-
1.
Atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe versus titration to atorvastatin 40 mg: attainment of European and Canadian guideline lipid targets in high-risk subjects ≥65 years.
Constance, C, Ben-Yehuda, O, Wenger, NK, Zieve, F, Lin, J, Hanson, ME, Lowe, RS, Tershakovec, AM
Lipids in health and disease. 2014;:13
Abstract
BACKGROUND Few clinical studies have focused on the efficacy of lipid-lowering therapies in patients ≥65 years. METHODS After stabilization on atorvastatin 10 mg, hypercholesterolemic subjects ≥65 years at high/very high risk for CHD and not at LDL-C <1.81 mmol/L (with atherosclerotic vascular disease [AVD]) or <2.59 mmol/L (without AVD) were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg or uptitration to atorvastatin 20 mg (6 weeks) followed by uptitration to 40 mg (additional 6 weeks). A post-hoc analysis compared between-group differences in percent attainment of individual and combined LDL-C, non-HDL-C and Apo B targets based on recommendations from 2012 European and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines for dyslipidemia treatment. RESULTS Atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe produced significantly greater attainment of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and Apo B individual and dual/triple targets vs. atorvastatin 20 mg for the entire cohort and very high-risk groups at 6 weeks. After 12 weeks, very high-risk subjects maintained significantly greater achievement of LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L (47% vs. 35%), non-HDL-C <2.6 mmol/L (63% vs. 53%) and Apo B <0.8 g/L (47% vs. 38%) single targets and dual/triple targets with atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe vs. atorvastatin 40 mg, while attainment of European target for high-risk subjects was generally similar for both treatments. Achievement of Canadian targets was significantly greater with combination therapy vs. atorvastatin 20 mg (6 weeks) or atorvastatin 40 mg (12 weeks). CONCLUSIONS Atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe provided more effective treatment than uptitration to atorvastatin 20/40 mg for attainment of most European and Canadian guideline-recommended lipid targets in older at-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00418834.
-
2.
[IMPROVE-IT Study proves effectiveness of ezetimib. The Higgs particle of lipidologists].
Einecke, D
MMW Fortschritte der Medizin. 2014;(21-22):24-6
-
3.
Design and rationale of the GAUSS-2 study trial: a double-blind, ezetimibe-controlled phase 3 study of the efficacy and tolerability of evolocumab (AMG 145) in subjects with hypercholesterolemia who are intolerant of statin therapy.
Cho, L, Rocco, M, Colquhoun, D, Sullivan, D, Rosenson, RS, Dent, R, Xue, A, Scott, R, Wasserman, SM, Stroes, E
Clinical cardiology. 2014;(3):131-9
Abstract
Statins effectively lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), reducing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Most patients tolerate statins well, but approximately 10% to 20% experience side effects (primarily muscle-related) contributing to diminished compliance or discontinuation of statin therapy and subsequent increase in cardiovascular risk. Statin-intolerant patients require more effective therapies for lowering LDL-C. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) is a compelling target for LDL-C-lowering therapy. Evolocumab (AMG 145) is a fully human monoclonal antibody that binds PCSK9, inhibiting its interaction with the LDL receptor to preserve LDL-receptor recycling and reduce LDL-C. Phase 2 studies have demonstrated the safety, tolerability, and preliminary efficacy of subcutaneous evolocumab in diverse populations, including statin-intolerant patients. This article describes the rationale and design of the Goal Achievement After Utilizing an anti-PCSK9 Antibody in Statin-Intolerant Subjects 2 (GAUSS-2) trial, a randomized, double-blind, ezetimibe-controlled, multicenter phase 3 study to evaluate the effects of 12 weeks of evolocumab 140 mg every 2 weeks or 420 mg every month in statin-intolerant patients with hypercholesterolemia. Eligible subjects were unable to tolerate effective doses of ≥2 statins because of myalgia, myopathy, myositis, or rhabdomyolysis that resolved with statin discontinuation. The primary objective of the study is to assess the effects of evolocumab on percentage change from baseline in LDL-C. Secondary objectives include evaluation of safety and tolerability, comparison of the effects of evolocumab vs ezetimibe on absolute change from baseline in LDL-C, and percentage changes from baseline in other lipids. Recruitment of approximately 300 subjects was completed in August 2013.
-
4.
Impact of adding ezetimibe to statin to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal (from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation [COURAGE] trial).
Maron, DJ, Hartigan, PM, Neff, DR, Weintraub, WS, Boden, WE, ,
The American journal of cardiology. 2013;(11):1557-62
Abstract
In the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) study, a revascularization strategy trial with optimal medical therapy in both arms, the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goal was 60 to 85 mg/dl; this was revised to <70 mg/dl in 2004. COURAGE patients (n = 2,287) were titrated with increasing statin doses to achieve the initial LDL cholesterol goal using a prespecified protocol. Ezetimibe was not available when study enrollment began in 1999 but became available after approval in 2003. After maximizing statin dose, ezetimibe was added to reach the LDL cholesterol goal in 34% of patients (n = 734). Median baseline LDL cholesterol was higher in patients who received ezetimibe than in those who did not (109 vs 96 mg/dl). At baseline, 18% of patients who would later receive ezetimibe had LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl, and 8% had LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl. On maximum tolerated statin (with or without other lipid-lowering drugs), 40% had LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl and 23% had LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl before starting ezetimibe. At the final study visit, 68% of ezetimibe patients achieved LDL cholesterol <85 mg/dl, and 46% achieved LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl. Using Cox regression analysis, the most significant factors associated with achieving LDL cholesterol goals were lower baseline LDL cholesterol, average statin dose, and ezetimibe use. In conclusion, after maximizing statin dose, the addition of ezetimibe results in a substantial increase in the percentage of patients who reach LDL cholesterol goal, a key component of optimal medical therapy.
