Joanne Palmisano

A Community-Based, Randomized Trial of Ezetimibe Added to Statin Therapy to Attain NCEP ATP III Goals for LDL Cholesterol in Hypercholesterolemic Patients: The Ezetimibe Add-On to Statin for Effectiveness (EASE) Trial

OBJECTIVE To determine the extent of reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level and improvement in National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) LDL-C goal attainment when ezetimibe was added to ongoing statin therapy in a diverse population of community-based patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (from January 2003 to August 2003), hypercholesterolemic patients (from 299 US primary care and specialty practices) with LDL-C levels exceeding NCEP ATP III goals were randomized (2:1) to receive ezetimibe (10 mg/d) or placebo in addition to their ongoing statin therapy for 6 weeks. RESULTS In a study of 3030 randomized patients, ezetimibe added to statin therapy significantly reduced the LDL-C level by an additional 25.8% in the total population, compared with an additional 2.7% reduction with placebo plus statin (treatment difference, -23.1%; P<.001); the treatment difference ranged from -19.9% to -24.0% (P<.001) in each NCEP ATP III risk category subgroup. Significantly (P<.001) more patients (71.0%) treated with ezetimibe added to statin reached their NCEP ATP III target LDL-C level compared with those treated with placebo plus statin (20.6%). The addition of ezetimibe also resulted in improvement in other lipid parameters and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels. These benefits were consistent across sex, race, age, statin brand, and dose subgroups. Ezetimibe plus statin therapy was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to placebo plus statin. CONCLUSION Across multiple subgroups, ezetimibe added to statin therapy consistently produced significant additional improvements in LDL-C levels and goal attainment, as well as in other lipoproteins, compared with addition of placebo. The addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy should be considered for patients not achieving their NCEP ATP III LDL-C goals while receiving statin therapy alone.

Patient preference for once-weekly alendronate 70 mg versus once-daily alendronate 10 mg: a multicenter, randomized, open-label, crossover study.

BACKGROUND Alendronate, an oral bisphosphonate, is available for the treatment of osteoporosis in a 70-mg once-weekly and a 10-mg once-daily formulation. OBJECTIVES This study aimed to determine patient preference for once-weekly versus once-daily dosing with alendronate, and to determine which treatment regimen the patients believed was more convenient and would be easier to comply with for a long period. METHODS This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, preference study in which postmenopausal women with osteoporosis were enrolled to receive 9 weeks of treatment in crossover fashion (4 weeks with each study regimen separated by a 1-week washout period). The study regimens included once-weekly alendronate 70 mg and once-daily alendronate 10 mg. The primary and secondary end points were assessed with a questionnaire completed by the patient. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded to assess patient tolerability of the study medications. RESULTS A total of 324 patients met the eligibility requirements; 288 were randomized to treatment, 287 (mean age, 64.8 years) received treatment, 272 completed the questionnaire, and 266 completed the study. Of the patients who completed the questionnaire, 235 patients preferred the 70-mg once-weekly dosing regimen compared with the 10-mg once-daily regimen (86.4% vs 9.2%; P < 0.001). Most patients also believed that once-weekly dosing was more convenient than once-daily dosing (89.0% vs 7.7%; P < 0.001) and would allow them to achieve better long-term compliance (87.5% vs 8.5%; P < 0.001). Clinical AEs were reported in 30.7% of patients treated with once-weekly alendronate and 30% of patients treated with once-daily alendronate, with no significant differences between treatments. CONCLUSION When once-weekly alendronate 70 mg was compared with once-daily alendronate 10 mg in this study, 70-mg once-weekly alendronate was the preferred dosing regimen.

Tolerability of Once-Weekly Alendronate in Patients With Osteoporosis: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study

