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

Clinical experience with ezetimibe/simvastatin in a Mediterranean population

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to describe the clinical experience of the ezetimibe (EZE)/simvastatin (SIMVA) combination in a hypercholesterolaemic Greek population who did not attain the cholesterol goals on statin treatment alone.

METHODS

Patients already treated with a statin, at any dose, for at least 8 weeks, with LDL-C levels above the goal, (>100, >130 or >160 mg/dl according to their risk category), where the physician chose EZE/SIMVA as appropriate treatment, entered the study. Medical history, demographics and laboratory values were recorded at baseline and 2 months later.

RESULTS

The study included 1514 patients (male 53.4%) of mean age 60.1 + or - 10.5 years. Diabetes mellitus was reported in 29.9% of the patients, 61.2% had hypertension, 39% were obese, 10.5% had a history of myocardial infarction and 6.8% had a history of stroke or peripheral arterial disease. Current and ex-smoking was reported in 46.8%. Atorvastatin (33%) and SIMVA (27.2%) were the most frequently used statins prior to using the EZE/SIMVA regimen. After 2 months of EZE/SIMVA therapy mean LDL-C was reduced by 33%, mean total cholesterol by 26%, mean triglycerides by 15%, while HDL-C was increased by 10%. The percentage of patients who achieved the LDL-C goal with EZE/SIMVA was 73.8%. One serious adverse event, not related to study treatment and 23 adverse events in total were recorded. There was a significant decrease in serum creatinine levels in patients with baseline values greater than 1.0 mg/dl (88 micromol/L).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with the EZE/SIMVA combination appears an effective and safe therapeutic option for patients who do not achieve the LDL-C goals on statin therapy alone.

Effect of adjunct metformin treatment on levels of plasma lipids in patients with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

In addition to its glucose-lowering effect, metformin treatment has been suggested to improve lipidaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. In contrast, in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM), information about the effect of metformin treatment on lipidaemia is limited. In this study, we report the effect of a 1-year treatment with metformin vs. placebo on plasma lipids in T1DM patients and persistent poor glycaemic control.

METHODS

One hundred T1DM patients with haemoglobinA(1c) (HbA(1c)) > or =8.5% during the year before enrolment entered a 1-month run-in period on placebo treatment. Thereafter, patients were randomized (baseline) to treatment with either metformin (1000 mg twice daily) or placebo for 12 months (double masked). Patients continued ongoing insulin therapy and their usual outpatient clinical care. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and after 1 year.

RESULTS

After 1 year, in those patients who did not start or stop statin therapy during the trial, metformin treatment significantly reduced total and LDL cholesterol by approximately 0.3 mmol/l compared with placebo (p = 0.021 and p = 0.018 respectively). Adjustment for statin use or known cardiovascular disease did not change conclusions. In statin users (metformin: n = 22, placebo: n = 13), metformin significantly lowered levels of LDL and non-HDL cholesterol by approximately 0.5 mmol/l compared with placebo (adjusted for changes in statin dose or agent: p = 0.048 and p = 0.033 respectively). HbA(1c) (previously reported) was not significant different between treatments.

CONCLUSION

In patients with poorly controlled T1DM, at similar glycaemic levels, adjunct metformin therapy during 1 year significantly lowered levels of proatherogenic cholesterolaemia independent of statin therapy.

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in high-risk family medicine patients

BACKGROUND

The Adult Treatment Panel III guideline recommends a low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of <100mg/dl for patients with coronary heart disease or risk equivalence (ie, other forms of atherosclerotic vascular disease [peripheral vascular disease, abdominal aortic aneurysm, cerebrovascular disease], diabetes). An optional LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl is recommended for patients considered "very high risk." This category is not well defined, and clinical interpretation of this category varies.

METHODS

To define this category and to determine eligibility for an LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl, 5 definitions of "very high risk" were developed. Patients with coronary heart disease or risk equivalence within the University of Colorado Family Medicine system over the course of 2 years were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes (n=445). Their medical records were evaluated retrospectively. Patients characterized as "very high risk" according to the 5 definitions were assessed for LDL-C <70mg/dl goal attainment.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients did not have LDL-C measurements and were excluded. Using the 5 definitions, we discovered that prevalence as "very high risk" was 10.8% (atherosclerotic vascular disease [AVD] plus smoking), 19.1% (AVD plus diabetes), 21.5% (AVD plus metabolic syndrome plus uncontrolled hypertension or smoking), 47.1% (AVD plus metabolic syndrome), and 67.2% (All AVD), P < .0001. LDL-C <70mg/dl was attained in 26.7%, 46.3%, 31.1%, 39.1%, and 35.2%, respectively (P=.13).

CONCLUSION

Classifying patients as "very high risk" is highly variable depending on individual definitions, but this does not appear to alter the rates of attaining an LDL-C goal of <70mg/dl. When the Adult Treatment Panel IV guidelines are developed and issued, simplicity and clarity will be important in assisting clinicians in defining patient risk and developing LDL-C goals.

Statin and ezetimibe combination therapy in cardiovascular disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the available data regarding the benefits of combination therapy with statins and ezetimibe in patients with cardiovascular disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Extensive evidence, mostly in statin outcome trials, has shown that the magnitude of cardiovascular benefit is directly proportional to the degree of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction. As such, aggressive target goals for LDL-C levels have been established by guideline committees. Although statins are considered first-line agents in lipid therapy, LDL-C targets are difficult to achieve with statin therapy alone. Ezetimibe, a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, has been shown to be well tolerated and effective in lowering LDL-C. Adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy leads to a substantial additional reduction in LDL-C, facilitating the achievement of target goals.

SUMMARY

The combination of ezetimibe, a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, and statins has been shown to be well tolerated and effective in lowering LDL-C and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein to target goals. Whether this greater LDL-C reduction translates into reduced cardiovascular events is the subject of ongoing clinical trials. Until such data is available, ezetimibe seems to be a reasonable choice for a second-line, lipid-lowering agent in patients on a potent statin who are not at their LDL-C goal.

Tolerability and effects on lipids of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin or simvastatin for twelve months: results from two open-label extension studies in hypercholesterolemic patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of these studies was to assess the long-term tolerability and effects on lipids of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin or simvastatin during treatment of hypercholesterolemic patients.

METHODS

Two separate 12-month, open-label extension studies enrolled patients who had successfully completed one of three 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin, lovastatin, or simvastatin. In the extensions, the initial dose of each drug administered was 10 mg/d, with the option to up-titrate the statins if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals were not met. Tolerability was assessed using monitoring of clinical and laboratory adverse events (AEs). Changes from baseline in LDL-C, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels were calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 436 patients received ezetimibe + pravastatin 10 to 40 mg/d, including patients from the parent studies who received coadministration treatment but did not continue in the extension studies; 359 patients received ezetimibe + simvastatin 10 to 80 mg/d in the extension study. The majority of patients in both studies were white (ezetimibe + pravastatin, 374 [86%]; ezetimibe + simvastatin, 314 [87%]) and female (ezetimibe + pravastatin, 246 [56%]; ezetimibe + simvastatin, 210 [58%]). The mean ages were 55.7 and 57.7 years and the mean body mass indexes were 29.4 and 28.8 kg/m2 in the ezetimibe + pravastatin and ezetimibe + simvastatin studies, respectively. The most commonly reported AEs with ezetimibe + pravastatin were upper respiratory tract infection (78 [18%]), headache (47 [11%]), musculoskeletal pain (45 [10%]), arthralgia (43 [10%]), and sinusitis (42 [10%]); with ezetimibe + simvastatin, they were upper respiratory tract infection (67 [19%]), arthralgia (39 [11%]), and musculoskeletal pain (37 [10%]). AEs considered treatment related were reported in 98 (22%) and 80 (22%) patients in the ezetimibe + pravastatin and ezetimibe + simvastatin studies, respectively. Serious AEs were reported in 29 patients (7%) who received ezetimibe + pravastatin and 36 patients (10%) who received ezetimibe + simvastatin; <1% were considered treatment related in either study. Forty-one (9%) and 29 patients (8%), respectively, were withdrawn due to AEs. One death occurred due to cardiopulmonary arrest in the ezetimibe + simvastatin study and was not considered treatment related. Percentage changes from baseline in LDL-C were -36.5% and -40.4% in patients who received ezetimibe + pravastatin and ezetimibe + simvastatin.

CONCLUSION

In these 12-month, open-label extension studies in these patients with hypercholesterolemia, ezetimibe + pravastatin or simvastatin was generally well tolerated. Both treatments were associated with maintaining improvements in lipid parameters throughout the studies in these patients.

Other therapies for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol: medications in development

Although the past 30 years have been fruitful and productive in lipid research, from basic science to drug development to demonstration of clinical benefit, cardiovascular disease remains the major cause of mortality and morbidity in industrialized societies. With the rapid industrialization of countries, such as India and China, cardiovascular disease rapidly is becoming the leading cause of global death and disability. Although most of the effective lipid-lowering drugs, the statins, have become generic and inexpensive, there remains a need for effective and safe agents. Hopefully, some of those discussed in this article will fill that need.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added on to atorvastatin (40 mg) compared with uptitration of atorvastatin (to 80 mg) in hypercholesterolemic patients at high risk of coronary heart disease

The percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol after the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 40 mg was compared with uptitration to atorvastatin 80 mg. In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, adult hypercholesterolemic patients using atorvastatin 40 mg/day were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or uptitration to atorvastatin 80 mg. After 6 weeks of treatment, compared with atorvastatin 80 mg, atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe significantly reduced the primary end point of LDL cholesterol by -27% versus atorvastatin 80 mg by -11% (p <0.001), as well as significantly reduced non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, and triglycerides significantly more than atorvastatin 80 mg (all p <0.001). Percentages of change in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A-I were similar between groups. Significantly more patients treated with atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe reached LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl versus patients treated with atorvastatin 80 mg (74% vs 32%; p <0.001). Safety and tolerability profiles and incidence of liver and muscle adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. In conclusion, these results showed that adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin 40 mg was significantly more effective than uptitrating to atorvastatin 80 mg at lowering LDL cholesterol and other lipid parameters. Both treatments were generally well tolerated (clinical trial no. NCT00276484).

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe added on to atorvastatin (20 mg) versus uptitration of atorvastatin (to 40 mg) in hypercholesterolemic patients at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg added to atorvastatin 20 mg compared with doubling atorvastatin to 40 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease who did not reach low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl with atorvastatin 20 mg. In this 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 196 patients treated with atorvastatin 20 mg received atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 weeks. Adding ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 20 mg produced significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol than increasing atorvastatin to 40 mg (-31% vs -11%, p <0.001). Significantly greater reductions were also seen in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (p <0.001). Significantly more patients reached LDL cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl with atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe compared with atorvastatin 40 mg (84% vs 49%, p <0.001). The 2 treatment groups had comparable results for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein A-I, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The incidences of clinical and laboratory adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. In conclusion, the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 20 mg was generally well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater lipid-lowering efficacy compared with doubling atorvastatin to 40 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease.

Long-term safety and tolerability of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients: a randomized, 12-month double-blind extension study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the long-term safety and tolerability and to further evaluate the effect of ezetimibe plus simvastatin on LDL-C, HDL-C, and triglyceride levels in subjects with primary hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

This was a 12-month, double-blind, placebo-controlled extension study that enrolled patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who had successfully completed the 12-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin. The initial dose administered to patients in the extension was ezetimibe 10 mg coadministered with simvastatin 10 mg with the option to up-titrate statin dosage if LDL-C goals were not met. Safety and tolerability were assessed through clinical and laboratory adverse experiences (AEs). Changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglyceride levels were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, 87 patients were randomized to receive ezetimibe + simvastatin and 22 were randomized to receive simvastatin and placebo. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported for 72/87 (83%) ezetimibe + simvastatin-treated patients and for 17/22 (77%) simvastatin-treated patients. The most commonly reported AEs in the simvastatin treatment group were hypertension, gastro-esophageal reflux, and musculoskeletal pain (each reported by 3/22 [14%] patients); and in the ezetimibe + simvastatin group were upper respiratory tract infection (16/87 [18%]), arthralgia and musculoskeletal pain (both reported by 10/87 [11%] patients). Drug-related AEs were reported for 3/22 (14%) simvastatin-treated patients and 21/87 (24%) patients in the coadministration group. AEs considered serious by the investigator were reported by 2/22 (9%) patients taking simvastatin monotherapy and by 20/87 (23%) patients taking ezetimibe + simvastatin. Discontinuations due to AEs occurred in no patients taking simvastatin monotherapy and in 7/87 (8%) patients taking ezetimibe + simvastatin. Percent change ± standard deviation from baseline in LDL-C was -29% ± 15.4 and -44% ± 14.2 in subjects taking simvastatin monotherapy and ezetimibe + simvastatin, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin was generally well-tolerated and no new safety concerns were raised. Both treatments effectively maintained improvements in lipid parameters throughout the course of the studies. Interpretation of these results was limited by the small convenience sample included in the trial.

Statin plus ezetimibe treatment in clinical practice: the SI-SPECT (Slovenia (SI) Statin Plus Ezetimibe in Cholesterol Treatment) monitoring of clinical practice study

BACKGROUND

Poor results from lipid-lowering therapy are mainly due to inadequate dosing and increased adverse effects with high-dose statin monotherapy or drug combinations.

OBJECTIVES

The SI-SPECT (Slovenia (SI) Statin Plus Ezetimibe in Cholesterol Treatment) study evaluated the effectiveness of either ezetimibe (EZE) 10 mg as monotherapy or co-administered with on-going statin treatment (S + EZE) in clinical practice.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A total of 1053 dyslipidaemic patients (52% men, age 60.3 years, 42.9% with CHD, 32.0% with diabetes mellitus and 69.6% with hypertension) were enrolled. The majority (n=986; 93.6%) were treated with EZE as 'add-on' to their already prescribed statin, the rest only received EZE (n=67).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline lipid levels were compared with those obtained 16 weeks after initiating treatment.

RESULTS

Total (TC) and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), as well as triglycerides (TG) decreased significantly with S + EZE (by 25.3%, 31.4% and 28.9%, respectively; p<0.0001 for all comparisons), while monotherapy with EZE resulted in a decrease of 20.8% for TC (p<0.0001), 28.0% for LDL-C (p<0.0001) and 28.8% for TG (p=0.016). At the end of the study 43.9% of patients achieved target TC (<5.0 mmol/L for primary prevention and <4.5 mmol/L for secondary prevention), 50.5% target LDL-C (<3.0 mmol/L for primary prevention and <2.5 mmol/L for secondary prevention) and 61.6% target TG (<2.0 mmol/L). The overall incidence of adverse effects during the treatment period, and probably related to EZE use, was low (n=6, 0.6% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS

(1) S + EZE combination therapy was effective and safe irrespective of the statin used, (2) the S + EZE combination resulted in significantly more patients reaching their recommended target lipid levels and (3) the lipid-lowering efficacy of EZE in monotherapy as well as of the S + EZE combination was related to initial lipid values. The much greater decrease of TG than expected could be, at least in part, due to better control/compliance regarding diet and drug treatment during the study and adherence to the need for an overnight fast before sampling.

Review of side-effect profile of combination ezetimibe and statin therapy in randomized clinical trials

Effective treatment to achieve target lipid parameters in high-risk patients may require combination drug therapies. Concerns regarding risks associated with such combination therapies may limit their use. A systematic overview of randomized controlled trials to assess risks associated with combination statin and ezetimibe therapy was performed. Eighteen trials were identified, including 14,471 patients. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 48 weeks. Compared with statin monotherapy, combination therapy did not result in significant absolute increases in risks of myalgias (risk difference -0.033, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.06 to -0.01), creatine kinase increases (risk difference 0.011, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.04), rhabdomyolysis (risk difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.004), transaminase increases (risk difference -0.003, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.005), gastrointestinal adverse events (risk difference 0.005, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.04), or discontinuations because of an adverse event (risk difference -0.005, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02). In conclusion, based on available randomized trials, the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy did not increase the risk of myalgias, creatine kinase increases, rhabdomyolysis, transaminase increases, gastrointestinal adverse events, or discontinuations because of an adverse event. Additional trials are necessary to ensure that results of clinical trials are consistent with routine clinical practice, particularly in older patients with more co-morbid conditions and patients on higher statin doses.

Ezetimibe: cholesterol lowering and beyond

Ezetimibe is a cholesterol absorption inhibitor that blocks the intestinal absorption of both biliary and dietary cholesterol. It appears to exert its effect by blocking intestinal sterol transporters, specifically Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 proteins, thereby inhibiting the intestinal absorption of cholesterol, phytosterols and certain oxysterols. Ezetimibe monotherapy and in combination with statin therapy is primarily indicated for lowering LDL-cholesterol levels. In addition, it may favorably affect other parameters that could potentially further reduce atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk, such as raising HDL-cholesterol and lowering levels of triglycerides, non-HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and remnant-like particle cholesterol. Further effects of ezetimibe include a reduction in circulating phytosterols and oxysterols and, when used in combination with statins, a reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The clinical significance of the LDL-cholesterol lowering and other effects of ezetimibe is being evaluated in clinical outcome studies.

Management of lipids in the prevention of cardiovascular events

Lipid-modifying therapy has been proven to significantly reduce cardiovascular events and total mortality. Most of the data have come from statin trials. Statin therapy is generally well-tolerated and safe, and for patients who are at higher than average risk of cardiovascular disease, the benefit of lipid-modifying therapy far exceeds the risk. Careful risk assessment is a critical component of effective lipid-modifying therapy. In the foreseeable future, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) will remain the primary therapeutic target, and combination therapy is likely to become the norm. The major questions are how low to treat and how to achieve increasingly aggressive targets in lipid-lowering therapy. Many patients on LDL-lowering therapy continue to have abnormalities of the triglyceride-high-density lipoprotein (TG-HDL) axis, so additional drug therapy is often considered for such patients. In this review, we briefly discuss new developments in cardiovascular risk assessment, then discuss recent developments in treatment to reduce LDL, and finally discuss current concepts regarding therapy targeting the TG-HDL axis.

The effect of statin alone or in combination with ezetimibe on postprandial lipoprotein composition in obese metabolic syndrome patients

INTRODUCTION

Fasting and postprandial hypertriglyceridemia are essential features of metabolic syndrome. Statins decrease fasting lipid levels but fail to reduce fat load induced hypertriglyceridemia. We established whether ezetimibe combined with simvastatin differently influences post fat load lipid levels and lipoprotein composition as compared to simvastatin 80mg monotherapy in obese male metabolic syndrome patients.

METHODS

Prospective, randomized, double blind, crossover trial. Male obese metabolic syndrome (ATPIII) patients (n=19) were treated with simvastatin 80mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10mg/10mg for 6 weeks. At the start of the study and after each treatment period oral fat loading tests were performed. Lipoprotein fractions (triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRL), IDL, LDL, and HDL) were isolated by density gradient ultracentrifugation. Postprandial changes in lipid levels were integrated as areas under the curve (AUCs).

RESULTS

Fasting LDL-C, RLP-C and triglycerides were lowered equally by both simvastatin 80mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10mg/10mg. Also postprandial plasma triglyceride levels (net AUC-TG) were equally lowered after both treatments (5.16+/-0.50mmolh/l after simvastatin/ezetimibe 10mg/10mg and 6.09+/-0.71mmolh/l after simvastatin 80mg) compared to fat loading without treatment (6.64+/-0.86mmolh/l). In addition, triglyceride-content in lipoprotein fractions after fat load (net AUCs) were also equally reduced after both treatments. Similarly, TRL. IDL and LDL cholesterol and apoB concentrations were equally affected by both treatment regimens, leading to a reduced number of circulating particles, in both conditions. However the composition of these particles remained the same.

CONCLUSION

Simvastatin 80mg and simvastatin/ezetimibe 10mg/10mg were equally effective in reducing fasting and post fat load plasma lipid, and lipoprotein concentrations and lipoprotein composition in obese metabolic syndrome patients.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a combination tablet of niacin extended-release and simvastatin with simvastatin 80 mg monotherapy: the SEACOAST II (high-dose) study

BACKGROUND

The number of patients with multiple lipid abnormalities is increasing. Lipid treatment guidelines are established for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C). The importance of treating HDL-C and triglycerides is gaining recognition.

OBJECTIVE

To determine, in patients who had been treated previously with simvastatin 40 mg/day, the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two regimens of a combination of proprietary niacin, extended-release core, coated with 40 mg/day simvastatin (NER/S), compared to 80 mg/day simvastatin monotherapy (S80).

METHODS

High-risk patients (n = 343) with dyslipidemia were treated for 24 weeks with NER/S (1000/40 mg/day or 2000/40 mg/day) or S80.

RESULTS

Median percentage change from baseline to week 24 in non-HDL-C in either NER/S group was noninferior to S80 (-11.3%, -17.1%, and -10.1%, respectively). Changes in LDL-C were comparable (-8.6%, -11.6%, and -12.7%, respectively). Doubling the dose of simvastatin (S80) did not alter HDL-C, triglycerides, or lipoprotein(a); however, both NER/S doses resulted in significant improvements in all three parameters (+21.9%, -31.8%, and -21.0%, respectively, for NER/S 2000/40 mg/day). The safety of NER/S was consistent with the safety profile of each individual component. Treatment with both doses of NER/S was well tolerated; 59% of patients experienced flushing, 78% of flushing was mild or moderate in intensity, 49% of those who flushed during dose titration did not flush during weeks 13 to 24, and only 4.6% of patients discontinued because of flushing.

CONCLUSION

NER/S provides similar reductions in non-HDL-C and LDL-C compared to doubling the simvastatin dose to 80 mg; however, only NER/S resulted in improvements in HDL-C, triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a).

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

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

Ezetimibe-associated adverse effects: what the clinician needs to know

OBJECTIVE

Ezetimibe is a relatively new lipid lowering agent, which is indicated for the treatment of primary hypercholesterolaemia, either as monotherapy or in combination with other hypolipidaemic drugs. The objective of the present article was to review the side effects attributed to ezetimibe administration and discuss their possible underlying mechanisms. Moreover, we aimed to comment on the possible drug interactions of ezetimibe and present current guidelines regarding its safe use.

METHODS

Relevant articles were identified through a PubMed search (up to June 2007).

RESULTS

Compelling evidence from the majority of the data reviewed here showed that adverse effects associated with ezetimibe use are few and mild without having been associated with serious clinical outcomes. In most studies ezetimibe has not been associated with increased rates of myopathy or rhabdomyolysis, whether used alone or in combination with statins, although there have been some case reports of myopathy attributed to this agent. Moreover, ezetimibe has been associated with mild elevations of liver transaminases, mainly in combination with a statin. Other side effects are extremely rare. It should be noted, however, there are no long-term safety data or outcome studies for ezetimibe yet.

