Kamlesh Thakker

The electrocardiographic effects of cetirizine in normal subjects

To establish whether the antihistamine cetirizine has the potential to prolong the QTC interval in normal volunteers at up to six times the usual recommended dose.

Prevalence of Dyslipidemia and Lipid Goal Attainment in Statin-Treated Subjects From 3 Data Sources: A Retrospective Analysis

Background Evidence-based randomized clinical trials have shown significant benefit of statin treatment with regard to cardiovascular disease. In anticipation of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel IV guidelines, we wanted to assess the current state of lipid goal attainment in the high-risk secondary prevention population in the United States. The objectives of the study were to estimate the proportion of high-risk patients treated with statin monotherapy who achieved Adult Treatment Panel III–recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals (<100 mg/dL; optional <70 mg/dL) as well as non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals (<130 mg/dL; optional <100 mg/dL). Methods and Results This is a cross-sectional, retrospective study of 3 data sources: electronic medical records (2003–September 2010), administrative claims data (2003–2010), and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey data (2007–2008). High-risk patients (≥18 years of age) were defined as those with a history of coronary heart disease or coronary heart disease risk equivalent who had the latest complete lipid panel measurement and had been treated with statin monotherapy for >90 days at the time of the lipid panel. Cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, and coronary heart disease risk equivalents were defined on the basis of availability, specific to each data source. Across the 3 data sources, 20% to 26% of high-risk patients treated with statin monotherapy for >90 days had LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and 67% to 77% had LDL-C <100 mg/dL. The percentages of those attaining both LDL-C goals and non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals were quantitatively smaller (13.5% to 19.0% and 46% to 70%). Conclusions Across the 3 data sources, there was consistency in the proportion of high-risk patients treated with statin monotherapy who were at LDL-C goal. A significant number of these statin-treated patients had additional dyslipidemias.

Impact of Systemic Hypertension on the Cardiovascular Benefits of Statin Therapy—A Meta-Analysis

The ASCOT-LLA and ALLHAT-LLT trials provide conflicting evidence of the efficacy of statins in decreasing cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in hypertensive patients. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the overall efficacy of statins in hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients enrolled in major randomized clinical trials. We systematically reviewed PubMed publications from 1985 onward for placebo-controlled randomized trials that examined the effect of statins on cardiac morbidity and mortality. Only trials that followed >or=1,000 patients for >or=2 years were included in the meta-analysis. Outcomes included cardiac or CV death, major coronary events, or major CV events. Pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) were calculated separately for hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients. The moderating effect of the percentage of hypertensive patients at baseline was tested using meta-regression. Besides the ASCOT-LLA and ALLHAT-LLT, 12 trials enrolling 69,984 patients met inclusion criteria. Overall, in these 12 trials, statin therapy decreased cardiac death by 24% (RR 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71 to 0.82). There was no evidence of difference in RR estimates for hypertensive (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.84) and nonhypertensive (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.80) patients. Similarly, meta-regression showed that the efficacy of statins was not moderated by the percentage of hypertensive patients at baseline (Q estimate 1.51, p=0.22). In conclusion, statin therapy effectively decreases CV morbidity and mortality to the same extent in hypertensive and nonhypertensive patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Fenofibric Acid Co-Administered with Low- or Moderate-Dose Statin in Patients with Mixed Dyslipidemia and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Results of a Pooled Subgroup Analysis from Three Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Trials

BackgroundMonotherapy with lipid-modifying medication is frequently insufficient to normalize lipid abnormalities in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in this population.Study DesignA pooled, subgroup analysis of three randomized, controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials.SettingMultiple clinical research facilities in the US and Canada.PatientsPatients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes (n= 586).InterventionFenofibric acid (Trilipix®) 135 mg monotherapy; low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin [Crestor®] 10, 20, or 40 mg; simvastatin [Zocor®] 20, 40, or 80 mg; or atorvastatin [Lipitor®] 20, 40, or 80 mg); or fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin.Main Outcome MeasureMean percentage changes in lipid parameters, percentages of patients achieving optimal serum lipid/apolipoprotein levels, and incidence of adverse events.ResultsFenofibric acid + low-dose statin resulted in significantly (p<0.001) greater mean percentage changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [16.8%] and triglycerides (−43.9%) than low-dose statin monotherapy (4.7% and −18.1%, respectively) and significantly (p<0.001) greater reductions in lowdensity lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [−34.0%] than fenofibric acid monotherapy (−5.3%). Similarly, fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin resulted in significantly (p≤0.011) greater mean percentage changes in HDL-C (16.3%) and triglycerides (−43.4%) than moderate-dose statin monotherapy (8.7% and −24.2%, respectively) and significantly (p<0.001) greater reductions in LDL-C (−32.6%) than fenofibric acid monotherapy (−5.3%). Compared with low- or moderate-dose statin, fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin resulted in over 5-fold higher percentages of patients achieving optimal levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, HDL-C, and triglycerides simultaneously. Incidence of adverse events was generally similar among treatments.ConclusionFenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes was well tolerated and resulted in more comprehensive improvement in the lipid/apolipoprotein profile than either monotherapy.

