Efficacy of fenofibric acid plus statins on multiple lipid parameters and its safety in women with mixed dyslipidemia.

The combination of fibrate and statin therapies may be a treatment option for women with multiple lipid abnormalities. We, therefore, initiated the present safety and efficacy analysis to address the paucity of such data in women with mixed dyslipidemia. A total of 1,393 women with mixed dyslipidemia (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol ≥ 130 mg/dl, triglycerides [TG] ≥ 150 mg/dl, high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol <50 mg/dl), who had enrolled in any 1 of 3 randomized clinical trials, were evaluated. The eligible women were randomized to receive fenofibric acid plus a low- or moderate-dose statin (combination treatment); or low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy; or fenofibric acid monotherapy. With low-dose combination treatment, the baseline HDL cholesterol level increased 20% and TG decreased 46% compared to an 8% HDL cholesterol increase and 20% TG decrease with low-dose statins alone. With the moderate-dose combination, the baseline HDL cholesterol increased 21% and TG decreased 44% compared to an 8% HDL cholesterol increase and 26% TG decrease with moderate-dose statins alone. The reduction in baseline LDL cholesterol with low-dose and moderate-dose combinations (37% and 39%, respectively) was comparable to the reduction with corresponding-dose statins (36% and 43%, respectively). High-dose statins decreased the baseline LDL cholesterol 47%; however, the increase in HDL cholesterol (9%) and decrease in TG (25%) were similar to the changes observed with lower doses of statins. The safety profiles of the combinations were comparable to those of the component therapies. In conclusion, these data suggest that a combination of fenofibric acid and a statin could be considered safe and efficacious for treating women with mixed dyslipidemia.

Efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid in combination with atorvastatin and ezetimibe in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Statin and ezetimibe combination therapy may be insufficient to improve lipid and nonlipid parameters beyond low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind study, a total of 543 patients with triglycerides ≥150 mg/dL and <400 mg/dL, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) <40 mg/dL (<50 mg/dL for women), and LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL were randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with fenofibric acid 135 mg (FA) or placebo, each coadministered with atorvastatin 40 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (Atorva/Eze). RESULTS: Both treatment regimens lowered LDL-C by >50%; however, FA + Atorva/Eze resulted in significantly (P < .001) greater improvements in HDL-C (13.0% vs 4.2%), triglycerides (-57.3% vs -39.7%), non-HDL-C (-55.6% vs -51.0%), and apoprotein B (-49.1% vs -44.7%) compared with Atorva/Eze. Overall, adverse events were similar in the 2 treatment groups. No unexpected muscle, hepatic, or renal safety signals were identified with either treatment combination. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mixed dyslipidemia, the combination of FA + Atorva/Eze significantly improved lipid and nonlipid parameters compared with Atorva/Eze and was generally well tolerated.

The effects of fenofibric acid alone and with statins on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its diagnostic components in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare fenofibric acid (FA) + statin to respective monotherapies on the prevalence of metabolic syndrome and its diagnostic components in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Post hoc analysis of over 2,000 metabolic syndrome patients administered either FA + low- or moderate-dose statin; FA alone; or low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin alone. RESULTS: FA + low- or moderate-dose statin combination therapy reduced the presence of metabolic syndrome (35.7 or 35.9%, respectively) more than low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy (15.5, 16.6, or 13.8%, respectively), mostly due to improvements in triglycerides and HDL cholesterol levels. Mean glucose levels slightly decreased with FA monotherapy, slightly increased with statin monotherapy, and were essentially unchanged with FA + statin. FA with or without statin also reduced non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, VLDL cholesterol, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. CONCLUSIONS: FA + statin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia reduces the prevalence of metabolic syndrome.

Comparison of the gastrointestinal absorption and bioavailability of fenofibrate and fenofibric acid in humans.

This study compared the gastrointestinal (GI) absorption characteristics and absolute bioavailability of fenofibric acid and fenofibrate (which is converted to fenofibric acid in vivo) in healthy volunteers. Treatments were delivered to the proximal small bowel, distal small bowel, and colon using a site-specific delivery system (Enterion capsule) and to the stomach by oral administration of equimolar doses. Serial blood samples were collected for 120 hours postdose and assayed for plasma fenofibric acid concentrations. The absolute bioavailability of each treatment was determined relative to 50 mg of fenofibric acid administered intravenously. Plasma exposure to fenofibric acid following fenofibric acid administration was approximately 1.5 times higher than that following fenofibrate administration for delivery to the proximal and distal small bowel and following oral administration, and it was approximately 5 times higher following colon delivery. The absolute bioavailability in the stomach, proximal small bowel, distal small bowel, and colon was approximately 81%, 88%, 84%, and 78%, respectively, for fenofibric acid and 69%, 73%, 66%, and 22%, respectively, for fenofibrate (P < .0001 and P = .033 for fenofibric acid vs fenofibrate in the colon and distal small bowel, respectively). In conclusion, fenofibric acid is well absorbed throughout the GI tract and has greater bioavailability than fenofibrate in all GI regions.

Efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid co-administered with low- or moderate-dose statin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus: results of a pooled subgroup analysis from three randomized, controlled, double-blind trials.

BACKGROUND: Monotherapy with lipid-modifying medication is frequently insufficient to normalize lipid abnormalities in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in this population. STUDY DESIGN: A pooled, subgroup analysis of three randomized, controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials. SETTING: Multiple clinical research facilities in the US and Canada. PATIENTS: Patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes (n = 586). INTERVENTION: Fenofibric acid (Trilipix) 135 mg monotherapy; low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin [Crestor] 10, 20, or 40 mg; simvastatin [Zocor] 20, 40, or 80 mg; or atorvastatin [Lipitor] 20, 40, or 80 mg); or fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Mean percentage changes in lipid parameters, percentages of patients achieving optimal serum lipid/apolipoprotein levels, and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Fenofibric acid + low-dose statin resulted in significantly (p < 0.001) greater mean percentage changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [16.8%] and triglycerides (-43.9%) than low-dose statin monotherapy (4.7% and -18.1%, respectively) and significantly (p < 0.001) greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [-34.0%] than fenofibric acid monotherapy (-5.3%). Similarly, fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin resulted in significantly (p < or = 0.011) greater mean percentage changes in HDL-C (16.3%) and triglycerides (-43.4%) than moderate-dose statin monotherapy (8.7% and -24.2%, respectively) and significantly (p < 0.001) greater reductions in LDL-C (-32.6%) than fenofibric acid monotherapy (-5.3%). Compared with low- or moderate-dose statin, fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin resulted in over 5-fold higher percentages of patients achieving optimal levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, HDL-C, and triglycerides simultaneously. Incidence of adverse events was generally similar among treatments. CONCLUSION: Fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes was well tolerated and resulted in more comprehensive improvement in the lipid/apolipoprotein profile than either monotherapy. [Clinical trials are registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00300482, NCT00300456, and NCT00300469].

Year two assessment of fenofibric acid and moderate-dose statin combination: a phase 3, open-label, extension study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Long-term (>1 year) safety and efficacy studies of combination lipid therapy are lacking. This year 2 study evaluated fenofibric acid 135 mg in combination with moderate-dose statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg, simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg) in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia. METHODS: This was a phase 3, open-label, year 2 extension study in patients who had completed one of three double-blind, 12-week, controlled studies and the subsequent open-label, year 1 extension study. Patients in this study had mixed dyslipidaemia (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C] <40 mg/dL [<1.02 mmol/L] for men or <50 mg/dL [<1.28 mmol/L] for women, triglycerides [TG] > or =150 mg/dL [> or =1.69 mmol/L], and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] > or =130 mg/dL [> or =3.37 mmol/L]) at the start of the controlled study, and had completed the year 1 extension study. Treatment was once-daily oral coadministration of fenofibric acid 135 mg and moderate-dose statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg, simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg), and was identical to the treatment received in the year 1 study. The year 2 population safety data were summarized for the entire duration of fenofibric acid + statin therapy. Efficacy data were summarized by combination therapy group, as well as pooled across combination therapies, and summarized across the controlled and open-label studies. RESULTS: Of the 310 patients enrolled into the year 2 study, 287 (93%) completed therapy. The mean cumulative exposure to combination therapy was 743 days across the studies. Adverse event rates were similar for all three combination therapy groups. No deaths or treatment-related serious adverse events occurred. The incidence of discontinuation due to adverse events was 2.9% overall. Rhabdomyolysis was not reported in any group. Overall, fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin for > or =2 years resulted in sustained improvements in HDL-C (+17.4%), TG (-46.4%) and LDL-C (-40.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This long-term study demonstrated that fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin was generally well tolerated with no new or unexpected safety concerns, and resulted in comprehensive and sustained lipid improvements in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia.

