Fenofibric Acid

? Fenofibric acid activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α to modify fatty acid and lipid metabolism. Fenofibric acid is the first member of the fibric acid derivatives (fibrates) class approved for use as combination therapy with HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins). ? In three randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III trials in adult patients with mixed dyslipidemia, up to 12 weeks’ treatment with once-daily fenofibric acid 135 mg plus a low- or moderate-dose statin (atorvastatin 20 or 40 mg, rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg, or simvastatin 20 or 40 mg) improved high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglyceride (TG) levels to a significantly greater extent than statin monotherapy, and improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels to a significantly greater extent than fenofibric acid monotherapy. ? In a 52-week, open-label, multicenter, extension study, HDL-C, TG, and LDL-C levels continued to improve, or were maintained, during combination therapy with once-daily fenofibric acid 135 mg plus a moderate-dose statin (atorvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg, or simvastatin 40 mg). ? Once-daily fenofibric acid 135 mg plus a statin was generally as well tolerated as monotherapy with fenofibric acid 135 mg/day or the corresponding statin dosage in the three phase III trials in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. The incidence of adverse events was similar between the combination therapy group and both monotherapy groups. ? In the extension trial, once-daily fenofibric acid 135 mg plus a moderate-dose statin (atorvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg, or simvastatin 40 mg) for up to 52 weeks was generally well tolerated.     

Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin and Fenofibric Acid Combination Therapy versus Simvastatin Monotherapy in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia and Hypertriglyceridemia

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combinations of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid (rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid) compared with simvastatin in patients with high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG).

Background

Combination therapy with a statin and a fibrate is one of the treatment options to manage multiple lipid abnormalities in patients with hypercholesterolemia and elevated TGs.

Methods

In this randomized, double-blind study, patients (n=474) with LDL-C ≥160 mg/dL and ≤240 mg/dL and TG ≥150 mg/dL and <400 mg/dL were treated for 8 weeks with simvastatin 40 mg, rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg, rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg, or rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg. Primary and secondary variables were mean percent changes in LDL-C comparing rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg with simvastatin 40 mg and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg with simvastatin 40 mg, respectively. Additional efficacy variables included non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein (Apo) B, HDL-C, TG, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP). Safety was evaluated based on data collected for adverse events (AEs), physical and electrocardiographic examinations, vital sign measurements, and clinical laboratory tests.

Results

Significantly greater reductions in LDL-C levels from baseline values were observed with the combination of rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg (?47.2%, p < 0.001), rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg (?46.0%, p < 0.001), and rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg (?38.9%, p = 0.007) than with simvastatin 40 mg (?32.8%). Significant (p ≤ 0.04 for all comparisons) improvements in non-HDL-C, ApoB, HDL-C, TG, and hsCRP levels were also observed with each of the rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid doses as compared with simvastatin 40 mg. Treatment-related AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were similar across groups. The incidence of serious AEs was 0% with simvastatin 40 mg, 3.4% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 5 mg/135 mg, 0.8% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 10 mg/135 mg, and 2.5% with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid 20 mg/135 mg. No cases of rhabdomyolysis or drug-related myopathy were reported.

Conclusion

In patients with high LDL-C and TG levels, combination treatment with rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid was well tolerated, and each of the rosuvastatin/fenofibric acid doses produced greater reductions in LDL-C and improvements in other efficacy parameters, compared with simvastatin 40 mg.     

One-Year Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin + Fenofibric Acid Combination Therapy in Patients with Mixed Dyslipidemia

Background

Statins are the standard-of-care therapy for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels; however, combination with other lipid-modifying agents may be necessary to normalize lipid profiles in patients with mixed dyslipidemia who, in addition to high LDL-C, also have high triglycerides (TG) and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the 1-year efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin in combination with fenofibric acid in a subgroup of patients treated for 12 weeks with rosuvastatin 10 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg and subsequently treated for up to 52 weeks with rosuvastatin 20 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg.

Methods

The efficacy and safety of combination therapy with rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid were demonstrated in a 12-week controlled study (NCT00300482) of patients with mixed dyslipidemia who were randomized to rosuvastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg, fenofibric acid 135 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg. All patients who completed the controlled study were eligible to enroll in a subsequent 52-week open-label extension study (NCT00300430) and received rosuvastatin 20 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg. The present post hoc analysis evaluated patients who were treated with rosuvastatin 10 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg in the controlled study and received rosuvastatin 20 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg in the open-label extension study. The study was carried out at investigative sites in the US (including Puerto Rico) and Canada. Patients included in the study were men and women ≥18 years of age with mixed dyslipidemia, defined as TG ≥150 mg/dL, LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL, and HDL-C <40/50 mg/dL for men/women (at screening in the controlled trial). Efficacy variables included mean percentage changes in LDL-C, HDL-C, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B (ApoB), and median percentage changes in TG and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) from baseline (i.e. start of the open-label extension after 12 weeks of treatment with rosuvastatin 10 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg) to incremental time points up to 52 weeks in the extension study, and the proportion of patients achieving individual and combined goals for LDL-C and non-HDL-C. Adverse events (AEs) and clinical laboratory values were also assessed.

