Effectiveness and safety of alternate-day simvastatin and fenofibrate on mixed hyperlipidemia

Practical recommendations for the management of cardiovascular risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia, with special attention to residual risk. Spanish adaptation of a European Consensus of Experts

This document has discussed clinical approaches to managing cardiovascular risk in clinical practice, with special focus on residual cardiovascular risk associated with lipid abnormalities, especially atherogenic dyslipidaemia (AD). A simplified definition of AD was proposed to enhance understanding of this condition, its prevalence and its impact on cardiovascular risk. AD can be defined by high fasting triglyceride levels (≥2.3mmol/L / ≥200mg/dL) and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) levels (≤1,0 / 40 and ≤1,3mmol/L / 50mg/dL in men and women, respectively) in statin-treated patients at high cardiovascular risk. The use of a single marker for the diagnosis and treatment of AD, such as non-HDL-c, was advocated. Interventions including lifestyle optimization and low density lipoprotein (LDL) lowering therapy with statins (±ezetimibe) are recommended by experts. Treatment of residual AD can be performed with the addition of fenofibrate, since it can improve the complete lipoprotein profile and reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with AD. Others clinical condictions in which fenofibrate may be prescribed include patients with very high TGs (≥5.6mmol/L / 500mg/dL), patients who are intolerant or resistant to statins, and patients with AD and at high cardiovascular risk. The fenofibrate-statin combination was considered by the experts to benefit from a favorable benefit-risk profile. In conclusion, cardiovascular experts adopt a multifaceted approach to the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, with lifestyle optimization, LDL-lowering therapy and treatment of AD with fenofibrate routinely used to help reduce a patient's overall cardiovascular risk.

Fenofibrate/simvastatin fixed-dose combination in the treatment of mixed dyslipidemia: safety, efficacy, and place in therapy

Lipids disorder is the principal cause of atherosclerosis and may present with several forms, according to blood lipoprotein prevalence. One of the most common forms is combined dyslipidemia, characterized by high levels of triglycerides and low level of high-density lipoprotein. Single lipid-lowering drugs may have very selective effect on lipoproteins; hence, the need to use multiple therapy against dyslipidemia. However, the risk of toxicity is a concerning issue. In this review, the effect and safety of an approved combination therapy with simvastatin plus fenofibrate are described, with an analysis of pros and cons resulting from randomized multicenter trials, meta-analyses, animal models, and case reports as well.

Efficacy and Safety of Rosuvastatin Every Other Day Compared with Once Daily in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia

Background:

Although most patients with hypercholesterolemia require life-long therapy with statins, these drugs are underused due to high costs. Every-other-day therapy could be one strategy to resolve this problem.

Objective:

To compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg administered every other day versus once daily.

Methods:

An 8 week, randomized, open-label, parallel trial was conducted at the outpatient department of Phramongkutklao Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand. Eighty patients with primary hypercholesterolemia were equally randomized to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily or every other day; 76 patients completed the study. Laboratory data were assessed at baseline and at the end of the study.

Results:

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels were reduced by 48% and 39% in the once-daily and every-other-day groups, respectively (p = 0.011). The percentage of patients who achieved LDL-C goals according to National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines was not significantly different between the once-daily (85%) and every-other-day (70%) groups (p = 0.180). In addition, both regimens were well tolerated, with no patient developing an elevation of more than 3 times baseline levels of aspartate aminotransferase or alanine aminotransferase or 10 times that of creatine kinase. As expected, the monthly cost per percent LDL-C reduction of the once-daily ($0.72) regimen was about 38% higher than that of the every-other-day ($0.44) regimen.

Conclusions:

Every-other-day dosing of rosuvastatin may be an alternative regimen for cost savings, without a major decrease in therapeutic benefit or increase in adverse events, in patients with hypercholesterolemia. The number of patients achieving their LDL-C goal using the every-other-day regimen is comparable with the number using the once-daily regimen, especially in the low-risk patient category.

Efficacy and safety of alternate day therapy with atorvastatin and fenofibrate combination in mixed dyslipidemia: a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The long half-life of atorvastatin and fenofibrate makes them suitable for alternate day therapy. Hence, we aimed to study the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of alternate day therapy with atorvastatin and fenofibrate combination in mixed dyslipidemia.

