The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with simvastatin plus ezetimibe in patients with chronic kidney disease (Study of Heart and Renal Protection): a randomised placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Lowering LDL cholesterol with statin regimens reduces the risk of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and the need for coronary revascularisation in people without kidney disease, but its effects in people with moderate-to-severe kidney disease are uncertain. The SHARP trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of simvastatin plus ezetimibe in such patients.

METHODS

This randomised double-blind trial included 9270 patients with chronic kidney disease (3023 on dialysis and 6247 not) with no known history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularisation. Patients were randomly assigned to simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily versus matching placebo. The key prespecified outcome was first major atherosclerotic event (non-fatal myocardial infarction or coronary death, non-haemorrhagic stroke, or any arterial revascularisation procedure). All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00125593, and ISRCTN54137607.

FINDINGS

4650 patients were assigned to receive simvastatin plus ezetimibe and 4620 to placebo. Allocation to simvastatin plus ezetimibe yielded an average LDL cholesterol difference of 0·85 mmol/L (SE 0·02; with about two-thirds compliance) during a median follow-up of 4·9 years and produced a 17% proportional reduction in major atherosclerotic events (526 [11·3%] simvastatin plus ezetimibe vs 619 [13·4%] placebo; rate ratio [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·74-0·94; log-rank p=0·0021). Non-significantly fewer patients allocated to simvastatin plus ezetimibe had a non-fatal myocardial infarction or died from coronary heart disease (213 [4·6%] vs 230 [5·0%]; RR 0·92, 95% CI 0·76-1·11; p=0·37) and there were significant reductions in non-haemorrhagic stroke (131 [2·8%] vs 174 [3·8%]; RR 0·75, 95% CI 0·60-0·94; p=0·01) and arterial revascularisation procedures (284 [6·1%] vs 352 [7·6%]; RR 0·79, 95% CI 0·68-0·93; p=0·0036). After weighting for subgroup-specific reductions in LDL cholesterol, there was no good evidence that the proportional effects on major atherosclerotic events differed from the summary rate ratio in any subgroup examined, and, in particular, they were similar in patients on dialysis and those who were not. The excess risk of myopathy was only two per 10,000 patients per year of treatment with this combination (9 [0·2%] vs 5 [0·1%]). There was no evidence of excess risks of hepatitis (21 [0·5%] vs 18 [0·4%]), gallstones (106 [2·3%] vs 106 [2·3%]), or cancer (438 [9·4%] vs 439 [9·5%], p=0·89) and there was no significant excess of death from any non-vascular cause (668 [14·4%] vs 612 [13·2%], p=0·13).

INTERPRETATION

Reduction of LDL cholesterol with simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg daily safely reduced the incidence of major atherosclerotic events in a wide range of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease.

FUNDING

Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals; Australian National Health and Medical Research Council; British Heart Foundation; UK Medical Research Council.

Combined vemurafenib and cobimetinib in BRAF-mutated melanoma

BACKGROUND

The combined inhibition of BRAF and MEK is hypothesized to improve clinical outcomes in patients with melanoma by preventing or delaying the onset of resistance observed with BRAF inhibitors alone. This randomized phase 3 study evaluated the combination of the BRAF inhibitor vemurafenib and the MEK inhibitor cobimetinib.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 495 patients with previously untreated unresectable locally advanced or metastatic BRAF V600 mutation-positive melanoma to receive vemurafenib and cobimetinib (combination group) or vemurafenib and placebo (control group). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.

RESULTS

The median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the combination group and 6.2 months in the control group (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39 to 0.68; P<0.001). The rate of complete or partial response in the combination group was 68%, as compared with 45% in the control group (P<0.001), including rates of complete response of 10% in the combination group and 4% in the control group. Progression-free survival as assessed by independent review was similar to investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Interim analyses of overall survival showed 9-month survival rates of 81% (95% CI, 75 to 87) in the combination group and 73% (95% CI, 65 to 80) in the control group. Vemurafenib and cobimetinib was associated with a nonsignificantly higher incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher, as compared with vemurafenib and placebo (65% vs. 59%), and there was no significant difference in the rate of study-drug discontinuation. The number of secondary cutaneous cancers decreased with the combination therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of cobimetinib to vemurafenib was associated with a significant improvement in progression-free survival among patients with BRAF V600-mutated metastatic melanoma, at the cost of some increase in toxicity. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; coBRIM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01689519.).

Ximelagatran vs warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial

CONTEXT

In patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, warfarin prevents ischemic stroke, but dose adjustment, coagulation monitoring, and bleeding limit its use.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran with warfarin for prevention of stroke and systemic embolism.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial (2000-2001) conducted at 409 North American sites, involving 3922 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and additional stroke risk factors.

INTERVENTIONS

Adjusted-dose warfarin (aiming for an international normalized ratio [INR] 2.0 to 3.0) or fixed-dose oral ximelagatran, 36 mg twice daily.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was all strokes (ischemic or hemorrhagic) and systemic embolic events. The primary analysis was based on demonstrating noninferiority within an absolute margin of 2.0% per year according to the intention-to-treat model.

RESULTS

During 6405 patient-years (mean 20 months) of follow-up, 88 patients experienced primary events. The mean (SD) INR with warfarin (2.4 [0.8]) was within target during 68% of the treatment period. The primary event rate with ximelagatran was 1.6% per year and with warfarin was 1.2% per year (absolute difference, 0.45% per year; 95% confidence interval, -0.13% to 1.03% per year; P<.001 for the predefined noninferiority hypothesis). When all-cause mortality was included in addition to stroke and systemic embolic events, the rate difference was 0.10% per year (95% confidence interval, -0.97% to 1.2% per year; P = .86). There was no difference between treatment groups in rates of major bleeding, but total bleeding (major and minor) was lower with ximelagatran (37% vs 47% per year; 95% confidence interval for the difference, -14% to -6.0% per year; P<.001). Serum alanine aminotransferase levels rose to greater than 3 times the upper limit of normal in 6.0% of patients treated with ximelagatran, usually within 6 months and typically declined whether or not treatment continued; however, one case of documented fatal liver disease and one other suggestive case occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The results establish the efficacy of fixed-dose oral ximelagatran without coagulation monitoring compared with well-controlled warfarin for prevention of thromboembolism in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring chronic anticoagulant therapy, but the potential for hepatotoxicity requires further investigation.

Effect of ezetimibe coadministered with atorvastatin in 628 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the established efficacy of statins, many patients do not achieve recommended LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Contributing factors may be inadequate dosing, increased risk for adverse effects with high-dose monotherapy, and increased potential for intolerance and adverse effects with combinations of available agents.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a double-blind study, 628 patients with baseline LDL-C 145 to 250 mg/dL and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dL were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the following for 12 weeks: ezetimibe (10 mg/d); atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/d); ezetimibe (10 mg) plus atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/d); or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was percentage reduction in LDL-C for pooled ezetimibe plus atorvastatin versus pooled atorvastatin treatment groups. Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin significantly improved LDL-C, HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, total cholesterol:HDL-C, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) compared with atorvastatin alone (P<0.01). Coadministration of ezetimibe provided a significant additional 12% LDL-C reduction, 3% HDL-C increase, 8% triglyceride reduction, and 10% hs-CRP reduction versus atorvastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin provided LDL-C reductions of 50% to 60%, triglyceride reductions of 30% to 40%, and HDL-C increases of 5% to 9%, depending on atorvastatin dose. LDL-C reductions with ezetimibe plus 10 mg atorvastatin (50%) and 80 mg atorvastatin alone (51%) were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to atorvastatin alone and to placebo. When coadministered with atorvastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and triglycerides and increases in HDL-C. Coadministration of ezetimibe and atorvastatin offers a well-tolerated and highly efficacious new treatment option for patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Effect of a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, REGN727/SAR236553, to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia on stable statin dose with or without ezetimibe therapy: a phase 2 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Inhibition of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease (PCSK9) resulted in large reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in phase 1 trials. We assessed the efficacy and safety of various doses and dosing intervals of REGN727, a monoclonal antibody to PCSK9, added to statins, to further lower LDL-C in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia.

METHODS

This multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 2 trial was done at 16 lipid clinics in the USA and Canada. Between Jan 18, 2011, and Nov 7, 2011, we enrolled adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and LDL-C concentrations of 2·6 mmol/L or higher on stable diet and statin dose, with or without ezetimibe. Patients were randomly assigned to receive REGN727 150 mg, 200 mg, or 300 mg every 4 weeks, or 150 mg every 2 weeks, or placebo every 2 weeks (ratio 1:1:1:1:1). Randomisation was stratified by concomitant use of ezetimibe at baseline. Investigators, study staff, and patients were masked to treatment group. Blinding was maintained by administration of placebo alternating with REGN727 for the groups of 4 week dosing. The primary endpoint was mean percent reduction in LDL-C from baseline at week 12 and was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population with an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model with treatment group. This trial is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT 01266876.

FINDINGS

77 patients were randomly assigned to study groups (15-16 patients per group) and all were analysed. Least-squares (LS) mean LDL-C reduction from baseline to week 12 was 28·9% (SE 5·08) for 150 mg every 4 weeks (p=0·0113), 31·54% (4·91) for 200 mg every 4 weeks (p=0·0035), 42·53% (5·09) for 300 mg every 4 weeks (p<0·0001), and 67·90% (4·85) for 150 mg every 2 weeks (p<0·0001), compared with 10·65% (5·04) with placebo. One serious adverse event was reported with placebo and none with REGN727. No increases of more than three times the upper limit of normal were reported for hepatic transaminases or creatinine kinase. The most common adverse event was injection-site reaction with one patient in the group of 300 mg REGN727 terminating treatment.

INTERPRETATION

REGN727 was well tolerated and achieved substantial further LDL-C reduction in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia and elevated LDL-C treated with high-dose statins, with or without ezetimibe. REGN727 has the potential to provide optimum control of LDL-C in patients with this disorder.

FUNDING

Sanofi US and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Incorporated.

Atezolizumab with or without cobimetinib versus regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (IMblaze370): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer is typically unresponsive to immunotherapy. This phase 3 study was designed to assess atezolizumab plus cobimetinib in metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report the comparison of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab monotherapy versus regorafenib in the third-line setting.

METHODS

IMblaze 370 is a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, done at 73 academic medical centres and community oncology practices in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and disease progression on or intolerance to at least two previous systemic chemotherapy regimens were enrolled. We used permuted-block randomisation (block size four) to assign patients (2:1:1) via an interactive voice and web response system to atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) plus cobimetinib (60 mg orally once daily for days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle), atezolizumab monotherapy (1200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks), or regorafenib (160 mg orally once daily for days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle). Stratification factors were extended RAS status (wild-type vs mutant) and time since diagnosis of first metastasis (<18 months vs ≥18 months). Recruitment of patients with high microsatellite instability was capped at 5%. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. IMblaze370 is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02788279.

FINDINGS

Between July 27, 2016, and Jan 19, 2017, 363 patients were enrolled (183 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 90 in the regorafenib group). At data cutoff (March 9, 2018), median follow-up was 7·3 months (IQR 3·7-13·6). Median overall survival was 8·87 months (95% CI 7·00-10·61) with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib, 7·10 months (6·05-10·05) with atezolizumab, and 8·51 months (6·41-10·71) with regorafenib; the hazard ratio was 1·00 (95% CI 0·73-1·38; p=0·99) for the combination versus regorafenib and 1·19 (0·83-1·71; p=0·34) for atezolizumab versus regorafenib. Grade 3-4 adverse events were reported in 109 (61%) of 179 patients in the atezolizumab plus cobimetinib group, 28 (31%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 46 (58%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. The most common all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events in the combination group were diarrhoea (20 [11%] of 179), anaemia (ten [6%]), increased blood creatine phosphokinase (12 [7%]), and fatigue (eight [4%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 71 (40%) of 179 patients in the combination group, 15 (17%) of 90 in the atezolizumab group, and 18 (23%) of 80 in the regorafenib group. Two treatment-related deaths occurred in the combination group (sepsis) and one in the regorafenib group (intestinal perforation).

INTERPRETATION

IMblaze370 did not meet its primary endpoint of improved overall survival with atezolizumab plus cobimetinib or atezolizumab versus regorafenib. The safety of atezolizumab plus cobimetinib was consistent with those of the individual drugs. These results underscore the challenge of expanding the benefit of immunotherapy to patients whose tumours have lower baseline levels of immune inflammation, such as those with microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer.

FUNDING

F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech Inc.

Baricitinib for systemic lupus erythematosus: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with systemic lupus erythematosus have substantial unmet medical need. Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and JAK2 inhibitor that we hypothesised might have therapeutic benefit in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus.

METHODS

In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, 24-week phase 2 study, patients were recruited from 78 centres in 11 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had a diagnosis of systemic lupus erythematosus, and had active disease involving skin or joints. We randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib 2 mg, baricitinib 4 mg, or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving resolution of arthritis or rash at week 24, as defined by Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index-2000 (SLEDAI-2K). Efficacy and safety analyses included all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02708095.

FINDINGS

Between March 24, 2016, and April 27, 2017, 314 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo (n=105), baricitinib 2 mg (n=105), or baricitinib 4 mg (n=104). At week 24, resolution of SLEDAI-2K arthritis or rash was achieved by 70 (67%) of 104 patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg (odds ratio [OR] vs placebo 1·8, 95% CI 1·0-3·3; p=0·0414) and 61 (58%) of 105 patients receiving baricitinib 2 mg (OR 1·3, 0·7-2·3; p=0·39). Adverse events were reported in 68 (65%) patients in the placebo group, 75 (71%) patients in the baricitinib 2 mg group, and 76 (73%) patients in the baricitinib 4 mg group. Serious adverse events were reported in ten (10%) patients receiving baricitinib 4 mg, 11 (10%) receiving baricitinib 2 mg, and five (5%) receiving placebo; no deaths were reported. Serious infections were reported in six (6%) patients with baricitinib 4 mg, two (2%) with baricitinib 2 mg, and one (1%) with placebo.

INTERPRETATION

The baricitinib 4 mg dose, but not the 2 mg dose, significantly improved the signs and symptoms of active systemic lupus erythematosus in patients who were not adequately controlled despite standard of care therapy, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies of baricitinib. This study provides the foundation for future phase 3 trials of JAK1/2 inhibition with baricitinib as a new potential oral therapy for systemic lupus erythematosus.

FUNDING

Eli Lilly and Company.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 in combination with a statin in patients with hypercholesterolaemia (LAPLACE-TIMI 57): a randomised, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging, phase 2 study

BACKGROUND

LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) is a well established risk factor for cardiovascular disease. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) binds LDL receptors, targeting them for degradation. We therefore assessed the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of AMG 145, a human monoclonal IgG2 antibody against PCSK9, in stable patients with hypercholesterolemia on a statin.

METHODS

In a phase 2, dose-ranging study done in 78 centres in the USA, Canada, Denmark, Hungary, and Czech Republic, patients (aged 18-80 years) with LDL-C greater than 2·2 mmol/L on a stable dose of statin (with or without ezetimibe), were randomly assigned equally, through an interactive voice response system, to subcutaneous injections of AMG 145 70 mg, 105 mg, or 140 mg, or matching placebo every 2 weeks; or subcutaneous injections of AMG 145 280 mg, 350 mg, or 420 mg, or matching placebo every 4 weeks. Everyone was masked to treatment assignment within the every 2 weeks and every 4 weeks schedules. The primary endpoint was the percentage change in LDL-C concentration from baseline after 12 weeks. Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01380730.

FINDINGS

631 patients with hypercholesterolaemia were randomly assigned to AMG 145 70 mg (n=79), 105 mg (n=79), or 140 mg (n=78), or matching placebo (n=78) every 2 weeks; or AMG 145 280 mg (n=79), 350 mg (n=79), and 420 mg (n=80), and matching placebo (n=79) every 4 weeks. At the end of the dosing interval at week 12, the mean LDL-C concentrations were reduced generally dose dependently by AMG 145 every 2 weeks (ranging from 41·8% to 66·1%; p<0·0001 for each dose vs placebo) and AMG 145 every 4 weeks (ranging from 41·8% to 50·3%; p<0·0001). No treatment-related serious adverse events occurred. The frequencies of treatment-related adverse events were similar in the AMG 145 and placebo groups (39 [8%] of 474 vs 11 [7%] of 155); none of these events were severe or life-threatening.

INTERPRETATION

The results suggest that PCSK9 inhibition could be a new model in lipid management. Inhibition of PCSK9 warrants assessment in phase 3 clinical trials.

FUNDING

Amgen.

Simvastatin Versus Ezetimibe

Background— Statins may exert important pleiotropic effects, ie, improve endothelial function, independently of their impact on LDL cholesterol. In humans, however, pleiotropic effects of statins have never been unequivocally demonstrated because prolonged statin treatment always results in reduced LDL cholesterol levels. We therefore tested the hypothesis that similar reductions in LDL cholesterol with simvastatin and ezetimibe, a novel cholesterol absorption inhibitor, result in different effects on endothelial function.

