Howard Gerard Hutchinson

Comparison of effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with type IIa or IIb hypercholesterolemia

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 52 centers in North America to compare the effects of the new, highly effective statin, rosuvastatin, with atorvastatin and placebo in hypercholesterolemic patients. After a 6-week dietary run-in, 516 patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or =4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dl) and < 6.47 mmol/L (250 mg/dl) and triglycerides < or =4.52 mmol/L (400 mg/dl) were randomized to 12 weeks of once-daily placebo (n = 132), rosuvastatin 5 mg (n = 128), rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 129), or atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 127). The primary efficacy end point was percent change in LDL cholesterol. Secondary efficacy variables were achievement of National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel II (ATP II), ATP III, and European Atherosclerosis Society LDL cholesterol goals and percent change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and apolipoprotein A-I. Rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 10 mg were associated with greater LDL cholesterol reductions (-40% and -43% vs 35%; p <0.01 and p <0.001, respectively) and HDL cholesterol increases (13% and 12% vs 8%, p <0.01 and p <0.05, respectively). Total cholesterol and apolipoprotein B reductions and apolipoprotein A-I increases were also greater with rosuvastatin; triglyceride reductions were similar. Rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg were associated with improved achievement in ATP II (84% in both rosuvastatin groups vs 73%) and ATP III (84% and 82% vs 72%) LDL cholesterol goals, and rosuvastatin 10 mg was more effective than atorvastatin in achieving European Atherosclerosis Society LDL cholesterol goals. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Rosuvastatin-Induced Arrest in Progression of Renal Disease

Preclinical and limited clinical data suggest that statins decrease the progressive decline in renal function that occurs in patients with renal disease. Pooled analysis of data obtained from a population of hyperlipidemic patients enrolled in the rosuvastatin (Crestor®) clinical development program permitted assessment of its effects on renal function both early and later in the course of treatment. Study participants were initially included in controlled clinical trials that evaluated the lipid-lowering efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin when compared with placebo or other lipid-lowering agents (i.e., atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, cholestyramine, fenofibrate or extended-release niacin). The median duration of treatment with the various doses of statins in these trials was approximately 8 weeks. Following completion of a controlled clinical trial, patients were permitted to enter an open-label extension trial and received rosuvastatin treatment. These data permitted assessment of renal function in a diverse group of over 10,000 patients who received rosuvastatin in its recommended dose range (5–40 mg) for up to 3.8 years. Mean serum creatinine concentrations were lower when compared with baseline both early and later in the course of rosuvastatin treatment. In contrast, no change in mean serum creatinine was observed with placebo. Mean glomerular filtration rates (GFR) predicted from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation were higher when compared with baseline both early and later in the course of rosuvastatin treatment. No change in GFR was observed in the placebo group. Among patients who received long-term rosuvastatin treatment (≧96 weeks), GFR was unchanged or tended to increase, rather than decrease, when compared with baseline irrespective of age, gender, hypertensive or diabetic status, level of renal function (GFR ≧60 vs. <60 ml/min/1.73 m2) at entry or urine dipstick protein status prior to or during the period of treatment. These findings suggest that rosuvastatin may arrest the progression of renal disease.

Lisinopril Versus Hydrochlorothiazide in Obese Hypertensive Patients A Multicenter Placebo-Controlled Trial

Because obesity-associated hypertension has unique hemodynamic and hormonal profiles, certain classes of antihypertensive agents may be more effective than others as monotherapy. Thus, we compared the efficacy and safety of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor lisinopril and the diuretic hydrochlorothiazide in a 12-week, multicenter, double-blind trial in 232 obese patients with hypertension. Patients with an office diastolic pressure between 90 and 109 mm Hg were randomized to treatment with daily doses of lisinopril (10, 20, or 40 mg), hydrochlorothiazide (12.5, 25, or 50 mg), or placebo. Mean body mass indexes were similar for all patients. At week 12, lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide effectively lowered office diastolic (-8.3 and -7.7 versus -3.3 mm Hg, respectively; P<.005) and systolic (-9.2 and -10.0 versus -4.6 mm Hg, respectively; P<.05) pressures compared with placebo. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring confirmed that lisinopril and hydrochlorothiazide effectively lowered 24-hour blood pressure compared with placebo (P<.001). Significant dose-response differences were observed between treatments. Sixty percent of patients treated with lisinopril had an office diastolic pressure <90 mm Hg compared with 43% of patients treated with hydrochlorothiazide (P<.05). Responses to therapies differed with both race and age. Neither treatment significantly affected insulin or lipid profiles; however, plasma glucose increased significantly after 12 weeks of hydrochlorothiazide therapy compared with lisinopril (+0.31 versus -0.21 mmol/L; P<.001). Hydrochlorothiazide also decreased serum potassium levels by 0.4 mmol/L from baseline. In conclusion, lisinopril was as effective as hydrochlorothiazide in treating obese patients with hypertension. Treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors may show greater efficacy as monotherapy at lower doses compared with thiazide diuretics, may have a more rapid rate of response, and may offer advantages in patients at high risk of metabolic disorders.

Guidelines for lowering lipids to reduce coronary artery disease risk: a comparison of rosuvastatin with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin for achieving lipid-lowering goals

Abstract Both the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III and the Second Joint Task Force of European Societies guidelines have established low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals for lipid-lowering treatment to reduce the risk of coronary artery disease. Data from 3 trials that compared rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 389) with atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) and 2 trials that compared rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 226) with pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) and simvastatin 20 mg (n = 249) were pooled separately to compare the achievement of LDL cholesterol goals over 12 weeks of treatment in hypercholesterolemic patients. Noncomparative pooling of rosuvastatin 10 mg results from all 5 trials (n = 615) showed that 80% achieved NCEP ATP III goals and 81% achieved the European goal of

Beneficial effects of rosuvastatin alone and in combination with extended-release niacin in patients with a combined hyperlipidemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels

Patients with combined hyperlipidemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels may benefit from combination therapy with a statin and niacin; therefore, we assessed the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and extended-release (ER) niacin alone and in combination in 270 patients with this atherogenic dyslipidemia. Men and women > or =18 years with fasting total cholesterol levels > or =200 mg/dl, triglycerides 200 to 800 mg/dl, apolipoprotein B > or cf=110 mg/dl, and HDL cholesterol <45 mg/dl were randomized to 1 of 4 treatments in this 24-week, open-label, multicenter trial: rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg; ER niacin 0.5 to 2 g; rosuvastatin 40 mg/ER niacin 0.5 to 1 g; or rosuvastatin 10 mg/ER niacin 0.5 to 2 g. Percent changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and other lipid measurements at week 24 were determined by analysis of variance, with statistical testing performed separately between the rosuvastatin monotherapy group and each remaining treatment group. Daily doses of rosuvastatin 40 mg reduced LDL and non-HDL cholesterol significantly more than either ER niacin 2 g or rosuvastatin 10 mg/ER niacin 2 g (-48% vs -0.1% and -36% for LDL cholesterol and -49% vs -11% and -38% for non-HDL cholesterol, respectively; p <0.01 for all comparisons); no additional reduction in LDL or non-HDL cholesterol was observed with the combination of rosuvastatin 40 mg/ER niacin 1.0 g (-42% and -47%; p = NS). Triglyceride reductions ranged from -21% (ER niacin monotherapy) to -39% (rosuvastatin 40 mg/ER niacin 1 g), but no observed differences were statistically significant. Compared with rosuvastatin alone, rosuvastatin 10 mg/ER niacin 2 g produced significantly greater increases in HDL cholesterol (11% vs 24%, p <0.001) and apolipoprotein A-I (5% vs 11%, p <0.017). Similar increases in HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I were noted between the monotherapy groups. Over 24 weeks, rosuvastatin alone was better tolerated than either ER niacin alone or the combinations of rosuvastatin and ER niacin.

