Comparative effects of simvastatin and lovastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia. The Simvastatin and Lovastatin Multicenter Study Participants.

The efficacy, safety profile, and tolerability of the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors simvastatin and lovastatin were compared in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study in patients with moderate hypercholesterolemia. Commonly prescribed doses of these two drugs were used by 544 men and women, who followed an American Heart Association phase I diet during a 6-week baseline period and for the 24 weeks of active treatment. Simvastatin 10 mg and lovastatin 20 mg produced statistically significant reductions in total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Patients receiving simvastatin 10 mg once daily and lovastatin 20 mg once daily experienced similar reductions in LDL-C and total cholesterol; however, simvastatin 20 mg was statistically superior to lovastatin 40 mg in decreasing these lipid fractions. For all treatment groups, increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were inversely related to baseline levels. Moderate decreases in triglycerides occurred with all doses. Lipoprotein(a) levels, measured in a subset of patients, were similar before and after treatment. Both drugs were well tolerated.     

Effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin on non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoproteins, and lipid ratios in patients with hypercholesterolemia: additional results from the STELLAR trial

BACKGROUND: Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein (apo) B, and lipid and apolipoprotein ratios that include both atherogenic and antiatherogenic lipid components have been found to be strong predictors of coronary heart disease risk. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine prospectively the effects of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin across dose ranges on non-HDL-C, apo B, apo A-I, and total cholesterol (TC):HDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C):HDL-C, non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and apo B:apo A-I ratios in patients with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C > or =160 mg/dL and <250 mg/dL and triglycerides <400 mg/dL) in the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. METHODS: In this randomized, Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label trial (4522IL/0065), patients > or =18 years of age received rosuvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg for 6 weeks. Pairwise comparisons were prospectively planned and performed between rosuvastatin 10, 20, and 40 mg and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of comparators. RESULTS: A total of 2268 patients were randomized to the rosuvastatin 10- to 40-mg, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin groups. Fifty-one percent of patients were women, the mean (SD) age was 57 (12) years, and 19% had a documented history of atherosclerotic disease. Over 6 weeks, rosuvastatin significantly reduced non-HDL-C, apo B, and all lipid and apolipoprotein ratios assessed, compared with milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of simvastatin and pravastatin (all, P < 0.002). Rosuvastatin reduced non-HDL-C by 42.0% to 50.9% compared with 34.4% to 48.1% with atorvastatin, 26.0% to 41.8% with simvastatin, and 18.6% to 27.4% with pravastatin. Rosuvastatin reduced apo B by 36.7% to 45.3% compared with 29.4% to 42.9% with atorvastatin, 22.2% to 34.7% with simvastatin, and 14.7% to 23.0% with pravastatin. The highest increase in apo A-I (8.8%) was observed in the rosuvastatin 20-mg group, and this increase was significantly greater than in the atorvastatin 40-mg and 80-mg groups (both, P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg was more efficacious in improving the lipid profile of patients with hypercholesterolemia than milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of simvastatin and pravastatin.     

Simvastatin and pravastatin equally improve flow-mediated dilation in males with hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND: Both simvastatin and pravastatin have been shown to improve endothelial function in patients with hypercholesterolemia. To our knowledge there has been no comparative study of these two HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors on endothelial dysfunction measured by flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery in patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Fourteen middle-aged males with hypercholesterolemia (means +/- SD: total cholesterol 7.03 +/- 0.88 mmol/l, LDL cholesterol 5.02 +/- 0.63 mmol/l, HDL cholesterol 1.3 +/- 0.38 mmol/l and triglycerides 1.47 +/- 0.26 mmol/l) were randomised, after a 6 weeks' run-in phase with AHA step I diet treatment, to 12 weeks' treatment either with simvastatin or pravastatin. Both statins were given in a daily dose of 10 mg for 6 weeks, which was increased to 20 mg daily in patients who did not achieve an LDL-cholesterol goal of < 3.4 mmol/l. Endothelial dysfunction was measured as flow-mediated brachial artery dilation (FMD) using high resolution ultrasound. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the drugs in reduction of total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, or elevation of HDL cholesterol. FMD increased in the simvastatin group from 6.8 +/- 3.2 to 12.3 +/- 2.9% (p < 0.03) and in the pravastatin group from 6.3 +/- 4.8 to 13.3 +/- 4.7% (p = 0.001). The improvement in FMD was the same in both groups (p = 0.64) and did not correlate with changes of the lipid parameters measured. CONCLUSIONS: Both simvastatin and pravastatin reduce endothelial dysfunction to the same degree in patients with hypercholesterolemia, independently of changes in lipid parameters.     