METHODS

Eligible patients with mixed dyslipidemia were randomly allotted into 2 equal parallel groups-alternate day therapy group (group 1) and daily therapy group (group 2). Patients in groups 1 and 2 received fixed dose combination of atorvastatin 10 mg and fenofibrate 160 mg on alternate days and daily, respectively, for 12 weeks. Mean percentage change from baseline in triglycerides (TGLs), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), HDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), and TC-HDL ratio, incidence of adverse effects, and cost-effectiveness were compared in both the groups.

RESULTS

Among 110 patients randomized, 99 completed the study till 12 weeks treatment duration. The TGLs, non-HDL-C, TC, and LDL-C decreased by 56.4%, 49.7%, 36.5%, and 39.2%, respectively, in alternate day therapy group and by 57.5%, 51.2%, 37.5%, and 39.4%, respectively, in daily therapy group. The HDL-C levels increased by 20.1% in alternate day therapy group compared to 21.8% in daily therapy group. No statistically significant difference was seen between both the groups in mean percentage change in lipid parameters from baseline to end of 12 weeks. Incidence of adverse events was reasonably less in alternate day therapy group.

CONCLUSION

Alternate day therapy with atorvastatin-fenofibrate combination is an effective and safe alternative to daily therapy in mixed dyslipidemia. Apart from significant cost savings, reasonable reduction in the incidence of adverse events is seen with alternate day regimen. However, larger studies are needed to more reliably confirm our interesting but preliminary results.

Treatment strategies in patients with statin intolerance: the Cleveland Clinic experience

BACKGROUND

Statin therapy is a proven effective treatment of hyperlipidemia. However, a significant number of patients cannot tolerate statins. This study was conducted to review treatment strategies for patients intolerant to statin therapy with a focus on intermittent statin dosing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a retrospective analysis of medical records of 1,605 patients referred to the Cleveland Clinic Preventive Cardiology Section for statin intolerance between January 1995 and March 2010 with at least a 6-month follow-up. The changes in lipid profile, achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, and statin tolerance rate were analyzed. Most (72.5%) of patients with prior statin intolerance were able to tolerate a statin for the median follow-up time of 31 months. Patients on intermittent statin dosing (n = 149) had significantly lower LDL-C reduction compared with daily dosing group (n = 1,014; 21.3% ± 4.0% vs 27.7% ± 1.4%, P < .04). However, compared with the statin discontinued group (n = 442), they had a significantly higher LDL-C reduction (21.3% ± 4.0% vs 8.3 ± 2.2%, P < .001), and a significantly higher portion achieved their Adult Treatment Panel III goal of LDL-C (61% vs 44%, P < .05). There was a trend toward a decrease in all-cause mortality at 8 years for patients on daily and intermittent statin dosing compared with those who discontinued statin (P = .08).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients with previous statin intolerance can tolerate subsequent trial of statin. A strategy of intermittent statin dosing can be an effective therapeutic option in some patients and may result in reduction in LDL-C and achievement of LDL-C goals.

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.

Alternate-day dosing with statins

The duration of the cholesterol-lowering effect of statins is considerably longer than the duration of the pharmacokinetic half-life of these drugs. The long duration of pharmacologic effects provides the rational for the efficacy of intermittent dosing that provides nearly the equivalent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction compared with daily dosing. Review of studies comparing alternate-day dosing with daily dosing of statins indicates that the magnitude of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with alternate-day dosing is nearly the same, with obvious cost savings. It is possible that the adverse effects of statins, such as myalgia or diabetes, may be related to the cumulative amount of drug ingested over time, and if so, the adverse effects may be decreased by alternate-day dosing.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of combined low-dose simvastatin-fenofibrate treatment in primary mixed hyperlipidaemia

OBJECTIVE

In order to assess the long-term (12 months) efficacy and safety of fenofibrate administered with simvastatin in the treatment of primary mixed hyperlipidaemia, we conducted a study that compared increasing dosages of these drugs in subgroups of men and women belonging to a clinical sample of out-patients.