Results

Of the 261 patients initially randomized to rosuvastatin 10 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg, 220 completed the controlled study and 187 continued treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg+ fenofibric acid 135 mg in the extension study. Increasing the rosuvastatin dose from 10 mg to 20 mg in combination with fenofibric acid 135 mg for up to 52 weeks resulted in significant (p≤ 0.005 for all comparisons) mean percentage changes from baseline in LDL-C (?9.5%), non-HDL-C (?6.0%), ApoB (?8.5%), and HDL-C (3.6%), while median TG levels remained largely unchanged (0.8%, p = 0.055) at the week 52 visit. Greater percentages of patients achieved their risk-stratified lipid goals at week 52 compared with baseline for LDL-C (89% vs 84%), non-HDL-C (50% vs 25%), and both LDL-C and non-HDL-C (50% vs 19%). Combination therapy was generally well tolerated. The incidence of muscle-, hepatic-, and renal-related AEs and laboratory values were within the expected range.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that 1-year therapy with rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid is well tolerated and that increasing the rosuvastatin dose from 10 mg to 20 mg in the combination results in additional beneficial effects on key lipid parameters in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

Clinical Trial Registration

Clinicaltrials.gov identifiers NCT00300482 and NCT00300430.     

A 50-Week Extension Study on the Safety and Efficacy of Colesevelam in Adults with Primary Hypercholesterolemia

Background

Colesevelam is a bile acid sequestrant that differs structurally from traditional bile acid sequestrants, allowing it to bind bile acids with greater affinity. Studies have shown that colesevelam significantly reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and, in some cases, significantly increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Objective

To investigate the safety and efficacy of colesevelam in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Study Design

This multicenter, open-label, titration-based extension study enrolled subjects who completed one of three multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II studies with colesevelam. This study consisted of a 4-week washout/dietary stabilization period, a 50-week open-label treatment period, and a 2-week follow-up period.

Setting

Ten clinical centers within the US.

Subjects

Males and females 18 years of age or older who had completed a previous short-term (4- or 6-week) phase II clinical study with colesevelam.

Intervention

At week 0 (following a 4-week washout of all lipid-lowering medication), subjects initiated treatment with colesevelam at a dosage of 1.5 g/day. Colesevelam was uptitrated to a maximum dosage of 3.75 g/day as necessary to achieve a 15–30% reduction from baseline in LDL-C level. At week 12, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) or niacin (nicotinic acid) could be added if colesevelam 3.75 g/day was not sufficient to result in a 15–30% reduction from baseline in LDL-C level.

Main Outcome Measure

The primary efficacy measure was the change in LDL-C level from baseline to week 50 across all treatment regimens. Secondary efficacy parameters included the change and percent change in total cholesterol, HDL-C, and triglyceride levels from baseline to week 50. There were three cohorts analyzed: (i) colesevelam monotherapy (included all subjects who received colesevelam monotherapy, regardless of dose); (ii) all treatment regimens (included all subjects who received colesevelam monotherapy or colesevelam plus low-dose statin or niacin therapy); and (iii) combination therapy (included only subjects who received colesevelam plus low-dose statin therapy). Two additional cohorts were also evaluated: (iv) maximum-dose colesevelam monotherapy (included only subjects who received colesevelam 3.75 g/day monotherapy); and (v) all maximum-dose colesevelam treatment regimens (included all subjects who received colesevelam 3.75 g/day, either as monotherapy or in combination with low-dose statin or niacin therapy).

Results

In total, 272 subjects were screened, 260 enrolled, and 186 completed the study. In total, 255 subjects were included in the intent-to-treat population. The maximum dosage of colesevelam (3.75 g/day) was taken by 50% of subjects (n = 94/188) at week 50; only 38 subjects received low-dose statin or niacin by study end. At week 50, LDL-C levels were significantly (p < 0.001) reduced from baseline across all treatment regimens (by 29.6 mg/dL [from 185.8 to 156.2 mg/dL; 15.0%]). Colesevelam also significantly reduced total cholesterol levels and significantly increased HDL-C and triglyceride levels across all treatment regimens (p <0.001 for all). Drug-related adverse events were reported by 36.2% of subjects across all treatment regimens (and by 47.4% of subjects who received colesevelam plus low-dose statin or niacin therapy).

Conclusion

In this study, colesevelam was found to be safe and effective for the management of LDL-C levels in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia.     