Hemostatic effects of atorvastatin versus simvastatin

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on hemostatic parameters. METHODS: Sixty-one patients with primary hypercholesterolemia without coronary heart disease were treated with atorvastatin 10-20 mg/d or simvastatin 10-20 mg/d. At baseline, 4, 12, and 24 weeks, lipid levels such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), triglycerides (TGs), and hemostatic parameters such as platelet counts, partial thromboplastin time (PTT) prothrombin time (PT), and fibrinogen levels were measured. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, the doses of the statins were increased to 20 mg/d in 10 of 35 (28.5%) patients treated with atorvastatin and 18 of 26 (69.2%) patients treated with simvastatin when the target level of LDL-C (130 mg/dL) was not reached. Mean doses were atorvastatin 12.8 mg/d and simvastatin 16.9 mg/d. After 24 weeks, 5 patients (14.3%) in the atorvastatin group and 4 patients (15.3%) in the simvastatin group had not reached the goal. In patients with diabetes, target level (LDL-C <100 mg/dL) was not reached in 35.7% of patients in the atorvastatin group and 44.4% of patients in the simvastatin group. Both simvastatin and atorvastatin were effective in lowering TC and LDL-C levels (p < 0.001). Atorvastatin lowered TGs significantly (p < 0.01). Neither atorvastatin nor simvastatin significantly reduced VLDL-C levels. HDL-C levels increased with atorvastatin, but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Platelet counts decreased with both statins nonsignificantly. Moreover, fibrinogen levels decreased with simvastatin and atorvastatin, but these reductions were significant only for simvastatin (p < 0.05). We detected prolongation of the PT with both drugs (p < 0.05); however, prolongation of the PTT was significant only with simvastatin (p < 0.001). Effectiveness of both statins on lipid and hemostatic parameters was dose related. Adverse effects were seen in 5 patients (14.2%) treated with atorvastatin and 3 patients (11.5%) treated with simvastatin. Elevations in serum transaminase levels >3 times the upper limit of normal and in creatine phosphokinase >5 times the upper limit of normal were not observed in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Atorvastatin was more effective than simvastatin on lipid parameters, although statistically insignificantly, while simvastatin produced more significant changes than atorvastatin on hemostatic parameters. The mean dose of simvastatin was greater than that of atorvastatin. Both statins had increased effects on lipid and hemostatic parameters when doses were increased. Atorvastatin and simvastatin were well tolerated. Different effects of statins on lipid levels and on coagulation parameters should be considered in patients with hypercholesterolemia and tendency to coagulation, especially in preventing thrombotic events. Further studies in larger trials are needed to confirm these observations.     

Comparison of the short-term efficacy and tolerability of lovastatin and pravastatin in the management of primary hypercholesterolemia.

Few data are available on the relative efficacy and tolerability of lovastatin and pravastatin, two 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, currently available in North America for treatment of hypercholesterolemia. The recommended starting dose is 20 mg QD with the evening meal for lovastatin. The recommended starting dose is 10 mg or 20 mg once daily at bedtime for pravastatin. In a double blind, double placebo, multicenter, randomized study, we compared the changes in plasma lipids and apolipoproteins in 217 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia treated for eight weeks with lovastatin 20 mg QD to pravastatin 10 mg QD or pravastatin 20 mg QD. The reductions in total cholesterol (TC) (21%), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (28%), and apolipoprotein B (apo B) (22%) were comparable for the lovastatin 20-mg and pravastatin 20-mg groups. Lovastatin 20 mg QD was significantly more effective than pravastatin 10 mg QD in lowering TC and LDL-C after four weeks of therapy and in the reduction of apo B after four and eight weeks of therapy. At the end of eight weeks of therapy, the mean reductions in TC and LDL-C were numerically greater with lovastatin 20 mg QD compared with pravastatin 10 mg QD, but the differences were not statistically significant. At the end of eight weeks, there was no difference between pravastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 10 mg in lowering TC and LDL-C. The frequency of overall side effects, including central nervous system-related symptoms and headache, was similar and low in all groups.     

Epidemiology of hyperlipidemia and the efficacy of pravastatin therapy

To evaluate the effectiveness of pravastatin, a 3-hydroxy, 3-methyl-glutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, as a cholesterol-reducing agent in typical general-practice use, data from 313 patients with primary type-II hyperlipidemia were analyzed in terms of epidemiologic factors, efficacy, and safety. Patients were to have had at least 4 weeks of diet therapy before beginning the study medication. The mean duration of therapy with pravastatin for all patients was 6 weeks. Of the 134 previously untreated patients, 67 received 10 mg of pravastatin daily and 67 received 20 mg. Patients in the 10-mg group showed mean percent changes of −23.1% in total cholesterol (TC) and −27.2% in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (P < 0.0001). The corresponding changes in the 32 evaluable patients taking 20 mg of pravastatin daily were −28.1% and −34.9%, respectively (P < 0.0001). Patients who had been previously treated with other antihyperlipidemic agents also showed significant percent reductions in the various lipid indices, albeit from lower baseline levels. The 13 evaluable patients in the 10-mg group showed reductions of −13.8% in TC and −20.3% in LDL-C, while the 36 evaluable patients taking 20-mg daily doses showed changes of −15.6% for TC and −19.3% for LDL-C (P < 0.01). All these patients were switched directly to pravastatin with no washout period. The incidence of side effects was low, the most common being gastrointestinal disturbances. There was no significant difference in the incidence or the distribution of adverse effects between the total intent-to-treat patient population and the previously untreated patients. Dosage administered also had no significant bearing on the nature or incidence of adverse effects. Fewer than 50% of reported side effects were evaluated by the investigator as being definitely related to pravastatin therapy. We conclude that pravastatin in “real world” use yields results similar to those of the developmental studies and other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors.     

