Comparison of treatment with fluvastatin extended-release 80-mg tablets and immediate-release 40-mg capsules in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

The influence of genetic polymorphisms in drug metabolism enzymes and transporters on the pharmacokinetics of different fluvastatin formulations

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the impact of genetic polymorphism on fluvastatin pharmacokinetics. In addition, we compared the fluvastatin pharmacokinetics differences between extended-release (ER) 80 mg tablet and immediate-release (IR) 40 mg capsule in terms of drug metabolism enzyme and transporter genetic polymorphisms. In this open-label, randomized, two-period, two-treatment, crossover study (n = 24), effects of ABCG2, SLCO1B1, ABCB1, CYP2C9 and CYP3A5 polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetics of fluvastatin were analyzed. The administration dosage for IR 40 mg and ER 80 mg were twice and once daily, respectively, for total 7 d. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic evaluation were taken on the 1st and 7th d. The lower exposure following ER was observed. For ER tablets, SLCO1B1 T521C genotype correlated with AUC_0-24 of repeat doses (P = 0.010). SLCO1B1 T521C genotype had no statistically significant effect on AUC_0-24 of IR capsule of fluvastatin after single or repeated doses. In vitro study demonstrated that when the concentration of fluvastatin was low (< 1 µmol/l), the uptake of fluvastatin in the HEK293-OATP1B1 with SLCO1B1 521TT (K_m =0.18 µmol/l) was faster than that with SLCO1B1 521CC (K_m =0.49 µmol/l), On the other hand, when concentration reached to higher level (> 1 µmol/l), transport velocity of fluvastatin by HEK293-OATP1B1 with SLCO1B1 521TT (K_m  = 11.4 µmol/l) and with SLCO1B1 521TCC (K_m =15.1 µmol/l) tend to be the same. It suggests that the increased effect of SLCO1B1 T521C genotype on ER formulation of fluvastatin was mainly caused by lower blood concentrations. We recommend that formulation should be incorporated into future pharmacogenomics studies.

Fluvastatin for lowering lipids

BACKGROUND

Fluvastatin is thought to be the least potent statin on the market, however, the dose-related magnitude of effect of fluvastatin on blood lipids is not known.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objectiveTo quantify the effects of various doses of fluvastatin on blood total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL cholesterol), high-density lipoprotein (HDL cholesterol), and triglycerides in participants with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.Secondary objectivesTo quantify the variability of the effect of various doses of fluvastatin.To quantify withdrawals due to adverse effects (WDAEs) in randomised placebo-controlled trials.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to February 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2017, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to February Week 2 2017), MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase (1974 to February Week 2 2017), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, CDSR, DARE, Epistemonikos and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also contacted authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials evaluating the dose response of different fixed doses of fluvastatin on blood lipids over a duration of three to 12 weeks in participants of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility criteria for studies to be included, and extracted data. We entered data from placebo-controlled and uncontrolled before and after trials into Review Manager 5 as continuous and generic inverse variance data, respectively. WDAEs information was collected from the placebo-controlled trials. We assessed all trials using the 'Risk of bias' tool under the categories of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other potential biases.

MAIN RESULTS

One-hundred and forty-five trials (36 placebo controlled and 109 before and after) evaluated the dose-related efficacy of fluvastatin in 18,846 participants. The participants were of any age with and without evidence of cardiovascular disease, and fluvastatin effects were studied within a treatment period of three to 12 weeks. Log dose-response data over doses of 2.5 mg to 80 mg revealed strong linear dose-related effects on blood total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and a weak linear dose-related effect on blood triglycerides. There was no dose-related effect of fluvastatin on blood HDL cholesterol. Fluvastatin 10 mg/day to 80 mg/day reduced LDL cholesterol by 15% to 33%, total cholesterol by 11% to 25% and triglycerides by 3% to 17.5%. For every two-fold dose increase there was a 6.0% (95% CI 5.4 to 6.6) decrease in blood LDL cholesterol, a 4.2% (95% CI 3.7 to 4.8) decrease in blood total cholesterol and a 4.2% (95% CI 2.0 to 6.3) decrease in blood triglycerides. The quality of evidence for these effects was judged to be high. When compared to atorvastatin and rosuvastatin, fluvastatin was about 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin at reducing LDL cholesterol. Very low quality of evidence showed no difference in WDAEs between fluvastatin and placebo in 16 of 36 of these short-term trials (risk ratio 1.52 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.45).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Fluvastatin lowers blood total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and triglyceride in a dose-dependent linear fashion. Based on the effect on LDL cholesterol, fluvastatin is 12-fold less potent than atorvastatin and 46-fold less potent than rosuvastatin. This review did not provide a good estimate of the incidence of harms associated with fluvastatin because of the short duration of the trials and the lack of reporting of adverse effects in 56% of the placebo-controlled trials.

