Effects of ezetimibe added to on-going statin therapy on the lipid profile of hypercholesterolemic patients with diabetes mellitus or metabolic syndrome

HDL abnormalities in type 2 diabetes: Clinical implications

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) represents the primary cause of mortality among patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM). In this population, High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL) particles exhibit abnormalities in number, composition, and function, culminating in diminished anti-atherosclerotic capabilities despite normal HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations. Hyperglycemic conditions contribute to these alterations in HDL kinetics, composition, and function, causing T2DM patients' HDL particles to exhibit decreased concentrations of diverse lipid species and proteins. Treatment of hyperglycemia has the potential to correct abnormal HDL particle attributes in T2DM; however, pharmacological interventions, including metformin and thiazolidinediones, yield inconsistent outcomes with respect to HDL-C concentrations and functionality. Despite numerous attempts with diverse drugs, pharmacologically augmenting HDL-C levels has not resulted in clinical benefits in mitigating ASCVD risk. In contrast, reducing Low Density Lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) via statins and ezetimibe has demonstrated significant efficacy in curtailing CVD risk among T2DM individuals. Promising results have been observed in animal models and early-phase trials utilizing recombinant HDL and Lecitin Cholesterol Acyl Transferase (LCAT) -enhancing agents, but the evaluation of their efficacy and safety in large-scale clinical trials is ongoing. While aberrant HDL metabolism constitutes a prevalent aspect of dyslipidemia in T2DM, HDL cholesterol concentrations and composition no longer offer valuable insights for informing therapeutic decisions. Nevertheless, HDL metabolism remains a critical research area in T2DM, necessitating further investigation to elucidate the role of HDL particles in the development of diabetes-associated complications.

HDL-Based Therapy: Vascular Protection at All Stages

It is known that lipid metabolism disorders are involved in a wide range of pathologies. These pathologies include cardiovascular, metabolic, neurodegenerative diseases, and even cancer. All these diseases lead to serious health consequences, which makes it impossible to ignore them. Unfortunately, these diseases most often have a complex pathogenesis, which makes it difficult to study them and, in particular, diagnose and treat them. HDL is an important part of lipid metabolism, performing many functions under normal conditions. One of such functions is the maintaining of the reverse cholesterol transport. These functions are also implicated in pathology development. Thus, HDL contributes to vascular protection, which has been demonstrated in various conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, atherosclerosis, etc. Many studies have shown that serum levels of HDL cholesterol correlate negatively with CV risk. With these data, HDL-C is a promising therapeutic target. In this manuscript, we reviewed HDL-based therapeutic strategies that are currently being used or may be developed soon.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Statin-Ezetimibe Combination Therapy with Statin Monotherapy in Patients with Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

INTRODUCTION

Dyslipidemia in diabetes mellitus is characterized by hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Additionally, the potentially increased risk of morbidity and mortality following atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases should be considered in the treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of the published data to compare the effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin)-ezetimibe combination therapy and statin monotherapy on lipid and glucose parameters in patients with diabetes. We also compared safety based on the adverse events reported for the two groups.

RESULTS

In total, 17 articles were included in this meta-analysis. In the efficacy assessment, the combination treatment afforded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C than did statin monotherapy (standard difference in means 0.691; 95% confidence interval 0.534-0.847). A significantly greater improvement effect was observed in the levels of HDL-C, total cholesterol, triglyceride, and apolipoprotein B, but not apolipoprotein A1, with combination therapy than with statin monotherapy. Additionally, combination therapy reduced fasting blood glucose levels more significantly than did statin monotherapy. In terms of safety, there were no significant differences in treatment-related adverse events between the two treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Statin-ezetimibe combination therapy enhances levels of LDL-C and other lipids without increasing the risk of adverse events compared with statin monotherapy. The present meta-analysis presents valid evidence for appropriate drug regimens to treat dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier Number CRD42021244578.

The efficacy of niacin supplementation in type 2 diabetes patients: Study protocol of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is a main risk factor of cardiovascular disease in the diabetic patients. Niacin was found acutely to decrease the plasma concentration of free fatty acids by inhibiting their mobilization from adipose tissue. This present study is a double blinded, randomized, and prospective trial to determine the effect of niacin during dyslipidemia in type 2 diabetic patients.

METHODS

This randomized controlled, double-blinded, single center trial is carried out according to the principles of Declaration of Helsinki. This present study was approved in institutional review committee of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical University. All the patients received the informed consent. Diabetic patients were randomized (1:1) to receive 3-month treatment with extended-release niacin or matching placebo. The major outcome of our present study was the change in the level of HbA1c from the baseline to week 12. Secondary outcome measures contained the levels of fasting blood glucose, the concentrations of serum transaminase, the other laboratory variables, and self-reported adverse events. The P < .05 was regarded as statistically significant.

RESULTS

We assumed that adding the niacin to the medication in patients with type 2 diabetes would reduce dyslipidemia and achieve target lipid levels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5925).

Efficacy and Tolerability of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe Compared with a Fixed-Dose Combination of Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Brazilian Patients with Primary Hypercholesterolemia or Mixed Dyslipidemia: A Multicenter, Randomized Trial

Background: The addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy has been reported to result in increased efficacy for reduction of LDL-C levels and achievement of lipid targets, compared with monotherapy.

Objective: This study was designed to demonstrate the noninferiority of therapy with fixed-dose rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe formulations versus fixed dose simvastatin and ezetimibe formulations for reduction of LDL-C levels in Brazilian patients with hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia.

Methods: Phase III, multicenter, randomized, parallel, open-label, noninferiority study that included male and female participants (aged 21–80 years) with hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia. After a 1-week screening period with washout of lipid-lowering medications when needed, patients were treated with simvastatin 20 mg/d for 5 weeks. Participants with LDL-C levels ≥100 mg/dL after the initial treatment were submitted to a 1-week washout period, and then randomized 1:1 to receive either combined rosuvastatin 10 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (R/E) or simvastatin 20 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (S/E) for 4 weeks and, if they still did not achieve the stipulated target, doses were readjusted to rosuvastatin 20 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg or simvastatin 40 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg, respectively, for 4 weeks.