Effects of low doses of simvastatin and atorvastatin on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Simvastatin 40 to 80 mg/d has been found to increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels significantly more than atorvastatin at equipotent doses (ie, 20-80 mg/d). Data on the effects of lower doses of the 2 drugs on HDL-C levels are conflicting. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of simvastatin 20 mg/d and atorvastatin 10 mg/d on HDL-C levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Patients with primary hypercholesterolemia (total cholesterol [TC] >250 mg/dL) who were not taking any lipid-lowering agents and who were following a low-fat diet were randomized to receive 1 of 2 treatments: simvastatin 20 mg/d or atorvastatin 10 mg/d. Serum TC, triglycerides (TG), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and HDL-C levels were measured using standard methods after 2 months of therapy. In a secondary analysis, lipids and lipoprotein cholesterol were measured after 1 year in patients who continued treatment. RESULTS: Of the 240 patients enrolled (108 men and 132 women; age range, 23-77 years, mean [SEM] 56.7 [0.69]), 235 completed the study. After 2 months of therapy, TC, LDL-C, and serum TG levels decreased significantly versus baseline in both groups (P < 0.001), with no significant differences between treatment groups. HDL-C levels increased by 9.0% (P < 0.001 vs baseline) in the simvastatin group and by 4.3% (P < 0.02) in the atorvastatin group. The difference between the 2 groups in the percentage increase in HDL-C was statistically significant (P < 0.05). In 113 patients who continued treatment, HDL-C levels at 1 year were still significantly higher than baseline levels in the simvastatin group (6.3%, P = 0.034), but not in the atorvastatin group (2.8%, P = 0.587). CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that the HDL-C-increasing effect of simvastatin 20 mg is significantly greater than that of atorvastatin 10 mg. Since increasing HDL-C levels is thought to lower the risk for atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease, these results warrant further investigation.     

辛伐他汀和普伐他汀治疗高脂血症的作用比较：附61例报告

比较辛伐他汀和普伐他汀调整血脂的临床疗效。方法辛伐他汀组和普伐他汀组均连了药４周。结果：两药降低血清总胆固醇，甘油三醇和升高ＨＤＬ－Ｃ的疗效分别为９０％和９０％，８８％和７８％，６３％和７３％，结论两药具有近的调整血脂疗效。     

普伐他汀强化降脂治疗逆转冠状动脉斑块

目的观察强化降脂治疗对冠状动脉粥样斑块的影响，比较不同他汀类药物作用的差别。方法将74例经双源螺旋CT血管造影确诊的冠状动脉粥样斑块患者，随机分为治疗组和对照组，各37例，分别给予普伐他汀20mg,／d和洛伐他汀20mg／d口服，12个月后复查冠脉CTA观察斑块变化。结果治疗组总胆固醇、低密度胆固醇治疗后分别下降31．5％、42．6％，与对照组相比差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。两组患者共发现175个粥样斑块，导致126支冠状动脉不同程度狭窄。治疗组脂质斑块、纤维斑块、混合癍块引起的冠脉狭窄分别减少23．7％、15．4％、12．5％，较对照组下降更明显（P〈0．05）；两组钙化斑块引起的冠脉狭窄分别下降3．6％、2．8％，差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论普伐他汀可有效降低胆固醇，能明显逆转冠脉粥样斑块．降低冠脉狭窄程度。     

Double-masked comparison of the quality of life of hypercholesterolemic men treated with simvastatin or pravastatin. International Quality of Life Multicenter Group

