Adam B. Polis

Ezetimibe/Simvastatin vs Atorvastatin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Hypercholesterolemia: The VYTAL Study

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of the recommended usual starting and next highest doses of ezetimibe/ simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS This double-blind, multicenter study (June 22 to December 7, 2005) consisted of adult patients randomized to the recommended usual starting (ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d, vs atorvastatin, 10 or 20 mg/d) or next highest (ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/40 mg/d, vs atorvastatin, 40 mg/d) doses. Efficacy end points included percent changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (primary) and proportion of patients attaining LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL (secondary). RESULTS A total of 1229 patients participated in the study. Significantly greater mean reductions were found in LDL-C levels with ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d (-53.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -55.4% to -51.8%), than with atorvastatin, 10 mg/d (-38.3%; 95% CI, -40.1% to -36.5%; P < .001) or 20 mg/d (-44.6%; 95% CI, -46.4% to -42.8%; P < .001), and with ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/40 mg/d (-57.6%; 95% CI, -59.4% to -55.8%), vs atorvastatin, 40 mg/d (-50.9%; 95% CI, -52.7% to -49.1%; P < .001). Ezetimibe/simvastatin was also superior to atorvastatin in attainment of LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL (P < .001 for all dose comparisons). Significantly better improvements with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin (P < or = .001) were observed for total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Ezetimibe/ simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d, reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and triglyceride levels significantly more than atorvastatin, 10 mg/d (P = .02), with comparable reductions at other doses. Incidences of clinical adverse events, including serious drug-related and prespecified gastrointestinal-, gallbladder-, and hepatitis-related allergic reactions or rash events, and laboratory adverse events, including repeated elevation of hepatic transaminases or creatine kinase levels, were similar for both treatments. CONCLUSION Ezetimibe/simvastatin provided additional lipid-modifying benefits over atorvastatin monotherapy at the recommended usual starting and next highest doses in patients with type 2 diabetes. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

Niacin Lipid Efficacy Is Independent of Both the Niacin Receptor GPR109A and Free Fatty Acid Suppression

GPR109A is not the target mediating niacin’s lipid efficacy and the free fatty acid hypothesis does not explain niacin’s mechanism of action. Breaking Free of the “FFA Hypothesis” Free fatty acids (FFAs) appear in the blood plasma after a meal. Niacin—a vitamin that helps to regulate lipid levels in the body—is given to patients to reduce the amount of FFAs. It also works to raise “good” cholesterol [high-density lipoprotein (HDL)] and lower both “bad” cholesterol [low-density lipoprotein (LDL)] and triglycerides. The “FFA hypothesis” suggests that niacin works to exert these beneficial lipid effects by limiting the amount of FFAs available to synthesize triglycerides. Lauring, Taggart, and colleagues now challenge this long-standing theory. In studies in mice and humans, the authors debunk the hypothesis, showing that the effect on HDL, LDL, and triglycerides is not directly linked to FFAs. To study the lipid-modifying effects of niacin (nicotinic acid), Lauring et al. used a genetic, humanized mouse model lacking the LDL receptor. In these animals, niacin increased HDL cholesterol levels, as expected. Lack of GPR109A in these animals blocked the anti-lipolytic effect of nicotinic acid on FFAs but had no effect on drug-related changes in plasma HDL and LDL cholesterol or triglyceride levels. Treatment of the mice with a GPR109A agonist, MK-1903, also caused an anti-lipolytic effect but did not affect levels of triglyceride or LDL and HDL cholesterol. Together, these in vivo preclinical studies suggest that niacin works to lower FFAs through GPR109A but has an independent mechanism of action on other lipids. The authors addressed the role of GPR109A in humans by testing the effects of MK-1903 and of another synthetic GPR109A agonist in clinical trials. Both agonists affected FFA lipolysis but had only minor effects on HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels in patients, thus mirroring results seen in animals and showing that niacin works independently of GPR109A to modify dyslipidemia. The studies by Lauring et al. point to a new, yet-uncovered mechanism of action for niacin’s beneficial effects on lipids in the blood. Despite overturning the FFA hypothesis and potentially redirecting drug development away from GPR109A agonists, niacin could still be useful for treating other diseases in patients, including atherosclerosis and inflammation, where GPR109A plays a major role in cell signaling. Nicotinic acid (niacin) induces beneficial changes in serum lipoproteins and has been associated with beneficial cardiovascular effects. Niacin reduces low-density lipoprotein, increases high-density lipoprotein, and decreases triglycerides. It is well established that activation of the seven-transmembrane Gi-coupled receptor GPR109A on Langerhans cells results in release of prostaglandin D2, which mediates the well-known flushing side effect of niacin. Niacin activation of GPR109A on adipocytes also mediates the transient reduction of plasma free fatty acid (FFA) levels characteristic of niacin, which has been long hypothesized to be the mechanism underlying the changes in the serum lipid profile. We tested this “FFA hypothesis” and the hypothesis that niacin lipid efficacy is mediated via GPR109A by dosing mice lacking GPR109A with niacin and testing two novel, full GPR109A agonists, MK-1903 and SCH900271, in three human clinical trials. In mice, the absence of GPR109A had no effect on niacin’s lipid efficacy despite complete abrogation of the anti-lipolytic effect. Both MK-1903 and SCH900271 lowered FFAs acutely in humans; however, neither had the expected effects on serum lipids. Chronic FFA suppression was not sustainable via GPR109A agonism with niacin, MK-1903, or SCH900271. We conclude that the GPR109A receptor does not mediate niacin’s lipid efficacy, challenging the long-standing FFA hypothesis.

Lipid-Altering Efficacy and Safety of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Coadministered With Extended-Release Niacin in Patients With Type IIa or Type IIb Hyperlipidemia

OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the safety and lipid-altering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) coadministered with extended-release niacin (N) in patients with type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia. BACKGROUND Current guidelines recommend consideration of combination drug therapy to achieve optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and broader lipid-altering effects when treating hypercholesterolemic patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. METHODS In this 24-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 1,220 type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemic patients were randomized to treatment with E/S (10/20 mg/day) + N (titrated to 2 g/day), or N (titrated to 2 g/day), or E/S (10/20 mg/day). Changes from baseline in LDL-C (primary) and other secondary variables were assessed in the completers and modified intent-to-treat populations. RESULTS Coadministered E/S with N resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein B, and lipid/lipoprotein ratios, compared with either agent alone (p < 0.001). The combination increased levels of apolipoprotein A-I and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly more than E/S (p < 0.001), and reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels significantly more than N (p = 0.005). A significantly greater percentage of patients discontinued the study in the N (25.0%) and N + E/S (23.3%) groups, compared with E/S (9.6%, p < 0.001) because of clinical adverse experiences (primarily flushing). Incidences of other clinical and laboratory adverse experiences (liver-, muscle-, and gastrointestinal-related) were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS Combination treatment with E/S plus N showed superior lipid-altering efficacy compared with N or E/S in type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia patients and was generally well tolerated aside from N-associated flushing. This combination offers an effective, broad, lipid-altering therapy with improvements in lipid effects beyond LDL-C in these patients. (To Evaluate Ezetimibe/Simvastatin and Niacin [Extended Release Tablet] in Patients With High Cholesterol.

Comparison of the analgesic efficacy of rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in the treatment of postoperative dental pain: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND Rofecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor indicated for the treatment of acute pain, with similar analgesic efficacy to ibuprofen and naproxen sodium. Diclofenac sodium is the most commonly prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug worldwide; it is effective for the treatment of pain as well as the signs and symptoms associated with the painful conditions of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg, and placebo over 8-hour and 24-hour periods in patients with moderate to severe pain after oral surgery. METHODS In this double-blind, placebo- and active comparator-controlled, parallel-group study, patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical extraction of > or = 2 third molars were randomized to receive a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg, 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg given every 8 hours), or placebo. Patients rated pain intensity, pain relief, and global assessments at prespecified times throughout the 24-hour period after initial dosing. Overall analgesic efficacy was determined by total pain relief over 8 hours (TOPAR8) and 24 hours (TOPAR24) and patient global assessments at 8 and 24 hours. Onset of analgesic effect was determined by using the 2-stopwatch method for confirmed perceptible pain relief. Peak analgesic effect was the maximum pain relief attained during the first 8 hours. The duration of analgesic effect was determined by median time to rescue analgesia use. RESULTS A total of 305 patients were randomized to treatment: 121 received rofecoxib, 121 received diclofenac sodium, and 63 received placebo. The baseline demographics were similar among the groups. Overall, 61.3% experienced moderate pain and 38.7% experienced severe pain; 53.1% were female; and the mean age was 23.4 years. The overall analgesic efficacy, as assessed by TOPAR8, of a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg was significantly greater than a single dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (20.5 vs 8.2) and placebo (20.5 vs 5.9). Patient global assessment at 8 hours was also significantly better for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. TOPAR24 was significantly greater for a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (64.1 vs 25.1) and placebo (64.1 vs 19.2). At 24 hours, the patient global assessment for rofecoxib was significantly better than that achieved with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo. The onset of analgesic effect was significantly more rapid for rofecoxib than for enteric-coated diclofenac sodium and placebo (median times: 31 minutes, >4 hours, and >4 hours, respectively). The peak analgesic effect was significantly greater for rofecoxib compared with enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (3.2 vs 1.5) and placebo (3.2 vs 1.1). The duration of analgesia was significantly longer for rofecoxib than enteric-coated diclofenac sodium (median times: >24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes) and placebo (>24 hours vs 1 hour and 37 minutes). Enteric-coated diclofenac sodium was numerically greater than placebo for the key end points measuring overall efficacy (total pain relief and patient global assessment), but diclofenac sodium did not provide as much analgesic effect as expected for a drug effective for pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis and did not differ significantly from placebo. Overall, both rofecoxib and enteric-coated diclofenac sodium were generally well tolerated, although the rofecoxib group had a significantly lower incidence of clinical and drug-related adverse events than the enteric-coated diclofenac sodium group. CONCLUSIONS A single 50-mg dose of rofecoxib provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 8 hours, more rapid onset of analgesia, greater maximum analgesic effect, and longer duration of effect than a single 50-mg dose of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium in patients with moderate to severe pain associated with oral surgery. Compared with 3 doses of enteric-coated diclofenac sodium 50 mg (50 mg every 8 hours), a single dose of rofecoxib 50 mg provided greater overall analgesic efficacy over 24 hours.

Double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, dose‐finding study of rizatriptan (MK‐462) in the acute treatment of migraine

Rizatriptan (MK-462) is a potent 5HTID receptor agonist. This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, outpatient study investigated the clinical elficacy, safety, and tolerability of rizatriptan (2.5, 5, and 10 mg) as a function of dose for acute migraine. Fatients with moderate or severe migraine (n=417) were treated with placebo (n=67), rizatriptan 2.5 mg (n=75), 5 mg (n=130), or rizatriptan 10 mg (n=145). Headache severity, functional disability, and migraine symptoms were measured immediately before dosing (0) and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, and 4 h post-dose. Patients were permitted to take a second dose of test drug at 2 h if their headache pain was moderate or severe (i.e placebo initiallyrizatriptan 10 mg as optional second dose; rizatriptan 2.5 mg, 5 mg, or 10 mg initiallyplacebo as optional second dose). An upward dose-response relationship was observed among placebo rizatriptan 2.5 mg, 5 mg, and 10 mg in the primary efficacy measure of proportion of patients reporting pain relief, i.e., a change in headache severity to “no pain or mild pain” at 2 h post-dose. The relationship was evident even at the first recorded timepoint, 30 min, and was statistically significant at 1.5 h and beyond. At the primary timepoint of 2 h after the initial dose, the proportion of patients reporting pain relief was 47.6% for rizatriptan 10 mg; 45.4% for rizatriptan 5 mg; 21.3% for rizatriptan 2.5 mg; and 17.9% for pacebo. Seventy percent of patients on rizatriptan 10 mg reported pain relief at 4 h. Patients who took rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg were significantly less functionally disabled than those who took placebo at 1.5 and 2n post-dose. Rizatriptan 10 mg was consistently more effective than 5 mg, although the differences were not statistically significant. The most frequent clinical adverse events were dizziness, somnolence, and asthenia/fatigue. No patients were discontinued for any adverse experiences and there were no serious adverse experiences.

Lipid-Altering Efficacy and Safety of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Versus Atorvastatin in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia and the Metabolic Syndrome (from the VYMET Study)

Patients with the metabolic syndrome are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and might require intensive lipid therapy. Many patients remain at the starting dose of lipid therapy and might not be titrated up to a higher dose. The present double-blind, randomized, 6-week study assessed the lipid-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg in 1,128 patients with hypercholesterolemia and the metabolic syndrome. The primary end point was the percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Additional end points included changes in other lipids, lipoprotein ratios, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and attainment of prespecified lipid levels. Significantly greater improvements in the levels of LDL cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipid/lipoprotein ratios resulted with ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with atorvastatin at all specified dose comparisons (p <0.001). The attainment of prespecified LDL cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was also significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin at all dose comparisons (p <0.05). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol increases were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg than with atorvastatin 10 mg (p <0.05) and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg than with atorvastatin 40 mg (p <0.01). The changes in triglycerides, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were similar for both treatments. The incidence of liver, muscle, and gastrointestinal-, hepatitis- and allergic reaction/rash-related adverse events were low and generally similar to those in previous studies of ezetimibe/simvastatin and/or atorvastatin. In conclusion, ezetimibe/simvastatin was more likely to result in lipid treatment end points than atorvastatin and was generally well tolerated at the doses compared in our patients.

Clinical predictors of treatment failure for diabetic foot infections: Data from a prospective trial

To aid clinicians in selecting the appropriate approach for treating patients with diabetic foot infections, we investigated whether any baseline clinical findings predicted an unfavourable clinical outcome. Using data from a large, prospective treatment trial of diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP), we assessed the association between clinical treatment failure and baseline history, physical and laboratory findings, by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Among 402 patients clinically evaluable 10 days after completing antibiotic therapy, baseline factors significantly (P < 0·05) associated by univariate analysis with treatment failure were ‘severe’ (versus ‘moderate’) University of Texas (UT) wound grade; elevated white blood cell count, C‐reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate; high wound severity score; inpatient treatment; low serum albumin; male sex; and skin temperature of affected foot >10°C above that of unaffected foot. By multivariate logistic regression only severe UT wound grade (odds ratio 2·1) and elevated white blood cell count [odds ratio 1·7 for a 1 standard deviation (2971 cells/mm3) increase] remained statistically significant. Clinical failure rates were 46% for patients with both risk factors compared with 10% for patients with no risk factors and 16–17% for patients with one risk factor. Increased white blood cell count and severe UT wound grade at baseline, but not other features, were significant independent and additive risk factors for clinical failure in patients treated for a diabetic foot infection.

Efficacy and Safety of Rizatriptan Versus Standard Care During Long‐term Treatment for Migraine

Rizatriptan is a novel, selective 5‐HT1B/1D receptor agonist with a rapid onset of action after oral dosing for the acute treatment of migraine. We conducted a long‐term (up to 1 year), multicenter, randomized study in 1831 patients treating more than 46 000 attacks to compare the efficacy and tolerability of rizatriptan 5 mg and 10 mg to standard care medications routinely used for the acute treatment of migraine attacks. Both doses of rizatriptan were highly effective, without evidence of tachyphylaxis. Rizatriptan 10 mg was consistently superior (P<0.05), both to the 5‐mg dose and to standard care, in providing relief in 90% of attacks, with 50% pain‐free by 2 hours after dosing. The most common dose‐related adverse events were nausea, somnolence, and asthenia/fatigue. Based on this large, multicenter, long‐term trial, rizatriptan is an important new oral agent for the acute treatment of migraine.

Acquisition of Resistant Bowel Flora during a Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial of Ertapenem versus Piperacillin-Tazobactam Therapy for Intraabdominal Infections

ABSTRACT Bowel colonization with resistant bacteria can develop in patients receiving broad-spectrum antimicrobial therapy. We compared the impact of two antimicrobial regimens often used to treat intraabdominal infections on susceptibility patterns of bowel flora at the end of therapy. In a double-blind clinical trial, adults with complicated intraabdominal infection requiring surgery were randomized to receive piperacillin-tazobactam (3.375 g every 6 h) or ertapenem (1 g once a day) for 4 to 14 days. Rectal swabs were obtained at baseline and at the end of study therapy to determine the acquisition rates of Enterobacteriaceae resistant to the study drug, extended-spectrum β-lactamase (ESBL)-producing Escherichia coli or Klebsiella species, Pseudomonas aeruginosa resistant to imipenem or piperacillin-tazobactam, and vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis or Enterococcus faecium. Treated patients were assessable for the acquisition of resistant bacteria if appropriate specimens were obtained at both time points. Enterobacteriaceae resistant to the treatment received were acquired during study therapy by 8/122 assessable piperacillin-tazobactam recipients (6.6%) compared to 0/122 assessable ertapenem recipients (P = 0.007). Neither ESBL-producing E. coli or Klebsiella species nor P. aeruginosa resistant to piperacillin-tazobactam was isolated from patients in either treatment group. Imipenem-resistant P. aeruginosa was acquired by two of the ertapenem recipients (1.6%) versus zero of the piperacillin-tazobactam recipients (P = 0.50). Vancomycin-resistant enterococci were acquired during therapy by 8/125 assessable ertapenem recipients (6.4%) versus 2/123 assessable piperacillin-tazobactam recipients (1.6%; P = 0.10). In this study, the acquisition of resistant Enterobacteriaceae occurred significantly more often in patients treated with piperacillin-tazobactam than in those treated with ertapenem.

Dorzolamide/timolol combination versus concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol ☆: Six-month comparison of efficacy and tolerability

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy and tolerability of the 2% dorzolamide/0.5% timolol combination ophthalmic solution twice daily to the concomitant administration of 0.2% brimonidine ophthalmic solution twice daily and 0.5% timolol ophthalmic solution twice daily. DESIGN Randomized, multicenter, observer-masked, parallel-group study. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred ninety-three patients with ocular hypertension or primary open-angle glaucoma participated. INTERVENTION After an open-label 3-week 0.5% timolol run-in period, patients with an hour 2 intraocular pressure (IOP) of > or = 22 mmHg were randomly assigned to receive either the dorzolamide/timolol combination twice daily or the concomitant use of brimonidine twice daily and timolol twice daily (brimonidine + timolol) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The IOP-lowering effects at hour 0 and hour 2 were collected at 1, 3, and 6 months. We hypothesized that both treatment regimens would have comparable hour 2 IOP-lowering effects at month 3. The treatments were considered comparable if the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference was within +/- 1.5 mmHg. Tolerability data were also collected at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS The primary efficacy analysis was based on the modified intent-to-treat population. At month 3, hour 2, the dorzolamide/timolol group had an adjusted mean (standard error) change in IOP of -5.04 (0.30) mmHg versus -5.41 (0.30) mmHg in the brimonidine + timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.36 (0.40) mmHg (95% confidence interval [CI] of -0.42-1.14 mmHg). At month 3, hour 0, the dorzolamide/timolol group had a change in IOP of -3.66 (0.29) mmHg versus -4.15 (0.28) mmHg in the brimonidine + timolol group, with a treatment difference of 0.49 (0.39) mmHg (95% CI of -0.27-1.25 mmHg). Likewise, at all other observed time points, the 95% confidence interval of the treatment difference was within +/- 1.5 mmHg. Ninety-three patients (64%) in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 88 patients (60%) in the brimonidine + timolol group had adverse experiences that were deemed drug related by the investigator, for which 7 patients (5%) in the dorzolamide/timolol group and 8 patients (5%) in the brimonidine + timolol group were discontinued from the study. CONCLUSIONS The efficacy of the dorzolamide/timolol combination and the concomitant administration of brimonidine and timolol were comparable. The incidence of drug-related adverse experiences and the incidence of discontinuations caused by drug-related adverse experiences were similar between groups.