Medication complexity and affordability in use of time release antidepressants

While time-release (TR) formulations reduce medication complexity, their increased costs may compromise medication affordability. This study examined how medication complexity and affordability affect the extent of access to TR formulations among adult patients with depression. Study subjects consisted of adults (≥ 24 years old) with reported diagnoses of depression from the 2010 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Antidepressants that offer choices between TR vs. IR (immediate release) were selected. Factors related to medication complexity and affordability were identifi ed based on the Andersonfs model of health services utilization. A multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the study hypotheses while controlling for complex survey sampling in MEPS. A total of 625 working adults with depression had fi lled prescriptions with TR formulations about 60% of the time. Factors related to medication affordability and complexity were signifi cantly associated with the extent of access to TR antidepressant formulations. Identifi cation of those factors associated with the use of TR formulations would contribute to improving access as well as adherence to antidepressant drug therapy.

The difference in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics between extended-release fluvastatin and immediate-release fluvastatin in healthy Chinese subjects

The aim of this study was to evaluate the difference in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics between extended-release (ER) fluvastatin tablet and its immediate-release (IR) capsule in Chinese healthy subjects. This was an open-label, single/multiple-dose, two-period, two-treatment, crossover, randomized trial with a minimum washout period of 7 days. Twenty healthy male adult subjects were given fluvastatin ER tablet 80 mg QD by oral administration or fluvastatin IR capsule 40 mg BID for seven days. Blood samples were collected up to 24 hours after dosing on day 1 and day 7. Serum concentrations of fluvastatin were determined by LC-MS/MS. For fluvastatin ER tablet 80 mg QD, C_max was 61.0 ± 39.0 and 63.9 ± 29.7 ng/mL, and AUC_0−24 h was 242 ± 156 and 253 ± 91.1 ng·h/mL on day 1 and 7, respectively. For fluvastatin IR capsule 40 mg BID, C_max was 283 ± 271 and 382 ± 255 ng/mL, and AUC_0−24 h was 720 ± 776 and 917 ± 994 ng·h/mL on day 1 and day 7, respectively. The relative bioavailability of fluvastatin ER tablet 80 mg QD to fluvastatin IR capsule 40 mg BID is (45.3 ± 23.9)% and (43.3 ± 24.1)% on day 1 and day 7, respectively. T_max for fluvastatin ER tablet was 2.50 and 2.60 h and for capsule was 0.78 and 0.88 h on day 1 and day 7, respectively. In the first period, compared to baseline, cholesterol decreased 15.3% in fluvastatin ER tablet 80 mg QD and 16.9% in fluvastatin IR capsule 40 mg BID. Triglyceride decreased 3.7% in fluvastatin ER tablet 80 mg QD and 19.1% in fluvastatin IR capsule 40 mg BID. The difference has no statistical significance at P > 0.05 in reduction percent of cholesterol and triglyceride between the two groups. No adverse events were recorded. The results indicated that C_max of fluvastatin ER tablet is reduced and T_max is prolonged compared with IR capsule. There is no accumulation for ER formulation after multiple doses.

Different galenic formulations of fluvastatin have equal lipid-lowering potential but differ in reducing lipemia-induced endothelial dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Postprandial lipemia is known to exert a reversible detrimental effect on endothelium-dependent flow-mediated vasodilation (FMD). Fasting FMD has shown to be improved by fluvastatin. In this study, we investigated whether lipemia-induced endothelial dysfunction can be mitigated by fluvastatin in two (immediate-release and extended-release) formulations.

