Efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 and 10/40 mg compared with atorvastatin 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Statin-Ezetimibe Combination Therapy with Statin Monotherapy in Patients with Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Studies

INTRODUCTION

Dyslipidemia in diabetes mellitus is characterized by hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Additionally, the potentially increased risk of morbidity and mortality following atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases should be considered in the treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of the published data to compare the effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin)-ezetimibe combination therapy and statin monotherapy on lipid and glucose parameters in patients with diabetes. We also compared safety based on the adverse events reported for the two groups.

RESULTS

In total, 17 articles were included in this meta-analysis. In the efficacy assessment, the combination treatment afforded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C than did statin monotherapy (standard difference in means 0.691; 95% confidence interval 0.534-0.847). A significantly greater improvement effect was observed in the levels of HDL-C, total cholesterol, triglyceride, and apolipoprotein B, but not apolipoprotein A1, with combination therapy than with statin monotherapy. Additionally, combination therapy reduced fasting blood glucose levels more significantly than did statin monotherapy. In terms of safety, there were no significant differences in treatment-related adverse events between the two treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Statin-ezetimibe combination therapy enhances levels of LDL-C and other lipids without increasing the risk of adverse events compared with statin monotherapy. The present meta-analysis presents valid evidence for appropriate drug regimens to treat dyslipidemia in patients with diabetes.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Identifier Number CRD42021244578.

Ezetimibe in high-risk, previously treated statin patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of lipid efficacy

PURPOSE

While statins are used as first-line treatments for high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia, statin monotherapy is often insufficient to achieve target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Second-line treatment options include up-titration of statin dose, switching to a more potent statin, or combination therapy, e.g., with ezetimibe. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin monotherapy versus doubling the dosage or switching to a higher-potency statin in a population of patients with hypocholesterolemia at high risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and who had been previously treated with a statin.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed and evidence bases were established for populations of atorvastatin-, simvastatin-, and rosuvastatin-experienced patients using eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Based on the available data, we constructed networks of evidence and conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) within each statin population. The primary outcome of interest was percent change from baseline in LDL-C. Changes in total cholesterol were explored as a secondary outcome.

FINDINGS

Across all patient populations, 35 RCTs were identified and included in the evidence base. Among patients on simvastatin therapy, the addition of ezetimibe resulted in a mean difference (MD) in LDL-C of - 13.62% (95% CrI - 19.99, - 6.91; see table below) compared to doubling the starting dose of simvastatin. In the population of patients on atorvastatin therapy, the addition of ezetimibe resulted in an MD in LDL-C of - 14.71% (95% CrI - 16.46, - 12.95) compared to doubling the starting dose of atorvastatin. The addition of ezetimibe to rosuvastatin resulted in an MD in LDL-C of - 14.96% (95% CrI - 17.79, - 12.11), compared to doubling the starting rosuvastatin dose. Similar trends were observed for changes in total cholesterol.

IMPLICATIONS

Given the available data, the addition of ezetimibe to ongoing simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin monotherapy offers greater reduction in LDL-C among patients at high risk of CVD compared to doubling the initial statin dose.

Ezetimibe/statin combination therapy to treat patients with type 2 diabetes

Patients with diabetes represent a population at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Diabetic dyslipidemia is characterized by the so-called atherogenic lipid triad, consisting of an increase in small dense low density lipoprotein particles and in triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, and a decrease in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, with an increase in non-HDL cholesterol. Numerous trials have investigated the efficacy of add-on ezetimibe therapy for patients with type 2 diabetes and not controlled by statin therapy. The published data highly suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes may be more likely to benefit from ezetimibe/statin combination therapy. However, evidence specifically addressing hard clinical endpoints and prospective trials addressing differences in response between patients with or without diabetes are still needed.

Effect of Switching From Statin Monotherapy to Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Combination Therapy Compared With Other Intensified Lipid-Lowering Strategies on Lipoprotein Subclasses in Diabetic Patients With Symptomatic Cardiovascular Disease

Background

Patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease may not achieve adequate low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C) lowering on statin monotherapy, attributed partly to atherogenic dyslipidemia. More intensive LDL‐C–lowering therapy can be considered for these patients. A previous randomized, controlled study demonstrated greater LDL‐C lowering in diabetic patients with symptomatic cardiovascular disease who switched from simvastatin 20 mg (S20) or atorvastatin 10 mg (A10) to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (ES10/20) therapy, compared with statin dose‐doubling (to S40 or A20) or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10). The effect of these regimens on novel biomarkers of atherogenic dyslipidemia (low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein particle number and lipoprotein‐associated phospholipase A2 [Lp‐PLA₂]) was assessed.

