Can consumers self-select for appropriate use of an over-the-counter statin? The Self Evaluation of Lovastatin to Enhance Cholesterol Treatment Study.

Access to over-the-counter (OTC) statins has the potential to improve public health by reducing cardiovascular events. The Self Evaluation of Lovastatin to Enhance Cholesterol Treatment (SELECT) Study was designed to assess consumers' ability to self-select for treatment with lovastatin in an unsupervised setting. Subjects examined proposed OTC lovastatin cartons with labels that detailed an algorithm for self-selection based on age, lipid profile, and cardiovascular risk factors. Subjects viewed a carton with either a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-based self-selection algorithm or one based on total cholesterol. Labels also contained warnings against use based on health conditions that might increase the risk of adverse events. Subjects were asked if the drug was appropriate for their use (self-assessment) and whether they would like to purchase the drug (purchase decision). A total of 1,326 consumers provided self-assessment decisions. After viewing the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-based label, 82%, 36%, and 82% of those who self-assessed that the drug was appropriate for their use were correct with respect to the age, lipid, and risk-factor criteria, respectively. Corresponding numbers for the total cholesterol algorithm were 85%, 50% and 75%. Almost 90% of women aged <55 years who evaluated the drug indicated the drug was not right for them, and women in this age group made up only 9% of the total group of subjects who believed the drug was appropriate for their use. The label was also effective in discouraging use by women who were or may become pregnant, consumers with liver disease, and those with potential drug interactions. In conclusion, SELECT showed that consumers could use an OTC drug label in an unsupervised setting to appropriately self-select for self-management of their cholesterol with lovastatin.

Hepatic effects of lovastatin exposure in patients with liver disease: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the potential adverse hepatic effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors ('statins') in patients with existing liver disease; therefore, we examined the risk of liver toxicity with lovastatin exposure in these patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data from a large integrated health plan in Northern California, USA. Patients with laboratory or clinical evidence of liver disease were identified and their exposure to lovastatin was determined. The primary outcome was a pattern of liver-test abnormalities associated with a poor prognosis among patients with drug-induced liver disease, based on Hy's Rule. Secondary outcomes included liver injury (defined as moderate or severe, depending on the degree of ALT level elevations) or the development of either clinical cirrhosis or liver failure. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were calculated and multivariate analyses conducted using extended Cox models. RESULTS: A total of 93 106 patients met the entry criteria. Lovastatin exposure was associated with a lower incidence of all endpoints, including the primary outcome (IRR = 0.28, 95% CI 0.12, 0.55), moderate liver injury (IRR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.47, 0.65), severe liver injury (IRR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.29, 0.81) and the occurrence of either cirrhosis or liver failure (IRR = 0.29, 95% CI 0.21, 0.38); adjustment for age and sex resulted in some attenuation of this reduction in incidence. The observed effects were generally consistent across a range of baseline liver-disease diagnoses and greater cumulative lovastatin exposure was associated with fewer outcome events for some endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective analysis, exposure to lovastatin was not associated with an increased risk of adverse hepatic outcomes. These results do not support concern regarding lovastatin-related hepatotoxicity in patients with existing liver disease.

Frequency of myopathy in patients receiving lovastatin.

Lovastatin (Mevacor) 20 mg is being considered for nonprescription availability. Because the most severe untoward consequence of therapy with any statin is rhabdomyolysis, the clinical data for lovastatin pertaining to this adverse event were reviewed. Evidence to date, based on almost 2 decades of experience, points to an extremely low risk for myopathy and rhabdomyolysis associated with lovastatin.

A Consumer Use Study of Over-The-Counter lovastatin (CUSTOM).