METHODS

In 27 patients with the metabolic syndrome, randomized in a three-period crossover design for 5 weeks each to 80 mg extended-release fluvastatin daily, 40 mg immediate-release fluvastatin twice daily (b.i.d.) or placebo, the fasting and postprandial lipids and FMD of the brachial artery were measured at baseline and after 5 weeks of each treatment period. Postprandial lipemia was induced by administration of whipping cream containing 33% fat (1 g fat/kg body weight). FMD was determined by two-dimensional ultrasonography of the brachial artery in the fasting state and 4 h after the fatty meal. Lipids were determined using routine methods.

RESULTS

Fasting triglycerides were reduced after immediate-release and extended-release fluvastatin by 16 and 23%, respectively, and postprandial triglycerides by 20 and 29%, respectively. The fasting FMD was also improved by each treatment. The postprandial FMD impairment, however, was mitigated only after 40 mg b.i.d. After 80 mg fluvastatin, the last dose of which had been administered the previous evening, the lipemic FMD impairment was the same as after the placebo.

CONCLUSION

Fluvastatin improves fasting FMD regardless of whether it is administered as 40 mg b.i.d. or 80 mg daily given in the evening. The lipemic FMD impairment, in contrast, is improved only by 40 mg b.i.d. when the tablet is taken in the morning of the test day. As the half-life of fluvastatin is about 2 h, we surmise that an improvement occurs only when sufficient amounts of fluvastatin are present in the bloodstream.

Efficacy and safety of extended-release fluvastatin in Turkish patients with hypercholesterolaemia: TULIPS (Turkish Lipid Study)

OBJECTIVE

The efficacy and safety of extended-release fluvastatin (fluvastatin XL), 80 mg once daily, was assessed in Turkish patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) 3.37-5.70 mmol/l and triglyceride (TG) < 4.52 mmol/l).

RESEARCH DESIGN

In this open-label, prospective, multi-centre study, 154 patients were given fluvastatin XL 80 mg once daily and lipid levels were assessed after 2 and 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Fluvastatin XL 80 mg once daily significantly reduced LDL-C levels by 38.8 and 38.1% at weeks 2 (n = 140) and 12 (n = 116), respectively (p < 0.001 vs. baseline). Treatment with fluvastatin XL for 2 and 12 weeks significantly reduced total cholesterol levels by 30.2 and 27.4%, respectively (p < 0.001 vs. baseline) and reduced TG levels by 14.9 and 7.5%, respectively (p < 0.001 vs. baseline). Following stratification by risk factors for coronary heart disease (CHD) according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines, 87.3% of patients with > or = 2 risk factors, and 67.4% of patients with existing CHD or CHD risk equivalents achieved target LDL-C levels (< 3.37 mmol/l and < 2.59 mmol/l, respectively) with fluvastatin XL. Fluvastatin XL reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 8.9 and 4.7% at weeks 2 and 12 weeks, respectively. fluvastatin XL 80 mg once daily was generally well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This open-label study indicates fluvastatin XL 80 mg once daily is an effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy for the reduction of CHD risk in Turkish patients.

Effect of individualizing starting doses of a statin according to baseline LDL-cholesterol levels on achieving cholesterol targets: The Achieve Cholesterol Targets Fast with Atorvastatin Stratified Titration (ACTFAST) study

AIMS

To investigate whether selecting the starting dose of atorvastatin according to baseline and target (<2.6 mmol/L) LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) values would allow high-risk subjects to achieve target LDL-C concentration within 12 weeks, with the initial dose or a single uptitration.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Twelve-week, prospective, open-label trial that enrolled 2117 high-risk subjects (statin-free [SF] or statin-treated [ST]). Subjects with LDL-C >2.6 mmol/L (100mg/dL) but <or=5.7 mmol/L (220 mg/dL) were assigned a starting dose of atorvastatin (10, 20, 40 or 80 mg/day) based on LDL-C and status of statin use at baseline, with a single uptitration at 6 weeks, if required. There was no washout for ST subjects. At study end, 80% of SF (82%, 82%, 83% and 72% with 10, 20, 40 and 80 mg, respectively) and 59% of ST (60%, 61% and 51% with 20, 40 and 80 mg, respectively) subjects reached LDL-C target. In the ST group, an additional 21-41% reduction in LDL-C was observed over the statin used at baseline. Atorvastatin was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms that individualizing the starting dose of atorvastatin according to baseline and target LDL-C values (i.e. the required LDL-C reduction), allows a large majority of high-risk subjects to achieve target safely, within 12 weeks, with the initial dose or with a single titration.