Differential effects of morning and evening dosing of nisoldipine ER on circadian blood pressure and heart rate

The time of administration of once-daily antihypertensive agents may have a significant impact on blood pressure control during awake and sleep periods. Using 24-h ambulatory monitoring, we compared the effects of morning and evening dosing of the long-acting dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker, nisoldipine extended-release (ER), on circadian blood pressure (BP) and heart rate in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension. After completing a 3-week placebo run-in period, 85 patients were randomized to morning versus evening nisoldipine ER treatment at a fixed 20-mg dose. Patients were treated for 4 weeks, followed by crossover to the alternate dosing regimen for 4 additional weeks. Twenty-four-hour ambulatory monitoring was performed at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks after randomization. Awake and sleep times were determined by electronic activity recorders (Actigraphy). Similar least-squares (+/-SE) mean changes from baseline in 24-h BP (systolic BP/diastolic BP: -11.9/-7.4 +/- 0.6/0.5 v -11.6/-6.5 +/- 0.6/0.5 mm Hg) and heart rate (1.0/1.7 +/- 0.4/0.4 beats/min) occurred with morning and evening administration, respectively. A significantly greater effect on awake diastolic BP (systolic BP/diastolic BP: -12.6/-8.1 +/- 0.7/0.4 v -11.3/-6.4 +/- 0.7/0.4 mm Hg; P = .16/.01) was observed with morning dosing compared with evening dosing. In addition, small increases in sleep and early morning heart rate were seen with evening compared with morning administration of nisoldipine (sleep, 3.1 +/- 0.4 v 0.4 +/- 0.4 beats/min; P < .001; early morning, 3.5 +/- 0.7 v 0.5 +/- 0.7 beats/min; P = .002). These differential effects on awake BP and sleep heart rate were also observed in patients who had normal (dippers) and elevated (nondippers) BP values during sleep. Appropriate evaluation of the efficacy and safety of long-acting antihypertensive agents is essential when evening administration is being considered. In the present study, the timing of nisoldipine ER administration had no effect on mean changes in BP and heart rate over a 24-h period. However, nisoldipine ER had some differential effects during sleep and awake periods with morning relative to evening dosing.

Comparison of Effects of Nisoldipine-Extended Release and Amlodipine in Patients With Systemic Hypertension and Chronic Stable Angina Pectoris

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine-extended release (ER) and amlodipine were compared in a 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, titration-to-effect trial in patients with stage 1 to 2 systemic hypertension (90 to 109 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure [BP]) and chronic stable angina pectoris. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to active treatment with either nisoldipine-ER (20 to 40 mg) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg) once daily, titrated as necessary after 2 weeks to achieve diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP from baseline was 15/13 mm Hg with nisoldipine-ER and 13/11 mm Hg with amlodipine (p = NS/p = NS). Both drugs resulted in similar BP responder rates (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg in 87% of patients who received nisoldipine-ER and 78% of patients on amlodipine, p = NS) and anti-ischemic responder rates (increasing exercise time >20% in 20% and 27%, respectively [p = NS], and increasing exercise time >60 seconds in 32% and 29% of patients, respectively [p = NS]. Also, after 6 weeks of active therapy, there was a similar mean increase in total exercise duration (23 seconds in the nisoldipine-ER group and 21 seconds in the amlodipine group, p = NS). Neither drug increased heart rate and both decreased frequency of anginal episodes. Adverse events were infrequent, and typically were vasodilator-related effects (including headache and peripheral edema) that occurred with somewhat higher incidence in the nisoldipine-ER group. Thus, nisoldipine-ER and amlodipine provided comparable antihypertensive and anti-ischemic efficacy, and both were generally well tolerated.

Familial factors in the antihypertensive response to lisinopril.

BACKGROUND Although it is widely recognized that there are familial elements in the pathogenesis of hypertension, remarkably little is known about the influence of family history on response to specific antihypertensive agents. METHODS This study was designed to address that issue by comparing the depressor response to lisinopril in a dose range of 10 to 40 mg in 74 patients enrolled as sibling pairs. Because all patients were treated with lisinopril, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), an objective measure not influenced by the investigators, was used to assess the primary blood pressure (BP) outcome variable. RESULTS Diastolic BP was highly correlated between sibling pairs at baseline (r = 0.476; P < .03) and on treatment (r = 0.524; P = .0021). Ethnicity/race had a striking influence on lisinopril dose and response rate. Among African American patients, 23 of 28 reached the top dose of 40 mg/day, whereas only 14 of 36 Caucasian patients reached that dose level. Among Caucasians, 92% responded, and only 48% of African Americans. Responders were characterized by being younger and heavier, having significantly lower microalbuminuria at baseline, higher baseline renal plasma flow (RPF), and higher urinary kallikrein. CONCLUSION Among Caucasians, the presence of a hypertensive sibling predicts a striking therapeutic response to angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition.