The effect of initial therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin compared with metformin monotherapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIMS: This study was conducted to compare the glycaemic efficacy and safety of initial combination therapy with the fixed-dose combination of sitagliptin and metformin versus metformin monotherapy in drug-naive patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This double-blind study (18-week Phase A and 26-week Phase B) randomized 1250 drug-naÏve patients with type 2 diabetes [mean baseline haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) 9.9%] to sitagliptin/metformin 50/500 mg bid or metformin 500 mg bid (uptitrated over 4 weeks to achieve maximum doses of sitagliptin/metformin 50/1000 mg bid or metformin 1000 bid). Results of the primary efficacy endpoint (mean HbA1c reductions from baseline at the end of Phase A) are reported herein. RESULTS: At week 18, mean change from baseline HbA1c was -2.4% for sitagliptin/metformin FDC and -1.8% for metformin monotherapy (p < 0.001); more patients treated with sitagliptin/metformin FDC had an HbA1c value <7% (p < 0.001) versus metformin monotherapy. Changes in fasting plasma glucose were significantly greater with sitagliptin/metformin FDC (-3.8 mmol/l) versus metformin monotherapy (-3.0 mmol/l; p < 0.001). Homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function (HOMA-ß) and fasting proinsulin/insulin ratio were significantly improved with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy. Baseline body weight was reduced by 1.6 kg in each group. Both treatments were generally well tolerated with a low and similar incidence of hypoglycaemia. Abdominal pain (1.1 and 3.9%; p = 0.002) and diarrhoea (12.0 and 16.6%; p = 0.021) occurred significantly less with sitagliptin/metformin FDC versus metformin monotherapy; the incidence of nausea and vomiting was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with metformin monotherapy, initial treatment with sitagliptin/metformin FDC provided superior glycaemic improvement with a similar degree of weight loss and lower incidences of abdominal pain and diarrhoea.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of combination therapy with ezetimibe/statin vs. statin monotherapy in patients with and without diabetes: an analysis of pooled data from 27 clinical trials.

AIM: This post hoc analysis compared the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg plus statin (EZE/statin) vs. statin monotherapy in hypercholesterolaemic patients with and without diabetes. METHODS: A pooled analysis of 27 previously published, randomized, double-blind, active- or placebo-controlled clinical trials comprising 21 794 adult patients with (n = 6541) and without (n = 15253) diabetes receiving EZE/statin or statin alone for 4-24 weeks evaluated percentage change from baseline in lipids and other parameters. Consistency of the treatment effect across the subgroups was tested using treatment × subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made. RESULTS: Treatment effects within both subgroups were generally consistent with the overall population. EZE/statin was more effective than statin alone in improving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides (TGs), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein (apo) B and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in the overall population and both subgroups. Patients with diabetes achieved significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C compared with non-diabetic patients. Incidences of adverse events or creatine kinase elevations were similar between groups. A small but significantly higher incidence of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase elevations was seen in patients receiving EZE/statin (0.6%) vs. statin monotherapy (0.3%) in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with EZE/statin vs. statin monotherapy provided significantly larger reductions in LDL-C, TC, TG, non-HDL-C, apo B and hs-CRP and significantly greater increases in HDL-C, with a similar safety profile in patients with and without diabetes. Reductions in LDL-C, TC and non-HDL-C were larger in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes.

A one-year study to assess the safety and efficacy of the CB1R inverse agonist taranabant in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of taranabant in overweight and obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study in overweight and obese patients with T2DM (ages > or = 18 and < or = 75 years) with a BMI > or = 27 kg/m(2) and < or = 43 kg/m(2) and HbA1c > or =7.0 and < or = 10.0%, who were either not on an antihyperglycaemic agent or on a stable dose of metformin (> or = 1500 mg/day). After a 2-week placebo run-in, patients were randomized to placebo (N = 156) or taranabant 0.5-mg (N = 155), 1-mg (N = 157), or 2-mg (N = 155) once daily for 52 weeks. Primary efficacy endpoints were changes from baseline in body weight (BW) and HbA1c at Week 36, with results at Week 52 being key secondary endpoints. RESULTS: In the all-patients-treated population, using a last-observation-carried-forward analysis, reductions in BW were -2.5, -3.7, -4.5 and -5.1 kg at Week 36 and -2.4, -4.0, -4.6 and -5.3 kg at Week 52 in the placebo, 0.5-, 1- and 2-mg groups, respectively (all doses significant vs. placebo at both time points). The proportion of patients who lost > or = 5 and > or = 10% of their baseline BW was significantly greater in the 1- and 2-mg groups vs. placebo at Week 36 and all taranabant groups vs. placebo at Week 52. Reductions in HbA1c were -0.40, -0.47, -0.68 and -0.71% at Week 36 and -0.30, -0.43, -0.65 and -0.64% at Week 52, in the placebo, 0.5-, 1- and 2-mg groups, respectively (1- and 2-mg doses significant vs. placebo at both time points). After 52 weeks, the incidences of adverse experiences classified in the gastrointestinal (diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting), nervous system-related (dizziness, sensory-related), and psychiatric (irritability, depression-related) organ systems were numerically higher or statistically significantly higher in all taranabant groups compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: After 36 and 52 weeks, treatment with taranabant at the 1- and 2-mg doses led to clinically significant weight loss and improvement in glycaemic parameters in overweight and obese patients with T2DM that was associated with dose-related increases in adverse experiences. Based on these data and data from other Phase III clinical studies, it was determined that the overall safety and efficacy profile of taranabant did not support further development for the treatment of obesity.

A clinical trial assessing the safety and efficacy of the CB1R inverse agonist taranabant in obese and overweight patients: low-dose study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the weight loss efficacy, safety and tolerability of taranabant, a CB1R inverse agonist, in obese and overweight patients. DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. SUBJECTS: Patients >or=18 years old, BMI 27-43 kg m(-2), were randomized to placebo (n=209) or taranabant 0.5 mg (n=207), 1 mg (n=208) or 2 mg given orally once daily (n=417) for 52 weeks. MEASUREMENTS: Key efficacy measurements included body weight (BW), waist circumference (WC), lipid endpoints and glycemic endpoints. RESULTS: Based on a last observation carried forward analysis of the all-patients-treated population, mean change in BW for taranabant 0.5, 1, and 2 mg and placebo was -5.4, -5.3, -6.7 and -1.7 kg, respectively (P<0.001 for all doses vs placebo). The proportions of patients who lost at least 5 and 10% of their baseline BW at week 52 were significantly higher for all taranabant doses vs placebo (P<0.001 for all doses). Reductions in WC, percentage of body fat, and triglycerides were significant for taranabant 2 mg and in triglycerides for taranabant 1 mg vs placebo. There was no effect of taranabant vs placebo on other lipid or glucose-related endpoints. Incidences of adverse experiences classified in the gastrointestinal (diarrhea and nausea), nervous system (dizziness/dizziness postural), psychiatric-related (irritability and anger/aggression) and vascular (flushing/hot flush) organ systems were higher and statistically significant in the taranabant 2-mg group compared with the placebo group. Irritability was higher and statistically significant in all taranabant groups compared with the placebo group. CONCLUSION: All three doses of taranabant-induced clinically meaningful and statistically significant weight loss. Incidences of adverse experiences in organ systems known to express CB1R were higher in taranabant groups.

Effects of once-daily sitagliptin on 24-h glucose control following 4 weeks of treatment in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy/safety of once- (100 mg q.d.) or twice-daily (50 mg b.i.d.) sitagliptin 100 mg/day in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM). In this randomized, double-blind study, 80 patients with inadequate glycemic control (HbA1c=6.5-10%; FPG

Lipid-altering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg compared with rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients inadequately controlled with prior statin monotherapy - The IN-CROSS study.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of switching from a previous statin monotherapy to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg vs. rosuvastatin (ROSUVA) 10 mg. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind study, 618 patients with documented hypercholesterolaemia [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or = 2.59 and < or = 4.92 mmol/l] and with high cardiovascular risk who were taking a stable daily dose of one of several statin medications for > or = 6 weeks prior to the study randomisation visit entered a 6-week open-label stabilisation/screening period during which they continued to receive their prestudy statin dose. Following stratification by study site and statin dose/potency, patients were randomised to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (n = 314) or ROSUVA 10 mg (n = 304) for 6 weeks. RESULTS: EZE/SIMVA produced greater reductions in LDL-C (-27.7% vs. -16.9%; p < or = 0.001), total cholesterol (-17.5% vs. -10.3%; p < or = 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (-23.4% vs. -14.0%; p < or = 0.001) and apolipoprotein B (-17.9% vs. -9.8%; p < or = 0.001) compared with ROSUVA, while both treatments were equally effective at increasing HDL-C (2.1% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.433). More patients achieved LDL-C levels < 2.59 mmol/l (73% vs. 56%), < 2.00 mmol/l (38% vs. 19%) and < 1.81 mmol/l (25% vs. 11%) with EZE/SIMVA than ROSUVA (p < or = 0.001). A borderline significantly greater reduction in triglycerides (p = 0.056) was observed for EZE/SIMVA (-11.0%) vs. ROSUVA (-5.3%). There were no between-group differences in the incidences of adverse events or liver transaminase and creatine kinase elevations. CONCLUSION: EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg produced greater improvements in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C and apoB with a similar safety profile as for ROSUVA 10 mg.

Efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg compared to doubling the dose of low-, medium- and high-potency statin monotherapy in patients with a recent coronary event.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy/safety of doubling the dose of low-, medium- and high-potency statins on lipids/lipoproteins versus ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/40 mg in patients with a recent coronary event. METHODS: In this open-label study, patients were stratified by baseline statin therapy (low, medium and high potency) and randomized equally to statin dose doubling or EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg for 12 weeks. Primary analysis concerned change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol for the whole population. Treatment-by-stratum interaction evaluated the consistency of treatment effect across statin potency strata. Post hoc analysis of between-group efficacy within strata was performed using ANCOVA. RESULTS: Within each stratum, EZE/SIMVA produced significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) compared to statin doubling. Numerical trends toward smaller between-group reductions were observed with higher-potency statins and reached statistical significance for apolipoprotein B and non-HDL-C. No significant between-group differences in HDL-C and C-reactive protein were observed within each stratum. EZE/SIMVA produced larger reductions in triglycerides versus low-potency statin, whereas it was similarly effective compared with intermediate-/high-potency statins. The safety/tolerability profiles of the treatments were similar across the strata. CONCLUSIONS: EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg produced greater improvements in lipids with a similar safety profile compared to doubling the dose of low-, medium- and high-potency statins.

Long-term efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg in patients with homozygous sitosterolemia: a 2-year, open-label extension study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term efficacy and safety profile of ezetimibe 10 mg/day in patients with homozygous sitosterolemia. METHODS: This was an extension of a multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled base study in which patients with homozygous sitosterolemia and plasma sitosterol concentrations > 5 mg/dl were randomised 4 : 1 to ezetimibe 10 mg/day (n = 30) or placebo (n = 7) for 8 weeks. Patients who successfully completed the base study with > 80% compliance to study medication were eligible to enter two, successive, 1-year extension studies in which ezetimibe 10 mg/day was administered in an open-label manner. Patients remained on their current treatment regimen (e.g. bile salt-binding resins, statins and low-sterol diet) during the base and extension studies. Patients had to be off ezetimibe therapy for > or = 4 weeks prior to entering the first extension. Efficacy and safety/tolerability parameters were evaluated every 12 and 26 weeks in the first and second years respectively. The primary efficacy end-point was mean percentage change in plasma sitosterol from baseline to study end for the cohort of patients (n = 21) who successfully completed the second extension study. RESULTS: Treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg/day led to significant mean percentage reductions from baseline in plasma concentrations of sitosterol (-43.9%; p < 0.001), campesterol (-50.8%; p < 0.001), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) sterols (-13.1%; p < 0.050), total sterols (-10.3%; p < 0.050) and apolipoprotein (apo) B (-10.1%; p < 0.050). No significant changes from baseline were observed for lathosterol, high-density lipoprotein sterol, triglycerides or apo A-1. Maximal reductions in sitosterol and campesterol occurred within the first 52 weeks of treatment and were sustained for the duration of the study. For LDL sterol, total sterols and apo B, maximal reductions were achieved early (by weeks 4 or 16) and waned slightly through the remainder of the study. Overall ezetimibe 10 mg was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In patients with homozygous sitoserolemia, long-term treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg/day for 2 years was effective in reducing plasma plant sterol concentrations with an overall favourable safety and tolerability profile.