The Consumer Use Study of OTC Mevacor evaluated the ability of subjects to self-manage high levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol by using a multifaceted cholesterol self-management program (the Mevacor Over-the-Counter Self-Management System; MOTC-SMS). This 26-week all-comers multicenter observational study was conducted in naturalistic storefront settings that used the fully functional MOTC-SMS to guide subjects' behavior. Of 3,316 subjects who evaluated the product (evaluators), 1,061 took >or=1 20-mg tablet of Mevacor OTC (users). Eighty-four percent of evaluators made appropriate initial use decisions. Most users demonstrated acceptable ongoing use behavior regarding treatment to goal, compliance/persistence, changes in health status, dietary patterns, and exercise habits. Throughout the study, 23 users (2%) demonstrated behavior that created the potential for suboptimal safety. After 26 weeks, median levels of LDL cholesterol were reduced by 25% among users who fasted. Of the 878 users who completed the study lipid test, 548 (62%) achieved the LDL cholesterol target goal (<130 mg/dl). Physician interactions were common. Mevacor OTC was well tolerated, with no observable adverse experiences from drug interactions or reports of myopathy. This actual use study demonstrates that the MOTC-SMS can effectively guide consumers to interact with health care professionals and to make appropriate initial and ongoing use decisions to manage their elevated levels of LDL cholesterol, with minimal potential or actual safety risk.

Budesonide CIR capsules (once or twice daily divided-dose) in active Crohn's disease: a randomized placebo-controlled study in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: Budesonide controlled ileal release (CIR) capsules deliver budesonide, a glucocorticosteroid with high topical and low systemic activity, to the distal ileum and the proximal colon. In four previous controlled trials in Crohn's disease, remission rates ranged from 51% to 69%. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this drug in a population of patients in the United States with Crohn's disease. METHODS: In this multicenter, double blind, randomized trial, 200 patients in the United States with mild to moderate Crohn's disease (Crohn's Disease Activity Index [CDAI] between 200 and 450) involving the distal ileum and/or ascending colon received 9 mg of budesonide CIR once daily, 4.5 mg b.i.d., or placebos for 8 wk. The primary outcome was remission defined by a CDAI of 150 or less. RESULTS: Remission was achieved in 48%, 53%, and 33% with 9 mg once daily, 4.5 mg b.i.d., and placebos, respectively, after 8 wk of treatment. Differences between the groups were not significant. The differences in mean change from baseline CDAI between the combined budesonide and placebo groups was significant (p < 0.05). There was no difference in observed adverse events between treatment groups, although a modest decrease in plasma cortisol levels was observed relative to the placebo (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of symptomatic Crohn's disease with budesonide CIR capsules (9 mg daily) was safe, and remission rates were similar to those achieved in previous trials. Although the remission rate did not significantly differ from the placebo response in this study, there was a significant change in the mean CDAI from baseline in the combined treatment groups relative to the placebo.

Esomeprazole (40 mg) compared with lansoprazole (30 mg) in the treatment of erosive esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: Esomeprazole, the S isomer of omeprazole, has been shown to have higher healing rates of erosive esophagitis than omeprazole. This study compared esomeprazole with lansoprazole for the healing of erosive esophagitis and resolution of heartburn. METHODS: This United States multicenter, randomized, double blind, parallel group trial was performed in 5241 adult patients (intent-to-treat population) with endoscopically documented erosive esophagitis, which was graded by severity at baseline (Los Angeles classification). Patients received 40 mg of esomeprazole (n = 2624) or 30 mg of lansoprazole (n = 2617) once daily before breakfast for up to 8 wk. The primary efficacy endpoint was healing of erosive esophagitis at week 8. Secondary assessments included proportion of patients healed at week 4, resolution of investigator-recorded heartburn, time to first and time to sustained resolution of patient diary-recorded heartburn, and proportion of heartburn-free days and nights. RESULTS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) demonstrated significantly higher healing rates (92.6%, 95% CI = 91.5-93.6%) than lansoprazole (30 mg) (88.8%, 95% CI = 87.5-90.0%) at week 8 (p = 0.0001, life-table estimates, intent-to-treat analysis). A significant difference in healing rates favoring esomeprazole was also observed at week 4. The difference in healing rates between esomeprazole and lansoprazole increased as baseline severity of erosive esophagitis increased. Sustained resolution of heartburn occurred faster and in more patients treated with esomeprazole. Sustained resolution of nocturnal heartburn also occurred faster with esomeprazole. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Esomeprazole (40 mg) is more effective than lansoprazole (30 mg) in healing erosive esophagitis and resolving heartburn. Healing rates are consistently high with esomeprazole, irrespective of baseline disease severity.