Niacin extended-release/simvastatin combination therapy produces larger favorable changes in high-density lipoprotein particles than atorvastatin monotherapy.

Background The purpose of this research was to compare the effects of niacin extended-release in combination with simvastatin (NER/S) versus atorvastatin monotherapy on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) particle number and size in patients with hyperlipidemia or dyslipidemia from the SUPREME study. Methods This was a post hoc analysis of patients (n = 137) who completed the SUPREME study and who had lipid particle number and size measurements at both baseline and at week 12 by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Following ≥4 weeks without lipid-modifying therapy (washout period), the patients received NER/S 1000/40 mg/day for 4 weeks followed by NER/S 2000/40 mg/day for 8 weeks, or atorvastatin 40 mg/day for 12 weeks. Median percent changes in HDL particle number and size from baseline to week 12 were compared between the NER/S and atorvastatin treatment groups using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Distribution of HDL particle subclasses at week 12 was compared between the treatment groups using the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel test. Results Treatment with NER/S resulted in a significantly greater percent reduction in small HDL particle number at week 12 compared with atorvastatin monotherapy (−1.8% versus 4.2%, P = 0.014), and a numerically greater percent increase in large HDL particle number (102.4% versus 39.2%, P = 0.078) compared with atorvastatin monotherapy. A significantly greater percent increase in HDL particle size from baseline at week 12 was observed with NER/S compared with atorvastatin (6.0% versus 1.3%, P < 0.001). NER/S treatment also resulted in a significant shift in HDL particle size from small and medium at baseline to large at week 12 (P < 0.0001). Conclusion Treatment with NER/S resulted in larger favorable changes in number and size of HDL particle subclasses compared with atorvastatin monotherapy, including a numerically greater increase in number of large HDL particles, and a significantly greater decrease in number of small HDL particles compared with atorvastatin monotherapy. In addition, NER/S treatment resulted in a significant change in HDL particle size distribution from small and medium to large.

The Effects of Fenofibric Acid Alone and With Statins on the Prevalence of Metabolic Syndrome and Its Diagnostic Components in Patients With Mixed Dyslipidemia

OBJECTIVE To compare fenofibric acid (FA) + statin to respective monotherapies on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its diagnostic components in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Post hoc analysis of over 2,000 metabolic syndrome patients administered either FA + low- or moderate-dose statin; FA alone; or low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin alone. RESULTS FA + low- or moderate-dose statin combination therapy reduced the presence of metabolic syndrome (35.7 or 35.9%, respectively) more than low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy (15.5, 16.6, or 13.8%, respectively), mostly due to improvements in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol levels. Mean glucose levels slightly decreased with FA monotherapy, slightly increased with statin monotherapy, and were essentially unchanged with FA + statin. FA with or without statin also reduced non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, VLDL cholesterol, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS FA + statin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia reduces the prevalence of metabolic syndrome.

Efficacy of Fenofibric Acid Plus Statins on Multiple Lipid Parameters and Its Safety in Women With Mixed Dyslipidemia

The combination of fibrate and statin therapies may be a treatment option for women with multiple lipid abnormalities. We, therefore, initiated the present safety and efficacy analysis to address the paucity of such data in women with mixed dyslipidemia. A total of 1,393 women with mixed dyslipidemia (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, triglycerides [TG] ≥ 150 mg/dl, high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol <50 mg/dl), who had enrolled in any 1 of 3 randomized clinical trials, were evaluated. The eligible women were randomized to receive fenofibric acid plus a low- or moderate-dose statin (combination treatment); or low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy; or fenofibric acid monotherapy. With low-dose combination treatment, the baseline HDL cholesterol level increased 20% and TG decreased 46% compared to an 8% HDL cholesterol increase and 20% TG decrease with low-dose statins alone. With the moderate-dose combination, the baseline HDL cholesterol increased 21% and TG decreased 44% compared to an 8% HDL cholesterol increase and 26% TG decrease with moderate-dose statins alone. The reduction in baseline LDL cholesterol with low-dose and moderate-dose combinations (37% and 39%, respectively) was comparable to the reduction with corresponding-dose statins (36% and 43%, respectively). High-dose statins decreased the baseline LDL cholesterol 47%; however, the increase in HDL cholesterol (9%) and decrease in TG (25%) were similar to the changes observed with lower doses of statins. The safety profiles of the combinations were comparable to those of the component therapies. In conclusion, these data suggest that a combination of fenofibric acid and a statin could be considered safe and efficacious for treating women with mixed dyslipidemia.

Evaluating optimal lipid levels in patients with mixed dyslipidemia following short- and long-term treatment with fenofibric acid and statin combination therapy: a post hoc analysis.

