Efficacy and safety of pemafibrate (K-877), a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator, in patients with dyslipidemia: Results from a 24-week, randomized, double blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Division of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Jichi Medical University, Shimotsuke, Japan. Electronic address: ishibash@jichi.ac.jp. National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Obu, Japan. Department of Clinical Cell Biology and Medicine, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan. Department of Metabolic Medicine, Faculty of Life Sciences, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan. Clinical Data Science Department, Kowa Company, Ltd, Tokyo, Japan. Department of Community Medicine and Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Suita, Japan; Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Rinku General Medical Center, Izumisano, Japan.

Journal of clinical lipidology. 2018;(1):173-184
Full text from:

Abstract

BACKGROUND To overcome the concerns associated with the use of fibrates, pemafibrate (K-877), a novel selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor modulator, was developed. In a previous phase 2 trial, we showed excellent efficacy and safety of pemafibrate in patients with dyslipidemia. OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pemafibrate over 24 weeks in adults with dyslipidemia in comparison with fenofibrate. METHODS In this multicenter, 24-week, double-blind, clinical study, 225 patients with high triglyceride (TG; ≥150 mg/dL [1.7 mmol/L] and <500 mg/dL [5.7 mmol/L]) and relatively low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (<50 mg/dL [1.3 mmol/L] in men or 55 mg/dL [1.4 mmol/L] in women) levels were randomized to receive either pemafibrate at 0.2 or 0.4 mg/d or fenofibrate 106.6 mg/d. RESULTS Pemafibrate 0.2, 0.4 mg/d and fenofibrate significantly reduced TG levels from baseline by -46.2%, -45.9%, and -39.7%, respectively. As compared with fenofibrate, the least squares mean differences (95% confidence intervals) in TG were -6.5% (-12.0, -1.1) and -6.2% (-11.6, -0.8) in pemafibrate 0.2 and 0.4 mg/d respectively, which showed the superiority of these doses of pemafibrate to 106.6 mg/d of fenofibrate. The incidence rates of adverse drug reactions in pemafibrate groups (2.7% and 6.8%) were significantly lower than that in the fenofibrate group (23.7%). Pemafibrate significantly decreased alanine aminotransferase and gamma-glutamyltransferase levels, whereas fenofibrate increased both of them. The increments of serum creatinine and cystatin C were smaller in pemafibrate than those in fenofibrate. CONCLUSIONS Pemafibrate was superior to fenofibrate in terms of serum TG-lowering effect and hepatic and renal safety.

Methodological quality

Metadata

MeSH terms : Dyslipidemias