The efficacy, safety, and impact on quality of life of once-daily treatment with simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 40 mg were compared in a multinational, randomized, double-masked trial involving 387 men 21 to 72 years of age with primary mild-to-moderate hypercholesterolemia. The trial consisted of a 12-week baseline period, which included 6 weeks of single-masked placebo administration, and a 12-week double-masked active treatment period. Throughout the trial, patients were maintained on a standard lipid-lowering diet. Efficacy variables were plasma lipid levels and a measurement of health-related quality of life evaluated by means of a self-administered questionnaire (the Nottingham Health Profile [NHP]) and other questionnaires related to general health, sexual function, and stress/life events. Clinic visits were scheduled at study entry (week -12), at initiation and week 5 of placebo (weeks -6 and -1, respectively); at randomization (week 1, day 1); and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of active treatment. At each visit, blood samples were collected for determination of lipid levels and the NHP, the principal measure of health-related quality of life, was administered. Primary safety measures were adverse events and laboratory test results. All statistical comparisons were two-sided, and significance was defined as P< or =0.05 except for the NHP questionnaire, which was P< or =0.01. Treatment with simvastatin 20 mg/d for 12 weeks (n = 194) resulted in significantly greater reductions in plasma total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (25.7% and 33.6%, respectively) compared with pravastatin 40 mg/d for 12 weeks (n = 193) (19.0% and 26.3%, respectively) (P<0.001). No detrimental effects on health-related quality-of-life measurements were reported with either drug. A small but statistically significant improvement in emotional reaction from baseline (P<0.001) was observed after 12 weeks of treatment with simvastatin. At least 75% of simvastatin-treated patients indicated no change in response from baseline on NHP domain scores; these findings were similar to those for pravastatin-treated patients. The differences in the changes in lipid profiles between the 2 treatment groups were not associated with any observed differences in tolerability or health-related quality-of-life measures.     

Rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg/d: a pilot study of the effects in hypercholesterolemic adults unable to tolerate other statins and reach LDL cholesterol goals with nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies

BACKGROUND: Patients with high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) might not tolerate 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors ("statins") because of adverse effects (AEs) and might not respond well enough to nonstatin lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) to meet LDL-C goals. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the acceptability, effectiveness, and safety profile of rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg/d in consecutively referred patients with primary high LDL-C who were unable to tolerate other statins because of myalgia and, subsequently in some cases, unable to reach LDL-C goals with nonstatin LLT. METHODS: This prospective, open-label pilot study was conducted in consecutively referred male and female patients aged 38 to 80 years with primary high LDL-C (mean, 177 mg/dL) at The Cholesterol Center, Jewish Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio. Patients were instructed in the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) therapeutic lifestyle changes diet. Rosuvastatin 5 mg/d was administered to patients categorized by NCEP ATP III risk stratification as moderately high risk, and rosuvastatin 10 mg/d was administered to patients categorized as high or very high risk. End points included acceptability (assessed using patient-initiated discontinuation of rosuvastatin), effectiveness (absolute and percentage reductions in LDL-C and triglycerides), and safety profile (aspartate and alanine aminotransferases [AST and ALT, respectively] >3 times the laboratory upper limit of normal [xULN] or elevations in creatine kinase [CK]>10xULN). RESULTS: A total of 61 patients were enrolled (41 women, 20 men; mean [SD] age, 60 [10] years; 5-mg/d dose, 25 patients; 10-mg/d dose, 36 patients). Myalgia, a predominant AE, had caused 50 patients to previously discontinue treatment with atorvastatin; 30, simvastatin; 19, pravastatin; 5, fluvastatin; 2, ezetimibe/simvastatin; and 1, lovastatin. Eighteen patients subsequently failed to reach LDL-C goals with nonstatin LLT(s) alone (colesevelam, 10 patients; ezetimibe, 8; niacin extended release, 2; and fenofibrate, 1). After a median treatment duration of 16 weeks, rosuvastatin 5 mg/d+diet was associated with a mean (SD) decrease from baseline in LDL-C of 75 (34) mg/dL (mean [SD] %Delta, -42% [18%]) (P<0.001 vs baseline). After a median treatment duration of 44 weeks, rosuvastatin 10 mg/d+diet was associated with a mean (SD) decrease from baseline in LDL-C of 79 (49) mg/dL (mean [SD] %Delta, -42% [24%]) (P<0.001 vs baseline). Of the 61 patients, 1 receiving the 10-mg/d dose discontinued rosuvastatin treatment because of unilateral muscular pain after 4 weeks; no AST or ALT levels were >3xULN, and no CK levels were >10xULN. CONCLUSION: In these 61 hypercholesterolemic patients unable to tolerate other statins and, subsequently in some cases, unable to meet LDL-C goals while receiving nonstatin LIT monotherapy, these preliminary observations suggest that rosuvastatin at doses of 5 and 10 mg/d+diet was well tolerated, effective, and had a good safety profile.     

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with statins: randomised, placebo-controlled, blinded experience in 2382 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

We assessed pooled safety and lipid-regulating efficacy data from four similarly designed trials of ezetimibe coadministered with statins in 2382 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Patients were randomised to one of the following double-blind treatments for 12 weeks: placebo; ezetimibe 10 mg; statin; or statin + ezetimibe. Statin doses tested were 10, 20, 40 mg/day (atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin or lovastatin) or 80 mg/day (atorvastatin, simvastatin). Treatment with ezetimibe + statin led to significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein B and increases in HDL-C, compared to statin alone. At each statin dose, treatment with ezetimibe + statin led to a greater LDL-C reduction compared to the next highest statin monotherapy dose. Ezetimibe + statin had a safety profile similar to statin monotherapy. Coadministration of ezetimibe + statin offers a well-tolerated, highly efficacious new treatment strategy for patients with hypercholesterolemia.     

Effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin on lipoprotein subfractions in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: an exploratory analysis of archived samples using two commercially available techniques

BACKGROUND: Cholesterol-rich lipoproteins, including low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol (IDL-C), and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), are known to promote atherosclerosis. Ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) is an efficacious lipid-lowering treatment that inhibits both the intestinal absorption and biosynthesis of cholesterol. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the current analysis was to compare the effects of ezetimibe and simvastatin monotherapy and E/S treatment on lipoprotein subfractions and LDL particle size in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: This was an exploratory (hypothesis generating) analysis of archived plasma samples drawn from patients in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study. After a washout and diet/placebo run-in, patients with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C, > or =145- < or =250 mg/dL; triglycerides, < or =350 mg/dL) were randomized equally to 1 of 10 daily treatments for 12 weeks: E/S (10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg), simvastatin monotherapy (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg), ezetimibe monotherapy (10 mg), or placebo. A subset of patients had lipid subfraction measurements taken at baseline (week 0) and postrandomization (week 12). Plasma samples were used to quantify cholesterol associated with VLDL subfractions (VLDLI+2 and VLDL3), IDL, and 4 LDL subfractions (LDL1-4) via the Vertical Auto Profile II method. LDL-C particle size was determined using segmented gradient gel electrophoresis. The primary end point was median percent change in subfraction cholesterol for E/S versus ezetimibe or simvastatin monotherapy, pooled across doses. RESULTS: Of the 1528 patients randomized in the original study, 1397 (91%) had lipid subfraction measurements taken. E/S was associated with significant reductions in VLDL-CI+2, VLDL-C3, IDL-C, LDL-C1, LDL-C2, and LDL-C3 versus ezetimibe, simvastatin, and placebo. E/S resulted in near-additive reductions in VLDL-CI+2, VLDL-C3, IDL-C, LDL-C1, LDL-C2, and LDL-C3 versus ezetimibe and simvastatin monotherapy. Of the subfractions examined, with regard to E/S, the greatest reductions were observed in IDL-C and LDL-C1, LDL-C2, and LDL-C3. When compared with placebo, ezetimibe, simvastatin, and E/S did not shift the distribution of LDL particles toward a larger, more buoyant LDL subclass pattern. CONCLUSION: E/S was more effective than ezetimibe and simvastatin monotherapy in reducing atherogenic lipoprotein subfractions in these patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.     

Achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in high-risk patients in managed care: comparison of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin in the SOLAR trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attainment of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of less than 100 mg/dL with statin treatments in managed care patients at high risk for coronary heart disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (SOLAR [Satisfying Optimal LDL-C ATP III goals with Rosuvastatin]) performed at 145 US clinical centers from June 5, 2002 to July 12, 2004, high-risk men and women in a managed care population received typical starting doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg/d), atorvastatin (10 mg/d), or simvastatin (20 mg/d) for 6 weeks. Those who did not meet the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL at 6 weeks had their dose titrated (doubled), and all patients were followed up for another 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1632 patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment regimens. After 6 weeks, 65% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 41% with atorvastatin and 39% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). After 12 weeks, 76% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 58% with atorvastatin and 53% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). Reductions in the LDL-C level, total cholesterol level, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level, and non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio were significantly greater with rosuvastatin at both 6 and 12 weeks compared with the other statins. Adverse events were similar in type and frequency in all treatment groups, and only 3% of all patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No myopathy was observed, no clinically important impact on renal function was attributed to study medications, and clinically important increases in serum transaminases were rare. CONCLUSION: In a managed care population, 10 mg of rosuvastatin treatment resulted in more patients reaching the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal compared with 10 mg of atorvastatin and 20 mg of simvastatin, potentially reducing the need for titration visits.     

Effects of simvastatin on blood pressure in hypercholesterolemic patients: An open-label study in patients with hypertension or normotension

Background

Simvastatin has been reported to improve endotheliumdependent vascular relaxation in patients with hypercholesterolemia. The consequent decrease in arterial stiffness might be associated with a decrease in blood pressure (BP).

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine whether simvastatin 20 and 40 mg/d have an effect on systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP, respectively) in patients with hypercholesterolemia, and, if so, whether the effect is dose dependent and/or is related to the changes in the serum lipid profile.

