Long-term safety and tolerability profile of ezetimibe and atorvastatin coadministration therapy in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGISTS AND AMERICAN COLLEGE OF ENDOCRINOLOGY GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT OF DYSLIPIDEMIA AND PREVENTION OF CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE

OBJECTIVE

The development of these guidelines is mandated by the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) Board of Directors and American College of Endocrinology (ACE) Board of Trustees and adheres with published AACE protocols for the standardized production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

METHODS

Recommendations are based on diligent reviews of the clinical evidence with transparent incorporation of subjective factors, according to established AACE/ACE guidelines for guidelines protocols.

RESULTS

The Executive Summary of this document contains 87 recommendations of which 45 are Grade A (51.7%), 18 are Grade B (20.7%), 15 are Grade C (17.2%), and 9 (10.3%) are Grade D. These detailed, evidence-based recommendations allow for nuance-based clinical decision-making that addresses multiple aspects of real-world medical care. The evidence base presented in the subsequent Appendix provides relevant supporting information for Executive Summary Recommendations. This update contains 695 citations of which 203 (29.2 %) are EL 1 (strong), 137 (19.7%) are EL 2 (intermediate), 119 (17.1%) are EL 3 (weak), and 236 (34.0%) are EL 4 (no clinical evidence).

CONCLUSION

This CPG is a practical tool that endocrinologists, other health care professionals, health-related organizations, and regulatory bodies can use to reduce the risks and consequences of dyslipidemia. It provides guidance on screening, risk assessment, and treatment recommendations for a range of individuals with various lipid disorders. The recommendations emphasize the importance of treating low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in some individuals to lower goals than previously endorsed and support the measurement of coronary artery calcium scores and inflammatory markers to help stratify risk. Special consideration is given to individuals with diabetes, familial hypercholesterolemia, women, and youth with dyslipidemia. Both clinical and cost-effectiveness data are provided to support treatment decisions.

ABBREVIATIONS

4S = Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study A1C = glycated hemoglobin AACE = American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists AAP = American Academy of Pediatrics ACC = American College of Cardiology ACE = American College of Endocrinology ACS = acute coronary syndrome ADMIT = Arterial Disease Multiple Intervention Trial ADVENT = Assessment of Diabetes Control and Evaluation of the Efficacy of Niaspan Trial AFCAPS/TexCAPS = Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study AHA = American Heart Association AHRQ = Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality AIM-HIGH = Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides trial ASCVD = atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease ATP = Adult Treatment Panel apo = apolipoprotein BEL = best evidence level BIP = Bezafibrate Infarction Prevention trial BMI = body mass index CABG = coronary artery bypass graft CAC = coronary artery calcification CARDS = Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study CDP = Coronary Drug Project trial CI = confidence interval CIMT = carotid intimal media thickness CKD = chronic kidney disease CPG(s) = clinical practice guideline(s) CRP = C-reactive protein CTT = Cholesterol Treatment Trialists CV = cerebrovascular CVA = cerebrovascular accident EL = evidence level FH = familial hypercholesterolemia FIELD = Secondary Endpoints from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes trial FOURIER = Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk trial HATS = HDL-Atherosclerosis Treatment Study HDL-C = high-density lipoprotein cholesterol HeFH = heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HHS = Helsinki Heart Study HIV = human immunodeficiency virus HoFH = homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia HPS = Heart Protection Study HPS2-THRIVE = Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events trial HR = hazard ratio HRT = hormone replacement therapy hsCRP = high-sensitivity CRP IMPROVE-IT = Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial IRAS = Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study JUPITER = Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin LDL-C = low-density lipoprotein cholesterol Lp-PLA2 = lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 MACE = major cardiovascular events MESA = Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis MetS = metabolic syndrome MI = myocardial infarction MRFIT = Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial NCEP = National Cholesterol Education Program NHLBI = National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PCOS = polycystic ovary syndrome PCSK9 = proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 Post CABG = Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft trial PROSPER = Prospective Study of Pravastatin in the Elderly at Risk trial QALY = quality-adjusted life-year ROC = receiver-operator characteristic SOC = standard of care SHARP = Study of Heart and Renal Protection T1DM = type 1 diabetes mellitus T2DM = type 2 diabetes mellitus TG = triglycerides TNT = Treating to New Targets trial VA-HIT = Veterans Affairs High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Intervention Trial VLDL-C = very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol WHI = Women's Health Initiative.

