Effects of lipid-lowering drugs on high-density lipoprotein subclasses in healthy men-a randomized trial

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE

Investigating the effects of lipid-lowering drugs on HDL subclasses has shown ambiguous results. This study assessed the effects of ezetimibe, simvastatin, and their combination on HDL subclass distribution.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A single-center randomized parallel 3-group open-label study was performed in 72 healthy men free of cardiovascular disease with a baseline LDL-cholesterol of 111±30 mg/dl (2.9±0.8 mmol/l) and a baseline HDL-cholesterol of 64±15 mg/dl (1.7±0.4 mmol/l). They were treated with ezetimibe (10 mg/day, n = 24), simvastatin (40 mg/day, n = 24) or their combination (n = 24) for 14 days. Blood was drawn before and after the treatment period. HDL subclasses were determined using polyacrylamide gel-tube electrophoresis. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the influence of treatment and covariates on changes in HDL subclass composition.

RESULTS

Baseline HDL subclasses consisted of 33±10% large, 48±6% intermediate and 19±8% small HDL. After adjusting for baseline HDL subclass distribution, body mass index, LDL-C and the ratio triglycerides/HDL-C, there was a significant increase in large HDL by about 3.9 percentage points (P<0.05) and a decrease in intermediate HDL by about 3.5 percentage points (P<0.01) in both simvastatin-containing treatment arms in comparison to ezetimibe. The parameters obtained after additional adjustment for the decrease in LDL-C indicated that about one third to one half of these effects could be explained by the extent of LDL-C-lowering.

CONCLUSIONS

In healthy men, treatment with simvastatin leads to favorable effects on HDL subclass composition, which was not be observed with ezetimibe. Part of these differential effects may be due to the stronger LDL-C-lowering effects of simvastatin.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00317993.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Effects of the PPAR-δ agonist MBX-8025 on atherogenic dyslipidemia

OBJECTIVE

Determine the effects of treatment with a selective PPAR-δ agonist±statin on plasma lipoprotein subfractions in dyslipidemic individuals.

METHODS

Ion mobility analysis was used to measure plasma concentrations of subfractions of the full spectrum of lipoprotein particles in 166 overweight or obese dyslipidemic individuals treated with the PPAR-δ agonist MBX-8025 (50 and 100 mg/d)±atorvastatin (20 mg/d) in an 8-week randomized parallel arm double blind placebo controlled trial.

RESULTS

MBX-8025 at both doses resulted in reductions of small plus very small LDL particles and increased levels of large LDL, with a concomitant reduction in large VLDL, and an increase in LDL peak diameter. This translated to reversal of the small dense LDL phenotype (LDL pattern B) in ∼90% of the participants. Modest increases in HDL particles were confined to the smaller HDL fractions. Atorvastatin monotherapy resulted in reductions in particles across the VLDL-IDL-LDL spectrum, with a significantly smaller reduction in small and very small LDL vs. MBX-8025 100 mg/d (-24.5±5.3% vs. -47.8±4.9%), and, in combination with MBX-8025, a reversal of the increase in large LDL.

CONCLUSION

PPAR-δ and statin therapies have complementary effects in improving lipoprotein subfractions associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia.

Short-term fenofibrate treatment reduces elevated plasma Lp-PLA2 mass and sVCAM-1 levels in a subcohort of hypertriglyceridemic GOLDN participants