Efficacy and Safety of Coadministration of Fenofibrate and Ezetimibe Compared with Each as Monotherapy in Patients with Type IIb Dyslipidemia and Features of the Metabolic Syndrome

Background

Patients with type IIb, or mixed, dyslipidemia have high levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with predominance of small dense LDL particles, high levels of triglycerides (TG), and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Fenofibrate significantly reduces TG and, more moderately, LDL-C, increases HDL-C and produces a shift from small to large LDL particle size; the main effect of ezetimibe is a reduction in LDL-C levels. Combined treatment with fenofibrate and ezetimibe may correct all the abnormalities of type IIb dyslipidemia.

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of coadministration of fenofibrate (NanoCrystal®) and ezetimibe in patients with type IIb dyslipidemia and the metabolic syndrome compared with administration of fenofibrate and ezetimibe alone (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00349284; Study ID: CLF178P 04 01).

Methods

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, three-parallel arm, multicenter, comparative study. Sixty ambulatory patients (mean age 56 years; 50% women, 50% men) were treated in each group. For inclusion in the study, patients were required to have LDL-C ≥4.13 mmol/L (≥ 160 mg/dL), TG ≥1.71 mmol/L and ≤4.57 mmol/L (≥150 mg/dL and ≤405 mg/dL), and at least two of the following National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria for the metabolic syndrome: low HDL-C or increased fasting plasma glucose, blood pressure, or waist circumference. Patients received fenofibrate 145 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg, or coadministration of both (fenofibrate/ezetimibe) daily for 12 weeks. The outcome measures were changes in lipids and related parameters, apolipoproteins, glucose metabolism parameters, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP).

Results

Fenofibrate/ezetimibe was more effective than either fenofibrate or ezetimibe in reducing LDL-C (?36.2% vs ?22.4% and ?22.8%, respectively), non-HDL-C (?36.2% vs ?24.8% and ?20.9%, respectively), total cholesterol (TC) [?27.9% vs ?18.9% and ?17.1%, respectively], apolipoprotein B (?33.3% vs ?24.5% and ?18.7%, respectively), TC/HDL-C ratio (?34.2% vs ?23.0% and ?17.0%, respectively), and apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein AI ratio (?37.5% vs ?27.0% and ?17.7%, respectively) [p<0.001 for all comparisons between fenofibrate/ezetimibe and monotherapies]. Fenofibrate/ezetimibe was as effective as fenofibrate and more effective than ezetimibe in reducing remnant-like particle cholesterol (?36.2% and ?30.7% vs ?17.3%, respectively), and in increasing LDL size ( + 2.1% and + 1.9% vs + 0.7%, respectively), apolipoprotein AI (+7.9% and + 5.1% vs +0.2%, respectively) and apolipoprotein AII ( + 24.2% and +21.2% vs + 2.7%, respectively). Fenofibrate/ezetimibe and fenofibrate were equally effective in reducing TG (both ?38.3%) and in increasing HDL-C (+11.5% and + 7.9%, respectively; p = 0.282). Ezetimibe had minor effects on TG (?10.4%) and HDL-C ( + 2.2%). Among patients with low HDL-C at baseline (<1.29 mmol/L [<50 mg/dL] in women, <1.03 mmol/L [<40 mg/dL] in men), normalization of HDL-C was observed in 52.9% with fenofibrate/ezetimibe and in 58.8% with fenofibrate, compared with 20.0% with ezetimibe. Changes in hsCRP were ?25.9% with fenofibrate/ezetimibe, ?27.8% with fenofibrate, and ?10.2% with ezetimibe (not statistically significant). None of the treatments altered glucose metabolism parameters.

Conclusion

In patients with type IIb dyslipidemia and features of the metabolic syndrome, coadministration of fenofibrate 145 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg daily was more effective than either monotherapy in reducing LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and cardiovascular risk ratios, and was as effective as fenofibrate 145 mg alone in reducing TG and in increasing HDL-C in patients with low baseline HDL-C levels.     

Diclofenac Enables Prolonged Delivery of Naltrexone Through Microneedle-Treated Skin

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine if non-specific COX inhibition could extend pore lifetime in hairless guinea pigs following microneedle treatment.

Methods

Hairless guinea pigs were treated with microneedle arrays ± daily application of Solaraze® gel (3% diclofenac sodium (non-specific COX inhibitor) and 2.5% hyaluronic acid); transepidermal water loss was utilized to evaluate pore lifetime. To examine the permeation of naltrexone, additional guinea pigs were treated with microneedles ± daily Solaraze® gel followed by application of a 16% transdermal naltrexone patch; pharmacokinetic analysis of plasma naltrexone levels was performed. Histological analysis was employed to visualize morphological changes following microneedle and Solaraze® treatment.

Results

Animals treated with microneedles + Solaraze® displayed extended pore lifetime (determined by transepidermal water loss measurements) for up to 7 days. Enhanced naltrexone permeation was also observed for an extended amount of time in animals treated with microneedles + Solaraze®. No morphological changes resulting from microneedle treatment or COX inhibition were noted.

Conclusions

Non-specific COX inhibition is an effective means of extending pore lifetime following microneedle treatment in hairless guinea pigs. This may have clinical implications for extending transdermal patch wear time and therefore increasing patient compliance with therapy.     

Management of Hypertension with the Fixed Combination of Perindopril and Amlodipine in Daily Clinical Practice

Background

Current clinical guidelines recognize that the use of more than one agent is necessary to achieve target BP in the majority of patients. The ASCOT-BPLA trial demonstrated that the free combination of amlodipine and perindopril effectively controlled BP and was better than a β-adrenoceptor antagonist (β-blocker)/diuretic combination in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed combination of perindopril and amlodipine in the clinical setting.

Study design

The STRONG (SafeTy & efficacy analysis of coveRsyl amlodipine in uncOntrolled and Newly diaGnosed hypertension) study was a prospective, observational, multicenter trial.

Setting

This was a naturalistic, real-world, clinic-based, outpatient study involving 336 general practitioners/ primary care physicians in 65 cities in India.

Patients

Adults aged 40–70 years with newly diagnosed/untreated stage 2 hypertension (BP ≥ 160/100 mmHg), hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy (BP > 140/90 mmHg), or hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy.

Intervention

Fixed combination perindopril 4 mg/amlodipine 5 mg once daily for 60 days.

Main outcomes measure

The primary outcomes were the mean change in BP from baseline and the proportion of patients achieving adequate BP control (≤ 140/90 mmHg, or ≤ 130/80 mmHg in patients with diabetes mellitus) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analyses included incidence of adverse events (ITT) and treatment adherence rate (completers).

Results

In total, 1250 patients comprised the ITT population: 32.6% with newly diagnosed hypertension; 40.5% with hypertension uncontrolled with monotherapy; and 26.9% with hypertension inadequately managed with another combination therapy. Mean SBP/DBP decreased significantly from baseline (167.4±15.2/101.4±9.1 mmHg) over 60 days (?41.9 ± 34.8/?23.2 ± 21.8 mmHg; p<0.0001). Target BP was achieved in 66.1% of patients in the total population, 68.3% of untreated patients, 68.4% of patients uncontrolled with monotherapy, and 59.9% of patients inadequately managed with combination therapy. In 161 patients with SBP >180 mmHg at baseline (newly diagnosed: n = 50; uncontrolled on monotherapy: n = 53; inadequately managed on combination therapy: n = 58), BP was reduced by 63.2 ± 32.5/29.0 ± 21.9 mmHg (p<0.0001) at day 60. The fixed combination was safe and well tolerated. All 1175 patients completing the 60-day study (94%) adhered to their treatment regimen.

Conclusion

Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine was found to be an effective and well tolerated antihypertensive treatment, with an excellent rate of treatment adherence in the clinical setting. Fixed combination perindopril/amlodipine is expected to be useful in the management of hypertension in primary healthcare, with a positive impact on treatment adherence.     

Does a Single-Pill Antihypertensive/Lipid-Lowering Regimen Improve Adherence in US Managed Care Enrollees?

Background

A previous study in 4703 patients suggested that a single-pill combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin is associated with greater adherence to therapy than a two-pill calcium channel antagonist (calcium channel blocker [CCB]) and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) regimen. However, the impact of prior medication use on the potential adherence benefits of single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin has not been studied.

Objective

To compare adherence to single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill CCB + statin regimens in a large managed care population, stratified according to prior CCB and statin use.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted among managed care enrollees in the US. Patients included in the analysis had to have a pharmacy claim for single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin or claims for both a CCB and a statin within any 30-day window between April 2004 and April 2005. Adherence was measured over 6 months following the index date (the date of the first single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin claim or of the claim for the second medication class for any two-pill CCB + statin regimen) as the proportion of days covered (PDC) by both CCB and statin therapy; patients were considered ‘adherent’ if PDC was ≥80%. Patients were divided into four cohorts based on pre-index CCB and statin use: (i) naive (CCB)/naive (statin); (ii) experienced (CCB)/naive (statin); (iii) naive (CCB)/experienced (statin); and (iv) experienced (CCB)/experienced (statin). Within each cohort, adherence was compared for patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (including amlodipine or atorvastatin but not both) at index. Multivariable logistic regression with propensity score weighting was used to adjust for covariates, including age, sex and co-morbidities.

Results

In total, 35 430 patients were included in the analysis. At month 6 (after adjusting for covariates), patients in the experienced (CCB)/naive (statin) cohort receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were more than twice as likely to be adherent as those receiving two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; p < 0.0001) or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 2.75; p < 0.0001). Similarly, patients in the naive (CCB)/experienced (statin) cohort receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were more likely to be adherent than those receiving two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.72; p < 0.0001) or other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 2.81; p < 0.0001). In contrast, in the naive (CCB)/naive (statin) cohort there was no significant difference in adherence between patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.00), although patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin were slightly more likely to be adherent than those receiving other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 1.29; p < 0.01). In the experienced (CCB)/experienced (statin) cohort there was also no significant difference between patients receiving single-pill amlodipine/atorvastatin versus two-pill amlodipine + atorvastatin (OR 1.08), and only a slightly greater likelihood of achieving adherence to single-pill amlodipine/ atorvastatin versus other two-pill CCB + statin regimens (OR 1.19; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

This large retrospective study confirms previous observations that single-pill amlodipine/ atorvastatin can help improve adherence versus two-pill CCB + statin regimens. However, greater improvements in adherence are likely to be observed in patients with prior experience of either CCB or statin therapy than in those either naive to, or experienced with, both therapies.     

Statin use among older Finns stratified according to cardiovascular risk

Purpose

Statin use has increased in older age groups, although there is little evidence for the benefits of statin therapy in the elderly, especially in low-risk persons. The aim of this paper is to describe recent trends in the prevalence and incidence of statin use among the Finnish older population, according to the person’s estimated cardiovascular (CV) event risk.

Methods

We conducted a register study covering the whole community-dwelling population of Finland, aged >70 years in 2000–2008 (N?=?883,051). Data on reimbursed purchases of statins, antidiabetic and CV drugs, and pre-existing CV diseases were retrieved from comprehensive national registers. We stratified each person into low, moderate or high CV risk category, and according to age (70–74, 75–79, and >80 years) and sex.

Results

Between 2000 and 2008, the age-sex-standardized prevalence of statin use tripled from 12.2 % to 38.7 % (rate ratio 3.0, 95 % CI 3.0–3.1), and the incidence almost doubled (from 3.7 % to 6.8 %; rate ratio 1.8, 95 % CI 1.8–1.9). The prevalence and incidence of statin use were consistently highest among high-risk persons. The greatest relative increases were observed in persons aged >80 years and in those at low risk; however, the proportion of statin users at low CV risk remained the same (～7 % of all users).

Conclusions

Statin prescribing is shifting towards older age groups. A substantial increase in prevalence and incidence was seen across all risk categories, but the channeling of statin use towards high-risk persons remained unchanged.     

Fenofibric acid for hyperlipidemia

Introduction: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (i.e., statins) are the mainstay of therapy for hyperlipidemia, as per the current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommendation. However, the role of other agents, such as the fibrates, is continually being debated in the context of incremental risk reduction, especially in the setting of mixed dyslipidemia. Results from the ACCORD Trial have further added to the confusion. Fibrates also have a role to play in familial hyperlipidemias and in hypertriglyceridemia. Fenofibric acid is one of the newly approved forms of fenofibrate with enhanced bioavailability and was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administation (FDA) for the treatment of various types of hyperlipidemia, in conjunction with statins.

Areas covered: This article reviews the role of fenofibric acid in the context of results from recent randomized trials on fenofibrate, including the ACCORD Trial. It discusses the current status of fenofibric acid in the management of dyslipidemia, especially in combination with statins, and also addresses the comparative efficacy and safety profile of this new molecule against other agents in its class.

Expert opinion: fenofibric acid in combination with low- to moderate-dose statins is an effective and safe option in the treatment of mixed dyslipidemia, although the long-term effects on cardiovascular risk reduction need to be explored further.     

Fenofibric acid for hyperlipidemia

INTRODUCTION: 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (i.e., statins) are the mainstay of therapy for hyperlipidemia, as per the current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommendation. However, the role of other agents, such as the fibrates, is continually being debated in the context of incremental risk reduction, especially in the setting of mixed dyslipidemia. Results from the ACCORD Trial have further added to the confusion. Fibrates also have a role to play in familial hyperlipidemias and in hypertriglyceridemia. Fenofibric acid is one of the newly approved forms of fenofibrate with enhanced bioavailability and was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administation (FDA) for the treatment of various types of hyperlipidemia, in conjunction with statins. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the role of fenofibric acid in the context of results from recent randomized trials on fenofibrate, including the ACCORD Trial. It discusses the current status of fenofibric acid in the management of dyslipidemia, especially in combination with statins, and also addresses the comparative efficacy and safety profile of this new molecule against other agents in its class. EXPERT OPINION: Fenofibric acid in combination with low- to moderate-dose statins is an effective and safe option in the treatment of mixed dyslipidemia, although the long-term effects on cardiovascular risk reduction need to be explored further.     

Utility of Mannitol and Citric Acid for Enhancing the Solubilizing and Taste Masking Properties of β-Cyclodextrin: Development of Fast-Dissolving Tablets Containing Extremely Bitter Drug

Introduction

Development of Fast dissolved tablets (FDTs) in which taste is masked, and drug dissolution is improved, is a major challenge especially in case of extremely bitter drug with poor water solubility such as aceclofenac.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to enhance the taste masking and solubilizing properties of β-cyclodextrin using citric acid and mannitol through preparation of acid soluble taste masked granules of aceclofenac (ASTMGA).

Methods

General factorial design was applied to optimize FDTs containing ASTMGA so to have short disintegration time (<30 sec.), acceptable taste and enhanced drug dissolution in gastric fluid. Three formulation variables; the type of sugar / cellulose based diluents, X₁ (Galen IQ® and Prosolv®), superdisintegrant type, X₂ (Crospovidone®, Glycolys® and Ac-Di-Sol®) and superdisintegrant concentration, X₃ (10 % and 20 %) were included in the design. The systems were assessed for hardness, friability, in vitro disintegration, wetting time, in vitro dissolution and in vivo oral study.

Results

The combination of Prosolv® and Crospovidone® in the formulation of FDT gave optimum disintegration time. The stability of the optimized FDT in different package materials was retained after storage at 40 ?C/75 % RH for six months. Contrary to FDT containing conventional aceclofenac β-cyclodextrin inclusion complex, FDT containing ASTMGA showed highest dissolution rate in both simulated salivary and gastric fluids and excellent ability to mask the bitterness of drug.

Conclusions

Our results propose that the combination of citric acid, mannitol and β-cyclodextrin could be promising to improve taste masking and solubilizing properties of β-cyclodextrin.     

The Cost Effectiveness of Statin Therapies in Spain in 2010, after the Introduction of Generics and Reference Prices

Background

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are the first-line drugs for use in the reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Generic statins could change the cost effectiveness of statin therapies in Spain, and more population groups could be included in the recommendations for reduction of cholesterol levels based on cost effectiveness.

Objectives

The objectives of this study were: (i) to assess the cost effectiveness of available statins for the reduction of LDL-C levels in Spain in 2010, after the introduction of generics and reference prices; (ii) to assess the cost effectiveness of combination therapy using a statin plus cholestyramine or ezetimibe; and (iii) to estimate the mean cost per patient to achieve National Cholesterol Education Program (Adult Treatment Panel-III) therapeutic objectives.

Methods

The following treatments were evaluated: rosuvastatin 5–20mg/day; atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin 10–40mg/day; lovastatin and fluvastatin 20–80mg/day; and combination therapy with a statin plus either cholestyramine 12–24g/day or ezetimibe 10mg/day. The cost effectiveness was evaluated in terms of cost per percentage point reduction in LDL-C, comparing the annual treatment costs with the effectiveness in reducing LDL-C. Treatment costs included those for medications (2010 wholesale prices), control measures, and treatment of adverse drug effects. The effectiveness of statins was estimated by developing a meta-analysis of clinical trials published between 1993 and 2005 that met several inclusion criteria. Average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated to assess the efficiency of individual statin and combination therapies in reducing LDL-C levels.

Results

The effectiveness in terms of percentage reduction in LDL-C ranged from 19% for pravastatin 10mg/day to 55% for atorvastatin 80mg/day. Annual treatment costs ranged from €189.7 for simvastatin 10mg/day to €759.3 for atorvastatin 80mg/day. The cost-effectiveness ratios, in terms of cost per percentage point reduction in LDL-C, were: €6 for simvastatin, €10–12 for rosuvastatin, €10 for lovastatin, €13–16 for atorvastatin, €13–14 for fluvastatin, and €14–20 for pravastatin. Rosuvastatin + ezetimibe, simvastatin + ezetimibe, and atorvastatin + ezetimibe were the most cost-effective combination therapies for reducing LDL-C levels. Rosuvastatin was the most cost-effective statin for achieving the LDL-C therapeutic goal in patients at high risk for CHD, with a mean cost per patient of €516. Simvastatin was the most cost-effective statin to achieve the LDL-C goal in patients with moderate or low CHD risk, with a cost per patient of €217 and €190, respectively.

Conclusion

Rosuvastatin should be the first-choice agent in patients with high CHD risk, while simvastatin should be the first choice in patients with moderate or low risk. The addition of ezetimibe to rosuvastatin, simvastatin, or atorvastatin should be the preferred combination therapies when greater LDL-C reductions are required. The cost effectiveness of all statin therapies has increased in Spain after the introduction of generic statins and reference prices.     

A prospective open-label trial of paliperidone monotherapy for the treatment of bipolar spectrum disorders in children and adolescents

Rationale

Treatment studies for the management of pediatric bipolar disorder are limited.

Objectives

This study evaluates the safety and efficacy of paliperidone monotherapy as an acute treatment of mania and related symptoms in youth with bipolar spectrum disorders.

Methods

An 8-week, prospective, open-label paliperidone monotherapy trial to assess effectiveness and tolerability in treating pediatric bipolar spectrum and related disorders (depression, psychosis, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD]). Assessments included the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), Clinical Global Impression scale (CGI), Children’s Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R), and Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS). Adverse events were assessed through spontaneous self-reports, vital signs, weight monitoring, and laboratory analysis.

Results

Fifteen youth with bipolar spectrum disorders (YMRS at entry: 32.8?±?6.1) were enrolled in the study and 11 (73 %) completed the 8-week trial. The total daily dose of paliperidone at study endpoint was 3 mg in 12 subjects and 6 mg in three subjects. Treatment with paliperidone was associated with statistically significant levels of improvement in mean YMRS scores (?18.7?±?13.9, p?<?0.001) at endpoint. Paliperidone treatment also resulted in significant improvement in the severity of ADHD and psychotic symptoms. Although treatment with paliperidone was generally well tolerated and was not associated with clinically significant change in cardiovascular or metabolic parameters, increases in body weight (4.1?±?5.5 lb) were substantial.

Conclusions

Open-label paliperidone treatment appears to be beneficial in the treatment of bipolar spectrum disorders and associated conditions in youth. Future placebo-controlled studies are warranted to confirm these findings.     

Efficacy and safety evaluation of intensive statin therapy in older patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To reveal and evaluate the efficacy and safety of intensive statin therapy in older patients (age ≥ 65 years) with coronary heart disease (CHD).

Methods

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that involved intensive statin therapy use in older patients with CHD. Data was extracted and used to calculate risk ratios (RR) by software Revman 5.1.

Results

Five RCTs and 11,132 patients were included in. Compared with non-intensive statin therapy, intensive statin therapy had significant effect on reducing low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (55.4 %) and total cholesterol (TC) and triglyceride (Tg). Although the results showed that intensive statin therapy had no superior effect on reduction of mortality (both all-cause mortality [RR?=?0.97, p?=?0.65] and cardiac death [RR?=?0.95, p?=?0.57]) and cardiac arrest (RR?=?1.09, p?=?0.81), it possessed significant effects on prevention of nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR?=?0.78, p?=?0.008), stroke (RR?=?0.72, p?=?0.02) and coronary revascularization (RR?=?0.69, p?=?0.007). In terms of side effects, intensive statin therapy was associated with small absolute increase in incidence of drug discontinuation, due to adverse events (3.9 %) and liver enzymes abnormalities (1.7 %). And the occurrence rates of myopathy, rhabdomyolysis and creatine kinase (CK) elevation were very low.

Conclusions

This results show that intensive statin therapy has excellent effects on reduction of serum lipid level including LDL-C, TC, Tg, and also on prevention of nonfatal MI, stroke and coronary revascularization with small absolute increased risk of side effects. Our analysis supports the use of intensive statin therapy in patients ≥?65 years old with CHD.     

Ionically Fixed Polymeric Nanoparticles as a Novel Drug Carrier

Purpose

In this study, we have prepared a novel polymeric drug delivery system comprised of ionically fixed polymeric nanoparticles (IFPN) and investigated their potential as a drug carrier for the passive targeting of water-insoluble anticancer drugs.

Materials and Methods

For this purpose, the physicochemical characteristics of the IFPN were investigated by comparing them with conventional polymeric micelles. IFPN containing paclitaxel were prepared and evaluated for in vitro stability and in vivo pharmacokinetics.

Results

The IFPN were successfully fabricated using a monomethoxypolyethylene glycol-polylactide (mPEG-PLA) diblock copolymer and a sodium salt of d,l-poly(lactic acid) (d,l-PLACOONa) upon the addition of CaCl₂. The transmittance of the IFPN solution was much lower than that of a polymeric micelle solution at the same polymer concentration implicating an increase in the number of appreciable particles. The particle size of the IFPN was approximately 20～30 nm which is in the range of particle sizes that facilitate sterile filtration using a membrane filter. The IFPN also have a regular spherical shape with a narrow size distribution. The zeta potential of the IFPN was almost neutral, similar to that of the polymeric micelles. In contrast, mixed micelles with a combination of mPEG-PLA and d,l-PLACOONa prior to the addition of Ca²⁺ showed a negative charge (?17 mV), possibly due to the carboxyl anion of polylactic acid exposed on the surface of the micelles. The IFPN formulation was highly kinetically stable in aqueous medium compared to the polymeric micelle formulation. The molecular weight of d,l-PLACOONa in the IFPN and the mPEG-PLA/d,l-PLACOONa molar ratio had a great influence upon the kinetic stability of the IFPN. Pharmacokinetic studies showed that the area under the concentration vs time curve (AUC) of IFPN in blood was statistically higher (about two times) when compared with that of Cremophor EL-based formulation (Taxol^® equivalent) or polymeric micelle formulation.