CONCLUSIONS

Ezetimibe is a safe alternative option for hyperlipidaemic patients intolerant to other lipid lowering drugs as well as a beneficial supplementary agent for patients who do not reach the recommended serum cholesterol level with their current hypolipidaemic treatment. However, as is the case with all new medications, physicians should be alert to recognise adverse effects associated with ezetimibe and report them to regulatory authorities.

Ezetimibe, a selective inhibitor of the transport of cholesterol

Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 (NPC1L1) has recently been identified and has been shown to have features of a plasma membrane transporter, including a secretion signal, 13 predicted transmembrane domains, extensive N-linked glycosylation sites and a sterol-sensing domain. It is highly expressed on the surface of absorptive jejunal enterocytes. NPC1L1 has been shown to be a direct target of ezetimibe, and an ezetimibe-sensitive pathway plays a role in intestinal cholesterol absorption. Ezetimibe-based therapy represents an exciting new area in the treatment of dyslipidemia.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and ezetimibe plus statin therapy in patients aged under 65, 65–74 and 75 years and older

Although the greatest burden of cardiovascular disease occurs after age 65 years, limited efficacy and safety data are available for cholesterol-lowering drugs in elderly patients. We undertook a pooled analysis of individual data from 13,282 patients aged 18–93 years in 16 published trials of ezetimibe and ezetimibe added on to or coadministered with a statin (ezetimibe/statin). Overall, ezetimibe reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 20% compared with placebo and ezetimibe/statin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 17% compared with a statin alone, with consistent treatment effects across age groups (<65, 65–74 and ≥75 years). Rates of any adverse or drug-related adverse events were also similar across age groups. We conclude that the lipid efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and ezetimibe/statin in those aged 65–74 and 75 years and older are similar to those observed in patients aged under 65 years.

EP2306 [2-(4-biphenyl)-4-methyl-octahydro-1,4-benzoxazin-2-ol, hydrobromide], a novel squalene synthase inhibitor, reduces atherosclerosis in the cholesterol-fed rabbit

EP2306 [2-(4-biphenyl)-4-methyl-octahydro-1,4-benzoxazin-2-ol, hydrobromide] inhibits squalene synthase and lipid biosynthesis and possesses antioxidant properties. We hypothesized that EP2306 can effectively modify circulating lipids and reduce atherosclerosis in the cholesterol-fed rabbit. Animals were fed a high-cholesterol diet for 4 weeks followed by 4 (phase 1 and 2) or 12 weeks (phase 3) of drug treatment while on high-cholesterol diet. In phase 1, the dose-effect relationship of EP2306 on lipids and atherosclerosis was established, and its most effective dose was determined (2 mg/kg). This dose reduced significantly total cholesterol (512 +/- 96 mg/dl before versus 320 +/- 124 mg/dl after treatment, p < 0.05) and atherosclerotic lesions compared with control animals. In phase 2, the effects of 2 mg/kg EP2306, 2.5 mg/kg simvastatin, and their combination were assessed. Although no significant effect on lipid parameters was observed, there was a significant reduction (35 +/- 5%, p < 0.05) of atherosclerotic lesions in animals treated with EP2306, a similar reduction with simvastatin, and a further reduction (48 +/- 7%, p < 0.05) when the two agents were combined. In animals treated for 12 weeks with the drugs (phase 3), only EP2306 significantly reduced atherosclerotic lesions by more than 50%, whereas simvastatin alone or in combination with EP2306 had no effect. Treatment with EP2306 did not adversely affect liver transaminases or cause any histopathological changes on various organs of the animals. In conclusion, we have shown that EP2306 inhibits atherosclerosis in vivo, indicating potential as a novel therapeutic agent for coronary artery disease and other atherosclerosis-related disorders.

Statins increase neurogenesis in the dentate gyrus, reduce delayed neuronal death in the hippocampal CA3 region, and improve spatial learning in rat after traumatic brain injury

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) remains a major public health problem globally. Presently, there is no way to restore cognitive deficits caused by TBI. In this study, we seek to evaluate the effect of statins (simvastatin and atorvastatin) on the spatial learning and neurogenesis in rats subjected to controlled cortical impact. Rats were treated with atorvastatin and simvastatin 1 day after TBI and daily for 14 days. Morris water maze tests were performed during weeks 2 and 5 after TBI. Bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU; 50 mg/kg) was intraperitoneally injected 1 day after TBI and daily for 14 days. Brain tissue was processed for immunohistochemical staining to identify newly generated cells and vessels. Our data show that (1) treatment of TBI with statins improves spatial learning on days 31-35 after onset of TBI; (2) in the non-neurogenic region of the hippocampal CA3 region, statin treatment reduces the neuronal loss after TBI, demonstrating the neuroprotective effect of statins; (3) in the neurogenic region of the dentate gyrus, treatment of TBI with statins enhances neurogenesis; (4) statin treatment augments TBI-induced angiogenesis; and (5) treatment with simvastatin at the same dose provides a therapeutic effect superior to treatment with atorvastatin. These results suggest that statins may be candidates for treatment of TBI.

Statins and C-reactive protein levels

In patients with or at risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD), including hypertensive individuals, lowering levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduces CVD risk. Statins are the most effective of available therapies for lowering LDL-C. Extensive clinical trial data have shown that the degree of LDL-C reduction obtained depends on the particular statin used and that intensive LDL-C lowering reduces the incidence of cardiovascular events compared with more moderate LDL-C lowering. More recent data suggest that effects independent of LDL-C lowering may also play a part in the reduction in cardiovascular events. C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of inflammation, is a potential predictor of CVD risk, and statins reduce CRP levels by up to 60%. CRP reduction is independent of LDL-C lowering, and variation between statins in CRP reduction may play some role in CVD event reduction rates. At present, however, there are few outcome data relating to the cardiovascular benefits of reducing CRP.

Co-administration of ezetimibe and simvastatin in acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Recent trials in acute myocardial infarction indicate that intensive and early statin therapy that lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to < or = 70 mg dL(-1) is beneficial. The combination of statins with ezetimibe, a newly developed cholesterol-absorption inhibitor, can lead to a further reduction in LDL-C of up to 26%. In this study, we examined the rapidity and intensity of the lipid-lowering effect of ezetimibe co-administered with simvastatin immediately after myocardial infarction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction were randomized to receive either simvastatin 40 mg (SIMVA), a combination of simvastatin 40 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg (EZE/SIMVA), or no lipid-lowering drugs (NLLD) and had their lipid levels assessed 2, 4 and 7 days later.

RESULTS

At baseline, cardiovascular risk factors were similar in all three groups [mean (SD) LDL-C of 141 (36) mg dL(-1)]. At days 2 , 4 and 7 there was no significant change in mean LDL-C levels in the NLLD group (-10%, -6%, and -9%, all P > 0.09), while there were significant reductions with SIMVA (-15%, -27%, and -25%, respectively, all P < 0.001 vs. day 0) and even greater reductions with co-administration of EZE/SIMVA (-27%, -41%, and -51%, respectively, all P < 0.001 vs. day 0). The percentages of patients achieving LDL-C below 70 mg dL(-1) at days 4 and 7 were substantially greater with EZE/SIMVA (45% and 55%, respectively) than with SIMVA (5% and 10%, respectively), while no NLLD patient reached this goal. Triglyceride levels showed a progressive increase in the NLLD group (+45% at day 7, P < 0.05 vs. day 0), no change in the SIMVA group, but a decrease in the EZE/SIMVA group (-17% at day 7, P < 0.05 vs. day 0). No significant difference in HDL-C levels, tolerability, or clinical events was observed between the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg with simvastatin 40 mg, by inhibiting cholesterol absorption and production, allowed more patients with acute myocardial infarction to reach LDL-C < or = 70 mg dL(-1) as early as the fourth day of treatment. The effects of such rapid and intense reduction in LDL-C on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality need to be evaluated in future clinical endpoint studies.

Safety of aggressive lipid management

Data from recent clinical trials of high- versus moderate-dose statin therapy support the recommendation to achieve a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) <100 mg/dl in high-risk patients and reveal that many patients will require a high-dose statin to achieve this goal. Overall, low rates of serious musculoskeletal (<0.6%) and hepatic (<1.3%) toxicity have been observed with high-dose statin therapy. In the long-term trials, atorvastatin 80 mg had higher rates of persistent transaminase elevations but rates of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis similar to lower doses of statins. The rate of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis for simvastatin 80 mg, although still low, was about 4x higher than for atorvastatin 80 mg and lower doses of statin. A similar margin of safety would be expected in properly selected patients with characteristics similar to those who participated in the clinical trials. High-dose statin therapy or combination therapy will be required for the large majority of very high-risk patients to achieve the optional LDL goal of <70 mg/dl. While the combination of ezetimibe, bile-acid sequestering agents, niacin, and fenofibrate with moderate dose statins appears to be reasonably safe, the long-term safety of combination with high-dose statins remains to be established. In order to optimize patient outcomes, clinicians should be aware of specific patient characteristics, such as advancing age, gender, body mass index, or glomerular filtration rate, which predict muscle and hepatic statin toxicity.

Safety considerations with gastrointestinally active lipid-lowering drugs

Gastrointestinally active agents such as cholesterol absorption inhibitors (CAIs) (eg, ezetimibe) and bile acid sequestrants (BAS) (the resins cholestyramine and colestipol, or colesevelam, a nonabsorbable polymer) offer important options for lipid-lowering therapy. Ezetimibe is a novel CAI that inhibits the absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol without affecting the absorption of triglycerides or fat-soluble vitamins. In clinical trials, there has been no evidence of increased rates of myopathy or rhabdomyolysis associated with ezetimibe, whether in use as monotherapy or in a combination with statin therapy, although there exist case reports of possible ezetimibe-associated myopathy. Ezetimibe alone does not appear to increase liver transaminase levels significantly, but the coadministration of a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor (statin) with ezetimibe marginally increases this risk. However, reported increases in liver enzymes have not been associated with clinically meaningful symptoms and often return to baseline levels after the discontinuation of therapy or with continued treatment. To date, no cases of liver failure, liver transplantation, or death have been reported. BAS have been used clinically since the 1960s for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Because they are not absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract into the blood, these agents do not contact most body organs and are therefore systemically safe. However, case reports and pharmacokinetic data disclose 3 kinds of adverse effects: (1) the decreased absorption of concomitant medications and sometimes of certain vitamins; (2) the physicochemical alteration of intestinal contents leading to constipation and, very rarely, intestinal obstruction; and (3) modest increases in plasma triglyceride levels due to the alteration of hepatic lipid metabolism. The newest BAS, colesevelam, has greater specificity for bile acids compared with the older agents cholestyramine and colestipol, eliminating most drug interactions and reducing the tendency for constipation. Overall, CAIs and BAS have excellent systemic safety profiles when used alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering drugs.

Treatment With Ezetimibe Plus Low-Dose Atorvastatin Compared With Higher-Dose Atorvastatin Alone

OBJECTIVES

We sought to test the platelet inhibitory and anti-inflammatory effects of a higher statin dosage compared with combined treatment with ezetimibe plus a low statin dose.

BACKGROUND

Reducing the level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) with statins induces important pleiotropic effects such as platelet inhibition. An insufficient LDL-C reduction often is treated with ezetimibe, an intestinal cholesterol absorption inhibitor, in combination with a low statin dose. It is not known whether this combination therapy has the same pleiotropic effects as a statin monotherapy.

METHODS

Fifty-six patients with coronary artery disease were assigned randomly to receive either 40 mg/day of atorvastatin or 10 mg/day of ezetimibe plus 10 mg/day of atorvastatin for 4 weeks. The levels of LDL-C, platelet activation markers after stimulation, platelet aggregation, and plasma chemokine levels (i.e., regulated on activation normally T-cell expressed and secreted [RANTES]) were measured before and after changing lipid-lowering medication.

RESULTS

Platelet activation markers (P-selectin) after stimulation (adenosine diphosphate) were reduced by 40 mg/day of atorvastatin (-5.2 +/- 1.6 arbitrary units) but not by ezetimibe plus low-dose atorvastatin (2.1 +/- 1.8 arbitrary units; p < 0.005) despite a similar reduction of LDL-C (atorvastatin -1.01 +/- 0.18 mmol/l vs. ezetimibe plus atorvastatin -1.36 +/- 0.22 mmol/l, p = NS). Thrombin receptor-activating peptide-induced platelet aggregation as well as plasma RANTES levels were reduced by 40 mg/day of atorvastatin but not by ezetimibe plus low-dose atorvastatin.

CONCLUSIONS

Platelet reactivity and a proinflammatory chemokine were reduced more by the higher atorvastatin dose than by ezetimibe plus low-dose atorvastatin. In patients with coronary artery disease, it might be important to combine ezetimibe with higher statin dosages to benefit from cholesterol-independent pleiotropic effects.

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.

Efficacy and tolerability of ezetimibe 10 mg/day coadministered with statins in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who do not achieve target LDL-C while on statin monotherapy: A Canadian, multicentre, prospective study--the Ezetrol Add-On Study

BACKGROUND

For patients who have above-target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels while on statin monotherapy, coadministration of a cholesterol absorption inhibitor with the statin may decrease serum LDL-C levels and improve overall lipid profiles.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg/day coadministered with a statin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who have higher than recommended LDL-C levels while on statin monotherapy.

METHODS

A six-week, prospective, multicentre study of eligible patients who had above-target LDL-C levels while on monotherapy with any statin, regardless of dose, for a minimum of four weeks. All patients were treated for six weeks with 10 mg ezetimibe daily coadministered with their current statins.

RESULTS

A total of 1141 patients were screened, 953 (83.5%) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria and 837 (87.8%) completed the study. Reasons for withdrawal included: lost to follow-up (50 patients [5.2%]); protocol violations (45 patients [4.7%]); adverse events (19 patients [2.0%]); and withdrawal of consent (two patients [0.2%]). After six weeks of treatment, statistically significant (P = 0.001) mean reductions were observed in LDL-C (30.05%), total cholesterol (20.84%), triglycerides (10.16%), apolipoprotein B (19.84%) and the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (19.88%). At six weeks, 674 patients (80.5%) achieved target LDL-C levels. Fifty predominantly mild, nonserious adverse events related to ezetimibe were reported by 32 patients (3.4%). Frequently reported adverse events included constipation (n = 7 [0.7% of patients]), diarrhea (n = 4 [0.4%]) and dizziness (n = 4 [0.4%]).

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe coadministered with statins is effective in reducing LDL-C in patients who do not attain target LDL-C levels while on statin monotherapy.