Methods

This 6-month, open-label study was conducted at the Lipid Clinics of the Department of Internal Medicine, University of Milan, Maggiore Hospital IRCCS, and of the Department of Internal Medicine 1, G. Salvini Hospital, Garbagnate Milanese (Milan, Italy). Patients aged 18 to 80 years with primary hypercholesterolemia who were following a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet for >2 months before the study were enrolled. Patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II guidelines, were given simvastatin 20 mg (tablet) QD for 3 months, and those at low risk for CVD continued with diet only for 3 months (controls). Efficacy variables included body weight, SBP, DBP, and serum lipid levels (total cholesterol [TC], low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C], high density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C], and triglycerides [TG]). At 3 months, patients in the simvastatin + diet group who reached their therapeutic goal continued to receive simvastatin 20 mg/d for 3 additional months. In simvastatintreated patients who were normotensive at baseline or who became normotensive at 3 months but who did not reach the therapeutic goal, the simvastatin dosage was increased to 40 mg/d. Patients in both groups who remained hypertensive at 3 months were switched to hypotensive therapy. In the diet-only group, patients who were formerly normotensive or who became normotensive at 3 months but who did not reach their therapeutic goal continued with diet only or started lipid-lowering therapy. All other patients in the diet-only group continued to be treated with diet only, for 3 additional months. Efficacy variables were measured again at 6 months. Tolerability of simvastatin was assessed at each visit using patient interview and measurement of serum aminotransferase and creatine phosphokinase levels.

Results

The study population comprised 222 patients (132 women, 90 men; mean [SEM] age, 53.9 [0.95] years [range, 23-76 years]); 115 high-risk patients (57 with untreated stage 1 hypertension) were assigned to the simvastatin + diet group, and 107 low-risk patients (29 with untreated stage 1 hypertension) were assigned to the diet-only group. In the simvastatin group, after 3 months of therapy, mean SBP was decreased by 3.9 (1.49) mm Hg (change, −2.9%), mean DBP decreased by 3.0 (0.87) mm Hg (change, −3.7%), mean TC decreased by 90.6 (3.98) mg/dL (change, −27.0%), mean LDL-C decreased by 88.9 (3.88) mg/dL (change, −35.6%), and mean TG decreased by 26.3 (7.34) mg/dL (change, −15.8%) (all, P < 0.001). Mean HDL-C increased by 3.6 (1.16) mg/dL (change, 6.9%; P < 0.001). The BP-lowering effect was found only in patients with hypertension at baseline (n = 57); in these patients, mean SBP decreased by 7.2 (2.44) mm Hg (change, −4.8%; P < 0.005 vs baseline) and DBP decreased by 4.8 (1.29) mm Hg (change, −5.6%; P < 0.001 vs baseline). Also in the simvastatin group, 26 patients (22.6%) achieved their target SBP/DBP. In patients with normotension at baseline (n = 58), neither SBP nor DBP was changed significantly (changes, −0.8 [1.65] and −1.4 [1.15] mm Hg, respectively [−0.6% and −1.8%, respectively]). The changes in serum lipid levels were similar between hypertensive and normotensive patients in the simvastatin group. Forty-one patients (18 hypertensive and 23 normotensive at baseline) were treated with simvastatin 40 mg/d plus diet between months 3 and 6. At 6 months, no further significant decrease was observed in mean BP. In contrast, the expected dose-dependent response was observed for TC and LDL-C levels. In the diet-only group, no significant changes occurred in BP or serum lipid levels. Changes in BP, TC, LDL-C, TG, and HDL-C were significantly greater in the simvastatin + diet group than in the diet-only group (all, P < 0.001). Body weight did not change significantly in either group.

Conclusions

In this group of patients with hypercholesterolemia, the starting dosage of simvastatin (20 mg/d) was associated with reductions in SBP and DBP within 3 months of treatment in patients with hypertension, and this effect was independent of the lipid-lowering properties of the drug. Although the decrease in BP was modest, it is likely clinically relevant. Further studies on this topic are advisable.     

A comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of titrate-to-goal regimens of simvastatin and fluvastatin: a randomized, double-blind study in adult patients at moderate to high risk for cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND: Use of cholesterol-lowering regimens has been shown to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), both in primary and secondary prevention. However, there have been few studies of the relative benefits and risks of the various cholesterol-lowering agents in patient groups with specific risk factors for CHD. OBJECTIVE: The primary goal of this study was to compare the proportions of adult patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and a moderate to high risk for CHD achieving National Cholesterol Education Program low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with titrate-to-goal regimens of simvastatin and fluvastatin. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study enrolling adult patients with type IIa or IIb primary hypercholesterolemia, LDL-C levels <6.0 mmol/L (<232.0 mg/dL), and triglyceride levels <4.5 mmol/L (<398.6 mg/dL), and either CHD or other atherosclerotic disease (the CHD, or high-risk, group), or multiple risk factors for CHD (the MRF, or moderate-risk, group). After a 6-week washout period, patients were randomized to 18 weeks of treatment at an initial dosage of simvastatin 10 mg once daily or fluvastatin 20 mg once daily. At 6- and 12-week titration visits, the dosage in patients who had not acheived the LDL-C goal could be increased to simvastatin 20 mg once daily and then 40 mg once daily, or to fluvastatin 40 mg once daily and then 40 mg twice daily. Lipid profiles were obtained at each titration visit and at the end of treatment. In addition to the comparison between treatments, secondary comparisons were made between the CHD and MRF subgroups within each treatment group. Statistical significance was assessed using analysis of variance. Results: A total of 478 patients were enrolled, 237 in the simvastatin group and 241 in the fluvastatin group. There were no significant between-group differences in patients' characteristics at baseline. At the end of the study, 60.8% (135/222) of patients in the simvastatin group had reached target LDL-C goals, compared with 35.1% (76/216) in the fluvastatin group (P < 0.001). In the simvastatin CHD and MRF subgroups, 49% and 73%, respectively, reached the LDL-C target, compared with 19% and 50% in the corresponding fluvastatin subgroups (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients requiring titration was higher in the fluvastatin group than in the simvastatin group (87.1% and 64.1%, respectively; P = 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, more patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and CHD or multiple risk factors for CHD reached LDL-C goals with simvastatin treatment and required less titration than those who received fluvastatin treatment.     