Methods and Results

Treatment effects on low‐ and high‐density lipoprotein particle number (by NMR) and Lp‐PLA₂ (by ELISA) were evaluated using plasma samples available from 358 subjects in the study. Switching to ES10/20 reduced low‐density lipoprotein‐particle number numerically more than did statin dose‐doubling and was comparable with R10 (−133.3, −94.4, and −56.3 nmol/L, respectively; P>0.05). Increases in high‐density lipoprotein particle number were significantly greater with switches to ES10/20 versus statin dose‐doubling (1.5 and −0.5 μmol/L; P<0.05) and comparable with R10 (0.7 μmol/L; P>0.05). Percentages of patients attaining low‐density lipoprotein particle number levels <990 nmol/L were 62.4% for ES10/20, 54.1% for statin dose‐doubling, and 57.0% for R10. Switching to ES10/20 reduced Lp‐PLA₂ activity significantly more than did statin dose‐doubling (−28.0 versus −3.8 nmol/min per mL, P<0.05) and was comparable with R10 (−28.0 versus −18.6 nmol/min per mL; P>0.05); effects on Lp‐PLA₂ concentration were modest.

Conclusions

In diabetic patients with dyslipidemia, switching from statins to combination ES10/20 therapy generally improved lipoprotein subclass profile and Lp‐PLA₂ activity more than did statin dose‐doubling and was comparable with R10, consistent with its lipid effects.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00862251.

Achieving goal lipid levels with ezetimibe plus statin add-on or switch therapy compared with doubling the statin dose. A pooled analysis

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, statin titration, switching from statin monotherapy to a more potent statin or to ezetimibe/simvastatin.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of patient-level data from 17 double-blind, active or placebo-controlled studies of 8667 hypercholesterolemic adults randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg added to ongoing statins, statin titration (doubling), or switching from ongoing statins to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or to ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 and 40 mg). Percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was estimated by analysis of variance. Percent of patients who achieved LDL-C and other guideline-recommended targets, and target lipid levels by baseline distance to goal were evaluated.

RESULTS

LDL-C percent change from baseline was -26.0 for ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, -27.6 for switching from ongoing statin to ezetimibe/simvastatin, -19.7 for switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg, and -9.7 for dose doubling of the ongoing statin. For patients within 0.8 mmol/L (30 mg/dL) of the target at baseline, LDL-C target attainment rates were 75.9% for adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin, 72.8% for switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin, 61.8% for switching to rosuvastatin, and 44.3% for statin dose-doubling. Similarly, improvements in other lipids and achievement of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B targets among this patient group were largest for ezetimibe added to ongoing statins and switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin; switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg and statin dose-doubling were less effective.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy appeared to be an effective option for patients who do not achieve lipid-lowering goals on statins alone.

Safety profile of statins alone or combined with ezetimibe: a pooled analysis of 27 studies including over 22,000 patients treated for 6-24 weeks

Aims:  The aim of this analysis was to assess the overall safety and tolerability profiles of various statins + ezetimibe vs. statin monotherapy and to explore tolerability in sub-populations grouped by age, race, and sex. Methods:  Study-level data were combined from 27 double-blind, placebo-controlled or active-comparator trials that randomized adult hypercholesterolemic patients to statin or statin + ezetimibe for 6-24 weeks. In the full cohort, % patients with AEs within treatment groups (statin: N = 10,517; statin + ezetimibe: N = 11,714) was assessed by logistic regression with terms for first-/second-line therapy (first line = drug-naïve or rendered drug-naïve by washout at study entry; second line = ongoing statin at study entry or statin run-in), trial within first-/second-line therapy, and treatment. The same model was fitted for age (< 65, ≥ 65 years), sex, race (white, black, other) and first-/second-line subgroups with additional terms for subgroup and subgroup-by-treatment interaction. Results:  In the full cohort, the only significant difference between treatments was consecutive AST or ALT elevations ≥ 3 × upper limit of normal (ULN) (statin: 0.35%, statin + ezetimibe: 0.56%; p = 0.017). Significantly more subjects reported ≥ 1 AE; drug-related, hepatitis-related and gastrointestinal-related AEs; and CK elevations ≥ 10 × ULN (all p ≤ 0.008) in first-line vs. second-line therapy studies with both treatments. AEs were generally similar between treatments in subgroups, and similar rates of AEs were reported within age and race subgroups; however, women reported generally higher AE rates. Conclusions:  In conclusion, in second-line studies, ongoing statin treatment at study entry likely screened out participants for previous statin-related AEs and tolerability issues. These results describe the safety profiles of widely used lipid-lowering therapies and encourage their appropriate and judicious use in certain subpopulations.