Non-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-associated actions of ezetimibe: an overview

Ezetimibe, an intestinal cholesterol absorption inhibitor, lowers circulating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels both when administered as monotherapy and in combination with other hypolipidaemic drugs, mostly statins. This review focuses on the effects of ezetimibe on non-LDL-C-associated variables. In most studies, ezetimibe effectively reduced triglyceride and increased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The authors also consider the effect of ezetimibe on other variables such as C-reactive protein levels, insulin sensitivity and endothelial function. Ezetimibe is useful in patients with sitosterolaemia (a rare inherited disorder) as it significantly reduces plasma phytosterol concentrations. Ezetimibe fulfils two of the three essential characteristics of any drug (efficacy and safety). However, clinical studies are required to provide evidence of its ability to reduce vascular events.

Lipid-altering efficacy of the ezetimibe/simvastatin single tablet versus rosuvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients

OBJECTIVE

To assess the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin single tablet product compared with rosuvastatin at the approved usual starting, next highest, and maximum doses.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Double-blind, multicenter, 6-week, parallel-group study in hypercholesterolemic patients (n = 2959). Patients were randomized based on stratification by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels to ezetimibe/simvastatin or rosuvastatin, respectively, at the usual starting (10/20 or 10 mg/day), the next highest (10/40 or 20 mg/day), and maximum doses (10/80 or 40 mg/day).

RESULTS

At all doses and across doses, ezetimibe/simvastatin reduced LDL-C levels significantly more (52-61%) than rosuvastatin (46-57%; p < or = 0.001). Significantly greater percentages of all patients (p < 0.001) and high risk patients (p < or = 0.005) attained LDL-C levels < 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) following ezetimibe/simvastatin treatment compared with rosuvastatin at the prespecified doses and across doses. Ezetimibe/simvastatin also produced significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol (p < 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.001), lipid ratios (p < or = 0.003), and apolipoprotein B (p < 0.05). Reductions in triglycerides were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than rosuvastatin at the usual starting (p = 0.004) and next highest (p = 0.006) doses, and across all doses (p < 0.001). Increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases in high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP) were similar between treatment groups. Safety profiles were comparable for both treatments; however, the percent of patients with proteinuria was significantly higher following rosuvastatin treatment than ezetimibe/simvastatin, respectively at 10 mg versus 10/20 mg/day (p = 0.004) and 40 mg versus 10/80 mg/day (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe/simvastatin was more effective than rosuvastatin in LDL-C lowering, and provided greater or comparable improvements in other lipid measures and hsCRP at the approved usual starting, next highest, and maximum doses in hypercholesterolemic patients. Although the doses compared in this study were not equivalent on a milligram basis, the results provide clinically relevant information regarding the use of these drugs for initial therapy and for subsequent use at higher doses when appropriate. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated; however, this study was not powered nor of sufficient duration to assess the prevalence of rare clinical adverse effects. Overall, ezetimibe/simvastatin offers an effective and tolerable treatment option for lipid management. An assessment of its full clinical benefit awaits evaluation in longer-term clinical studies.

Comparison of the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profiles of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in older versus younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: A post Hoc analysis of subpopulations from three pooled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Despite the need for effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapies for primary hypercholesterolemia in older patients, there is a relative paucity of published data on such treatments in this population.

OBJECTIVE

We conducted a post hoc analysis to examine the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profile of simvastatin (SIMVA) monotherapy, and the coadministration of ezetimibe (EZE) and SIMVA (EZE/SIMVA) in older (ie, aged>or=65 years) versus younger (ie, aged<65 years) patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

We analyzed pooled data from 3 previously published, similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After a 6- to 8-week washout, a 4-week dietary stabilization period, and a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 145 to 250 mg/dL were randomized to EZE/SIMVA 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg; SIMVA 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; EZE 10 mg; or placebo for 12 weeks. In this post hoc analysis, the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B (apo B), triglycerides (TG), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) for EZE/SIMVA (pooled across doses) versus SIMVA alone (pooled across doses) was compared between older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Tolerability was assessed by adverse event reports and laboratory and vital signs assessments throughout the study.

RESULTS

A total of 3083 patients aged 20 to 87 years were included in the 3 studies (2320 were aged<65 years and 763 were aged>or=65 years). Baseline lipid values and patient characteristics were similar among all treatment groups for patients aged<65 years versus those aged>or=65 years except that there was a higher percentage of females (62% vs 50%) and patients with hypertension (46% vs 29%) in the older versus younger subgroup (both, P<0.001). EZE/SIMVA was associated with greater improvements than SIMVA alone in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, TG, and hs-CRP (all, P<0.001); these effects did not appear to differ between the older and younger sub-groups (all, P=NS). Changes in HDL-C did not differ significantly between the EZE/SIMVA and SIMVA groups. More patients receiving EZE/SIMVA than SIMVA monotherapy achieved the target LDL-C level<100 mg/dL (P<0.001), regardless of age subgroup (77% vs 41% for patients aged<65 years and 85% vs 48% for patients aged>or=65 years). In the younger sub-group, the incidence of creatinine phosphokinase (CK) elevations>or=10x the upper limit of normal (ULN) was <I% in the placebo, SIMVA, and EZE/SIMVA groups and 0% in the EZE group; in the older subgroup, no CK elevations>or=10x ULN were reported. In younger patients, the incidence of consecutive alanine amino-transferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels>or=3x ULN was 0% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 2% for EZE/SIMVA; in older patients, it was 1% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 0% for EZE/SIMVA.

CONCLUSION

This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 previously published large clinical trials suggests that EZE/SIMVA was well tolerated and associated with improved lipid profiles in both older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Type of Preexisting Lipid Therapy Predicts LDL-C Response to Ezetimibe

Background:

Ezetimibe as monotherapy or in combination with statins effectively lowers low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, there are few reports of ezetimibe's effect when added to ongoing non-statin lipid-lowering drugs or combination lipid-lowering therapy.

Objective:

To evaluate the impact of preexisting lipid therapy on LDL-C response to ezetimibe.

Methods:

We performed a retrospective review of all patients started on ezetimibe therapy at the Veterans Affairs Long Beach Healthcare System between March 1, 2003, and March 1, 2005. We calculated the ezetimibe-induced percent change in LDL-C in patients without concomitant changes in other lipid-lowering medications. We then stratified the population according to the type and number of preexisting lipid therapies and compared the LDL-C–lowering efficacy of ezetimibe among these groups.

Results:

Overall, ezetimibe was associated with a 23.0% reduction in LDL-C. Patients with preexisting statin monotherapy had significantly greater LDL-C reduction with ezetimibe than did those with preexisting non-statin drugs (–26.1% vs –9.3%; p = 0.0138). In patients with no preexisting lipid therapy (n = 58), monotherapy (n = 115), double therapy (n = 36), or triple therapy (n = 9), ezetimibe decreased LDL-C by 17.3%, 21.4%, 33.5%, and 38.1%, respectively. This stepwise trend in increased ezetimibe efficacy was statistically significant, even with adjustments for baseline LDL-C.

Conclusions:

Ezetimibe's LDL-C–lowering effects are most pronounced when added to preexisting combination lipid therapy. It appears to be more effective when added to statin therapy compared with other lipid-lowering therapies.

Consistency of lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin across gender, race, age, baseline low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and coronary heart disease status: results of a pooled retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The combination tablet containing ezetimibe and simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA), inhibits both the intestinal absorption and endogenous production of cholesterol, providing significantly greater low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering than EZE or SIMVA alone. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the consistency of efficacy (i.e., between-treatment difference) of EZE/SIMVA versus SIMVA within several selected subgroups of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

METHODS

For the present analysis, data were pooled from three similarly designed, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial studies consisting of 3083 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia (n = 311 in placebo group; n = 302 in EZE group; n = 1234 in pooled SIMVA group; n = 1236 in pooled EZE/SIMVA group). In these clinical studies, primary hypercholesterolemia was defined as an LDL-C value between 145 and 250 mg/dL inclusive and a triglyceride (TG) level of less than 350 mg/dL. The results for the pooled SIMVA and pooled EZE/SIMVA groups were used for the present analyses. The pooled analyses focused on the consistency of the between-treatment differences (i.e., incremental effect) for EZE/SIMVA (pooled across doses) versus SIMVA (pooled across doses) on various lipid and non-lipid parameters within different patient subgroups defined according to gender, race (Caucasian, Non-Caucasian), baseline age (< 65, > or = 65 years), baseline LDL-C (< 160, > or = 160 mg/dL), and coronary heart disease (CHD) history. Tolerability was also examined for pooled EZE/SIMVA and pooled SIMVA within these selected subgroups. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, an ANOVA model was used for testing the consistency of pooled treatment effects on lipid and non-lipid parameters within each selected subgroup.

RESULTS

For the entire cohort, baseline lipid profiles were similar for the patients in the pooled EZE/SIMVA group compared with those in the pooled SIMVA group. Treatment with EZE/SIMVA led to significant (p < 0.001) incremental improvements in LDL-C, non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein B, TG and high sensitivity C-reactive protein compared to SIMVA, across the entire cohort. These changes were consistent within each of the selected subgroups. Moreover, more patients attained LDL-C goal levels < 100 mg/dL with EZE/SIMVA than with SIMVA in the entire cohort and this was consistent across all subgroups, except baseline LDL-C. In this pooled retrospective analysis, treatment with EZE/SIMVA was generally well tolerated across subgroups, with a safety profile similar to SIMVA monotherapy. Although this pooled analysis was performed on a large cohort of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, the results of this analysis were specific for this select patient population and generalizations to other populations should be applied with caution.

CONCLUSION

The enhanced lipid-altering effects of EZE/SIMVA versus those of SIMVA observed in the entire cohort were consistent within all subgroups examined. EZE/SIMVA represents an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for the treatment of a wide range of patient subgroups with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Safety and Efficacy of Long-Term Co-Administration of Fenofibrate and Ezetimibe in Patients With Mixed Hyperlipidemia

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of co-administered fenofibrate (FENO) and ezetimibe (EZE) in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND

Both EZE and FENO offer complementary benefits to the lipid profile of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

METHODS

After completing the 12-week randomized, double-blind base study that compared EZE 10 mg, FENO 160 mg, FENO 160 mg plus EZE 10 mg, and placebo in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia, patients continued into a double-blind, 48-week extension phase. Those patients in the FENO plus EZE and FENO groups continued on their respective base study treatment, and patients in the EZE and placebo groups were switched to FENO plus EZE and FENO, respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 587 patients who completed the base study, 576 continued into the extension study (n = 340 in FENO plus EZE and n = 236 in FENO). The FENO plus EZE produced significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol compared with FENO (-22% vs. -9%, respectively; p < 0.001). There were also significantly greater improvements in triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B with FENO plus EZE compared with FENO. Changes in apolipoprotein A-I and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were similar between groups. Overall, FENO plus EZE was well tolerated during the extension study. The proportion of patients with consecutive elevations of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase > or =3 times upper limit of normal were similar between the FENO plus EZE (1.2%) and FENO (1.7%) groups. No cases of creatine phosphokinase elevations > or =10 times upper limit of normal or myopathy were observed in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term, 48-week co-administration of FENO plus EZE was well tolerated and more efficacious than FENO in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

Effectiveness and Tolerability of Adding Ezetimibe to Niacin-Based Regimens for Treatment of Primary Hyperlipidemia

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and tolerability of adding ezetimibe, 10 mg daily, to niacin-based regimens for dyslipidemia.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of 53 patients in 2 lipid clinics who received ezetimibe as add-on therapy to stable doses of niacin and other lipid medications. Mean percentage changes of lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels were determined. Safety and tolerability measures included adverse events, serum hepatic transaminases, and hemoglobin A1c (in patients with diabetes).

RESULTS

Most study subjects (81%) had established atherosclerotic disease. The niacin formulation was extended-release in 31 patients (58%), immediate-release in 17 (32%), and slow-release in 5 (9%). Most patients (75%) were also taking a statin. Add-on ezetimibe therapy yielded mean reductions of 18% for total cholesterol (P<0.001), 25% for low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (P<0.001), and 17% for triglycerides (P<0.001). High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol did not change significantly (+2%). Only 7 patients (13%) met Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) LDL cholesterol goals before the addition of ezetimibe, but 24 (45%; P<0.001 compared with baseline) attained these goals after addition of ezetimibe to the therapeutic regimen. Ezetimibe effectiveness did not correlate with the baseline dose of niacin or the dose/efficacy of the statin used. The addition of ezetimibe to niacin-based therapy for dyslipidemia was well tolerated. No patient had clinically significant elevations in hepatic enzyme or hemoglobin A1c levels or discontinued the ezetimibe therapy permanently.

CONCLUSION

In our study, the addition of ezetimibe to niacin-based regimens lowered the LDL cholesterol level by 25% and did not change the level of HDL cholesterol. This combination can be useful in multidrug regimens for high-risk patients with dyslipidemia who are not achieving ATP III treatment goals.

Reaching goal in hypercholesterolaemia: dual inhibition of cholesterol synthesis and absorption with simvastatin plus ezetimibe

Lowering serum cholesterol levels reduces the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD)-related events. Statins are commonly prescribed as first-line treatment but many patients at high-risk for CHD still fail to reach their cholesterol or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with statin monotherapy. National and international guidelines for the prevention of CHD recommend the modification of lipid profiles and particularly LDL-C [e.g. the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III; 2001) and Third Joint Task Force of European and other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (2003) Guidelines]. Several recent clinical trials indicated an added benefit from aggressive lowering of LDL-C levels. Based on these findings, the NCEP ATP III revised the LDL-C target from < 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) to < 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) (optional target) for very high-risk patients and < 130 mg/dL (3.4 mmol/L) to < 100 mg/dL (2.6 mmol/L) for moderately high-risk patients. For patients who fail to achieve their LDL-C target, inhibiting the two main sources of cholesterol - synthesis and uptake - can produce more effective lipid lowering, allowing more patients to reach their LDL-C goal. Ezetimibe is a highly-selective inhibitor of cholesterol absorption and simvastatin is an evidence-based inhibitor of cholesterol synthesis. The LDL-C-lowering efficacy of targeting both major sources of cholesterol with ezetimibe plus simvastatin was demonstrated in several multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials in patients with hypercholesterolaemia. For patients who do not reach their cholesterol goal with a statin, adding ezetimibe 10 mg significantly reduces LDL-C compared with statin monotherapy. Thus, this treatment option may help patients reach the new 'stricter' cholesterol goals. This review, based on a Medline database search from January 2000 to August 2005, considers the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe and discusses the role of this agent for patients who fail to achieve guideline cholesterol goals with statin monotherapy.

Inhibition of intestinal cholesterol absorption by ezetimibe is a novel therapeutic target for fatty liver

Ezetimibe is a novel lipid-lowering agent that inhibits intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol. The effects of ezetimibe on low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol were found to generally consistent across all subgroups analyzed, including baseline lipid profile, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and body mass index. Furthermore, recent clinical studies also revealed that co-administration of ezetimibe with on-going statins offered a well-tolerated and efficacious treatment to lower LDL-cholesterol levels in hypercholesterolemic patients with diabetes mellitus or the metabolic syndrome. Niemann-Pick C1 like 1 (NPC1L1) protein is recently found to be critical for intestinal cholesterol absorption, and is a target protein for ezetimibe. Human NPC1L1 protein is predominantly expressed in liver, whereas small intestine expression is only about 2-4% of that found in the liver. Thus, NPC1L1 does not function solely in the intestinal cholesterol absorption. Furthermore, loss of NPC1L1 expression has been shown to protect against diet-induced fatty liver. These observations let us to speculate that ezetimibe will become a new therapeutic approach for the treatment of non-alcoholic fatty liver, the hepatic manifestation of insulin resistant patients with the metabolic syndrome. In this paper, we would like to propose the possible ways of testing our hypothesis as follows. (1) Does ezetimibe treatment improve fatty liver in patients with hypercholesterolemia or the metabolic syndrome? If the answers are yes, are these beneficial effects of ezetimibe superior to those of other anti-hyperlipidemic resins with equihypolipidemic properties? (2) Does ezetimibe treatment improve insulin sensitivity in fatty liver patients with the metabolic syndrome? (3) How about the effects of ezetimibe treatment on serum levels of adiponectin, a key adipokine with insulin-sensitizing property? Large clinical trials will provide us with more definite information whether ezetimibe treatment can improve fatty liver and resultantly reduce the risk of progression of liver diseases in patients with the metabolic syndrome.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin (INEGY) in the treatment of hyperlipidaemia

Ezetimibe/simvastatin (INEGY), a dual inhibitor of both cholesterol production and absorption, is a new approach to the management of hyperlipidaemia. Recent studies have shown that it produces greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol than the single inhibition of statin therapy, enabling many more patients to achieve their LDL cholesterol treatment goals. With ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy, reductions of up to 61% from baseline have been seen in LDL cholesterol, with clear improvements in other associated lipid fractions. It has been well tolerated across all studies, with a safety profile similar to that of statin therapy. This article will review clinical experience to date with ezetimibe/simvastatin, commenting upon its place and potential value in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol: the forgotten therapeutic target

The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) has acknowledged mounting evidence of an independent association between hypertriglyceridemia and coronary artery disease risk by issuing guidelines that identify non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol as a secondary target for therapy in patients with elevated triglyceride levels. In 2003, a national survey of outpatient lipid management was conducted for patients undergoing treatment by physicians who were high prescribers of lipid-altering drugs. Results of the NCEP Evaluation Project Utilizing Novel E-Technology II (NEPTUNE II) survey indicated much higher frequencies of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goal achievement compared with frequencies observed in a similarly designed survey in 1997. However, non-HDL cholesterol treatment success in the NEPTUNE II survey was markedly lower than that for LDL cholesterol overall and across risk categories. More aggressive therapy is therefore needed to achieve non-HDL cholesterol goals than LDL cholesterol goals. After achievement of LDL cholesterol goals, non-HDL cholesterol can be managed more aggressively by lowering LDL cholesterol or by using strategies that target a reduction in very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Because the prevalence of hypertriglyceridemia in the United States is high and increasing, enhanced efforts to improve non-HDL cholesterol goal achievement have the potential to produce a substantial effect on public health.

NPC1L1 haplotype is associated with inter-individual variation in plasma low-density lipoprotein response to ezetimibe

BACKGROUND

NPC1L1 encodes a putative intestinal sterol transporter which is the likely target for ezetimibe, a new type of lipid-lowering medication. We previously reported rare non-synonymous mutations in NPC1L1 in an individual who had no plasma lipoprotein response to ezetimibe. We next hypothesized that common variants in NPC1L1 would underlie less extreme inter-individual variations in the plasma LDL cholesterol response to ezetimibe.

RESULTS

In 101 dyslipidemic subjects, we found that NPC1L1 haplotype was significantly associated with inter-individual variation in the response of plasma LDL cholesterol to treatment with ezetimibe for 12 weeks. Specifically, about one subject in eight lacked the common NPC1L1 haplotype 1735C-25342A-27677T and these subjects had a significantly greater reduction in plasma LDL cholesterol with ezetimibe than subjects with at least one copy of this haplotype (-35.9+4.0 versus -23.6+1.6 percent reduction, P = 0.0054). This was paralleled by a similar non-significant trend of between-haplotype difference in reduction of total cholesterol.

CONCLUSION

These preliminary pharmacogenetic results suggest that NPC1L1 variation is associated with inter-individual variation in response to ezetimibe treatment.

Additive effects of plant sterol and stanol esters to statin therapy

Plant sterol and stanol esters each have similar additive effects in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol when combined with statins. They differ in that plasma plant sterols increase when plant sterol esters are used for this purpose, especially in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, but decrease when plant stanol esters are used.

Cholesterol-lowering effects of rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes -- CORALL study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the efficacy of the newest cholesterol-lowering drug, rosuvastatin (RSV) with atorvastatin (ATV) in subjects with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

A 24-week, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, phase IIIb, multicentre study.

SETTING

Diabetes outpatient clinics of 26 hospitals in The Netherlands.

SUBJECTS

A total of 263 patients with type 2 diabetes treated with oral agents or insulin, age (mean +/- SD) 60 +/- 10 years, body mass index (BMI) 31.4 +/- 6.1 kg m(-2), 46% males.

INTERVENTION

After a 6-week dietary lead-in period, patients were randomized to RSV (n = 131) or ATV (n = 132) treatment in a dose escalation scheme (RSV: 10, 20 and 40 mg or ATV: 20, 40 and 80 mg for 6 weeks each sequentially).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the change in apolipoprotein B (apoB) and apoB/apolipoprotein A1 (apoA1) ratio, which has been suggested a better predictor for cardiovascular events than total (TC) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Secondary outcomes were the changes in other lipid parameters.

RESULTS

Baseline LDL-C in the RSV and ATV groups was 4.23 +/- 0.98 mmol L(-1) and 4.43 +/-0.99 mmol L(-1), whilst apoB/apoA1 was 0.86 +/-0.22 and 0.92 +/- 0.35, respectively. A greater reduction in apoB/apoA1 was seen with RSV (-34.9%, -39.2% and -40.5%) than with ATV (-32.4%, -34.7% and -35.8%, P < 0.05 at weeks 12 and 18). Significantly greater reductions in LDL-C were also seen with RSV (-45.9%, -50.6% and -53.6%) than with ATV (-41.3%, -45.6% and -47.8%, all P < 0.05). The American Diabetes Association (ADA) LDL-C goal of < 2.6 mmol L(-1) was reached by 82%, 84% and 92% of patients with RSV and 74%, 79% and 81% with ATV. Triglyceride reductions ranged from 16 to 24% and were not different between treatments. Both treatments were well-tolerated: nine patients in the RSV and 11 in the ATV group withdrew from treatment because of adverse events after randomization.

CONCLUSION

In subjects with type 2 diabetes, greater improvements of apoB/apoA1 and across the lipid profile were observed with RSV compared with ATV.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with ongoing atorvastatin therapy in achieving low-density lipoprotein goal in patients with hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease

This randomised, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe (EZE) co-administered with ongoing atorvastatin (ATV) therapy in 450 hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) who had not achieved their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal < or =2.60 mmol/l while on a stable dose of ATV 10 or 20 mg/day for > or =6 weeks. After a 4-week diet/baseline active run-in period, patients with LDL-C >2.60 mmol/l and < or =4.20 mmol/l were stratified by ATV dose and randomised (1 : 1) to EZE 10 mg or PBO for 6 weeks while continuing open-label ATV. Significantly more patients achieved an LDL-C goal < or =2.6 mmol/l with EZE than PBO (81.3 vs. 21.8%; p < or = 0.001). Compared to PBO, co-administration of EZE with ongoing ATV led to significantly (p < or = 0.001) greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B; HDL-C was significantly (p < or = 0.05) increased. Co-administration of EZE and ATV was well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to ATV alone.