-
5.
Dose-ranging study with the glucokinase activator AZD1656 in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on metformin.
Wilding, JP, Leonsson-Zachrisson, M, Wessman, C, Johnsson, E
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2013;(8):750-9
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effect of glucokinase activator AZD1656 on glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) as an add-on to metformin in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT01020123) was conducted over 4 months with an optional 2-month extension. Patients (n = 458) with HbA1c 7.5-10% were randomized to AZD1656 20 mg (n = 40) or 40 mg (n = 52) fixed doses or 10-140 mg (n = 91) or 20-200 mg (n = 93) titrated doses, placebo (n = 88) or glipizide 5-20 mg titrated (n = 94). Patients (n = 72) with HbA1c >10 and ≤12% received open-label AZD1656 (20-200 mg titrated). Primary outcome was placebo-corrected change in HbA1c from baseline to 4 months of treatment. RESULTS Significant reductions in HbA1c from baseline to 4 months were observed with blinded AZD1656 10-140 and 20-200 mg versus placebo [mean (95% CI) changes: -0.80 (-1.14; -0.46) and -0.81 (-1.14; -0.47) %, respectively), with similar reductions observed with glipizide. A higher percentage of patients on AZD1656 than on placebo achieved HbA1c ≤7.0 or ≤6.5 % after 4 months. Mean (s.d.) change in HbA1c for open-label AZD1656 (20-200 mg) was -2.8 (1.19) % after 4 months. AZD1656 was well tolerated, with less hypoglycaemia than glipizide. In the extension population, HbA1c was still reduced with AZD1656 versus placebo after 6 months, but the effect of AZD1656 on glucose control was not sustained over time. CONCLUSION Addition of AZD1656 (individually titrated) to metformin gave significant improvements in glycaemic control up to 4 months, although efficacy diminished over time.
-
6.
High-dose statin monotherapy versus low-dose statin/ezetimibe combination on fasting and postprandial lipids and endothelial function in obese patients with the metabolic syndrome: The PANACEA study.
Westerink, J, Deanfield, JE, Imholz, BP, Spiering, W, Basart, DC, Coll, B, Kastelein, JJ, Visseren, FL
Atherosclerosis. 2013;(1):118-24
Abstract
BACKGROUND Low-dose statin therapy in combination with ezetimibe, an inhibitor of intestinal cholesterol absorption, lowers plasma LDL-cholesterol levels to a similar degree as high-dose statin monotherapy. This study assessed whether similar LDL-cholesterol lowering with simvastatin/ezetimibe combination therapy improves fasting and postprandial arterial endothelial function compared to high-dose statin therapy alone. METHODS Multicenter, double-blind, crossover trial in 100 abdominally obese patients with the metabolic syndrome, randomized to 6 weeks' treatment with simvastatin 80 mg or simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg. Flow mediated dilatation (FMD) and peripheral arterial tonometry (EndoPAT) as well as plasma lipids were measured in the fasting state and after an oral lipid load at baseline and after both treatments. RESULTS Fasting LDL-cholesterol levels (3.57 mmol/L at baseline) were reduced to 1.79 mmol/L following treatment with simvastatin 80 mg and 1.81 mmol/L with simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg, respectively. Plasma lipids were similar at 4 h after an oral lipid load following both treatments for 6 weeks. Fasting endothelial function was also similar with both treatments when assessed by FMD (adjusted mean ± SE: 4.35 ± 0.19 vs. 4.43 ± 0.18; P = 0.777) and EndoPAT (2.12 ± 0.05 vs 2.20 ± 0.05; P = 0.304). After an oral fat load, changes in endothelial function were also comparable for both treatments as assessed by FMD (-0.34 ± 0.21 vs. -0.43 ± 0.20; P = 0.766) and EndoPAT (0.00 ± 0.07 vs. -0.04 ± 0.08; P = 0.712). CONCLUSION Treatment with simvastatin/ezetimibe 10/10 mg induced no difference in endothelial function in the fasting and postprandial state compared to simvastatin 80 mg while attaining similar LDL-c levels in obese patients with metabolic syndrome.
-
7.
Dose-ranging study with the glucokinase activator AZD1656 as monotherapy in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Kiyosue, A, Hayashi, N, Komori, H, Leonsson-Zachrisson, M, Johnsson, E
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2013;(10):923-30
Abstract
AIM: To assess the glucose-lowering effects of monotherapy with the glucokinase activator AZD1656 in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study performed in Japan (NCT01152385). Patients (n = 224) were randomized to AZD1656 (40-200, 20-140 or 10-80 mg titrated doses) or placebo. The primary variable was the placebo-corrected change from baseline to 4 months in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). Effects on fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and safety were also assessed. RESULTS HbA1c was reduced numerically from baseline by 0.3-0.8% with AZD1656 and by 0.1% with placebo over the first 2 months of treatment, after which effects of AZD1656 started to decline. The changes from baseline to 4 months in HbA1c were not significant for the AZD1656 40-200 mg group versus placebo [mean (95% CI) placebo-corrected change: -0.22 (-0.65, 0.20)%; p = 0.30]. Formal significance testing was not carried out for the other two AZD1656 dose groups. A higher percentage of patients on AZD1656 achieved HbA1c ≤ 7% after 4 months versus placebo, but responder rates were low. Results for FPG reflected those for HbA1c. Cases of hypoglycaemia were rare with AZD1656 (one patient) and no safety concerns were raised. CONCLUSIONS Although initially favourable plasma glucose reductions were observed, there was a loss of effect over time with sustained AZD1656 treatment. The study design did not allow an evaluation of the reasons for this lack of long-term efficacy.
-
8.
The efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin combination compared with intensified lipid-lowering treatment strategies in diabetic subjects with and without metabolic syndrome.
Jimenez, JG, Rosen, JB, Pirags, V, Massaad, R, Hanson, ME, Brudi, P, Triscari, J
Diabetes, obesity & metabolism. 2013;(6):513-22
Abstract
AIMS: The objective was to assess the consistency of effect of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus doubling the baseline statin dose (to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg) or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg across subgroups of subjects with (n = 617) and without (n = 191) metabolic syndrome (MetS). METHODS This was a post hoc analysis of a randomized, double-blind, 6-week study of adults 18-79 years with cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 and ≤160 mg/dl. The percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was estimated within each subgroup separately. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS In subjects with MetS, percent changes in LDL-C and other lipids were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin versus doubling baseline statin or numerically greater versus switching to rosuvastatin, except high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein (Apo) AI (mean percent changes in LDL-C were: -22.49% ezetimibe/simvastatin, -9.64% doubled baseline statin and -19.20% rosuvastatin). In subjects without MetS, percent changes in LDL-C, total cholesterol and Apo B were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin versus doubling baseline statin or numerically greater versus switching to rosuvastatin (mean percent changes in LDL-C were: -25.14% ezetimibe/simvastatin, -4.75% doubled baseline statin and -19.75% rosuvastatin). Safety profiles were generally similar. CONCLUSION These results showed that switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg was more effective at reducing LDL-C, total cholesterol and Apo B versus doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg regardless of MetS status. These results were generally similar to those of the full cohort.
-
9.
Differences in action of atorvastatin and ezetimibe in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and effect on endothelial function: randomized controlled trial.
Matsue, Y, Matsumura, A, Suzuki, M, Hashimoto, Y, Yoshida, M
Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society. 2013;(7):1791-8
Abstract
BACKGROUND The aim of this study was to compare the effect on endothelial function of increasing statin dose to add-on ezetimibe in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) already treated with statin. METHODS AND RESULTS Two-hundred and forty-three patients with CAD and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 mg/dl even after treatment with atorvastatin (10 mg) were prospectively randomized to the ezetimibe addition (10mg) group (A10E10; n=117) or to the double atorvastatin dose (to 20 mg; A20; n=133) group for 12 weeks. Primary endpoint was change in endothelial function measured by logarithmic-scale reactive hyperemia index (L_RHI). After treatment, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and all lipids except triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were significantly reduced in both groups. The mean percent changes in LDL-C for the A10E10 and A20 groups were -25.8% and -9.1%, respectively (P<0.001). L_RHI increased from 0.47 to 0.62 in the A20 group (P<0.001), but not in the A10E10 group (from 0.45 to 0.48, P=0.399). Absolute change in L_RHI was significantly higher in the A20 than A10E10 group (0.02±0.29 vs. 0.16±0.27, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Statin and ezetimibe have different effects on endothelial function independent from LDL-C-lowering effects.
-
10.
Consistency of effect of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with intensified lipid-lowering treatment strategies in obese and non-obese diabetic subjects.
Rosen, JB, Jimenez, JG, Pirags, V, Vides, H, Massaad, R, Hanson, ME, Brudi, P, Triscari, J
Lipids in health and disease. 2013;:103
Abstract
PURPOSE This post hoc analysis assessed switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg in subgroups of obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI <30 kg/m2) diabetic subjects. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of adults 18-79 years with cardiovascular disease with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 and ≤160 mg/dl. Percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was estimated. RESULTS In obese subjects (n = 466), percent changes in LDL-C and most other lipids were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin. In non-obese subjects (n = 342), percent changes in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, Apo B and Apo A-I were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin; and treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin resulted in greater changes in triglycerides vs rosuvastatin and HDL-C vs doubling the baseline statin dose. The safety profiles were generally similar. CONCLUSIONS Regardless of baseline obesity status, switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin was more effective at reducing LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and Apo B vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg.