共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 46 毫秒
1.
Young-June Yang Sang-Hak Lee Byung Soo Kim Yun-Kyeong Cho Hyun-Jai Cho Kyoung Im Cho Seok-Yeon Kim Jae Kean Ryu Jin-Man Cho Joong-Il Park Jong-Seon Park Chang Gyu Park Woo Jung Chun Myung-A Kim Dong-Kyu Jin Namho Lee Byung Jin Kim Kwang Kon Koh Yangsoo Jang 《Clinical therapeutics》2017,39(1):107-117
Purpose
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy in Korean patients with high cardiovascular risk.Methods
This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study. A total of 337 patients were screened. After a 4-week run-in period, 245 of these patients with high or moderately high risk as defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines were randomly assigned. Patients received 1 of 6 regimens for 8 weeks as follows: (1) rosuvastatin 5 mg, (2) rosuvastatin 5 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg, (3) rosuvastatin 10 mg, (4) rosuvastatin 10 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg, (5) rosuvastatin 20 mg, or (6) rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg. The primary outcome variable was percentage change in the level of LDL-C at week 8 of drug treatment. Secondary outcome variables included percentage changes of other lipid variables and achievement rates of LDL-C targets. Tolerability analyses were also performed.Findings
The percentage change of LDL-C ranged from –45% to –56% (mean, –51%) in the monotherapy groups and from –58% to –63% (mean, –60%) in the combination therapy groups. The percentage change was greater in the pooled combination therapy group than in the counterpart (P < 0.001 for the pooled groups); this difference was more obvious for regimens with a lower statin dose. The percentage reductions of total cholesterol and triglycerides were greater in the combination groups than in the monotherapy groups. The LDL-C target achievement rates were 64% to 87% (mean, 73%) in the monotherapy groups and 87% to 95% (mean, 91%) in the combination groups (P = 0.01 for the pooled groups). The rates were significantly greater in patients receiving the combination therapy than in the monotherapy at lower doses of rosuvastatin. The proportions of patients with various adverse events were not significantly different between the groups.Implications
Rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy has better efficacy and target achievement rates than rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with high cardiovascular risk. 相似文献2.
Soon Jun Hong Han Saem Jeong Jeong Cheon Ahn Dong-Hun Cha Kyung Heon Won Weon Kim Sang Kyoon Cho Seok-Yeon Kim Byung-Su Yoo Ki Chul Sung Seung-Woon Rha Joon-Han Shin Kyoo Rok Han Wook Sung Chung Min Su Hyon Han Cheol Lee Jang-Ho Bae Moo-Yong Rhee Hyo-Soo Kim 《Clinical therapeutics》2018,40(2):226-241.e4
Purpose
Combination therapy with ezetimibe and statins is recommended in cases of statin intolerance or insufficiency. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with ezetimibe and rosuvastatin versus those of rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia.Methods
I-ROSETTE (Ildong ROSuvastatin & ezETimibe for hypercholesTElolemia) was an 8-week, double-blind, multicenter, Phase III randomized controlled trial conducted at 20 hospitals in the Republic of Korea. Patients with hypercholesterolemia who required medical treatment according to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines were eligible for participation in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 20 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 10 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg/rosuvastatin 5 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg, rosuvastatin 10 mg, or rosuvastatin 5 mg in a 1:1:1:1:1:1 ratio. The primary end point was the difference in the mean percent change from baseline in LDL-C level after 8 weeks of treatment between the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin and rosuvastatin treatment groups. All patients were assessed for adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs.Findings
Of 396 patients, 389 with efficacy data were analyzed. Baseline characteristics among 6 groups were similar. After 8 weeks of double-blind treatment, the percent changes in adjusted mean LDL-C levels at week 8 compared with baseline values were –57.0% (2.1%) and –44.4% (2.1%) in the total ezetimibe/rosuvastatin and total rosuvastatin groups, respectively (P < 0.001). The LDL-C–lowering efficacy of each of the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin combinations was superior to that of each of the respective doses of rosuvastatin. The mean percent change in LDL-C level in all ezetimibe/rosuvastatin combination groups was >50%. The number of patients who achieved target LDL-C levels at week 8 was significantly greater in the ezetimibe/rosuvastatin group (180 [92.3%] of 195 patients) than in the rosuvastatin monotherapy group (155 [79.9%] of 194 patients) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs, adverse drug reactions, and serious AEs; laboratory findings, including liver function test results and creatinine kinase levels, were comparable between groups.Implications
Fixed-dose combinations of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin significantly improved lipid profiles in patients with hypercholesterolemia compared with rosuvastatin monotherapy. All groups treated with rosuvastatin and ezetimibe reported a decrease in mean LDL-C level >50%. The safety and tolerability of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin therapy were comparable with those of rosuvastatin monotherapy. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02749994. 相似文献3.
Gyu Chul Oh Jung-Kyu Han Ki Hoon Han Min-Su Hyon Joon Hyung Doh Moo Hyun Kim Jin-Ok Jeong Jang-Ho Bae Sang Hyun Kim Byung-Su Yoo Sang Hong Baek Moo-Yong Rhee Sang-Hyun Ihm Jung Hoon Sung Young Jin Choi Soo-Joong Kim Kyung-Soon Hong Byoung Kwon Lee Hyo-Soo Kim 《Clinical therapeutics》2018,40(5):676-691.e1
Purpose
Hypertension and dyslipidemia are 2 risk factors of cardiovascular disease that often present simultaneously. Traditionally, treatment of these multiple conditions required separate medications for each disease, which may result in poor compliance and thus lead to possible treatment failure. Fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with a single pill may be a solution in these situations.Methods
This multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, Phase III study evaluated the efficacy and safety of FDC treatment with telmisartan (80 mg) and rosuvastatin calcium (20 mg) in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension and dyslipidemia. Patients were randomly assigned to 4 groups: (1) FDC drug (80 mg of telmisartan and 20 mg of rosuvastatin); (2) 80 mg of telmisartan; (3) 20 mg of rosuvastatin; or (4) placebo. After 8 weeks of treatment, the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) and mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP) between the FDC group and the rosuvastatin group, and the percent change in LDL-C between the FDC group and the telmisartan group, were compared.Findings
A total of 210 patients were enrolled in the study (84 in the FDC group, 42 in the rosuvastatin group, 43 in the telmisartan group, and 41 in the placebo group). The reduction in blood pressure was significantly greater in the FDC group than in the rosuvastatin group after 8 weeks of treatment (least squares mean change from baseline, –16.1 [1.6] mm Hg vs –1.7 [2.2] mm Hg [P < 0.001] for MSSBP; –8.8 [1.0] mm Hg vs –1.6 [1.4] mm Hg [P < 0.001] for MSDBP). Least squares mean percent change in LDL-C from baseline was also significantly greater in the FDC group compared with the telmisartan group (–49.3% [2.2%] vs 1.5% [3.0%]; P < 0.001). FDC therapy also had a higher rate of achieving the treatment goal in both blood pressure (60% vs 45%; P = 0.024) and LDL-C (88.8% vs 16.3%; P < 0.001) compared with rosuvastatin or telmisartan alone, respectively. In regression analysis, higher baseline MSSBP, female sex, and lower body mass index were associated with increased reductions in MSSBP, whereas higher baseline LDL-C level and lower body mass index were associated with greater reductions in LDL-C. There were 48 adverse events in 36 patients (17.3% [36 of 208]), and 17 adverse drug reactions in 12 patients (5.8% [12 of 208]), indicating no significant differences in short-term safety among study groups.Implications
Treatment with an FDC drug containing telmisartan and rosuvastatin showed similar efficacy in lowering blood pressure and LDL-C levels compared with that of each single drug. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01914432. 相似文献4.
5.
Chee Hae Kim Kyung Ah Han Jaemyung Yu Sang Hak Lee Hui Kyung Jeon Sang Hyun Kim Seok Yeon Kim Ki Hoon Han Kyungheon Won Dong-Bin Kim Kwang-Jae Lee Kyungwan Min Dong Won Byun Sang-Wook Lim Chul Woo Ahn SeongHwan Kim Young Joon Hong Jidong Sung Hyo-Soo Kim 《Clinical therapeutics》2018,40(1):83-94
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of adding ω-3 fatty acids to rosuvastatin in patients with residual hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment.Methods
This study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After a 4-week run-in period of rosuvastatin treatment, the patients who had residual hypertriglyceridemia were randomized to receive rosuvastatin 20 mg/d plus ω-3 fatty acids 4 g/d (ROSUMEGA group) or rosuvastatin 20 mg/d (rosuvastatin group) with a 1:1 ratio and were prescribed each medication for 8 weeks.Findings
A total of 201 patients were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 58.1 [10.7] years; 62.7% male). After 8 weeks of treatment, the percentage change from baseline in triglycerides (TGs) and non–HDL-C was significantly greater in the ROSUMEGA group than in the rosuvastatin group (TGs: ?26.3% vs ?11.4%, P < 0.001; non–HDL-C: ?10.7% vs ?2.2%, P = 0.001). In the linear regression analysis, the lipid-lowering effect of ω-3 fatty acids was greater when baseline TG or non?HDL-C levels were high and body mass index was low. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the 2 groups.Implications
In patients with residual hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment, a combination of ω-3 fatty acids and rosuvastatin produced a greater reduction of TGs and non?HDL-C than rosuvastatin alone. Further study is needed to determine whether the advantages of this lipid profile of ω-3 fatty acids actually leads to the prevention of cardiovascular event. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03026933. 相似文献6.
Diana Gritsenko Marianna Fedorenko Jorg J. Ruhe Jerry Altshuler 《Clinical therapeutics》2017,39(1):212-218
Purpose
Although vancomycin has been the mainstay of therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections, its effectiveness has been challenged. Combination therapy may be used for patients with persistent MRSA bacteremia refractory to initial therapy. Studies have reported in vitro synergy between vancomycin and ceftaroline; however, clinical experience with this therapy is limited. Here, we report our experience with 5 cases of vancomycin-refractory MRSA bacteremia treated with the combination of vancomycin and ceftaroline.Methods
Between January 2014 and August 2016, 5 patients were identified who received vancomycin and ceftaroline combination therapy due to persistent bacteremia or deterioration of their clinical status on vancomycin alone (despite a vancomycin MIC within the susceptible range).Findings
Five patients presented with MRSA bacteremia secondary to endocarditis (n = 2), epidural abscess (n = 2), or left iliopsoas abscess (n = 1). Four of the 5 patients experienced microbiologic cure, and 1 patient transitioned to palliative care.Implications
This case series serves to describe additional clinical experience with vancomycin and ceftaroline combination therapy. This combination may be considered when vancomycin monotherapy does not lead to microbiological and/or clinical improvement in patients with metastatic MRSA bacteremia. Additional studies are warranted to further define its role in salvage therapy for persistent MRSA bacteremia. 相似文献7.
Purpose
Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is the leading cause of gynecologic cancer death in the United States. Most patients will ultimately fail platinum-based chemotherapy and have the disease recur. Interest is increasing in the use of targeted therapies in the treatment of EOC. This review focuses on the current use of targeted therapeutics in EOC as well as future directions.Methods
A literature search of Medline and PubMed was conducted (January 2000–October 2017) to identify recent reports of targeted drugs in EOC.Findings
A wide range of targeted therapeutics is currently being used as both monotherapy and in combination in the treatment of EOC. Clinically, the most commonly used classes of drugs currently are antiangiogenics and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. However, a number of drugs in varying stages in development target a wide range of biochemical pathways. Activity and response rates of these drugs vary greatly. Questions continue about combination drug therapy and appropriate patient selection.Implications
The use of targeted therapeutics in the treatment of EOC, both as monotherapy and in combination, will continue to expand as more mechanisms of tumorigenesis are identified. Multiple clinical trials of a wide range of targeted therapeutics are currently ongoing. Evidence-based selection of drug targets and appropriate patient populations will allow strategic application of targeted therapeutics. 相似文献8.
《Clinical therapeutics》2021,43(9):1573-1589
PurposeWe investigated whether the combination therapy of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is an useful alternative to moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients requiring cholesterol-lowering therapy.MethodsThis was a multicenter randomized, double‐blind study to investigate the safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin 2.5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg (R2.5+E10) compared to those of ezetimibe 10 mg monotherapy (E10), rosuvastatin 2.5 mg (R2.5), and rosuvastatin 5 mg monotherapy (R5) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. A total of 348 patients at 15 centers in Korea were screened, and 279 patients were randomized to different groups in the study. Clinical and laboratory examinations were performed at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks after intervention. The primary endpoint was the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels at the 8-week follow-up.FindingsBaseline characteristics were similar among the four groups. There were significant changes in lipid profiles at the 8-week follow-up. A greater decrease in the LDL cholesterol levels (primary endpoint) were found in the R2.5+E10 group (−45.7±18.6%) than in the E10 group (−16.7±14.7%, p<0.0001), R2.5 group (−32.6±15.1%, p<0.0001), and R5 group (−38.9±13.9%, p=0.0003). Similar outcomes were observed regarding the decrease in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B protein. In addition, changes in the triglyceride and HDL levels in the R2.5+E10 group were significantly different compared with those in the E10 group; however, the changes were similar to those in the other treatment groups. In patients with low and moderate risk, all patients achieved the target LDL cholesterol levels in the R2.5+E10 group (100%) compared to 13.0% in the E10 group, 47.6% in the R2.5 group, and 65.2% in the R5 group. Adverse effects were rare and similar in the four groups.ImplicationsFixed-dose combination of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe was more effective in lowering LDL cholesterol and achieving LDL cholesterol goals than moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy. These findings suggest that the combination therapy of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is an useful alternative to moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy for cholesterol management, particularly in patients with low and moderate risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04652349. 相似文献
9.
Donghwan Lee MD PhD Hyerang Roh Hankil Son Seong Bok Jang Seoungoh LeeSu Youn Nam MD PhD Kyungsoo Park 《Clinical therapeutics》2014
Purpose
Rosuvastatin is indicated for hypercholesterolemia or dyslipidemia and metformin mainly for type 2 diabetes. These 2 drugs are frequently prescribed in combination due to the high comorbidity of the 2 diseases. However the nature of pharmacokinetic interaction between the 2 drugs has not been previously investigated. The purpose of our study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between rosuvastatin and metformin in healthy Korean male volunteers.Methods
This was a randomized, open-label, 6-sequence, 3-period, crossover, multiple-dose study. Eligible subjects, aged 20 to 50 years and within 20% of the ideal body weight, received 1 of the following 3 treatments for each period once daily for 5 consecutive days with a 10-day washout period between the treatments: monoadministration of rosuvastatin 10 mg tablet, monoadministration of metformin 750 mg tablet, and coadministration of rosuvastatin 10 mg tablet with metformin 750 mg tablet. Blood samples were collected up to 72 hours after the last dose and pharmacokinetic parameters for rosuvastatin and metformin were compared between combination and monotherapy. Adverse events were investigated and evaluated based on subject interviews and physical examinations.Findings
Among the 36 enrolled subjects, 31 completed the study. The coadministration of rosuvastatin with metformin produced a significant pharmacokinetic interaction in rosuvastatin Css,max, with the 90% CI for the geometric mean ratio (coadministration:monoadministration) being 110.27% to 136.39% (P = 0.0029), whereas no significant interaction was observed in rosuvastatin AUCtau, yielding the 90% CI of 104.41% to 118.95%. When metformin was coadministered with rosuvastatin, no significant pharmacokinetic interaction was observed for Css,max and AUCtau of metformin, yielding the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratio for coadministration to monoadministration as 87.38% to 102.54% and 86.70% to 99.08%, respectively. Overall, 19 mild and 1 moderate adverse events occurred in 12 subjects, with no significant differences in the incidence among the 3 treatments.Implications
Although the Css,max of rosuvastatin was significantly influenced by coadministration with metformin, the degree of interaction seen was considered clinically insignificant, with no significant interaction observed in the other pharmacokinetic measures between the 2 drugs. These results imply that drug effects of rosuvastatin and metformin will also not be significantly influenced by coadministration of the 2 drugs. All treatments were well tolerated and no serious adverse events occurred. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01526317. 相似文献10.
Wendy W. Yeh Iain P. Fraser Patricia Jumes Amelia Petry Inge De Lepeleire Martine Robberechts Christina Reitmann Kristien Van Dyck Xiaobi Huang Zifang Guo Deborah Panebianco Robert B. Nachbar Edward O’Mara John A. Wagner Joan R. Butterton Frank J. Dutko Valentin Moiseev Zhanna Kobalava Frank Wagner 《Clinical therapeutics》2018,40(5):704-718.e6
Purpose
Elbasvir (MK-8742) and grazoprevir (MK-5172; Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, New Jersey) are hepatitis C virus (HCV)-specific inhibitors of the nonstructural protein 5A phosphoprotein and the nonstructural protein 3/4A protease, respectively. The aims of these studies were to evaluate the antiviral activity and safety of different doses of elbasvir or grazoprevir each administered as monotherapy to participants infected with either HCV genotype (GT) 1 or GT3.Methods
These 2 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, sequential-panel, multiple ascending dose studies were conducted to assess the safety and pharmacodynamics of 5 days of once-daily elbasvir or 7 days of once-daily grazoprevir in adult male participants chronically infected with either HCV GT1 or GT3.Findings
Oral administration of elbasvir or grazoprevir once daily exhibited potent antiviral activity in participants with chronic GT1 or GT3 HCV infections. HCV RNA levels declined rapidly (within 1 day for elbasvir and 2 days for grazoprevir). At 50 mg of elbasvir once daily, the mean maximum reductions in HCV RNA from baseline were 5.21, 4.17, and 3.12 log10 IU/mL for GT1b-, GT1a-, and GT3-infected participants, respectively. At 100 mg of grazoprevir once daily, the mean maximum reductions in HCV RNA from baseline were 4.74 and 2.64 log10 IU/mL for GT1- and GT3-infected participants.Implications
The results in the elbasvir monotherapy study showed that 10 to 50 mg of elbasvir was associated with a rapid decline in HCV viral load; the results in the grazoprevir monotherapy study suggest that doses of 50 mg of grazoprevir and higher are on the maximum response plateau of the dose–response curve for GT1-infected participants. The results of these proof-of-concept studies provided preliminary data for the selection of the dosages of elbasvir and grazoprevir to test in Phase II and III clinical studies. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT00998985 (Protocol 5172-004) and NCT01532973 (Protocol 8742-002). 相似文献11.
Siin Kim Hyungtae Kim Eunju Kim Sola Han Pratik P. Rane Kathleen M. Fox Zhongyun Zhao Yi Qian Hae Sun Suh 《Clinical therapeutics》2018,40(6):940-951.e7
12.
Henry Folse Catarina Sternhufvud C. Andy Schuetz Badri Rengarajan Sanjay Gandhi 《Clinical therapeutics》2014
Background
Now that generic atorvastatin has become available, a process of switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin may occur and could persist until the patent on branded rosuvastatin expires. It is important to understand the impact that such therapy may have on patients’ cardiovascular (CV) health.Objectives
This simulated study estimates the impact of switching patients treated with rosuvastatin to atorvastatin on rates of CV events over a 5-year period.Methods
A study of 50,038 virtual dyslipidemic patients aged 45 to 70 years was conducted using the Archimedes model. Virtual patients were created based on the profiles of patients in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Statin treatment models were constructed based on data from published studies, including STELLAR, JUPITER, CARDS, ASCOT, and TNT. Patients were started on a dose of rosuvastatin based on their ATP III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal and the distributions of statin use observed in US pharmacy claims data. Patients were monitored for 5 years, during which time they received regular visits with the opportunity to increase their dosage if they were above their LDL-C goal. In the experimental arm, patients were switched from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin at the first clinic visit 6 weeks after initiating rosuvastatin (using an atorvastatin dose twice the rosuvastatin milligram-dose). No switching occurred in the control arm, and patients were titrated as necessary per ATP III cholesterol management guidelines. The rate of first occurrence of a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE; myocardial infarction, stroke, and/or cardiovascular-related death) over the 5-year period was estimated for each study arm.Results
After 5 years, in the atorvastatin-switched arm compared with continuing rosuvastatin, 4.8% fewer patients reached goal (87% vs 91%, respectively). The 5-year relative risk for MACE with switching was 1.109 (95% CI, 1.092–1.127), and the number needed to harm (NNH) to incur 1 additional MACE over 5 years was 262, favoring treatment with rosuvastatin. In diabetic individuals who were switched to atorvastatin, the 5-year relative risk for MACE was 1.121 (95% CI, 1.091–1.151), and the NNH over 5 years was 195, indicating greater risk in diabetic individuals. The results were insensitive to adherence rates and LDL-C goal values.Conclusions
This study found that switching from rosuvastatin to atorvastatin led to fewer patients attaining LDL-C goal and a greater risk for MACE. 相似文献13.
Soon Jun Hong Han Saem Jeong Jin-Man Cho Kiyuk Chang Wook Bum Pyun Youngkeun Ahn Min Su Hyon Woong Chol Kang Jae-Hwan Lee Hyo-Soo Kim 《Clinical therapeutics》2019,41(2):233-248.e9
Purpose
Fixed-dose combination therapy with telmisartan, amlodipine, and rosuvastatin is needed in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia for better adherence and cost-effectiveness than free–equivalent combination therapies. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with telmisartan, amlodipine, and rosuvastatin versus telmisartan plus amlodipine or telmisartan plus rosuvastatin in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia.Methods
The Jeil Telmisartan, Amlodipine, and Rosuvastatin Randomized Clinical Trial (J-TAROS-RCT) was an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel, Phase III clinical trial conducted at 9 hospitals in Korea. After a run-in period of >4 weeks, patients who fulfilled the criteria of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines were eligible for randomization to receive 1 of 3 treatments for 8 weeks: (1) telmisartan/amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg plus rosuvastatin 20 mg, (2) telmisartan/amlodipine 80 mg/10 mg, or (3) telmisartan 80 mg plus rosuvastatin 20 mg. The primary end point was efficacy evaluation of combination therapy with telmisartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin by comparing the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (msSBP) and mean percentage change in LDL-C from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment. Adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed in all patients.Findings
Among 148 patients, the changes in msSBP from baseline after 8 weeks of treatment were a mean (SD) of ?24.41 (2.38) versus ?9.31 (2.36) mm Hg in the telmisartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin and telmisartan/rosuvastatin groups, respectively. Significantly more participants achieved the target BP at week 8 in the telmisartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin group (41 patients [87.2%]) than in the telmisartan/rosuvastatin group (24 [50.0%], P < 0.001). The changes in mean (SD) LDL-C at 8 weeks compared with baseline values were ?57.59% (11.59%) versus 6.08% (20.98%) in the telmisartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin and telmisartan/amlodipine groups, respectively. The percentages of patients who achieved the target LDL-C according to their risk factors after 8 weeks of treatment were 97.87% vs 6.12% in the telmisartan/amlodipine/rosuvastatin and the telmisartan/amlodipine groups (P < 0.0001), respectively. No significant differences were found in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions, and serious AEs were comparable among 3 groups.Implications
Fixed-dose combinations of telmisartan, amlodipine, and rosuvastatin decreased BP and LDL-C in patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. The safety and tolerability profiles of fixed-dose telmisartan, amlodipine, and rosuvastatin combination therapy were comparable with those of telmisartan plus amlodipine or telmisartan plus rosuvastatin. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03088254. 相似文献14.