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the achievement of individual and combined lipid and lipoprotein/biomarker targets as specified by treatment guidelines with the combination of fenofibric acid and statin therapy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. Methods: Data for the post hoc analyses were derived from three 12-week controlled studies and a 52-week extension study. Patients were treated with fenofibric acid 135 mg; low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin (rosuvastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; atorvastatin 20, 40, or 80 mg; or simvastatin 20, 40, or 80 mg); or fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin in the controlled studies; and with fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin in the extension study. Achievement of risk-stratified low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) targets; and optimal levels of ApoB <90 mg/dL, HDL-C >40/50 mg/dL in men/women, triglycerides (TG) <150 mg/dL, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein <2 mg/L were assessed. Results: In the controlled studies, significantly lower percentage of high-risk patients treated with fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin, and significantly higher percentage of high-risk patients treated with fenofibric acid + low-dose statin, compared with corresponding-dose statin monotherapies, achieved their LDL-C (51.3% vs. 72.9%, p < 0.001) and non-HDL-C targets (53% vs. 38%, p = 0.02), respectively. Among all patients, optimal levels of ApoB, HDL-C, TG, and the combined target of LDL-C + non-HDL-C + ApoB + HDL-C + TG were achieved by higher percentage of patients treated with fenofibric acid + low- and moderate-dose statin versus corresponding dose-statin monotherapies (p ≤ 0.04 for all comparisons). In the extension study, significantly (p < 0.001 for all comparisons) higher percentage of patients had achieved individual and combined targets at final visit, compared with baseline. Conclusions: In patients with mixed dyslipidemia, short-term treatment with the combination of fenofibric acid and low- or moderate-dose statin resulted in comparable or more patients achieving individual targets of non-HDL-C, ApoB, HDL-C, and TG, and combined targets for these parameters and LDL-C, compared with corresponding-dose statin monotherapy. In the long-term study, the proportion meeting these targets was significant, compared with baseline. Limitations include the post hoc nature of the analysis, and the fact that all patients had mixed dyslipidemia and majority were white, which limits generalization to other populations.

Blood Pressure Control with Amlodipine Add-on Therapy in Patients with Hypertension and Diabetes: Results of the Amlodipine Diabetic Hypertension Efficacy Response Evaluation Trial

Background: Attainment of blood pressure (BP) goals in patients with diabetes is critical both to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and to delay the progression of renal disease. While therapeutic guidelines advise initial therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, monotherapy with these agents may not be sufficient to attain target BP. Objective: The ADHT (Amlodipine Diabetic Hypertension Efficacy Response Evaluation Trial) evaluated the efficacy and safety of adding amlodipine to the treatment regimen of patients with hypertension and diabetes who were already receiving either quinapril or losartan as monotherapy. Methods: ADHT was a double-blind, double-dummy, 22-week trial conducted in the US, After a washout period of 7–13 days, patients (aged 30–75 y) with hypertension and diabetes were randomized to receive quinapril 20 mg/day plus placebo or losartan 50 mg/day plus placebo for 4 weeks, titrated to 40 mg or 100 mg (if required), respectively, for an additional 4 weeks to achieve their BP goals (<130/60 mm Hg), At week 8, either amlodipine 5 mg/day or placebo was added for an additional 12 weeks, with titration to 10 mg at week 14 if the BP goal was not achieved. Results: Efficacy of add-on therapy was evaluated in 411 patients (amlodipine 211, placebo 200). BP goal was reached by 27.5% of patients when amlodipine was added to quinapril or losartan monotherapy, compared with 12.5% when placebo was added (OR 2.73; 95% CI 1.61 to 4.64; p < 0.001), When added to quinapril or losartan monotherapy, amlodipine reduced BP by 8.1/5.4 mm Hg, compared with a 1.6/0.7 mm Hg decrease with add-on placebo (p < 0.001). Amlodipine, quinapril, and losartan were well tolerated. Conclusions: Amlodipine is safe and effective when added to quinapril or losartan monotherapy to help lower BP toward therapeutic targets in patients with hypertension and diabetes.

Influence of a 3-day regimen of azithromycin on the disposition kinetics of cyclosporine A in stable renal transplant patients.

Some macrolide antibiotics have been shown to produce significant drug-drug interactions through the inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. In renal transplant patients these interactions pose potentially serious problems for the safe administration of cyclosporine A (CSA), a substrate of CYP3A4. The effects of azithromycin on CSA disposition kinetics were evaluated in eight stable renal transplant patients. Patients had been stabilized on individualized doses of CSA which remained unchanged throughout the study. Azithromycin was administered for 3 days. Baseline measurements of CSA disposition kinetics were taken prior to azithromycin treatment (study day 2) and after 3 days (study day 5) of azithromycin treatment (500mg/day, orally). The key parameters of interest were the area under the CSA blood concentration versus time curve (AUC) measured for 24h after the morning dose of CSA on both days 2 and 5, and the C(max) values of CSA. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of those parameters (day 5/day 2) and their 90% confidence intervals (90% CI) were 107 (98,116) and 119 (104,136), respectively. The 7% increase in exposure level and 19% increase in peak plasma concentration are not likely to be clinically significant. It is concluded that azithromycin (500mg/dayx3 days) does not alter the disposition kinetics of CSA in a clinically significant way, and that CSA dosage adjustments are not warranted in renal transplant patients taking these two drugs together.