Ezetimibe for the prevention of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality events

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains an important cause of mortality and morbidity, and high levels of blood cholesterol are thought to be the major modifiable risk factors for CVD. The use of statins is the preferred treatment strategy for the prevention of CVD, but some people at high-risk for CVD are intolerant to statin therapy or unable to achieve their treatment goals with the maximal recommended doses of statin. Ezetimibe is a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, whether it has a positive effect on CVD events remains uncertain. Results from clinical studies are inconsistent and a thorough evaluation of its efficacy and safety for the prevention of CVD and mortality is necessary.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe for the prevention of CVD and all-cause mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science on 27 June 2018, and two clinical trial registry platforms on 11 July 2018. We checked reference lists from primary studies and review articles for additional studies. No language restrictions were applied.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared ezetimibe versus placebo or ezetimibe plus other lipid-modifying drugs versus other lipid-modifying drugs alone in adults, with or without CVD, and which had a follow-up of at least 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and contacted trialists to obtain missing data. We performed statistical analyses according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and used the GRADE to assess the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 RCTs randomising 23,499 participants. All included studies assessed effects of ezetimibe plus other lipid-modifying drugs compared with other lipid-modifying drugs alone or plus placebo. Our findings were driven by the largest study (IMPROVE-IT), which had weights ranging from 41.5% to 98.4% in the different meta-analyses.Ezetimibe with statins probably reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with statins alone (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.98; a decrease from 284/1000 to 267/1000, 95% CI 256 to 278; 21,727 participants; 10 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Trials reporting all-cause mortality used ezetimibe with statin or fenofibrate and found they have little or no effect on this outcome (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.05; 21,222 participants; 8 studies; high-quality evidence). Adding ezetimibe to statins probably reduces the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95; a decrease from 105/1000 to 92/1000, 95% CI 85 to 100; 21,145 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence) and non-fatal stroke (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.97; a decrease 32/1000 to 27/1000, 95% CI 23 to 31; 21,205 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). Trials reporting cardiovascular mortality added ezetimibe to statin or fenofibrate, probably having little or no effect on this outcome (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.12; 19457 participants; 6 studies; moderate-quality evidence). The need for coronary revascularisation might be reduced by adding ezetimibe to statin (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99; a decrease from 196/1000 to 184/1000, 95% 175 to 194; 21,323 participants; 7 studies); however, no difference in coronary revascularisation rate was observed when a sensitivity analysis was limited to studies with a low risk of bias.In terms of safety, adding ezetimibe to statins may make little or no difference in the risk of hepatopathy (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.35; 20,687 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether ezetimibe increase or decrease the risk of myopathy (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.38; 20,581 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence) and rhabdomyolysis, given the wide CIs and low event rate. Little or no difference in the risk of cancer, gallbladder-related disease and discontinuation due to adverse events were observed between treatment groups. For serum lipids, adding ezetimibe to statin or fenofibrate might further reduce the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol and triglyceride levels and likely increase the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; however, substantial heterogeneity was detected in most analyses.None of the included studies reported on health-related quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate- to high-quality evidence suggests that ezetimibe has modest beneficial effects on the risk of CVD endpoints, primarily driven by a reduction in non-fatal MI and non-fatal stroke, but it has little or no effect on clinical fatal endpoints. The cardiovascular benefit of ezetimibe might involve the reduction of LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether ezetimibe increases the risk of adverse events due to the low and very low quality of the evidence. The evidence for beneficial effects was mainly obtained from individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD, predominantly with acute coronary syndrome) administered ezetimibe plus statins. However, there is limited evidence regarding the role of ezetimibe in primary prevention and the effects of ezetimibe monotherapy in the prevention of CVD, and these topics thus requires further investigation.

