Results from a Phase 1 Study Assessing the Pharmacokinetics of the Aldosterone Synthase Inhibitor Baxdrostat in Participants with Varying Degrees of Renal Function.

Baxdrostat is a selective small-molecule aldosterone synthase inhibitor in development for treatment of hypertension and chronic kidney disease. This phase 1, open-label, parallel-group study assessed the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of baxdrostat in participants with varying degrees of renal function. Participants were enrolled into control (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] ≥60 mL/min), moderate to severe renal impairment (eGFR 15-59 mL/min), or kidney failure (eGFR <15 mL/min) groups and received a single 10-mg baxdrostat dose followed by 7 days of inpatient PK blood and urine sampling. Safety was assessed by adverse events, clinical laboratory evaluations, vital signs, physical examinations, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). Thirty-2 participants completed the study. There were no deaths and only 1 mild drug-related adverse event (diarrhea). No clinically meaningful changes in laboratory values, vital signs, physical examinations, or ECGs occurred. Plasma concentration-time curves of baxdrostat were similar among all groups. Urine PK parameters were similar (approximately 12% excreted) in the moderate to severe renal impairment and control groups. Inadequate urine production in the kidney failure group resulted in minimal urinary baxdrostat excretion. Renal impairment had no significant impact on systemic exposure or clearance of baxdrostat, suggesting that dose adjustment due to PK differences in patients with kidney disease is unnecessary.

Results From a Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Study Evaluating the Effect of the Aldosterone Synthase Inhibitor Baxdrostat on the Pharmacokinetics of Metformin in Healthy Human Subjects.

BACKGROUND: Due to the high comorbidity of diabetes and hypertension, co-administration of metformin with anti-hypertensive drugs is likely. Baxdrostat is an aldosterone synthase inhibitor in development for the potential treatment of hypertension. In vitro data indicated that baxdrostat inhibits the multidrug and toxin extrusion 1 (MATE1) and MATE2-K renal transporters. Metformin is a MATE substrate, so this study assessed potential effects of baxdrostat on the pharmacokinetics of metformin. METHODS: Twenty-seven healthy volunteers received 1000 mg metformin alone and 1000 mg metformin in the presence of 10 mg baxdrostat in a randomized, crossover manner. Each treatment was separated by 10 or more days. Blood and urine samples were collected over a 3-day period after each treatment to measure plasma and urine concentrations of metformin. Safety was assessed by adverse events (AEs), physical examinations, electrocardiograms, vital signs, and clinical laboratory evaluations. RESULTS: There were no deaths, serious AEs, discontinuations due to treatment-emergent AEs, or noteworthy increases in AEs with either treatment, indicating that metformin and baxdrostat were well-tolerated when co-administered. Baxdrostat did not significantly affect plasma concentrations or renal clearance of metformin. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that diabetic patients with hypertension receiving both metformin and baxdrostat are unlikely to require dose adjustment. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier no. NCT05526690.

Results from a phase 1, randomized, double-blind, multiple ascending dose study characterizing the pharmacokinetics and demonstrating the safety and selectivity of the aldosterone synthase inhibitor baxdrostat in healthy volunteers.

Baxdrostat is a selective inhibitor of aldosterone synthase designed for the treatment of disorders associated with elevated aldosterone. This study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of multiple ascending doses of baxdrostat in healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomized to receive oral baxdrostat (0.5, 1.5, 2.5, or 5.0 mg) or placebo once daily for 10 days and were placed on either a low-salt or normal-salt diet for the duration of the study. Blood samples were collected before and after dosing on days 1 and 10 to characterize pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Safety was assessed by adverse events, physical examinations, electrocardiograms, orthostatic vital signs, and clinical laboratory evaluations. Fifty-four subjects completed the study. There were no deaths or serious adverse events, and all treatment-emergent adverse events in subjects receiving baxdrostat were mild in severity. Plasma levels of baxdrostat increased proportionally with ascending doses, with peak concentrations observed within 4 h after dosing and a mean half-life of 26 to 31 h. A dose-dependent reduction of plasma aldosterone occurred with baxdrostat doses ≥1.5 mg, regardless of diet. Decreases in plasma aldosterone were sustained, with levels reduced by approximately 51 to 73% on day 10. Baxdrostat had no meaningful impact on plasma cortisol levels and resulted in mild dose-dependent decreases in plasma sodium levels and increases in potassium levels. Baxdrostat was safe and well tolerated with a half-life that supports once-daily dosing. The dose-dependent reduction in plasma aldosterone and lack of effect on cortisol demonstrate the selective blockade of aldosterone synthase.

