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

SGLT2 inhibitors: are they safe?

Sodium-glucose linked transporter type 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors are a relatively new class of antidiabetic drugs with positive cardiovascular and kidney effects. The aim of this review is to present the safety issues associated with SGLT2 inhibitors. Urogenital infections are the most frequently encountered adverse events, although tend to be mild to moderate and are easily manageable with standard treatment. Although no increased acute kidney injury risk was evident in the major trials, the mechanism of action of these drugs requires caution when they are administered in patients with extracellular volume depletion or with drugs affecting renal hemodynamics. Canagliflozin raised the risk of amputations and the rate of fractures in the CANVAS trial, although more data are necessary before drawing definite conclusions. The risk of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis seems to be minimal when the drugs are prescribed properly. Regarding other adverse events, SGLT2 inhibitors do not increase the risk of hypoglycemia even when co-administered with insulin, but a decrease in the dose of sulphonylureas may be needed. The available data do not point to a causative role of SGLT2 inhibitors on malignancy risk, however, these drugs should be used with caution in patients with known hematuria or history of bladder cancer. SGLT2 inhibitors seem to be safe and effective in the treatment of diabetes but more studies are required to assess their long-term safety.

The safety of ezetimibe and simvastatin combination for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia

INTRODUCTION

In the light of the most recent and stricter dyslipidemia treatment guidelines, the need for combination hypolipidemic therapy is increasing. Ezetimibe plus simvastatin is available as a fixed dose therapy offering an efficient hypolipidemic treatment choice. Based on the positive results of the IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) trial, the use of this drug combination is expected to increase in the next years.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the current evidence regarding the safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin combination. Current evidence regarding possible associated side effects (musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, endocrine, hematological, renal, ophthalmologic, allergic, malignancy) and drug interactions of this combination is thoroughly discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Ezetimibe and simvastatin treatment, either as a single pill or the combined use of the individual compounds, offers limited additional risk compared with simvastatin monotherapy and comprises a safe and efficient choice for dyslipidemia treatment in high-risk and diabetic patients.

Adverse Effects of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists

Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists are a class of injective anti-diabetic drugs that improve glycemic control and many other atherosclerosis-related parameters in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the use of this relatively new class of drugs may be associated with certain adverse effects. Concerns have been expressed regarding the effects of these drugs on pancreatic and thyroid tissue, since animal studies and analyses of drug databases indicate an association of GLP-1 receptor agonists with pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, and thyroid cancer. However, several meta-analyses failed to confirm a cause-effect relation between GLP-1 receptor agonists and the development of these adverse effects. One benefit of GLP-1 receptor agonists is that they do not cause hypoglycemia when combined with metformin or thiazolidinediones, but the dose of concomitant sulphonylurea or insulin may have to be decreased to reduce the risk of hypoglycemic episodes. On the other hand, several case reports have linked the use of these drugs, mainly exenatide, with the occurrence of acute kidney injury, primarily through hemodynamic derangement due to nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. The most common symptoms associated with the use of GLP-1 receptor agonists are gastrointestinal symptoms, mainly nausea. Other common adverse effects include injection site reactions, headache, and nasopharyngitis, but these effects do not usually result in discontinuation of the drug. Current evidence shows that GLP-1 receptor agonists have no negative effects on the cardiovascular risk of patients with T2D. Thus, GLP-1 receptor agonists appear to have a favorable safety profile, but ongoing trials will further assess their cardiovascular effects. The aim of this review is to analyze critically the available data regarding adverse events of GLP-1 receptor agonists in different anatomic systems published in Pubmed and Scopus. Whenever possible, certain differences between GLP-1 receptor agonists are described. The review also provides the reader with structured data that compare the rates of the most common adverse effects for each of the various GLP-1 receptor agonists.

The pharmacokinetic considerations and adverse effects of DPP-4 inhibitors [corrected]

INTRODUCTION

Dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors are a class of anti-hyperglycemic agents with proven efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).

AREAS COVERED

This review considers the pharmacokinetic profile, adverse effects and drug interactions of DPP-4 inhibitors. DPP-4 inhibitors have certain differences in their structure, metabolism, route of elimination and selectivity for DPP-4 over structurally related enzymes, such as DPP-8/DPP-9. They have a low potential for drug interactions, with the exception of saxagliptin that is largely metabolized by cytochrome CYP3A4/A5. Reports of pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer have raised concerns regarding the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors and are under investigation. Post-marketing surveillance has revealed less common adverse effects, especially a number of skin- and immune-related adverse effects. These issues are covered in the present review.

EXPERT OPINION

DPP-4 inhibitors are useful and efficient drugs. DPP-4 inhibitors have similar mechanism of action and similar efficacy. However, DPP-4 inhibitors have certain differences in their pharmacokinetic properties that may be associated with different clinical effects and adverse event profiles. Although clinical trials indicated a favorable safety profile, post-marketing reports revealed certain safety aspects that need further investigation. Certainly, more research is needed to clarify if the differences among DPP-4 inhibitors could lead to a different clinical and safety profile.