Addition of Ezetimibe to statins for patients at high cardiovascular risk: Systematic review of patient-important outcomes

Ezetimibe is widely used in combination with statins to reduce low-density lipoprotein. We sought to examine the impact of ezetimibe when added to statins on patient-important outcomes. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched through July, 2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of ezetimibe combined with statins versus statins alone that followed patients for at least 6 months and reported on at least one of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular deaths, non-fatal myocardial infarctions (MI), and non-fatal strokes were included. Pairs of reviewers extracted study data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. Quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. We conducted a narrative review with complementary subgroup and sensitivity analyses. IMPROVE-IT study enrolled 93% of all patients enrolled in the 8 included trials. Our analysis of the IMPROVE-IT study results showed that in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events, ezetimibe added to statins was associated with i) a likely reduction in non-fatal MI (17 fewer/1000 treated over 6 years, moderate certainty in evidence); ii) a possible reduction in non-fatal stroke (6 fewer/1000 treated over 6 years, low certainty); iii) no impact on myopathy (moderate certainty); iv) potentially no impact on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death (both moderate certainty); and v) possibly no impact on cancer (low certainty). Addition of ezetimibe to moderate-dose statins is likely to result in 17 fewer MIs and possibly 6 fewer strokes/1000 treated over 6 years but is unlikely to reduce all-cause mortality or cardiovascular death. Patients who place a high value on a small absolute reduction in MI and are not adverse to use of an additional medication over a long duration may opt for ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy. Our analysis revealed no increased specific harms associated with addition of ezetimibe to statins.

Clinical efficacy and safety of Ezetimibe on major cardiovascular endpoints: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about Ezetimibe's efficacy on patient-oriented outcomes have given discordant results. The aim of this study was to determine the net effect of Ezetimibe and of the widely marketed combination, Ezetimibe+simvastatin, on mortality and morbidity outcomes.

Methods and Findings

We searched for RCT on Ezetimibe using MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to December 2013, Merck and Novartis online registers, and personal communications. Two authors independently selected trials fulfilling these criteria: RCTs comparing Ezetimibe±statin or another lipid-lowering drug against placebo, or against the same lipid-lowering drug at the same dosage, with a follow-up at least 24 weeks and one or more of these outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cancer, serious adverse events (SAEs); we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane checklist. We extracted the data for major clinical events as a dichotomous measure, with the patient the unit of analysis. Pooled analysis was done with random and fixed effect based models. Trials comparing Ezetimibe plus a lipid-lowering drug against the same lipidlowering drug representing the net effect of Ezetimibe, showed a nonsignificant tendency toward damage for cancer, MI, stroke and SAEs. Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. simvastatin alone showed a stronger tendency towards a higher risk for all-cause death (2.52; 0.65-9.74), CV death (3.04; 0.48-19.21), non-CV death (3.03; 0.12-73.50), MI (1.91; 0.42-8.70), stroke (2.38; 0.46-12.35), cancer (RR 11.11; 0.62-198.29), and SAEs (1.45; 0.95-2.23). Limitations include small numbers of events and inadequate power of the pooling. Trials comparing Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo showed non-significant effects: MI (0.81; 0.66-1.00 p = 0.051), all-cause death (1.02; 0.95-1.09), CV death (0.91; 0.80-1.04), non-CV death (108; 0.99-1.18), stroke (0.86; 0.72-1.04), cancer (1.18; 0.80-1.74), SAEs (1.01; 0.96-1.06).

Conclusions

Ezetimibe±simvastatin had inconsistent effects on important outcomes. No firm conclusions are possible, but findings indicative of damage suggest much more selective use of Ezetimibe±simvastatin.

The efficacy of Ezetimibe added to ongoing Fibrate-Statin therapy on postprandial lipid profile in the patients with type 2 Diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND

Postprandial hypertriglyceridemia in diabetes mellitus can be followed by endothelial dysfunction, impaired vascular compliance and increased cardiovascular complications. So focus on better control of postprandial hypertriglyceridemia is as important as controlling fasting triglyceride level in type 2 DM.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the effect of ezetimibe adding to fibrate or statin on postprandial hypertriglyceridemia.

METHODS

In a randomized controlled clinical trial, 47 subjects with type 2 diabetes and hypertiglyceridemia were enrolled and divided in three treatment groups including Gemfibrozil 1200mg/d + placebo(group A), Ezetimibe10mg/d + Gemfibrozile 1200mg/d(group B) or Ezetimibe10mg/d + Atorvastatin10mg/d (group C) for a 6- week period. Oral fat loading test were performed in the initiation and also at the end of the study and lipid profile and APOB were measured.

