Michael R. Melino

The Efficacy and Six-Week Tolerability of Simvastatin 80 and 160 mg/Day

The hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitor simvastatin is the most effective of the currently approved hypolipidemic drugs and has been shown to reduce mortality and coronary morbidity in patients with coronary artery disease. For these patients the United States National Cholesterol Education Program advocates reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol to <100 mg/dl. However, in some patients this cannot be achieved using monotherapy with simvastatin 40 mg/day, the current maximal recommended dose. To evaluate the effectiveness of extending the dosage range, 156 subjects with LDL cholesterol >160 mg/dl and triglycerides (TG) <350 mg/dl were randomized to simvastatin at doses of 40, 80, and 160 mg/day in a 26 week, double-blind, 3-period, complete block crossover study. Each active treatment period was 6 weeks in duration with intervening 2 week washout periods. Median reductions from baseline in LDL cholesterol were 41%, 47%, and 53% in the 40-, 80-, and 160-mg groups, respectively. The corresponding reductions in plasma TG were 21%, 23%, and 33%. High-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol increased by 6% to 8% in each group. One patient (0.7%) taking 160 mg developed myopathy; 1 patient (0.7%) taking 80 mg, and 3 (2.1%) taking 160 mg had transaminase elevations > 3 times the upper limit of normal. No new or unexpected adverse effects were observed. We conclude that simvastatin at doses of 80 and 160 mg/day provides additional efficacy with a low short-term incidence of adverse effects; our results support the continued investigation of simvastatin at these doses.

Expanded-dose simvastatin is effective in homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia

Patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HFH) have abnormalities in both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor alleles, resulting in severe hypercholesterolaemia and premature coronary heart disease. Limited treatment options are available and the response to drug therapy has been poor. In the present paper, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of simvastatin at doses beyond the current maximal dose of 40 mg/day in patients with HFH. After a 4 week placebo diet run-in period, 12 patients with well-characterized HFH were randomized to simvastatin 80 mg/day administered in three divided doses (n = 8; group 1) or 40 mg once daily (n = 4; group 2). After 9 weeks, the dose in group 1 was increased to 160 mg/day while the dose in group 2 was kept at 40 mg/day, but with the drug given in three divided doses and treatment continued for an additional 9 weeks. All 12 patients completed the study and there were no serious or unexpected adverse effects. LDL-cholesterol concentrations fell by 14% at the 40 mg/day dose, but were reduced further at the higher doses (25% at the 80 mg/day and by 31% at the 160 mg/day dosage, P < 0.0001). Excretion of urinary mevalonic acid, as an index of in vivo cholesterol biosynthesis, was reduced but did not correlate with reduction in LDL-cholesterol in the individual patients. The magnitude of response to therapy was not predicted by the LDL-receptor gene defect as patients with the same LDL-receptor mutations responded differently to the same dose of simvastatin therapy. The ability of expanded doses of simvastatin (80 or 160 mg/day) to reduce LDL-cholesterol levels in patients with HFH, even if receptor negative, suggests that at these doses, the drug reduces LDL production. Simvastatin therapy, at doses of 80 or 160 mg/day, should therefore be considered in all patients with HFH, either as an adjunct to apheresis, or as monotherapy for those patients who do not have access to apheresis or other such treatment modalities.

A Comparison of Simvastatin and Atorvastatin up to Maximal Recommended Doses in a Large Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE At higher doses, simvastatin has been shown to produce significantly greater increases in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and apolipoprotein (apo) A-I than atorvastatin. To extend and confirm these findings, a 36-week, randomized, double-blind, dose-titration study was performed in 826 hypercholesterolemic patients to compare the effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on HDL cholesterol, apo A-I, and clinical and laboratory safety. PRIMARY HYPOTHESIS: Simvastatin, across a range of doses, will be more effective than atorvastatin at raising HDL cholesterol and apo A-I levels. METHODS A total of 826 hypercholesterolemic patients were enrolled in this double-blind, randomized, parallel, 36-week, dose-escalation study. Patients randomized to simvastatin received 40 mg/day for the first 6 weeks, 80 mg/day for the next 6 weeks, and remained on 80 mg/day for the final 24 weeks. Patients randomized to atorvastatin received 20 mg/day for the first 6 weeks, 40 mg/day for the next 6 weeks, and 80 mg/day for the remaining 24 weeks. RESULTS During the first 12 weeks of the study, simvastatin increased HDL cholesterol and apo A-I more than the comparative doses of atorvastatin, while producing slightly lower reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides. At the maximal dose comparison, simvastatin 80 mg and atorvastatin 80 mg, the HDL cholesterol and apo A-I differences favoring simvastatin were larger than at the lower doses. In addition, at the maximal dose comparison, the incidence of drug-related clinical adverse experiences was approximately two-fold higher with atorvastatin 80 mg than with simvastatin 80 mg (23 versus 12%, p < 0.001), due predominantly to a greater incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms with atorvastatin (10 versus 3%, p < 0.001). The incidence of clinically significant alanine aminotransferase elevations was also higher with atorvastatin 80 mg than with simvastatin 80 mg (3.8 versus 0.5%, p < 0.010), especially in women (6.0 versus 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS At the doses compared in this study, simvastatin led to greater increases in HDL cholesterol and apo A-I levels than atorvastatin. At the maximum dose comparison, there were fewer drug-related gastrointestinal symptoms and clinically significant aminotransferase elevations with simvastatin.

Efficacy and safety of Simvastatin 80 mg/day in hypercholesterolemic patients

Abstract This randomized, multicenter, double-blind parallel-group study was performed to evaluate the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of simvastatin 80 mg/day, a dose twice the current maximum recommended dose. At 20 centers in the United States, 521 male and female hypercholesterolemic patients were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2:3 to receive simvastatin 40 or 80 mg once daily, respectively, for 24 weeks in conjunction with a lipid-lowering diet. Patients met National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol criteria for pharmacologic treatment. The mean percentage reductions (95% confidence intervals) from baseline in LDL cholesterol averaged at weeks 18 and 24 were 38% (−40 to −36) and 46% (−47 to −45) for the 40- and 80-mg groups, respectively (p

Efficacy and Tolerability of Low-dose Simvastatin and Niacin, Alone and in Combination, in Patients With Combined Hyperlipidemia: A Prospective Trial.

Background: Combination lipid-lowering therapy may be desirable in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high triglycerides, and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. This study was conducted to determine the lipid-lowering efficacy of the combination of low-dose simvastatin and niacin in patients with combined hyperlipidemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Methods and Results: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized trial, 180 patients with hyper cholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridernia and/or low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were randomized to combination simvastatin (10 mg/day) and niacin (0.75 g/day) or to either drug alone for 9 weeks. The dose of niacin was doubled (from 0.75 g/day to 1.5 g/day) in both the combination and niacin arms for the remaining 8 weeks. The combination of simvastatin, 10 mg/day, and niacin, 1.5 g/day, reduced total. low-density lipoprotein, and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides by 248, 29%, 45%, and 31%, respectively, while increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 31%. The addition of niacin to simvastatin did not enhance the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering effect of simvastatin; however, the combination was more effective than either monotherapy at raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lowering very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P <.05). More patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event in the niacin (P <.03) and combination groups (P =.06) than the simvastatin group. Conclusions: Treatment of patients with combined hyperlipidemia and/or low high-density lipoprotein with combination low-dose simvastatin and niacin resulted in large reductions in total, low-density lipoprotein, and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increases in HDL cholesterol. Although the combination was well tolerated in the current trial, its safety needs to be evaluated in larger trials of longer duration.

Effects of Lovastatin on Natural Killer Cell Function and Other Immunological Parameters in Man

Suppression of cholesterol synthesis by 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors, such as lovastatin, has been shown to inhibit mitogen stimulated proliferation of natural killer (NK) cells and other lymphocytesin vitro. This effect is only partially overcome by provision of exogenous free or lipoprotein cholesterol but is reversed by mevalonate, suggesting that proliferating lymphocytes have a specific requirement for a nonsterol isoprenoid product of mevalonate. The effect of lovastatin (20 mg bid) on a range of immune function parameters was determined in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blindex vivo study in 52 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. No significant differences (P<0.05) were found between lovastatin and placebo groups for basal NK or interleukin-2 (IL-2)-induced cell-mediated cytotoxicity, PHA-stimulated lymphocyte proliferation, or relative numbers of T lymphocytes (CD3+), B lymphocytes (CD19+), total NK cells (CD3−, CD16+, CD56+) and CD57+ NK cells or in immunoglobulin levels after 4 or 8 weeks of treatment. In contrast to previousin vitro data, no statistically or clinically significant changes were observed in any parameter of lymphocyte function in patients treated with lovastatin.

Efficacy and Safety of Long‐Term Treatment With the Combination of Amlodipine Besylate and Olmesartan Medoxomil in Patients With Hypertension

The authors report on the 44‐week open‐label extension of the 8‐week, double‐blind Combination of Olmesartan Medoxomil and Amlodipine Besylate in Controlling High Blood Pressure (COACH) trial in 1684 patients. Initial therapy was amlodipine (AML) plus olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 5+40 mg/d, up‐titrated to AML+OM 10+40 mg/d plus hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 12.5 mg then 25 mg if patients did not achieve blood pressure (BP) goal (<140/90 mm Hg or <130/80 mm Hg in patients with diabetes). Baseline mean BP decreased from 164/102 mm Hg to 131/82 mm Hg at end of study, with an overall 66.7% of patients, including those with diabetes, achieving BP goal. The BP goal achievement was 80% for AML+OM 5+40 mg/d, 70.6% for AML+OM 10+40 mg/d, 66.6% for AML+OM+HCTZ 10+40+12.5 mg/d, and 46.3% for AML+OM+HCTZ 10+40+25 mg/d. Study medication was safe and well tolerated. Combination antihypertensive therapy with AML+OM±HTCZ, up‐titrated as necessary, allowed a majority of patients to achieve BP goal.

Subgroup analyses of an efficacy and safety study of concomitant administration of amlodipine besylate and olmesartan medoxomil: evaluation by baseline hypertension stage and prior antihypertensive medication use.

This report includes a prespecified secondary analysis of the COACH study (Combination of Olmesartan medoxomil and Amlodipine besylate in Controlling High blood pressure) based on baseline hypertension severity and prior antihypertensive medication use and a post hoc efficacy analysis of the subset of patients with baseline mean seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP) ≥180 mm Hg. The efficacy and safety of placebo, amlodipine (5 or 10 mg/d), olmesartan medoxomil (OM) (10, 20, or 40 mg/d), and all possible combinations of the drugs (12 treatment arms in total) were evaluated for 8 weeks. Primary end point was seated diastolic blood pressure (SeDBP) decrease at study end. Secondary end points included decrease in SeSBP and proportion of patients achieving blood pressure (BP) goal and prespecified BP targets. In each subgroup, ≥1 dosage combination of amlodipine + OM significantly reduced SeDBP and SeSBP compared with constituent monotherapies. Combinations produced the greatest mean BP reductions in patients with baseline SeSBP ≥180 mm Hg. More patients with stage 1 than stage 2 hypertension achieved BP goal. Prior antihypertensive medication use did not seem to affect efficacy. Subgroup categorization did not affect safety. After 8 weeks of treatment, the combination of amlodipine + OM is safe and efficacious, irrespective of baseline hypertension stage or prior antihypertensive medication use.

The TRINITY Study: distribution of systolic blood pressure reductions

Background Elevated systolic blood pressure is more difficult to control than elevated diastolic blood pressure. The objective of this prespecified analysis of the Triple Therapy with Olmesartan Medoxomil, Amlodipine, and Hydrochlorothiazide in Hypertensive Patients Study (TRINITY) was to compare the efficacy of olmesartan medoxomil (OM) 40 mg, amlodipine besylate (AML) 10 mg, and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) 25 mg triple-combination treatment with the component dual-combination treatments in reducing elevated seated systolic blood pressure (SeSBP). Methods The 12-week TRINITY study randomized participants to either one of the three component dual-combination treatments (OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg, OM 40 mg/HCTZ 25 mg, or AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg) or the triple-combination treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was the categorical distribution of SeSBP reductions at week 12 from baseline with OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg versus the dual-combination treatments. Results SeSBP reductions >50 mmHg were seen in 24.4% of participants receiving triple-combination treatment versus 8.1%–15.8% receiving dual-combination treatment. More participants receiving triple-combination treatment achieved the SeSBP target of <140 mmHg (73.6% versus 51.3%–58.8%; P < 0.001) and the seated blood pressure target of <140/90 mmHg (69.9% versus 41.1%–53.4%; P < 0.001). Prevalence and severity of adverse events were similar in all treatment groups. Conclusion Treatment with OM 40 mg/AML 10 mg/HCTZ 25 mg was well tolerated and more effective in reducing SeSBP than the dual-combination treatments.

Characterization of a dominant anti-Ia idiotype using the Ia mutant mouse strain B6.C-H-2bm12

Initial studies of antibody recognition of Ia molecules using the IA mutant mouse strain bm12 suggested that two anti-Ia monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), 25-9-17 and 34-5-3, share several features: (1) indistinguishable serologic specificity including a lack of reactivity with Iabm12, (2) binding of the same spatial epitope (cluster), and (3) definition of a cross-reactive idiotype (CRI) as defined by xenogeneic antisera. In the present study we characterize a rabbit anti-idiotype (anti-Id) to 25-9-17 by affinity chromatography, and demonstrate that it detects at least two distinct idiotopes, one shared by 25-9-17 and 34-5-3 designated CRI (25-9-17) and one unique for 25-9-17 molecules. Experiments were also undertaken to determine whether CRI (25-9-17) represents a measurable component of allogeneic humoral responses to Iab antigens. By both absorption analyses of a polyspecific antiserum and production of antigenically-restricted antisera using bm12 mice, CRI (25-9-17) was found to represent a significant proportion of the antibodies to Iab. By several criteria it was shown that the CRI (25-9-17)+ molecules were among the antibodies defining the serologic lesion of bm12 mice. In preparation for future studies to alter in vivo T-cell responses involving recognition of Ia (e.g. graft vs host disease and allogeneic transplant rejection), various immunization protocols and mouse strains were tested for induction of Id (25-9-17) following in vivo administration of various anti-idiotypic reagents. Rabbit anti-Id (25-9-17) successfully induced CRI (25-9-17) positive molecules in all strains tested regardless of IA or Ig genotype. Moreover, some of these treated mice produced antibodies to an Ia determinant missing on bm12 cells, suggesting that they recognize the same serologic determinant as mAb 25-9-17.