A Multiregional, Randomized Evaluation of the Lipid-Modifying Efficacy and Tolerability of Anacetrapib Added to Ongoing Statin Therapy in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia or Low High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.

This phase 3, multiregional, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy/safety profile of anacetrapib added to ongoing therapy with statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia who were not at their low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) goal (as per the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines) and in those with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Patients on a stable dose of statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies and with LDL-C ≥70 to <115, ≥100 to <145, ≥130, or ≥160 mg/dl for very high, high, moderate, or low CHD risk or at LDL-C goal (per CHD risk category) with HDL-C ≤40 mg/dl were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to anacetrapib 100 mg (n = 290) or placebo (n = 293) for 24 weeks, followed by a 12-week off-drug phase. The co-primary end points were % change from baseline in LDL-C and HDL-C and the safety profile of anacetrapib. Treatment with anacetrapib reduced LDL-C (BQ) by 37% (95% confidence interval -42.5, -31.0) and increased HDL-C by 118% (95% confidence interval 110.6, 125.7) relative to placebo (p <0.001 for both). Anacetrapib also reduced non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein a and increased apolipoprotein AI versus placebo (p <0.001 for all). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the anacetrapib and placebo groups in the % patients who discontinued drug due to an adverse event or in abnormalities in liver enzymes, creatine kinase, blood pressure, electrolytes, or adjudicated cardiovascular events. Treatment with anacetrapib substantially reduced LDL-C and also increased HDL-C and was well tolerated over 24 weeks in statin-treated patients with hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C.

Lipid-Modifying Efficacy and Tolerability of Anacetrapib Added to Ongoing Statin Therapy in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia or Low High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.

To assess the effects of anacetrapib added to statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia and not at their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal (as per National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP ATP III] guidelines) and in those with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Patients on a stable dose of moderate/high-intensity statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies with LDL-C ≥70, ≥100, ≥130, or ≥160 mg/dl for very high, high, moderate, and low coronary heart disease risk, respectively, or at LDL-C goal with HDL-C ≤40 mg/dl, were randomized 1:1:1, stratified by background therapy use, to anacetrapib 100 mg (n = 153), anacetrapib 25 mg (n = 152), or placebo (n = 154) for 24 weeks, followed by a 12-week off-drug reversal phase. The primary end points were percent change from baseline in LDL-C (beta-quantification method) and HDL-C, as well as the safety profile of anacetrapib. Both doses of anacetrapib reduced LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein (Apo) B, and lipoprotein a and increased HDL-C and Apo AI versus placebo (p <0.001 for all). There were no meaningful differences between the anacetrapib 25 mg, 100 mg, and placebo groups in the proportions of discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events (0.7%, 1.3% vs 1.3%) or in abnormalities in liver enzymes (0%, 0% vs 0.7%), creatine kinase elevations overall (0%, 0.7% vs 0%) or with muscle symptoms (none seen), blood pressure, electrolytes, or adjudicated cardiovascular events (0.7%, 0.7% vs 1.3%). In conclusion, treatment with anacetrapib resulted in substantial reductions in LDL-C and increases in HDL-C and was generally well tolerated.

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB levels are inter-correlated and all predict risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or high TG. These levels are lowered by extended-release niacin (ERN), and changes in the ratios of these levels may affect ASCVD risk. This analysis examined the effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) on the relationships between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. METHODS: T2DM patients (n = 796) had LDL-C ≥1.55 and <2.97 mmol/L and TG <5.65 mmol/L following a 4-week, lipid-modifying run-in (~78 % taking statins). ApoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were assessed after randomized (4:3), double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo for 12 weeks. Pearson correlation coefficients between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C were computed and simple linear regression models were fitted for apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C at baseline and Week 12, and the correlations between measured apoB and measured vs predicted values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C were studied. RESULTS: LDL-C and especially non-HDL-C were well correlated with apoB at baseline, and treatment with ERN/LRPT increased these correlations, especially between LDL-C and apoB. Despite the tighter correlations, many patients who achieved non-HDL-C goal, and especially LDL-C goal, remained above apoB goal. There was a trend towards greater increases in these correlations in the higher TG subgroup, non-significant possibly due to the small number of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ERN/LRPT treatment increased association of apoB with LDL-C and non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. Lowering LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB with niacin has the potential to reduce coronary risk in patients with T2DM.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant significantly improves lipid levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus irrespective of baseline glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: The degree of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may alter lipid levels and may alter the efficacy of lipid-modifying agents. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the lipid-modifying efficacy of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) in subgroups of patients with T2DM with better or poorer glycemic control. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from patients with T2DM who were randomized 4:3 to double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo (n=796), examining the lipid-modifying effects of ERN/LRPT in patients with glycosylated hemoglobin or fasting plasma glucose levels above and below median baseline levels. RESULTS: At Week 12 of treatment, ERN/LRPT significantly improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and lipoprotein (a), compared with placebo, with equal efficacy in patients above or below median baseline glycemic control. Compared with placebo, over 36 weeks of treatment more patients treated with ERN/LRPT had worsening of their diabetes and required intensification of antihyperglycemic medication, irrespective of baseline glycemic control. Incidences of other adverse experiences were generally low in all treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The lipid-modifying effects of ERN/LRPT are independent of the degree of baseline glycemic control in patients with T2DM (NCT00485758).

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant, simvastatin, and the combination on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL cholesterol, and non-HDL cholesterol in patients with dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Statins modify correlations between apolipoprotein B (apoB) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and apoB and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C); however, it is not known whether niacin-based therapies have similar effects. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of extended-release niacin (ERN)/laropiprant (LRPT), simvastatin (SIMVA), and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA (pooled ERN/LRPT + SIMVA) on apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations in dyslipidemic patients. METHODS: This post-hoc analysis of a 12-week study evaluated the apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations in dyslipidemic patients randomized equally to double-blind ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg, SIMVA 10, 20, or 40 mg, or ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIMVA (10, 20, or 40 mg) once daily for 4 weeks. At week 5, doses were doubled in all groups except SIMVA 40 mg (unchanged) and ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIMVA 40 mg (switched to ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg + SIMVA 40 mg). Simple linear regression analyses were used to calculate LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels corresponding to known apoB baseline values (ie, in untreated patients) and following treatment. RESULTS: The apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were higher and the predicted LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels for a known apoB value were considerably lower following treatment with ERN/LRPT, SIMVA and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA compared with untreated patients at baseline. CONCLUSION: Greater dissociation of apoB, LDL-C, and non-HDL-C targets occur following treatment with ERN/LRPT, SIMVA, and ERN/LRPT + SIMVA in patients with dyslipidemia. The achievement of more aggressive LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals in patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy may further reduce coronary risk by normalizing apoB-containing atherogenic lipoproteins.

Niacin lipid efficacy is independent of both the niacin receptor GPR109A and free fatty acid suppression.

Nicotinic acid (niacin) induces beneficial changes in serum lipoproteins and has been associated with beneficial cardiovascular effects. Niacin reduces low-density lipoprotein, increases high-density lipoprotein, and decreases triglycerides. It is well established that activation of the seven-transmembrane G(i)-coupled receptor GPR109A on Langerhans cells results in release of prostaglandin D2, which mediates the well-known flushing side effect of niacin. Niacin activation of GPR109A on adipocytes also mediates the transient reduction of plasma free fatty acid (FFA) levels characteristic of niacin, which has been long hypothesized to be the mechanism underlying the changes in the serum lipid profile. We tested this "FFA hypothesis" and the hypothesis that niacin lipid efficacy is mediated via GPR109A by dosing mice lacking GPR109A with niacin and testing two novel, full GPR109A agonists, MK-1903 and SCH900271, in three human clinical trials. In mice, the absence of GPR109A had no effect on niacin's lipid efficacy despite complete abrogation of the anti-lipolytic effect. Both MK-1903 and SCH900271 lowered FFAs acutely in humans; however, neither had the expected effects on serum lipids. Chronic FFA suppression was not sustainable via GPR109A agonism with niacin, MK-1903, or SCH900271. We conclude that the GPR109A receptor does not mediate niacin's lipid efficacy, challenging the long-standing FFA hypothesis.

Effectiveness and safety of laropiprant on niacin-induced flushing.

Extended-release niacin (ERN) improves multiple lipid parameters but is underused owing to niacin-induced flushing (NIF). Laropiprant (LRPT) reduces NIF; however, its effects on chronic flushing (>6 months) have not been studied. We examined whether after 20 weeks of treatment with ERN/LRPT, patients who continued ERN/LRPT would experience less NIF than patients who stopped LRPT and continued ERN alone. A total of 1,152 dyslipidemic patients were randomized 2:2:1 to group 1, ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg/day from 0 to 4 weeks and then ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg/day from 5 to 32 weeks; group 2, ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg/day from 0 to 4 weeks, ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg/day from 5 to 20 weeks, and then ERN 2 g/day without LRPT from 21 to 32 weeks; or group 3, placebo for the entire study. The end points included the number of days each week with a moderate or greater Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS) ≥4 (primary end point) and the percentage of patients with a maximum GFSS of ≥4 (secondary end point) during the postwithdrawal period (weeks 21 to 32). ERN/LRPT produced significantly less NIF than ERN alone during the postwithdrawal period, as measured by the number of days each week with a GFSS of ≥4 (p <0.001) and the percentage of patients with a maximum GFSS of ≥4 (p <0.001; ERN/LRPT 19.6%; ERN 48.9%; placebo 9.2%). Compared with ERN alone, ERN/LRPT produced fewer drug-related adverse experiences during the postwithdrawal period. After 20 weeks of stable maintenance therapy, dyslipidemic patients treated continuously with ERN/LRPT experienced less NIF than did patients who had had LRPT withdrawn and had continued with ERN alone. In conclusion, the results of our study support the long-term efficacy of ERN/LRPT in reducing NIF symptoms.

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.

Effects of sources of variability on sample sizes required for RCTs, applied to trials of lipid-altering therapies on carotid artery intima-media thickness.

OBJECTIVE: Studies measuring progression of carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) have been used to estimate the effect of lipid-modifying therapies cardiovascular event risk. The likelihood that future cIMT clinical trials will detect a true treatment effect is estimated by leveraging results from prior studies. The present analyses assess the impact of between- and within-study variability based on currently published data from prior clinical studies on the likelihood that ongoing or future cIMT trials will detect the true treatment effect of lipid-modifying therapies. METHODS: Published data from six contemporary cIMT studies (ASAP, ARBITER 2, RADIANCE 1, RADIANCE 2, ENHANCE, and METEOR) including data from a total of 3563 patients were examined. Bayesian and frequentist methods were used to assess the impact of between study variability on the likelihood of detecting true treatment effects on 1-year cIMT progression/regression and to provide a sample size estimate that would specifically compensate for the effect of between-study variability. RESULTS: In addition to the well-described within-study variability, there is considerable between-study variability associated with the measurement of annualized change in cIMT. Accounting for the additional between-study variability decreases the power for existing study designs. In order to account for the added between-study variability, it is likely that future cIMT studies would require a large increase in sample size in order to provide substantial probability (> or =90%) to have 90% power of detecting a true treatment effect.Limitation Analyses are based on study level data. Future meta-analyses incorporating patient-level data would be useful for confirmation. CONCLUSION: Due to substantial within- and between-study variability in the measure of 1-year change of cIMT, as well as uncertainty about progression rates in contemporary populations, future study designs evaluating the effect of new lipid-modifying therapies on atherosclerotic disease progression are likely to be challenged by large sample sizes in order to demonstrate a true treatment effect.