Efficacy and safety of eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester (AMR101) therapy in statin-treated patients with persistent high triglycerides (from the ANCHOR study).

AMR101 is an ω-3 fatty acid agent containing ≥96% pure icosapent-ethyl, the ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid. The efficacy and safety of AMR101 were evaluated in this phase 3, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blinded, 12-week clinical trial (ANCHOR) in high-risk statin-treated patients with residually high triglyceride (TG) levels (≥200 and <500 mg/dl) despite low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol control (≥40 and <100 mg/dl). Patients (n = 702) on a stable diet were randomized to AMR101 4 or 2 g/day or placebo. The primary end point was median percent change in TG levels from baseline versus placebo at 12 weeks. AMR101 4 and 2 g/day significantly decreased TG levels by 21.5% (p <0.0001) and 10.1% (p = 0.0005), respectively, and non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol by 13.6% (p <0.0001) and 5.5% (p = 0.0054), respectively. AMR101 4 g/day produced greater TG and non-HDL cholesterol decreases in patients with higher-efficacy statin regimens and greater TG decreases in patients with higher baseline TG levels. AMR101 4 g/day decreased LDL cholesterol by 6.2% (p = 0.0067) and decreased apolipoprotein B (9.3%), total cholesterol (12.0%), very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (24.4%), lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2) (19.0%), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (22.0%) versus placebo (p <0.001 for all comparisons). AMR101 was generally well tolerated, with safety profiles similar to placebo. In conclusion, AMR101 4 g/day significantly decreased median placebo-adjusted TG, non-HDL cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in statin-treated patients with residual TG elevations.

Eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester (AMR101) therapy in patients with very high triglyceride levels (from the Multi-center, plAcebo-controlled, Randomized, double-blINd, 12-week study with an open-label Extension [MARINE] trial).

AMR101 is an omega-3 fatty acid agent containing ≥96% eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester and no docosahexaenoic acid. Previous smaller studies suggested that highly purified eicosapentaenoic acid lowered triglyceride (TG) levels without increasing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. TG-lowering therapies such as fibrates, and fish oils containing both eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid, can substantially increase LDL cholesterol levels when administered to patients with very high TG levels (≥500 mg/dl). The present double-blind study randomized 229 diet-stable patients with fasting TG ≥500 mg/dl and ≤2,000 mg/dl (with or without background statin therapy) to AMR101 4 g/day, AMR101 2 g/day, or placebo. The primary end point was the placebo-corrected median percentage of change in TG from baseline to week 12. The baseline TG level was 680, 657, and 703 mg/dl for AMR101 4 g/day, AMR101 2 g/day, and placebo. AMR101 4 g/day reduced the placebo-corrected TG levels by 33.1% (n = 76, p <0.0001) and AMR101 2 g/day by 19.7% (n = 73, p = 0.0051). For a baseline TG level >750 mg/dl, AMR101 4 g/day reduced the placebo-corrected TG levels by 45.4% (n = 28, p = 0.0001) and AMR101 2 g/day by 32.9% (n = 28, p = 0.0016). AMR101 did not significantly increase the placebo-corrected median LDL cholesterol levels at 4 g/day (-2.3%) or 2 g/day (+5.2%; both p = NS). AMR101 significantly reduced non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A(2), very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and total cholesterol. AMR101 was generally well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of the placebo. In conclusion, the present randomized, double-blind trial of patients with very high TG levels demonstrated that AMR101 significantly reduced the TG levels and improved other lipid parameters without significantly increasing the LDL cholesterol levels.

