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.     

Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin combination versus atorvastatin alone in adults ≥65 years of age with hypercholesterolemia and with or at moderately high/high risk for coronary heart disease (the VYTELD study)

Higher than 80% of coronary heart disease-related mortality occurs in patients ≥65 years of age. Guidelines recommend low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets for these at-risk patients; however, few clinical studies have evaluated lipid-lowering strategies specifically in older adults. This multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the usual starting dose of ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 mg) versus atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg and the next higher dose of ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/40 mg) versus atorvastatin 40 mg in 1,289 hypercholesterolemic patients ≥65 years of age with or without cardiovascular disease. Patients randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin had greater percent decreases in LDL cholesterol (-54.2% for 10/20 mg vs -39.5% and -46.6% for atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, respectively; -59.1% for 10/40 mg vs -50.8% for atorvastatin 40 mg; p <0.001 for all comparisons) and the number attaining LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl (51.3% for 10/20 mg, 68.2% for 10/40 mg) and <100 mg/dl (83.6% for 10/20 mg; 90.3% for 10/40 mg) was significantly larger compared to those receiving atorvastatin for all prespecified dose comparisons (p <0.05 to <0.001). A significantly larger percentage of high-risk patients achieved LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl on ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (54.3%) versus atorvastatin 10 mg (10.9%, p <0.001) or 20 mg (28.9%, p <0.001) and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg (69.2%) versus atorvastatin 40 mg (38.2%, p <0.001), and a significantly larger percentage of intermediate-risk patients achieved LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl on ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (82.1%) versus atorvastatin 10 mg (59.3%, p <0.05). Improvements in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein ratios were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than atorvastatin for all comparisons (p <0.01 to <0.001). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride results were variable. All treatments were generally well tolerated. In conclusion, ezetimibe/simvastatin provided significantly greater improvements in key lipid parameters and higher attainment of LDL cholesterol targets than atorvastatin, with comparable tolerability.     

依折麦布联合阿托伐他汀治疗老年冠心病患者的降脂疗效

目的：观察联合应用依折麦布和阿托伐他汀对老年冠心病患者血脂水平的影响。方法：选择常规应用阿托伐他汀钙片20mg／d但血脂仍未达标的,符合入选标准的老年冠心病患者176例,随机分成两组,对照组为高剂量他汀组：阿托伐他汀钙片40mg／d;试药组为联合用药组：依折麦布10mg／d联合阿托伐他汀钙片20mg／d;比较两组治疗前后血总胆固醇（TC）、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇（LDL—C）水平变化。结果：经12周治疗后,两组TC、LDI。一C与治疗前比较均有显著降低（均P〈0．05,P〈0．01）;与高剂量他汀组相比,联合用药组治疗效果更显著（P〈0．05）,TC、LDL—C下降更明显（P〈0．05）;而肝损害及肌溶解等副作用的发生率却无明显增加。结论：与高剂量阿托伐他汀相比,依折麦布联合阿托伐他汀具有更好的降低LDL—C效果,显著提高冠心病患者的血脂达标率,且具有良好的安全性和药物耐受性。     

Achieving lipoprotein goals in patients at high risk with severe hypercholesterolemia: efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with atorvastatin

Background

Despite the efficacy of statins in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, many patients who are at high risk for heart disease with hypercholesterolemia require additional LDL-C level reduction. The cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, has been shown to provide significant incremental reductions in LDL-C levels when co-administered with statins. This study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe (10 mg) plus response-based atorvastatin titration versus response-based atorvastatin titration alone in the attainment of LDL-C goals in subjects who are at high risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) and are not at their LDL-C goal on the starting dose of atorvastatin.

