Rosuvastatin and fenofibrate alone and in combination in type 2 diabetes patients with combined hyperlipidaemia

Association between heme oxygenase-1 and hyperlipidemia in pre-diabetic patients: a cross-sectional study

Background

Although the importance and benefit of heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) in diabetes rodent models has been known, the contribution of HO-1 in the pre-diabetic patients with hyperlipidemia risk still remains unclear. This cross-sectional study aims to evaluate whether HO-1 is associated with hyperlipidemia in pre-diabetes.

Methods

Serum level of HO-1 was detected using commercially available ELISA kit among 1,425 participants aged 49.3-63.9 with pre-diabetes in a multicenter Risk Evaluation of cAncers in Chinese diabeTic Individuals: A lONgitudinal (REACTION) prospective observational study. Levels of total cholesterol (TC) and triglyceride (TG) were measured and used to defined hyperlipidemia. The association between HO-1 and hyperlipidemia was explored in different subgroups.

Result

The level of HO-1 in pre-diabetic patients with hyperlipidemia (181.72 ± 309.57 pg/ml) was obviously lower than that in pre-diabetic patients without hyperlipidemia (322.95 ± 456.37 pg/ml). High level of HO-1 [(210.18,1,746.18) pg/ml] was negatively associated with hyperlipidemia (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97; p = 0.0367) after we adjusted potential confounding factors. In subgroup analysis, high level of HO-1 was negatively associated with hyperlipidemia in overweight pre-diabetic patients (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9; p = 0.034), especially in overweight women (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.84; p = 0.014).

Conclusions

In conclusion, elevated HO-1 level was negatively associated with risk of hyperlipidemia in overweight pre-diabetic patients, especially in female ones. Our findings provide information on the exploratory study of the mechanism of HO-1 in hyperlipidemia, while also suggesting that its mechanism may be influenced by body weight and gender.

Fenofibrate modified-release pellets with lag phase and high oral bioavailability

Purpose

Fenofibrate and statin combination therapy is highly recommended by the current clinical guidelines for treatment of mixed dyslipidemia. In this study, an innovative delayed-release preparation of fenofibrate was designed to reduce the risk of muscle toxicity, caused by simultaneous administration of this combination therapy, by altering the pharmacokinetic profile of fenofibrate, as well as to improve the oral bioavailability of the modified-release formulation.

Methods

Micronized fenofibrate was used to prepare drug-loaded cores via a powder layering process before multiparticulate pellet coating. Different coating formulations (Eudragit^® RS PO/E100, Eudragit^® RS PO/RL PO, Eudragit^® NE30D/HPMC, and EC/HPMC) were screened, and their in vitro release was compared with the commercial sustained-release pellets Lipilfen^®. Two optimized formulations were evaluated in beagle dogs using two commercial preparations of fenofibrate (the immediate-release preparation Lipanthyl^® and the sustained-release pellets Lipilfen^®) as references.

Results

The in vivo release of fenofibrate from R1 and R2 selected from in vitro tests exhibited a lag phase, and then rapid and complete drug release. The relative bioavailabilities of R1 and R2 were 100.4% and 201.1%, respectively, which were higher than that of Lipilfen^® (67.2%).

Conclusion

The modified fenofibrate pellets developed showed enhanced bioavailability and delayed-release properties. They have the potential to improve safety and compliance when co-administrated with statins. This is the first report of a delayed-release fenofibrate preparation.

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Fixed Dose Combination of Rosuvastatin and Choline Fenofibrate to Fixed Dose Combination of Rosuvastatin and Fenofibrate in Patients of Mixed Dyslipidemia: A Randomized, Open-label, Multicentre Clinical Trial in Indian Population

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of fixed-dose combination (FDC) of rosuvastatin and choline fenofibrate in comparison to rosuvastatin and fenofibrate FDC among Indian patients of mixed dyslipidemia. This would be a first study evaluating FDC of rosuvastatin and choline fenofibrate in Indian population.

METHODS

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, active controlled, comparative, parallel-design study was conducted at 12 centers spread all across India. Mixed dyslipidemic patients aged 18-70 years were randomized to FDC of rosuvastatin 10 mg and choline fenofibrate 135 mg (RCF group) and FDC of rosuvastatin 10 mg and fenofibrate 160 mg (RF group) once daily for approximately 180 days. The primary endpoint of study was percentage change in serum triglyceride level at the end of study from baseline.

RESULTS

Of 290 patients screened, 240 patients were enrolled in this study (120 patients in each group). At the end of 180 days, there was a significant reduction in triglyceride level in both the groups (-37.7% in RCF group and -37.8% reduction in RF group; P < 0.0001 for both); however, the difference between both the groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.94). Similarly, there was significant increase (P < 0.0001 for both) in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in both groups (+17.8% in RCF group and +14.9% in rosuvastatin fenofibrate RF group). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), very low-LDL (VLDL-C), and total cholesterol were also reduced significantly in both groups (P < 0.0001). However, the difference between two groups for increase in HDL-C and decrease in LDL-C, VLDL-C, and total cholesterol was not significant. Both the treatments were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Overall, FDC of rosuvastatin and choline fenofibrate is as safe and effective as rosuvastatin and fenofibrate combination in Indian patients with mixed dyslipidemia with added advantage improved patient compliance as it can be taken irrespective of intake of food.

Association of statin use and hypertriglyceridemia with diabetic macular edema in patients with type 2 diabetes and diabetic retinopathy

Background

To investigate the effects of dyslipidemia and statin therapy on progression of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Methods

The medical records of 110 patients with type 2 diabetes (70 statin users and 40 non-users) were retrospectively reviewed. The two outcome measures were progression of diabetic retinopathy by two or more steps on the early treatment diabetic retinopathy study scale and diabetic macular edema based on optical coherence tomography. Serum lipid profiles were analyzed from 6 months prior to diagnosis of diabetic macular edema.

Results

Diabetic retinopathy progressed in 23% of statin users and 18% of non-users (p = 0.506), but diabetic macular edema was present in 23% of statin users and 48% of non-users (p = 0.008). Statins reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients with and without diabetic macular edema (p = 0.043 and p = 0.031, respectively). Among statin users, patients with diabetic macular edema had higher levels of triglycerides (p = 0.004) and lower levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.033) than those without diabetic macular edema. Logistic regression analysis showed that statin use significantly lowered the risk of diabetic macular edema [odds ratio (OR): 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12–0.91, p = 0.032]. Hypertriglyceridemia at 6 months prior to development of macular edema was significantly associated with central retinal thickness (OR: 1.52; 95% CI 1.14–2.02, p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Lipid lowering therapy with statins protected against the development of diabetic macular edema and progression of diabetic retinopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes. Hypertriglyceridemia could be used as a surrogate marker for diabetic macular edema.

Review: Fibrates: therapeutic review

As agonists of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α (PPARα), fibrates are established, effective and well-tolerated agents in the management of atherogenic dyslipidaemia. Key actions of fibrates include a reduction in elevated triglyceride levels (by up to 50%) and a rise in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) concentrations (typically by 5—15%). Fibrates promote a shift from small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) to larger more buoyant particles, which are less susceptible to oxidation and possess higher binding affinity for removal by the non-atherogenic LDL receptor pathway. Thus, fibrates can correct lipid abnormalities commonly observed in patients with type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome. Clinical evidence has demonstrated the value of fibrate therapy in secondary and primary prevention settings, as well as in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, FIELD, the largest fibrate study to date in diabetic patients, predominantly in a primary prevention setting, showed a non-significant 11% reduction in the primary end point of coronary heart disease death and non-fatal myocardial infarction with fenofibrate, although total cardiovascular events, corresponding to the secondary end point, were significantly reduced by 11% (p=0.035). It is possible that risk reduction with fenofibrate may have been attenuated by the two-fold greater drop-in use of statin therapy in the placebo group. However, the interesting results of fenofibrate on attenuation of microangiographic symptomatology potentially suggest a new recommendation for fibrate therapy, although further studies are required to validate these findings.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of choline fenofibrate (fenofibric acid) to micronized fenofibrate in patients of mixed dyslipidemia: A randomized, open-label, multicenter clinical trial in Indian population

INTRODUCTION

Choline fenofibrate is a newly developed choline salt of fenofibric acid, which is more hydrophilic than fenofibrate. This study was initiated to evaluate the safety and efficacy of choline fenofibrate in comparison to micronized fenofibrate among Indian patients of mixed dyslipidemia.

METHODS

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, active controlled, comparative, parallel group study was conducted at around 10 centers spread all across the country. Mixed dyslipidemia patients (serum triglycerides [TG] levels between 150 and 500 mg/dl), aged 18-70 years and taking stable statin dose for 8 weeks were randomized to choline fenofibrate 135 mg delayed release tablets and micronized fenofibrate 160 mg tablets once daily for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was percentage change in serum TG level at the end of 12 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 226 patients were enrolled in this study, of which 116 patients were administered choline fenofibrate and 110 patients were administered micronized fenofibrate. At the end of 12 weeks, there was a significant reduction in TG level (34.24% in choline fenofibrate group and 38.13% reduction in micronized fenofibrate group). However, the difference between group was not statistically different (P = 0.471). Similarly, there was a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol at the end of 12 weeks (10% increase in choline fenofibrate group and 9% increase in micronized fenofibrate group); but the difference between the group was not statistically significant (P = 0.598). Both the treatment was safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

Choline fenofibrate delayed release 135 mg is as safe and effective as 160 mg of micronized fenofibrate in Indian patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of Statins-Fibrates therapy in diabetic dyslipidemia patients

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy, effect of preventing cardiovascular diseases and safety of statins-fibrates combination therapy in diabetic dyslipidemia patients.

METHODS: We searched the databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, web of knowledge and Cochrane central register of Controlled Trials for literatures about the coadministration of statins and fibrates as the treatment of patients with dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus. We included related randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and cross-sectional studies and excluded animal trials and clinical observations. The primary endpoints outcomes were the concentration of plasma total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). The secondary outcomes were cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and adverse events.

RESULTS: Ten studies were included in this meta-analysis. For lipid modifying efficacy, the combination of statins and fibrates therapy had more significant effect on reducing TC [P = 0.004, weighted mean difference (WMD) = -8.19, 95%CI: -13.82--2.56] and TG concentration (P < 0.001, WMD = -47.29, 95%CI: -68.66--25.92) and increasing HDL-C concentration (P < 0.00001, WMD = 3.79, 95%CI: 2.25-5.33) when compared with statins monotherapy, while the effect of reducing LDL-C concentration (P = 0.50, WMD = -2.52, 95%CI: -9.76-4.72) was insignificant. To fibrates monotherapy, the combination therapy was more effective on reducing TC (P < 0.00001, WMD = -48.51, 95%CI: -57.14--39.89), TG (P < 0.00001, WMD = -26.07, 95%CI: -30.96--21.18), LDL-C concentration (P < 0.00001, WMD = -45.74, 95%CI: -53.35--38.13) and increasing HDL-C concentration (P = 0.04, WMD = 1.38, 95%CI: 0.04-2.73). For cardiovascular diseases, the coadministration therapy had no significant effect on reducing the incidence of these events when compared with monotherapy (For primary clinical endpoints, P = 0.12, OR = 0.61, 95%CI: 0.33-1.14); for secondary clinical endpoints, P = 0.13, OR = 0.66, 95%CI: 0.38-1.14). For adverse events happened during the follow-up, both the incidence of hepatic-related (alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase of patients were ≥ 3 times of upper limit of normal) (P = 0.38, OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.15-2.06) and muscular-related (myopathy and/or creatine phosphokinase ≥ 3 times of upper limit of normal) adverse events (P = 0.10, OR = 1.62, 95%CI: 0.91-2.86) had no significant difference between these two therapies.

CONCLUSION: The results showed statins-fibrates combination therapy was more effective on lipid modification and well tolerated but there was no significant effect on preventing cardiovascular diseases.

Lipid-lowering efficacy of rosuvastatin

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin is one of the most potent statins and is currently widely prescribed. It is therefore important to know the dose-related magnitude of effect of rosuvastatin on blood lipids.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective To quantify the effects of various doses of rosuvastatin on serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol, non-HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease. Secondary objectives To quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of rosuvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in the randomized placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) Issue 10 of 12, 2014 in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to October week 5 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 2014 week 44), Web of Science Core Collection (1970 to 5 November 2014) and BIOSIS Citation Index (1969 to 31 October 2014). No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of rosuvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included and extracted data. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and eight trials (18 placebo-controlled and 90 before-and-after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of rosuvastatin in 19,596 participants. Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg/day caused LDL-cholesterol decreases of 46% to 55%, when all the trials were combined using the generic inverse variance method. The quality of evidence for these effects is high. Log dose-response data over doses of 1 to 80 mg, revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol. When compared to atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was about three-fold more potent at reducing LDL-cholesterol. There was no dose-related effect of rosuvastatin on blood HDL-cholesterol, but overall, rosuvastatin increased HDL by 7%. There is a high risk of bias for the trials in this review, which would affect WDAEs, but unlikely to affect the lipid measurements. WDAEs were not statistically different between rosuvastatin and placebo in 10 of 18 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.48 to 1.47).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The total blood total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol-lowering effect of rosuvastatin was linearly dependent on dose. Rosuvastatin log dose-response data were linear over the commonly prescribed dose range. Based on an informal comparison with atorvastatin, this represents a three-fold greater potency. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with rosuvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 44% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Safety and efficacy of fibrate-statin combination therapy compared to fibrate monotherapy in patients with dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease. Treatment with fibrate, statins, or other lipid-lowering drugs prevents primary or recurrent cardiovascular events. However, all lipid-lowering drugs have side effects, which may become more severe if combination therapy is prescribed.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of published data to compare the safety and efficacy of fibrates alone, compared to fibrate-statin combinations, in patients with dyslipidemia. Six articles were assessed in terms of the efficacy of therapy and nine from the viewpoint of therapeutic safety.

RESULTS

In terms of efficacy, fibrate-statin combinations afforded significantly greater reductions in the levels of total cholesterol (SE=-2.248; 95% CI 1.986-2.510), LDL cholesterol (SE=-2.274; 95% CI 2.015-2.533), and triglycerides (SE=-0.465; 95% CI 0.272-0.658) compared to fibrate alone. In terms of safety, treatment with fibrate alone was associated with a significant decrease in the number of kidney-related adverse events (RR=-0.547; 95% CI 0.368-0.812), compared to treatment with fibrate-statin combinations.

CONCLUSION

We suggest that treatment with a fibrate-statin combination affords clinical benefits that are superior to treatment with fibrate alone, but increases the risk of side effects (particularly renal). Therapy should thus be carefully monitored.