Methods and Results— Twenty patients with chronic heart failure were randomized to 4 weeks of simvastatin (10 mg/d) or ezetimibe (10 mg/d) treatment. Flow-dependent dilation (FDD) of the radial artery was determined by high-resolution ultrasound before and after intra-arterial vitamin C to determine the portion of FDD inhibited by radicals (ΔFDD-VC). Activity of extracellular superoxide dismutase, a major vascular antioxidant enzyme system, was determined after release from the endothelium by a heparin bolus injection. Endothelial progenitor cells were analyzed with an in vitro assay. Simvastatin and ezetimibe treatment reduced LDL cholesterol to a similar extent (15.6% versus 15.4%; P =NS), whereas changes in mevalonate, the product of HMG-CoA-reductase, differed between groups (Δmevalonate-simvastatin, −1.04±0.62 versus Δmevalonate-ezetimibe, 1.79±0.94 ng/mL; P <0.05 between groups). Importantly, FDD was markedly improved after simvastatin (10.5±0.6% versus 5.1±0.7%; P <0.01) but not after ezetimibe treatment (5.6±0.5% versus 5.8±0.6%; P =NS). ΔFDD-VC was substantially reduced after simvastatin but not after ezetimibe treatment. Extracellular superoxide dismutase activity was increased by >100% ( P <0.05) after simvastatin but not ezetimibe treatment. Simvastatin treatment increased the number of functionally active endothelial progenitor cells, whereas ezetimibe had no effect.

Conclusions— Four weeks of simvastatin treatment improves endothelial function independently of LDL cholesterol lowering, at least in part by reducing oxidant stress. Simvastatin may thereby exert important pleiotropic effects in humans.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy for treatment of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

Ezetimibe is a lipid-lowering drug that inhibits the intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol by blocking passage across the intestinal wall. The efficacy and safety of adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia was evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The study group included 769 adults (aged > or =18 years) with primary hypercholesterolemia who had not achieved National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel II goals with dietary alteration and statin monotherapy. Patients receiving a stable dose of a statin for > or =6 weeks were randomized to receive concurrent treatment with placebo (n = 390) or ezetimibe (n = 379), 10 mg/day, in addition to continuing their open-label statin for 8 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the percent change in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol from baseline with statin monotherapy to end point after intervention (secondary variables: high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol and triglycerides). Ongoing statin therapy plus ezetimibe led to changes of -25.1% for LDL cholesterol (HDL cholesterol +2.7%; triglycerides -14.0%) compared with LDL cholesterol -3.7% (p <0.001), HDL cholesterol +1.0% (p <0.05), and triglycerides -2.9% (p <0.001) for placebo added to ongoing statin therapy. Among patients not at LDL cholesterol goal at on-statin baseline, 71.5% receiving statin plus ezetimibe versus 18.9% receiving statin plus placebo reached goal at end point (odds ratio 23.7; p <0.001). The co-administration of statin and ezetimibe was generally well tolerated. Adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy led to substantial additional reduction in LDL cholesterol levels, facilitating attainment of NCEP goals. Ezetimibe offers a new therapeutic option for patients receiving statins who require further reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with atorvastatin or simvastatin in patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND

Patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) have a high incidence of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality from premature atherosclerosis, and the efficacy of pharmacological therapy has been limited. We evaluated the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of ezetimibe, a novel cholesterol absorption inhibitor, in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial of HoFH patients receiving atorvastatin or simvastatin. Methods and Results- Fifty patients with a diagnosis of HoFH on the National Cholesterol Education Program Step 1 or stricter diet and taking open-label atorvastatin 40 mg/d or simvastatin 40 mg/d (statin-40) with (n=25) or without (n=25) concomitant LDL apheresis were randomized to 1 of 3 double-blind treatments: atorvastatin or simvastatin 80 mg/d (statin-80, n=17); ezetimibe 10 mg/d plus atorvastatin or simvastatin 40 mg/d (n=16); or ezetimibe 10 mg/d plus atorvastatin or simvastatin 80 mg/d (n=17) for 12 weeks. The primary end point was mean percentage change in LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) from statin-40 baseline to the end point for patients receiving statins alone (statin-80) versus patients receiving ezetimibe plus atorvastatin or simvastatin at either dose (ezetimibe plus statin-40/80). Ezetimibe plus statin-40/80 significantly reduced LDL-C levels compared with statin-80 (-20.7% versus -6.7%, P=0.007). In the high-dose statin cohorts, ezetimibe plus statin-80 reduced LDL-C by an additional 20.5% (P=0.0001) versus statin-80. Similar significant reductions in LDL-C concentrations were observed for patients with genotype-confirmed HoFH (n=35). Ezetimibe was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe coadministered with atorvastatin or simvastatin in patients with HoFH produced clinically important LDL-C reductions compared with best current therapy. Ezetimibe provides a new, complementary pharmacological approach for this high-risk population.

Secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism with the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran

BACKGROUND

For many patients with venous thromboembolism, secondary prevention with vitamin K antagonists is not extended beyond six months, since the risk of recurrence may be outweighed by the risk of major bleeding.

METHODS

In a double-blind, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 1233 patients with venous thromboembolism who had undergone six months of anticoagulant therapy to extended secondary prevention with the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran (24 mg) or placebo, taken twice daily, for 18 months without monitoring of coagulation. At base line, bilateral ultrasonography of the legs and perfusion lung scanning were performed.

RESULTS

Data from 612 patients in the ximelagatran group and 611 in the placebo group were analyzed. The occurrence of the primary end point, symptomatic recurrent venous thromboembolism, was confirmed in 12 patients assigned to ximelagatran and 71 patients assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 0.16; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.09 to 0.30; P<0.001). Death from any cause occurred in 6 patients in the ximelagatran group and 7 patients in the placebo group, and bleeding occurred in 134 patients and 111 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.93 to 1.53; P=0.17). The incidence of major hemorrhage was low (six events in the ximelagatran group and five in the placebo group), and none of these hemorrhages were fatal. The cumulative risk of a transient elevation of the alanine aminotransferase level to more than three times the upper limit of normal was 6.4 percent in the ximelagatran group, as compared with 1.2 percent in the placebo group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral ximelagatran was superior to placebo for the extended prevention of venous thromboembolism. There was no significant increase in the frequency of bleeding complications, but there was an increase in the number of patients with a transient elevation in the alanine aminotransferase level.

Baricitinib in patients with inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARDs: results from the RA-BUILD study

BACKGROUND

Baricitinib is an oral, reversible, selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor.

METHODS

In this phase III, double-blind 24-week study, 684 biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD)-naïve patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 conventional synthetic DMARDs were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to placebo or baricitinib (2 or 4 mg) once daily, stratified by region and the presence of joint erosions. Endpoint measures included American College of Rheumatology 20% response (ACR20, primary endpoint), Disease Activity Score (DAS28) and Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) score ≤3.3.

RESULTS

More patients achieved ACR20 response at week 12 with baricitinib 4 mg than with placebo (62% vs 39%, p≤0.001). Compared with placebo, statistically significant improvements in DAS28, SDAI remission, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, morning joint stiffness, worst joint pain and worst tiredness were observed. In a supportive analysis, radiographic progression of structural joint damage at week 24 was reduced with baricitinib versus placebo. Rates of adverse events during the treatment period and serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious infections, were similar among groups (SAEs: 5% for baricitinib 4 mg and placebo). One patient had an adverse event of tuberculosis (baricitinib 4 mg); one patient had an adverse event of non-melanoma skin cancer (baricitinib 4 mg). Two deaths and three major adverse cardiovascular events occurred (placebo). Baricitinib was associated with a decrease in neutrophils and increases in low-density and high-density lipoprotein.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response or intolerance to conventional synthetic DMARDs, baricitinib was associated with clinical improvement and inhibition of progression of radiographic joint damage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01721057; Results.

Efficacy and safety of a potent new selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

The efficacy and safety of ezetimibe, a new cholesterol absorption inhibitor, was evaluated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 892 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After > or =2 weeks on the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step I or a stricter diet and a 4- to 8-week single-blind placebo lead-in, patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol 130 to 250 mg/dl and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dl were randomized 3:1 to receive ezetimibe 10 mg or placebo orally each morning for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percent reduction in direct plasma LDL cholesterol from baseline to end point. A total of 434 men and 458 women (ages 18 to 85 years) received randomized treatment (666 ezetimibe 10 mg, 226 placebo). Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. Ezetimibe significantly reduced direct LDL cholesterol by a mean of 16.9%, compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo (p <0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that response to ezetimibe was generally consistent across all subgroups, regardless of risk-factor status, gender, age, race, or baseline lipid profile. Ezetimibe effects on LDL cholesterol occurred early (2 weeks) and persisted throughout the 12-week treatment period. Compared with placebo, ezetimibe 10 mg also significantly improved calculated LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and HDL(3) cholesterol (p <0.01). Ezetimibe was well tolerated. There were no differences in laboratory or clinical safety parameters, or gastrointestinal, liver, or muscle side effects from that of placebo. Ezetimibe 10 mg/day is well tolerated, reduces LDL cholesterol approximately 17%, and improves other key lipid parameters.

Ximelagatran vs low-molecular-weight heparin and warfarin for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis: a randomized trial

CONTEXT

Ximelagatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor with a rapid onset of action and predictable antithrombotic effect, has the potential to be a simple therapeutic alternative to current standard treatment of acute venous thromboembolism.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of ximelagatran with standard enoxaparin/warfarin treatment for the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial (Thrombin Inhibitor in Venous Thromboembolism [THRIVE] Treatment Study) of 2489 patients with acute deep vein thrombosis, of whom approximately one third had concomitant pulmonary embolism. The study was conducted at 279 centers in 28 countries from September 2000 through December 2002.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive 6 months of treatment with either oral ximelagatran, 36 mg twice daily, or subcutaneous enoxaparin, 1 mg/kg twice daily, for 5 to 20 days followed by warfarin adjusted to maintain an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.0.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality.

RESULTS

Venous thromboembolism recurred in 26 of the 1240 patients assigned to receive ximelagatran (estimated cumulative risk, 2.1%) and in 24 of the 1249 patients assigned to receive enoxaparin/warfarin (2.0%). The absolute difference between ximelagatran and enoxaparin/warfarin was 0.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.0% to 1.3%). This met the prespecified criterion for noninferiority. Corresponding values for major bleeding were 1.3% and 2.2% (difference, -1.0%; 95% CI, -2.1% to 0.1%), and for mortality were 2.3% and 3.4% (difference, -1.1%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 0.2%). Alanine aminotransferase levels increased to more than 3 times the upper limit of normal in 119 patients (9.6%) and 25 patients (2.0%) receiving ximelagatran and enoxaparin/warfarin, respectively. Increased enzyme levels were mainly asymptomatic. Retrospective analysis of locally reported adverse events showed a higher rate of serious coronary events with ximelagatran (10/1240 patients) compared with enoxaparin/warfarin (1/1249 patients).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral ximelagatran administered in a fixed dose without coagulation monitoring, was as effective as enoxaparin/warfarin for treatment of deep vein thrombosis with or without pulmonary embolism and showed similar, low rates of bleeding. Increased levels of liver enzymes in 9.6% of ximelagatran-treated patients require regular monitoring; the mechanism requires further evaluation. Prospective assessment of coronary events in future studies is warranted.

