Effects of ezetimibe added to on-going statin therapy on the lipid profile of hypercholesterolemic patients with diabetes mellitus or metabolic syndrome

SUMMARY

Objective: To conduct a post-hoc assessment of the lipid-modifying effects of adding the cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, to on-going statin therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or metabolic syndrome (MetS).

Research design and methods: This was a post-hoc analysis of data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering efficacy and safety of adding ezetimibe 10?mg/day versus placebo to ongoing, open-label statin treatment for 8 weeks in hypercholesterolemic patients. Qualifying LDL-C levels and target LDL-C goals were based on National Cholesterol Education Program risk categories. The DM subgroup were patients who entered the study with a prior diagnosis of DM. Patients were classified as having MetS if they met 3 or more of the following criteria at baseline: triglycerides (TG) ≥ 150?mg/dL (1.69 mmol/L); high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) < 40?mg/dL (1.04 mmol/L) for men or < 50?mg/dL (1.29 mmol/L) for women; fasting serum glucose (FSG) ≥ 110?mg/dL (≥ 6.1 mmol/L); a diagnosis of hypertension or taking hypertension medication or blood pressure ≥ 130/ ≥ 85 mmHg; waist circumference > 88?cm (women) or > 102?cm (men). DM patients were excluded from the MetS subgroup analysis.

Main outcome measures: The objectives were to assess the effects of treatment on plasma concentrations of LDL-C and other lipid variables, and on the percentage of patients achieving LDL-C target levels at the end of the study.

Results: Of 769 patients enrolled in the original study, there were 191 (24.8%) with DM and 195 (25.4%) with MetS. Regardless of subgroup, ezetimibe + statin was significantly more effective than statin alone at lowering plasma levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and triglycerides (between-group p < 0.001 for all). For all lipid parameters, the relative treatment effects were generally consistent regardless of DM or MetS status. Significantly more ezetimibe than placebo patients in all subgroups achieved prespecified LDL-C goals (?p < 0.001 for all), and although more patients in the DM and MetS groups, respectively, achieved the goal compared with their non-DM and non-MetS counterparts [83.6% (DM) versus 67.2 (non-DM) and 71.8% (MetS) versus 65.6% (non-MetS)], these differences were not significant after adjusting for differences in baseline LDL-C levels. Ezetimibe was well-tolerated and had a favorable safety profile in all subgroups.

Conclusions: The co-administration of ezetimibe with statins, a therapeutic regimen that inhibits both the absorption and synthesis of cholesterol, offers a well-tolerated and efficacious treatment to lower LDL-C in patients with DM and MetS.     

Meta-analysis of the cholesterol-lowering effect of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy

ABSTRACT

Objective: To review and analyse the evidence for the cholesterol-lowering effect of ezetimibe in adult patients with hypercholesterolaemia who are not at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL?C) goal on statin monotherapy.

Research design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify ezetimibe randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between January 1993 and December 2005. The meta-analysis combined data from RCTs, with a minimum treatment duration of 6 weeks, that compared treatment with ezetimibe 10?mg/day or placebo added to current statin therapy.

The difference between treatments was analysed for four co-primary outcomes: mean percentage change from baseline in total cholesterol (TC), LDL?C, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL?C), and number of patients achieving LDL?C treatment goal. Meta-analysis results are presented for a modified version of the inverse variance random effects model.

Results: Five RCTs involving a total of 5039 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference (WMD) between treatments significantly favoured the ezetimibe/statin combination over placebo/statin for TC (–16.1% (–17.3, –14.8); p < 0.0001), LDL?C (–23.6% (–25.6, –21.7); p < 0.0001) and HDL?C (1.7% (0.9, 2.5); p < 0.0001). The relative risk of reaching the LDL?C treatment goal was significantly higher for patients on ezetimibe/statin relative to those on placebo/statin (3.4 (2.0, 5.6); p < 0.0001). In pre-defined sub-group analyses of studies in patients with coronary heart disease, the WMD between treatments remained significantly in favour of ezetimibe/statin (?p < 0.0001) for TC and LDL?C but was no longer significant for HDL?C. Elevations in creatine kinase, alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase that were considered as an adverse effect did not differ significantly between treatments.