Carotid atherosclerosis progression in familial hypercholesterolemia patients: a pooled analysis of the ASAP, ENHANCE, RADIANCE 1, and CAPTIVATE studies.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) were considered the best subjects for the assessment of changes in carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT) in randomized intervention trials. Our aims were to investigate whether contemporary statin-treated HeFH patients still show accelerated cIMT increase and to assess the impact of statin treatment, before and after random assignment, on atherosclerosis progression. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively evaluated cIMT change, and prior statin treatment and postbaseline LDL-C change as predictors of cIMT change, in 1513 HeFH patients who were randomly assigned to the statin arms of the early ASAP and more recent RADIANCE 1, CAPTIVATE, and ENHANCE studies. In the 3 recent studies combined, mean cIMT increased at only 33%of the rate of the simvastatin-treated patients in the ASAP study (0.014 mm/2 years [95% confidence interval, -0.0003-0.028] versus 0.041 mm/2 years [95% confidence interval, 0.020-0.061]; P<0.05). Patients whose statin therapy could be intensified, as evidenced by an LDL-C decrease after the initiation of on-trial statin therapy, showed cIMT decrease in the first 6 to 12 months and a much lower cIMT increase measured over the full 2 years. In line with this, previously statin-naive HeFH patients showed a lower overall cIMT increase. CONCLUSIONS: Over the years, intensification of statin therapy in HeFH patients has resulted in an impressive decrease in carotid atherosclerosis progression. In studies that assess other antiatherosclerotic modalities, statin therapy may still induce rapid changes in cIMT. For future cIMT studies, our analyses suggest that patient populations other than intensively pretreated HeFH patients should be selected and that the statin regimen should not be changed on study initiation.

Risk reduction and tolerability of fluvastatin in patients with the metabolic syndrome: a pooled analysis of thirty clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: This pooled analysis of 30 completed clinical trials assessed the efficacy and safety profile in reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk of fluvastatin in the treatment of dyslipidemia in patients with and without the metabolic syndrome (metS). METHODS: Data from 30 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled or fluvastatin-controlled trials with > or =6 weeks of active treatment and daily fluvastatin doses of 20, 40, and 80 mg were pooled. Patients received fluvastatin or placebo. Linear contrasts from an analysis of covariance model containing factors for trial and treatment group (immediate-release fluvastatin 20, 40, 80 mg; extended-release fluvastatin 80 rag; or placebo), and using the baseline value as covariate, were used to compare the percentage changes from baseline to the first postbaseline assessment of all lipid parameters. A Cox regression analysis compared the all-fluvastatin group to the placebo group with regard to the time to occurrence of clinical end points from 5 pooled studies, each with a mean treatment duration >1 year wherein clinical end points were reviewed by an adjudication committee. These analyses were performed separately for patients with and without metS. RESULTS: This pooled analysis included data from 7043 patients (4095 men, 2948 women; all-fluvastatin group with and without metS, 2529 and 2052 patients, respectively; placebo group with and without metS, 1514 and 948 patients, respectively). Patients with metS in the pooled fluvastatin group had a greater mean reduction in triglyceride levels (24.1% vs 6.7%), a greater mean increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (10.3% vs -0.6%), and a similar mean reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (26.8% vs 26.7%) compared with the subgroup of patients without metS. Treatment with fluvastatin was associated with a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (16.4% vs 22.0%) and an increase in the time to first MACE in patients with metS compared with placebo (hazard ratio = 0.728; P = 0.001). The incidences of adverse events, particularly those of concern (ie, myalgia and/ or increased blood creatine phosphokinase, alanine aminotransferase, and/or aspartate aminotransferase) with lipid-lowering therapy, were statistically similar between the patients who received fluvastatin and those who received placebo in the 2 subgroups. CONCLUSION: The results from this pooled analysis found that fluvastatin was effective in reducing CVD risk in the treatment of dyslipidemia in these patients with metS.

The effect of fluvastatin on cardiac outcomes in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency: a pooled analysis of double-blind, randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with chronic kidney disease are at high risk for cardiovascular disease and have a high prevalence of hyperlipidemia. Lipid-lowering therapy may help patients with renal disease reduce their risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS: A pooled analysis of 30 completed clinical trials compared the efficacy and safety profiles of fluvastatin in subgroups of patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 50 ml/min) and patients with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance > or = 50 ml/min). RESULTS: Changes in lipid parameters with fluvastatin treatment were similar for the compared patient subgroups. Fluvastatin treatment reduced combined cardiac death and myocardial infarction by 41% compared with placebo among patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.59; p=0.007) and by 30% among patients with normal renal function or mild renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.70; p=0.009). The relative reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiac events, a composite endpoint comprising cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and coronary intervention procedures, with fluvastatin treatment was not significant for patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency (hazard ratio, 0.83; p=0.18); in this patient subgroup, the incidence of coronary intervention procedures was similar between treatment groups. The safety profiles were similar for fluvastatin- and placebo-treated patients. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pooled analysis indicate that fluvastatin is safe and effective for reducing cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with moderate to severe renal insufficiency. Fluvastatin did not reduce the rate of coronary intervention procedures.

The renal safety profile of fluvastatin: results of a pooled analysis.

A pooled analysis was designed to evaluate the effects of fluvastatin on the kidney, in terms of renal adverse events, laboratory abnormalities, and renal function over time. An analysis of adverse events was performed on data from 30 completed clinical trials of fluvastatin in 11,815 patients. An analysis of renal function was also performed on data from patients who participated in long-term studies >6 months in treatment duration. Creatinine clearance was calculated using the Cockcroft-Gault formula. Mean creatinine clearance values were in the normal to near-normal range at baseline. Changes in creatinine clearance and serum creatinine from baseline were similar in fluvastatin-treated patients and placebo-treated patients. In the all-fluvastatin group, mean creatinine clearance (+/-standard deviation) increased from 87.8 (+/-42.8) mL/min at baseline to 89.4 (+/-41.2) mL/min at endpoint. In the placebo group, mean creatinine clearance (+/- standard deviation) increased from 87.7 (+/- 43.9) mL/min at baseline to 88.7 (+/-41.4) mL/min at endpoint. In the all-fluvastatin group, mean serum creatinine (+/- standard deviation) decreased from 1.14 (+/-0.20) mg/dL at baseline to 1.11 (+/-0.20) mg/dL at endpoint. In the placebo group, mean serum creatinine (+/-standard deviation) decreased from 1.15 (+/-0.22) mg/dL at baseline to 1.12 (+/-0.22) mg/dL at endpoint. The incidence of renal adverse events was low and comparable between the fluvastatin and placebo treatment groups. This pooled analysis demonstrates that fluvastatin treatment across the approved daily dose range of 20 mg to 80 mg does not adversely affect creatinine or creatinine clearance over time in dyslipidemic patients.

Comparison of efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in African-American patients in a six-week trial.

The lipid-modifying effects of statin therapy in hypercholesterolemic African-Americans have not been well characterized. This study compared the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin treatment for 6 weeks in hypercholesterolemic African-American adults. In the African American Rosuvastatin Investigation of Efficacy and Safety (ARIES) trial (4522US/0002), 774 adult African-Americans with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol > or = 160 and < or = 300 mg/dl and triglycerides < 400 mg/dl were randomized to receive open-label rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg or atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg for 6 weeks. At week 6, significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B concentrations, as well as lipoprotein and apolipoprotein ratios, were seen with rosuvastatin versus milligram-equivalent atorvastatin doses (analysis of variance with Bonferroni-adjusted critical p < 0.017 for all comparisons). Rosuvastatin 10 mg also increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol significantly more than atorvastatin 20 mg (p < 0.017). Although statistical comparisons were not performed, larger proportions of rosuvastatin-treated patients than atorvastatin-treated patients achieved National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals. The median high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels were significantly reduced statistically from baseline with rosuvastatin 20 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg among all patients and with rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg in those patients with a baseline C-reactive protein level > 2.0 mg/L. The 2 study medications were well tolerated during the 6-week study period. In conclusion, rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg improved the overall lipid profile of hypercholesterolemic African-Americans better than did milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin.

Comparison of efficacy and safety assessment of fluvastatin in patients <65 years versus > or =65 years of age.

This pooled analysis of 30 completed clinical trials assessed the efficacy and safety of fluvastatin in patients <65 (n = 8,037) and patients > or =65 years of age (n = 3,717). The results demonstrated that in patients > or =65 years of age, lipid changes with fluvastatin therapy are equivalent to or slightly better than those observed in patients <65 years of age. Treatment with fluvastatin produced a significantly lower incidence of major cardiovascular clinical end points (major adverse cardiac events [MACEs]) and an increase in the time to a first MACE in the older population. The incidence of adverse events, particularly those of concern with statin therapy, was similar between the placebo- and fluvastatin-treated patients and between the different age groups. In conclusion, data derived from the pooled analysis with fluvastatin demonstrate that cardiovascular events are reduced in older high-risk patients to a greater extent compared with younger patients. Furthermore, this pooled analysis supports the use of fluvastatin to lower cholesterol levels in older high-risk patients.

Effects of baseline level of triglycerides on changes in lipid levels from combined fluvastatin + fibrate (bezafibrate, fenofibrate, or gemfibrozil).

This analysis was conducted to evaluate the effect of baseline triglyceride levels on lipid and lipoprotein changes after treatment with the combination of fluvastatin and fibrates. The analysis involved pooling data from 10 studies that included 1,018 patients with either mixed hyperlipidemia or primary hypercholesterolemia. Patients received a combination of fluvastatin and a fibrate (bezafibrate, fenofibrate, or gemfibrozil) from 16 to 108 weeks. The combination of fluvastatin and a fibrate improved lipid profiles, with reductions in triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol that were dependent on baseline triglyceride levels. The greatest triglyceride reductions were observed in patients with high baseline triglyceride levels (> or =400 mg/dl) (41%, p <0.0001). The greatest LDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol reductions occurred in patients with normal baseline triglyceride levels (<150 mg/dl) (35% and 33%, respectively; p <0.0001). The combined fluvastatin-fibrate therapy was well tolerated. Two patients (0.2%) (1 patient on fluvastatin 80 mg + gemfibrozil 1,200 mg and 1 patient on fluvastatin 20 mg + fenofibrate 200 mg) had creatine kinase levels > or =10 times the upper limit of normal, 11 patients (1.1%) had an elevation in alanine transaminase >3 times the upper limit of normal, and 7 patients (0.7%) had elevations in aspartate transaminase >3 times the upper limit of normal. Combined fluvastatin-fibrate therapy takes advantage of the complementary effects of the 2 agents, with the extent of triglyceride, LDL cholesterol, and non-HDL cholesterol lowering dependent on baseline triglyceride levels. The combination of fluvastatin and fibrates was well tolerated with no major safety concerns.

Comparison of treatment with fluvastatin extended-release 80-mg tablets and immediate-release 40-mg capsules in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: According to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III guidelines, hypercholesterolemic patients with greater risk for cardiovascular heart disease require more aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Numerous studies have demonstrated that despite these guidelines, patients often do not reach their target levels, and that physicians frequently do not titrate the drug beyond the starting dose. For these patients, it may be more suitable to initiate treatment with a higher starting dose of statin. With the immediate-release (IR) formulation of fluvastatin, the maximal dose of 80 mg is recommended to be administered in divided doses (40 mg BID). An extended-release (ER) formulation of fluvastatin at a higher dose (fluvastatin ER 80 mg) was designed to provide greater LDL-C lowering with QD dosing. Use of this formulation should bring more patients into compliance with target LDL-C levels. OBJECTIVE: This analysis compared the efficacy and tolerability of fluvastatin ER 80 mg QD and fluvastatin IR 40 mg QD in lowering total cholesterol, LDL-C, triglyceride, and apolipoprotein (apo) B levels and raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apo A-I levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia over a 12-week treatment period. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled study Patients with primary hypercholesterolemia who qualified for lipid-lowering drug therapy based on NCEP ATP II guidelines were randomized to fluvastatin ER 80 mg QD or fluvastatin IR 40 mg QD, and treated for 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were randomized to treatment: 86 to the fluvastatin ER 80-mg group and 87 to the fluvastatin IR 40-mg group. Compared with fluvastatin IR 40 mg, fluvastatin ER 80 mg produced greater mean reductions in LDL-C (32% vs 22%, respectively; P < 0.001). For each of the 3 coronary heart disease (CHD) risk groups (defined by the NCEP), as well as for the total population studied, more patients from the fluvastatin ER 80-mg group than the IR 40 group achieved NCEP ATP II target LDL-C levels (79% vs 47%, respectively [P = NS], for patients with < 2 risk factors; 58% vs 15%, respectively [P < 0.001], for patients with > or = 2 risk factors; and 40% vs 14%, respectively [P = 0.012], for patients with CHD). The 80-mg ER dose of fluvastatin provided 9.1% greater LDL-C lowering than the 40-mg IR dose. The incidence of elevations in transaminase levels was low and similar for both doses, with 1 patient in each of the treatment groups being discontinued due to repeated elevation of transaminases > 3 x the upper limit of normal (ULN). Clinically relevant elevations in creatine kinase (ie, > or = 10x ULN) were not observed with either dose. Nine patients (5 in the fluvastatin ER group and 4 in the fluvastatin IR group) discontinued because of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with fluvastatin ER 80 mg resulted in greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, and apo B levels compared with fluvastatin IR 40 mg, with clinically equivalent reduction in triglyceride levels and elevation of HDL-C levels. Furthermore, there were few tolerability concerns of clinical relevance with either formulation and no clinically meaningful difference in the tolerability parameters between the 2 formulations. For patients with higher baseline LDL-C levels, and for patients who require greater LDL-C lowering, it may be appropriate to initiate therapy with fluvastatin ER 80 mg. Use of the higher starting dose likely would bring a greater proportion of high-risk patients into compliance with NCEP ATP II target LDL-C levels and would provide LDL-C lowering that is in the same range that has been proved in clinical trials to be associated with reductions in CHD event rates.

The challenges of conducting clinical endpoint studies.

In order to evaluate the effects of a particular treatment strategy on mortality and major morbidity within a disease entity, large, multinational, relatively long-term clinical endpoint studies are often conducted. The primary challenge of conducting these studies is to maintain consistency in the interpretation of the clinical endpoints across different geographic areas and over the long time course of the study. The success of a clinical endpoint study depends on understanding the challenges and incorporating the special requirements of these studies into the protocol design and operational procedures throughout the study.

Effects of simvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with elevated levels of serum triglycerides (TG) often have other associated lipid abnormalities (e.g., low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]) and are at increased risk of developing coronary heart disease. Although the therapeutic benefits of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) in hypercholesterolemic patients have been well established, less is known about the effects of statins in patient populations with hypertriglyceridemia. HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the lipoprotein-altering efficacy of simvastatin in hypertriglyceridemic patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In all, 195 patients with fasting serum triglyceride levels between 300 and 900 mg/dl received once daily doses of placebo or simvastatin 20, 40, or 80 mg for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, simvastatin treatment across all doses resulted in significant reductions (p < 0.05 - < 0.001) in serum levels of triglycerides (-20 to -31% decrease) and TG-rich lipoprotein particles. Significant (p < 0.001) reductions were also seen in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-25 to -35%) and non-HDL-C (-26 to -40%). Levels of HDL-C were increased (7-11%) in the simvastatin groups compared with placebo (p < 0.05 - < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate the beneficial effects of simvastatin in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.

The impact of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines on drug development.

In the newest guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III, more intensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering therapy, together with more attention to other lipid and lipoprotein parameters, are recommended for a larger group of dyslipidemic patients than was covered under ATP I and ATP II. A discussion to evaluate how future drug development might be affected by these new guidelines took place at the 14th International Symposium on Drugs Affecting Lipid Metabolism (DALM) conference, held in New York in September 2001. These discussions involved how to develop new lipid-lowering drugs in an era in which so much compelling evidence demonstrates the benefits of statins. Also covered were issues related to the development of drugs with triglyceride indications and whether the proportion of patients achieving NCEP guidelines should be included in the label of lipid-lowering drugs. Additional topics discussed included: (1) the possibility of incorporating a non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) indication for lipid-lowering drugs, (2) the possibility of obtaining indications for lipid-lowering drugs specifically in patients with diabetes, (3) the place of combination lipid-lowering drug therapy in drug development, and (4) whether drugs could be approved to increase levels of HDL-C in patients with isolated low HDL-C.