Relative Efficacy of Antilipemic Agents in Non–High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction

The investigators sought to summarize the percentage reduction in non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) achieved with various antilipemic regimens and to determine whether certain antilipemic regimens have been proven more effective in lowering non-HDL-C. A search of MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Iowa Drug Information Service Database from 1970 to May 2011 was performed. Criteria were used to exclude studies not published in English, studies with methodology limitations, and studies with variables that may affect efficacy beyond the antilipemic agent administered. Only randomized, controlled trials comparing medications approved by the Food and Drug Administration were reviewed to determine whether significant differences in percentage reduction in non-HDL-C had been observed between different medication regimens. A total of 51 trials reported data that could be used to determine the range of percentage reduction in non-HDL-C achieved by select antilipemic regimens. Of these 51 trials, 38 provided head-to-head comparisons of antilipemic regimens. Rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are the most potent 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) in lowering non-HDL-C. Adding ezetimibe, fibric acid derivatives, and omega-3 fatty acids to antilipemic monotherapy may result in further reduction in non-HDL-C. Subjects with certain characteristics (eg, nonwhite) were not prevalent in these studies.

Efficacy, safety and tolerability of ongoing statin plus ezetimibe versus doubling the ongoing statin dose in hypercholesterolemic Taiwanese patients: an open-label, randomized clinical trial

Background

Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is associated with reduced risk for major coronary events. Despite statin efficacy, a considerable proportion of statin-treated hypercholesterolemic patients fail to reach therapeutic LDL-C targets as defined by guidelines. This study compared the efficacy of ezetimibe added to ongoing statins with doubling the dose of ongoing statin in a population of Taiwanese patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Methods

This was a randomized, open-label, parallel-group comparison study of ezetimibe 10 mg added to ongoing statin compared with doubling the dose of ongoing statin. Adult Taiwanese hypercholesterolemic patients not at optimal LDL-C levels with previous statin treatment were randomized (N = 83) to ongoing statin + ezetimibe (simvastatin, atorvastatin or pravastatin + ezetimibe at doses of 20/10, 10/10 or 20/10 mg) or doubling the dose of ongoing statin (simvastatin 40 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg or pravastatin 40 mg) for 8 weeks. Percent change in total cholesterol, LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and triglycerides, and specified safety parameters were assessed at 4 and 8 weeks.

Results

At 8 weeks, patients treated with statin + ezetimibe experienced significantly greater reductions compared with doubling the statin dose in LDL-C (26.2% vs 17.9%, p = 0.0026) and total cholesterol (20.8% vs 12.2%, p = 0.0003). Percentage of patients achieving treatment goal was greater for statin + ezetimibe (58.6%) vs doubling statin (41.2%), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.1675). The safety and tolerability profiles were similar between treatments.

Conclusion

Ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy resulted in significantly greater lipid-lowering compared with doubling the dose of statin in Taiwanese patients with hypercholesterolemia. Studies to assess clinical outcome benefit are ongoing.

Trial registration

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00652327

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg in high cardiovascular risk patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter study

Background

A considerable number of patients with severely elevated LDL-C do not achieve recommended treatment targets, despite treatment with statins. Adults at high cardiovascular risk with hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C ≥ 2.59 and ≤ 4.14 mmol/L (N = 250), pretreated with atorvastatin 20 mg were randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 weeks. The percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was assessed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis method with terms for treatment, time, time-by-treatment interaction, stratum, and time-by-stratum interaction. Percentage of subjects achieving LDL-C < 1.81 mmol/L, < 2.00 mmol/L, or < 2.59 mmol/L was assessed using a logistic regression model with terms for treatment and stratum. Tolerability was assessed.

Results

Switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin resulted in significantly greater changes in LDL-C (-26.81% vs.-11.81%), total cholesterol (-15.97% vs.-7.73%), non-HDL-C (-22.50% vs.-10.88%), Apo B (-17.23% vs.-9.53%), and Apo A-I (2.56% vs.-2.69%) vs. doubling the atorvastatin dose (all p ≤ 0.002), but not HDL-C, triglycerides, or hs-CRP. Significantly more subjects achieved LDL-C < 1.81 mmol/L (29% vs. 5%), < 2.00 mmol/L (38% vs. 9%) or < 2.59 mmol/L (69% vs. 41%) after switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin vs. doubling the atorvastatin dose (all p < 0.001). The overall safety profile appeared generally comparable between treatment groups.

Conclusions

In high cardiovascular risk subjects with hypercholesterolemia already treated with atorvastatin 20 mg but not at LDL-C < 2.59 mmol/L, switching to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg provided significantly greater LDL-C lowering and greater achievement of LDL-C targets compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose to 40 mg. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated.