Conclusions: The meta-analysis we performed included only five studies and was restricted to analysis of the changes in cholesterol levels relative to baseline. However, the results suggest that ezetimibe co-administered with ongoing statin therapy provides significant additional lipid-lowering in patients not at LDL?C goal on statin therapy alone, allowing more patients to reach their LDL?C goal.     

Combination therapy with statin and fibrate in patients with dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance,metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus

Introduction: People with insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome (IR/MS) and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have increased rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) even when low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are at or near target levels. Contributors to this problem are the high triglyceride (TG) levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC) that are commonly present in this population, even with statin therapy.

Areas covered: This review focuses on the use of a combination of statins with fibrates, which lower TG and raise HDLC concentrations and, therefore, have the potential to further lower rates of CVD more in people with IR/MS and/or T2DM. Treatment with this combination is uncommon because doctors and patients are fearful of muscle, liver and renal complications and because the evidence that the combination will actually reduce risk has been lacking. In this review, the authors examine the efficacy and safety of the statin–fibrate combination, particularly fenofibrate and simvastatin, the combination used in the ACCORD trial.

Expert opinion: The authors' opinion is that this combination of fenofibrate and statin is as safe as either drug alone and, in patients with significant dyslipidemia, is likely to reduce CVD. Concerns remain concerning fenofibrate-associated increases in serum creatinine levels and the significant heterogeneity in the reduction in CVD by the combination in women. A trial of statin + fenofibrate in people with IR/MS and/or T2DM who also have significant dyslipidemia is needed.     

Combination therapy with statin and fibrate in patients with dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes mellitus

INTRODUCTION: People with insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome (IR/MS) and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have increased rates of cardiovascular disease (CVD) even when low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels are at or near target levels. Contributors to this problem are the high triglyceride (TG) levels and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLC) that are commonly present in this population, even with statin therapy. AREAS COVERED: This review focuses on the use of a combination of statins with fibrates, which lower TG and raise HDLC concentrations and, therefore, have the potential to further lower rates of CVD more in people with IR/MS and/or T2DM. Treatment with this combination is uncommon because doctors and patients are fearful of muscle, liver and renal complications and because the evidence that the combination will actually reduce risk has been lacking. In this review, the authors examine the efficacy and safety of the statin-fibrate combination, particularly fenofibrate and simvastatin, the combination used in the ACCORD trial. EXPERT OPINION: The authors' opinion is that this combination of fenofibrate and statin is as safe as either drug alone and, in patients with significant dyslipidemia, is likely to reduce CVD. Concerns remain concerning fenofibrate-associated increases in serum creatinine levels and the significant heterogeneity in the reduction in CVD by the combination in women. A trial of statin + fenofibrate in people with IR/MS and/or T2DM who also have significant dyslipidemia is needed.     

Effects of policosanol and lovastatin on lipid profile and lipid peroxidation in patients with dyslipidemia associated with type 2 diabetes mellitus

In this pilot, randomized, double-blind study, we compared the effects of policosanol and lovastatin on lipid profile and lipid peroxidation in patients with dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus. After 4 weeks on a cholesterol-lowering diet, 36 patients were randomized to policosanol (10 mg/day) or lovastatin (20 mg/day) tablets o.i.d. for 8 weeks. Policosanol significantly (p < 0.001) lowered serum low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) (29.9%), total cholesterol (21.1%), triglycerides (13.6%) and the LDL-C/high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) (36.7%) and total cholesterol/HDL-C (28.9%) ratios and significantly (p < 0.01) increased HDL-C (12.5%). Lovastatin significantly (p < 0.001) lowered LDL-C (25%), total cholesterol (18%), triglycerides (10.9%) and the LDL-C/HDL-C (30.4%) and total cholesterol/HDL-C ratios (23.9%) and significantly (p < 0.01) raised HDL-C (8.3%). Policosanol was more effective (p < 0.05) than lovastatin in reducing both ratios and in increasing (p < 0.05) HDL-C. Policosanol, but not lovastatin, significantly raised the lag time (20.9%) of Cu+2-induced LDL peroxidation and total plasma antioxidant activity (24.2%) (p < 0.05). Both policosanol and lovastatin significantly decreased the propagation rate (41.9% and 41.6% respectively, p < 0.001), maximal diene production (8.3% and 5.7%) and plasma levels of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (9.7% and 11.5%, p < 0.001). Both treatments were well tolerated. Only one patient in the lovastatin group withdrew from the trial due to adverse events. In conclusion, policosanol and lovastatin administered short term to patients with dyslipidemia secondary to type 2 diabetes were effective in lowering cholesterol and in inhibiting the extent of lipid peroxidation. Policosanol (10 mg/day) was slightly more effective than lovastatin (20 mg/day) in reducing the LDL-C/HDL-C and total cholesterol/HDL-C ratios, in increasing HDL-C levels and in preventing LDL oxidation. Nevertheless, since this was a pilot study, further clinical studies performed in larger sample sizes of diabetic patients are needed for definitive conclusions.     

Atorvastatin efficacy in the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes mellitus and/or metabolic syndrome

Several large-scale clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of atorvastatin in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes mellitus and/or metabolic syndrome. In primary prevention, CARDS (Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study) showed that atorvastatin 10 mg/day (vs placebo) reduced relative risk of the composite primary endpoint (acute coronary heart disease [CHD] events, coronary revascularisation, or stroke) by 37% (p = 0.001). This decrease was similar to decreases in major cardiovascular events in the ASCOT-LLA (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Lipid Lowering Arm) trial and HPS (Heart Protection Study). However, in CARDS, atorvastatin efficacy was evident as early as 6 months after starting treatment, whereas in HPS, simvastatin efficacy was noticeable only from about 15-18 months after starting treatment. In the ASCOT-LLA trial, in 2226 hypertensive diabetic patients without previous cardiovascular disease, atorvastatin (vs placebo) reduced the relative risk of all cardiovascular events and procedures by 25% (p = 0.038). In secondary prevention, substudies of the GREACE (GREek Atorvastatin and Coronary-heart-disease Evaluation), TNT (Treating to New Targets) and PROVE-IT (PRavastatin Or atorVastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy) trials reported results for the approximately 15-25% of study participants who had diabetes. In the GREACE substudy, atorvastatin (vs physicians' standard care) significantly reduced the relative risk of total mortality by 52% (p = 0.049), coronary mortality by 62% (p = 0.042), coronary morbidity by 59% (p < 0.002) and stroke by 68% (p = 0.046). In the TNT substudy, incidence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in diabetic patients treated with atorvastatin 80 mg/day rather than 10 mg/day (13.8% vs 17.9%; relative risk 0.75; p = 0.026). In the PROVE-IT substudy, a significantly lower incidence of acute cardiac events was reported for atorvastatin versus pravastatin recipients (21.1% vs 26.6%; p = 0.03) and, therefore, an absolute risk reduction of 5.5% was associated with atorvastatin therapy. ASPEN (Atorvastatin Study for Prevention of coronary heart disease Endpoints in Non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus) - a mixed primary and secondary prevention trial in diabetic patients - found that a 29% lower low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol level was seen with atorvastatin than placebo at endpoint (p < 0.0001); however, the reduction in composite primary endpoint of major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal major cardiovascular event or stroke, and unstable angina requiring hospitalisation) with atorvastatin (13.7% vs 15.0% with placebo), and reduction in acute myocardial infarction relative risk of 27% with atorvastatin were not statistically significant. In CHD patients with metabolic syndrome (n = 5584) in a sub-analysis of the TNT trial, intensive versus lower-dosage atorvastatin therapy reduced the relative risk of major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events by 29% (p < 0.0001). The analysis also revealed that CHD patients with, rather than those without, metabolic syndrome had a 44% greater level of absolute cardiovascular risk, thus clearly underscoring the clinical feasibility of administering intensive lipid-lowering therapy to CHD patients with metabolic syndrome. In summary, several patient populations, from definitive, large-scale studies, are now available to corroborate the integral place of atorvastatin--in line with various regional and internationally accepted disease management guidelines--in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes and/or metabolic syndrome.     