DESIGN

This was an open study carried out in patients with primary mixed hyperlipidaemia (lipoprotein phenotype IIb) who needed a combined therapeutic approach because of their poor response to a single-drug regimen with an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (simvastatin). Thus, a fibrate (fenofibrate) was added to the therapy. The study lasted 12 months.

PATIENTS

Forty-five patients (mean age: 58.9 +/- 11.3 years) with primary mixed hyperlipidaemia who showed a poor response to the single-drug hypolipidaemic treatment were enrolled. Their average plasma triglyceride level was consistently above 300 mg/dL and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was over 160 mg/dL after at least 6 months of a single hypolipidaemic drug (simvastatin) regimen plus antiatherogenic dietary treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

Five patients received simvastatin 10mg once daily in addition to fenofibrate 200mg; 26 patients received simvastatin 20mg once daily plus fenofibrate 200mg; 11 patients received simvastatin 20mg once daily plus fenofibrate 300mg; and three patients received simvastatin 30mg once daily plus fenofibrate 200mg. The patients were allocated to treatment groups on the basis of their relative response to the therapy. Those making up the progressively higher agent/dose groups were the individuals at higher cardiovascular risk according to the total cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) values.

RESULTS

The double-drug regimen given for 12 months to four different groups, according to the different combined dosages of simvastatin and fenofibrate, resulted in a reduction in total cholesterol of 18% (p </= 0.05) to 39% (p </= 0.05), in LDL-C of 21% (not significant) to 39% (p </= 0.05) and in triglycerides of 35% (p </= 0.05) to 56% (p </= 0.01), and an increase in HDL-C of 8% (p </= 0.05) to 30% (not significant). The cardiovascular risk ratio (total cholesterol/HDL-C) at the end of the study was reduced by 33-60%, whereas the non-HDL-C decreased by 25-38%. No serious adverse effects were reported by the patients. Neither liver biochemistry nor creatine kinase serum concentration were significantly changed. Discontinuation of treatment, if necessary, in case of the occurrence of clinically subjective or objective evidence of adverse effects was assured.

CONCLUSION

The results confirmed the efficacy of the combination of fenofibrate and simvastatin. The combined therapeutic approach was shown to be safe for the treatment of primary mixed hyperlipidaemia, at least in patients with normal hepatic and renal function.

Fenofibrate plus simvastatin (fixed-dose combination) for the treatment of dyslipidaemia

INTRODUCTION

Statin use results in a significant reduction of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. However, patients still have residual CVD risk, even if they are receiving optimal statin treatment.

AREAS COVERED

This review, based on a Pubmed/Scopus search, discusses the available evidence regarding the use of a fixed-dose fenofibrate plus simvastatin combination. This combination is useful for patients with mixed dyslipidaemia because it improves the overall lipoprotein profile. Although in clinical trials the rate of adverse events was not significantly greater than monotherapy, patients who receive combination treatment should be monitored carefully. Furthermore, in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) Study, this combination did not result in a significant reduction of CVD events compared with simvastatin monotherapy. However, a possible benefit in this trial was observed in the subgroup of patients with high triglyceride and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

EXPERT OPINION

The fixed-dose fenofibrate plus simvastatin combination treatment produces additive results and is safe when patients are properly monitored. Existing evidence appears to support the addition of fenofibrate to simvastatin treatment for the reduction of residual CVD risk in patients with atherogenic dyslipidaemia. However, this combination did not lead to better clinical outcomes in the absence of dyslipidaemia.

Alternate-Day Statin Therapy for the Treatment of Hyperlipidemia

Objective:

To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and cost of alternate-day statin therapy in the treatment of hyperlipidemia.

Data Sources:

Systematic searches were conducted for primary literature sources involving alternative statin regimens using PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (January 1966-March 2010). Articles selected were limited to those published in the English language. Reference citations from relevant publications identified were also reviewed.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

All English-language articles identified were reviewed and 17 trials (14 prospective and 3 retrospective) involving alternate-day statin dosing were included. Studies involving alternative statin dosing regimens other than alternating days were excluded from this review.

Data Synthesis:

Daily administration of statins is the standard of therapy used to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels as well as atherosclerosis that may lead to coronary events. Through LDL-C lowering and pleiotrope effects, statins decrease cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Unfortunately, due to cost and adverse effects of statins, some patients are nonadherent to statin therapy. Several small studies have found alternate-day statin therapy to be as effective at reducing LDL-C as daily administration, while also lowering the incidence of adverse reactions and potentially lowering cost.