High levels of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) (Lp-PLA(2)) are associated with inflammation, atherosclerosis, and coronary heart disease events. In addition, Lp-PLA(2) has been linked to classical markers of endothelial activation, including soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (sVCAM-1). Although treatment with fenofibrate reduces Lp-PLA(2) mass, it is unclear whether fenofibrate reduces sVCAM-1 levels or whether an association exists between any changes observed in Lp-PLA(2) and sVCAM-1. Concentrations of Lp-PLA(2) mass and sVCAM-1 levels were measured in plasma at baseline and after 3 weeks of fenofibrate treatment (160 mg/d) in 96 hypertriglyceridemic participants of the Genetics of Lipid-lowering Drugs and Diet Network study. Lp-PLA(2) and sVCAM-1 were stratified by tertiles as determined by baseline levels of the respective target. Fenofibrate treatment resulted in a 30.1% mean increase in Lp-PLA(2) mass (P = 0.0003) and a 14.7% mean increase in sVCAM-1 levels (P = 0.0096) but only in tertile1 of either target. In contrast, Lp-PLA(2) mass was reduced by 35.3% (P < 0.0001) in tertile 3. Soluble VCAM-1 levels were significantly reduced by 7.74% (P = 0.0109) and 17.2% (P < 0.0001) in tertiles 2 and 3, respectively. No associations were observed between Lp-PLA(2) and sVCAM-1 at baseline or post-treatment. In conclusion, fenofibrate treatment in hypertriglyceridemic subjects reduced the levels of Lp-PLA(2) mass and sVCAM-1, but only in those with elevated baseline levels of these biomarkers. The greatest reductions in Lp-PLA(2) levels were observed in individuals with Lp-PLA(2) concentrations indicative of increased cardiovascular disease risk (>200 ng/mL).

Combinations of ezetimibe with nonstatin drug regimens affecting lipid metabolism

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

AREAS COVERED

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

EXPERT OPINION

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

Consumption of high-oleic acid ground beef increases HDL-cholesterol concentration but both high- and low-oleic acid ground beef decrease HDL particle diameter in normocholesterolemic men

On the basis of previous results from this laboratory, this study tested the hypothesis that ground beef high in MUFA and low in SFA would increase the HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) concentration and LDL particle diameter. In a crossover dietary intervention, 27 free-living normocholesterolemic men completed treatments in which five 114-g ground beef patties/wk were consumed for 5 wk with an intervening 4-wk washout period. Patties contained 24% total fat with a MUFA:SFA ratio of either 0.71 (low MUFA, from pasture-fed cattle) or 1.10 (high MUFA, from grain-fed cattle). High-MUFA ground beef provided 3.21 g more 18:1(n-9), 1.26 g less 18:0, 0.89 g less 16:0, and 0.36 g less 18:1(trans) fatty acids per patty than did the low-MUFA ground beef. Both ground beef interventions decreased plasma insulin and HDL(2) and HDL(3) particle diameters and increased plasma 18:0 and 20:4(n-6) (all P ≤ 0.05) relative to baseline values. Only the high-MUFA ground beef intervention increased the HDL-C concentration from baseline (P = 0.02). The plasma TG concentration was positively correlated with the plasma insulin concentration (r = 0.40; P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with HDL-C (r = -0.47; P < 0.001) and plasma 18:0 (r = -0.24; P < 0.01). Plasma insulin and HDL diameters were not correlated (r = 0.01; P > 0.50), indicating that reductions in these measures were not coordinately regulated. The data indicate that dietary beef interventions have effects on risk factors for cardiovascular disease that are independent (insulin, HDL diameters) and dependent (HDL-C) on beef fatty acid composition.

Differential effects of fluvastatin alone or in combination with ezetimibe on lipoprotein subfractions in patients at high risk of coronary events

BACKGROUND

Ezetimibe, a cholesterol-absorption inhibitor, significantly lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) when administered in addition to statin treatment. The effect of ezetimibe on the incidence and progression of vascular disease is elusive. The objective of the study was to examine the effects of fluvastatin plus ezetimibe on lipoprotein subfractions in patients with type 2 diabetes and/or coronary heart disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety patients with LDL-C between 100 and 160 mg dL(-1) were enrolled in this prospective, randomized, single-blind, single-centre study. A total of 84 patients were treated with either fluvastatin 80 mg (n = 28) alone or in combination with ezetimibe 10 mg (n = 56) for 12 weeks to determine the effects on lipids, apolipoproteins and LDL subfractions by equilibrium density gradient ultracentrifugation. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00814723.

RESULTS

Total cholesterol, LDL-C and apolipoprotein B were significantly more reduced in the combined therapy group. High density lipoproteins increased in the fluvastatin-only group and decreased in the combined therapy group. There was a significant difference between the two groups in buoyant and intermediate, but not in dense LDL particles.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of ezetimibe to fluvastatin resulted in a further reduction of buoyant and intermediate, but not of dense LDL compared with fluvastatin alone.