OBJECTIVE To compare the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract tolerability of once-weekly oral alendronate, 70 mg, and placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a 12-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. The first patient initiated treatment on June 5, 2000, and the last patient completed treatment on March 1, 2001. The study enrolled 450 postmenopausal women and men with osteoporosis (224 took alendronate, 226 took placebo) who were ambulatory and community dwelling at 48 outpatient study centers in the United States. By design, approximately half of the patients were naive to bisphosphonates. The primary end point was upper GI tract tolerability based on the incidence of any upper GI tract adverse events. Secondary end points included the number of discontinuations due to drug-related upper GI tract adverse events and the change from baseline in bone resorption, assessed by the urinary N-telopeptide-creatinine ratio at 12 weeks. A subgroup analysis of the primary and secondary end points was performed on the patients stratified by prior bisphosphonate use. The safety and tolerability of the weekly alendronate and placebo regimens were captured as clinical and laboratory adverse events. RESULTS A total of 11% of the alendronate patients and 13% of the placebo patients reported an upper GI tract adverse event. Discontinuations due to drug-related upper GI tract adverse events occurred in 3% of alendronate patients and 1% of placebo patients. The differences between the treatment groups for the primary and secondary end points were not significant. For the primary end point, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference was well within the prespecified 14% comparability bound (-2.2%; 95% confidence interval, -8.3% to 3.9%). The overall incidence of upper GI tract adverse events was lower in the subgroup of patients with prior bisphosphonate exposure (8%) than in those who were bisphosphonate naive (16%). However, regardless of prior bisphosphonate exposure, the incidence of upper GI tract adverse events was similar between the alendronate and placebo patients. The urinary N-telopeptide-creatinine ratio showed a significant decrease in the alendronate patients (72% of baseline, P<.001) compared with a slight increase in the placebo patients (106% of baseline) at week 12. CONCLUSION In this 3-month study, the incidence of upper GI tract adverse events in patients treated with once-weekly alendronate, 70 mg, was comparable to that with placebo.

Effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol of maximum dose simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia: Results of the Comparative HDL Efficacy and Safety Study (CHESS)☆

BACKGROUND Previous studies have shown that effects on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) may differ among statins. METHODS A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-dose study was conducted in 917 hypercholesterolemic patients to compare the efficacy of 80 mg/d simvastatin versus 80 mg/d atorvastatin on HDL-C and apolipoprotein (apo) A-I for 24 weeks. Efficacy was assessed as the means of weeks 6 and 12 and weeks 18 and 24. Prespecified subgroups analyzed were patients with low HDL-C levels and with the metabolic syndrome. RESULTS Simvastatin increased HDL-C and apo A-I values significantly more than did atorvastatin for the mean of weeks 6 and 12 (8.9% vs 3.6% and 4.9% vs -0.9%, respectively) and the mean of weeks 18 and 24 (8.3% vs 4.2% and 3.7% vs -1.4%). These differences were observed across both baseline HDL-C subgroups (<40 mg/dL, > or =40 mg/dL) and in patients with the metabolic syndrome. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride reductions were greater with atorvastatin. Consecutive elevations >3x the upper limit of normal in alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and/or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) occurred in significantly fewer patients treated with simvastatin than with atorvastatin (2/453 [0.4%] vs 13/464 [2.8%]), with most elevations observed in women taking atorvastatin (11/209 [5.3%] vs 1/199 [0.5%] for simvastatin). CONCLUSIONS Simvastatin (80 mg) increased HDL-C and apo A-I significantly more than did atorvastatin (80 mg) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. This advantage was observed regardless of HDL-C level at baseline or the presence of the metabolic syndrome. Significantly fewer consecutive elevations >3x the upper limit of normal in ALT and/or AST occurred in patients receiving simvastatin.

Rechallenge of patients who had discontinued alendronate therapy because of upper gastrointestinal symptoms

BACKGROUND There have been reports from physicians in clinical practice that up to 30% of patients taking bisphosphonate therapy develop upper gastrointestinal (UGI) symptoms, many or most of which they assume to be related to the drug. However, in several large placebo-controlled clinical trials of bisphosphonates, the incidence of UGI symptoms has been > or =30%, even among patients receiving placebo, perhaps reflecting a high background incidence of UGI events in osteoporotic patients. OBJECTIVE To assess the relationship between alendronate treatment and UGI complaints in patients who had discontinued treatment with alendronate in clinical practice because of UGI symptoms, we compared the incidence of such events on rechallenge with alendronate or placebo. METHODS This was a multicenter, double-blind trial in which postmenopausal women with osteoporosis who had previously discontinued alendronate therapy because of a UGI adverse experience were randomized to daily treatment with either alendronate 10 mg or matching placebo (1:1 ratio) for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the cumulative incidence of discontinuations due to any UGI adverse experience. Secondary end points were the incidence of any clinical adverse experiences and the percentage change from baseline in urinary N-telopeptide adjusted for urinary creatinine at week 8. RESULTS A total of 172 women were included in the study. They were a mean of 20.9 years past menopause, ranging in age from 41 to 90 years (mean, 67.0 years); 90.7% were white. On rechallenge, 14.8% (13/88) of patients in the alendronate group and 16.7% (14/84) in the placebo group discontinued treatment because of UGI adverse experiences. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that many UGI adverse experiences reported during therapy with alendronate may reflect a high background incidence of UGI complaints and an increased sensitivity to detection of such complaints, rather than a causal relationship to therapy.

Lipid altering-efficacy of ezetimibe co-administered with simvastatin compared with rosuvastatin: a meta-analysis of pooled data from 14 clinical trials.

ABSTRACT Objective: Results of direct comparative studies between ezetimibe/simvastatin and rosuvastatin therapies have not been reported. Both of these treatment options offer significant reductions in LDL-C. To evaluate the lipid efficacy of each of these therapies relative to each other, a meta-analysis of data from 14 randomized, double-blind clinical trials that compared the effectiveness of two new options for cholesterol lowering was performed. Data sources: PubMed, EMBASE and BIOSIS databases were searched up to March 14, 2004. Methods of study selection: Efficacy results from clinical trials with the co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg with simvastatin or with the ezetimibe/simvastatin combination product (ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg, 10/20 mg, 10/40 mg, and 10/80 mg) were compared with efficacy results from clinical trials of rosuvastatin 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, and 40 mg in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Trials in healthy patients, heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or combined hyperlipidemia, and pharmacokinetic trials were excluded. Data extraction and synthesis: This analysis used pooled data for LDL-C, HDL-C, non-HDL-C, triglycerides, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein (apo) A-I, and apo B for the two therapies at their lowest doses (ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg and rosuvastatin 5 mg) through their highest doses (ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/80 mg and rosuvastatin 40 mg), and estimated within-treatment percentage changes in these parameters. Percentage reductions from baseline in LDL-C for the pooled data were 46.2% and 41.8% for ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10 mg and rosuvastatin 5 mg, respectively; 50.6% and 47.4% for ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg and rosuvastatin 10 mg, respectively; 55.9% and 52.1% for ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg and rosuvastatin 20 mg, respectively; and 59.7% and 58.5% for ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/80 mg and rosuvastatin 40 mg, respectively. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis suggest greater LDL-C lowering with ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with rosuvastatin. These results need to be confirmed in a head-to-head comparison of both therapies.

Dyslipidemia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes. Relationships between Lipids, Kidney Disease and Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the most prevalent complication and primarily accounts for the excess morbidity and mortality in diabetic patients, but microvascular complications, such as kidney disease and retinopathy, are frequent and contribute to the total disease burden. Lipid abnormalities in patients with type 2 diabetes are a major problem and associated with the increased risk of CVD. The most common pattern of dyslipidemia in these patients consists of elevated levels of triglycerides and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Low-density lipoprotein levels in these patients are often similar to that of the nondiabetic population, although there may be important qualitative differences in the pattern that contribute to the increased risk of CVD. Abnormal levels of urinary albumin occur in 30–40% of patients with type 2 diabetes and the presence of kidney disease enhances the mortality from CVD. Microalbuminuria, an early marker of diabetic nephropathy, is an independent risk factor for CVD. The increased levels of urinary albumin secretion may represent a more generalized vascular damage than renal microvascular injury alone. This Review focuses on the significance of diabetic dyslipidemia and microalbuminuria to CVD risk as well as to kidney complications. We also discuss the role of aggressive therapy to ameliorate vascular injury in the diabetic patient and reduce or prevent the cardiovascular and renal consequences of the disease.

Effectiveness of Ezetimibe Added to Ongoing Statin Therapy in Modifying Lipid Profiles and Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Goal Attainment in Patients of Different Races and Ethnicities: A Substudy of the Ezetimibe Add-On to Statin for Effectiveness Trial

OBJECTIVE To examine whether the improvements in lipid profiles and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment found in the Ezetimibe Add-On to Statin for Effectiveness trial occurred equally in the black, Hispanic, and white patient populations enrolled in the study. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, patients were recruited from 299 community-based practices across the United States (January to August 2003). Patients with, hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C levels exceeding National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III goals were randomized (2:1) to receive either ezetimibe (10 mg/d) or placebo in addition to their ongoing statin therapy for 6 weeks. RESULTS A total of 5802 patients were screened at baseline for the Ezetimibe Add-On to Statin for Effectiveness study. Of these, 2772 were excluded, and the remaining 3030 eligible patients were randomized. Ezetimibe, compared with placebo, added to statin therapy significantly reduced LDL-C levels from statin-treated baseline by 23.0% (white patients), 23.0% (black patients), and 21.0% (Hispanic patients). This effect was consistent across race and ethnicity groups (P > .50 for treatment-by-race interactions). Ezetimibe added to statin therapy also statistically significantly (P < .001) increased the percentage of patients attaining their LDL-C goal for their National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III risk category in black (63.0%), Hispanic (64.8%), and white (72.3%) patients compared with placebo plus statin (32.9% black patients, 19.0% Hispanic patients, and 19.7% white patients). Ezetimibe treatment improved other lipid parameters across groups, including triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density ilpoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol levels. Finally, the addition of ezetimibe reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels overall, and no significant interaction of treatment by race occurred (P = .83), Indicating a consistent effect across races. Ezetimibe was generally well tolerated, and no detectable differences occurred in the adverse event profile by race or ethnicity. CONCLUSION Ezetimibe added to statin therapy is effective and well tolerated for improving the lipid profile and LDL-C goal attainment of patients regardless of race or ethnicity.

The effect of simvastatin on triglyceride-rich lipoproteins in patients with type 2 diabetic dyslipidemia: a SILHOUETTE trial sub-study.

ABSTRACT Objective: To determine if simvastatin effectively decreases the elevated levels of triglyceride (TG), TG-rich lipoproteins, and small, dense LDL particles, which are characteristic of diabetic dyslipidemia. Research design and methods: We conducted a prespecified analysis from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, 6‐week crossover trial in patients with type 2 diabetes and low HDL‐C (< 40 mg/dL). Each patient was randomized to 1 of 6 possible treatment arms; each patient received simvastatin 80 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, and placebo over 3 periods. We used the validated vertical auto profile (VAP†) method to directly assess TG-rich lipoproteins and LDL subclasses. We assessed the efficacy of simvastatin to improve the lipoprotein profile in adult men (71%) and women (29%) (n = 151) with stable type 2 diabetes (HbA1C < 9%), LDL‐C > 100 mg/dL, HDL‐C < 40 mg/dL, and fasting TG level > 150 and < 700 mg/dL (median = 273 mg/dL). † VAP is a trademark of Atherotech Inc., Birmingham, AL, USA Main outcome measures: Percentage change from baseline in IDL and VLDL (TG-rich lipoproteins), LDL subclasses, and additional lipoproteins at the end of each 6‐week treatment interval; percentage of patients who reached NCEP ATP III non-HDL goal of < 130 mg/dL by the end of each 6‐week period. Results: Both simvastatin 80 mg and 40 mg significantly reduced VLDL-C, VLDL3, and IDL, as well as the four LDL subclasses measured with VAP, compared with placebo. Simvastatin 80 mg, compared with simvastatin 40 mg, provided additional efficacy. With simvastatin 80 mg, 77.2% of patients not at their non-HDL-C goal of < 130 mg/dL at study baseline reached goal, compared with 65.7% following simvastatin 40 mg treatment, and 2.2% following placebo. Conclusions: Treatment with simvastatin effectively reduced the elevated levels of TG-rich lipoproteins and improved LDL composition in patients with type 2 diabetes. A large percentage of these patients attained the NCEP ATP III non-HDL‐C goal of < 130 mg/dL, which demonstrates the improvement of the atherogenic profile in these patients.

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering ability of lovastatin 10, 20, and 40 mg/d with fluvastatin 20 and 40 mg/d.

BACKGROUND The available statin drugs have similar pharmacodynamic properties but are not equal in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering efficacy. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the effects of lovastatin and fluvastatin in lowering LDL-C. METHODS This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of patients aged >20 years with primary hypercholesterolemia conducted at 44 clinical sites across the United States. After a 6-week National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step I diet lead-in period in patients taking lipid-lowering drugs at screening, patients were randomized to receive lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg/d or fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d (the doses available at the time the study was conducted) for 6 weeks. Patients not taking lipid-lowering drugs at screening and who had been following the Step I diet for at least 6 weeks proceeded to the treatment phase. All patients received instruction for a Step I diet, which they followed throughout the treatment phase. After the treatment period, total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL-C, and triglycerides were measured, and TC:HDL-C and LDL-C:HDL-C ratios were calculated. RESULTS A total of 838 patients (476 men, 362 women; mean [SD] age, 59 [12] years) were included in the study. Lovastatin 20 and 40 mg/d significantly reduced mean LDL-C compared with the same dosages of fluvastatin. TC and the LDL-C:HDL-C ratio decreased more with lovastatin than with fluvastatin at a given dose level. Approximately 50% of patients treated with lovastatin 20 and 40 mg/d compared with approximately 25% treated with fluvastatin 20 and 40 mg/d reached NCEP Adult Treatment Panel II LDL-C goals. CONCLUSION In this small study population of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia taking lipid-lowering drugs, short-term (6-week) treatment with lovastatin was more efficacious than fluvastatin in lowering cholesterol levels and reaching LDL-C treatment goals.