Ezetimibe/simvastatin vs atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia: the VYTAL study

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of the recommended usual starting and next highest doses of ezetimibe/ simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This double-blind, multicenter study (June 22 to December 7, 2005) consisted of adult patients randomized to the recommended usual starting (ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d, vs atorvastatin, 10 or 20 mg/d) or next highest (ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/40 mg/d, vs atorvastatin, 40 mg/d) doses. Efficacy end points included percent changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (primary) and proportion of patients attaining LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL (secondary). RESULTS: A total of 1229 patients participated in the study. Significantly greater mean reductions were found in LDL-C levels with ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d (-53.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -55.4% to -51.8%), than with atorvastatin, 10 mg/d (-38.3%; 95% CI, -40.1% to -36.5%; P < .001) or 20 mg/d (-44.6%; 95% CI, -46.4% to -42.8%; P < .001), and with ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/40 mg/d (-57.6%; 95% CI, -59.4% to -55.8%), vs atorvastatin, 40 mg/d (-50.9%; 95% CI, -52.7% to -49.1%; P < .001). Ezetimibe/simvastatin was also superior to atorvastatin in attainment of LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL (P < .001 for all dose comparisons). Significantly better improvements with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin (P < or = .001) were observed for total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Ezetimibe/ simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d, reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and triglyceride levels significantly more than atorvastatin, 10 mg/d (P = .02), with comparable reductions at other doses. Incidences of clinical adverse events, including serious drug-related and prespecified gastrointestinal-, gallbladder-, and hepatitis-related allergic reactions or rash events, and laboratory adverse events, including repeated elevation of hepatic transaminases or creatine kinase levels, were similar for both treatments. CONCLUSION: Ezetimibe/simvastatin provided additional lipid-modifying benefits over atorvastatin monotherapy at the recommended usual starting and next highest doses in patients with type 2 diabetes. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.     

Achievement of English National Service Framework lipid-lowering goals: pooled data from recent comparative treatment trials of statins at starting doses

Despite the importance of reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, detailed in guidelines in many countries, repeated surveys show poor physician performance in attaining guideline lipid targets, which is associated with reluctance by physicians to up-titrate statins from starting doses. Data from randomised, double-blind trials comparing common starting doses of atorvastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and simvastatin for 12 weeks in hypercholesterolaemic patients were therefore analysed for achievement of lipid-lowering goals recommended by the England National Service Framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease (CHD). In three pooled trials, rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 389) reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol more significantly than atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) (p < 0.001). NSF goals were achieved by 83% of rosuvastatin patients vs. 55% of atorvastatin patients (p < 0.001) at relevant starting doses. In two pooled trials, rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 226) reduced LDL-C and total cholesterol more significantly than simvastatin 20 mg (n = 249) and pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) (p < 0.001). NSF goals were achieved at starting doses by 83% of rosuvastatin patients vs. 51% of simvastatin patients and 19% of pravastatin patients (p < 0.001 vs. each comparator). This improved achievement of NSF lipid target, at starting doses, was also seen in high-risk patients (those eligible for secondary prevention or primary prevention because of a 10-year CVD risk of >30%) with 84% patients on rosuvastatin vs. 58% on atorvastatin and 75% of patients on rosuvastatin vs. 49% on simvaststin and 24% on pravastatin. In summary, there are considerable and clinically significant variations in the achievement of lipid goals between common starting doses of statins in hypercholesterolaemic patients.     

Effects of simvastatin 20 mg/d on serum lipid profiles in Japanese hyperlipidemic patients: A prospective, open-label pilot study

Background:

Hyperlipidemia is a major risk factor for ischemic heart disease. Hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (“statins”) (eg, simvastatin) are considered first-line cholesterol-lowering therapy because they are effective and well tolerated, even at high doses. Based on a literature search, no studies have been published concerning the effects of simvastatin 20 mg/d in Japanese patients who had not previously received lipid-lowering treatment.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical tolerability and effectiveness of simvastatin 20 mg/d in achieving the target lipid concentrations recommended in the 2002 Japan Atherosclerosis Society (JAS) guidelines in Japanese patients with hyperlipidemia.