Methods

This was a 14-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study conducted in 113 clinical research centers in 21 countries. Participants were adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), CHD, or multiple (≥2) cardiovascular risk factors, and a LDL-C level ≥130 mg/dL after a 6- to10-week dietary stabilization and atorvastatin (10 mg/day) open-label run-in period. Eligible subjects continued to receive atorvastatin (10 mg) and were randomized to receive blinded treatment with ezetimibe (10 mg/day; n = 305) or an additional 10 mg/day of atorvastatin (n = 316). The atorvastatin dose in both groups was doubled after 4 weeks, 9 weeks, or both when the LDL-C level was not at its goal (≤100 mg/dL), so that patients receiving combined therapy could reach 40 mg/day and patients receiving atorvastatin alone could reach 80 mg/day. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects achieving their LDL-C level goal at week 14. A secondary end point was the change in LDL-C level and other lipid parameters at 4 weeks after ezetimibe co-administration with 10 mg/day of atorvastatin versus 20 mg/day of atorvastatin monotherapy.

Results

The proportion of subjects reaching their target LDL-C level goal of ≤100 mg/dL was significantly higher in the co-administration group than in the atorvastatin monotherapy group (22% vs 7%; P <.01). At 4 weeks, levels of LDL-C, triglycerides, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were reduced significantly more by combination therapy than by doubling the dose of atorvastatin (LDL-C −22.8% versus −8.6%; P <.01). The combination regimen had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of atorvastatin alone.

Conclusions

The addition of ezetimibe to the starting dose of 10 mg/day of atorvastatin followed by response-based atorvastatin dose titration to a maximum of 40 mg/day provides a more effective means for reducing LDL-C levels in patients at high risk for CHD than continued doubling of atorvastatin as high as 80 mg/day alone.     

Comparison of the effects of combination atorvastatin (40 mg) + ezetimibe (10 mg) versus atorvastatin (40 mg) alone on secretory phospholipase A2 activity in patients with stable coronary artery disease or coronary artery disease equivalent

Secretory phospholipase A2 (sPLA2) is an enzyme that plays an important role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and of adverse cardiovascular events. It is currently the target of emerging therapeutic agents. Our study was designed to investigate the effect of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol with ezetimibe and atorvastatin on sPLA2 activity. We randomized 100 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or CAD equivalent (diabetes, stroke, or peripheral vascular disease) to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/day in association with atorvastatin 40 mg/day (combination therapy group) versus atorvastatin 40 mg/day and placebo (monotherapy group). Patients on statin therapy before inclusion were allowed to enter the study as long as the potency of the statin was lower than atorvastatin 40 mg/day. Lipid profile, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), and sPLA activity were measured at baseline and after 8 weeks of therapy. The decrease in LDL cholesterol was more significant in the combination therapy group, but the decrease in hs-CRP was similar. sPLA2 activity significantly decreased in the ezetimibe/atorvastatin group from 29 U/ml (interquartile range 23 to 35) to 26 U/ml (23 to 29, p = 0.001) but remained similar in the placebo/atorvastatin group (23 U/ml, 19 to 32, vs 22 U/ml, 19 to 28, p = NS). In a multivariate stepwise linear regression model, change in sPLA2 correlated with change in hs-CRP (p <0.001), baseline LDL cholesterol level (p = 0.001), body mass index (p = 0.003), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.04) and combination therapy with ezetimibe/atorvastatin (p = 0.05). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that coadministration of ezetimibe and atorvastatin decreases sPLA2 activity.     

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.     

Efficacy of colestimide coadministered with atorvastatin in japanese patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH).

BACKGROUND: Colestimide, a 2-methylimidazole-epichlorohydrin polymer, is a new bile-acid-sequestering resin, that is 4-fold as powerful at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as the conventional resin (cholestyramine). Moreover, colestimide has excellent patient compliance because it is available in tablet form. METHODS AND RESULTS: The clinical efficacy of colestimide coadministered with atorvastatin on lipid and apolipoprotein concentrations was examined in 15 patients (M/F=10/5, mean+/-SE age=54+/-9 years) with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). After a period of wash-out of any lipid-lowering drugs, atorvastatin (20-40 mg) was administered to patients for at least 8 weeks, and then 3 g of colestimide was administered for a further 8 weeks. Total and LDL-C significantly (<0.0001) decreased by 35% from 361 to 233 mg/dl and 41% from 274 to 161 mg/dl, respectively. Addition of colestimide caused a further significant 12% and 20% reduction, respectively, from the initial values to 205 and 129 mg/dl, respectively. Colestimide was also effective in reducing serum LDL-C concentrations in heterozygous FH patients with hypertriglyceridemia (triglycerides>or=150 mg/dl). CONCLUSIONS: When monotherapy with atorvastatin is insufficient to treat severely hypercholesterolemic patients, such as those with heterozygous FH, colestimide acts to reinforce the action of statins.     

Comparison of effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus simvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels

The lowering effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapy on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) were compared with those of simvastatin or atorvastatin monotherapy in a large cohort of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. To compare ezetimibe/simvastatin with simvastatin, data were combined from 3 identical, prospective 12-week trials in which patients were randomized to receive placebo; ezetimibe 10 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg added to simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg. To compare ezetimibe/simvastatin with atorvastatin, data were analyzed from a phase III double-blind, active-controlled study in which patients were randomized equally to receive ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg or atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg for 6 weeks. When averaged across doses, ezetimibe/simvastatin produced significantly greater reductions compared with simvastatin alone in LDL cholesterol (52.5% vs 38.0%, respectively) and CRP levels (31.0% vs 14.3%, respectively). At each individual simvastatin dose, co-administration with ezetimibe produced significant further CRP reductions versus simvastatin alone. Ezetimibe/simvastatin was significantly more effective at lowering LDL cholesterol than atorvastatin when pooled across doses (53.4% vs 45.3%, respectively) and in each milligram-equivalent dose comparison. Reductions in CRP of similar magnitude were observed with ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin when averaged across doses and at each milligram-equivalent statin dose comparison. In conclusion, the lipid-modulating and anti-inflammatory effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin provide additional benefits not realized by statin monotherapy alone.     

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

Aim: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) are both associated with increased risk for atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD). Thus, it is useful to know the relative efficacy of lipid‐altering drugs in these patient populations. Methods: A double‐blind, parallel group trial of adult patients with hypercholesterolaemia at high‐CHD risk receiving atorvastatin 40 mg/day compared atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (ezetimibe) vs. doubling atorvastatin to 80 mg. This post hoc analysis reports lipid efficacy results in patients grouped by diagnosis of T2DM, MetS without T2DM or neither. Per cent change from baseline at week 6 was assessed for LDL‐C, total cholesterol, HDL‐C , non‐HDL‐C , Apo A‐I, Apo B and triglycerides. Safety was monitored through clinical and laboratory adverse events (AEs). Results: Compared with doubling atorvastatin, atorvastatin plus ezetimibe resulted in greater reductions in LDL‐C, triglycerides, Apo B, non‐HDL‐C, total cholesterol and lipid ratios in the T2DM, MetS and neither groups. Treatment effects were of similar magnitude across patient groups with both treatments, except triglycerides, which were slightly greater in the T2DM and MetS groups vs. neither group. Changes in HDL‐C , Apo A‐I and high sensitivity C‐reactive protein (hs‐CRP) were comparable for both treatments in all three groups. Safety and tolerability profiles were generally similar between treatments and across patient groups, as were the incidence of liver and muscle AEs. Conclusions: Compared with doubling atorvastatin to 80 mg, addition of ezetimibe to atorvastatin 40 mg produced greater improvements in multiple lipid parameters in high‐CHD risk patients with T2DM, MetS or neither, consistent with the significantly greater changes observed in the full study cohort (clinical trial # NCT00276484).     