Yunona Khomitskaya Nadezhda Tikhonova Konstantin Gudkov Svetlana Erofeeva Victoria Holmes Brian Dayton Nigel Davies David W. Boulton Weifeng Tang 《Clinical therapeutics》2018,40(4):550-561.e3
Purpose
Fixed-combination drug products (FCDPs) combining dapagliflozin and metformin extended release (XR) may provide patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with an alternative antihyperglycemic treatment, which could improve adherence by reducing tablet burden. This study evaluated the bioequivalence of dapagliflozin/metformin XR FCDP versus the co-administration of the individual monotherapy tablets currently available for use in the Russian Federation.Methods
Healthy subjects aged 18 to 45 years were enrolled in this randomized, open-label, 2-period crossover study, conducted in a single Russian center. Pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC0–t, Cmax, and Cmax/AUC0–t) were used to assess bioequivalence of dapagliflozin/metformin XR (10/1000 mg) FCDP to the individual component tablets (dapagliflozin [10 mg] plus metformin XR [2 × 500 mg]) under standard fed conditions. Safety and tolerability were also assessed.Findings
Forty healthy subjects were included (47.5% male; mean age, 30 years; and mean body mass index, 24.2 kg/m2). Dapagliflozin and metformin XR in the FCDP were bioequivalent to the individual component tablets marketed in the Russian Federation, with the 90% CIs of the geometric least-squares mean ratios for all key pharmacokinetic parameters being contained within the 80% to 125% bioequivalence limits. Both FCDP and the individual component formulations were well tolerated, with no serious adverse events.Implications
Bioequivalence of dapagliflozin/metformin XR FCDP and the individual components was established without any new safety concerns, presenting a safe alternative for patients currently receiving regimens including each component individually. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02722239. 相似文献15.
Xavier Pivot Jean Paul Deslypere Lisa Soyeon Park Michael Jinwoo Kim Wonjae Lee Jeonghyeon Lee 《Clinical therapeutics》2018,40(3):396-405.e4
Purpose
This first-in-human study of HD201 was designed to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) equivalence between this biosimilar candidate and trastuzumab sourced in the European Union (EU-trastuzumab)*.Methods
In this randomized, blinded, single-dose comparative PK study, healthy male subjects were randomized to receive a single 6 mg/kg IV dose of HD201 or EU-trastuzumab. The primary PK end point was AUC0–∞. Equivalence was determined by using the predefined margins of 0.8 to 1.25. Other PK parameters were included as secondary end points.Findings
Baseline demographic characteristics for the 73 randomized subjects were similar across the 2 groups: median age 29 and 30 years old (ranges 19 - 45), median weight 78.6 and 81.7 kg (ranges 60.2 – 101). The 90% CIs for the geometric least squares mean of the AUC0–∞ were included within the margins of 0.8 to 1.25. All other PK parameters were comparable for both HD201 and EU-trastuzumab. The proportions of subjects who experienced adverse events related to the study drug were 61.8% and 82.9% in the HD201 and EU-trastuzumab groups, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events related to the study drug were infusion-related reactions. No subjects had positive results for antidrug antibodies after a single dose.Implications
This study reported the PK equivalence between HD201 and EU-trastuzumab. HD201 was well tolerated with no safety concerns after single-dose administration in healthy male subjects. EudraCT No.: 2012-000805-56. 相似文献16.
《Clinical therapeutics》2019,41(12):2571-2592
PurposeThe goal of this study was to compare the lipid-lowering efficacy of the combination of ezetimibe and low- or intermediate-intensity statin therapy versus that of high-intensity statin monotherapy.MethodsThis study is a post hoc analysis of an 8-week, randomized, double-blind, Phase III trial. Patients who had hypercholesterolemia and required lipid-lowering treatment were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 treatment groups: rosuvastatin 5 mg (R5, n = 68), rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10, n = 67), rosuvastatin 20 mg (R20, n = 69), and ezetimibe 10 mg combined with rosuvastatin 5 mg (R5 + E10, n = 67), rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10 + E10, n = 68), and rosuvastatin 20 mg (R20 + E10, n = 68) daily. The effects of coadministration of ezetimibe and a low dose of rosuvastatin on lipid parameters and the target achievement rate were compared between the R5 + E10 and R10 treatment groups, the R5 + E10 and R20 treatment groups, and the R10 + E10 and R20 treatment groups.FindingsReductions in total cholesterol, LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, the apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio, and non–HDL-C were not different between the R5 + E10 and R10 treatment groups (all, P > 0.017), the R5 + E10 and R20 treatment groups (all, P > 0.017), and the R10 + E10 and R20 treatment groups (all, P > 0.017). R5 + E10 treatment showed efficacy comparable to that of R10 or R20 in affording LDL levels <50% of the baseline level (R5 + E10 vs R10, 73.13% vs 62.69% [P = 0.1952]; R5 + E10 vs R20, 73.13% vs 73.91% [P = 0.9180]), LDL-C levels <70 mg/dL (R5 + E10 vs R10, 64.18% vs 55.22% [P = 0.2906]; R5 + E10 vs R20, 64.18% vs 62.32% [P = 0.8220]), and LDL-C levels <50% of the baseline level or <70 mg/dL (R5 + E10 vs R10, 77.61% vs 70.15% [P = 0.3255]; R5 + E10 vs R20, 77.61% vs 78.26% [P = 0.9273]). The R10 + E10 treatment group was better than the R20 treatment group in achieving the target LDL-C level <70 mg/dL (83.82% vs 62.32%; P = 0.0046), even among participants with a baseline LDL-C level >135 mg/dL (77.5% vs 48.8%, respectively; P = 0.0074).ImplicationsEzetimibe combined with low- or intermediate-intensity statin therapy has lipid-lowering efficacy comparable to or better than that of high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy. The results of the present study indicate that the combination treatment with ezetimibe is advantageous in that it permits dose reduction of rosuvastatin without compromising the lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02205606. 相似文献
17.
Debra L. Weinstein Laura A. Williams Dawn M. Carlson Maureen T. Kelly Kim M. Burns Carolyn M. Setze Aditya Lele James C. Stolzenbach 《Clinical therapeutics》2013
Background
Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) often have mixed dyslipidemia and high cardiovascular disease risk. Although statins reduce LDL-C, adding a fibrate may further improve lipid parameters.Objective
This multicenter, randomized study evaluated the short-term efficacy and safety profile of fenofibric acid (FA) + rosuvastatin (R) combination therapy for improving lipid parameters in patients with stage 3 CKD and mixed dyslipidemia. The study also assessed estimated glomerular filtration rate after study drug washout.Methods
Patients received FA 45 mg + R (5 mg for 8 weeks, then 10 mg for 8 additional weeks) or R monotherapy (5 mg for 8 weeks, then 10 mg for 8 additional weeks), followed by an 8-week washout period. Primary and secondary end points were percent changes in triglycerides and HDL-C, respectively, from baseline to week 8.Results
FA 45 mg + R 5 mg, compared with R 5 mg, resulted in significant improvements in triglycerides (median % changes: week 8, −38.0% vs −22.4%, P < 0.001; week 16, −42.6% vs −29.7%, P < 0.001) and HDL-C (mean % changes: week 8, 16.9% vs 7.8%, P < 0.001; week 16, 17.3% vs 8.9%, P < 0.001). Adverse event rates were similar between groups (70.7% with FA + R vs 68.6% with R). Mean serum creatinine level at baseline was 1.36 mg/dL in the FA + R group and 1.38 mg/dL in the R group. The final treatment serum creatinine value, defined as the last nonmissing postbaseline value collected within 30 days after the last dose of study drug, was 1.52 mg/dL with FA + R (vs 1.41 mg/dL with R; P < 0.001), which then decreased to 1.39 mg/dL after the 8-week washout (vs 1.42 mg/dL with R).Conclusions
The data suggest that, after 16 weeks of therapy, FA + R has an acceptable safety profile and improved TG and HDL-C efficacy versus R. FA + R combination therapy may thus further improve lipid parameters in patients with stage 3 CKD and mixed dyslipidemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00680017. 相似文献18.
Azan S. Binbrek MD Avishay Elis Muayed Al-Zaibag MD Ada M. Cuevas Discovery Alpha Study Group 《Current therapeutic research》2006,67(1):21-43
Background:
The majority of clinical trials investigating the clinical benefits of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) have focused on North American or western and nothern European populations. Therefore, it is timely to confirm the efficacy of these agents in other patient populations in routine clinical practice.Objective:
The aim of the Direct Statin COmparison of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) Values: an Evaluation of Rosuvastatin therapY (DISCOVERY) Alpha study was to compare the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg with those of atorvastatin 10 mg in achieving LDL-C goals in the Third Joint Task Force of European and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice guidelines.Methods:
This randomized, open-label, parallel-group study was conducted at 93 centers in eastern Europe (Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Russia, Slovenia), Central and South America (Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama), and the Middle East (Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates). Male and female patients aged ≥18 years with primary hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C level, >135 mg/dL if LLT-naive or ≥120 mg/dL if switching statins; triglyceride [TG] level, <400 mg/dL) and a 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk >20% or a history of CHD or other established atherosclerotic disease were eligible for inclusion in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to receive rosuvastatin 10-mg or atorvastatin 10-mg tablets QD for 12 weeks. No formal statistical analyses or comparisons were performed on lipid changes between switched and LLT-naive patients because of the different lipid inclusion criteria for these patients. The primary end point was the proportion of patients achieving 1998 European LDL-C goals after 12 weeks of treatment. A subanalysis was performed to assess the effects of statins in patients who had received previous statin treatment versus those who were LLT-naive. Tolerability was assessed using laboratory analysis and direct questioning of the patients.Results:
A total of 1506 patients (52.1% women, 47.9% men; mean [SD] age, 58.2 [10.8] years) participated in the study (rosuvastatin, 1002 patients; atorvastatin, 504 patients; previous LLT, 567 patients). A significantly higher proportion of patients achieved 1998 European LDL-C goals after 12 weeks with rosuvastatin 10 mg than with atorvastatin 10 mg (72.5% vs 56.6%; P < 0.001). Similarly, more patients achieved the 2003 European LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 10 mg (57.5% vs 39.2%). Rosuvastatin 10 mg was associated with a significantly greater change in LDL-C levels compared with atorvastatin 10 mg, in patients who were LLT-naive (LDL-C: −44.7% vs −33.9%; P < 0.001) and in patients who had received previous LLT (LDL-C: −32.0% vs −26.5%; P = 0.006). TG levels were also decreased with rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 10 mg, although there was no significant difference between treatments. Similarly, there was no significant difference in the increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels between treatments. The most common adverse events overall were headache 16/1497 (1.1%), myalgia 10/1497 (0.7%), and nausea 10/1497 (0.7%).Conclusions:
In this study in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia in clinical practice, greater reductions in LDL-C levels were achieved with a starting dose (10 mg) of rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin 10 mg, with more patients achieving European LDL-C goals. Both treatments were well tolerated 相似文献19.
Mijeong Son Yukyung Kim Donghwan Lee Hyerang Roh Hankil Son Jinju Guk Seong Bok Jang Su Youn Nam Kyungsoo Park 《Clinical therapeutics》2014
Purpose
Rosuvastatin, a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, and telmisartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker, are commonly prescribed in combination for the treatment of dyslipidemia accompanied by hypertension. However, the nature of the pharmacokinetic interaction between the 2 drugs is not clearly understood. The goal of the present study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic drug–drug interaction between rosuvastatin and telmisartan in a healthy Korean population.Methods
This was a randomized, 2-part, open-label, 2-period, crossover, multiple-dose study, with each part composed of different subjects between the ages of 20 and 55 years. In part 1, each subject received rosuvastatin 20 mg with and without telmisartan 80 mg once daily for 6 consecutive days. In part 2, each subject received telmisartan 80 mg with and without rosuvastatin 20 mg once daily for 6 consecutive days. In both parts, there was a 16-day washout period between mono- and coadministration. Blood samples were collected up to 72 hours after the last dose. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated through interviews and physical examinations.Findings
In part 1, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios for the primary pharmacokinetic parameters for coadministration of the 2 drugs to monoadministration of each drug were 1.0736–1.2932 for AUCτ and 1.7442–2.3229 for Cmax,ss for rosuvastatin and 0.9942–1.1594 for AUCτ and 1.3593–1.7169 for Cmax,ss for N-desmethyl rosuvastatin, whereas in part 2, the CIs were 1.0834–1.2672 for AUCτ and 1.1534–1.5803 for Cmax,ss for telmisartan. The most frequently noted AE was cough in part 1, which occurred in 2 subjects receiving the combination therapy, and oropharyngeal pain in part 2, which occurred in 3 subjects receiving the combination therapy. All reported AEs were mild or moderate, and there was no significant difference in incidence between the treatments.Implications
These findings demonstrated that rosuvastatin and telmisartan mutually affected each other’s pharmacokinetics, suggesting a possibility of drug–drug interaction. However, based on dose–response characteristics of the 2 drugs and previous results from other interaction studies, the degree of drug interaction observed in this study was not regarded as clinically significant. All treatments were well tolerated, with no serious AEs observed. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01992601. 相似文献20.
Stacy M. Harnish Amy D. Rodriguez Deena Schwen Blackett Christopher Gregory Lauren Seeds Jeffrey H. Boatright Bruce Crosson 《Clinical therapeutics》2018,40(1):35-48.e6