Safety and efficacy of statin treatment alone and in combination with fibrates in patients with dyslipidemia: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is treated with many effective lipid-lowering agents. Statins are often used alone or in combination with fibrates. Combination therapy is more effective due to their comparative actions, but the increased incidence of side effects should be considered carefully.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A meta-analysis of published data was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of statins alone versus statins plus fibrates in patients with dyslipidemia. In total, nine articles were assessed for efficacy analysis and ten articles were assessed for safety analysis.

RESULTS

In the efficacy analysis, a combination of statins and fibrates provided significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol (SE = 0.430; 95% CI 0.315-0.545), LDL cholesterol (SE = 0.438; 95% CI 0.321-0.555) and triglycerides (SE = 0.747; 95% CI 0.618-0.876), and a significantly greater increase in HDL cholesterol (SE = 0.594; 95% CI 0.473-0.715) than treatment with statins alone. In the safety analysis, treatment with statins alone was associated with a significant reduction in the numbers of total adverse events (RR = 0.665; 95% CI 0.539-0.819), liver-related adverse events (RR = 0.396; 95% CI 0.206-0.760) and kidney-related adverse events (RR = 0.146; 95% CI 0.075-0.285).

CONCLUSION

We suggest that treatment with statins plus fibrates provides clinical benefits over treatment with statins alone but increased risks, especially of hepatic or renal side effects, should be monitored carefully.

Endothelial dysfunction in diabetes: pathogenesis, significance, and treatment

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) markedly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. Endothelial dysfunction (ED), an early indicator of diabetic vascular disease, is common in T2D and independently predicts cardiovascular risk. Although the precise pathogenic mechanisms for ED in T2D remain unclear, at inception they probably involve uncoupling of both endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity and mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, as well as the activation of vascular nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase. The major contributing factors include dyslipoproteinemia, oxidative stress, and inflammation. Therapeutic interventions are designed to target these pathophysiological factors that underlie ED. Therapeutic interventions, including lifestyle changes, antiglycemic agents and lipid-regulating therapies, aim to correct hyperglycemia and atherogenic dyslipidemia and to improve ED. However, high residual cardiovascular risk is seen in both research and clinical practice settings. Well-designed studies of endothelial function in appropriately selected volunteers afford a good opportunity to test new therapeutic interventions, paving the way for clinical trials and utilization in the care of the diabetic patient. However, based on the results from a recent clinical trial, niacin should not be added to a statin in individuals with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and very well controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Does combination therapy with statins and fibrates prevent cardiovascular disease in diabetic patients with atherogenic mixed dyslipidemia?

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with the development and progression of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins have an established efficacy in the management of dyslipidemia primarily by decreasing the levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and thus decreasing CVD risk. They also have a favorable safety profile. Despite the statin-mediated benefit of CVD risk reduction a residual CVD risk remains, especially in T2DM patients with high triglyceride (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) values. Fibrates decrease TG levels, increase HDL-C concentrations, and improve many other atherosclerosis-related variables. Fibrate/statin co-administration improves the overall lipoprotein profile in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and may reduce the residual CVD risk during statin therapy. However, limited data exists regarding the effects of statin/fibrate combination on CVD outcomes in patients with T2DM. In the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) study the statin/fibrate combination did not significantly reduce the rate of CVD events compared with simvastatin/placebo in patients with T2DM. However, it did show a possible benefit in a pre-specified analysis in the subgroup of patients with high TG and low HDL-C levels. Furthermore, in the ACCORD study the simvastatin/fenofibrate combination significantly reduced the rate of progression of retinopathy compared with statin/placebo administration in patients with T2DM. The present review presents the available data regarding the effects of statin/fibrate combination in patients with T2DM and atherogenic mixed dyslipidemia.

A Review of Currently Available Fenofibrate and Fenofibric Acid Formulations

Fenofibrate is a third-generation fibric acid derivative indicated as a monotherapy to reduce elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B; to increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with primary hyperlipidemia or mixed dyslipidemia; and to reduce triglycerides in patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia. In this review, the key characteristics of available fenofibrate formulations are examined. A literature search was conducted, focusing on comparative studies examining bioavailability, food effects, absorption, and lipid efficacy. Fenofibrate is highly lipophilic, virtually insoluble in water, and poorly absorbed. Coadministration with meals was necessary to maximize bioavailability of early formulations. Micronized and nanoparticle formulations of fenofibrate with reduced particle sizes were developed, resulting in greater solubility, improved bioavailability, and in some cases, the ability to be given irrespective of food. A recently introduced hydrophilic choline salt of fenofibric acid also can be taken without regard to meals, is absorbed throughout the gastrointestinal tract, has the highest bioavailability among marketed formulations, and is approved for coadministration with a statin. Differences in bioavailability of fenofibrate formulations have resulted in low-dose (40 - 67) mg and standard-dose (120 - 200 mg) formulations. Different formulations are not equivalent on a milligram-to-milligram basis. In order to prevent medication errors, resulting in underdosing or overdosing with attendant consequences, it is important for healthcare providers to recognize that the formulations of fenofibrate and fenofibric acid that are currently available vary substantially in relation to food effect, equivalency on a milligram-to-milligram basis, and indication to be coadministered with a statin.

Study design, rationale, and baseline characteristics: evaluation of fenofibric acid on carotid intima-media thickness in patients with type IIb dyslipidemia with residual risk in addition to atorvastatin therapy (FIRST) trial

PURPOSE

Elevated triglycerides (TG) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels contribute to cardiovascular disease risk and can be effectively treated with fenofibric acid. A trial is under way to evaluate the effect of once-daily fenofibric acid or placebo on carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) progression in patients with controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels achieved through atorvastatin treatment, but with high TG and low HDL-C levels.

METHODS

In this multicenter, double-blind study, 682 patients were randomized to once-daily delayed-release capsules of choline fenofibrate 135 mg (fenofibric acid [Trilipix(®); Abbott, North Chicago, IL]) or placebo plus atorvastatin treatment after a 2- to 10-week diet and atorvastatin run-in period. Key inclusion criteria included age ≥45 years; posterior-wall common CIMT ≥0.7 mm on at least one side at baseline; fasting results of TG ≥150 mg/dL, and HDL-C ≤45 mg/dL for men or HDL-C ≤55 mg/dL for women at screening while receiving atorvastatin; controlled LDL-C; and known coronary heart disease (CHD) or a CHD risk equivalent. The primary efficacy variable is the rate of change from baseline through week 104 in the mean posterior-wall intima-media thickness of the common carotid arteries (composite value of left and right sides).

CONCLUSIONS

This trial is the first to examine the effect of fenofibric acid on CIMT and the first CIMT trial to select patients with controlled LDL-C and elevated TG and low HDL-C as inclusion criteria. Also, this trial will prospectively evaluate the effect of treatment on LDL particles and address shortcomings of previous CIMT trials.

Comparative efficacy and safety of fenofibrate/pravastatin plus ezetimibe triple therapy and simvastatin/ezetimibe dual therapy in type 2 diabetic patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia and cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of a fenofibrate/pravastatin 160/40 mg fixed-dose combination plus ezetimibe 10 mg triple therapy and simvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg dual therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes, mixed hyperlipidaemia and cardiovascular disease.

METHOD

After a 6-week run-in period on simvastatin 20 mg, 273 patients with non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) ≥ 100 mg/dl or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 70 mg/dl were randomised to receive 12-week treatment with triple therapy or dual therapy, followed by a 12-week safety period during which all patients received the triple therapy.

RESULTS

At week 12, similar significant decreases in non-HDL-C were observed with both treatments. The triple therapy has induced a greater decrease in triglycerides (between-treatment difference: -14.6%, p = 0.007) and the dual therapy a greater decrease in LDL-C (between-treatment difference: +5.3%, p = 0.05). Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

The fenofibrate/pravastatin plus ezetimibe therapy improves the global atherogenic lipid profile in type 2 diabetic patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia.

Safety of a fixed-dose combination of fenofibrate/pravastatin 160 mg/40 mg in patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia: a pooled analysis from a database of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Fenofibrate can be prescribed concomitantly with an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) to improve achievement of lipid goals in patients with atherogenic mixed hyperlipidaemia. However, some safety concerns, particularly an increased risk of myopathy, have been reported when these drugs are taken together.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this analysis was to assess the general safety and tolerability of a fenofibrate/pravastatin (FF/PRA) 160 mg/40 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) capsule based on a pooled database of phase III clinical trials in patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia.

METHODS

Safety data were pooled from five phase III studies (four double-blind with an uncontrolled extension and one open) of ≥12 to 64 weeks' duration. Adverse event (AE) profiles of FF/PRA 160 mg/40 mg (n=645 in the double-blind cohort) were evaluated relative to comparators (statins, n=519 or fenofibrate, n=122). Absolute incidence rates were calculated in both the double-blind cohort and the all-studies cohort (FF/PRA 160 mg/40 mg, n=1566) for all AEs, drug-related AEs, serious AEs, discontinuations due to AEs, AEs of specific interest including abnormal laboratory data, and deaths.

RESULTS

The frequency and/or intensity of overall AEs, drug-related AEs, serious AEs and discontinuations due to AEs were not significantly increased for the FDC (36.0%, 12.3%, 1.7% and 5.1%, respectively) versus the statin (28.7%, 8.9%, 0.8% and 2.7%, respectively) and fenofibrate (59.0%, 21.3%, 0% and 4.9%, respectively) monotherapies. No deaths were reported during the course of treatment in clinical trials. Nevertheless, three deaths were reported more than 30 days after the patients completed the study; none of these deaths were assessed as being related to FF/PRA 160 mg/40 mg treatment. Among the AEs of special interest, no myopathy or rhabdomyolysis were reported; no patients were considered to have experienced a drug-induced liver injury; no case of pancreatitis occurred in the double-blind cohort and four patients reported pancreatitis in the all-studies cohort, two of them being study-treatment related; no case of pulmonary embolism was reported in the double-blind cohort and two patients presented with pulmonary embolism, unrelated to the study drug, in the all-studies cohort; there were more cases of decreased creatinine clearance in the FF/PRA 160 mg/40 mg group (1.7%) than in the statin group (0.6%).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this database (notably low percentage of very elderly patients, limited sample size of patients with mild renal insufficiency, and mode of selection in the clinical trials), no particular safety concern was raised with FF/PRA 160 mg/40 mg in the double-blind cohort as compared with statin and fenofibrate monotherapies. The acceptable long-term safety profile of FF/PRA 160 mg/40 mg was confirmed with a low frequency of AEs of interest, comparable to that observed in the 12-week double-blind cohort. Emergent effects possibly related to FF/PRA 160 mg/40 mg were mainly those attributable to fenofibrate (decrease in creatinine clearance and pancreatitis).

Pravastatin and fenofibrate in combination (Pravafenix(®)) for the treatment of high-risk patients with mixed hyperlipidemia

Pravafenix(®) is a fixed-dose combination of pravastatin 40 mg and fenofibrate 160 mg. The rationale for the use of Pravafenix is based on the increased residual cardiovascular risk observed for high-risk patients with either increased triglycerides or low HDL cholesterol levels despite statin monotherapy. This article reviews the current available information on the pharmacology, clinical efficacy and safety of Pravafenix. Pravafenix is recommended to be taken with food in the evening. In clinical trials, Pravafenix consistently produces complementary benefits on the overall atherogenic lipid profile of high-risk patients with mixed hyperlipidemia not controlled by either pravastatin 40 mg or simvastatin 20 mg. Within the limitations of the database, Pravafenix seems to be well tolerated up to 64 weeks, with an overall tolerability and safety profile consistent with findings generally observed with fenofibrate treatment. In particular, no myopathy or rhabdomyolysis has been reported. The actual European indication is restricted to high-risk patients with mixed hyperlipidemia whose LDL cholesterol levels are adequately controlled on pravastatin 40 mg monotherapy. Whether Pravafenix confers additional cardiovascular benefits in high-risk patients treated with a statin remains to be determined.

Rosuvastatin: a review of the pharmacology and clinical effectiveness in cardiovascular disease

Rosuvastatin is a new generation HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor which exhibits some unique pharmacologic and pharmacokinetic properties. It has low extrahepatic tissue penetration, low potential for CYP3A4 interactions and substantial LDL-C lowering capacity and therefore has distinct advantages. We conducted a Medline literature search to identify rosuvastatin papers published in English. In this review, we outline the pharmacology of rosuvastatin, highlighting its efficacy and safety. We also review the major clinical trials with reference to primary and secondary prevention, familial hypercholesterolaemia and comparison with other statins. Finally we address its place in clinical practice.

Non-lipid effects of rosuvastatin-fenofibrate combination therapy in high-risk Asian patients with mixed hyperlipidemia

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to compare the non-lipid effects of rosuvastatin-fenofibrate combination therapy with rosuvastatin monotherapy in high-risk Asian patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

METHODS

A total of 236 patients were initially screened. After six weeks of diet and life style changes, 180 of these patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two regimens: rosuvastatin 10 mg plus fenofibrate 160 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg. The primary outcome variables were the incidences of muscle or liver enzyme elevation. The patients were followed for 24 weeks during drug treatment and for an additional four weeks after drug discontinuation.

RESULTS

The rates of the primary outcome variables were similar between the two groups (2.8% and 3.9% in the combination and the rosuvastatin groups, respectively, p=1.00). The combination group had more, but not significantly, common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) (13.3% and 5.6%, respectively) and drug discontinuation due to AEs (10.0% and 3.3%, respectively) than the rosouvastatin group. Combination therapy was associated with higher elevations in homocysteine, blood urea nitrogen, and serum creatinine, whereas elevation in alanine aminotransferase was greater in the rosuvastatin group. Leukocyte count and hemoglobin level decreased to a greater extent in the combination group. The combination group showed greater reductions in TG and elevation in HDL-cholesterol.

CONCLUSION

In our study population, the rosuvastatin-fenofibrate combination resulted in comparable incidences of myo- or hepatotoxicity as rosuvastatin monotherapy. However, this combination may need to be used with caution in individuals with underlying pathologies such as renal dysfunction (NCT01414803).

Fenofibrate: a review of its use in dyslipidaemia

Fenofibrate is a fibric acid derivative indicated for the treatment of severe hypertriglyceridaemia and mixed dyslipidaemia in patients who have not responded to nonpharmacological therapies. The lipid-modifying effects of fenofibrate are mediated by the activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α. Fenofibrate also has nonlipid, pleiotropic effects (e.g. reducing levels of fibrinogen, C-reactive protein and various pro-inflammatory markers, and improving flow-mediated dilatation) that may contribute to its clinical efficacy, particularly in terms of improving microvascular outcomes. Fenofibrate improves the lipid profile (particularly triglyceride [TG] and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [HDL-C] levels) in patients with dyslipidaemia. Compared with statin monotherapy, fenofibrate monotherapy tends to improve TG and HDL-C levels to a significantly greater extent, whereas statins improve low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol levels to a significantly greater extent. Fenofibrate is also associated with promoting a shift from small, dense, atherogenic LDL particles to larger, less dense LDL particles. Combination therapy with a statin plus fenofibrate generally improves the lipid profile to a greater extent than monotherapy with either agent in patients with dyslipidaemia and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus or the metabolic syndrome. In the pivotal FIELD and ACCORD trials in patients with type 2 diabetes, fenofibrate did not significantly reduce the risk of coronary heart disease events to a greater extent than placebo, and simvastatin plus fenofibrate did not significantly reduce the risk of major cardiovascular (CV) events to a greater extent than simvastatin plus placebo. However, the risk of some nonfatal macrovascular events and the incidence of certain microvascular outcomes were reduced significantly more with fenofibrate than with placebo in the FIELD trial, and in the ACCORD trial, patients receiving simvastatin plus fenofibrate were less likely to experience progression of diabetic retinopathy than those receiving simvastatin plus placebo. Subgroup analyses in the FIELD and ACCORD Lipid trials indicate that fenofibrate is of the greatest benefit in decreasing CV events in patients with atherogenic dyslipidaemia. Fenofibrate is generally well tolerated when administered alone or in combination with a statin. Thus, in patients with dyslipidaemia, particularly atherogenic dyslipidaemia, fenofibrate is a useful treatment option either alone or in combination with a statin.

Long-term safety and efficacy of fenofibrate/pravastatin combination therapy in high risk patients with mixed hyperlipidemia not controlled by pravastatin monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the long-term safety and efficacy of a fenofibrate/pravastatin 160/40 mg fixed-dose combination in high-risk patients with mixed hyperlipidemia not controlled by pravastatin 40 mg monotherapy.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

After an 8-week pravastatin 40 mg and diet run-in period, high-risk patients (n = 248) with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥ 100 mg/dL and triglycerides (TG) ≥ 150 and ≤400 mg/dL, were randomized to fenofibrate/pravastatin combination therapy or to pravastatin monotherapy for 12 weeks, followed by an open-label, 52-week safety phase on the combination therapy.

RESULTS

Of the 224 patients who continued after the double-blind phase, 211 completed the one-year safety period. Overall, fenofibrate/pravastatin combination therapy was well tolerated during this extension study. Only three patients had an elevation of ALAT > 3 times the upper limit of normal and one patient a CPK elevation ≥5, but <10 times the upper limit of normal. At week 64, and by comparison to baseline levels on pravastatin 40 mg, the fenofibrate/pravastatin combination therapy significantly reduced non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol by 16.3%, LDL-C by 12.2%, TG by 31.6%, apolipoprotein B by 11.0% and increased HDL-cholesterol and apolipoprotein A1 respectively by 4.8 and 9.6% (p < 0.0001 for all the variables). A limitation of this trial is that the study was not powered to assess clinical events.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term co-administration of fenofibrate/pravastatin 160/40 mg in a single capsule was well tolerated and produced complementary benefits on the overall lipid profile of high-risk patients with mixed hyperlipidemia not controlled by pravastatin 40 mg.

Additional Treatment with Fenofibrate for Patients Treated with Pitavastatin Under Ordinary Medical Practice for Hypertriglyceridemia in Japan (APPROACH-J Study)

Safety and efficacy of combination therapy of pitavastatin and fenofibrate were examined in consecutive case series with fasting serum triglycerides ≥ 150 mg/dL despite receiving pitavastatin 1 or 2 mg daily for over 2 months and additionally administered micronized fenofibrate 67 mg daily for another 4 to 16 weeks. Such low doses were selected in consideration of safety, and normal liver and renal functions were incorporated in inclusion criteria. In result, a total of 56 cases were examined. The addition of fenofibrate 67 mg to pitavastatin 1 mg/2 mg yielded a 36.8%/35.6% reduction in triglycerides and 6.4%/12.4% elevation in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, respectively. Almost 70% of the patients achieved triglycerides <150 mg/dL. Statistically significant elevation and decrease were observed in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, respectively. Laboratory tests for liver, renal and muscle function statistically significantly elevated after starting fenofibrate co-administration, which were considered comparable to the effect of fenofibrate alone. No myopathy or serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, while the safety and tolerability need to be further examined over the longer term, and careful monitoring is still needed, this regimen could be considered as one of the treatment option for hypercholesterolemia associated with hypertriglyceridemia.

Achievement of lipid targets with the combination of rosuvastatin and fenofibric Acid in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the proportion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) attaining individual and combined targets of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TG), non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) after treatment with rosuvastatin (R) + fenofibric acid (FA) compared with corresponding-dose R monotherapy.

Methods

This post hoc analysis evaluated data from the T2DM subset of patients with mixed dyslipidemia (LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL, HDL-C <40/50 mg/dL in men/women, and TG ≥150 mg/dL) from 2 randomized studies. Patients included in the analysis (N = 456) were treated with R (5, 10, or 20 mg), FA 135 mg, or R (5, 10, or 20 mg) + FA 135 mg for 12 weeks. Attainment of LDL-C <100 mg/dL, HDL-C >40/50 mg/dL in men/women, TG <150 mg/dL, non-HDL-C <130 mg/dL, ApoB <90 mg/dL, and the combined targets of these parameters was assessed.

Results

Treatment with R + FA resulted in a significantly higher proportion of patients achieving optimal levels of HDL-C (46.8% vs. 20.8%, P = 0.009 for R 10 mg + FA), TG (60.0% vs. 34.0%, P = 0.02 for R 10 mg + FA; 54.0% vs. 26.4%, P = 0.005 for R 20 mg + FA), non-HDL-C (55.1% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.04 for R 5 mg + FA), ApoB (58.0% vs. 36.4%, P = 0.02 for R 5 mg + FA); and the combined targets of LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG (28.3% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.02 for R 10 mg + FA) and all 5 parameters (26.1% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.03 for R 10 mg + FA) than corresponding-dose R monotherapies.

Conclusions

A significantly greater proportion of T2DM patients achieved individual and combined lipid targets when treated with the combination of R + FA than corresponding-dose R monotherapies.

Fenofibrate: a review of its lipid-modifying effects in dyslipidemia and its vascular effects in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Fenofibrate is a fibric acid derivative with lipid-modifying effects that are mediated by the activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α. Fenofibrate also has a number of nonlipid, pleiotropic effects (e.g. reducing levels of fibrinogen, C-reactive protein, and various pro-inflammatory markers, and improving flow-mediated dilatation) that may contribute to its clinical efficacy, particularly in terms of improving microvascular outcomes. The beneficial effects of fenofibrate on the lipid profile have been shown in a number of randomized controlled trials. In primary dyslipidemia, fenofibrate monotherapy consistently decreased triglyceride (TG) levels to a significantly greater extent than placebo; significantly greater increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels and significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC) levels were also seen in some trials. Monotherapy with fenofibrate or gemfibrozil had generally similar effects on TG and HDL-C levels, although in one trial, TC and LDL-C levels were reduced to a significantly greater extent with fenofibrate than with gemfibrozil. Fenofibrate monotherapy tended to improve TG and HDL-C levels to a significantly greater extent than statin monotherapy in primary dyslipidemia, whereas statin monotherapy decreased LDL-C and TC levels to a significantly greater extent than fenofibrate monotherapy. Fenofibrate also had a beneficial effect on atherogenic dyslipidemia in patients with the metabolic syndrome or type 2 diabetes mellitus, reducing TG levels, tending to increase HDL-C levels, and promoting a shift to larger low-density lipoprotein particles. In terms of cardiovascular outcomes, fenofibrate did not reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) events to a greater extent than placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes in the FIELD trial. However, the risk of some nonfatal macrovascular events (e.g. nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization) and certain microvascular outcomes (e.g. amputation, first laser therapy for diabetic retinopathy, progression of albuminuria) was reduced to a significantly greater extent with fenofibrate than with placebo. Subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in the cardiovascular disease (CVD) event rate among fenofibrate recipients in the subgroup of patients with marked hypertriglyceridemia or marked dyslipidemia at baseline. In the ACCORD Lipid trial, there were no significant differences between patients with type 2 diabetes and a high risk of CVD events who received fenofibrate plus simvastatin and those who received placebo plus simvastatin for any of the primary or secondary cardiovascular outcomes. However, fenofibrate plus simvastatin was of benefit in patients who had markedly high TG levels and markedly low HDL-C levels at baseline. In addition, fenofibrate plus simvastatin slowed the progression of diabetic retinopathy. Fenofibrate is generally well tolerated. Common adverse events included increases in transaminase levels that were usually transient, minor, and asymptomatic, and gastrointestinal signs and symptoms. In conclusion, monotherapy with fenofibrate remains a useful option in patients with dyslipidemia, particularly in atherogenic dyslipidemia characterized by high TG and low HDL-C levels.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 5 mg in combination with fenofibric acid 135 mg in patients with mixed dyslipidemia - a phase 3 study

BACKGROUND

Patients with mixed dyslipidemia characterized by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), elevated triglycerides (TG), and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) often require combination therapy to improve multiple lipid and nonlipid parameters. This phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 5 mg coadministered with fenofibric acid 135 mg in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

METHODS

A total of 760 patients with TG ≥ 150 mg/dL, HDL-C <40 mg/dL (<50 mg/dL for women), and LDL-C ≥ 130 mg/dL were randomized for a 12-week treatment period to rosuvastatin 5 mg, fenofibric acid 135 mg, or rosuvastatin 5 mg + fenofibric acid 135 mg. The primary efficacy comparisons were mean percentage changes in HDL-C and TG (rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid vs. rosuvastatin monotherapy), and LDL-C (rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid vs. fenofibric acid monotherapy).

RESULTS

Treatment with rosuvastatin + fenofibric acid resulted in statistically significant greater improvements in HDL-C (23.0% vs. 12.4%; P < 0.001) and TG (-40.3% vs. -17.5%; P < 0.001), compared with rosuvastatin monotherapy; and LDL-C (-28.7% vs. -4.1%; P < 0.001), compared with fenofibric acid monotherapy. All secondary efficacy variables improved with combination therapy. Combination therapy was generally well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with individual monotherapies. No unexpected muscle, hepatic, or renal safety signals were identified with combination therapy versus individual monotherapies.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, rosuvastatin 5 mg + fenofibric acid 135 mg resulted in comprehensive improvements in the lipid profile of patients with mixed dyslipidemia without unanticipated adverse events.

Fixed-dose combination fenofibrate/pravastatin 160/40 mg versus simvastatin 20 mg monotherapy in adults with type 2 diabetes and mixed hyperlipidemia uncontrolled with simvastatin 20 mg: a double-blind, randomized comparative study

BACKGROUND

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and mixed hyperlipidemia have an increased cardiovascular risk and may not achieve recommended LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals on statin monotherapy. This study was designed to obtain regulatory approval of a fenofibrate/pravastatin 160/40 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) capsule.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of this FDC and simvastatin 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-arm study was conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes and mixed hyperlipidemia, without cardiovascular disease, and who were not at lipid goals with simvastatin 20 mg monotherapy. After a 6-week run-in period during which patients received simvastatin 20 mg, those with non-HDL-C concentrations ≥130 mg/dL or LDL-C concentrations ≥100 mg/dL and triglyceride concentrations 150 to 600 mg/dL were enrolled. Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive 12-week treatment with fenofibrate/pravastatin 160/40 mg FDC or simvastatin 20 mg once daily, followed by a 12-week open-label tolerability-assessment period during which all patients received the FDC. The primary efficacy outcome was the mean percentage change in non-HDL-C after 12 weeks. Secondary efficacy outcomes included changes in other lipid and lipoprotein parameters, fibrinogen, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. Tolerability was assessed based on the prevalence of adverse events and abnormal laboratory data in each treatment group.

RESULTS

A total of 291 patients were randomized to receive fenofibrate/pravastatin (n= 145) or simvastatin (n = 146). The mean (SD) age of the participants was 56.6 (8.9) years, 48.1% were men, and the body mass index was 31.3 (4.6) kg/m(2). The FDC was associated with a significantly greater reduction in non-HDL-C (primary end point) compared with simvastatin monotherapy (-12.9% [1.8] vs -6.8% [1.8]; P = 0.008). Triglyceride (-28.6% [3.7] vs +5.0% [3.6]; P < 0.001), fibrinogen (-11.5% [1.6] vs +0.3% [1.6]; P < 0.001), and HDL-C (+6.3% [1.3] vs +1.8% [1.3]; P = 0.008) concentrations also were significantly improved with the FDC compared with simvastatin monotherapy. The proportions of patients who achieved the LDL-C target (<100 mg/dL) were not significantly different between the 2 groups. The proportion of patients who achieved the combined end point of non-HDL-C <130 mg/dL and LDL-C <100 mg/dL was significantly greater with fenofibrate/pravastatin compared with simvastatin monotherapy (41 [28.5%] vs 26 [17.9%]; P < 0.05). The prevalences of patients who experienced ≥1 adverse event were not statistically different between the fenofibrate/pravastatin and simvastatin groups (17.2% vs 15.1%). However, compared with simvastatin monotherapy, the combination treatment was associated with significantly greater increases in alanine aminotransferase (+9.6% vs +1.5%; P = 0.03 between groups), creatinine (+13.7% vs +6.8%; P = 0.002 between groups), and homocysteine (+36.5% vs +1.6%; P < 0.001 between groups) concentrations.

CONCLUSIONS

In this selected population of adults with type 2 diabetes, the fenofibrate/pravastatin 160/40 mg FDC was associated with significantly greater changes from baseline in non-HDL-C, triglyceride, and HDL-C concentrations compared with simvastatin 20 mg. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Efficacy of fenofibric acid plus statins on multiple lipid parameters and its safety in women with mixed dyslipidemia

The combination of fibrate and statin therapies may be a treatment option for women with multiple lipid abnormalities. We, therefore, initiated the present safety and efficacy analysis to address the paucity of such data in women with mixed dyslipidemia. A total of 1,393 women with mixed dyslipidemia (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, triglycerides [TG] ≥ 150 mg/dl, high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol <50 mg/dl), who had enrolled in any 1 of 3 randomized clinical trials, were evaluated. The eligible women were randomized to receive fenofibric acid plus a low- or moderate-dose statin (combination treatment); or low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy; or fenofibric acid monotherapy. With low-dose combination treatment, the baseline HDL cholesterol level increased 20% and TG decreased 46% compared to an 8% HDL cholesterol increase and 20% TG decrease with low-dose statins alone. With the moderate-dose combination, the baseline HDL cholesterol increased 21% and TG decreased 44% compared to an 8% HDL cholesterol increase and 26% TG decrease with moderate-dose statins alone. The reduction in baseline LDL cholesterol with low-dose and moderate-dose combinations (37% and 39%, respectively) was comparable to the reduction with corresponding-dose statins (36% and 43%, respectively). High-dose statins decreased the baseline LDL cholesterol 47%; however, the increase in HDL cholesterol (9%) and decrease in TG (25%) were similar to the changes observed with lower doses of statins. The safety profiles of the combinations were comparable to those of the component therapies. In conclusion, these data suggest that a combination of fenofibric acid and a statin could be considered safe and efficacious for treating women with mixed dyslipidemia.

Efficacy and safety of adding fenofibrate 160 mg in high-risk patients with mixed hyperlipidemia not controlled by pravastatin 40 mg monotherapy

Patients with mixed hyperlipidemia and at high risk of coronary heart disease may not achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein (LDL) and non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol goals on statin monotherapy. This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fenofibrate 160 mg/pravastatin 40 mg fixed-dose combination therapy in high-risk patients not at their LDL cholesterol goal on pravastatin 40 mg. In this 12-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group study, after a run-in on pravastatin 40 mg, 248 patients were randomly assigned to fenofibrate/pravastatin combination therapy or to pravastatin monotherapy. Combination therapy produced significantly greater complementary decreases in non-HDL cholesterol (primary end point) than pravastatin monotherapy (-14.1% vs -6.1%, p = 0.002). Significantly greater improvements were also observed in LDL cholesterol (-11.7% vs -5.9%, p = 0.019), HDL cholesterol (+6.5% vs +2.3%, p = 0.009), triglycerides (-22.6% vs -2.0%, p = 0.006), and apolipoprotein B (-12.6% vs -3.8%, p <0.0001). Significantly more patients receiving the fenofibrate/pravastatin combination therapy than pravastatin alone achieved the LDL cholesterol (<100 mg/dl) and non-HDL cholesterol (<130 mg/dl) goals (p <0.01). Combination therapy was generally well tolerated with incidences of clinical and laboratory adverse experiences similar between the 2 groups. In conclusion, the fenofibrate 160 mg/pravastatin 40 mg fixed-dose combination therapy significantly improved the global atherogenic lipid profile in high-risk patients with mixed hyperlipidemia not controlled by pravastatin 40 mg monotherapy.

Dyslipidaemia in the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes: pathogenesis, priorities, pharmacotherapies

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Dyslipoproteinaemia is a cardinal feature of the metabolic syndrome that accelerates atherosclerosis. It is usually characterized by high plasma concentrations of triglyceride-rich and apolipoprotein B (apoB)-containing lipoproteins, with depressed concentrations of high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Drug interventions are essential for normalizing metabolic dyslipidaemia.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

This review discusses the mechanisms and treatment for dyslipidaemia in the metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

A comprehensive understanding of the pathophysiology and pharmacotherapy of dyslipidaemia in the metabolic syndrome and diabetes.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Dysregulation of lipoprotein metabolism may be due to a combination of overproduction of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, decreased catabolism of apoB-containing particles, and increased catabolism of HDL particles. These abnormalities may be consequent on a global metabolic effect of insulin resistance and an excess of both visceral and hepatic fat. Lifestyle modifications may favourably alter lipoprotein transport in the metabolic syndrome. Patients with dyslipidaemia and established cardiovascular disease should receive a statin as first-line therapy. Combination with other lipid-regulating agents, such as ezetimibe, fibrates, niacins and fish oils may optimize the benefit of statin on atherogenic dyslipidaemia.

Fibrate therapy in the management of dyslipidemias, alone and in combination with statins: role of delayed-release fenofibric acid

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD

Optimization of lipid management is a crucial aspect in the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Currently, HMG-CO reductase inhibitors (statins) are a mainstay of therapy. While this class of drugs has proven efficacy at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), their effects on other important lipid parameters, such as high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides, are less robust.

AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW

The current paper will address the significance of these secondary targets and review currently available therapies, including a new formulation of delayed-release fenofibric acid. A comprehensive MEDLINE search (1966 to September 2009) was performed.

WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN

The reader will gain a comprehensive review of the importance of secondary cholesterol targets, as well as the effectiveness of currently available therapies to address non-LDL-C. The role of the newly released fenofibric acid will also be addressed, as well as its potential use in combination therapy with a statin.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

Adequate treatment of lipid parameters beyond LDL-C is an essential component in the treatment of dyslipidemia. The fibrate class of drugs has proven efficacy in improving secondary targets; however, concerns regarding severe myopathy and rhabdomyolysis have limited their combination with statins. Recently, a new fibrate derivative, fenofibric acid, has become available. Studies to date reflect a positive safety and tolerability profile when combined with statins. This may offer a new tool to address the important secondary cholesterol targets that are becoming increasingly recognized as important contributors to cardiovascular outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid co-administered with low- or moderate-dose statin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus: results of a pooled subgroup analysis from three randomized, controlled, double-blind trials

BACKGROUND

Monotherapy with lipid-modifying medication is frequently insufficient to normalize lipid abnormalities in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in this population.

STUDY DESIGN

A pooled, subgroup analysis of three randomized, controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials.

SETTING

Multiple clinical research facilities in the US and Canada.

PATIENTS

Patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes (n = 586).

INTERVENTION

Fenofibric acid (Trilipix) 135 mg monotherapy; low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin [Crestor] 10, 20, or 40 mg; simvastatin [Zocor] 20, 40, or 80 mg; or atorvastatin [Lipitor] 20, 40, or 80 mg); or fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Mean percentage changes in lipid parameters, percentages of patients achieving optimal serum lipid/apolipoprotein levels, and incidence of adverse events.

RESULTS

Fenofibric acid + low-dose statin resulted in significantly (p < 0.001) greater mean percentage changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [16.8%] and triglycerides (-43.9%) than low-dose statin monotherapy (4.7% and -18.1%, respectively) and significantly (p < 0.001) greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [-34.0%] than fenofibric acid monotherapy (-5.3%). Similarly, fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin resulted in significantly (p < or = 0.011) greater mean percentage changes in HDL-C (16.3%) and triglycerides (-43.4%) than moderate-dose statin monotherapy (8.7% and -24.2%, respectively) and significantly (p < 0.001) greater reductions in LDL-C (-32.6%) than fenofibric acid monotherapy (-5.3%). Compared with low- or moderate-dose statin, fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin resulted in over 5-fold higher percentages of patients achieving optimal levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, HDL-C, and triglycerides simultaneously. Incidence of adverse events was generally similar among treatments.

CONCLUSION

Fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes was well tolerated and resulted in more comprehensive improvement in the lipid/apolipoprotein profile than either monotherapy. [Clinical trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00300482, NCT00300456, and NCT00300469].

A review on the rationale and clinical use of concomitant rosuvastatin and fenofibrate/fenofibric acid therapy

Mixed dyslipidemia, characterized by a lipid triad of elevated triglycerides (TG), elevated low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) and reduced high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C), is a common and frequently difficult to manage condition. The use of combination medications is often needed to effectively treat the lipid triad. The co-administration of statins and fibrates may provide the desired endpoints but safety issues such as toxicity to the muscles, liver and kidneys are a concern. Given the potency of rosuvastatin to lower LDL-C and fenofibrate's effectiveness in lowering TG, the use of this specific combination may be desirable in treating mixed dyslipidemia. Pharmacokinetic studies revealed no significant interactions with the concomitant use of rosuvastatin and fenofibrate or its active metabolite fenofibric acid. Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of this combination therapy demonstrate significant reductions in TG and LDL-C levels, and elevations in HDL-C. Safety data from clinical trials reveal no major adverse reactions. However, case reports of adverse events have been published and monitoring for potential adverse reactions of the individual agents is advised. Overall, current data suggest the combination of rosuvastatin and fenofibrate or fenofibric acid is a safe combination to utilize when managing difficult to treat mixed dyslipidemia patients.

Comparison of sequential rosuvastatin doses in hypercholesterolaemia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin is an effective treatment for patients with hypercholesterolaemia. However, the incremental benefit and risk of increasing through the licensed dose range have not been comprehensively assessed across all available clinical trials.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The literature databases CENTRAL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were searched in April 2008 for trials with comparisons of sequential licensed rosuvastatin dosages: 5 vs. 10 mg/day, 10 vs. 20 mg/day, and 20 vs. 40 mg/day. Clinical trial registries were also searched. For benefit outcomes, weighted mean differences were derived using the inverse variance method. For risk outcomes, the Mantel-Haenszel method was used to calculate a summary relative risk.

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 26 trials. The results demonstrated significantly favourable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level with increasing dosage (by 6.25, 5.84, and 5.03 percentage points for 10 vs. 5 mg/day, 20 vs. 10 mg/day, and 40 vs. 20 mg/day, respectively), and also in the ratios of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein A-I (all p < 0.00001). In addition, a significantly favourable change in HDL-C level was found with 20 mg/day over 10 mg/day (p = 0.02). Among the primary tolerability comparisons, no significant differences in risk were seen for muscular, hepatic, or renal adverse events, with only one exception: the risk of proteinuria by urine dipstick testing was significantly higher with rosuvastatin 40 mg/day than 20 mg/day (p = 0.01). The efficacy outcomes assessed in this meta-analysis are limited to surrogate markers of morbidity and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides evidence for improved efficacy in treating patients with hypercholesterolaemia with each sequential titration of rosuvastatin and a generally consistent tolerability profile across the dose range.

Rosuvastatin-associated adverse effects and drug-drug interactions in the clinical setting of dyslipidemia

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are the mainstay in the pharmacologic management of dyslipidemia. Since they are widely prescribed, their safety remains an issue of concern. Rosuvastatin has been proven to be efficacious in improving serum lipid profiles. Recently published data from the JUPITER study confirmed the efficacy of this statin in primary prevention for older patients with multiple risk factors and evidence of inflammation. Rosuvastatin exhibits high hydrophilicity and hepatoselectivity, as well as low systemic bioavailability, while undergoing minimal metabolism via the cytochrome P450 system. Therefore, rosuvastatin has an interesting pharmacokinetic profile that is different from that of other statins. However, it remains to be established whether this may translate into a better safety profile and fewer drug-drug interactions for this statin compared with others. Herein, we review evidence with regard to the safety of this statin as well as its interactions with agents commonly prescribed in the clinical setting. As with other statins, rosuvastatin treatment is associated with relatively low rates of severe myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, and renal failure. Asymptomatic liver enzyme elevations occur with rosuvastatin at a similarly low incidence as with other statins. Rosuvastatin treatment has also been associated with adverse effects related to the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system, which are also commonly observed with many other drugs. Proteinuria induced by rosuvastatin is likely to be associated with a statin-provoked inhibition of low-molecular-weight protein reabsorption by the renal tubules. Higher doses of rosuvastatin have been associated with cases of renal failure. Also, the co-administration of rosuvastatin with drugs that increase rosuvastatin blood levels may be deleterious for the kidney. Furthermore, rhabdomyolysis, considered a class effect of statins, is known to involve renal damage. Concerns have been raised by findings from the JUPITER study suggesting that rosuvastatin may slightly increase the incidence of physician-reported diabetes mellitus, as well as the levels of glycated hemoglobin in older patients with multiple risk factors and low-grade inflammation. Clinical trials proposed no increase in the incidence of neoplasias with rosuvastatin treatment compared with placebo. Drugs that antagonize organic anion transporter protein 1B1-mediated hepatic uptake of rosuvastatin are more likely to interact with this statin. Clinicians should be cautious when rosuvastatin is co-administered with vitamin K antagonists, cyclosporine (ciclosporin), gemfibrozil, and antiretroviral agents since a potential pharmacokinetic interaction with those drugs may increase the risk of toxicity. On the other hand, rosuvastatin combination treatment with fenofibrate, ezetimibe, omega-3-fatty acids, antifungal azoles, rifampin (rifampicin), or clopidogrel seems to be safe, as there is no evidence to support any pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interaction of rosuvastatin with any of these drugs. Rosuvastatin therefore appears to be relatively safe and well tolerated, sharing the adverse effects that are considered class effects of statins. Practitioners of all medical practices should be alert when rosuvastatin is prescribed concomitantly with agents that may increase the risk of rosuvastatin-associated toxicity.

Myopathy with statin-fibrate combination therapy: clinical considerations

Many patients who receive statin therapy for hyperlipidemia-such as patients with diabetes mellitus and metabolic syndrome--have residual cardiovascular risk. These patients often have dyslipidemia, including low levels of HDL cholesterol and elevated levels of triglycerides and small, dense LDL. For such patients, combination treatment with statins and fibrates is a potentially useful strategy to improve lipid and lipoprotein profiles and reduce cardiovascular risk. However, statin-fibrate combination regimens have potential adverse effects on skeletal muscle, including myopathy. To date, no large-scale, prospective, randomized, controlled trial has evaluated the safety and efficacy of statin-fibrate combination therapy; one such trial is underway but will not report data until 2010. Until then, clinicians need to consider pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, metabolic, pathophysiologic and other factors that can increase the systemic exposure of statins and/or fibrates and hence heighten the risk of toxic effects on muscles, as well as data from clinical trials and recommendations of consensus panels to optimize the safety of such combination regimens. On the basis of currently available data, fenofibrate or fenofibric acid is the fibrate of choice when used in combination with a statin because each is, in theory, associated with a lower risk of myopathy than gemfibrozil.

Management of complex lipid abnormalities with a fixed dose combination of simvastatin and extended release niacin

ER niacin combined with simvastatin provides an additional option for achieving LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals for cardiovascular prevention, with greater efficacy in those with triglyceride levels >200 mg/dL. ER niacin 1000 mg combined with simvastatin 20 mg reduced LDL-C by 6%, non-HDL-C by 7%, and triglycerides by 13%, and raised HDL-C by 11% compared to simvastatin 20 mg alone. The 2000 mg dose combined with simvastatin 20 to 40 mg raised reduced LDL-C by 7% to 24%, non-HDL-C by 16% to 28%, and triglycerides by 23% to 34%, and increased HDL-C by 18% to 22% compared to similar dose simvastatin therapy. While cardiovascular risk is reduced in proportion to the magnitude of LDL-C lowering, the additive benefit of raising HDL-C and lowering triglycerides remains to be determined. ER niacin-simvastatin is reasonably well tolerated, with a <7% discontinuation rate due to flushing in patients who used aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications as needed. However, drop-out rates were high in both the simvastatin and ER niacin-simvastatin treatment groups in both the 24- and 52-week studies. The safety profile of the combination appears to be similar to that of niacin and simvastatin used as monotherapies. Results of ongoing morbidity/mortality trials of ER niacin added to statin therapy are eagerly awaited.