The direct thrombin inhibitor melagatran and its oral prodrug H 376/95: intestinal absorption properties, biochemical and pharmacodynamic effects

Suboptimal gastrointestinal absorption is a problem for many direct thrombin inhibitors. The studies presented herein describe the new oral direct thrombin inhibitor H 376/95, a prodrug with two protecting residues added to the direct thrombin inhibitor melagatran. Absorption properties in vitro: H 376/95 is uncharged at intestinal pH while melagatran is charged. H 376/95 is 170 times more lipophilic (octanol water partition coefficient) than melagatran. As a result, the permeability coefficient across cultured epithelial Caco-2 cells is 80 times higher for H 376/95 than for melagtran. Pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers: H 376/95 is converted to melagatran in man. Oral bioavailability, measured as melagatran in plasma, is about 20% after oral administration of H 376/95, which is 2.7-5.5 times higher than after oral administration of melagatran. The variability in the area under the drug plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC) is much smaller with oral H 376/95 (coefficient of variation 20%) than with oral melagatran (coefficient of variation 38%). Pharmacodynamic properties: H 376/95 is inactive towards human alpha-thrombin compared with melagatran [inhibition constant (K(i)) ratio, 185 times], a potential advantage for patients with silent gastrointestinal bleeding. In an experimental thrombosis model in the rat, oral H 376/95 was more effective than the subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin dalteparin in preventing thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

By the use of the prodrug principle, H 376/95 endows the direct thrombin inhibitor melagatran with pharmacokinetic properties required for oral administration without compromising the promising pharmacodynamic properties of melagatran.

Study of Heart and Renal Protection (SHARP): randomized trial to assess the effects of lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol among 9,438 patients with chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with statin therapy has been shown to reduce the incidence of atherosclerotic events in many types of patient, but it remains uncertain whether it is of net benefit among people with chronic kidney disease (CKD).

METHODS

Patients with advanced CKD (blood creatinine ≥ 1.7 mg/dL [≥ 150 μmol/L] in men or ≥ 1.5 mg/dL [ ≥ 130 μmol/L] in women) with no known history of myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization were randomized in a ratio of 4:4:1 to ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 20 mg daily versus matching placebo versus simvastatin 20 mg daily (with the latter arm rerandomized at 1 year to ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 20 mg daily vs placebo). The key outcome will be major atherosclerotic events, defined as the combination of myocardial infarction, coronary death, ischemic stroke, or any revascularization procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 9,438 CKD patients were randomized, of whom 3,056 were on dialysis. Mean age was 61 years, two thirds were male, one fifth had diabetes mellitus, and one sixth had vascular disease. Compared with either placebo or simvastatin alone, allocation to ezetimibe plus simvastatin was not associated with any excess of myopathy, hepatic toxicity, or biliary complications during the first year of follow-up. Compared with placebo, allocation to ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 20 mg daily yielded average LDL cholesterol differences of 43 mg/dL (1.10 mmol/L) at 1 year and 33 mg/dL (0.85 mmol/L) at 2.5 years. Follow-up is scheduled to continue until August 2010, when all patients will have been followed for at least 4 years.

CONCLUSIONS

SHARP should provide evidence about the efficacy and safety of lowering LDL cholesterol with the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin among a wide range of patients with CKD.

Safety and efficacy of baricitinib at 24 weeks in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who have had an inadequate response to methotrexate

OBJECTIVES

To investigate baricitinib (LY3009104, formerly INCB028050), a novel, oral inhibitor of JAK1/JAK2 in patients with moderate to severe rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite treatment with methotrexate.

METHODS

In this phase IIb study, 301 patients were randomised 2:1:1:1:1 to receive once daily doses of placebo or 1, 2, 4 or 8 mg baricitinib for 12 weeks. Patients assigned to 2, 4 and 8 mg baricitinib continued blinded treatment for an additional 12 weeks. Patients assigned to placebo or 1 mg baricitinib were reassigned to 2 mg twice daily or 4 mg once daily baricitinib between weeks 12-24. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients in the combined 4 and 8 mg groups achieving an American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response versus placebo at week 12.

RESULTS

Significantly more patients in the combined baricitinib 4 and 8 mg groups compared with placebo achieved an ACR20 response at week 12 (76% vs 41%, p<0.001). At week 12, significant differences versus placebo were also observed in patients achieving ACR50, ACR70 and remission as measured by Disease Activity Score for 28-joint counts, Clinical Disease Activity Index and Simplified Disease Activity Index. Patients receiving 2, 4, or 8 mg baricitinib maintained or improved in all measures through 24 weeks. Similar proportions of patients experienced at least one adverse event in the placebo and baricitinib groups. Serious infections developed in three patients receiving baricitinib. No cases of tuberculosis, herpes zoster, opportunistic infections or deaths were reported. Dose-dependent decreases in haemoglobin were observed with baricitinib.

CONCLUSIONS

Baricitinib improved the signs and symptoms of RA in methotrexate inadequate responders with active disease. Baricitinib was well tolerated with no unexpected safety findings through week 24.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01185353.

Comparison of ximelagatran with warfarin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement

BACKGROUND

In a previous study of the prevention of venous thromboembolism after total knee replacement, the efficacy of ximelagatran, an oral direct thrombin inhibitor that does not require monitoring of coagulation or dose adjustment, was found to be similar to that of warfarin at a dose of 24 mg of ximelagatran twice daily. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether a higher dose of ximelagatran is superior to warfarin.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind trial compared a regimen of 7 to 12 days of oral ximelagatran, at a dose of 24 or 36 mg twice daily, starting the morning after surgery, with warfarin therapy started the evening of the day of surgery. The composite end point of venous thromboembolism and death from all causes and the incidence of bleeding were the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

Among the 1851 patients in the efficacy analysis, oral ximelagatran at a dose of 36 mg twice daily was superior to warfarin with respect to the primary composite end point of venous thromboembolism and death from all causes (20.3 percent vs. 27.6 percent; P=0.003). There were no significant differences between these two groups with respect to major bleeding (incidence, 0.8 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively), perioperative indicators of bleeding, wound characteristics, or the composite secondary end point of proximal deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and death (2.7 percent vs. 4.1 percent; P=0.17).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy of oral ximelagatran, administered starting the morning after total knee replacement, was superior to that of warfarin for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Rates of hemorrhagic complications with the two drugs were similar.

Class B scavenger receptor-mediated intestinal absorption of dietary beta-carotene and cholesterol

There is now a general consensus that the intestinal absorption of water-insoluble, dietary lipids is protein-mediated, but the assignment of protein(s) to this function is still a matter of debate. To address this issue, we measured beta-carotene and cholesterol absorption in wild-type and SR-BI knockout mice and the uptake of these lipids in vitro using brush border membrane (BBM) vesicles. From the comparison of the in vivo and in vitro results we conclude that both BBM-resident class B scavenger receptors, SR-BI and CD36, can facilitate the absorption of beta-carotene and cholesterol. SR-BI is essential for beta-carotene absorption, at least in mice on a high fat diet. This is due to the fact that the absorption of beta-carotene is restricted to the duodenum and SR-BI is the predominant receptor in the mouse duodenum. In contrast, SR-BI may be involved but is not essential for cholesterol absorption in the small intestine. The question of whether SR-BI contributes to cholesterol absorption in vivo is still unresolved. Transfection of COS-7 cells with SR-BI or CD36 confers on these cells lipid uptake properties closely resembling those of enterocytes and BBM vesicles. Both scavenger receptors facilitate the uptake of dietary lipids such as beta-carotene, free and esterified cholesterol, phospholipids, and fatty acids into COS-7 cells. This lipid uptake is effected from three different lipid donor particles: mixed bile salt micelles, phospholipid small unilamellar vesicles, and trioleoylglycerol emulsions which are all likely to be present in the small intestine. Ezetimibe, a representative of a new class of drugs that inhibit intestinal cholesterol absorption, blocks SR-BI- and CD36-facilitated uptake of cholesterol into COS-7 cells.

Efficacy and Safety of Baricitinib Combined With Topical Corticosteroids for Treatment of Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase 1 and 2 inhibitor, effectively reduced disease severity in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in 2 phase 3 monotherapy studies.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of 4 mg and 2 mg of baricitinib in combination with background topical corticosteroid (TCS) therapy in adults with moderate to severe AD who previously had an inadequate response to TCS therapy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial, BREEZE-AD7 (Study of Baricitinib [LY3009104] in Combination With Topical Corticosteroids in Adults With Moderate to Severe Atopic Dermatitis) was conducted from November 16, 2018, to August 22, 2019, at 68 centers across 10 countries in Asia, Australia, Europe, and South America. Patients 18 years or older with moderate to severe AD and an inadequate response to TCSs were included. After completing the study, patients were followed up for up to 4 weeks or enrolled in a long-term extension study.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive 2 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 109), 4 mg of baricitinib once daily (n = 111), or placebo (n = 109) for 16 weeks. The use of low-to-moderate potency TCSs was allowed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving a validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear), with a 2-point or greater improvement from baseline at week 16.

Results

Among 329 patients (mean [SD] age, 33.8 [12.4] years; 216 [66%] male), at week 16, a vIGA-AD score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) was achieved by 34 patients (31%) receiving 4 mg of baricitinib and 26 (24%) receiving 2 mg of baricitinib compared with 16 (15%) receiving placebo (odds ratio vs placebo, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.4-5.6]; P = .004 for the 4-mg group; 1.9 [95% CI, 0.9-3.9]; P = .08 for the 2-mg group). Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 64 of 111 patients (58%) in the 4-mg group, 61 of 109 patients (56%) in the 2-mg group, and 41 of 108 patients (38%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 patients (4%) in the 4-mg group, 2 (2%) in the 2-mg group, and 4 (4%) in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infections, and folliculitis.

Conclusions and Relevance

A dose of 4 mg of baricitinib in combination with background TCS therapy significantly improved the signs and symptoms of moderate to severe AD, with a safety profile consistent with previous studies of baricitinib in AD.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03733301.

Ximelagatran and melagatran compared with dalteparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism after total hip or knee replacement: the METHRO II randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Heparins substantially reduce the risk of thromboembolic complications after total hip or knee replacement. However, they can be given only by injection and have several other drawbacks. We did a multicentre, randomised, double-blind study to examine the dose-response relation of subcutaneous melagatran, a direct thrombin inhibitor, followed by oral ximelagatran as thromboprophylaxis after total hip or knee replacement. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety with that of dalteparin.

METHODS

Of 1900 patients, 1495 were assigned to four dose categories of subcutaneous melagatran from just before surgery (1.00 mg, 1.50 mg, 2.25 mg, or 3.00 mg twice daily) followed from the day after surgery by oral ximelagatran (8 mg, 12 mg, 18 mg, or 24 mg twice daily). 381 patients were assigned subcutaneous dalteparin 5000 IU once daily, from the evening before surgery. Bilateral venography was done at 7-10 days, and clinically suspected venous thromboembolism (VTE) was confirmed radiologically. The primary endpoint was the rate of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism (PE). Analyses were by intention to treat.

FINDINGS

1876 patients underwent total replacement of hip (n=1270) or knee (n=606); evaluable venograms were obtained in 1473 (79%). Four patients without evaluable venograms had PE. Overall, a significant dose-dependent decrease in VTE was seen with melagatran/ximelagatran (lowest to highest group: 111 [37.8%], 70 [24.1%], 71 [23.7%], and 43 [15.1%]; p=0.0001); there were also significant relations for both total hip and total knee replacement individually. The frequency of VTE was significantly lower with the highest dose of melagatran/ximelagatran than with dalteparin (15.1% vs 28.2%, p<0.0001). There were no reoperations due to bleeding and no critical organ bleeding. Excessive surgical bleeding was uncommon but more frequent in the highest dose group.