Blood pressure-lowering effects of extended-release niacin alone and extended-release niacin/laropiprant combination: a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, placebo-controlled trial in dyslipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia and high blood pressure are both major cardiovascular disease risk factors. Niacin is an effective lipid-altering agent that has been reported to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the more widespread use of niacin is limited, mainly due to the occurrence of flushing. Laropiprant (LRPT) is a selective antagonist of prostaglandin D(2) receptor subtype 1 that reduces extended-release niacin (ERN)-induced flushing without affecting its beneficial lipid effects. While the lipid effects of ERN are well known, the blood pressure effects are unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to examine the blood pressure effects of ERN and ERN/LRPT. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, worldwide, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel, Phase III, previously published study of dyslipidemic patients, which examined the effect of ERN and ERN/LRPT on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). RESULTS: A total of 1613 men and women, aged 21 to 85 years, with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia (66% on statins), were included in the original analysis. ERN alone, or in combination with LRPT, was associated with significant reductions in SBP and DBP at 24 weeks from baseline. The placebo-adjusted mean changes from baseline at week 24 in SBP were -2.2 and -3.1 mm Hg for the ERN and ERN/LRPT groups, respectively (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001). Similar changes in DBP were observed; -2.7 and -2.5 mm Hg in the ERN and ERN/ LRPT groups, respectively (both, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of a 24-week trial found that ERN alone, or in combination with LRPT, was associated with significant placebo-adjusted reductions from baseline in blood pressure in these hyperlipidemic hypertensive or normotensive subjects.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant: reducing niacin-induced flushing to better realize the benefit of niacin in improving cardiovascular risk factors.

Treatment with niacin effectively improves multiple lipid parameters and cardiovascular outcomes. Widespread use of niacin, however, is limited by flushing, which is mediated primarily by prostaglandin D2 (PGD2). Laropiprant is a selective PGD2 receptor 1 (DP1) antagonist that reduces objective measures of niacin-induced flushing symptoms upon initiation of therapy and with more chronic use. Results from early dosing and formulation studies have culminated in the development of a combination extended-release (ER) niacin/laropiprant tablet aimed at providing the beneficial lipid-modifying effects of niacin, while reducing niacin-induced flushing. The improvement in the tolerability of niacin with ER niacin/laropiprant allows niacin dosing to initiate directly at 1 g and rapidly advance to a 2-g target dose. ER niacin/laropiprant generally is tolerated well and represents a new treatment option for dyslipidemia that offers the potential for more patients to receive the lipid-modifying and cardiovascular benefits of niacin.

VAP II analysis of lipoprotein subclasses in mixed hyperlipidemic patients on treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin and fenofibrate.

This analysis evaluates the effects on lipoprotein subfractions and LDL particle size of ezetimibe/simvastatin with or without coadministration of fenofibrate in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study included 611 patients aged 18-79 years randomized in 1:3:3:3 ratios to one of four 12 week treatment groups: placebo; ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg/day; fenofibrate 160 mg/day; or ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg/day + fenofibrate 160 mg/day. At baseline and study endpoint, cholesterol associated with VLDL, intermediate density lipoprotein (IDL), LDL, and HDL subfractions was quantified using the Vertical Auto Profile II method. LDL particle size was determined using segmented gradient gel electrophoresis. Whereas fenofibrate reduced cholesterol mass within VLDL and IDL, and shifted cholesterol from dense LDL subfractions into the more buoyant subfractions and HDL, ezetimibe/simvastatin reduced cholesterol mass within all apolipoprotein B-containing particles without significantly shifting the LDL particle distribution profile. When administered in combination, the effects of the drugs were complementary, with more-pronounced reductions in VLDL, IDL, and LDL, preferential loss of more-dense LDL subfractions, and increased HDL, although the effects on most lipoprotein subfractions were not additive. Thus, ezetimibe/simvastatin + fenofibrate produced favorable effects on atherogenic lipoprotein subclasses in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

Effects of laropiprant on nicotinic acid-induced flushing in patients with dyslipidemia.