Lipid-altering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg compared with doubling the statin dose in patients admitted to the hospital for a recent coronary event: the INFORCE study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety profile of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin (Eze/Simva) 10/40 mg compared with doubling the statin dose upon discharge in patients taking a statin and admitted to the hospital for the investigation of a coronary event. DESIGN: This phase IV, multi-centre, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, parallel group study enrolled 424 patients (aged >/= 18 years) hospitalised for an acute coronary event and taking a stable dose of a statin (>/= 6 weeks) that could be doubled per the product label. Upon discharge from the hospital, patients were stratified by their statin dose/potency (high, medium and low) and randomised 1 : 1 to doubling of the statin dose (n = 211) or Eze/Simva 10/40 mg (n = 213) for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy variable was the absolute low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) value (mmol/l) at study end-point. RESULTS: Mean baseline LDL-C for the two treatment groups were 2.48 and 2.31 mmol/l for the Eze/Simva and statin groups respectively. At study end-point, least squares mean LDL-C values were 1.74 mmol/l in the Eze/Simva group and 2.22 mmol/l in the statin group resulting in a significant between-group difference of -0.49 mmol/l (p /= 0.160). Significantly more patients achieved LDL-C levels < 2.5 (< 100 mg/dl; 86% vs. 72%), < 2.0 (< 77 mg/dl; 70% vs. 42%) and < 1.8 mmol/l (< 70 mg/dl; 60% vs. 31%) with Eze/Simva than statin (all p /= 3 x upper limit of normal (ULN) or creatine kinase >/= 10 x ULN between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients taking a statin and admitted to the hospital for investigation of a coronary event, treatment with Eze/Simva 10/40 mg for 12 weeks produced greater improvements in lipids with a similar safety profile compared with doubling of the statin dose.

A multi-centre, randomised, double-blind 14-week extension study examining the long-term safety and efficacy profile of the ezetimibe/simvastatin combination tablet.

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) tablet and SIMVA monotherapy. This was an extension study of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. Protocol-compliant patients who completed the 12-week base study were eligible to enter a randomised, double-blind, 14-week extension study and were administered 1 of 8 daily treatments: EZE/SIMVA 10/10-, 10/20-, 10/40- or 10/80-mg, or SIMVA 10-, 20-, 40- or 80-mg. Patients receiving these treatments during the base study remained on the same treatment in the extension. Patients administered placebo or EZE 10-mg monotherapy during the base study were re-randomised to EZE/SIMVA 10/10 mg or SIMVA 80 mg. The primary analysis was mean per cent change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from baseline to extension study end-point. Mean changes from baseline in LDL-C of -38.8% and -53.7% were observed for pooled SIMVA and pooled EZE/SIMVA respectively. The between treatment difference of -14.9% (95% confidence interval: -16.4, -13.3) was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The incremental LDL-C lowering effect of EZE/SIMVA compared with the corresponding dose of SIMVA alone was consistent across the dose range (p < 0.001 for each between-group comparison). More patients receiving EZE/SIMVA than SIMVA achieved LDL-C concentrations < 100 mg/dl and < 70 mg/dl (p < 0.001 for both goals). EZE/SIMVA was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to SIMVA monotherapy. There were no significant between-group differences in the incidences of clinically significant elevations in liver transaminase or creatine kinase levels. In conclusion, EZE/SIMVA had a comparable safety and tolerability profile and was more efficacious than SIMVA monotherapy for up to 6 months.

Efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 and 10/40 mg compared with atorvastatin 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AIM: This randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy of switching from atorvastatin (ATV) 10 mg to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg, EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg or doubling the dose of ATV from 10 to 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). METHODS: Eligible patients had haemoglobin A(1C)< or =10%, were aged > or =18 years and were on ATV 10 mg for > or =6 weeks before study entry. After a 4-week open-label ATV 10 mg run-in, patients were randomized to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (n = 220), EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg (n = 222) or ATV 20 g (n = 219) daily for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Greater (p < or = 0.001) reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (the primary end-point) were achieved by switching to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (26.2%) or 10/40 mg (30.1%) than by doubling the dose of ATV to 20 mg (8.5%). EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg and 10/40 mg produced greater (p < or = 0.001) reductions in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein B relative to ATV 20 mg. A reduction (p < or = 0.050) in C-reactive protein was observed with EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg vs. ATV 20 mg. Similar reductions in triglycerides were observed across the three groups, and none of the treatments produced a significant change in HDL-C. A greater (p < or = 0.001) proportion of patients achieved LDL-C <2.5 mmol/l with EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (90.5%) and 10/40 mg (87.0%) than with ATV 20 mg (70.4%). Both EZE/SIMVA doses were generally well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to ATV 20 mg. CONCLUSIONS: EZE/SIMVA 10/20 and 10/40 mg provided greater lipid-altering efficacy than doubling the dose of ATV from 10 to 20 mg and were well tolerated in patients with T2D.