Trial registration

Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00782184

Intestinal sterol transporters and cholesterol absorption inhibition

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Statin therapy is the mainstay of lipid-lowering therapy; however, many patients, particularly those at high risk, do not achieve sufficient LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering. Thus, there remains an unmet medical need for more effective and well tolerated lipid-lowering agents. Guidelines recommend combining additional lipid-lowering agents with a complementary mode of action for these patients. One approach to complementing statin therapy is combination with inhibitors that block the intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol. This review summarizes what is currently known about intestinal sterol transporters and cholesterol absorption inhibitors (CAIs).

RECENT FINDINGS

The only lipid-lowering agent currently available that specifically targets an intestinal sterol transporter (Niemann-Pick C1-like 1) is the CAI, ezetimibe. It is effective in lowering LDL-C, both when given alone and when combined with a statin. Clinical outcome data with ezetimibe combined with simvastatin have recently become available, and definitive evidence that the incremental LDL-C lowering attributable to the ezetimibe component reduces cardiovascular events beyond simvastatin alone is currently under study. Other novel CAIs have been evaluated based upon the structure and properties of ezetimibe, but none remain in development.

SUMMARY

Additional lipid-lowering agents are needed to fulfill an unmet medical need for those patients who do not achieve optimal LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy. The inhibition of cholesterol absorption is an important therapeutic strategy to reduce cholesterol levels. Based upon the demonstrated lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe, several CAIs have been identified; all to date have been discontinued due to limited efficacy.

Response by sex to statin plus ezetimibe or statin monotherapy: a pooled analysis of 22,231 hyperlipidemic patients

Background

Despite documented benefits of lipid-lowering treatment in women, a considerable number are undertreated, and fewer achieve treatment targets vs. men.

Methods

Data were combined from 27 double-blind, active or placebo-controlled studies that randomized adult hypercholesterolemic patients to statin or statin+ezetimibe. Consistency of treatment effect among men (n = 11,295) and women (n = 10,499) was assessed and percent of men and women was calculated to evaluate the between-treatment ability to achieve specified treatment levels between sexes.

Results

Baseline lipids and hs-CRP were generally higher in women vs. men. Between-treatment differences were significant for both sexes (all p < 0.001 except apolipoprotein A-I in men = 0.0389). Men treated with ezetimibe+statin experienced significantly greater changes in LDL-C (p = 0.0066), non-HDL-C, total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C, apolipoprotein A-I (all p < 0.0001) and apolipoprotein B (p = 0.0055) compared with women treated with ezetimibe+statin. The odds of achieving LDL-C < 100 mg/dL, apolipoprotein B < 90 mg/dL and the dual target [LDL-C < 100 mg/dL & apoliprotein B < 90 mg/dL] was significantly greater for women vs. men and the odds of achieving hs-CRP < 1 and < 2 mg/L and dual specified levels of [LDL-C < 100 mg/dL and hs-CRP < 2 mg/L] were significantly greater for men vs. women. Women reported significantly more gall-bladder-related, gastrointestinal-related, and allergic reaction or rash-related adverse events (AEs) vs. men (no differences between treatments). Men reported significantly more CK elevations (no differences between treatments) and hepatitis-related AEs vs. women (significantly more with ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. statin).

Conclusions

These results suggest that small sex-related differences may exist in response to lipid-lowering treatment and achievement of specified lipid and hs-CRP levels, which may have implications when managing hypercholesterolemia in women.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of combination therapy with ezetimibe/statin vs. statin monotherapy in patients with and without diabetes: an analysis of pooled data from 27 clinical trials

AIM

This post hoc analysis compared the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg plus statin (EZE/statin) vs. statin monotherapy in hypercholesterolaemic patients with and without diabetes.

METHODS

A pooled analysis of 27 previously published, randomized, double-blind, active- or placebo-controlled clinical trials comprising 21 794 adult patients with (n = 6541) and without (n = 15253) diabetes receiving EZE/statin or statin alone for 4-24 weeks evaluated percentage change from baseline in lipids and other parameters. Consistency of the treatment effect across the subgroups was tested using treatment × subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made.

RESULTS

Treatment effects within both subgroups were generally consistent with the overall population. EZE/statin was more effective than statin alone in improving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TGs), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein (apo) B and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in the overall population and both subgroups. Patients with diabetes achieved significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C compared with non-diabetic patients. Incidences of adverse events or creatine kinase elevations were similar between groups. A small but significantly higher incidence of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase elevations was seen in patients receiving EZE/statin (0.6%) vs. statin monotherapy (0.3%) in the overall population.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with EZE/statin vs. statin monotherapy provided significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC, TG, non-HDL-C, apo B and hs-CRP and significantly greater increases in HDL-C, with a similar safety profile in patients with and without diabetes. Reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C were larger in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes.

'Trig-onometry': non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol as a therapeutic target in dyslipidaemia

Targeting elevations in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains the cornerstone of cardiovascular prevention. However, this fraction does not adequately capture elevated triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (TRLs; e.g. intermediate-density lipoprotein, very low density lipoprotein) in certain patients with metabolic syndrome or diabetic dyslipidaemia. Many such individuals have residual cardiovascular risk that might be lipid/lipoprotein related despite therapy with first-line agents (statins). Epidemiological evidence encompassing > 100,000 persons supports the contention that non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) is a superior risk factor vs. LDL-C for incident coronary heart disease (CHD) in certain patient populations. In studies with clinical end-points evaluated in the current article, a 1:1 to 1:3 relationship was observed between reductions in non-HDL-C and in the relative risk of CHD after long-term treatment with statins, niacin (nicotinic acid) and fibric-acid derivatives (fibrates); this relationship increased to 1:5 to 1:10 in smaller subgroups of patients with elevated triglycerides and low HDL-C levels. Treatment with statin-, niacin-, fibrate-, ezetimibe-, and omega 3 fatty acid-containing regimens reduced non-HDL-C by approximately 9-65%. In a range of clinical trials, long-term treatment with these agents also significantly decreased the incidence of clinical/angiographic/imaging efficacy outcome variables. For patients with dyslipidaemia, consensus guidelines have established non-HDL-C treatment targets 30 mg/dl higher than LDL-C goals. Ongoing prospective randomised controlled trials should help to resolve controversies concerning (i) the clinical utility of targeting non-HDL-C in patients with dyslipidaemia; (ii) the most efficacious and well-tolerated therapies to reduce non-HDL-C (e.g. combination regimens); and (iii) associations between such reductions and clinical, angiographic, and/or imaging end-points.

Effects of combined ezetimibe and simvastatin therapy as compared with simvastatin alone in patients with type 2 diabetes: a prospective randomized double-blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of inhibited gastrointestinal cholesterol absorption in statin-treated dyslipidemic patients.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a multicenter prospective randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial, we primarily compared by ANCOVA the effect of 2-month ezetimibe (10 mg/day) or placebo therapy on LDL cholesterol serum levels in 108 type 2 diabetic patients with albuminuria <200 microg/min and total cholesterol concentrations >135 mg/dl despite simvastatin treatment (40 mg/day).

RESULTS

Unlike placebo, ezetimibe decreased LDL cholesterol from 99 +/- 31 to 66 +/- 22 mg/dl, total cholesterol from 162 +/- 36 to 124 +/- 30 mg/dl, and apolipoprotein B from 83 +/- 22 to 64 +/- 18 mg/dl (P < 0.0001 for all changes versus placebo). A total of 72 and 17% of patients on ezetimibe or placebo achieved LDL levels <70 mg/dl, respectively (P < 0.0001). Treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding ezetimibe to simvastatin therapy helps to improve the pro-atherogenic lipoprotein profile in type 2 diabetic patients who fail to reach recommended lipid targets with statin therapy alone.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin vs simvastatin in coronary heart disease patients with or without diabetes

BACKGROUND

Treatment guidelines recommend LDL-C as the primary target of therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Moreover, combination therapies with lipid-lowering drugs that have different mechanisms of action are recommended when it is not possible to attain LDL-C targets with statin monotherapy. Understanding which treatment or patient-related factors are associated with attaining a target may be clinically relevant.

METHODS

Data were pooled from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies. After stabilization on simvastatin 20 mg, patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) alone and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 20 mg (EZ/Simva) or simvastatin 40 mg. The change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), TC/HDL-C ratio, triglycerides, and the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) after 6 weeks of treatment were assessed, and factors significantly correlated with the probability of achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L in a population of high cardiovascular risk Italian patients were identified. A stepwise logistic regression model was conducted with LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L at endpoint as the dependent variable and study, treatment, gender, age (> or = 65 years or < 65 years), as independent variables and baseline LDL-C (both as continuous and discrete variable).

RESULTS

EZ/Simva treatment (N = 93) resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, TC, and TC/HDL-C ratio and higher attainment of LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L vs doubling the simvastatin dose to 40 mg (N = 106). Study [including diabetic patients (OR = 2.9, p = 0.003)], EZ/Simva treatment (OR = 6.1, p < 0.001), and lower baseline LDL-C (OR = 0.9, p = 0.001) were significant positive predictors of LDL-C target achievement. When baseline LDL-C was expressed as a discrete variable, the odds of achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L was 4.8 in favor of EZ/Simva compared with Simva 40 mg (p < 0.001), regardless of baseline LDL-C level.

CONCLUSION

EZ/Simva is an effective therapeutic option for patients who have not achieved recommended LDL-C treatment targets with simvastatin 20 mg monotherapy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT00423488 and NCT00423579.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus simvastatin 40 mg in coronary heart disease patients

BACKGROUND

Reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the primary goal of therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease (CHD).

METHODS

This double blind placebo-controlled study enrolled patients 18 to 75 years of age with primary hypercholesterolemia and established CHD who were taking a stable daily dose of simvastatin 20 mg. Patients were randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (eze/simva; n = 56) or simvastatin 40 mg (simva; n = 56) for 6 weeks. Percent change from baseline in LDL-C, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides were assessed by use of the Student t test. The percent of patients achieving LDL-C less than 100 mg/dL (<2.6 mmol/L) or less than 80 mg/dL (<2.0 mmol/L) was analyzed via logistic regression with terms for treatment, baseline LDL-C, age, and gender.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Treatment with eze/simva combination resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, and triglycerides versus doubling the dose of simva to 40 mg (all P < .01). Significantly more patients achieved LDL-C less than 100 mg/dL (<2.6 mmol/L) and less than 80 mg/dL (<2.0 mmol/L) with ezetimibe/simvastatin versus doubling the dose of simva to 40 mg (73.2% vs 25.0%; P < .001) for simvastatin. Changes in HDL-C were similar between treatments. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSION

In high-risk CHD patients with hypercholesterolemia, treatment with eze/simva combination resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol and triglycerides, as well as greater achievement of recommended LDL-C targets, compared with doubling the simvastatin dose to 40 mg over the 6-week period. (

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00423579).

Ezetimibe + simvastatin versus doubling the dose of simvastatin in high cardiovascular risk diabetics: a multicenter, randomized trial (the LEAD study)

BACKGROUND

The primary goal of therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease (CHD) is reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

METHODS

Adult patients with T2DM and CHD (N = 93) on a stable dose of simvastatin 20 mg with LDL-C >or= 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) and

RESULTS

EZ + simva 10/20 mg produced a significantly greater change from treated baseline compared with simvastatin 40 mg in LDL-C (-32.2% vs -20.8%; p < 0.01) and total cholesterol (-20.6% vs -13.2%; p < 0.01). A greater proportion of patients achieved LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L with EZ + simva 10/20 mg than with simvastatin 40 mg, but this was not statistically significant (78.4% vs 60%; odds ratio = 2.81; p = 0.052). Changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides were similar between treatments. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that EZ + simva 10/20 mg may provide a superior alternative for LDL-C lowering vs doubling the dose of simvastatin to 40 mg in hyperlipidemic patients with T2DM and CHD. In addition, the combination therapy may provide an alternative treatment for patients who require further LDL-C reduction than they can achieve with simvastatin 20 mg alone.

Collapse

Key Words Collapse

MESH Headings

• Aged
• Anticholesteremic Agents/administration & dosage
• Azetidines/administration & dosage
• Biomarkers/blood
• Blood Glucose/metabolism
• Cholesterol, HDL/blood
• Cholesterol, LDL/blood
• Coronary Disease/blood
• Coronary Disease/drug therapy
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood
• Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy
• Double-Blind Method
• Drug Combinations
• Ezetimibe, Simvastatin Drug Combination
• Female
• Glycated Hemoglobin/metabolism
• Humans
• Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors/administration & dosage
• Hypercholesterolemia/blood
• Hypercholesterolemia/drug therapy
• Italy
• Male
• Middle Aged
• Odds Ratio
• Risk Assessment
• Risk Factors
• Simvastatin/administration & dosage
• Time Factors
• Treatment Outcome
• Triglycerides/blood

Collapse

Grants Collapse

Affiliation(s)

Gianluca Bardini Unit of Endocrinology, Department of Clinical Pathophysiology, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 6, 50139, Florence, Italy
Carlo B Giorda Diabetes Unit ASL Turin 5 Chieri, Italy
Antonio E Pontiroli Univeristy of Milan, Milan, Italy and San Paolo Hospital, via A di Rudinì 8, 20142 Milan, Italy
Cristina Le Grazie Medical Director, MSD, Centro Direzionale Milano Due, Palazzo Borromini, 20090 Segrate Milano, Italy
Carlo M Rotella Unit of Endocrinology, Department of Clinical Pathophysiology, University of Florence, Viale Pieraccini 6, 50139, Florence, Italy

Collapse

Ezetimibe added to atorvastatin compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose in patients at high risk for coronary heart disease with diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome or neither

AIM

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and metabolic syndrome (MetS) are both associated with increased risk for atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD). Thus, it is useful to know the relative efficacy of lipid-altering drugs in these patient populations.