Conclusions:

Alternate-day statin therapy may decrease cost and therapy-limiting adverse reactions while potentially increasing regimen adherence and positively affecting the lipid panel. Further research is needed to determine whether this alternative regimen produces similar cardiovascular outcomes as those with daily statin therapy,

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.

Pharmacologic treatment of type 2 diabetic dyslipidemia

Patients with diabetes mellitus have a higher risk for cardiovascular heart disease (CHD) than does the general population, and once they develop CHD, mortality is higher. Good glycemic control will reduce CHD only modestly in patients with diabetes. Therefore, reduction in all cardiovascular risks such as dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking is warranted. The focus of this article is on therapy for dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients with the metabolic syndrome (insulin resistance) share similarities with patients with type 2 diabetes and may have a comparable cardiovascular risk profile. Diabetic patients tend to have higher triglyceride, lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and similar low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels compared with those levels in nondiabetic patients. However, diabetic patients tend to have a higher concentration of small dense LDL particles, which are associated with higher CHD risk. Current recommendations are for an LDL goal of less than 100 mg/dl (an option of < 70 mg/dl in very high-risk patients), an HDL goal greater than 40 mg/dl for men and greater than 50 mg/dl for women, and a triglyceride goal less than 150 mg/dl. Nonpharmacologic interventions (diet and exercise) are first-line therapies and are used with pharmacologic therapy when necessary. Lowering LDL levels is the first priority in treating diabetic dyslipidemia. Statins are the first drug choice, followed by resins or ezetimibe, then fenofibrate or niacin. If a single agent is inadequate to achieve lipid goals, combinations of the preceding Drugs may be used. For elevated triglyceride levels, hyperglycemia must be controlled first. If triglyceride or HDL levels remain uncontrolled, pharmacologic agents should be considered. Fibrates are slightly more effective than niacin in lowering triglyceride levels, but niacin increases HDL levels appreciably more than do fibrates. Unlike gemfibrozil, niacin selectively increases subfraction Lp A-I, a cardioprotective HDL. Niacin is distinct in that it has a broad spectrum of beneficial effects on lipids and atherogenic lipoprotein subfraction levels. Niacin produces additive results when used in combination therapy. Recent data suggest that lower dosages and newer formulations of niacin can be used safely in diabetic patients with good glycemic control. Current evidence and guidelines mandate that diabetic dyslipidemia be treated aggressively, and lipid goals can be achieved in most patients with diabetes when all available products are considered and, if necessary, used in combination.

Comparing hyperlipidemia control with daily versus twice-weekly simvastatin

BACKGROUND

Costs associated with the use of hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors are increasing. Finding ways to manage hyperlipidemia at lower costs is critical to all healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE

To assess effectiveness, safety, cost, and patients' satisfaction when converting hyperlipemic patients taking simvastatin daily to simvastatin twice weekly.

METHODS

This nonrandomized, open-label, proof-of-concept study converted patients treated with simvastatin 10 or 20 mg daily to 40 or 80 mg twice weekly, respectively, for 12 weeks. The lipid profiles at enrollment, week 6, and week 12 were compared using repeated-measures ANOVA. The percentage of patients attaining the appropriate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal was determined.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients completed the study. The proportion of patients at the LDL-C goal was not statistically different between enrollment and week 12 (87% vs 68%; p = 0.068). The mean LDL-C value +/- SD at weeks 6 and 12 increased compared with enrollment (112 +/-20, 111 +/-17, and 97 +/- 17 mg/dL, respectively; p < 0.001). Three (10%) patients reported nonadherence to the twice-weekly regimen. Seventeen (55%) patients reported that both regimens were equally convenient or preferred the twice-weekly regimen. Estimated cost-savings at our institution associated with this regimen would be $32 000 per 1000 patients per year.

CONCLUSIONS

The twice-weekly regimen safely maintained most of the patients at their LDL-C goal level, and over half the patients found this regimen to be the same or easier to follow than a daily regimen. Large outcome studies evaluating this approach are needed.

The triglyceride-high-density lipoprotein axis: an important target of therapy?

Coronary heart disease is the single largest cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. The link between elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and coronary heart disease (CHD) has been clearly established. However, triglycerides (TG) are increasingly believed to be independently associated with CHD, while high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) is inversely associated with CHD risk. High TG and low HDL often occur together, often with normal levels of LDL-C, and can be described as abnormalities of the TG-HDL axis. This lipid abnormality is a fundamental characteristic of patients with the metabolic syndrome, a condition strongly associated with the development of both type 2 diabetes and CHD. Patients with high TG and low HDL-C should be aggressively treated with therapeutic lifestyle changes. For high-risk patients, lipid-modifying therapy that specifically addresses the TG-HDL axis should also be considered. Current pharmacologic treatment options for such patients include statins, fibrates, niacin, fish oils, and combinations thereof. Several new pharmacologic approaches to treating the TG-HDL axis are currently being investigated. More clinical trial data is needed to test the hypothesis that pharmacologic therapy targeting the TG-HDL axis reduces atherosclerosis and cardiovascular events.

Statin-fibrate combination: therapy for hyperlipidemia: a review

Statins and fibrates are well-established treatments for hyperlipidaemias and the prevention of vascular events. However, fibrate + statin therapy has been restricted following early reports of rhabdomyolysis that mainly involved gemfibrozil, originally with bovastatin, and recently, with cerivastatin. Despite this limitation, several reports describing combination therapy have been published. This review considers these studies and the relevant indications and contraindications. Statin + fibrate therapy should be considered if monotherapy or adding other drugs (e.g. cholesterol absorption inhibitors, omega-3 fatty acids ornicotinic acid) did not achieve lipid targets or is impractical. Combination therapy should be hospital-based and reserved for high-risk patients with a mixed hyperlipidaemia characterised by low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) >2.6 mmol/l(100 mg/dl, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) <1.0 mmol/l (40 mg/dl) and/or triglycerides> 5.6 mmol/l (500 mg/dl. These three 'goals' are individually mentioned in guidelines. Patients should have normal renal, liver and thyroid function tests and should not be receiving therapy with cyclosporine, protease inhibitors or drugs metabolised through cytochrome P450 (especially 3A4). Combination therapy is probably best conducted using drugs with short plasma half-lives; fibrates should be prescribed in the morning and statins at night to minimise peak dose interactions. Both drug classes should be progressively titated from low doses. Regular (3-monthly) monitoring of liver function and creatine kinase is required. In conclusion, fibrate + statin therapy remains an option in high-risk patents. However, long-term studies involving safety monitoring and vascular endpoints are required to demonstrate the efficacy of this regimen.

Fenofibrate in the treatment of dyslipidemia: a review of the data as they relate to the new suprabioavailable tablet formulation

BACKGROUND

The fibric acid derivative fenofibrate is indicated as an adjunct to dietary modification in adults with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia (types IIa and IIb hyperlipidemia, Fredrickson classification) to reduce levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and apolipoprotein (apo) B, and to increase levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apo A. It is also indicated as adjunctive therapy to diet for the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia (types IV and V hyperlipidemia). Initially approved in the United States in a micronized capsule formulation, fenofibrate is now available in a new "suprabioavailable" tablet formulation that has increased bioavailability, achieving equivalent plasma concentrations at lower doses. The 67- and 200-mg micronized capsules can be considered equivalent to the 54- and 160-mg suprabioavailable tablets, respectively.

OBJECTIVE

This paper reviews the pharmacologic properties, clinical usefulness, and safety profile of fenofibrate in the management of dyslipidemias.

METHODS

Recent studies, abstracts, reviews, and consensus statements published in the English-language literature were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966-January 2002), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-January 2002), and PharmaProjects (1990-January 2002) using the search terms fenofibrate, fibrates, hyperlipidemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and dyslipidemia.

RESULTS

Fenofibrate is well absorbed after oral administration, with peak plasma levels attained in 6 to 8 hours. The absolute bioavailability of fenofibrate cannot be determined due to its being virtually insoluble in aqueous media suitable for injection; however, after oral administration of a single dose of radiolabeled fenofibrate, approximately 60% of the dose appeared in urine, primarily as fenofibric acid and its glucuronated conjugate, and approximately 25% was excreted in the feces. The apparent volume of distribution is 0.89 L/kg in healthy volunteers, and protein binding is approximately 99% in healthy and hyperlipidemic patients. Neither fenofibrate nor fenofibric acid appears to undergo significant oxidative metabolism in vivo. Fenofibric acid has a half-life of 20 hours. Fenofibrate is effective in lowering TG levels and increasing HDL-C levels. Its LDL-C-lowering effect is greater than that of gemfibrozil. Adverse effects of fenofibrate appear to be similar to those of other fibrates, including gastrointestinal symptoms, cholelithiasis, hepatitis, myositis, and rash. Fenofibrate therapy has been associated with increases in serum aminotransferase levels, and clinical monitoring of these markers of liver function should be performed regularly.

CONCLUSIONS

Fenofibrate is effective in reducing levels of TG, TC, and LDL-C, and increasing levels of HDL-C in patients with dyslipidemias. Its efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of hypertriglyceridemia and combined hyperlipidemia have been demonstrated in numerous clinical trials. Its use is accompanied by a low incidence of adverse effects and laboratory abnormalities. Fenofibrate protects against coronary heart disease not only through its effects on lipid parameters but also by producing alterations in LDL structure and, possibly, alterations in the various hemostatic parameters. Its uricosuric property may prove to be a useful adjunctive attribute.

Simvastatin induces apoptosis of cultured rat cardiomyocytes

Considering the therapeutic effect of statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) and simvastatin in patients with coronary heart disease, our first hypothesis was that simvastatin should inhibit apoptosis (programmed cell death) in angiotensin II-treated cultured myocytes. But after realizing that simvastatin stimulates apoptosis, we changed our hypothesis and began to study its apoptotic effect in primary cultured rat cardiomyocytes. We found that simvastatin induced apoptosis in a dose-dependent manner (0.1 to 3 micromol/L), as evidenced by the appearance of increased DNA fragmentation in agarose gels and characteristic apoptotic patterns in nuclei labeled with Hoechst 33342, as well as increased activity of caspase 3. FACS analysis of simvastatin-treated cardiomyocytes showing annexin V binding and propidium iodide exclusion ruled out the possibility of necrosis. Increased intracellular enzymatic activity of creatine phosphokinase, aldolase, and lactic dehydrogenase, markers for normal cell function, could reflect the hypertrophic effect of simvastatin. The results indicate that simvastatin-induced apoptosis in cultured heart cells is concentration-dependent and additive to the apoptotic effect of angiotensin II.

Alternate-day dosing of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors for cholesterol reduction

OBJECTIVE

Assess efficacy, safety, and cost of alternate-day dosing with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (HRIs).

DATA

International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and MEDLINE (English-language clinical trials, 1966-April 2000) were searched.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Established efficacy of HRIs is based on daily administration. Many patients who could benefit from these agents are unable to afford them; therefore, alternate-day dosing may be a solution for reducing expense without decreasing therapy benefits. Studies addressing alternate-day HRI therapy are evaluated to determine the usefulness of this option for cholesterol reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Although limited studies imply a trend toward benefit with alternate-day HRI therapy, large, controlled, randomized trials are needed before making this a standard recommendation.

Combination drug therapy for combined hyperlipidemia

Combination therapy for hyperlipidemia, especially combined hyperlipidemia, may have advantages over single drug therapy, affording better improvement in lipoprotein risk factors and possibly better prevention of atherothrombotic events. Although preliminary experience has been gained using treatment combinations of niacin with statins, and fibrates with statins, few studies have focused on angiographic or clinical outcomes. Both of these treatment combinations increase the risk of drug-induced myopathy and rhabdomyolysis. Current estimates of myopathy incidence are much lower than original estimates, but the relative safety of combined therapy might depend upon employing low or moderate statin doses. Safety depends critically upon educating the patient to respond appropriately to muscle symptoms, to intercurrent illness, and to concurrent use of certain other medications. Other useful drug combinations include those derived by addition of fish oil, bile acid binding resins, or stanol esters, as well as nonstatin combinations such as niacin-resin or fibrate-niacin.