Efficacy and Safety of Fluvastatin-Extended Release in Hypercholesterolemic Patients: Morning Administration Is Equivalent to Evening Administration

BACKGROUND

Flexibility in the time of administration of statin therapy is likely to improve patient compliance. This study compared the efficacy and tolerability of morning and evening administration of the extended-release formulation of fluvastatin (fluvastatin XL).

METHODS

In this prospective, double-blind, multicenter, multiple dose study, 236 patients with type IIa/b hypercholesterolemia were randomized to receive fluvastatin XL, 80 mg, in the morning or evening for 8 weeks.

RESULTS

At 8 weeks, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were reduced by 34.5 and 35.0% in the morning and evening treatment groups, respectively (p = 0.0118 for non-inferiority of morning administration). There were no statistically significant differences between the morning and evening treatment groups in the changes in total cholesterol (p = 0.56), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p = 0.21), triglycerides (p = 0.13), apolipoprotein B (p = 0.66) and apolipoprotein AI (p = 0.88) at 8 weeks. The frequency of adverse events was slightly lower in the morning treatment group compared with the evening treatment group (27.4 vs. 35.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety profiles of fluvastatin XL are equivalent for morning and evening administration.

Optimal lipid modification: the rationale for combination therapy

BACKGROUND

An emphasis on more aggressive lipid-lowering, particularly of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, to improve patient outcomes has led to an increased use of combination lipid-lowering drugs. This strategy, while potentially beneficial, has triggered concerns regarding fears of adverse effects, harmful drug interactions, and patient nonadherence.

OBJECTIVE

To present key data regarding combination lipid-altering therapy including use, rationale, major trials, benefits, potential adverse effects, compliance issues, and limitations.

METHOD

Literature was obtained from MEDLINE (1966 - June 2005) and references from selected articles.

RESULTS

A substantial body of evidence from epidemiological data and clinical trials indicates that aggressive lipid modification, especially low-density lipoprotein reduction, is associated with reduced cardiovascular events. Numerous studies utilizing various combinations of cholesterol-lowering agents including statin/fibrate, statin/niacin, statin/bile acid resin, and statin/ezetimibe have demonstrated significant changes in the lipid profile with acceptable safety. Long-term trials of combination therapy evaluating clinical outcomes or surrogate markers of cardiovascular disease, while limited, are promising.

CONCLUSION

Combining lipid-altering agents results in additional improvements in lipoproteins and has the potential to further reduce cardiovascular events beyond that of monotherapy.

Evaluating the economic consequences of early antidepressant treatment discontinuation: a comparison between controlled-release and immediate-release paroxetine

INTRODUCTION

Early antidepressant discontinuation has been linked to significant clinical and economic consequences. Clinical practice guidelines suggest that treatment should last for at least 3 to 9 months into the continuation phase; however, 30% of patients discontinue therapy within 30 days, and over 40% discontinue therapy within 90 days of initiation, primarily due to adverse events. Clinical trials have shown that controlled-release (CR) paroxetine has a favorable tolerability profile when compared to immediate-release (IR) paroxetine, which may result in lower discontinuation rates and improved economic outcomes. This is the first study to directly compare treatment discontinuation rates and health care expenditures of a CR selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors with its IR counterpart.

METHODS

This matched retrospective study used claims from a national managed care database to assess differences in discontinuation rates and health care expenditures between paroxetine CR and IR for treating depression and/or anxiety. Discontinuation was assessed by survival analysis, and health care expenditure was assessed using average monthly medical and pharmacy charges.

RESULTS

There were 1275 paroxetine CR patients and 2550 paroxetine IR patients matched in the analysis. At 90 days, 62% of paroxetine CR patients continued therapy versus 56% of paroxetine IR patients. At 180 days, 51% of paroxetine CR patients continued therapy versus 42% of paroxetine IR patients. When evaluating all medical charges, paroxetine CR patients incurred US 119 dollars less per month than paroxetine IR patients (P = 0.054).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving paroxetine CR remained on therapy longer than patients on paroxetine IR, which resulted in lower total monthly medical costs for patients receiving paroxetine CR. Differences in costs were primarily driven by reduction in hospitalization expenditures.