RESULTS

Fasting and postprandial serum triglyceride (TG) decreased significantly with all the three treatment groups with no difference between them in the percent of TG reduction. Although serum total cholesterol decreased significantly in all the three groups of treatment its reduction was more prominent in group C(-38.1% ± 11.2%in group C vs. -16.5% ± 19.6% and -7.2% ± 10.7% in groups B & A respectively, p < 0.0001 ). Fasting serum HDL increased significantly only by Gemfibrozil (23.4% ± 28.4% vs. 6.4% ± 18.9% and 1.8% ± 17.7%, p < 0.05 ). Fasting serum APOB was reduced only in ezetimibe containing groups (B &C).

CONCLUSION

Adding ezetimibe to gemfibrozil has no additional effect on reducing postprandial TG but ezetimibe can potentiate the effect of low-dose atorvastatin on lowering TG and LDL-c.

Dyslipidemic drugs in metabolic syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Metabolic syndrome predisposes to diabetes and atherosclerotic vascular disease. Statins reduce cardiovascular events, so all metabolic syndrome patients should be evaluated for dyslipidemia. Many patients fail to achieve lipid goals with statin monotherapy. Co-administration of ezetimibe (EZE) and atorvastatin (ATV) may enable more patients to achievelow-density lipoproteincholesterol (LDL-C) goal while avoiding risks of high-dose statin monotherapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study compares rosuvastatin (Rsv) with a combination of (Atv) and (Eze). Metabolic syndrome patients, 30-70 years with LDL-C ≥130 mg/dl and a 10-year CHD risk score of 10% were randomized to double-blind treatment with (Rsv) 5 mg (n = 67) or (Atv) 10 mg+(Eze) 10 mg (n = 68) for 12 weeks.

RESULTS

LDL-C reduced significantly; (32.3% and 30.3%, P < 0.001) in (Atv)+(Eze) and (Rsv), respectively, but there was no significant difference between two arms. More patients achieved LDL-C goal of ≤100 mg/dl with (Atv)+(Eze) compared to (Rsv) (65% vs. 58%, P < 0.05). Triglycerides (TG) were reduced more with (Atv)+(Eze) compared to (Rsv) (28.1% and 21.4%, P < 0.001). Greater increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) was observed with (Atv)+(Eze). Both treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the combination of (Atv)+(Eze) has more efficacy and comparable safety to that of (Rsv).

A validated capillary electrophoresis method for simultaneous determination of ezetimibe and atorvastatin in pharmaceutical formulations

A simple, precise, and sensitive capillary electrophoresis technique coupled with a diode array detector has been developed for the separation and simultaneous determination of ezetimibe and atorvastatin in pharmaceutical formulations. Separation of both ezetimibe and atorvastatin was achieved utilizing fused silica capillary (58 cm × 75 μm ID) and background electrolyte solution that consisted of phosphate buffer (2.5 mM, pH 6.7): methanol (70:30 v/v). The proposed method was validated by testing its specificity, linearity, precision, accuracy, recovery, and detection limit/quantitation limit values. The method was linear over the range 2.5-50 μg/ml for ezetimibe (r = 0.9992) and 1-100 μg/ml for atorvastatin (r = 0.9999). Within-day and between-day RSD for ezetimibe and atorvastatin were ⩽5.6% and ⩽2.9%, respectively. The detection limit was 0.07 μg/ml for ezetimibe and 0.06 μg/ml for atorvastatin. The validated method was successfully employed for the determination of ezetimibe and atorvastatin in tablets with no interfering peaks from common pharmaceutical excipients. The percentage recoveries of the two drugs from their tablets were 99.80 ± 1.76 and 100.19 ± 1.83, respectively.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe-statin combination vs statin titration (January 1993 - March 2010). Studies were selected using predefined criteria. Two reviewers conducted screening of articles, critical appraisal and data extraction; a third reviewer resolved disagreements. The difference between treatments was analysed for four co-primary outcomes: mean percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC); and proportion of patients achieving LDL-C treatment goal. Data were combined by two sets of direct comparison fixed and random effects meta-analysis: (1) compared data in the same treatment period between groups; (2) compared the incremental change in lipid levels of add-on ezetimibe vs doubling statin dose. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 5080 patients were included in the meta-analyses. Data on simvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were analysed. Results for primary and secondary outcomes were in favour of the ezetimibe-statin combination. A significantly greater percentage reduction in LDL-C levels was achieved in patients treated with ezetimibe-statin vs statin monotherapy (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -14.1% [-16.1, -12.1], p < 0.001). Reduction in LDL-C levels attributed to add-on ezetimibe was significantly greater than that for statin dose doubling (WMD: -15.3% [-19.1, -11.4], p < 0.001). Achievement of LDL-C goal favoured add-on ezetimibe over statin titration and was statistically significant (odds ratio: LDL-C treatment goal 2.45 [1.95, 3.08], p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Meta-analyses were restricted by the limited number of studies with similar trial design and method of statin titration. Results indicate that add-on ezetimibe is significantly more effective in reducing LDL-C levels than doubling statin dose, enabling more patients to achieve LDL-C goal.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Long-term (48-week) safety of ezetimibe 10 mg/day coadministered with simvastatin compared to simvastatin alone in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the long-term safety and tolerability of ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministration therapy compared to simvastatin monotherapy in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

After completing a 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, factorial, 10-armed study comparing ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg; or placebo, 768 patients entered a 48-week extension, with randomized, blinded, reassignment of the simvastatin 10 mg, ezetimibe, and placebo groups to one of the ezetimibe/simvastatin groups. Patients previously receiving ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapy, or simvastatin 20, 40, and 80 mg monotherapy continued the same therapies in this 7-arm extension study. During the extension study, investigators assessed adverse events (AEs).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS

Ezetimibe/simvastatin (n = 539) and simvastatin monotherapy (n = 229) groups generally had a similar incidence of all clinical AEs (73 vs. 69%), treatment-related AEs (14 vs. 11%), clinical serious AEs (SAE) (5.2 vs. 2.6%), treatment-related SAEs (0.2 vs. 0%), discontinuations due to all clinical AEs (4.5 vs. 2.6%) and discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs (2.8 vs. 2.2%), respectively. The incidence of total laboratory-related AEs for the ezetimibe/simvastatin and simvastatin monotherapy groups was also similar (12.2 vs. 11.9%), as was treatment-related laboratory AEs (6.2 vs. 5.3%), laboratory SAEs (0 vs. 0%), treatment-related laboratory SAEs (0 vs. 0%), discontinuations due to laboratory AEs (3.0 vs. 0.9%) and discontinuations due to treatment-related laboratory AEs (3.0 vs. 0.4%), respectively. There were no cases of myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, or serious hepatotoxicity observed in any group during this extension study.

CONCLUSIONS

During this 48-week extension study, the coadministration of ezetimibe/simvastatin was generally as well tolerated as simvastatin monotherapy. The direct application of study observations to clinical practice is limited by patient selection criteria and dosage regime, which randomly applied relatively high doses rather than titration which often occurs in clinical practice.

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

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

Cholesterol goal attainment in patients with coronary heart disease and elevated coronary risk: results of the Hong Kong hospital audit study

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine 1) long-term lipid-lowering treatment patterns; 2) cholesterol goal attainment rates and possible determinants of goal achievement; and 3) effects of cholesterol goal attainment on coronary events in hospitalized Hong Kong patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort analysis, records of two public Hong Kong hospitals were reviewed for 196 adults (69% with coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD-risk equivalent) who received at least one lipid-lowering therapy during hospitalization. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets were <2.6 mmol/l (<100 mg/dL) for patients with CHD or CHD risk equivalents and <3.37 mmol/l (<130 mg/dL) for those without.

RESULTS

Most participants were initiated on regimens of low to midequipotency doses and never had their regimens adjusted to higher potency. Approximately 44% of patients not at LDL-C at baseline failed to achieve goal during a median follow-up of 1.9 years. Patients with higher coronary risk and/or LDL-C levels at baseline were less likely than their lower-risk counterparts to achieve goal; for each 1-mmol/l (38.7-mg/dL) increase in LDL-C at baseline, the likelihood of attaining goal declined by 64%. Patients achieving cholesterol goal had significantly longer cardiovascular event-free times.

CONCLUSIONS

A total of 44% of Hong Kong patients not at LDL-C goals at baseline did not achieve them over 1.9 years. More effective and well-tolerated therapies, including adjunctive regimens (e.g., ezetimibe-statin, niacin-statin), may be necessary to enhance LDL-C goal achievement and increase event-free time.

Lipid-modifying therapy and attainment of cholesterol goals in Hungary: the return on expenditure achieved for lipid therapy (REALITY) study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death in Eastern Europe. Few studies on cholesterol goal achievement have been conducted in Hungarian clinical settings. This study set out to evaluate lipid-modifying therapy practices and their effects on total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment in Hungarian patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), CHD risk equivalents, or >or=2 coronary risk factors.

METHODS

This multicentre observational study involved patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy who were under the care of general practitioners (n = 300) or specialists (n = 140). Physician questionnaires were used to collect data on baseline patient characteristics, including laboratory parameters. Using validated cardiovascular risk assessment measures, patients were stratified into high-risk (10-year absolute coronary risk >20%; n = 367) and lower risk groups (n = 73). Cholesterol goals were TC <4.5 mmol/L (<175 mg/dL) and LDL-C <2.5 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) for the high-risk group and TC <5.0 mmol/L (<193 mg/dL) and LDL-C <3.0 mmol/L (<117 mg/dL) for those at lower risk.

RESULTS

Among 440 patients (n = 312 with CHD or CHD risk equivalents), 374 (85%) were initiated on HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statin monotherapy), 44 (10%) received fibric acid derivatives and 22 (5%) received combination regimens. Although >50% of patients needed >35% TC lowering to reach goal, <10% of patients received high or very high potency lipid-modifying regimens or combination regimens initially. A total of 116 (26.4%) patients achieved their TC goals after >/=1 year of treatment, including 27.9% of patients with CHD/risk equivalents and 22.7% of those with risk factors only. Sixty-six (15%) patients achieved goal on initial lipid-modifying regimens, while a further 50 (11.4%) achieved goal following treatment changes, including upward dosage adjustments.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 74% of Hungarian patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy in our study did not achieve cholesterol goals. The proportion of patients realising their TC goals was higher in those treated by specialists but still did not exceed one-third.

Effect of ezetimibe monotherapy on the concentration of lipoprotein subfractions in patients with primary dyslipidaemia

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggest that the distribution of lipoprotein subfractions is an independent predictor of vascular events. Therefore, we evaluated the effect of ezetimibe (a selective cholesterol transport inhibitor) on the concentrations of lipoprotein subfractions in patients with primary dyslipidaemia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients (n = 50) with primary dyslipidaemias were recruited. The concentrations of the individual lipoprotein subfractions were measured using the Lipoprint system at baseline and after 16 weeks of treatment.

RESULTS

Ezetimibe reduced total, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) values as well as apolipoprotein B concentrations. Subfractionation of apolipoprotein B-containing lipoproteins showed that the reduction in LDL-C values was due to a fall in the concentrations of all LDL subfractions. However, a more pronounced trend towards a decrease in the concentrations of dense LDL subfractions was observed. Patients with triglyceride values >1.7 mmol/L had significantly greater reductions in the concentrations of small, dense LDL particles compared with those with normal triglyceride levels (49 vs. 19%, respectively; p < 0.05). Ezetimibe decreased the concentrations of HDL-C mainly due to a fall in the concentration of dense HDL subfractions.

CONCLUSION

Ezetimibe can favourably affect the distribution of LDL subfractions, especially in patients with elevated triglyceride values. Further studies are needed to clarify the significance of the ezetimibe-induced reduction in the concentrations of dense HDL particles.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Myopathy Associated with Atorvastatin-Ezetimibe Combination Therapy

The 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) play a prominent role in the treatment of dyslipidemia. Overall, statins are well tolerated, with a low occurrence of adverse effects. More serious reactions to statins have been reported, although they are rare (e.g., rhabdomyolysis 0.3-13.5 cases/million statin prescriptions). Combination therapy to treat dyslipidemia has become common in many patients; however, it can also increase the risk of serious adverse effects. We report the case of a patient who experienced muscle pain and elevated creatine kinase levels 16 days after the addition of ezetimibe to his atorvastatin therapy for hypercholesterolemia. Twelve days after stopping the ezetimibe, his muscle pain resolved and his serum creatine kinase level returned to baseline. This case report raises questions regarding the safety of high-dose atorvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy and suggests that caution and careful monitoring may be warranted.

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

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

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

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

Cardiovascular complications of immunosuppressive agents in renal transplant recipients

Fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events are the most important cause of graft loss in patients with a functioning graft following transplantation. The available data indicate that transplant patients have a high prevalence of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and new onset diabetes mellitus after transplantation. The aetiology and pathogenesis of post-transplant hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and diabetes are multifactorial. In addition, disease of the native kidney and recurrence of renal disease can contribute to the development of cardiovascular disease in transplant recipients. Most transplant patients are at risk of clinically important drug-drug interactions involving immunosuppressive agents. Adverse reactions and drug-drug interactions should not be neglected when selecting an agent for treatment of cardiovascular risk factors in transplant recipients.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin (INEGY) in the treatment of hyperlipidaemia

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

Effect of co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin treatment on LDL-C goal attainment in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin treatment was more effective than placebo plus on-going simvastatin in achieving an LDL-C treatment target of < or = 2.60 mmol/l (100 mg/dl) in hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD).

METHODS

Men and women (age > or = 18 years) with documented CHD and on a stable dose of simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg for at least 6 weeks were recruited for this study. After a 4-week simvastatin 10 or 20 mg plus placebo and diet run-in period, patients were eligible for randomization if LDL-C > 2.60 and < or = 4.20 mmol/l and triglycerides (TG) < or = 4.00 mmol/l. Eligible patients were randomized to a double-blind comparative study with ezetimibe 10 mg co-administered with on-going simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg (n=181) versus placebo to match ezetimibe co-administered with simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg (n=191) for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

At baseline, mean LDL-C was comparable between the ezetimibe (3.14 mmol/l) and placebo (3.19 mmol/l) groups. With the addition of ezetimibe or placebo to on-going simvastatin therapy, the percentage of patients achieving the LDL-C goal of < or = 2.60 mmol/l after 6 weeks of treatment was significantly (p < or = 0.001) greater in the ezetimibe group (74.3%) than in the placebo group (16.7%). The addition of ezetimibe to on-going simvastatin treatment also resulted in a significantly (p < or = 0.001) larger mean percent reduction in LDL-C from baseline (25.2%) compared with placebo (0.9%). Ezetimibe was generally well tolerated compared to placebo when added to on-going simvastatin treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-administering ezetimibe with on-going simvastatin 10 or 20 mg treatment allowed more hypercholesterolemic patients with CHD to reach the LDL-C treatment target of < or = 2.60 mmol/l.

Rationale for combination therapy with statin drugs in the treatment of dyslipidemia

Although statin therapy is a mainstay of lipid treatment, complementary effects of other cholesterol-lowering therapies modify the lipid panel and other aspects of coronary disease risk. These other therapies lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides and/or raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, improve diabetic control, and modify other cardiovascular risks. Historically, combination therapy has been reserved for the small minority of patients with severe dyslipidemia, due to perceived risk. More recently, however, it has been recognized that the potential complications of this combination are far outweighed by the clinical benefits that are possible.

The use of ezetimibe in achieving low density lipoprotein lowering goals in clinical practice: position statement of a United Kingdom consensus panel

There is no doubt that lowering serum cholesterol levels reduces the risk of major coronary events. This evidence has led treatment guidelines to set progressively lower targets for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, despite widespread use of statins, substantial numbers of patients do not achieve the LDL-C goals. Using higher doses of statins in an attempt to achieve these targets may increase the risk of serious adverse effects. Furthermore, the use of combination therapy with agents such as bile acid sequestrants, niacin and fibrates has been limited by increased potential for side effects, drug interactions and poor compliance. Ezetimibe, a selective cholesterol transport inhibitor, reduces the intestinal uptake of cholesterol without affecting absorption of triglycerides or fat-soluble vitamins. In clinical studies, ezetimibe 10 mg, in combination with statins or as monotherapy, was well tolerated and reduced LDL-C by 34-53% and 17-18%, respectively. The available evidence for ezetimibe is reviewed. The role of ezetimibe in increasing the proportion of patients attaining LDL-C treatment goals is discussed.

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

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