Methods:

This prospective, open-label pilot study was conducted at Kashiwa Hospital, Jikei University School of Medicine, Kashiwa, Japan. Male and postmenopausal female patients aged ≥18 to 70 years with hyperlipidemia (total cholesterol [TC], ≥220 mg/dL; triglycerides [TG], 150-400 mg/dL) who had not received lipid-lowering medications for at least 6 months before the study were enrolled. Patients received simvastatin 20 mg PO QD for 4 weeks. Effectiveness was assessed using serum concentrations of TC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), TG, and lipid peroxide, measured at 0 (baseline) and 4 weeks. Target serum TC and LDL-C concentrations as outlined by the JAS were as follows: category A, TC <240 mg/dL and LDL-C <160 mg/dL; category B1 and B2, TC <220 mg/dL and LDL-C <140 mg/dL; and category C, TC <200 mg/dL and LDL-C <120 mg/dL. A subanalysis of the correlation between baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and target achievement rates was conducted by baseline HDL-C concentration (<50 or ≥50 mg/dL). Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reporting of adverse events and laboratory analysis, including liver function tests.

Results:

Twenty-two patients participated in the study (16 women, 6 men; mean [SD] age, 56.0 [8.0] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 23.6 [3.4] kg/m²). Mean serum TC, LDL-C, TG, and lipid peroxide concentrations significantly decreased from baseline (changes, −28.6%, −40.4%, −24.0%, and −14.5%, respectively; P < 0.001, <0.001, <0.001, and <0.01, respectively). The mean HDL-C concentration significantly increased from baseline (change, 7.2%; P < 0.001); the mean increase was significantly greater in patients with baseline HDL-C <50 mg/dL compared with those with baseline HDL-C ≥50 mg/dL (changes, 11.3% vs 4.4%; P < 0.05). Target TC and LDL-C concentrations were achieved in 90.9% of patients. No serious adverse events were observed, and liver enzyme and creatine kinase concentrations did not increase to above-normal values.

Conclusions:

The results of this study suggest that simvastatin 20 mg/d might be useful in the clinical treatment of hyperlipidemia in Japanese patients. The study drug was well tolerated.     

Cost-effectiveness analysis of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin from a Canadian health system perspective

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the most commonly prescribed doses of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin for managing various lipid parameters in patients with hypercholesterolemia over a 1-year time horizon from a Canadian health care perspective. METHODS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated for branded rosuvastatin compared with branded atorvastatin, generic simvastatin, and generic pravastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia in terms of percent reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC)/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ratio, as well as in TC, HDL-C, triglycerides (TG), apolipoprotein (Apo) B, the ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, and attainment of the Canadian LDL-C goal. The pharmacoeconomic model was constructed for a 1-year time horizon using efficacy data from a randomized, open-label trial including 2268 adults and the wholesale acquisition costs of branded rosuvastatin and atorvastatin and generic simvastatin and pravastatin in British Columbia. RESULTS: The most commonly prescribed doses of each of the 4 statins in British Columbia were as follows: rosuvastatin 10 mg (75.8% of all rosuvastatin doses); atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg (46.4% and 35.3%, respectively, of all atorvastatin doses); simvastatin 20 and 40 mg (42.5% and 31.8%, respectively, of all simvastatin doses); and pravastatin 20 and 40 mg (55.0% and 34.1%, respectively, of all pravastatin doses). Rosuvastatin 10 mg was dominant (ie, was more effective at a lower cost) relative to atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, simvastatin 20 and 40 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg in terms of reductions in LDL-C, TC/ HDL-C ratio, TC, ApoB, and ApoB/ApoA-I ratio, increases in HDL-C, and attainment of the LDL-C goal. Compared with pravastatin 20 mg, the ICER per percent reduction in LDL-C, TC/HDL-C ratio, TC, TG, ApoB, or ApoB/ApoA-I or increase in HDL-C ranged from $3.89 to $26.07; the value for 1 additional patient achieving the LDL-C goal was $419.75. When the statin doses were aggregated based on the Canadian statin-utilization pattern, rosuvastatin was dominant relative to atorvastatin on all effectiveness measures evaluated. When rosuvastatin was compared with generic simvastatin and pravastatin, the annual costs for 1 additional patient achieving the LDL-C goal were $144.51 and $373.91, respectively. Based on the sensitivity analysis, rosuvastatin was associated with the highest probability of cost-effectiveness compared with the other statins over a broad range of monetary values per unit of clinical effect. CONCLUSION: When percent changes in lipid parameters and rates of LDL-C goal attainment were considered in patients with hypercholesterolemia in British Columbia, rosuvastatin 10 mg was more cost-effective than the most frequently used doses of atorvastatin (10 and 20 mg), generic simvastatin (20 and 40 mg), and generic pravastatin (20 and 40 mg).