Empagliflozin added to metformin and sulfonylurea therapy in patients with sub-optimally controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus

The combination of metformin and a sulfonylurea is commonly used in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Many patients on this combination therapy do not achieve or maintain glycemic targets and require the addition of a third antihyperglycemic agent. Among the options are the sodium glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, a recently developed class of medications that effectively improve glycemic control and are associated with reduction in body weight and blood pressure. This article evaluates a 24-week, randomized, placebo-controlled study of the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin, added to metformin plus sulfonylurea regimens. Empagliflozin led to significant reductions in glycated hemoglobin and fasting plasma glucose, as well as body weight and systolic blood pressure. Adverse events typically recorded with SGLT2 inhibitors were observed; notably, genital infections occurred in more patients on empagliflozin than placebo. Overall, empagliflozin was well tolerated. These results indicate that SGLT2 inhibitors can be successfully added to metformin plus sulfonylurea regimens. SGLT2 inhibitors are not the only therapeutic option in this clinical situation; however, based on the secondary effects observed in this and other studies, they appear to be of particular value for patients who are obese or overweight.     

依折麦布对糖尿病高胆固醇血症患者血脂、血糖和炎症指标的影响

目的观察依折麦布对糖尿病伴高胆固醇血症患者的血脂、血糖和炎症指标的影响,为临床用药提供借鉴。方法选取2012年6月至2013年10月于我院就诊的2型糖尿病伴高胆固醇血症患者160例,将其按服用降脂药物的不同分为试验组和对照组,每组60例。试验组患者采用依折麦布及辛伐他汀联合降脂治疗;对照组给予加倍剂量的辛伐他汀降脂治疗。观察两组患者治疗后的总胆固醇(TC)、三酰甘油(TG)、高密度脂蛋白(HDL-C)、低密度脂蛋白(LDL-C)、空腹静脉血浆葡萄糖(FBG)、餐后2 h静脉血浆葡萄糖(PBG)、C反应蛋白(CRP)的变化。结果两组治疗后TC、TG、LDL-C水平较治疗前明显降低,两组治疗后HDL-C水平较治疗前明显增加,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。试验组治疗后TC、TG、LDL-C水平显著低于对照组,试验组治疗后HDL-C水平显著高于对照组,两组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组治疗后FBG、PBG、CRP较治疗前显著降低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。试验组治疗后FBG、PBG、CRP显著低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论依折麦布可以有效改善糖尿病伴高胆固醇血症患者的血脂、血糖水平,降低患者的炎症反应,有效降低患者发生心脑血管并发症的风险。     

降糖联合他汀降脂疗法在混合型血脂异常的2型糖尿病中的应用

目的降糖联合他汀降脂疗法在混合型血脂异常的2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者临床治疗中的应用价值。方法于2017年1～10月期间,纳入在我院接受治疗的75例血脂异常的T2DM患者,根据患者的一般资料、病情状况确定降糖目标,以降糖目标为依据予以单纯降糖药物治疗或者降糖药物联合胰岛素治疗,在此基础上予以阿托伐他汀或辛伐他汀降脂治疗,对比治疗前、治疗2个星期后患者的血糖、血脂水平,统计血脂、血糖达到标准水平患者的百分比,评估此种治疗方案的临床应用价值。结果治疗后75例患者的平均胆固醇(TC)、甘油三脂(TG)、低密度脂蛋白(LDL)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)、空腹血糖(FBG)、餐后2h血糖(2hPBG)水平均有明显改善,TC、TG、LDL-C、FBG、2hPBG水平均降低,HDL-C升高,各项指标平均水平均达到标准水平,与治疗前比较,差异有统计学意义(P <0.05)。其中有54例(72.00%)患者的TC、TG、LDL-C、HDL-C各项血脂水平均恢复至标准水平,51例(68.00%)患者FBG、2hPBG血糖水平均恢复至标准水平。结论降糖联合他汀降脂疗法应用于混合型血脂异常的2型糖尿病治疗当中,能够有效降低患者的血糖、血脂水平,临床治疗效果理想,应用价值高,值得推广应用。     

Antithrombotic effects of rosiglitazone-metformin versus glimepiride-metformin combination therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the differential effect on coagulation and fibrinolysis parameters of combination therapy with glimepiride-metformin and with rosiglitazone-metformin beyond their effect on glucose metabolism in patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Two university-affiliated medical centers in Italy. PATIENTS: Ninety-five patients with type 2 diabetes for at least 6 months without glycemic control by diet and oral hypoglycemic agents to their maximum tolerated dosage and who also had metabolic syndrome. INTERVENTION: All 95 patients received metformin 1500 mg/day. In a randomized manner, 47 patients received glimepiride 2 mg/day and 48 patients received rosiglitazone 4 mg/day. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and coagulation and fibrinolysis parameters were evaluated at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of treatment. Compared with baseline values, significant decreases in BMI, fasting plasma glucose, postprandial plasma glucose, and hemoglobin A1c were observed at 12 months in both the glimepiride and rosiglitazone groups (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). Decreases in fasting plasma insulin and postprandial plasma insulin were observed at 12 months (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively) compared with baseline values in the rosiglitazone group. Furthermore, improvement in the Homeostasis Model Assessment index was observed only at 9 and 12 months (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively) compared with baseline in the rosiglitazone group. Significant improvement in plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI)-1 was present in the rosiglitazone group after 9 months (p<0.05), and significant PAI-1 improvement was observed in the glimepiride and rosiglitazone groups after 12 months (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The rosiglitazone-metformin combination significantly improved the long-term control of all insulin resistance-related parameters compared with the glimepiride-metformin combination. However, both combinations were associated with a slight but statistically significant improvement in PAI-1 value, related to a similar reduction in insulin resistance.     

Effects of policosanol and pravastatin on lipid profile, platelet aggregation and endothelemia in older hypercholesterolemic patients

This randomized, double-blind study was undertaken to compare the effects of policosanol and pravastatin administered at 10 mg/day on lipid profile, platelet aggregation and endothelemia in older patients with type II hypercholesterolemia and high coronary risk. After 6 weeks on a lipid-lowering diet, patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels > 3.4 mmol/l were randomized to receive, under double-blind conditions, policosanol or pravastatin 10 mg tablets that were taken with the evening meal for 8 weeks. Policosanol significantly (p < 0.00001) lowered LDL-cholesterol (19.3%), total cholesterol (13.9%) and the ratios of LDL-cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol (28.3%) and total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol (24.4%). Pravastatin significantly (p < 0.00001) lowered LDL-cholesterol (15.6%), total cholesterol (11.8%) and the ratios (p < 0.0001) of LDL-cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol (18.9%) and total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol (15.7%). Policosanol, but not pravastatin, significantly increased (p < 0.001) levels of HDL-cholesterol (18.4%) and reduced (p < 0.01) triglycerides (14.1%). Policosanol was more effective (p < 0.05) than pravastatin in inhibiting platelet aggregation induced by all agonists and it significantly reduced (p < 0.0001) platelet aggregation induced by arachidonic acid at 1.5 and 3 mmol/l by 42.2% and 69.5%, respectively, platelet aggregation induced by collagen 0.5 microgram/ml (p < 0.05) (16.6%) and that induced by adenosine diphosphate 1 mumol/l (p < 0.01) (20.3%). Pravastatin significantly reduced (p < 0.001) (27%) only platelet aggregation induced by arachidonic acid 3 mmol/l. Both drugs significantly decreased (p < 0.00001) endothelemia levels but final values were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the policosanol than in the pravastatin group. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Pravastatin significantly (p < 0.01) increased serum levels of alanine amine transferase but individual values remained within normal. Two patients on pravastatin discontinued the study because of adverse experiences (myocardial infarction and jaundice, respectively). In conclusion, the effects of policosanol (10 mg/day) on lipid profile, platelet aggregation and endothelemia in older patients with type II hypercholesterolemia and high coronary risk are more favorable than those induced by the same doses of pravastatin.     

Adjunctive therapy with pramlintide in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus

Uncontrolled diabetes mellitus is associated with both microvascular and macrovascular complications. Despite an array of treatment options available, achievement of euglycemia in most patients with diabetes is still lacking. Pramlintide acetate, a synthetic analog of the human hormone amylin and belonging to a new class of agents, was approved in March 2005 as adjunctive treatment in patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes mellitus. To evaluate the data available on the efficacy and safety of pramlintide, we conducted a search of MEDLINE (January 1966-May 2006) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (January 1970-May 2006). Bibliographies of clinical trials were reviewed for additional references. The literature reviewed demonstrated that pramlintide is effective in reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin and potentially preventing weight gain. The most commonly reported adverse effects associated with pramlintide were nausea, anorexia, and hypoglycemia. These adverse effects occurred more often during the initiation of therapy and were usually mild to moderate in nature. Whether this therapy is a cost-effective option for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus is yet to be determined.     

Comparative efficacy of the addition of ezetimibe to statin vs statin titration in patients with hypercholesterolaemia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective:

To systematically review and analyse evidence for cholesterol-lowering efficacy of at least 4 weeks of add-on ezetimibe vs doubling statin dose, in adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia.     

Effects of Phyllanthus reticulatus on lipid profile and oxidative stress in hypercholesterolemic albino rats

Objective:

This study was designed to investigate the effect of Phyllanthus reticulatus on lipid profile and oxidative stress in hypercholesterolemic albino rats.

Materials and Methods:

Hypercholesterolemia was induced in albino rats by administration of atherogenic diet for 2 weeks. Experimental rats were divided into different groups: normal, hypercholesterolemic control and P. reticulatus treated (250 and 500 mg/kg body weight doses for 45 days). After the treatment period of 45^th day triglyceride, VLDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol (TC), LDL-cholesterol and oxidative stress (protein carbonyl) were assayed and compared with hypercholesterolemic control.

Results:

The aqueous extract of P. reticulatus (250 mg and 500 mg/kg) produced significant reduction (P < 0.05) in triglyceride, VLDL-cholesterol, total cholesterol (TC), LDL-cholesterol and oxidative stress (protein carbonyl) while increased HDL-cholesterol in atherogenic diet-induced hypercholesterolemic rats at the end of the treatment period (45 days). However, the reduction in the above parameters was comparable with hypercholesterolemic control. Thus, aqueous extract of P. reticulatus is effective in controlling TC, lipid profile and oxidative stress in hypercholesterolemic animals.

Conclusion:

The results suggest the aqueous extract of P. reticulatus can be utilized for prevention of atherosclerosis in hypercholesterolemic patients.     

替米沙坦对糖尿病合并高血压患者脂代谢紊乱的影响

目的探讨替米沙坦对糖尿病合并高血压病患者脂代谢紊乱的影响。方法选择广西壮族自治区梧州市人民医院的2型糖尿病合并高血压患者120例,用随机数字表法分为观察组（60例）和对照组（60例）。观察组采用替米沙坦口服40mg,1次／d;对照组采用硝苯地平缓释片口服10mg,2次／d;2组均治疗4个月。观察对比2组治疗前后血压、空腹血糖、餐后2h血糖、糖化血红蛋白、三酰甘油、总胆固醇、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇、胰岛素及肝肾功能、心电图及不良反应。结果2组治疗后收缩压[观察组：（131±7）mmHg（1mmHg=0．133kPa）;对照组：（136±5）mmHg]、舒张压[观察组：（82±4）mmHg;对照组：（91±6）mmHg]与治疗前[观察组收缩压：（163±11）mmHg,舒张压：（102±5）mmHg;对照组收缩压：（162±9）mmHg,舒张压：（100±3）mmHg]比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。观察组治疗后的收缩压、舒张压与对照组比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。观察组治疗后总胆固醇[（4．1±0．9）mmol／L]、三酰甘油[（1．6±0．8）mmol／L]、空腹胰岛素[（15±7）mIU／L]水平明显低于治疗前[（5．7±1．7）mmol／L、（3．3±1．4）mmol／L、（21±13）mIU／L]（P〈0．05）。观察组治疗后三酰甘油、空腹胰岛素与对照组[三酰甘油：（3．5±1．4）mmol／L,空腹胰岛素（22±13）mIU／L]比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。观察组总有效率[88．3％（53／60）]明显高于对照组[75．0％（45／60）],差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。观察组不良反应发生率[3．3％（2／60）]明显低于对照组[15．0％（9／60）],差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。结论替米沙坦治疗糖尿病合并高血压安全、有效、依从胜好,并且能改善胰岛素抵抗和脂代谢异常。     

2型糖尿病病人脂代谢对心脏结构和功能的影响

目的 探究2型糖尿病(T2DM)病人脂代谢对病人心脏结构和功能的影响.方法 测定2017年2月至2018年6月在亳州市人民医院确诊的84例T2DM和47例对照组的三酰甘油、总胆固醇、高密度胆固醇(HDL)、低密度胆固醇(LDL)、载脂蛋白A(ApoA)、载脂蛋白B(ApoB)及血糖水平,并通过超声心动图测定研究对象的左...