Niacin (nicotinic acid) is not optimally used mainly because of flushing, a process mediated primarily by prostaglandin D(2), which leads to poor patient compliance and suboptimal dosing. This phase II dose-ranging study was designed to assess whether the prostaglandin D(2) receptor 1 antagonist laropiprant (LRPT; MK-0524) would (1) reduce extended-release niacin (ERN)-induced flushing in dyslipidemic patients and (2) support a novel accelerated ERN dosing paradigm: initiating ERN at 1 g and advancing rapidly to 2 g. In part A of the study, 154 dyslipidemic patients were randomized to LRPT 150 mg/day or placebo in a 9-week, 2-period crossover study. Patients who completed part A (n = 122) entered part B (after a 2-week washout), together with additional patients who entered part B directly (n = 290). Part B patients were randomized to placebo, ERN 1 g (Niaspan, no previous titration), or ERN 1 g coadministered with LRPT 18.75, 37.5, 75, or 150 mg for 4 weeks, with doubling of the respective doses for the remaining 4 weeks. Patients treated with LRPT plus ERN experienced significantly less ERN-induced flushing than those treated with ERN alone during the initiation of treatment (ERN 1 g, week 1) and the maintenance treatment (ERN 1 to 2 g, weeks 2 to 8). All doses of LRPT were maximally effective in inhibiting niacin-induced flushing. LRPT did not alter the beneficial lipid effects of ERN. LRPT plus ERN was well tolerated. In conclusion, the significant reduction in ERN-induced flushing provided by LRPT plus ERN supports an accelerated ERN dose-advancement paradigm to achieve rapidly a 2-g dose in dyslipidemic patients.

Efficacy and safety of the coadministration of ezetimibe/simvastatin with fenofibrate in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Mixed hyperlipidemia is characterized by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglyceride (TG), and TG-rich lipoprotein levels. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel arm trial, eligible patients were 18 to 79 years of age, with mixed hyperlipidemia (LDL-C 130-220 mg/dL, TG 150-500 mg/dL). Patients with type 2 diabetes were limited to those with LDL-C of 100 to 180 mg/dL. Patients (N = 611) were randomized in a 3:3:3:1 ratio to one of 4 treatment arms for 12 weeks: ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (EZE/SIMVA) + fenofibrate 160 mg (FENO), EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg, FENO 160 mg, or placebo. The primary objective was to evaluate the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of EZE/SIMVA + FENO versus FENO monotherapy. RESULTS: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was significantly (P < .05) reduced with EZE/SIMVA + FENO (-45.8%) compared with FENO (-15.7%) or placebo (-3.5%), but not when compared with EZE/SIMVA (-47.1%). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I levels were significantly increased with EZE/SIMVA + FENO (18.7% and 11.1%, respectively) treatment compared with EZE/SIMVA (9.3% and 6.6%) or placebo (1.1% and 1.6%), but not when compared with FENO (18.2% and 10.8%). Triglyceride, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels were significantly reduced with EZE/SIMVA + FENO (-50.0%, -50.5%, and -44.7%, respectively) versus all other treatments. Treatment with EZE/SIMVA + FENO was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the EZE/SIMVA and FENO therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of EZE/SIMVA + FENO effectively improved the overall atherogenic lipid profile of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. Clinical trial registry number: NCT 00093899 (http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov).

Safety and efficacy of long-term co-administration of fenofibrate and ezetimibe in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of co-administered fenofibrate (FENO) and ezetimibe (EZE) in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. BACKGROUND: Both EZE and FENO offer complementary benefits to the lipid profile of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. METHODS: After completing the 12-week randomized, double-blind base study that compared EZE 10 mg, FENO 160 mg, FENO 160 mg plus EZE 10 mg, and placebo in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia, patients continued into a double-blind, 48-week extension phase. Those patients in the FENO plus EZE and FENO groups continued on their respective base study treatment, and patients in the EZE and placebo groups were switched to FENO plus EZE and FENO, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 587 patients who completed the base study, 576 continued into the extension study (n = 340 in FENO plus EZE and n = 236 in FENO). The FENO plus EZE produced significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol compared with FENO (-22% vs. -9%, respectively; p < 0.001). There were also significantly greater improvements in triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B with FENO plus EZE compared with FENO. Changes in apolipoprotein A-I and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were similar between groups. Overall, FENO plus EZE was well tolerated during the extension study. The proportion of patients with consecutive elevations of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase > or =3 times upper limit of normal were similar between the FENO plus EZE (1.2%) and FENO (1.7%) groups. No cases of creatine phosphokinase elevations > or =10 times upper limit of normal or myopathy were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term, 48-week co-administration of FENO plus EZE was well tolerated and more efficacious than FENO in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

LDL-C goal attainment with ezetimibe plus simvastatin coadministration vs atorvastatin or simvastatin monotherapy in patients at high risk of CHD.