Differences in metabolic parameters and cardiovascular risk between American Diabetes Association and World Health Organization definition of impaired fasting glucose in European Caucasian subjects: a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

The American Diabetes Association (ADA) defines impaired fasting glucose (IFG) as fasting plasma glucose concentration of 100-125 mg/dl, whereas the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) define IFG as fasting plasma glucose levels of 110-125 mg/dl. We identified differences in metabolic parameters and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk according to the ADA or WHO/IDF definition of IFG.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Healthy drug-naive Caucasian (Greek) subjects (n = 396; age 55 ±12 years) participated in this cross-sectional study.

RESULTS

Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and uric acid levels were higher in the subjects with glucose 100-109 mg/dl compared with those with glucose < 100 mg/dl (87 ±9 mm Hg vs. 84 ±11 mm Hg, p = 0.004 for DBP, 5.6 ±1.5 mg/dl vs. 5.0 ±1.0 mg/dl, p = 0.002 for uric acid), whereas triglyceride levels were lower in subjects with glucose 100-109 mg/dl compared with those with glucose ≥ 110 mg/dl (169 mg/dl (interquartile range (IQR) = 102-186) vs. 186 mg/dl (IQR = 115-242), p = 0.002). Only the ADA definition recognized subjects with significantly increased 10-year CVD risk estimation (SCORE risk calculation) compared with their respective controls (5.4% (IQR = 0.9-7.3) vs. 4.1% (IQR = 0.7-5.8), p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

The ADA IFG definition recognized more subjects with significantly increased CVD risk (SCORE model) compared with the WHO/IDF definition.

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

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

High density lipoprotein and cardiovascular diseases

Several epidemiological studies have clearly shown that low plasma levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) represent a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor. However, it is unclear if there is a causal association between HDL-C concentration and CVD. A recent study published in the Lancet, which performed two Mendelian randomization analyses, showed that increased HDL-C levels were not associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction. These findings, together with the termination of the niacin-based AIM-HIGH trial and the discontinuation of cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor dalcetrapib, challenge the concept that raising of plasma HDL-C will uniformly translate into reductions in CVD risk. HDL particles exhibit several anti-atherosclerotic properties, such as anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative activities and cellular cholesterol efflux activity. Furthermore, HDL particles are very heterogeneous in terms of size, structure, composition and metabolism. HDL functionality may be associated more strongly with CVD risk than the traditional HDL-C levels. More research is needed to assess the association of the structure of HDL particle with its functionality and metabolism.

A Review of Currently Available Fenofibrate and Fenofibric Acid Formulations

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

A review of time courses and predictors of lipid changes with fenofibric acid-statin combination

Fibrates activate peroxisome proliferator activated receptor α and exert beneficial effects on triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and low density lipoprotein subspecies. Fenofibric acid (FA) has been studied in a large number of patients with mixed dyslipidemia, combined with a low- or moderate-dose statin. The combination of FA with simvastatin, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin resulted in greater improvement of the overall lipid profile compared with the corresponding statin dose. The long-term efficacy of FA combined with low- or moderate- dose statin has been demonstrated in a wide range of patients, including patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, or elderly subjects. The FA and statin combination seems to be a reasonable option to further reduce cardiovascular risk in high-risk populations, although trials examining cardiovascular disease events are missing.

A review of the role of apolipoprotein C-II in lipoprotein metabolism and cardiovascular disease

The focus of this review is on the role of apolipoprotein C-II (apoC-II) in lipoprotein metabolism and the potential effects on the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). We searched PubMed/Scopus for articles regarding apoC-II and its role in lipoprotein metabolism and the risk of CVD. Apolipoprotein C-II is a constituent of chylomicrons, very low-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and high-density lipoprotein (HDL). Apolipoprotein C-II contains 3 amphipathic α-helices. The lipid-binding domain of apoC-II is located in the N-terminal, whereas the C-terminal helix of apoC-II is responsible for the interaction with lipoprotein lipase (LPL). At intermediate concentrations (approximately 4 mg/dL) and in normolipidemic subjects, apoC-II activates LPL. In contrast, both an excess and a deficiency of apoC-II are associated with reduced LPL activity and hypertriglyceridemia. Furthermore, excess apoC-II has been associated with increased triglyceride-rich particles and alterations in HDL particle distribution, factors that may increase the risk of CVD. However, there is not enough current evidence to clarify whether increased apoC-II causes hypertriglyceridemia or is an epiphenomenon reflecting hypertriglyceridemia. A number of pharmaceutical interventions, including statins, fibrates, ezetimibe, nicotinic acid, and orlistat, have been shown to reduce the increased apoC-II concentrations. An excess of apoC-II is associated with increased triglyceride-rich particles and alterations in HDL particle distribution. However, prospective trials are needed to assess if apoC-II is a CVD marker or a risk factor in high-risk patients.