Results: One hundred twenty-nine participants were enrolled, including 66 in R/E and 63 in S/E. At the end of simvastatin 20 mg treatment period, mean LDL-C values were 124.79 mg/dL and 121.27 mg/dL for participants randomized to R/E and S/E arms, respectively. After 4 weeks of R/E 10 mg + 10 mg or S/E 20 mg + 10 mg combined treatments, adjusted mean LDL-C values were 74.21 mg/dL and 85.58 mg/dL, respectively (P = 0.0005), and after 9 weeks, with dose adjustment to R/E 20 mg + 10 mg in 6 patients and to S/E 40 mg +10 mg in 19 patients, LDL-C adjusted mean values were 75.29 mg/dL and 86.62 mg/dL, respectively (P = 0.0006). There was a statistically significant difference between the association R/E and S/E (P = 0.0013) in percentage change of LDL-C after 9 weeks of combined treatments. The adjusted mean difference was estimated at –10.32% (95% CI, –16.94% to –3.70%). The LDL-C <100 mg/dL target was achieved in a significantly greater proportion of participants at week 4 in the R/E compared with the S/E arm (84.8% vs 68.2%; P = .0257), and at week 9, the proportion was 81.2% versus 73.0%, respectively (P = 0.23). LDL­C <70 mg/dL was achieved at a significantly greater proportion in the R/E arm, both at week 4 (45.4% vs 15.9%; P = 0.003) and week 9 (40.9% vs 15.9%; P = 0.0017). A statistically significant difference at week 9 (P = 0.0106) was observed in fasting blood glucose in the R/E arm, but the overall incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between groups.

Conclusions: Rosuvastatin and ezetimibe fixed dose combination in both 10 mg/10 mg and 20 mg/10 mg doses, respectively, provided significantly lower levels of LDL-C compared with simvastatin and ezetimibe in doses of 20 mg/10 mg and 40 mg/10 mg, respectively. The fixed-dose combinations were both effective and well tolerated in this Brazilian study population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01420549. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2020; 81:XXX–XXX)

Selective Compensatory Induction of Hepatic HMG-CoA Reductase in Response to Inhibition of Cholesterol Absorption

The effect of the potent inhibitor of cholesterol absorption, ezetimibe, on serum cholesterol levels was tested in diabetic and thyroidectomized male Sprague-Dawley rats. Feeding diets supplemented with 1% cholesterol to the diabetic rats raised serum cholesterol levels from 132 to 514 mg/dl while decreasing hepatic 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase protein and mRNA levels. Addition of 10 mg/kg/day of ezetimibe to the diets of these animals lowered the serum cholesterol level to 90 mg/dl and produced a large compensatory increase in hepatic HMG-CoA reductase protein without significantly increasing mRNA levels, indicating a post-transcriptional effect. Hepatic LDL receptor protein levels in these diabetic rats were unaffected by ezetimibe treatment. In contrast, ezetimibe treatment of these young normal Sprague-Dawley rats, known to express high levels of hepatic HMG-CoA reductase, did not lower serum cholesterol levels. In thyroidectomized rats, dietary cholesterol increased serum cholesterol levels from 116 to 135 mg/dl and ezetimibe treatment lowered these elevated cholesterol levels to 85 mg/dl. Cholesterol feeding of thyroidectomized rats severely reduced hepatic HMG-CoA reductase protein, while ezetimibe treatment restored reductase protein to normal levels. Again, hepatic LDL receptor protein levels were unaffected by ezetimibe treatment of cholesterol-fed thyroidectomized rats. The data demonstrate that the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe profoundly lowers serum cholesterol levels in animals expressing very low rates of hepatic cholesterol synthesis and produces large compensatory increases in hepatic HMG-CoA reductase expression without significantly affecting expression of hepatic LDL receptors. This indicates that ezetimibe should be most effective in lowering serum cholesterol levels in people with low rates of cholesterol synthesis/high rates of cholesterol absorption.

Effect of fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: MRS-ROZE (Multicenter Randomized Study of ROsuvastatin and eZEtimibe)

AIM

We aimed to compare the effects of fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin to rosuvastatin alone in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, including a subgroup analysis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or metabolic syndrome (MetS).

METHOD

This multicenter eight-week randomized double-blind phase III study evaluated the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe 10 mg plus rosuvastatin, compared with rosuvastatin alone in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Four hundred and seven patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who required lipid-lowering treatment according to the ATP III guideline were randomized to one of the following six treatments for 8 weeks: fixed-dose combinations with ezetimibe 10 mg daily plus rosuvastatin (5, 10, or 20 mg daily) or rosuvastatin alone (5, 10, or 20 mg daily).

RESULTS

Fixed-dose combination of ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin significantly reduced LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels compared with rosuvastatin alone. Depending on the rosuvastatin dose, these fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe plus rosuvastatin provided LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride reductions of 56%-63%, 37%-43%, and 19%-24%, respectively. Moreover, the effect of combination treatment on cholesterol levels was more pronounced in patients with DM or MetS than in non-DM or non-MetS patients, respectively, whereas the effect of rosuvastatin alone did not differ between DM vs non-DM or MetS vs non-MetS patients.

CONCLUSION

Fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe and rosuvastatin provided significantly superior efficacy to rosuvastatin alone in lowering LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels. Moreover, the reduction rate was greater in patients with DM or MetS.

Ezetimibe, an NPC1L1 inhibitor, is a potent Nrf2 activator that protects mice from diet-induced nonalcoholic steatohepatitis

Oxidative stress is important for the pathogenesis of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), a chronic disease that ranges from hepatic steatosis to nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). The nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2-Kelch-like ECH associated protein 1 (Nrf2-Keap1) pathway is essential for cytoprotection against oxidative stress. In this study, we found that oxidative stress or inflammatory biomarkers and TUNEL positive cells were markedly increased in NASH patients compared to normal or simple steatosis. In addition, we identified that the hepatic mRNA levels of Nrf2 target genes such as Nqo-1 and GSTA-1 were significantly increased in NASH patients. Ezetimibe, a drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, improves NAFLD and alleviates oxidative stress. However, the precise mechanism of its antioxidant function remains largely unknown. We now demonstrate that ezetimibe activates Nrf2-Keap1 pathway which was dependent of autophagy adaptor protein p62, without causing cytotoxicity. Ezetimibe activates AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), which in turn phosphorylates p62 (p-S351) via their direct interaction. Correspondingly, Ezetimibe protected liver cells from saturated fatty acid-induced apoptotic cell death through p62-dependent Nrf2 activation. Furthermore, its role as an Nrf2 activator was supported by methione- and choline- deficient (MCD) diet-induced NASH mouse model, showing that ezetimibe decreased the susceptibility of the liver to oxidative injury. These data demonstrate that the molecular mechanisms underlying ezetimibe's antioxidant role in the pathogenesis of NASH.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy in children with heterozygous familial or nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe monotherapy in young children with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) or nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia (nonFH).