AIMS: To compare the proportion of patients at high risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) achieving the recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goal of < 100 mg/dL and the optional LDL-C target of < 70 mg/dL with coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) vs either atorvastatin or simvastatin monotherapy. PATIENTS: Patients with established CHD or CHD risk equivalent according to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) criteria with baseline LDL-C = 130 mg/dL and triglycerides (TG) < or = 350 mg/dL. METHODS: A post hoc analysis from 2 separate studies assessed the percentage of high-risk patients achieving the LDL-C targets (< 100 and < 70 mg/dL) after 6 weeks on the usual recommended starting doses of the following treatments: EZE/SIMVA (10/20 mg) vs atorvastatin (10 mg) or simvastatin (20 mg). Depending on the study, EZE/SIMVA 10/10 or 10/40 mg was also compared with either atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg. Percent change in other lipid parameters from baseline to study endpoint was also examined. RESULTS: In both studies, the proportions of patients achieving an LDL-C of < 100 mg/dL were significantly (P < .001) greater for EZE/SIMVA 10/10, 10/20, or 10/40 mg vs either atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg after 6 weeks. The percentage reaching the optional LDL-C treatment target of < 70 mg/dL was also significantly higher with EZE/SIMVA compared with either atorvastatin or simvastatin. Percent reduction in LDL-C was significantly (P < .001) larger with all doses of EZE/SIMVA (46% to 59%) compared with either atorvastatin 10 mg (37%) or simvastatin 20 mg (38%) monotherapy after 6 weeks. Changes in other lipid parameters consistently favored EZE/SIMVA vs statin monotherapy. All treatments were well tolerated in both studies. CONCLUSION: Patients at high risk for CHD are more likely to attain LDL-C treatment targets with the usual recommended starting dose of EZE/SIMVA (10 or 20 mg) therapy than with that of atorvastatin (10 mg) or simvastatin (20 mg) monotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of the coadministration of ezetimibe with fenofibrate in patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia.

AIMS: To examine the efficacy and safety of coadministered ezetimibe (EZE) with fenofibrate (FENO) in patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel arm trial in patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia [LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C), 3.4-5.7 mmol/L (2.6-4.7 mmol/L for patients with type 2 diabetes); triglycerides (TG), 2.3-5.7 mmol/L] and no history of coronary heart disease (CHD), CHD-equivalent disease (except for type 2 diabetes), or CHD risk score>20%. A total of 625 patients was randomized in a 1:3:3:3 ratio to one of four daily treatments for 12 weeks: placebo; EZE 10 mg; FENO 160 mg; FENO 160 mg plus EZE 10 mg (FENO+EZE). The primary endpoint compared the LDL-C lowering efficacy of FENO+EZE vs. FENO alone. LDL-C, non-HDL-cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and apolipoprotein B were significantly (P<0.001) reduced with FENO+EZE when compared with FENO or EZE alone. TG levels were significantly decreased and HDL-C was significantly increased with FENO+EZE and FENO treatments when compared with placebo (P<0.001). Coadministration therapy reduced LDL-C by 20.4%, non-HDL-C by 30.4%, TG by 44.0%, and increased HDL-C by 19.0%. At baseline, >70% of all patients exhibited the small, dense LDL pattern B profile. A greater proportion of patients on FENO+EZE and FENO alone treatments shifted from a more atherogenic LDL size pattern to a larger, more buoyant, and less atherogenic LDL size pattern at study endpoint than those on placebo or EZE. All three active therapies were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of EZE with FENO provided a complementary efficacy therapy that improves the atherogenic lipid profile of patients with mixed hyperlipidaemia.

Reduction of cardiovascular events by simvastatin in nondiabetic coronary heart disease patients with and without the metabolic syndrome: subgroup analyses of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of simvastatin treatment on the risk of cardiovascular events in nondiabetic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) with and without the metabolic syndrome, as defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subgroup analyses were performed on data from 3933 nondiabetic patients with clinically established CHD, serum total cholesterol level 5.5-8.0 mmol/l, and serum triglyceride level