-
1.
Active notch protects MAPK activated melanoma cell lines from MEK inhibitor cobimetinib.
Porcelli, L, Mazzotta, A, Garofoli, M, Di Fonte, R, Guida, G, Guida, M, Tommasi, S, Azzariti, A
Biomedicine & pharmacotherapy = Biomedecine & pharmacotherapie. 2021;:111006
Abstract
The crosstalk between Notch and MAPK pathway plays a role in MEK inhibitor resistance in BRAFV600E metastatic melanoma (MM) and promotes migration in GNAQQ209L uveal melanoma (UM) cells. We determined the cytotoxicity of combinatorial inhibition of MEK and Notch by cobimetinib and γ-secretase inhibitor (GSI) nirogacestat, in BRAFV600E and BRAF wt MM and GNAQQ209L UM cells displaying different Erk1/2 and Notch activation status, with the aim to elucidate the impact of Notch signaling in the response to MEK inhibitor. Overall the combination was synergic in BRAFV600E MM and GNAQQ209L UM cells and antagonistic in BRAF wt one. Focusing on UM cells, we found that cobimetinib resulted in G0/G1 phase arrest and apoptosis induction, whereas the combination with GSI increased treatment efficacy by inducing a senescent-like state of cells and by blocking migration towards liver cancer cells. Mechanistically, this was reflected in a strong reduction of cyclin D1, in the inactivation of retinoblastoma protein and in the increase of p27KIP1 expression levels. Of note, each drug alone prevented Notch signaling activation resulting in inhibition of c-jun(Ser63) and Hes-1 expression. The combination achieved the strongest inhibition on Notch signaling and on both c-jun(Ser63) and Erk1/2 activation level. In conclusion we unveiled a coordinate action of MAPK and Notch signaling in promoting proliferation of BRAFV600E MM and GNAQQ209L UM cells. Remarkably, the simultaneous inhibition of MEK and Notch signaling highlighted a role for the second pathway in protecting cells against senescence in GNAQQ209L UM cells treated with the MEK inhibitor.
-
2.
Comparative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for active rheumatoid arthritis.
Ho Lee, Y, Gyu Song, G
Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics. 2020;(4):674-681
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE Several clinical trials have attempted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), but their relative efficacy and safety as monotherapy remain unclear due to the lack of data from head-to-head comparison trials. The relative efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were assessed. METHODS We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to combine direct and indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and examine the efficacy and safety of tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy relative to placebo in patients with RA. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Five RCTs comprising 1547 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with placebo, tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib as monotherapy showed a significantly higher American College of Rheumatology 20% (ACR20) response rate. Peficitinib 150 mg monotherapy showed the highest ACR20 response rate (odds ratio, 17.24.39; 95% credible interval, 6.57-51.80). The ranking probability based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve indicated that peficitinib 150 mg had the highest probability of being the best treatment for achieving the ACR20 response rate, followed by peficitinib 100 mg, filgotinib 200 mg, filgotinib 100 mg, tofacitinib 5 mg, upadacitinib 15 mg, baricitinib 4 mg and placebo. However, the number of patients who experienced serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the JAK inhibitors, except for tofacitinib 5 mg, and placebo. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION All five JAK inhibitors-tofacitinib, baricitinib, upadacitinib, filgotinib and peficitinib-were efficacious monotherapy interventions for active RA, and differences were noted in their efficacy and safety in monotherapy.
-
3.
Effect of combination therapy of ezetimibe and rosuvastatin on regression of coronary atherosclerosis in patients with coronary artery disease.
Masuda, J, Tanigawa, T, Yamada, T, Nishimura, Y, Sasou, T, Nakata, T, Sawai, T, Fujimoto, N, Dohi, K, Miyahara, M, et al
International heart journal. 2015;(3):278-85
Abstract
Ezetimibe has been reported to provide significant incremental reduction in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) when added to a statin; however, its effect on coronary atherosclerosis has not yet been evaluated in detail. The aim of this study was to investigate the add-on effect of ezetimibe to a statin on coronary atherosclerosis evaluated by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS).In this prospective randomized open-label study, a total of 51 patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled, and assigned to a combination group (n = 26, rosuvastatin 5 mg/day + ezetimibe 10 mg/day) or a monotherapy group (n = 25, rosuvastatin 5 mg/day). Volumetric IVUS analyses were performed at baseline and 6 months after the treatment for a non-PCI site. LDL-C level was significantly reduced in the combination group (-55.8%) versus that in the monotherapy group (-36.8%; P = 0.004). The percent change in plaque volume (PV), the primary endpoint, appeared to decrease more effectively in the combination group compared with the monotherapy group (-13.2% versus -3.1%, respectively, P = 0.050). Moreover, there was a significant group × time interaction in the effects of the two treatments on PV (P = 0.021), indicating the regressive effect of the combination therapy on PV was greater than that of monotherapy for subtly different values of baseline PV in the two treatment groups. Moreover, percent change in PV showed positive correlations with percent change of LDL-C (r = 0.384, P = 0.015).Intensive lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe added to usual-dose statin may provide significant incremental reduction in coronary plaques compared with usual-dose statin monotherapy.
-
4.
How effective are the ESC/EAS and 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines in treating dyslipidemia? Lessons from a lipid clinic.
Barkas, F, Milionis, H, Kostapanos, MS, Mikhailidis, DP, Elisaf, M, Liberopoulos, E
Current medical research and opinion. 2015;(2):221-8
Abstract
OBJECTIVE There is a paucity of data regarding the attainment of lipid-lowering treatment goals according to the recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. The aim of the present study was to assess how applicable these 2013 recommendations are in the setting of an Outpatient University Hospital Lipid Clinic. METHODS This was a retrospective (from 1999 to 2013) observational study including 1000 consecutive adults treated for hyperlipidemia and followed up for ≥3 years. Comparisons for the applicability of current European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) and recent ACC/AHA guidelines were performed. RESULTS Achievement rates of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets set by ESC/EAS were 21%, 44% and 62% among patients at very high, high and moderate cardiovascular risk, respectively, receiving statin monotherapy. Among individuals on high-intensity statins only 47% achieved the anticipated ≥50% LDL-C reduction, i.e. the ACC/AHA target. The corresponding rate was significantly greater among those on statin + ezetimibe (76%, p < 0.05). Likewise, higher rates of LDL-C target attainment according to ESC/EAS guidelines were observed in patients on statin + ezetimibe compared with statin monotherapy (37, 50 and 71% for the three risk groups, p < 0.05 for the very high risk group). CONCLUSION The application of the ACC/AHA guidelines may be associated with undertreatment of high risk patients due to suboptimal LDL-C response to high-intensity statins in clinical practice. Adding ezetimibe substantially increases the rate of the ESC/EAS LDL-C target achievement together with the rate of LDL-C lowering response suggested by the ACC/AHA.
-
5.
The effect of adding ezetimibe to rosuvastatin on renal function in patients undergoing elective vascular surgery.
Kouvelos, GN, Arnaoutoglou, EM, Milionis, HJ, Raikou, VD, Papa, N, Matsagkas, MI
Angiology. 2015;(2):128-35
Abstract
We compared the effects of lipid lowering with rosuvastatin (RSV) monotherapy versus intensified treatment by combining RSV with ezetimibe (EZT) on kidney function in patients undergoing vascular surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to either 10 mg/d RSV (n = 136) or RSV 10 mg/d plus EZT 10 mg/d (RSV/EZT, n = 126). At 12 months, a similar decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) was noted. Patients who achieved a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of <100 mg/dL had less eGFR decrease than those patients having an LDL-C limit of more than 100 mg/dL. There were no significant changes in the urinary total protein to creatinine ratio in either group. Significant microalbuminuria was evident in both the groups. Patients undergoing vascular surgery show deterioration in their renal function during the first year, despite statin therapy. Intensified lipid-lowering therapy by adding EZT does not appear to have any renoprotective effect.
-
6.
[IMPROVE-IT Study proves effectiveness of ezetimib. The Higgs particle of lipidologists].
Einecke, D
MMW Fortschritte der Medizin. 2014;(21-22):24-6
-
7.
Monotherapy with the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab versus ezetimibe in patients with hypercholesterolemia: results of a 24 week, double-blind, randomized Phase 3 trial.
Roth, EM, Taskinen, MR, Ginsberg, HN, Kastelein, JJ, Colhoun, HM, Robinson, JG, Merlet, L, Pordy, R, Baccara-Dinet, MT
International journal of cardiology. 2014;(1):55-61
Abstract
BACKGROUND Efficacy and safety of alirocumab were compared with ezetimibe in hypercholesterolemic patients at moderate cardiovascular risk not receiving statins or other lipid-lowering therapy. METHODS In a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy study (NCT01644474), patients (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] 100-190 mg/dL, 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular events ≥ 1%-<5% [systemic coronary risk estimation]) were randomized to ezetimibe 10mg/day (n=51) or alirocumab 75 mg subcutaneously (via 1-mL autoinjector) every 2 weeks (Q2W) (n=52), with dose up-titrated to 150 mg Q2W (also 1 mL) at week 12 if week 8 LDL-C was ≥ 70 mg/dL. Primary endpoint was mean LDL-C % change from baseline to 24 weeks, analyzed using all available data (intent-to-treat approach, ITT). Analyses using on-treatment LDL-C values were also conducted. RESULTS Mean (SD) baseline LDL-C levels were 141.1 (27.1) mg/dL (alirocumab) and 138.3 (24.5) mg/dL (ezetimibe). The 24-week treatment period was completed by 85% of alirocumab and 86% of ezetimibe patients. Least squares mean (SE) LDL-C reductions were 47 (3)% with alirocumab versus 16 (3)% with ezetimibe (ITT; p<0.0001) and 54 (2)% versus 17 (2)% (on-treatment; p<0.0001). At week 12, before up-titration, alirocumab 75 mg Q2W reduced LDL-C by 53 (2)% (on-treatment). Injection site reactions were infrequent (<2% and <4% of alirocumab and ezetimibe patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Alirocumab demonstrated significantly greater LDL-C lowering versus ezetimibe after 24 weeks with the lower 75 mg Q2W dose sufficient to provide ≥ 50% LDL-C reduction in the majority of the patients. Adverse events were comparable between groups.
-
8.
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.
-
9.
Effects of simvastatin and ezetimibe on interleukin-6 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.
Berthold, HK, Berneis, K, Mantzoros, CS, Krone, W, Gouni-Berthold, I
Scandinavian cardiovascular journal. Supplement. 2013;(1):20-7
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Statins decrease cardiovascular events mainly by lowering cholesterol but anti-inflammatory effects also play a role. The effects of the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe on markers of inflammation remain unclear. We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis whether these drugs influence the pro-inflammatory markers interleukin-6 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in subjects with very-low cardiovascular risk. DESIGN Single center, randomized, parallel 3-group study in 72 healthy men without apparent cardiovascular disease (age 32 ± 9 years, BMI 25.7 ± 3.2 kg/m(2)). Each group of 24 subjects received a 14-day treatment with either simvastatin 40 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg, or their combination. RESULTS Baseline IL-6 and hsCRP concentrations in the total cohort were 0.72 ± 0.57 ng/l and 0.40 ± 0.65 mg/l, respectively, with no differences between the 3 groups. Median changes (interquartile range) in IL-6 and hsCRP concentrations were -22% (-43 to 0%) and -30% (-44 to +19%) after simvastatin, -5% (-36 to +30%) and +9% (-22 to +107%) after ezetimibe, and +15% (-15 to +86%) and +1 (-30 to +49%) after the combination. Using a generalized linear model, the multivariable adjusted overall P-values for these changes were 0.008 (IL-6) and 0.1 (hsCRP). CONCLUSIONS Simvastatin decreases the pro-inflammatory markers IL-6 and almost significantly hsCRP while ezetimibe monotherapy or the combination with simvastatin has no effect.
-
10.
Effects of rosuvastatin vs. simvastatin/ezetimibe on arterial wall stiffness in patients with coronary artery disease.
Liu, B, Che, W, Yan, H, Zhu, W, Wang, H
Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan). 2013;(24):2715-9
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Statins prevent cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there is little information regarding the vascular effects of statins on arterial wall stiffness in CAD patients. METHODS A total of 36 patients were randomly assigned to receive rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) or simvastatin/ezetimibe (10/10 mg per day) for eight weeks. The aim of the present study was to determine the effects of rosuvastatin or simvastatin/ezetimibe on arterial wall stiffness measured according to the brachial and ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) in CAD patients. RESULTS Both treatments significantly improved the levels of total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TGs), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (p<0.05). The ROCK activity and baPWV were significantly improved in the rosuvastatin group compared with that observed in the simvastatin/ezetimibe group (p<0.05). The changes in baPWV were significantly correlated with the changes in the ROCK activity (r=0.488, p<0.01), but not with the changes in the lipid profile or the hs-CRP level. CONCLUSION Compared with simvastatin/ezetimibe (10/10 mg), rosuvastatin (10 mg) appears to more effectively improve arterial wall stiffness that may be mediated by modulation of the ROCK activity.