statin therapy, a significant residual risk remains potentially attributable to increased triglyceride concentration and low HDL cholesterol, a characteristic hallmark of ADD. Current therapeutic options in reducing this residual risk include nicotinic acid, omega 3 fatty acids, and selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-alpha (PPAR) agonists (fibrates). These drugs are limited in their potential either by lack of evidence to support their role in reducing cardiovascular events or due to their side effects. This review details their current status and also the role of new glitazar, saroglitazar adual PPARα/γ agonist with predominant PPARα activity in the management of ADD.

A reappraisal of the risks and benefits of treating to target with cholesterol lowering drugs

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one cause of death globally, and lipid modification, particularly lowering of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc), is one of the cornerstones of prevention and treatment. However, even after lowering of LDLc to conventional goals, a sizeable number of patients continue to suffer cardiovascular events. More aggressive lowering of LDLc and optimization of other lipid parameters like triglycerides (TG) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc) have been proposed as two potential strategies to address this residual risk. These strategies entail use of maximal doses of highly potent HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and combination therapy with other lipid modifying agents. Though statins in general are fairly well tolerated, adverse events like myopathy are dose related. There are further risks with combination therapy. In this article, we review the adverse effects of lipid modifying agents used alone and in combination and weigh these effects against the evidence demonstrating their efficacy in reducing cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and all cause mortality. For patients with established CVD, statins are the only group of drugs that have shown consistent reductions in hard outcomes. Though more aggressive lipid lowering with high dose potent statins can reduce rates of non fatal events and need for interventions, the incremental mortality benefits remain unclear, and their use is associated with a higher rate of drug related adverse effects. Myopathy and renal events have been a significant concern with the use of high potency statin drugs, in particular simvastatin and rosuvastatin. For patients who have not reached target LDL levels or have residual lipid abnormalities on maximal doses of statins, the addition of other agents has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes and carries an increased risk of adverse events. The clinical benefits of drugs to raise HDLc remain unproven. In patients without known cardiovascular disease, there is conflicting evidence as to the benefits of aggressive pursuit of numerical lipid targets, particularly with respect to all cause mortality. Certainly, in statin intolerant patients, alternative agents with a low side effect profile are desirable. Bile acid sequestrants are an effective and safe choice for decreasing LDLc, and omega-3 fatty acids are safe agents to decrease TG. There remains an obvious need to design and carry out large scale studies to help determine which agents, when combined with statins, have the greatest benefit on cardiovascular disease with the least added risk. These studies should be designed to assess the impact on clinical outcomes rather than surrogate endpoints, and require a comprehensive assessment and reporting of safety outcomes.

Lipoprotein(a), cardiovascular disease, and contemporary management

Elevated lipoprotein(a) (Lp[a]) is a causal genetic risk factor for cardiovascular disease. To determine if current evidence supports both screening and treatment for elevated Lp(a) in high-risk patients, an English-language search of PubMed and MEDLINE was conducted. In population studies, there is a continuous association between Lp(a) concentrations and cardiovascular risk, with synergistic effects when low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is also elevated. Candidates for Lp(a) screening include patients with a personal or family history of premature cardiovascular disease, familial hypercholesterolemia, recurrent cardiovascular events, or inadequate LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) responses to statins. Given the comparative strength of clinical evidence, reducing LDL-C to the lowest attainable value with a high-potency statin should be the primary focus of lipid-modifying therapies. If the Lp(a) level is 30 mg/dL or higher in a patient who has the aforementioned characteristics plus residual LDL-C elevations (≥70-100 mg/dL) despite maximum-potency statins or combination statin therapy, the clinician may consider adding niacin (up to 2 g/d). If, after these interventions, the patient has progressive coronary heart disease (CHD) or LDL-C levels of 160-200 mg/dL or higher, LDL apheresis should be contemplated. Although Lp(a) is a major causal risk factor for CHD, no currently available controlled studies have suggested that lowering it through either pharmacotherapy or LDL apheresis specifically and significantly reduces coronary risk. Further research is needed to (1) optimize management in order to reduce CHD risk associated with elevated Lp(a) and (2) determine what other intermediate- or high-risk groups might benefit from Lp(a) screening.

Niacin, an old drug with a new twist

Niacin (nicotinic acid) has been used for decades as a lipid-lowering drug. The clinical use of niacin to treat dyslipidemic conditions is limited by its side effects. Niacin, along with fibrates, are the only approved drugs which elevate high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc) along with its effects on low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) and triglycerides. Whether niacin has a beneficial role in lowering cardiovascular risk on the background of well-controlled LDLc has not been established. In fact, it remains unclear whether niacin, either in the setting of well-controlled LDLc or in combination with other lipid-lowering agents, confers any therapeutic benefit and if so, by which mechanism. The results of recent trials reject the hypothesis that simply raising HDLc is cardioprotective. However, in the case of the clinical trials, structural limitations of trial design complicate their interpretation. This is also true of the most recent Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDLc to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) trial in which niacin is combined with an antagonist of the D prostanoid (DP) receptor. Human genetic studies have also questioned the relationship between cardiovascular benefit and HDLc. It remains to be determined whether niacin may have clinical utility in particular subgroups, such as statin intolerant patients with hypercholesterolemia or those who cannot achieve a sufficient reduction in LDLc. It also is unclear whether a potentially beneficial effect of niacin is confounded by DP antagonism in HPS2-THRIVE.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant for lipid management: observational study in clinical practice

AIMS

Patients with dyslipidaemia or hypercholesterolemia carry a substantially increased cardiovascular risk and need optimal treatment of this key risk factor. We aimed to investigate the utilisation, efficacy and tolerability of the single pill combination extended-release niacin/laropiprant 1000 mg/20 mg or 2000 mg /40 mg under conditions of primary care practice.

METHODS

The present study was a prospective, non-interventional, observational study involving 885 primary care physicians throughout Germany. Data on adult patients treated with niacin/laropiprant one or two tablets daily within the labelled indication were documented for an average of 23 ± 7 weeks. The study was registered in the Association of research-based pharmaceutical companies (VFA) database under no. 354.

RESULTS

A total of 2359 patients were analysed in the intent-to-treat population (mean age 61.1 years, 67% males) of whom 1917 could be followed up. Background statin therapy was often discontinued and only about 50% of patients received two tables niacin/laropiprant at the end of the study. Individual goal attainment rates as subjectively determined by the investigator were for LDL-C 59.4%, total cholesterol 59.5%, HDL-C 72.8% and TG 51.5%, respectively. Objective (laboratory) goal attainment rates according to NCEP ATP III criteria were lower: LDL-C <100 mg/dl goal was achieved in 17.8%, HDL-C >40 in males or >50 mg/dl in females in 37.9% and TG <150 mg/dl in 18.7%. Totally, 422 adverse events were noted in 231 patients (9.7%), of which 317 were considered drug-related. Flushing occurred in 15%.

CONCLUSION

Niacin/laropiprant resulted in beneficial effects on serum lipids and was generally well tolerated. The full potential of the drug combination was not explored by most physicians due to discontinuation of statins and lack of titration of the combination. Overall, treatment effects were consistent with those seen in controlled trials.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant improves endothelial function in patients after myocardial infarction

Raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) is an important strategy for reducing residual cardiovascular risk. In the present study, we sought to assess the effect of extended-release niacin/laropiprant on endothelial function in patients after a myocardial infarction with target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 63 men (35-60 years of age) after a myocardial infarction were randomized to either niacin/laropiprant (1000/20 mg daily for 4 weeks and 2000/40 mg daily thereafter) or placebo. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) and nitroglycerin-induced (GTN) dilation of the brachial artery, total cholesterol (TC), LDL-C, HDL-C, triglycerides (TG), lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)], and apolipoprotein (Apo) A1/B were measured at baseline and after 12 weeks of intervention. FMD significantly increased (from 3.9 ± 5.1 to 9.8 ± 4.4%, p < 0.001) in the niacin/laropiprant group, but not in the placebo group (4.6 ± 4.4 to 6.1 ± 4.4%, p = 0.16) (p = 0.02 for comparison of interventions). GTN dilation also increased in the niacin/laropiprant group (from 12.5 ± 6.1 to 16.7 ± 4.8%, p = 0.02), but not in the placebo group (13.4 ± 5.0 to 15.1 ± 5.2%, p = 0.18), (p = 0.60 for comparison of interventions). Niacin/laropiprant reduced TC and LDL-C (p = 0.05 for both) and increased HDL-C (p < 0.001) without influencing TG, with no changes in the placebo group. Lp(a) (p = 0.026) and ApoB (p = 0.014) were significantly lower in the niacin/laropiprant group, with no difference in the placebo group. ApoA1 did not change in either of the groups (p = 0.13; p = 0.26). FMD and GTN dilation improvements did not correlate with changes in the lipid profile. Niacin/laropiprant improves endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent dilation of the brachial artery. This improvement does not correlate with changes in lipid parameters.

HPS2-THRIVE randomized placebo-controlled trial in 25 673 high-risk patients of ER niacin/laropiprant: trial design, pre-specified muscle and liver outcomes, and reasons for stopping study treatment

Aims

Niacin has potentially favourable effects on lipids, but its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is uncertain. HPS2-THRIVE is a large randomized trial assessing the effects of extended release (ER) niacin in patients at high risk of vascular events.

Methods and results

Prior to randomization, 42 424 patients with occlusive arterial disease were given simvastatin 40 mg plus, if required, ezetimibe 10 mg daily to standardize their low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-lowering therapy. The ability to remain compliant with ER niacin 2 g plus laropiprant 40 mg daily (ERN/LRPT) for ∼1 month was then assessed in 38 369 patients and about one-third were excluded (mainly due to niacin side effects). A total of 25 673 patients were randomized between ERN/LRPT daily vs. placebo and were followed for a median of 3.9 years. By the end of the study, 25% of participants allocated ERN/LRPT vs. 17% allocated placebo had stopped their study treatment. The most common medical reasons for stopping ERN/LRPT were related to skin, gastrointestinal, diabetes, and musculoskeletal side effects. When added to statin-based LDL-lowering therapy, allocation to ERN/LRPT increased the risk of definite myopathy [75 (0.16%/year) vs. 17 (0.04%/year): risk ratio 4.4; 95% CI 2.6–7.5; P < 0.0001]; 7 vs. 5 were rhabdomyolysis. Any myopathy (definite or incipient) was more common among participants in China [138 (0.66%/year) vs. 27 (0.13%/year)] than among those in Europe [17 (0.07%/year) vs. 11 (0.04%/year)]. Consecutive alanine transaminase >3× upper limit of normal, in the absence of muscle damage, was seen in 48 (0.10%/year) ERN/LRPT vs. 30 (0.06%/year) placebo allocated participants.

Conclusion

The risk of myopathy was increased by adding ERN/LRPT to simvastatin 40 mg daily (with or without ezetimibe), particularly in Chinese patients whose myopathy rates on simvastatin were higher. Despite the side effects of ERN/LRPT, among individuals who were able to tolerate it for ∼1 month, three-quarters continued to take it for ∼4 years.

Determinants of lipid goal achievement in patients on extended-release nicotinic acid/laropiprant in primary care clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

To establish determinants of lipid goal attainment in primary care patients, with particular focus on participation in a disease management programme (DMP) on diabetes mellitus (DM) and/or coronary heart disease (CHD), with real-world practical relevance.

METHODS

The present analysis was based on an observational study in 2359 patients with dyslipidaemia or hypercholesterolaemia that were treated with nicotinic acid 1000 mg/laropiprant 20 mg (Tredaptive) one or two tablets daily. Subgroups were formed by DMP participation (DMP vs. no DMP). A stepwise logistic regression model with backward selection of variables was applied to investigate factors influencing the probability of reaching lipid goals. Follow-up was 23 ± 7 weeks.

RESULTS

Low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <100 mg/dl was achieved by 30.8% in DMP versus 26.8% (no DMP), high density lipoprotein (HDL-C) >40/50 mg/dl in 61.3% versus 66.1%, and triglycerides (TG) <150 mg/dl in 28.9% versus 31.7%. On multivariate analysis, age, sex, concomitant high-risk cardiovascular disease, or participation in a DMP appeared to have inconsistent effects on reaching LDL-C, HDL-C and TG goals. Likelihood to reach the LDL-C goal tended to be higher in males, in patients outside DMP, and in patients with DM or CHD, and those treated with 1 tablet (versus 2 tablets) extended release nicotinic acid 1000 mg/laropiprant 20 mg. The likelihood of reaching the HDL-C goal was higher in males and in patients without DM or DM+CHD (no effect of DMP). The likelihood of reaching the TG goals was higher in females, in patients outside DMP, and in patients with DM and/or CHD. Limitations include potential bias due to study design, physician and patient selection, and missing values at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

DMP participation was not associated with overall improved lipid goal attainment. Physicians cannot predict the magnitude of effects of newly initiated lipid modifying therapy based on baseline characteristics of their patients.

Does it make sense to combine statins with other lipid-altering agents following AIM-HIGH, SHARP and ACCORD?

Hypercholesterolemia is one of the main risk factors for the development of atherosclerotic diseases. Multiple clinical trials of lipid-lowering agents have demonstrated that lowering cholesterol effectively reduces the risk of cardiovascular events and death. Currently, treatment with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors ("statins") is the most commonly used approach, given their superior efficacy relative to other cholesterol lowering agents. However, not all patients on statin monotherapy achieve target cholesterol levels, and even when cholesterol lowering is successful, significant residual cardiovascular risk remains. There is increasing interest in developing combination cholesterol-modifying therapies that may augment the treatment effect and minimize the side effects of statins. Although there is currently no evidence that any of the potential therapy combinations can improve clinical outcome compared to statin monotherapy alone, results of several large ongoing trials will help to clarify this important field.

Effectiveness and safety of laropiprant on niacin-induced flushing

Extended-release niacin (ERN) improves multiple lipid parameters but is underused owing to niacin-induced flushing (NIF). Laropiprant (LRPT) reduces NIF; however, its effects on chronic flushing (>6 months) have not been studied. We examined whether after 20 weeks of treatment with ERN/LRPT, patients who continued ERN/LRPT would experience less NIF than patients who stopped LRPT and continued ERN alone. A total of 1,152 dyslipidemic patients were randomized 2:2:1 to group 1, ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg/day from 0 to 4 weeks and then ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg/day from 5 to 32 weeks; group 2, ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg/day from 0 to 4 weeks, ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg/day from 5 to 20 weeks, and then ERN 2 g/day without LRPT from 21 to 32 weeks; or group 3, placebo for the entire study. The end points included the number of days each week with a moderate or greater Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS) ≥4 (primary end point) and the percentage of patients with a maximum GFSS of ≥4 (secondary end point) during the postwithdrawal period (weeks 21 to 32). ERN/LRPT produced significantly less NIF than ERN alone during the postwithdrawal period, as measured by the number of days each week with a GFSS of ≥4 (p <0.001) and the percentage of patients with a maximum GFSS of ≥4 (p <0.001; ERN/LRPT 19.6%; ERN 48.9%; placebo 9.2%). Compared with ERN alone, ERN/LRPT produced fewer drug-related adverse experiences during the postwithdrawal period. After 20 weeks of stable maintenance therapy, dyslipidemic patients treated continuously with ERN/LRPT experienced less NIF than did patients who had had LRPT withdrawn and had continued with ERN alone. In conclusion, the results of our study support the long-term efficacy of ERN/LRPT in reducing NIF symptoms.

Consistency of extended-release niacin/laropiprant effects on Lp(a), ApoB, non-HDL-C, Apo A1, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio across patient subgroups

BACKGROUND

According to prior analyses, extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) consistently reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) and increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels across a wide range of dyslipidemic patient subgroups.

OBJECTIVES

This analysis examined ERN/LRPT's consistency across four phase III, randomized, double-blind trials in improving other lipid/lipoprotein parameters associated with cardiovascular risk, across several key dyslipidemic patient subgroups.

METHODS

In three of the studies, the randomized population included patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia; in the remaining study, the population included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The lipid-altering consistency of ERN/LRPT's efficacy was evaluated versus the pre-defined comparator (placebo or active control) among key subgroups of sex, race (White, non-White), region (US, ex-US), baseline age (<65 years, ≥65 years), use of statin therapy (yes, no), coronary heart disease (yes, no), risk status (low, multiple, high), and type of hyperlipidemia (primary hypercholesterolemia, mixed dyslipidemia), as well as across baseline LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG levels. The consistency of the treatment effects on lipoprotein(a).[Lp(a)], apolipoprotein B (ApoB), non-HDL-C, ApoA1, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio was evaluated by examining treatment difference estimates of the percentage change from baseline with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Treatment with ERN/LRPT produced significantly greater improvements in Lp(a), ApoB, non-HDL-C, ApoA1, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio compared with placebo/active comparator in each study. These effects were generally consistent across key subgroups within each study.

CONCLUSION

ERN/LRPT produced lipid-altering efficacy on the parameters evaluated in four controlled studies; these effects were generally consistent across all examined subgroups. ERN/LRPT represents an effective and reliable therapeutic option for the treatment of dyslipidemia in a wide range of patient types.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered as Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00269204, NCT00269217, NCT00479388, and NCT00485758.

Can LDL-cholesterol targets be achieved in a population at high risk? Results of the non-interventional study ACT II

OBJECTIVE

Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels can reduce vascular clinical endpoints in outcome studies. Despite this evidence, previous cross-sectional analyses reported a mean LDL-C target attainment of <50%. This non-interventional, longitudinal study aimed to asses the rate of target attainment by intensified LDL-C lowering therapy in a high-risk population under routine medical care.

DESIGN

This was an open-label, non-interventional, observational, non-comparative longitudinal study.

METHODS

A total of 1682 outpatients at high cardiovascular risk, not at LDL-C target despite statin therapy, were documented. Treating physicians administered an intensified therapy at their discretion. In all, 794 patients completed all the examinations at baseline after 3 and 12 months. The achieved LDL-C reductions was evaluated based on expert consensus reflecting the 2007 guidelines issued by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) on cardiovascular disease prevention.

REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov , identification number NCT 01381679 RESULTS: In the study, 40.3% achieved the individual LDL-C target of <.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dl) or <2.5 mmol/L (100 mg/dl); 73% received a simvastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination; 3% received add-on ezetimibe and 23% statin therapy at maintained or increased doses; 1% received no drug treatment at all. LDL-C declined after 12 months by -31.0% (ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.71, p<0.001), triglycerides by -11.8% (ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.85-0.91, p<0.01) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) increased by 11.9% (ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.10-1.14, p<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Intensified therapy was effective, but target attainment was still low at 40.3% or 13.9% with regard to the new 2011 guidelines issued by the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) and the ESC on dyslipidemias. Enhanced screening of LDL-C levels and the use of statins at highest tolerated dose and concomitant combination therapy is recommended in order to achieve LDL-C targets outlined by current guidelines. Limitations include the design as a non-interventional study. However, this study reflects real life conditions.

Laropiprant attenuates EP3 and TP prostanoid receptor-mediated thrombus formation

The use of the lipid lowering agent niacin is hampered by a frequent flush response which is largely mediated by prostaglandin (PG) D₂. Therefore, concomitant administration of the D-type prostanoid (DP) receptor antagonist laropiprant has been proposed to be a useful approach in preventing niacin-induced flush. However, antagonizing PGD₂, which is a potent inhibitor of platelet aggregation, might pose the risk of atherothrombotic events in cardiovascular disease. In fact, we found that in vitro treatment of platelets with laropiprant prevented the inhibitory effects of PGD₂ on platelet function, i.e. platelet aggregation, Ca²⁺ flux, P-selectin expression, activation of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa and thrombus formation. In contrast, laropiprant did not prevent the inhibitory effects of acetylsalicylic acid or niacin on thrombus formation. At higher concentrations, laropiprant by itself attenuated platelet activation induced by thromboxane (TP) and E-type prostanoid (EP)-3 receptor stimulation, as demonstrated in assays of platelet aggregation, Ca²⁺ flux, P-selectin expression, and activation of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa. Inhibition of platelet function exerted by EP4 or I-type prostanoid (IP) receptors was not affected by laropiprant. These in vitro data suggest that niacin/laropiprant for the treatment of dyslipidemias might have a beneficial profile with respect to platelet function and thrombotic events in vascular disease.

Cost-effectiveness of extended-release niacin/laropiprant added to a stable simvastatin dose in secondary prevention patients not at cholesterol goal in Germany

Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains the leading cause of death in Germany despite statin use to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels; improving lipids beyond LDL-C may further reduce cardiovascular risk. A fixed-dose combination of extended-release niacin (ERN) with laropiprant (LRPT) provides comprehensive lipid management. We adapted a decision-analytic model to evaluate the economic value (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] in terms of costs per life-years gained [LYG]) of ERN/LRPT 2 g over a lifetime in secondary prevention patients in a German setting. Two scenarios were modelled: (1) ERN/LRPT 2 g added to simvastatin 40 mg in patients not at LDL-C goal with simvastatin 40 mg; (2) adding ERN/LRPT 2 g compared with titration to simvastatin 40 mg in patients not at LDL-C goal with simvastatin 20 mg. In both scenarios, adding ERN/LRPT was cost-effective relative to simvastatin monotherapy at a commonly accepted threshold of €30,000 per LYG; ICERs for ERN/LRPT were €13,331 per LYG in scenario 1 and €17,684 per LYG in scenario 2. Subgroup analyses showed that ERN/LRPT was cost-effective in patients with or without diabetes, patients aged ≤ 65 or >65 years and patients with low baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; ICERs ranged from €10,342 to €15,579 in scenario 1, and from €14,081 to €20,462 in scenario 2. In conclusion, comprehensive lipid management with ERN/LRPT 2 g is cost-effective in secondary prevention patients in Germany who have not achieved LDL-C goal with simvastatin monotherapy.

Niacin: the evidence, clinical use, and future directions

The use of FDA-approved niacin (nicotinic acid or vitamin B3) formulations at therapeutic doses, alone or in combination with statins or other lipid therapies, is safe, improves multiple lipid parameters, and reduces atherosclerosis progression. Niacin is unique as the most potent available lipid therapy to increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and it significantly reduces lipoprotein(a). Through its action on the GPR109A receptor, niacin may also exert beneficial pleiotropic effects independent of changes in lipid levels, such as improving endothelial function and attenuating vascular inflammation. Studies evaluating the impact of niacin in statin-naïve patients on cardiovascular outcomes, or alone and in combination with statins or other lipid therapies on atherosclerosis progression, have been universally favorable. However, the widespread use of niacin to treat residual lipid abnormalities such as low HDL cholesterol, when used in combination with statins among patients achieving very low (<75 mg/dL) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, is currently not supported by clinical outcome trials.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant effects on lipoprotein subfractions in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

A potentially atherogenic lipid profile often found in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) includes increased concentrations of small, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and intermediate-density lipoprotein (IDL) and decreased concentration of medium/large high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particles. Extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) lowers LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG), and raises HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) levels with attenuation of niacin-induced flushing.

METHODS

Plasma HDL, LDL, IDL, very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL), and chylomicron particle concentration and size at were evaluated at baseline and week 12 using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). The data were acquired from a randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study including 796 patients with T2DM treated with either 1 tablet of ERN 1 gram/LRPT 20 mg or matching placebo daily, increased after 4 weeks to 2 tablets daily.

RESULTS

ERN/LRPT significantly (P≤0.001 for all) reduced LDL-C 17.9% and TG 23.1%, and increased HDL-C levels 23.2%. Compared to placebo, ERN/LRPT decreased LDL, IDL, VLDL, and chylomicron particle concentrations [median concentration of smallest LDL particles decreased 16.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.3, -10.9, whereas the largest LDL particles decreased 11.0%, 95% CI -18.7, -3.2, and total VLDL/chylomicron mean plasma particle concentration decreased 34.7%, 95% CI -41.3, -28.1]. Compared to placebo, ERN/LRPT shifted the distribution of HDL particle diameter from smaller to larger (median concentration of the largest HDL particles increased 32.7% (95% CI 25.30, 40.58), whereas concentration of the smallest HDL particles decreased 8.2% (95% CI -11.29, -5.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with placebo in patients with T2DM, ERN/LRPT shifted the lipoprotein profile toward a potentially less atherogenic pattern with reduced atherogenic LDL and IDL particle concentrations, and increased large HDL plasma particle concentrations. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00485758).

Optimal pharmacotherapy to combat the atherogenic lipid triad

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

A lipid triad involving an atherogenic dyslipidemia characterized by moderate/high LDL-C, low HDL-C, and elevated triglyceride (TG) occurs in numerous clinical settings associated with high cardiovascular risk. This article focuses on optimizing treatment of atherogenic dyslipidemias involving this lipid triad, emphasizing niacin-based or fibrate-based therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

Niacin-based therapies comprehensively improve the atherogenic lipid profile, lead to atherosclerosis regression, and exert benefits across a spectrum of cardiovascular endpoints in studies based on limited patient numbers. Fibrates impact TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C according to lipid phenotype and underlying metabolic abnormality. In a recent meta-analysis, fibrates significantly reduced major cardiovascular events (-10%) and coronary events (-13%) across a wide range of lipid phenotypes, but had no impact on stroke, sudden death, or mortality. The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial in type 2 diabetic patients similarly showed no significant effect of fenofibrate + simvastatin (vs. simvastatin) on nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death; a subgroup (17%) with marked atherogenic dyslipidemia trended toward benefit. Both niacin and fibrates attenuate vascular inflammation but the potential clinical relevance is indeterminate.

SUMMARY

Optimal cardiovascular risk reduction in patients exhibiting the lipid triad requires integrated pharmacotherapy to normalize LDL-C, HDL-C, TGs, and potentially lipoprotein(a). Ongoing studies may provide definitive evidence of the impact of niacin plus statins on cardiovascular outcomes.