Influence of age, gender, and race on the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin vs. atorvastatin up-titration in patients at moderately high or high risk for coronary heart disease

Background

Age, gender, and race are factors that influence atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD) risk and may conceivably affect the efficacy of lipid-altering drugs.

Methods

Post hoc analysis of two multicenter, 6-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group trials assessed age (< 65 and ≥ 65 years), gender, and race (white, black, and other) effects on atorvastatin plus ezetimibe versus up-titration of atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with CHD risk. High CHD risk subjects with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels ≥ 70 mg/dL (~ 1.81 mmol/L) during stable atorvastatin 40 mg therapy were randomized to atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, or up-titrated to atorvastatin 80 mg. Moderately high CHD risk subjects with LDL cholesterol levels ≥ 100 mg/dL (~ 2.59 mmol/L) with atorvastatin 20 mg were randomized to atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, or atorvastatin 40 mg.

Results

Although some variability existed, age, gender, and race subgroups did not substantially differ from the entire patient population with regard to lipid-altering findings. Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin produced greater percent reductions in LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B than up-titration of atorvastatin for all subgroups. HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein AI changes were small and variable.

Conclusion

Treatment efficacy in age, gender, and race subgroups did not substantially differ from the entire study population. Ezetimibe combined with atorvastatin generally produced greater incremental reductions in LDL cholesterol and several other key lipid parameters compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose in hypercholesterolemic patients with high or moderately high CHD risk. These results suggest that co-administration of ezetimibe with statins is a useful therapeutic option for treatment of dyslipidemia in differing patient populations.     

Effects of switching statins on achievement of lipid goals: measuring effective reductions in cholesterol using rosuvastatin therapy (MERCURY I) study

Background

In a multinational trial (4522IL/0081), we assessed the effects of switching to low doses of rosuvastatin from commonly used doses of atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement in high-risk patients.

Methods

Hypercholesterolemic patients (n = 3140) with coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis, or type 2 diabetes were randomized to open-label rosuvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, or pravastatin 40 mg for 8 weeks. Patients either remained on these treatments for another 8 weeks or switched treatments from atorvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg to rosuvastatin 10 mg or from atorvastatin 20 mg to rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg. The primary efficacy measure was the proportion of patients reaching the Joint European Societies' LDL-C goal (<116 mg/dL) at week 16. For measures of cholesterol goal achievement, treatment arms were compared using logistic-regression analysis.

Results

Significant improvement in LDL-C goal achievement was found for patients who switched to rosuvastatin 10 mg, compared with patients who remained on atorvastatin 10 mg (86% vs 80%, P < .05), simvastatin 20 mg (86% vs 72%, P < .0001), and pravastatin 40 mg (88% vs 66%, P < .0001), and between patients switched to rosuvastatin 20 mg and those who remained on atorvastatin 20 mg (90% vs 84%, P < .01). Similar results were found for achievement of the European combined LDL-C and total cholesterol goals and National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III LDL-C goals. All statins were well tolerated over 16 weeks.

Conclusions

We demonstrated that switching to a more efficacious statin is an effective strategy to improve lipid goal achievement in patients requiring lipid-lowering therapy.     

Treatment with ezetimibe plus low-dose atorvastatin compared with higher-dose atorvastatin alone: is sufficient cholesterol-lowering enough to inhibit platelets?

OBJECTIVES: We sought to test the platelet inhibitory and anti-inflammatory effects of a higher statin dosage compared with combined treatment with ezetimibe plus a low statin dose. BACKGROUND: Reducing the level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with statins induces important pleiotropic effects such as platelet inhibition. An insufficient LDL-C reduction often is treated with ezetimibe, an intestinal cholesterol absorption inhibitor, in combination with a low statin dose. It is not known whether this combination therapy has the same pleiotropic effects as a statin monotherapy. METHODS: Fifty-six patients with coronary artery disease were assigned randomly to receive either 40 mg/day of atorvastatin or 10 mg/day of ezetimibe plus 10 mg/day of atorvastatin for 4 weeks. The levels of LDL-C, platelet activation markers after stimulation, platelet aggregation, and plasma chemokine levels (i.e., regulated on activation normally T-cell expressed and secreted [RANTES]) were measured before and after changing lipid-lowering medication. RESULTS: Platelet activation markers (P-selectin) after stimulation (adenosine diphosphate) were reduced by 40 mg/day of atorvastatin (-5.2 +/- 1.6 arbitrary units) but not by ezetimibe plus low-dose atorvastatin (2.1 +/- 1.8 arbitrary units; p < 0.005) despite a similar reduction of LDL-C (atorvastatin -1.01 +/- 0.18 mmol/l vs. ezetimibe plus atorvastatin -1.36 +/- 0.22 mmol/l, p = NS). Thrombin receptor-activating peptide-induced platelet aggregation as well as plasma RANTES levels were reduced by 40 mg/day of atorvastatin but not by ezetimibe plus low-dose atorvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: Platelet reactivity and a proinflammatory chemokine were reduced more by the higher atorvastatin dose than by ezetimibe plus low-dose atorvastatin. In patients with coronary artery disease, it might be important to combine ezetimibe with higher statin dosages to benefit from cholesterol-independent pleiotropic effects.     

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia and a high risk of coronary heart disease: a randomized, controlled trial

Background

This double-blind, multicenter, randomized trial compared rosuvastatin and atorvastatin for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in adults with hypercholesterolemia and a high risk of coronary heart disease.

Methods

After a 6-week dietary lead-in period, patients with LDL-C levels ≥160 and <250 mg/dL and triglyceride levels ≤400 mg/dL were randomly assigned to 24 weeks' treatment in 1 of 3 groups, each with forced dose titrations at 12 and 18 weeks. Starting and titrated doses for each group were rosuvastatin 5, 20, and 80 mg (n = 127); rosuvastatin 10, 40, and 80 mg (n = 128); and atorvastatin 10, 40, and 80 mg (n = 128).

Results

At 24 weeks, LDL-C was reduced significantly more with 80 mg rosuvastatin (combined rosuvastatin group) than with atorvastatin 80 mg (60% vs 52% [P < .001]). At 12 weeks, rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg reduced LDL-C significantly more than atorvastatin 10 mg (40% [P < .01], 47% [P < .001] vs 35%). At 18 weeks, LDL-C reductions were also significantly greater in both rosuvastatin groups than in the atorvastatin group (52% [P < .01], 59% [P < .001] vs 47%). Consequently, more patients receiving rosuvastatin achieved LDL-C goals. Total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apolipoproteins B and A-I, and all lipid ratios were more favorably modified by rosuvastatin at 24 weeks (P < .01). Effects of the 2 agents on triglycerides were similar.

Conclusions

Rosuvastatin was more efficacious than atorvastatin in modifying lipids in patients with hypercholesterolemia and a high coronary heart disease risk.     

Monotherapy with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab versus ezetimibe in patients with hypercholesterolemia: Results of a 24 week,double-blind,randomized Phase 3 trial

Background

Efficacy and safety of alirocumab were compared with ezetimibe in hypercholesterolemic patients at moderate cardiovascular risk not receiving statins or other lipid-lowering therapy.

Methods

In a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study (NCT01644474), patients (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] 100–190 mg/dL, 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular events ≥ 1%–<5% [systemic coronary risk estimation]) were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg/day (n = 51) or alirocumab 75 mg subcutaneously (via 1­mL autoinjector) every 2 weeks (Q2W) (n = 52), with dose up-titrated to 150 mg Q2W (also 1 mL) at week 12 if week 8 LDL-C was ≥ 70 mg/dL. Primary endpoint was mean LDL-C % change from baseline to 24 weeks, analyzed using all available data (intent-to-treat approach, ITT). Analyses using on-treatment LDL-C values were also conducted.

Results

Mean (SD) baseline LDL-C levels were 141.1 (27.1) mg/dL (alirocumab) and 138.3 (24.5) mg/dL (ezetimibe). The 24-week treatment period was completed by 85% of alirocumab and 86% of ezetimibe patients. Least squares mean (SE) LDL-C reductions were 47 (3)% with alirocumab versus 16 (3)% with ezetimibe (ITT; p < 0.0001) and 54 (2)% versus 17 (2)% (on-treatment; p < 0.0001). At week 12, before up-titration, alirocumab 75 mg Q2W reduced LDL-C by 53 (2)% (on-treatment). Injection site reactions were infrequent (< 2% and < 4% of alirocumab and ezetimibe patients, respectively).

Conclusions

Alirocumab demonstrated significantly greater LDL-C lowering versus ezetimibe after 24 weeks with the lower 75 mg Q2W dose sufficient to provide ≥ 50% LDL-C reduction in the majority of the patients. Adverse events were comparable between groups.     

Achieving LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B target levels in high-risk patients: Measuring Effective Reductions in Cholesterol Using Rosuvastatin therapY (MERCURY) II

Background

National Cholestesrol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines for patients at a high risk of coronary heart disease set a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target of <100 mg/dL. This target can be difficult to attain with diet and current therapy.

Methods

In a 16-week multinational trial, 1993 high-risk patients were randomized to rosuvastatin 20 mg, atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, or simvastatin 40 mg for 8 weeks. Patients either remained on starting treatment or switched to lower or milligram-equivalent doses of rosuvastatin for 8 more weeks.

Results

At 16 weeks, more patients achieved their LDL-C target by switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg than staying on atorvastatin 10 mg (66% vs 42%, P < .001) or simvastatin 20 mg (73% vs 32%, P < .001). Changing to rosuvastatin 20 mg brought more patients to their LDL-C target than staying on atorvastatin 20 mg (79% vs 64%, P < .001) or simvastatin 40 mg (84% vs 56%, P < .001). More very high risk patients achieved an LDL-C target of <70 mg/dL when changed to rosuvastatin from atorvastatin or simvastatin (within-arm comparisons P < .01). More hypertriglyceridemic patients (triglycerides ≥200 mg/dL) met LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B targets by changing to rosuvastatin. Switching to rosuvastatin produced greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and lipid ratios. All treatments were well tolerated, with no differences among treatment groups in skeletal muscle, hepatic, or renal toxicity.

Conclusion

Rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg is an effective and safe therapeutic option for high-risk patients to achieve their lipid and apolipoprotein targets.     

The efficacy of atorvastatin in treating patients with hypercholesterolaemia to target LDL-cholesterol goals: the LIPI-GOAL trial

OBJECTIVE: LIPI-GOAL is a multicentre, open-label, non-comparative treat-to-target study, conducted from March 1998 to May 1999, that assessed the percentage of patients reaching 1992 European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets with atorvastatin 10-80 mg/day in subjects with hypercholesterolaemia, defined as LDL-C > 160 mg/dl after a 12-week step I diet. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were treated towards the following LDL-C goals: < 135 mg/dl in patients with atherosclerotic disease present and/or coronary heart disease (CHD) risk >40%/10 years, or LDL-C < 155 mg/dl in all others. All subjects started treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day for 6 weeks. The dose was doubled every 6 weeks, to 20, 40, or 80 mg/day at weeks 12, 18, and 24, respectively, if targets were not reached. Of 587 patients screened for participation, 473 were enrolled and 419 (59% male; mean age 61 years) were available for efficacy evaluation. Fifty-five percent had atherosclerotic disease and/or CHD risk >40%/10 years. Dose titration was not needed in 303 patients (72%) who reached LDL-C target with atorvastatin 10 mg/day. Among 116 patients who were subsequently treated with higher atorvastatin dosages, 47 reached LDL-C target with 20 mg/day, 15 with 40 mg/day, and 6 with 80 mg/day. Therefore, 88.5% of subjects reached LDL-C goal in an intention-to-treat analysis. In general, atorvastatin was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients at high risk for CHD reached LDL-C goals with atorvastatin 10-80 mg/day. Seventy-two % of patients reached target with atorvastatin 10 mg/day, which may simplify clinical management and should encourage better adherence to recommendations.     

Lipid changes on hormone therapy and coronary heart disease events in the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS)

Background

Despite the effect of lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, combination hormone therapy did not reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) events in the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS). To explore possible mechanisms, we examined the association between lipid changes and CHD outcomes among women assigned to hormone therapy.

Methods

HERS participants were postmenopausal women with previously diagnosed CHD who were randomly assigned to receive conjugated estrogens and medroxyprogesterone or identical placebo and then followed-up for an average of 4.1 years. Among women assigned to hormone therapy, associations between baseline-to-year-1 lipid level changes and CHD events were compared with the associations observed for baseline lipids using multivariate proportional hazards models.

Results

Among women assigned to hormone therapy, CHD events were independently predicted by baseline LDL-C levels (relative hazard [RH] 0.94 per 15.6 mg/dL decrease, 95% CI 0.88-1.01) and HDL-C levels (RH 0.89 per 5.4 mg/dL increase, 95% CI 0.81-0.99), but not by triglyceride levels (RH 1.01 per 13.2mg/dL increase, 95% CI 0.97-1.06). CHD events were marginally associated with first-year reductions in LDL-C levels (RH 0.95 per 15.6mg/dL decrease, 95% CI 0.86-1.04), and were not associated with increases in HDL-C levels ( RH 1.03 per 5.4 mg/dL increase, 95% CI 0.91-1.16) or triglyceride levels (RH 1.01 per 13.2 mg/dL increase, 95% CI 0.98-1.05).

Conclusion

Changes in lipid levels with hormone therapy are not predictive of CHD outcomes in women with heart disease in the HERS trial.     

Effect of co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin treatment on LDL-C goal attainment in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin treatment was more effective than placebo plus on-going simvastatin in achieving an LDL-C treatment target of < or = 2.60 mmol/l (100 mg/dl) in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Men and women (age > or = 18 years) with documented CHD and on a stable dose of simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg for at least 6 weeks were recruited for this study. After a 4-week simvastatin 10 or 20 mg plus placebo and diet run-in period, patients were eligible for randomization if LDL-C > 2.60 and < or = 4.20 mmol/l and triglycerides (TG) < or = 4.00 mmol/l. Eligible patients were randomized to a double-blind comparative study with ezetimibe 10 mg co-administered with on-going simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg (n=181) versus placebo to match ezetimibe co-administered with simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg (n=191) for 6 weeks. RESULTS: At baseline, mean LDL-C was comparable between the ezetimibe (3.14 mmol/l) and placebo (3.19 mmol/l) groups. With the addition of ezetimibe or placebo to on-going simvastatin therapy, the percentage of patients achieving the LDL-C goal of < or = 2.60 mmol/l after 6 weeks of treatment was significantly (p < or = 0.001) greater in the ezetimibe group (74.3%) than in the placebo group (16.7%). The addition of ezetimibe to on-going simvastatin treatment also resulted in a significantly (p < or = 0.001) larger mean percent reduction in LDL-C from baseline (25.2%) compared with placebo (0.9%). Ezetimibe was generally well tolerated compared to placebo when added to on-going simvastatin treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin 10 or 20 mg treatment allowed more hypercholesterolemic patients with CHD to reach the LDL-C treatment target of < or = 2.60 mmol/l.     

Comparative effects on lipid levels of combination therapy with a statin and extended-release niacin or ezetimibe versus a statin alone (the COMPELL study)

International guidelines recommend lower target cholesterol levels and treatment of low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and elevated triglycerides for patients at moderately high to high coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Combination therapy is often required to achieve multiple lipid treatment goals, and > or =50% reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is needed in some patients to achieve aggressive LDL-C targets. In this context, we evaluated comparative effects on lipid levels of combination therapy at low to moderate doses with a statin plus extended-release niacin (niacin ER), a statin plus ezetimibe, and a highly potent statin alone. This was an open-label, multicenter, 12-week study in 292 patients (50% women) who qualified for drug therapy based on number of CHD risk factors. Patients were randomized to four parallel arms, titrated from low to moderate or high doses: atorvastatin/niacin ER, rosuvastatin/niacin ER, simvastatin/ezetimibe, or rosuvastatin alone. Baseline mean values were, for LDL-C 197 mg/dL (5.1 mmol/L), HDL-C 49 mg/dL (1.3 mmol/L), triglycerides 168 mg/dL (1.9 mmol/L). There were no significant differences among treatment groups in the change from baseline in LDL-C at pre-specified timepoints during treatment. All groups lowered LDL-C by approximately 50% or more (range -49 to -57%), achieving mean levels of 82-98 mg/dL (2.1-2.5 mmol/L). Changes in non-HDL-C (range -46 to -55%) mirrored those for LDL-C and did not differ among treatment groups. Statin/niacin ER combination regimens also increased HDL-C and large HDL (HDL2) and lowered triglycerides and lipoprotein (a) significantly more than other regimens. No drug-related myopathy or hepatotoxicity was observed. In this study, low to moderate dose combination therapy with a statin and niacin ER provided broad control of lipids and lipoproteins independently associated with CHD.     

Efficacy of Ezetimibe is Associated with Gender and Baseline Lipid Levels in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

Aim: The combination of ezetimibe and a statin provides greater LDL-C reduction by inhibiting both intestinal cholesterol absorption and endogenous production of cholesterol. The present study was designed to examine the influence of ageing, gender, BMI, levels of LDL-C, and HbA1c on the response to ezetimibe add-on therapy.Methods: Patients who had been taking a statin for >3 months at the usual dose and whose LDL-C was >120 mg/dL were eligible for this study. Patients were assigned to receive add-on ezetimibe at 10 mg once daily for 12 weeks.Results: Adding ezetimibe to basal statin therapy resulted in a further 15.0% reduction of TC, 20.5% reduction of LDL-C, and 19.7% reduction of non-HDL-C. The change in TC was significantly greater in males than in females. The change in TG was significantly greater in patients with a baseline TG level ≥150 mg/dL. Multivariate regression analysis showed that male sex and LDL-C ≥140 mg/dL were independent predictors of TC reduction after adjustment for age, BMI, and HbA1c. A baseline TG ≥150 mg/dL was also an independent predictor of TG reduction.Conclusion: Addition of ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy was effective in patients with type 2 diabetes. Male sex and baseline LDL-C levels are independent predictors of marked TC reduction by ezetimibe treatment.     

Prevalence of lipid abnormalities and cholesterol target value attainment in Egyptian patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome

Background

Effective management of hyperlipidemia is of utmost importance for prevention of recurring cardiovascular events after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Indeed, guidelines recommend a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of <70?mg/dL for such patients. The Dyslipidemia International Study II (DYSIS II) – Egypt was initiated in order to quantify the prevalence and extent of hyperlipidemia in patients presenting with an ACS in Egypt.

The achievement of target cholesterol level differs between coronary heart disease and diabetic patients

Background

Guidelines recommend that LDL-C level should be < 100 mg/dl among diabetes mellitus (DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD) patients.

Objective

To evaluate how patients with DM and CHD differ in attaining the target level and to examine the association between goal achievement, demographic and clinical parameters.

Methods

The study was conducted in Maccabi Healthcare Services, the second largest health maintenance organization in Israel. All patients with DM (n = 54,261), CHD (n = 24,083) or DM and CHD (n = 15,370) who were listed in the computerized database and had at least one LDL-C level measurement between January 1, 2007 and July 15, 2008 were eligible. The percentage of patients who attained LDL-C level < 100 mg/dl and its association with demographic and clinical parameters were analyzed.

Results

The rate of reaching the LDL-C target level was higher among the CHD and CHD and DM patients than DM ones (67% vs. 57% vs. 50%, p < 0.001, respectively). Male gender; 5th socioeconomic status quintile; underlying disease i.e. CHD, CHD and DM; high statins compliance; and revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention predicted for reaching target level. DM; absence of renal function evaluation; hospitalizations; HbA1C > 7% or missing its measurements had a negative predictive value.

Conclusions

The rate of reaching LDL-C target level should be increased in all high risk patients, mainly diabetic ones. Efforts should include educational programs to physicians and patients regarding the importance, the need to adhere and to intensify the cholesterol lowering treatment.     

Early benefit from structured care with atorvastatin in patients with coronary heart disease and diabetes mellitus

This is a prospective evaluation of the effect of structured care of dyslipidemia with atorvastatin (strict implementation of guidelines) versus usual care (physician's standard of care) on morbidity and mortality of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and diabetes mellitus (DM). From 1600 consecutive CHD patients randomized to either form of care in the GREek Atorvastatin and CHD Evaluation Study (GREACE), 313 had DM: 161 in the structured care arm and 152 in the usual care arm. All patients were followed up for a mean of 3 years. In the structured care group, patients were treated with atorvastatin to achieve the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goal of <2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL). Primary endpoints were all-cause and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity, and stroke. In the structured care group, 156 patients (97%) were taking atorvastatin (10-80 mg/day; mean, 23.7 mg/day) throughout the study; the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal was reached by 150 patients (93%). Only 17% (n=26) of the usual care patients were on long-term hypolipidemic drug treatment and 4% (n=6) reached the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal. During the study, 46 of 152 (30.3%) CHD patients with DM on usual care experienced a major vascular event or died versus 20 of 161 (12.5%) patients on structured care; relative risk reduction (RRR) 58%, p<0.0001. RRR for all-cause mortality was 52%, p=0.049; coronary mortality 62%, p=0.042; coronary morbidity 59%, p<0.002; and stroke 68%, p=0.046. Event rate curves started deviating from the sixth treatment month and the RRR was almost 60% by the 12th month. RRRs remained at that level until the end of the study, when they became statistically significant. The cost/life-year gained with structured care was estimated at 6200 US dollars. In CHD patients with DM, structured care of dyslipidemia with atorvastatin to achieve the NCEP LDL-C treatment goal, reduces all-cause and coronary mortality, coronary morbidity, and stroke by more than one half within a 3-year period, in comparison to usual care. Clinical benefit is manifested as early as the sixth month of treatment.     

The effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on oxidative stress in diabetic patients

Aim

Diabetes is associated with abnormalities in lipid profile and increased oxidative stress. Statins are preferred agents in diabetic patients due to their antioxidant and LDL-C lowering effects. This study is designed to compare the effects of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin on low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), lipid hydroperoxide (LOOH), total oxidant status (TOS) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) in diabetic patients with hyperlipidemia.

Materials and methods

Sixty two patients who have type 2 diabetes mellitus with serum LDL levels more than 100 mg/dL were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 31) or rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 31). Blood tests were performed at the beginning of the study and after three months.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in the pre- and after treatment levels of the LDL-C between groups. TAC values were increased in both groups and statistically significant in the former group (p = 0.007). There was no diferrence between the change percentages ((after treatment TAC − pretreatment TAC) / pretreatment level) of TAC between two treatment groups. The effects of two drugs on the other oxidative parameters were not significantly different.

Conclusion

Both atorvastatin and rosuvastatin may be helpful in reducing increased oxidative stress in diabetic patients with hyperlipidemia.     

Study Design, Rationale, and Baseline Characteristics: Evaluation of Fenofibric Acid on Carotid Intima-Media Thickness in Patients with Type IIb Dyslipidemia with Residual Risk in Addition to Atorvastatin Therapy (FIRST) Trial

Purpose

Elevated triglycerides (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels contribute to cardiovascular disease risk and can be effectively treated with fenofibric acid. A trial is under way to evaluate the effect of once-daily fenofibric acid or placebo on carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) progression in patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels achieved through atorvastatin treatment, but with high TG and low HDL-C levels.

Methods

In this multicenter, double-blind study, 682 patients were randomized to once-daily delayed-release capsules of choline fenofibrate 135?mg (fenofibric acid [Trilipix?; Abbott, North Chicago, IL]) or placebo plus atorvastatin treatment after a 2- to 10-week diet and atorvastatin run-in period. Key inclusion criteria included age ≥45?years; posterior-wall common CIMT ≥0.7?mm on at least one side at baseline; fasting results of TG ≥150?mg/dL, and HDL-C ≤45?mg/dL for men or HDL-C ≤55?mg/dL for women at screening while receiving atorvastatin; controlled LDL-C; and known coronary heart disease (CHD) or a CHD risk equivalent. The primary efficacy variable is the rate of change from baseline through week 104 in the mean posterior-wall intima-media thickness of the common carotid arteries (composite value of left and right sides).

Conclusions

This trial is the first to examine the effect of fenofibric acid on CIMT and the first CIMT trial to select patients with controlled LDL-C and elevated TG and low HDL-C as inclusion criteria. Also, this trial will prospectively evaluate the effect of treatment on LDL particles and address shortcomings of previous CIMT trials.     

Vascular basis for the treatment of myocardial ischemia study: trial design and baseline characteristics

Background

Increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and oxidized LDL cholesterol levels adversely affect endothelial function in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Statin drugs are efficacious in primary and secondary prevention of clinical CAD events, but they have not been extensively studied as a treatment for ischemia during routine daily activities or during exercise, indicators of high-risk in patients with stable CAD. The purpose of the Vascular Basis for the Treatment of Myocardial Ischemia study is to determine whether aggressive lowering of LDL cholesterol level with atorvastatin, with or without supplemental antioxidant vitamins C and E, can improve endothelial function and ischemia during ambulatory electrocardiogram (AECG) monitoring and exercise treadmill testing (ETT).

Methods

Patients are eligible when they have ischemia during an ETT and AECG monitoring and when their fasting total cholesterol level is ≤250 mg/dL. Eligible patients are randomized to receive 1 of 3 treatments: intensive atorvastatin to reduce LDL cholesterol level to ≤80 mg/dL, intensive atorvastatin to reduce LDL cholesterol level to ≤80 mg/dL plus antioxidant vitamins C and E, and control of diet and low-dose lovastatin, when needed, to reduce LDL cholesterol level ≤ to 130 mg/dL. Patients undergo endothelial function testing, 48-hour AECG monitoring, and ETT at randomization and at 6 and 12 months.

Results

A total of 300 patients have been randomized: 101 to receive atorvastatin alone, 103 to receive atorvastatin plus antioxidant vitamins, and 96 to receive placebo. Baseline characteristics are similar across treatment groups.

Conclusions

The Vascular Basis study will provide important insight on the effects of aggressive management of dyslipidemia with statin drugs and antioxidant vitamins in patients with stable but high-risk CAD.     

The comparative efficacy of ezetimibe added to atorvastatin 10 mg versus uptitration to atorvastatin 40 mg in subgroups of patients aged 65 to 74 years or greater than or equal to 75 years

Background Coronary heart disease (CHD) risk increases with age; yet lipid-lowering therapies are significantly under-utilized in patients > 65 years. The objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of lipid-lowering therapies in older patients treated with atorvastatin 10 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (EZ/Atorva) vs. increasing the atorvastatin dose to 40 mg. Methods Patients ≥ 65 years with atherosclerotic vascular disease (LDL-C ≥ 1.81 mmol/L) or at high risk for coronary heart disease (LDL-C ≥ 2.59 mmol/L) were randomized to EZ/Atorva for 12 wk vs. uptitration to atorvastatin 20 mg for 6 wk followed by atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 wk. The percent change in LDL-C and other lipid parameters and percent patients achieving prespecified LDL-C levels were assessed after 12 wk. Results EZ/Atorva produced greater reductions in most lipid parameters vs. uptitration of atorvastatin in patients ≥ 75 years (n = 228), generally consistent with patients 65–74 years (n = 812). More patients achieved LDL-C targets with combination therapy vs. monotherapy in both age groups at 6 wk and in patients ≥ 75 years at 12 wk. At 12 wk, more patients ≥ 75 years achieved LDL-C targets with monotherapy vs. combination therapy. EZ/Atorva produced more favorable improvements in most lipids vs. doubling or quadrupling the atorvastatin dose in patients ≥ 75 years, generally consistent with the findings in patients 65–74 years. Conclusions Our results extended previous findings demonstrating that ezetimibe added to a statin provided a generally well-tolerated therapeutic option for improving the lipid profile in patients 65 to 74 years and ≥ 75 years of age.     

Effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol of maximum dose simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of the Comparative HDL Efficacy and Safety Study (CHESS)

Background

Previous studies have shown that effects on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may differ among statins.

Methods

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-dose study was conducted in 917 hypercholesterolemic patients to compare the efficacy of 80 mg/d simvastatin versus 80 mg/d atorvastatin on HDL-C and apolipoprotein (apo) A-I for 24 weeks. Efficacy was assessed as the means of weeks 6 and 12 and weeks 18 and 24. Prespecified subgroups analyzed were patients with low HDL-C levels and with the metabolic syndrome.

Results

Simvastatin increased HDL-C and apo A-I values significantly more than did atorvastatin for the mean of weeks 6 and 12 (8.9% vs 3.6% and 4.9% vs −0.9%, respectively) and the mean of weeks 18 and 24 (8.3% vs 4.2% and 3.7% vs −1.4%). These differences were observed across both baseline HDL-C subgroups (<40 mg/dL, ≥40 mg/dL) and in patients with the metabolic syndrome. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride reductions were greater with atorvastatin. Consecutive elevations >3× the upper limit of normal in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) occurred in significantly fewer patients treated with simvastatin than with atorvastatin (2/453 [0.4%] vs 13/464 [2.8%]), with most elevations observed in women taking atorvastatin (11/209 [5.3%] vs 1/199 [0.5%] for simvastatin).

Conclusions

Simvastatin (80 mg) increased HDL-C and apo A-I significantly more than did atorvastatin (80 mg) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. This advantage was observed regardless of HDL-C level at baseline or the presence of the metabolic syndrome. Significantly fewer consecutive elevations >3× the upper limit of normal in ALT and/or AST occurred in patients receiving simvastatin.     

不同调脂方案对冠心病患者C反应蛋白和CD40配体的影响

目的 观察在冠状动脉狭窄50%～70%的冠心病患者中应用阿托伐他汀和依折麦布联合治疗调脂作用和安全性,及其对C-反应蛋白(CRP)、CD40配体(CD40L)的影响. 方法选取冠状动脉狭窄50%～70%的冠心病患者42例,均未植入支架,分为他汀组19例(40 mg阿托伐他汀)和联合治疗组(10 mg阿托伐他汀+10 mg依折麦布)23例.在服药前、用药4周、用药12周测定总胆固醇(TC)、三酰甘油(TG)、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)、肝功能、肾功能、肌酸激酶、CRP和CD40L. 结果 (1)他汀组和联合治疗组均在4周时患者的TC、LDL-C降低,12周时他汀组的LDL-C为(1.94±0.49)mmol/L,联合治疗组为(1.92±0.54)mmol/L,两组差异无统计学意义;(2)他汀组和联合治疗组患者肝功能、肾功能、肌酸激酶用药后无明显升高;(3)两组CRP在12周时较基线均有降低,他汀组CD40L降低. 结论单用他汀治疗和联合治疗降脂疗效无差异.两种治疗均未引起患者肝、肾功能和肌酸激酶异常.40 mg阿托伐他汀治疗可降低患者CRP、CD40L.