Efficacy and tolerability of fluvastatin XL 80 mg alone, ezetimibe alone, and the combination of fluvastatin XL 80 mg with ezetimibe in patients with a history of muscle-related side effects with other statins

Although statin treatment is generally well tolerated, it is estimated that 5% to 10% of patients develop muscle-related side effects (MRSEs), resulting in less effective nonstatin alternatives or cessation of lipid-lowering therapy completely. This study was designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of extended-release fluvastatin (fluvastatin XL) and ezetimibe alone or in combination in patients with previous MRSEs with other statins. This was a double-blinded, double-dummy trial of 199 mostly moderate- or high-risk dyslipidemic patients randomized to fluvastatin XL 80 mg/day (n = 69), ezetimibe 10 mg/day (n = 66), or fluvastatin XL 80 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day (n = 64) for 12 weeks. Fluvastatin XL lowered low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by 32.8% compared with 15.6% with ezetimibe (between-group difference -17.1%, 95% confidence interval -23.6 to -10.7, p <0.0001); the fluvastatin XL/ezetimibe combination lowered LDL cholesterol by 46.1% (between-group difference vs ezetimibe -30.4%, 95% confidence interval -37.0 to -23.8, p <0.0001). Proportions of patients achieving their National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III target LDL cholesterol were 84% with the fluvastatin XL/ezetimibe combination, 59% with fluvastatin XL, and 29% with ezetimibe (p <0.001 for fluvastatin XL monotherapy or combination therapy vs ezetimibe monotherapy). Incidences of MRSEs were 24% in the ezetimibe group, 17% in the fluvastatin XL group, and 14% in the combination group. There were no instances of creatine kinase increases >or=10 times upper limit of normal. In conclusion, in patients with a history of statin-associated MRSEs, fluvastatin XL alone or in combination with ezetimibe offers an effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering option.     

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.     

Cross-over trial of intensive monotherapy with atorvastatin and combined therapy with atorvastatin and colestimide for Japanese familial hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: In familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering therapy is important to avoid predisposition to coronary artery disease. This study investigated the advantages of combined therapy with atorvastatin and colestimide vs intensive monotherapy with atorvastatin. METHODS AND RESULTS: The trial used a randomized cross-over design consisting of 2 16-week periods of open-label drug therapy. Among the 24 initial patients, 17 heterozygous FH patients (age: 54.1 years; 5 males) were enrolled after 20 mg/day atorvastatin failed to achieve their target level. The patients received 20 mg/day atorvastatin and 3 g/day colestimide or 40 mg/day atorvastatin. Fifteen patients completed the trial and their LDL-C reduced from 5.07 +/- 1.10 mmol/L to 3.76 +/- 0.90 mmol/L with the combined therapy and to 3.81 +/- 0.50 mmol/L with the intensive monotherapy. Although the 2 therapies showed comparable mean effects for decreasing LDL-C, similar adverse reaction and cost, each therapy was predominantly more effective in some patients than in others. The triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were similar in both therapies. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve the therapeutic target of LDL-C level for refractory FH, the LDL-C-lowering therapy selected can be either intensive monotherapy or combined therapy as the next to standard statin therapy.     

Effects of Statin Plus Ezetimibe on Coronary Plaques in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Sub-Analysis of PRECISE-IVUS Trial

Aim: Coronary plaque regression is weak in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). We evaluated whether dual lipid-lowering therapy (DLLT) with ezetimibe and atorvastatin attenuates coronary plaques in ACS patients with DM.Methods: The prospective, randomized controlled, multicenter PRECISE-IVUS (Plaque Regression with Cholesterol Absorption Inhibitor or Synthesis Inhibitor Evaluated by Intravascular Ultrasound) trial assigned 246 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to DLLT or atorvastatin monotherapy and evaluated IVUS-derived changes in percent atheroma volume (ΔPAV), at baseline and 9–12-month follow-up, in 126 ACS cases, including 25 DM patients. The atorvastatin dose was up-titrated to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) < 70 mg/dL.Results: In DM patients, the monotherapy group (n = 13) and the DLLT group (n = 12) showed a similar prevalence of coronary risks and baseline lipid profiles. During the study, the change in LDL-C level was similar between DM and non-DM patients. Compared with non-DM patients, DM patients showed weaker regression of ΔPAV by DLLT than those who underwent monotherapy (DM: −2.77 ± 3.47% vs. −0.77 ± 2.51%, P = 0.11; non-DM: −2.01 ± 3.36% vs. −0.08 ± 2.66%, P = 0.008). The change in LDL-C level was not correlated with ΔPAV in non-DM patients, but there was significant correlation between the change in LDL-C level and ΔPAV in DM patients (r = 0.52, P = 0.008).Conclusions: ACS patients with DM showed weaker coronary plaque regression than their counterparts. A significant correlation between the change in LDL-C level and ΔPAV in DM patients suggested that more intensive lipid-lowering therapy is required in ACS patients with DM.     