METHODS

A double-blind, parallel group trial of adult patients with hypercholesterolaemia at high-CHD risk receiving atorvastatin 40 mg/day compared atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg (ezetimibe) vs. doubling atorvastatin to 80 mg. This post hoc analysis reports lipid efficacy results in patients grouped by diagnosis of T2DM, MetS without T2DM or neither. Per cent change from baseline at week 6 was assessed for LDL-C, total cholesterol, HDL-C , non-HDL-C , Apo A-I, Apo B and triglycerides. Safety was monitored through clinical and laboratory adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Compared with doubling atorvastatin, atorvastatin plus ezetimibe resulted in greater reductions in LDL-C, triglycerides, Apo B, non-HDL-C, total cholesterol and lipid ratios in the T2DM, MetS and neither groups. Treatment effects were of similar magnitude across patient groups with both treatments, except triglycerides, which were slightly greater in the T2DM and MetS groups vs. neither group. Changes in HDL-C , Apo A-I and high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) were comparable for both treatments in all three groups. Safety and tolerability profiles were generally similar between treatments and across patient groups, as were the incidence of liver and muscle AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with doubling atorvastatin to 80 mg, addition of ezetimibe to atorvastatin 40 mg produced greater improvements in multiple lipid parameters in high-CHD risk patients with T2DM, MetS or neither, consistent with the significantly greater changes observed in the full study cohort (clinical trial # NCT00276484).

Dyslipidemia in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Dyslipidemia is one of the major risk factors for cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. The characteristic features of diabetic dyslipidemia are a high plasma triglyceride concentration, low HDL cholesterol concentration and increased concentration of small dense LDL-cholesterol particles. The lipid changes associated with diabetes mellitus are attributed to increased free fatty acid flux secondary to insulin resistance. The availability of multiple lipid-lowering drugs and supplements provides new opportunities for patients to achieve target lipid levels. However, the variety of therapeutic options poses a challenge in the prioritization of drug therapy. The prevalence of hypercholesterolemia is not increased in patients with diabetes mellitus, but mortality from coronary heart disease increases exponentially as a function of serum cholesterol levels, and lowering of cholesterol with statins reduces diabetic patients' relative cardiovascular risk. Although drug therapy for dyslipidemia must be individualized, most people with diabetes mellitus are candidates for statin therapy, and often need treatment with multiple agents to achieve therapeutic goals.

Lipid-altering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg compared with rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients inadequately controlled with prior statin monotherapy - The IN-CROSS study

AIMS

To evaluate the efficacy of switching from a previous statin monotherapy to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg vs. rosuvastatin (ROSUVA) 10 mg.

METHODS

In this randomised, double-blind study, 618 patients with documented hypercholesterolaemia [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or = 2.59 and < or = 4.92 mmol/l] and with high cardiovascular risk who were taking a stable daily dose of one of several statin medications for > or = 6 weeks prior to the study randomisation visit entered a 6-week open-label stabilisation/screening period during which they continued to receive their prestudy statin dose. Following stratification by study site and statin dose/potency, patients were randomised to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (n = 314) or ROSUVA 10 mg (n = 304) for 6 weeks.

RESULTS

EZE/SIMVA produced greater reductions in LDL-C (-27.7% vs. -16.9%; p < or = 0.001), total cholesterol (-17.5% vs. -10.3%; p < or = 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (-23.4% vs. -14.0%; p < or = 0.001) and apolipoprotein B (-17.9% vs. -9.8%; p < or = 0.001) compared with ROSUVA, while both treatments were equally effective at increasing HDL-C (2.1% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.433). More patients achieved LDL-C levels < 2.59 mmol/l (73% vs. 56%), < 2.00 mmol/l (38% vs. 19%) and < 1.81 mmol/l (25% vs. 11%) with EZE/SIMVA than ROSUVA (p < or = 0.001). A borderline significantly greater reduction in triglycerides (p = 0.056) was observed for EZE/SIMVA (-11.0%) vs. ROSUVA (-5.3%). There were no between-group differences in the incidences of adverse events or liver transaminase and creatine kinase elevations.

CONCLUSION

EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg produced greater improvements in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C and apoB with a similar safety profile as for ROSUVA 10 mg.

Perspectives on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal achievement

BACKGROUND

Elevated levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). European and US guidelines now recommend lower LDL-C levels, particularly in high-risk patients. Although LDL-C treatment goals to reduce the risk of CHD are clear, many patients do not reach their LDL-C goals.

OBJECTIVES

Examine consensus guideline targets for LDL-C lowering in patients at high or very high cardiovascular risk; examine cholesterol goal achievement in clinical practice; evaluate the effectiveness of ezetimibe/statin and other adjunctive lipid-lowering treatments in achieving LDL-C goals; and consider ongoing controversies and the randomized controlled trials that may help to resolve or better illuminate them.