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred thirty-eight children 6-10 years of age with diagnosed HeFH or clinically important nonFH (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] ≥ 160 mg/dL [4.1 mmol/L]) were enrolled into a multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Following screening/drug washout and a 5-week single-blind placebo-run-in with diet stabilization, subjects were randomized 2:1 to daily ezetimibe 10 mg (n = 93) or placebo (n = 45) for 12 weeks. Lipid-altering efficacy and safety were assessed in all treated patients.

RESULTS

Overall, mean age was 8.3 years, 57% were girls, 80% were white, mean baseline LDL-C was 228 mg/dL (5.9 mmol/L), and 91% had HeFH. After 12 weeks, ezetimibe significantly reduced LDL-C by 27% after adjustment for placebo (P < .001) and produced significant reductions in total cholesterol (21%), nonhigh-density lipoprotein cholesterol (26%), and apolipoprotein B (20%) (P < .001 for all). LDL-C lowering response in sex, race, baseline lipids, and HeFH/nonFH subgroups was generally consistent with overall study results. Ezetimibe was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to studies in older children, adolescents, and adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe monotherapy produced clinically relevant reductions in LDL-C and other key lipid variables in young children with primary HeFH or clinically important nonFH, with a favorable safety/tolerability profile.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00867165.

Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is characterized by hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and/or progressive loss of β-cell function. T2DM patients are at increased risk of micro- and macrovascular disease, and are often considered as representing an atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD) risk equivalent. Interventions directed at glucose and lipid level control in T2DM patients may reduce micro- and macrovascular disease. The optimal T2DM agent is one that lowers glucose levels with limited risk for hypoglycemia, and with no clinical trial evidence of worsening CHD risk. Lipid-altering drugs should preferably reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (apo B) and have evidence that the mechanism of action reduces CHD risk. Statins reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apo B and have evidence of improving CHD outcomes, and are thus first-line therapy for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. In patients who do not achieve optimal lipid levels with statin therapy, or who are intolerant to statin therapy, add-on therapy or alternative therapies may be indicated. Additional available agents to treat hypercholesterolemic patients with T2DM include bile acid sequestrants, fibrates, niacin, and ezetimibe. This review discusses the use of these alternative agents to treat hypercholesterolemia in patients with T2DM, either as monotherapy or in combination with statin therapy.

Dyslipidemia and lipid-lowering therapy in the elderly

According to the current evidence, the fastest growing proportion of patient populations seeking healthcare is those over 65 years of age. Coronary artery disease and subclinical atherosclerosis are highly prevalent in this group of patients and are strongly linked to dyslipidemia, a well-established risk factor for atherosclerosis. Treating dyslipidemia in this group of patients requires specific knowledge and understanding of common dyslipidemias and the relative safety of various pharmacologic agents in the presence of possible multiple comorbidities. Lifestyle modification remains the first step in the treatment of dyslipidemia; however, it can be difficult to sustain and achieve acceptable compliance in the elderly and it is best used in combination with drug therapy. Statins are widely accepted as the first-line therapy. Several recent studies have demonstrated that statins are safe and effective in the elderly. However, it is important to note that there is very limited data regarding the effects of dyslipidemia treatment on morbidity and mortality in patients over 85 years of age. In summary, the clinicians must recognize that the presence of dyslipidemia in the elderly poses substantial risk of coronary events and stroke. The available evidence has demonstrated that in most elderly patients who are at increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, treatment of dyslipidemia with appropriate therapy reduces the risk, and when used carefully with close monitoring for safety, the treatment is generally well tolerated. With increasing life expectancy, it is critical for physicians to recognize the importance of detection and treatment of dyslipidemia in the elderly.

Renal and vascular protective effects of ezetimibe in chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

Dyslipidemia is a risk factor for not only cardiovascular diseases (CVD), but also chronic kidney disease (CKD). Ezetimibe, a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, lowers cholesterol levels by inhibiting both extrinsic and intrinsic cholesterol absorption via the gastrointestinal duct. However, very few studies have examined its efficacy and safety for patients with dyslipidemia complicated with CKD.

METHODS

Thirty-seven dyslipidemic patients (low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels ≥120 mg/dL) complicated with CKD were given ezetimibe (10 mg/day) for twenty-four weeks. The efficacy and safety of the therapy, including the anti-atherosclerotic and renal protective effects, were then examined.

RESULTS

Significant decreases were observed in the levels of LDL-C (158.9 ± 26.9 mg/dL→123.0 ± 31.8 mg/dL; p<0.0001), remnant-like lipoprotein cholesterol (9.3 ± 5.3 mg/dL→7.3 ± 3.8 mg/dL; p<0.05) and lipoprotein (a) (22.0 ± 16.1 mg/dL→16.4 ± 11.0 mg/dL; p<0.01). The estimated glomerular filtration rate did not change, but the urine protein to creatinine ratio decreased significantly (1,107.3 ± 1,454.2 mg/gCre→732.1 ± 1,237.8 mg/gCre; p<0.05). No changes were observed in the carotid intima media thickness, but the brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity decreased significantly (1,770.4 ± 590.3 cm/sec→1,702.5 ± 519.9 cm/sec; p<0.05). No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe can be safely administered even to patients with CKD. The results of this study indicate that ezetimibe may provide some renal protection and suppress the complications of CVD in CKD patients.

Dyslipidemic drugs in metabolic syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Metabolic syndrome predisposes to diabetes and atherosclerotic vascular disease. Statins reduce cardiovascular events, so all metabolic syndrome patients should be evaluated for dyslipidemia. Many patients fail to achieve lipid goals with statin monotherapy. Co-administration of ezetimibe (EZE) and atorvastatin (ATV) may enable more patients to achievelow-density lipoproteincholesterol (LDL-C) goal while avoiding risks of high-dose statin monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study compares rosuvastatin (Rsv) with a combination of (Atv) and (Eze). Metabolic syndrome patients, 30-70 years with LDL-C ≥130 mg/dl and a 10-year CHD risk score of 10% were randomized to double-blind treatment with (Rsv) 5 mg (n = 67) or (Atv) 10 mg+(Eze) 10 mg (n = 68) for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

LDL-C reduced significantly; (32.3% and 30.3%, P < 0.001) in (Atv)+(Eze) and (Rsv), respectively, but there was no significant difference between two arms. More patients achieved LDL-C goal of ≤100 mg/dl with (Atv)+(Eze) compared to (Rsv) (65% vs. 58%, P < 0.05). Triglycerides (TG) were reduced more with (Atv)+(Eze) compared to (Rsv) (28.1% and 21.4%, P < 0.001). Greater increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was observed with (Atv)+(Eze). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the combination of (Atv)+(Eze) has more efficacy and comparable safety to that of (Rsv).

Comparative efficacy and safety of fenofibrate/pravastatin plus ezetimibe triple therapy and simvastatin/ezetimibe dual therapy in type 2 diabetic patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia and cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of a fenofibrate/pravastatin 160/40 mg fixed-dose combination plus ezetimibe 10 mg triple therapy and simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg dual therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, mixed hyperlipidaemia and cardiovascular disease.

METHOD

After a 6-week run-in period on simvastatin 20 mg, 273 patients with non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) ≥ 100 mg/dl or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 70 mg/dl were randomised to receive 12-week treatment with triple therapy or dual therapy, followed by a 12-week safety period during which all patients received the triple therapy.

RESULTS

At week 12, similar significant decreases in non-HDL-C were observed with both treatments. The triple therapy has induced a greater decrease in triglycerides (between-treatment difference: -14.6%, p = 0.007) and the dual therapy a greater decrease in LDL-C (between-treatment difference: +5.3%, p = 0.05). Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The fenofibrate/pravastatin plus ezetimibe therapy improves the global atherogenic lipid profile in type 2 diabetic patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia.

Metabolic syndrome: definition and therapeutic implications

The collection of impaired glucose metabolism, central obesity, elevated blood pressure, and dyslipidemia is identified as metabolic syndrome (MetS). It is estimated that approximately 25% of the world's population has MetS. In the United States, MetS is more common in men and Hispanics, and its incidence increases with age. Metabolic syndrome increases the risk of developing cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. The underlying risk factors include insulin resistance and abdominal obesity. Confusion about MetS exists in part due to the lack of a consensus definition and treatment protocol. Treatment of MetS begins with therapeutic lifestyle changes and then pharmacologic treatment of the syndrome's individual components. Effective interventions include diet modification, exercise, and use of pharmacologic agents to treat risk factors. Weight loss and increasing physical activity significantly improve all aspects of MetS. A diet that includes more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, monounsaturated fats, and low-fat dairy products will benefit most patients with MetS. Physicians can be most effective in advising patients by customizing specific lifestyle recommendations after assessing patients for the presence of risk factors.

Lipid-altering efficacy of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk patients with and without metabolic syndrome

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a clustering of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk factors. This post-hoc analysis compared the effects of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg in a cohort of 618 high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients with (n=368) and without (n=217) MetS who had previously been on statin monotherapy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to double-blind ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg for 6 weeks. Least squares mean percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals in lipid efficacy parameters were calculated for the population and within subgroups. Treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin was significantly more effective than rosuvastatin at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non- high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (all p<0.001). No significant differences in treatment effects were seen between the presence and absence of MetS. In this post-hoc analysis of high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients the lipid-reducing effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin or rosuvastatin were not altered significantly by the presence of MetS.

Achievement of recommended lipid and lipoprotein levels with combined ezetimibe/statin therapy versus statin alone in patients with and without diabetes

Treatment guidelines identify low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as the primary target of therapy with secondary targets of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B (apoB). Data were pooled from 27 randomised, double-blind, active or placebo-controlled trials in 21,794 adult hypercholesterolaemic patients (LDL-C 1.81-6.48 mmol/L) receiving ezetimibe/statin or statin for 4-24 weeks. Percentages of patients achieving various targets were calculated among diabetes (n = 6541) and non-diabetes (n = 15,253) subgroups. Significantly more patients with and without diabetes achieved specified levels of LDL-C (< 2.59, < 1.99, < 1.81 mmol/L), non-HDL-C (< 3.37, < 2.59 mmol/L) and apoB (< 0.9, < 0.8 g/L) with ezetimibe/statin versus statin. Patients with diabetes had larger mean per cent reductions in LDL-C and non-HDL-C than non-diabetes patients. A greater percentage of patients achieved both the LDL-C and apoB targets and all three LDL-C, apoB, and non-HDL-C targets with ezetimibe/statin versus statin in both subgroups. Patients with diabetes benefitted at least as much as, and sometimes more than, non-diabetes patients following treatment with ezetimibe/statin.

Treatment of dyslipidemia in the elderly

Dyslipidemia is a well-established risk factor for atherosclerosis. Treating dyslipidemia in elderly patients requires specific knowledge and understanding of common dyslipidemias and the relative safety of various pharmacologic agents in the presence of possible multiple comorbidities. Lifestyle modification remains the first step in the treatment of dyslipidemia; however, it can be difficult to sustain and achieve acceptable compliance in the elderly and it is best used in combination with drug therapy. Statins are widely accepted as the first-line therapy. Several recent studies have demonstrated that statins are safe and effective in the elderly. However, it is important to note that there is very limited data regarding the effects of dyslipidemia treatment on morbidity and mortality in patients over 85 years of age. In summary, the clinicians must recognize that the presence of dyslipidemia in the elderly poses substantial risk of coronary events and stroke. The available evidence has demonstrated that in most elderly patients who are at increased risk for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, treatment of dyslipidemia with appropriate therapy reduces the risk, and when used carefully with close monitoring for safety, the treatment is generally well tolerated. With increasing life expectancy, it is critical for physicians to recognize the importance of detection and treatment of dyslipidemia in the elderly.

Long-term efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministered with extended-release niacin in hyperlipidaemic patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) plus extended-release niacin (N) in hyperlipidaemic patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), metabolic syndrome (MetS) without DM (MetS/non-DM) or neither (non-DM/non-MetS).

METHODS

A subgroup analysis of a double-blind, 64-week trial of 1220 randomized patients who received E/S (10/20 mg) + N (to 2 g) or E/S (10/20 mg) for 64 weeks, or N (to 2 g) for 24 weeks then E/S (10/20 mg) + N (2 g) or E/S (10/20 mg) for 40 additional weeks. The evaluable populations of this analysis included n = 765 patients at 24 weeks and n = 574 at 64 weeks. Among those receiving N, only those who attained the 2-g dose were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

E/S+N improved levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, other lipids and lipoprotein ratios compared with N and E/S at 24 weeks and E/S at 64 weeks. The combination increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein AI comparably to N and more than E/S. E/S+N reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels more effectively than N and similarly to E/S. E/S+N was generally well tolerated. Discontinuations due to flushing with N and E/S+N were comparable and greater than E/S in all subgroups. Fasting glucose trended higher for N vs. E/S. Glucose elevations from baseline to 12 weeks were highest for patients with DM (24.9 mg/dl for N, 21.2 mg/dl for E/S+N, 17.5 mg/dl for E/S); fasting glucose then declined to pretreatment levels at 64 weeks in all subgroups. New-onset DM was more frequent among MetS patients than those without MetS during the first 24 weeks and trended higher among those assigned to N-containing regimens [n = 5(5.1%) for N, n = 2(1.7%) for E/S, n = 21(8.8%) for E/S+N]; during the 24-64 week extension study, diabetes was diagnosed in five additional patients in the E/S(cumulative incidence of 5.9%) and one in the E/S+N (cumulative incidence of 9.2%). Treatment-incident elevations in uric acid levels were increased among subjects assigned to N-containing regimens, but there were no effects on symptomatic gout.

CONCLUSION

Combination E/S+N is a safe treatment option for hyperlipidaemic patients including those with DM and MetS, but requires monitoring of glucose and potentially uric acid levels.

Ezetimibe in diabetes: more than cholesterol lowering?

Ezetimibe, an inhibitor of cholesterol intestinal absorption, is a lipid lowering agent with potential pleiotropic actions. Ezetimibe in combination with a statin is effective in decreasing low density lipoprotein cholesterol(LDL-C), lowering triglyceride and raising high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Ezetimibe plus statin achieve LDL-C targets in a greater proportion of patients than statin monotherapy. Ezetimibe also seems to improve renal function, insulin resistance and inflammatory markers. These actions are useful in patients with diabetes. Ezetimibe is a well-tolerated and effective (in terms of achieving LDL-C targets) option inpatients with hyperlipidemia with or without diabetes. This editorial will discuss several properties of ezetimibe, with special reference to diabetes.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin vs simvastatin in coronary heart disease patients with or without diabetes

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend LDL-C as the primary target of therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Moreover, combination therapies with lipid-lowering drugs that have different mechanisms of action are recommended when it is not possible to attain LDL-C targets with statin monotherapy. Understanding which treatment or patient-related factors are associated with attaining a target may be clinically relevant.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies. After stabilization on simvastatin 20 mg, patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) alone and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 20 mg (EZ/Simva) or simvastatin 40 mg. The change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), TC/HDL-C ratio, triglycerides, and the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) after 6 weeks of treatment were assessed, and factors significantly correlated with the probability of achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L in a population of high cardiovascular risk Italian patients were identified. A stepwise logistic regression model was conducted with LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L at endpoint as the dependent variable and study, treatment, gender, age (> or = 65 years or < 65 years), as independent variables and baseline LDL-C (both as continuous and discrete variable).

RESULTS

EZ/Simva treatment (N = 93) resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, TC, and TC/HDL-C ratio and higher attainment of LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L vs doubling the simvastatin dose to 40 mg (N = 106). Study [including diabetic patients (OR = 2.9, p = 0.003)], EZ/Simva treatment (OR = 6.1, p < 0.001), and lower baseline LDL-C (OR = 0.9, p = 0.001) were significant positive predictors of LDL-C target achievement. When baseline LDL-C was expressed as a discrete variable, the odds of achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L was 4.8 in favor of EZ/Simva compared with Simva 40 mg (p < 0.001), regardless of baseline LDL-C level.

CONCLUSION

EZ/Simva is an effective therapeutic option for patients who have not achieved recommended LDL-C treatment targets with simvastatin 20 mg monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT00423488 and NCT00423579.

Ezetimibe + simvastatin versus doubling the dose of simvastatin in high cardiovascular risk diabetics: a multicenter, randomized trial (the LEAD study)

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease (CHD) is reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Adult patients with T2DM and CHD (N = 93) on a stable dose of simvastatin 20 mg with LDL-C >or= 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) and

RESULTS

EZ + simva 10/20 mg produced a significantly greater change from treated baseline compared with simvastatin 40 mg in LDL-C (-32.2% vs -20.8%; p < 0.01) and total cholesterol (-20.6% vs -13.2%; p < 0.01). A greater proportion of patients achieved LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L with EZ + simva 10/20 mg than with simvastatin 40 mg, but this was not statistically significant (78.4% vs 60%; odds ratio = 2.81; p = 0.052). Changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides were similar between treatments. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that EZ + simva 10/20 mg may provide a superior alternative for LDL-C lowering vs doubling the dose of simvastatin to 40 mg in hyperlipidemic patients with T2DM and CHD. In addition, the combination therapy may provide an alternative treatment for patients who require further LDL-C reduction than they can achieve with simvastatin 20 mg alone.

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Aged
• Anticholesteremic Agents/administration & dosage
• Azetidines/administration & dosage
• Biomarkers/blood
• Blood Glucose/metabolism
• Cholesterol, HDL/blood
• Cholesterol, LDL/blood
• Coronary Disease/blood
• Coronary Disease/drug therapy
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy
• Double-Blind Method
• Drug Combinations
• Ezetimibe, Simvastatin Drug Combination
• Female
• Glycated Hemoglobin/metabolism
• Humans
• Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/administration & dosage
• Hypercholesterolemia/blood
• Hypercholesterolemia/drug therapy
• Italy
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Odds Ratio
• Risk Assessment
• Risk Factors
• Simvastatin/administration & dosage
• Time Factors
• Treatment Outcome
• Triglycerides/blood

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Gianluca Bardini Unit of Endocrinology, Department of Clinical Pathophysiology, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 6, 50139, Florence, Italy
Carlo B Giorda Diabetes Unit ASL Turin 5 Chieri, Italy
Antonio E Pontiroli Univeristy of Milan, Milan, Italy and San Paolo Hospital, via A di Rudinì 8, 20142 Milan, Italy
Cristina Le Grazie Medical Director, MSD, Centro Direzionale Milano Due, Palazzo Borromini, 20090 Segrate Milano, Italy
Carlo M Rotella Unit of Endocrinology, Department of Clinical Pathophysiology, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 6, 50139, Florence, Italy

Collapse

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and goal achievement with ezetimibe/simvastatin versus atorvastatin or rosuvastatin in patients with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or neither disease, stratified by National Cholesterol Education Program risk category

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and metabolic syndrome are at increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Studies have shown differential statin efficacy on low-density lipid cholesterol (LDL-C) by CHD risk strata.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the consistency of effect with ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) combination therapy, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin in patients with DM, metabolic syndrome, or neither condition (No DM/metabolic syndrome), stratified by the National Cholesterol Education Panel Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) CHD risk group.

METHODS

Post hoc analyses of 2 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 6-week studies comparing E/S 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg with either atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg, or rosuvastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg. Treatments were compared by pooling across all doses for LDL-C reduction and NCEP LDL-C goal attainment in patients with DM, metabolic syndrome without DM, or No DM/metabolic syndrome across NCEP CHD risk strata.

RESULTS

NCEP LDL-C goal attainment was lowest in the high-risk group with atherosclerotic vascular disease (12-64%) and greatest in the moderate and low-risk groups (84-100%). In contrast, LDL-C reduction was generally similar irrespective of disease or risk subgroup. All treatments were generally well tolerated, with overall similar safety regardless of disease and risk level.

CONCLUSIONS

In these studies, CHD risk strata were inversely related to the likelihood of attaining NCEP LDL-C goals, but did not appear to affect the percentage LDL-C change from baseline. This demonstrates the need for especially aggressive cholesterol lowering necessary to reach the lower LDL-C goal for high-risk patients.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Model-based simulation to explore the cost-effectiveness of following practice guidelines for triglyceride and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control among patients with diabetes mellitus and mixed dyslipidemia

BACKGROUND

The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines recommend maintaining lipid levels within particular targets to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this simulation study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of following guideline-recommended care compared with current practice or usual care for patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and mixed dyslipidemia (ie, high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] and triglyceride [TG] levels).

METHODS

A simulation model using a US health care payer perspective was designed to predict changes in lipid levels (LDL-C, TG, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol) and long-term CHD risk. Data about patients with DM and uncontrolled TG and/or LDL-C were taken from an electronic medical records database to develop the description of current care (eg, statin, fibrate, or no medication) and cholesterol levels. Patients with uncontrolled lipid levels who were not following guideline recommendations were assumed to be receiving combination treatment (ie, coadministration of statin and fibrate) or monotherapy for the uncontrolled lipids under guideline care. Results from a previous study were used to project incremental benefits of combination treatment compared with monotherapy. CHD events were predicted based on risk equations. A 20-year model of direct costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was created.

RESULTS

Among patients switched to guideline therapy, the model predicted 72% achieved 2 lipid targets and 44% achieved 3 lipid targets in 1 year. Over 20 years, in a modeled sample of 1000 patients, 176 myocardial infarction and angina events would be avoided by following guideline care. Total present value of costs for drug treatment and medical care for CHD events would be $33,626 per patient for guideline treatment versus $25,264 per patient for current care. The discounted QALY gain would be 0.18 per patient for an incremental cost per QALY of $50,315.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this model simulation suggest that for patients with DM and mixed dyslipidemia, following treatment guidelines rather than current practice (including combination therapy rather than monotherapy) would result in more patients achieving lipid targets, fewer CHD events, and more QALYs gained at a reasonable cost (less than $109,000) per QALY.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia and the metabolic syndrome (from the VYMET study)

Patients with the metabolic syndrome are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and might require intensive lipid therapy. Many patients remain at the starting dose of lipid therapy and might not be titrated up to a higher dose. The present double-blind, randomized, 6-week study assessed the lipid-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg in 1,128 patients with hypercholesterolemia and the metabolic syndrome. The primary end point was the percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Additional end points included changes in other lipids, lipoprotein ratios, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and attainment of prespecified lipid levels. Significantly greater improvements in the levels of LDL cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipid/lipoprotein ratios resulted with ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with atorvastatin at all specified dose comparisons (p <0.001). The attainment of prespecified LDL cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was also significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin at all dose comparisons (p <0.05). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol increases were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg than with atorvastatin 10 mg (p <0.05) and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg than with atorvastatin 40 mg (p <0.01). The changes in triglycerides, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were similar for both treatments. The incidence of liver, muscle, and gastrointestinal-, hepatitis- and allergic reaction/rash-related adverse events were low and generally similar to those in previous studies of ezetimibe/simvastatin and/or atorvastatin. In conclusion, ezetimibe/simvastatin was more likely to result in lipid treatment end points than atorvastatin and was generally well tolerated at the doses compared in our patients.

Interpreting clinical trials of diabetic dyslipidaemia: new insights

Current treatment guidelines highlight the importance of aggressive lipid-modifying therapy in reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. Statins are established as the cornerstone of dyslipidaemia management in diabetic patients, based on their efficacy in lowering levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, statins fail to address the high residual cardiovascular risk in treated patients, some of which may be attributable to low HDL cholesterol (HDL-C) and elevated triglycerides and to a preponderance of small, dense LDL particles, indicating the need for further intervention. Fibrates are effective against all components of atherogenic dyslipidaemia associated with type 2 diabetes. Clinical studies, most notably the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes, indicate that fibrates, most likely in combination with a statin, have a secondary role in reducing cardiovascular risk in patients with type 2 diabetes, particularly in those without prior cardiovascular disease or patients with low HDL-C. Results are awaited from the ongoing Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes trial to fully evaluate the outcome benefits of this combination strategy.

The metabolic syndrome

The "metabolic syndrome" (MetS) is a clustering of components that reflect overnutrition, sedentary lifestyles, and resultant excess adiposity. The MetS includes the clustering of abdominal obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and elevated blood pressure and is associated with other comorbidities including the prothrombotic state, proinflammatory state, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and reproductive disorders. Because the MetS is a cluster of different conditions, and not a single disease, the development of multiple concurrent definitions has resulted. The prevalence of the MetS is increasing to epidemic proportions not only in the United States and the remainder of the urbanized world but also in developing nations. Most studies show that the MetS is associated with an approximate doubling of cardiovascular disease risk and a 5-fold increased risk for incident type 2 diabetes mellitus. Although it is unclear whether there is a unifying pathophysiological mechanism resulting in the MetS, abdominal adiposity and insulin resistance appear to be central to the MetS and its individual components. Lifestyle modification and weight loss should, therefore, be at the core of treating or preventing the MetS and its components. In addition, there is a general consensus that other cardiac risk factors should be aggressively managed in individuals with the MetS. Finally, in 2008 the MetS is an evolving concept that continues to be data driven and evidence based with revisions forthcoming.

Statin plus ezetimibe treatment in clinical practice: the SI-SPECT (Slovenia (SI) Statin Plus Ezetimibe in Cholesterol Treatment) monitoring of clinical practice study

BACKGROUND

Poor results from lipid-lowering therapy are mainly due to inadequate dosing and increased adverse effects with high-dose statin monotherapy or drug combinations.

OBJECTIVES

The SI-SPECT (Slovenia (SI) Statin Plus Ezetimibe in Cholesterol Treatment) study evaluated the effectiveness of either ezetimibe (EZE) 10 mg as monotherapy or co-administered with on-going statin treatment (S + EZE) in clinical practice.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 1053 dyslipidaemic patients (52% men, age 60.3 years, 42.9% with CHD, 32.0% with diabetes mellitus and 69.6% with hypertension) were enrolled. The majority (n=986; 93.6%) were treated with EZE as 'add-on' to their already prescribed statin, the rest only received EZE (n=67).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline lipid levels were compared with those obtained 16 weeks after initiating treatment.

RESULTS

Total (TC) and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), as well as triglycerides (TG) decreased significantly with S + EZE (by 25.3%, 31.4% and 28.9%, respectively; p<0.0001 for all comparisons), while monotherapy with EZE resulted in a decrease of 20.8% for TC (p<0.0001), 28.0% for LDL-C (p<0.0001) and 28.8% for TG (p=0.016). At the end of the study 43.9% of patients achieved target TC (<5.0 mmol/L for primary prevention and <4.5 mmol/L for secondary prevention), 50.5% target LDL-C (<3.0 mmol/L for primary prevention and <2.5 mmol/L for secondary prevention) and 61.6% target TG (<2.0 mmol/L). The overall incidence of adverse effects during the treatment period, and probably related to EZE use, was low (n=6, 0.6% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) S + EZE combination therapy was effective and safe irrespective of the statin used, (2) the S + EZE combination resulted in significantly more patients reaching their recommended target lipid levels and (3) the lipid-lowering efficacy of EZE in monotherapy as well as of the S + EZE combination was related to initial lipid values. The much greater decrease of TG than expected could be, at least in part, due to better control/compliance regarding diet and drug treatment during the study and adherence to the need for an overnight fast before sampling.

Predictors of uncontrolled hyperlipidaemia in high-risk ambulatory patients in primary care

OBJECTIVE

To determine (a) the proportion of patients at high risk of cardiovascular events who achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals as recommended by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP ATP III) guidelines, and (b) the predictors of poor LDL-C control.

METHODS

Two open-label, prospective, non-randomised, observational studies (study 1 with n=19 194 patients, predominantly with coronary artery disease (CHD); study 2 with n=19 484 patients, pre-dominantly with diabetes mellitus (DM)). Patients received, usually after statin pretreatment, ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin as fixed-dose combinations over 3 months. Bivariate and multivariate regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with poor LDL-C control.

RESULTS

At study end, 38% (up from 4.7% at baseline) of CHD and 35% (up from 3.3% at baseline) of diabetic patients achieved the target LDL value <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l) after treatment with a fixed-dose ezetimibe-simvastatin combination. In both studies, concomitant atherosclerotic disease was associated with good control. Conversely, factors associated with poor control were, among others, high baseline LDL-C values, pretreatment with certain statins, and (in the DM study) high HbA(1c), and high body mass index.

CONCLUSION

Under real world, general practice conditions, a substantial proportion of high-risk patients with CHD and/or DM met LDL-C target levels on dual cholesterol inhibition with ezetimibe/simvastatin. A limited number of easily recognisable factors allow physicians to identify high risk patients whose LDL-C is likely to be difficult to control. Early identification of this patient group may have profound clinical benefits in general practice by enabling specific early interventions such as counselling on physical activity, dietary support and/or follow up visits to the GP.

Ezetimibe: cholesterol lowering and beyond

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

Effect of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus atorvastatin or rosuvastatin on modifying lipid profiles in patients with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or neither: Results of two subgroup analyses

BACKGROUND

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and metabolic syndrome (MS) are at increased risk of developing coronary heart disease.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) combination therapy, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin in patients with DM, MS without DM, or neither disease.

METHODS

Subgroup analysis of data from two 6-week, randomized, double-blind trials comparing E/S 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg with either atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg (Study 1), or rosuvastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg (Study 2). Treatments were compared by pooling across all doses for effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B (ApoB), LDL-C:HDL-C, TC:HDL-C, and LDL-C goal attainment.

RESULTS

E/S provided greater improvements than atorvastatin or rosuvastatin in LDL-C, TC, HDL-C (vs atorvastatin only), non-HDL-C, LDL-C:HDL-C, TC:HDL-C, and ApoB in all disease subgroups. There were no interactions of treatment by disease subgroup for these parameters, indicating a consistent treatment difference favoring E/S effect across the disease subgroups. A greater percentage of patients receiving E/S than atorvastatin or rosuvastatin attained their individual National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III LDL-C goals, LDL-C <100 mg/dL, LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and non-HDL-C goals regardless of subgroup. All treatments were well-tolerated, with generally similar adverse experience rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, E/S generally provided greater efficacy than either atorvastatin or rosuvastatin that was consistent across the subgroups of patients with DM, MS, or neither, in agreement with the results from the full study cohorts.

Effect of ezetimibe in patients who cannot tolerate statins or cannot get to the low density lipoprotein cholesterol target despite taking a statin

BACKGROUND

Recent guidelines underline the need for high-risk patients to reach strict low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets (1.8-2.6 mmol/L; 70-100 mg/dL), and specifically mention the possible use of combination therapy (e.g.statin + ezetimibe) to achieve these goals.

METHODS

A retrospective case-note audit was carried out to assess the response to administering ezetimibe in patients unable to tolerate statins (Group 1), or high dose of statins (Group 2) and patients who cannot achieve the LDL-C target (2.6 mmol/L; 100 mg/dL) despite taking a statin (Group 3).

RESULTS

Ezetimibe lowered LDL-C levels by 20-29% across the 3 patient groups after 2-3 months of treatment. High density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels tended to remain unchanged, although there was a consistent trend for a fall if baseline values were 'high'. However, the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio changed significantly and favourably in all groups. The fall in fasting triglyceride levels in all groups was greater (reaching 19-25%) when baseline levels were > or = 1.5 or 1.7 mmol/L (136-150 mg/dL). There were no marked abnormalities in liver function tests or creatine kinase activity. In Group 3 there was a significant trend for a fall in serum creatinine levels across the tertiles of baseline creatinine values. Limitations of the present study include the small sample size (especially in Groups 1 and 2), its short-term duration and the absence of event-based end-points. Therefore, the results are hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

When used alone or added to a statin, ezetimibe favourably altered the LDL-C/HDL-C ratio and lowered triglyceride levels. Ezetimibe was well tolerated in patients with statin intolerance and was associated with a 26% fall in LDL-C. An additional action may be some degree of improved renal function. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 and 10/40 mg compared with atorvastatin 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

AIM

This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy of switching from atorvastatin (ATV) 10 mg to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg, EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg or doubling the dose of ATV from 10 to 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

METHODS

Eligible patients had haemoglobin A(1C)< or =10%, were aged > or =18 years and were on ATV 10 mg for > or =6 weeks before study entry. After a 4-week open-label ATV 10 mg run-in, patients were randomized to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (n = 220), EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg (n = 222) or ATV 20 g (n = 219) daily for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

Greater (p < or = 0.001) reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (the primary end-point) were achieved by switching to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (26.2%) or 10/40 mg (30.1%) than by doubling the dose of ATV to 20 mg (8.5%). EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg and 10/40 mg produced greater (p < or = 0.001) reductions in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B relative to ATV 20 mg. A reduction (p < or = 0.050) in C-reactive protein was observed with EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg vs. ATV 20 mg. Similar reductions in triglycerides were observed across the three groups, and none of the treatments produced a significant change in HDL-C. A greater (p < or = 0.001) proportion of patients achieved LDL-C <2.5 mmol/l with EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (90.5%) and 10/40 mg (87.0%) than with ATV 20 mg (70.4%). Both EZE/SIMVA doses were generally well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to ATV 20 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

EZE/SIMVA 10/20 and 10/40 mg provided greater lipid-altering efficacy than doubling the dose of ATV from 10 to 20 mg and were well tolerated in patients with T2D.

Therapeutic regulation of endothelial dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Endothelial dysfunction is universal in diabetes, being intimately involved with the development of cardiovascular disease. The pathogenesis of endothelial dysfunction in diabetes is complex. It is initially related to the effects of fatty acids and insulin resistance on 'uncoupling' of both endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity and mitochondrial function. Oxidative stress activates protein kinase C (PKC), polyol, hexosamine and nuclear factor kappa B pathways, thereby aggravating endothelial dysfunction. Improvements in endothelial function in the peripheral circulation in diabetes have been demonstrated with monotherapies, including statins, fibrates, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, metformin and fish oils. These observations are supported by large clinical end point trials. Other studies show benefits with certain antioxidants, L-arginine, folate, PKC-inhibitors, peroxisome proliferator activated receptor (PPAR)-alpha and -gamma agonists and phosphodiesterase (PDE-5) inhibitors. However, the benefits of these agents remain to be shown in clinical end point trials. Combination treatments, for example, statins plus ACE inhibitors and statins plus fibrates, have also been demonstrated to have additive benefits on endothelial function in diabetes, but there are no clinical outcome data to date. Measurement of endothelial dysfunction in cardiovascular research can provide fresh opportunities for exploring the mechanism of benefit of new therapeutic regimens and for planning and designing large clinical trials.

Dual cholesterol inhibition with ezetimibe/simvastatin in pre-treated hypercholesterolaemic patients with coronary heart disease or diabetes mellitus: prospective observational cohort studies in clinical practice

OBJECTIVE

Patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia and concomitant coronary heart disease (CHD) and/or diabetes mellitus (DM), who are at particularly high risk of cardiovascular events such as stroke or myocardial infarction, benefit from aggressive lipid lowering strategies. The present studies investigated the incremental efficacy and safety of dual cholesterol inhibition with ezetimibe/simvastatin in such high-risk patients pre-treated with statins but not reaching the 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) low density cholesterol (LDL-C) cholesterol threshold in the primary care setting.

METHODS

Two open-label, prospective, non-randomised, observational studies (study 1 with n = 19 194 patients, predominantly with CHD; study 2 with n = 19 484 patients, predominantly with DM). Patients received--almost all after statin pre-treatment--ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 10 mg (study 1: 15%, study 2: 16%), 20 mg (in 68% each), 40 mg (12%/10%) or 80 mg (1%/1%) as fixed dose combinations over 3 months (dosage at investigator's discretion).

RESULTS

Mean LDL-C was reduced by 28%/27% (study 1/ study 2) compared with baseline values (on statin monotherapy). Mean total cholesterol was decreased by 22% in each study, mean triglycerides by 16/17%, and mean high density cholesterol (HDL-C) was increased by 9/10%. Adverse events were reported in 0.3% and 0.2% of patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Dual cholesterol inhibition with ezetimibe/simvastatin was effective and well tolerated under real practice conditions in high-risk patients with CHD and/or DM.

Efficacy and tolerability of ezetimibe 10 mg/day coadministered with statins in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who do not achieve target LDL-C while on statin monotherapy: A Canadian, multicentre, prospective study--the Ezetrol Add-On Study

BACKGROUND

For patients who have above-target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels while on statin monotherapy, coadministration of a cholesterol absorption inhibitor with the statin may decrease serum LDL-C levels and improve overall lipid profiles.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg/day coadministered with a statin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who have higher than recommended LDL-C levels while on statin monotherapy.

METHODS

A six-week, prospective, multicentre study of eligible patients who had above-target LDL-C levels while on monotherapy with any statin, regardless of dose, for a minimum of four weeks. All patients were treated for six weeks with 10 mg ezetimibe daily coadministered with their current statins.

RESULTS

A total of 1141 patients were screened, 953 (83.5%) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria and 837 (87.8%) completed the study. Reasons for withdrawal included: lost to follow-up (50 patients [5.2%]); protocol violations (45 patients [4.7%]); adverse events (19 patients [2.0%]); and withdrawal of consent (two patients [0.2%]). After six weeks of treatment, statistically significant (P = 0.001) mean reductions were observed in LDL-C (30.05%), total cholesterol (20.84%), triglycerides (10.16%), apolipoprotein B (19.84%) and the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (19.88%). At six weeks, 674 patients (80.5%) achieved target LDL-C levels. Fifty predominantly mild, nonserious adverse events related to ezetimibe were reported by 32 patients (3.4%). Frequently reported adverse events included constipation (n = 7 [0.7% of patients]), diarrhea (n = 4 [0.4%]) and dizziness (n = 4 [0.4%]).

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe coadministered with statins is effective in reducing LDL-C in patients who do not attain target LDL-C levels while on statin monotherapy.

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

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