INTERPRETATION

This sequential therapy was effective and safe in patients undergoing major joint replacement surgery. The findings should be confirmed in a large phase III trial.

Evidence for statin pleiotropy in humans: differential effects of statins and ezetimibe on rho-associated coiled-coil containing protein kinase activity, endothelial function, and inflammation

BACKGROUND

By inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, statins not only reduce cholesterol biosynthesis but also decrease the formation of isoprenoids, which are important for mediating signaling through the Rho-associated coiled-coil containing protein kinase (ROCK) pathway. Increased ROCK activity has been implicated in endothelial dysfunction and vascular inflammation. We hypothesize that ezetimibe, which inhibits intestinal cholesterol absorption, may not exert similar cholesterol-independent or pleiotropic effects of statins and, when used with a lower dose of statin, have less effect on ROCK activity than a higher dose of statin.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a prospective, randomized, observer-blinded study, we treated 60 dyslipidemic subjects without cardiovascular disease with simvastatin 40 mg/d, simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg/d, or placebo tablets for 28 days (n=20 in each arm). We evaluated baseline demographics and lipid levels, ROCK activity, C-reactive protein, and flow-mediated dilation before and after treatment. Compared with the placebo group, both treatment regimens decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 38% and C-reactive protein by 38% to 40% after 28 days (P<0.01 for both compared with placebo). Although the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and C-reactive protein reductions were comparable with either lipid-lowering regimen, only simvastatin 40 mg reduced ROCK activity and improved flow-mediated dilation (P<0.01 for both compared with baseline). Reduction in ROCK activity with simvastatin 40 mg remained significant even after controlling for changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P=0.01) and correlated with improvement in flow-mediated dilation (R(2)=-0.78, P<0.01). No correlation was found between changes in flow-mediated dilation and changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or C-reactive protein.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that high-dose statin monotherapy exerts greater effects on ROCK activity and endothelial function, but not on C-reactive protein, than low-dose statin plus ezetimibe. These findings provide additional evidence of statin benefits beyond cholesterol lowering.

Dose-comparison study of the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin (Vytorin) versus atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia: the Vytorin Versus Atorvastatin (VYVA) study

BACKGROUND

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the primary therapeutic target in the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines. This study tested the hypothesis that ezetimibe/simvastatin, a lipid-lowering agent that inhibits both intestinal cholesterol absorption and cholesterol synthesis, provides greater LDL-C reductions than atorvastatin across dose ranges.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, 6-week parallel-group study randomized 1902 patients with LDL-C above ATP III goal to atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg) or to ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg). Patients were stratified by prerandomization LDL-C level.

RESULTS

At each milligram-equivalent statin dose comparison, and averaged across doses, ezetimibe/simvastatin provided greater LDL-C reductions (47%-59%) than atorvastatin (36%-53%). Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 and 10/80 mg also provided significantly greater high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) increases than atorvastatin 40 and 80 mg. Triglyceride reductions were similar for all comparisons. More ezetimibe/simvastatin than atorvastatin patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk equivalents attained the ATP III LDL-C goal of <100 mg/dL and the optional LDL-C target of <70 mg/dL. C-reactive protein reductions were similar between treatment groups. Consecutive elevations in alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase occurred in significantly more atorvastatin patients than ezetimibe/simvastatin patients. No myopathy or liver-related adverse events led to study discontinuation with either drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe/simvastatin was more effective than atorvastatin in lowering LDL-C at each dose comparison and provided greater increases in HDL-C at the 40- and 80-mg statin dose. Ezetimibe/simvastatin is a highly efficacious, well-tolerated treatment option for hypercholesterolemic patients.

Alirocumab as Add-On to Atorvastatin Versus Other Lipid Treatment Strategies: ODYSSEY OPTIONS I Randomized Trial

CONTEXT

Despite current standard of care, many patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) still have elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Alirocumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody inhibitor of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study was to compare the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of adding alirocumab vs other common lipid-lowering strategies.

DESIGN, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTIONS

Patients (n = 355) with very high CVD risk and LDL-C levels of 70 mg/dL or greater or high CVD risk and LDL-C of 100 mg/dL or greater on baseline atorvastatin 20 or 40 mg were randomized to one of the following: 1) add-on alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) sc; 2) add-on ezetimibe 10 mg/d; 3) double atorvastatin dose; or 4) for atorvastatin 40 mg regimen only, switch to rosuvastatin 40 mg. For patients not achieving protocol-defined LDL-C goals, the alirocumab dose was increased (blinded) at week 12 to 150 mg Q2W.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary end point was percentage change in calculated LDL-C from baseline to 24 weeks (intent to treat).

RESULTS

Among atorvastatin 20 and 40 mg regimens, respectively, add-on alirocumab reduced LDL-C levels by 44.1% and 54.0% (P < .001 vs all comparators); add-on ezetimibe, 20.5% and 22.6%; doubling of atorvastatin dose, 5.0% and 4.8%; and switching atorvastatin 40 mg to rosuvastatin 40 mg, 21.4%. Most alirocumab-treated patients (87.2% and 84.6%) achieved their LDL-C goals. Most alirocumab-treated patients (86%) maintained their 75-mg Q2W regimen. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 65.4% of alirocumab patients vs 64.4% ezetimibe and 63.8% double atorvastatin/switch to rosuvastatin (data were pooled).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding alirocumab to atorvastatin provided significantly greater LDL-C reductions vs adding ezetimibe, doubling atorvastatin dose, or switching to rosuvastatin and enabled greater LDL-C goal achievement.