Blood Pressure and Cholesterol-lowering Efficacy of a Fixed-dose Combination With Irbesartan and Atorvastatin in Patients With Hypertension and Hypercholesterolemia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Factorial, Multicenter Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: A fixed-dose combination of a stain and an antihypertensive drug may be useful for the treatment of patients with hypertension and hyperlipidemia. It may also improve patient drug compliance to help control risk factors of cardiovascular disease. This study was designed to evaluate the blood pressure-lowering and cholesterol-lowering effect of a fixed-dose combination of irbesartan-atorvastatin compared with monotherapy by either agent over an 8-week treatment period. METHODS: Patients with comorbid hypertension and hypercholesterolemia were screened for this randomized, double-blind, Phase III study. Eligible study patients were randomly assigned to test groups receiving a combination of irbesartan 300 mg and atorvastatin 40 mg or 80 mg (IRB300 + ATO40 and IRB300 + ATO80). Comparator groups comprised monotherapy groups with irbesartan 300 mg (IRB300) or atorvastatin 40 mg (ATO40) or atorvastatin 80 mg (ATO80), or placebo. Patients who were eligible at screening were subjected to a 4- to 6-week washout period before commencing 8 weeks of therapy per their assigned group. The primary efficacy end points were percent change in LDL-C and sitting diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels from baseline to end of therapy. Tolerability profiles of combination therapy were compared with other groups. FINDINGS: A total of 733 patients with comorbid hypertension and hypercholesterolemia were screened for this study; 230 eligible patients were randomized to treatment. The mean age of patients was 58.9 (8.5) years, and their mean body mass index was 25.8 (3.2) kg/m2. More than two thirds (70.9%) of the study patients were male. Mean LDL-C and sitting DBP levels at baseline were 149.54 (29.19) mg/dL and 92.32 (6.03) mm Hg, respectively. Percent reductions in LDL-C after 8 weeks were 46.74% (2.06%) in the IRB300 + ATO40 group and 48.98% (2.12%) in the IRB300 + ATO80 group; these values were 47.13% (3.21%) and 48.30% (2.98%) in the ATO40 and ATO80 comparator groups. Similarly, a reduction in sitting DBP after 8 weeks was -8.50 (1.06) mm Hg in the IRB300 + ATO40 group and 10.66 (1.08) mm Hg in the IRB300 + ATO80 group compared with 8.40 (1.65) mm Hg in the IRB300 group. The incidence rate for treatment-emergent adverse events was 22.27% and was similar between the monotherapy and combination groups. IMPLICATIONS: A once-daily combination product of irbesartan and atorvastatin provided an effective, safe, and more compliable treatment for patients with coexisting hypertension and hyperlipidemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01442987.

Paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: with analyses for diabetic and nondiabetic subpopulation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine which drug-eluting stent (DES) is preferable for the treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and to elucidate the impact of diabetes mellitus on the outcome of each DES. BACKGROUND: Recent studies have shown the benefit of DES in patients with STEMI. Diabetes mellitus might differentially affect outcomes of each DES. METHODS: We analyzed the large-scale, prospective, observational KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry) study, which enrolled 4,416 STEMI patients (26% with diabetes) treated with paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) or sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Primary outcome was major adverse cardiac event (MACE), defined as a composite of mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: In the overall population, the MACE rate at 1 year was significantly higher in the PES than the SES group (11.6% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.014), which was mainly due to increased TLR (3.7% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001). In the diabetic subgroup, however, the MACE rate was not significantly different between PES and SES (14.5% vs. 12.3%, p = 0.217), in contrast to the nondiabetic subgroup, where PES was inferior to SES as in the overall population. Matching by propensity-score did not significantly alter these results. For TLR, there was interaction between the type of stents and diabetes mellitus (unadjusted: p = 0.052; after propensity-score matching: p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The PES was inferior to the SES in the overall population, with regard to the occurrence of MACE and TLR. However, subgroup analysis for diabetic subjects showed no differences in clinical outcomes between PES and SES. These results suggest that diabetes differentially affects the outcome of first-generation DES.