METHODS

An English-language PubMed search was conducted to identify prospective randomized controlled trials, open-label studies, and retrospective and observational studies from 2001 (same year that the executive summary of the National Cholesterol Education Program's Adult Treatment Panel III was published) to present for an analysis of the effects of adjunctive therapies on LDL-C lowering and goal attainment in patients at elevated cardiovascular risk.

RESULTS

Elevated LDL-C is the primary target of lipid-lowering therapy; aggressive lowering is of great benefit to those at high risk. Statins are recommended first-line lipid-lowering agents, with a long, well-regarded history of efficacy and safety. Not all patients, however, can achieve recommended LDL-C goals simply using starting doses of statins. For such patients, more intensive therapy utilizing high-dose statins or combination therapy, including statins combined with other lipid-lowering agents, such as ezetimibe, bile acid resins (BARs), or niacin, is warranted. Potential limitations of the present review include possible publication bias and the focus on pharmacotherapy rather than lifestyle modification and the important objective of multiple risk-factor modification to reduce absolute global cardiovascular risk.

CONCLUSIONS

With a well-established link between elevated LDL-C and cardiovascular risk, aggressive LDL-C lowering becomes particularly important. Patients needing intensive LDL-C lowering to achieve goals will often require adjunctive treatments, including ezetimibe, BARs, or niacin along with statins. Given both their high mg: mg potency in lowering LDL-C and favorable tolerability and patient acceptance/adherence profile, ezetimibe/statin combination regimens arguably provide the greatest likelihood for patients to reach new, lower LDL-C targets; however, efficacy and safety data of any adjunctive treatment, along with drug costs and patient adherence to treatment (partly related to complexity of the regimen) all need to be considered when determining the optimal regimen to achieve LDL-C goals in individual patients according to their baseline absolute cardiovascular risk, LDL-C level, and consensus LDL-C targets.

Lipid-altering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg compared with doubling the statin dose in patients admitted to the hospital for a recent coronary event: the INFORCE study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety profile of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (Eze/Simva) 10/40 mg compared with doubling the statin dose upon discharge in patients taking a statin and admitted to the hospital for the investigation of a coronary event.

DESIGN

This phase IV, multi-centre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, parallel group study enrolled 424 patients (aged >/= 18 years) hospitalised for an acute coronary event and taking a stable dose of a statin (>/= 6 weeks) that could be doubled per the product label. Upon discharge from the hospital, patients were stratified by their statin dose/potency (high, medium and low) and randomised 1 : 1 to doubling of the statin dose (n = 211) or Eze/Simva 10/40 mg (n = 213) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the absolute low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) value (mmol/l) at study end-point.

RESULTS

Mean baseline LDL-C for the two treatment groups were 2.48 and 2.31 mmol/l for the Eze/Simva and statin groups respectively. At study end-point, least squares mean LDL-C values were 1.74 mmol/l in the Eze/Simva group and 2.22 mmol/l in the statin group resulting in a significant between-group difference of -0.49 mmol/l (p </= 0.001). Eze/Simva 10/40 mg also produced significantly lower total cholesterol (-0.49 mmol/l), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [(non-HDL-C); -0.53 mmol/l] and apolipoprotein B (-0.14 mmol/l) values compared with doubling the statin dose (p </= 0.001 for all). Both treatments produced similar effects on triglycerides, C-reactive protein and HDL-C; the between treatment group differences were not significant (p >/= 0.160). Significantly more patients achieved LDL-C levels < 2.5 (< 100 mg/dl; 86% vs. 72%), < 2.0 (< 77 mg/dl; 70% vs. 42%) and < 1.8 mmol/l (< 70 mg/dl; 60% vs. 31%) with Eze/Simva than statin (all p </= 0.001). Eze/Simva was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to statin. There were no differences in the incidences of liver transaminases >/= 3 x upper limit of normal (ULN) or creatine kinase >/= 10 x ULN between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients taking a statin and admitted to the hospital for investigation of a coronary event, treatment with Eze/Simva 10/40 mg for 12 weeks produced greater improvements in lipids with a similar safety profile compared with doubling of the statin dose.

Setting a new standard in achieving superior efficacy: ezetimibe + simvastatin

Ezetimibe with simvastatin in combination inhibits both the absorption and production of cholesterol. This dual mechanism of inhibition substantially increases the capacity to decrease levels of atherogenic low-density lipoproteins, compared with that observed when either drug is used alone. Ezetimibe/simvastatin is more effective than atorvastatin or rosuvastatin monotherapy treatments in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering and getting more patients to goals. Ezetimibe/simvastatin offers an important treatment alternative to patients who respond inadequately even to high-dose statin therapy.

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

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