Bioequivalence of an ezetimibe/simvastatin combination tablet and coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin as separate tablets in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the bioequivalence of an ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) combination tablet compared to the coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin as separate tablets (EZE + SIMVA). METHODS: In this open-label, randomized, 2-part, 2-period crossover study, 96 healthy subjects were randomly assigned to participate in each part of the study (Part I or II), with each part consisting of 2 single-dose treatment periods separated by a 14-day washout. Part I consisted of Treatments A (EZE 10 mg + SIMVA 10 mg) and B (EZE/SIMVA 10/10 mg/mg) and Part II consisted of Treatments C (EZE 10 mg + SIMVA 80 mg) and D (EZE/SIMVA 10/80 mg/mg). Blood samples were collected up to 96 hours post-dose for determination of ezetimibe, total ezetimibe (ezetimibe + ezetimibe glucuronide), simvastatin and simvastatin acid (the most prevalent active metabolite of simvastatin) concentrations. Ezetimibe and simvastatin acid AUC(0-last) were predefined as primary endpoints and ezetimibe and simvastatin acid Cmax were secondary endpoints. Bioequivalence was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the geometric mean ratios (GMR) (single tablet/coadministration) of AUC(0-last) and Cmax fell within prespecified bounds of (0.80, 1.25). RESULTS: The GMRs of the AUC(0-last) and Cmax for ezetimibe and simvastatin acid fell within the bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25). EZE/ SIMVA and EZE + SIMVA were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The lowest and highest dosage strengths of EZE/SIMVA tablet were bioequivalent to the individual drug components administered together. Given the exact weight multiples of the EZE/SIMVA tablet and linear pharmacokinetics of simvastatin across the marketed dose range, bioequivalence of the intermediate tablet strengths (EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg/mg and EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg/mg) was inferred, although these dosages were not tested directly. These results indicate that the safety and efficacy profile of EZE + SIMVA coadministration therapy can be applied to treatment with the EZE/SIMVA tablet across the clinical dose range.

Lipid-altering efficacy of switching from atorvastatin 10 mg/day to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg/day compared to doubling the dose of atorvastatin in hypercholesterolaemic patients with atherosclerosis or coronary heart disease.

This randomised, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg tablet compared to doubling the atorvastatin (ATV) dose in hypercholesterolaemic patients with atherosclerotic or coronary heart disease (CHD). The study group included 435 male and female CHD patients (aged >or=18 years) who had not achieved their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of <2.50 mmol/l while on a stable dose of ATV 10 mg for >or=6 weeks. After a 1-week diet/stabilisation period, patients with LDL-C >or=2.50 mmol/l and

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with ongoing atorvastatin therapy in achieving low-density lipoprotein goal in patients with hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease.

This randomised, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe (EZE) co-administered with ongoing atorvastatin (ATV) therapy in 450 hypercholesterolemic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) who had not achieved their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal < or =2.60 mmol/l while on a stable dose of ATV 10 or 20 mg/day for > or =6 weeks. After a 4-week diet/baseline active run-in period, patients with LDL-C >2.60 mmol/l and < or =4.20 mmol/l were stratified by ATV dose and randomised (1 : 1) to EZE 10 mg or PBO for 6 weeks while continuing open-label ATV. Significantly more patients achieved an LDL-C goal < or =2.6 mmol/l with EZE than PBO (81.3 vs. 21.8%; p < or = 0.001). Compared to PBO, co-administration of EZE with ongoing ATV led to significantly (p < or = 0.001) greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B; HDL-C was significantly (p < or = 0.05) increased. Co-administration of EZE and ATV was well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to ATV alone.