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.     

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg alone or in combination with ezetimibe in patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease (results from the EXPLORER study)

Patients at risk of coronary heart disease may not achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals on statin monotherapy. This study was designed to investigate the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg alone or in combination with ezetimibe 10 mg in patients at high risk of coronary heart disease. Four hundred sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned to rosuvastatin alone or in combination with ezetimibe for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) LDL cholesterol goal (<100 mg/dl) at week 6. Secondary end points included the percentage of patients achieving other ATP III and 2003 European lipid goals, changes from baseline in lipid, lipoprotein, and inflammatory parameters, and safety and tolerability. Significantly more patients receiving rosuvastatin/ezetimibe than rosuvastatin alone achieved their ATP III LDL cholesterol goal (<100 mg/dl, 94.0% vs 79.1%, p <0.001) and the optional LDL cholesterol goal (<70 mg/dl) for very high-risk patients (79.6% vs 35.0%, p <0.001). The combination of rosuvastatin/ezetimibe reduced LDL cholesterol significantly more than rosuvastatin (-69.8% vs -57.1%, p <0.001). Other components of the lipid/lipoprotein profile were also significantly (p <0.001) improved with rosuvastatin/ezetimibe. Both treatments generally were well tolerated. Rosuvastatin 40 mg was effective at improving the atherogenic lipid profile in this high-risk population. Combination rosuvastatin with ezetimibe 10 mg enabled greater decreases in LDL cholesterol and allowed more patients to achieve LDL cholesterol goals. In conclusion, rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe may improve the management of high-risk patients who cannot achieve goal on maximal statin monotherapy.     

Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab as Add‐on Therapy in High–Cardiovascular‐Risk Patients With Hypercholesterolemia Not Adequately Controlled With Atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg) or Rosuvastatin (10 or 20 mg): Design and Rationale of the ODYSSEY OPTIONS Studies

The phase 3 ODYSSEY OPTIONS studies (OPTIONS I, NCT01730040; OPTIONS II, NCT01730053) are multicenter, multinational, randomized, double‐blind, active‐comparator, 24‐week studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of alirocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, as add‐on therapy in ～ 650 high‐cardiovascular (CV)‐risk patients whose low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) levels are ≥100 mg/dL or ≥70 mg/dL according to the CV‐risk category, high and very high CV risk, respectively, with atorvastatin (20–40 mg/d) or rosuvastatin (10–20 mg/d). Patients are randomized to receive alirocumab 75 mg via a single, subcutaneous, 1‐mL injection by prefilled pen every 2 weeks (Q2W) as add‐on therapy to atorvastatin (20–40 mg) or rosuvastatin (10–20 mg); or to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/d as add‐on therapy to statin; or to receive statin up‐titration; or to switch from atorvastatin to rosuvastatin (OPTIONS I only). At week 12, based on week 8 LDL‐C levels, the alirocumab dose may be increased from 75 mg to 150 mg Q2W if LDL‐C levels remain ≥100 mg/dL or ≥70 mg/dL in patients with high or very high CV risk, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint in both studies is difference in percent change in calculated LDL‐C from baseline to week 24 in the alirocumab vs control arms. The studies may provide guidance to inform clinical decision‐making when patients with CV risk require additional lipid‐lowering therapy to further reduce LDL‐C levels. The flexibility of the alirocumab dosing regimen allows for individualized therapy based on the degree of LDL‐C reduction required to achieve the desired LDL‐C level.     

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg versus atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of the POLARIS study

POLARIS investigated the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 40 mg and atorvastatin 80 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. Patients (n=871) were randomized to rosuvastatin 40 mg/day or atorvastatin 80 mg/day for 26 weeks. The primary endpoint was percentage change in LDL-C levels at 8 weeks. Secondary assessments included safety and tolerability, NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal achievement, change in other lipids and lipoproteins at 8 and 26 weeks, and health economics. Mean LDL-C levels were reduced significantly more with rosuvastatin 40 mg than with atorvastatin 80 mg at 8 weeks (-56% versus -52%, p<0.001). The proportion of patients achieving the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal at 8 weeks was significantly higher in the rosuvastatin 40 mg group (80% versus 72%, p<0.01). Significant differences in the change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (+9.6% versus +4.4%) and apolipoprotein (Apo)A-I levels (+4.2 versus -0.5) were observed between rosuvastatin and atorvastatin (all p<0.05). Both treatments were well tolerated. Based on a US analysis, rosuvastatin used fewer resources and delivered greater efficacy. Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with rosuvastatin 40 mg/day provided greater LDL-C-lowering efficacy than atorvastatin 80 mg/day, enabling more patients to achieve LDL-C goals. Rosuvastatin may therefore improve LDL-C goal achievement in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia.     

Effect of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with atorvastatin on lipoprotein subclasses in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia

Aim: To evaluate the effects of the usual starting and next higher doses of ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin on the cholesterol content of lipoprotein subclasses in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia. Methods: This post hoc analysis compared the effects of treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg/day and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg/day vs. atorvastatin 40 mg/day on the cholesterol content of lipoprotein subclasses in the modified intent‐to‐treat (mITT) population (n = 1013) and in subgroups of patients with triglyceride (TG) levels <200 mg/dl (n = 600) and ≥200 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l) (n = 413). Results: Ezetimibe/simvastatin significantly reduced low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) subclasses LDL₁‐C, LDL₂‐C and LDL₃‐C; real LDL‐C (LDL‐C^r); intermediate‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (IDL‐C), IDL₁‐C, IDL₂‐C; very low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL‐C), VLDL₃‐C; and remnant‐like lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP‐C) from baseline more than atorvastatin at all dose comparisons (p < 0.01) in the mITT population. Significant improvements were also observed in high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C) subclass HDL₃‐C at the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs. atorvastatin 20 mg and highest dose comparisons (p < 0.001) and in VLDL_{1 + 2}‐C at the lowest and highest dose comparisons (p < 0.001). Changes in LDL₄‐C and LDL‐C subclass patterns (A, B and I) were comparable for both treatments. Generally, similar results were observed for patients with TG levels <200 and ≥200 mg/dl (2.3 mmol). For both treatments, notable differences between TG subgroups were that patients with elevated TGs had smaller reductions in LDL₂‐C, slightly smaller decreases in all IDL subclasses and greater decreases in all VLDL‐C subclasses than those with lower TG levels. Frequency of pattern B was also reduced more in patients with higher TGs for both treatments. Conclusions: Ezetimibe/simvastatin reduced the cholesterol content of most lipoprotein subclasses from baseline with generally similar efficacy in patients with low and high TGs. Despite the different mechanism of action of ezetimibe, the response to ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin treatment related to these lipoprotein subclasses was generally consistent with the overall effects of these therapies on the major lipid/lipoprotein classes. The clinical significance of these results awaits further study.     

More Western hypercholesterolemic patients achieve Japan Atherosclerosis Society LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin therapy than with atorvastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Data from Western comparative trials suggest that rosuvastatin is more effective than atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin in helping hypercholesterolemic patients achieve US and European lipid-lowering guidelines. The purpose of this analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of rosuvastatin in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to levels recommended by the Japan Atherosclerosis Society (JAS). METHODS AND RESULTS: A post hoc analysis of data from 6 randomized, double-blind, active-controlled trials was conducted to evaluate the relative efficacy of rosuvastatin and comparator statins in helping patients achieve the LDL-C goals established by the JAS. The first 5 trials, prospectively designed for pooling, were originally conducted to compare the effects of rosuvastatin with either atorvastatin, simvastatin, or pravastatin in reducing lipid levels and helping patients achieve the LDL-C goals established by the National Cholesterol Education Program. The 6th trial was conducted with similar objectives, but in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH). Data from 2,139 hypercholesterolemic patients in the first 5 trials were pooled for analysis: rosuvastatin 5 mg (n=390) or 10 mg (n=389) vs atorvastatin 10 mg (n=393); rosuvastatin 5 mg (n=240) or 10 mg (n=226) vs simvastatin 20 mg (n=249) or pravastatin 20 mg (n=252). In the studies with atorvastatin as the comparator, JAS-defined LDL-C goals were reached by 67.2% of the rosuvastatin 5-mg group, 82.3% of the rosuvastatin 10-mg group, and 58.0% of the atorvastatin 10-mg group (p<0.001 for both rosuvastatin groups vs atorvastatin) at 12 weeks. Similarly, in the trials with pravastatin and simvastatin as comparators, the JAS LDL-C goals were reached by 77.5% of the rosuvastatin 5-mg group, 86.7% of the rosuvastatin 10-mg group, 45.2% of the pravastatin 20-mg group and 65.5% of the simvastatin 20-mg group (p<0.001 for both rosuvastatin groups vs pravastatin and simvastatin). In the trial of HeFH patients (n=433 for rosuvastatin, n=187 for atorvastatin), 31.9% of patients treated with rosuvastatin 20 mg achieved JAS LDL-C goals, compared with 17.6% of patients treated with atorvastatin 20 mg (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin has demonstrated clinical superiority over atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin in reducing LDL-C levels and in enabling patients to reach goals established by the JAS.     

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with simvastatin compared with atorvastatin in adults with hypercholesterolemia

This study compared the efficacy and safety of co-administered ezetimibe + simvastatin with atorvastatin monotherapy in adults with hypercholesterolemia. Seven hundred eighty-eight patients were randomized 1:1:1 to 3 treatment groups; each group was force-titrated over four 6-week treatment periods: (1) 10 mg of atorvastatin as the initial dose was titrated to 20, 40, and 80 mg; (2) co-administration of 10 mg of ezetimibe and 10 mg of simvastatin (10/10 mg) was titrated to 10/20, 10/40, and 10/80 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin; and (3) co-administration of 10/20 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin was titrated to 10/40 mg (for 2 treatment periods) and 10/80 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin. Key efficacy measures included percent changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) from baseline to the ends of (1) treatment periods 1 and 2 (for LDL cholesterol) comparing co-administration of 10/20 mg and 10/10 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin with 10 mg of atorvastatin and (2) treatment period 4 (for LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol) comparing co-administration of 10/80 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin with 80 mg of atorvastatin. Baseline LDL and HDL cholesterol levels were comparable between treatment groups. At the end of treatment period 1, the mean decrease of LDL cholesterol was significantly (p ≤0.001) greater for co-administration of 10/10 mg and 10/20 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin than for 10 mg of atorvastatin. At the end of treatment period 4 and after comparing maximum doses, co-administration of 10/80 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin was superior to 80 mg of atorvastatin in the percent LDL cholesterol decrease (−59.4% vs −52.5%, p <0.001) and HDL cholesterol increase (12.3% vs 6.5%; p <0.001). All treatments were well tolerated. Thus, a greater LDL cholesterol decrease and HDL cholesterol increase were attained by treating patients with co-administration of ezetimibe and simvastatin than with atorvastatin.