Conclusions

The results suggests that the IFPN were retained in the circulation long enough to play a significant role as a drug carrier in the bloodstream, possibly resulting in improved therapeutic efficiency. Therefore, the IFPN are expected to be a promising novel polymeric nanoparticulate system for passive tumor targeting of water-insoluble anticancer drugs including paclitaxel.     

Impact of prior chronic statin therapy and high-intensity statin therapy at discharge on circulating endothelial progenitor cell levels in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a prospective observational study

Background

Endothelial progenitor stem cells (EPCs) are mobilized to the peripheral circulation in response to myocardial ischemia, playing a crucial role in vascular repair. Statins have been shown to stimulate EPCs. However, neither the impact of previous statin therapy on EPC response of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients nor the effect of post-AMI high-intensity statin therapy on the evolution of circulating EPC levels has yet been addressed. Therefore, we aimed to compare circulating EPC levels between patients receiving long-term statin therapy before the AMI and statin-naive patients and to assess the impact of high-intensity statin therapy at discharge on the evolution of circulating EPCs post-AMI.

Methods

This is a prospective observational study of 100 AMI patients. Circulating EPCs (CD45dimCD34?+?KDR?+?cells) and their subpopulation coexpressing the homing marker CXCR4 were quantified by the high-performance flow cytometer FACSCanto II in whole blood, in two different moments: within the first 24 h of admission and 3 months post-AMI. Patients were followed up clinically for 2 years.

Results

Patients previously treated with statins had significantly higher levels of EPCs coexpressing CXCR4 (1.9?±?1.4 vs. 1.3?±?1.0 cells/1,000,000 events, p?=?0.031) than statin-naive patients. In addition, the subanalysis of diabetics (N?=?38) also revealed that patients previously on statins had significantly greater numbers of both CD45dimCD34?+?KDR?+?CXCR4+ cells (p?=?0.024) and CD45dimCD34?+?KDR?+?CD133+ cells (p?=?0.022) than statin-naive patients. Regarding the evolution of EPC levels after the AMI, patients not on a high-intensity statin therapy at discharge had a significant reduction of CD45dimCD34?+?KDR?+?and CD45dimCD34?+?KDR?+?CXCR4+ cells from baseline to 3 months follow-up (p?=?0.031 and p?=?0.005, respectively). However, patients discharged on a high-intensity statin therapy maintained circulating levels of all EPC populations, presenting at 3 months of follow-up significantly higher EPC levels than patients not on an intensive statin therapy. Moreover, the high-intensity statin treatment group had significantly better clinical outcomes during the 2-year follow-up period than patients not discharged on a high-intensity statin therapy.

Conclusion

Chronic statin therapy prior to an AMI strongly enhances the response of EPCs to myocardial ischemia, even in diabetic patients. Furthermore, high-intensity statin therapy after an AMI prevents the expected decrease of circulating EPC levels during follow-up. These results reinforce the importance of an early and intensive statin therapy in AMI patients.     

Niacin Extended-Release Therapy in Phase III Clinical Trials is Associated with Relatively Low Rates of Drug Discontinuation due to Flushing and Treatment-Related Adverse Events

Background and Objective

Niacin is a highly effective agent for increasing low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. It also has beneficial effects on key pro-atherogenic lipoprotein parameters. However, the side effect of flushing can challenge patient adherence to treatment. In this study, we pooled safety data from available trials of at least 16 weeks’ duration to evaluate the impact of flushing on patient adherence to niacin extended-release (NER) therapy.

Methods

Data were pooled from eight NER studies (administered as NER with a maximum dosage of 1000, 1500, and 2000 mg/day, either as monotherapy or in combination with simvastatin 20 or 40mg/day [NER/S], or lovastatin 20 or 40 mg/day [NER/L]) to evaluate rates of study discontinuation due to flushing or any treatment-related adverse events.

Results

While 66.6% of patients experienced flushing, only 5.2% of patients discontinued treatment due to flushing. Of the total number of patients treated with NER (n = 307), NER/S (n = 912), or NER/L (n = 928), 34 (11%), 105 (11%), and 127 (14%) patients discontinued due to any treatment-related adverse event, respectively, while 14 (5%), 43 (5%), and 55 (6%) discontinued due to flushing. Discontinuation for flushing did not differ with regard to maximum dose, or to the presence or type of statin combined with NER.

Conclusion

Although flushing was common with NER treatment, discontinuation due to flushing occurred in only 5–6% of patients in this pooled analysis. This could be due to several factors, including the fact that all patients in the NER trials were educated about flushing and its management. Translation of methodology employed in these trials into clinical practice may improve long-term adherence to NER therapy, which would enhance the therapeutic benefit of NER for reducing cardiovascular risk.