Efficacy and safety of ABT-335 (fenofibric acid) in combination with atorvastatin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

In patients with mixed dyslipidemia characterized by increased triglycerides (TG), decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, monotherapy with lipid-altering drugs often fails to achieve all lipid targets. This multicenter, double-blind, active-controlled study evaluated ABT-335 (fenofibric acid) in combination with 2 doses of atorvastatin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. A total of 613 patients with LDL cholesterol > or =130 mg/dl, TG > or =150 mg/dl, and HDL cholesterol <40 mg/dl for men and <50 mg/dl for women were randomly assigned to ABT-335 (135 mg), atorvastatin (20, 40, or 80 mg), or combination therapy (ABT-335 + atorvastatin 20 or 40 mg) and treated for 12 weeks. Combination therapy with ABT-335 + atorvastatin 20 mg resulted in significantly greater improvements in TG (-45.6% vs -16.5%) and HDL cholesterol (14.0% vs 6.3%) compared with atorvastatin 20 mg and LDL cholesterol (-33.7% vs -3.4%) compared with ABT-335. Similarly, significantly greater improvements were observed with ABT-335 + atorvastatin 40 mg in TG (-42.1% vs -23.2%) and HDL cholesterol (12.6% vs 5.3%) compared with atorvastatin 40 mg and LDL cholesterol (-35.4% vs -3.4%) compared with ABT-335 monotherapy. Combination therapy also improved multiple secondary variables. Combination therapy was generally well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with those of ABT-335 and atorvastatin monotherapies. No rhabdomyolysis was reported. In conclusion, ABT-335 + atorvastatin combination therapy resulted in more effective control of multiple lipid parameters than either monotherapy and may be an appropriate therapy for patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

ABT-335, the choline salt of fenofibric acid, does not have a clinically significant pharmacokinetic interaction with rosuvastatin in humans.

ABT-335 is the choline salt of fenofibric acid under clinical development as a combination therapy with rosuvastatin for the management of dyslipidemia. ABT-335 and rosuvastatin have different mechanisms of actions and exert complementary pharmacodynamic effects on lipids. The current study assessed the pharmacokinetic interaction between the 2 drugs following a multiple-dose, open-label, 3-period, randomized, crossover design. Eighteen healthy men and women received 40 mg rosuvastatin alone, 135 mg ABT-335 alone, and the 2 drugs in combination once daily for 10 days. Blood samples were collected prior to dosing on multiple days and up to 120 hours after day 10 dosing for the measurements of fenofibric acid and rosuvastatin plasma concentrations. Coadministering 40 mg rosuvastatin had no significant effect on the steady-state Cmax, Cmin, or AUC24 of fenofibric acid (P > .05). Coadministering ABT-335 had no significant effect on the steady-state Cmin or AUC24 of rosuvastatin (P > .05) but increased Cmax by 20% (90% confidence interval: 12%-28%). All 3 regimens were generally well tolerated with no clinically significant changes in clinical laboratory values, vital signs, or electrocardiograms during the study. Results from this study demonstrate no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interaction between ABT-335 at the full clinical dose and rosuvastatin at the highest approved dose.

Efficacy and safety of ABT-335 (fenofibric acid) in combination with simvastatin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia: a phase 3, randomized, controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mixed dyslipidemia often require combination therapy to effectively control lipid abnormalities. This study compared the effects of combination therapy with ABT-335 (a new formulation of fenofibric acid) and simvastatin to ABT-335 and simvastatin monotherapies on lipid and nonlipid parameters in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study. A total of 657 patients with mixed dyslipidemia (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] > or =130 mg/dL, triglycerides [TGs] > or =150 mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]<40 mg/dL [men] or <50 mg/dL [women]) were randomized to 12 weeks of treatment with ABT-335 + simvastatin (20 or 40 mg) combination therapy, ABT-335 monotherapy (135 mg), or simvastatin monotherapy (20, 40, or 80 mg). RESULTS: Combination therapy resulted in significantly greater increases in HDL-C and decreases in TGs compared to the corresponding simvastatin monotherapy dose (P < .001) and decreases in LDL-C compared to ABT-335 monotherapy (P < .001). HDL-C increased 17.8% versus 7.2% and TGs decreased -37.4% versus -14.2% (ABT-335 + simvastatin 20 vs simvastatin 20); LDL-C decreased -24.0% versus -4.0% (ABT-335 + simvastatin 20 vs ABT-335). HDL-C increased 18.9% versus 8.5% and TGs decreased -42.7% versus -22.4% (ABT-335 + simvastatin 40 vs simvastatin 40); LDL-C decreased -25.3% versus -4.0% (ABT-335 + simvastatin 40 vs ABT-335). Twelve-week treatment with combination therapy was generally well tolerated with a safety profile consistent with ABT-335 and simvastatin monotherapies. No cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported. CONCLUSION: For patients with mixed dyslipidemia, combination therapy provided more effective control of multiple lipid parameters than either monotherapy alone, with a safety profile similar to both monotherapies.

Efficacy and safety of ABT-335 (fenofibric acid) in combination with rosuvastatin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia: a phase 3 study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new formulation of fenofibric acid (ABT-335) co-administered with 2 doses of rosuvastatin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study, a total of 1445 patients with LDL-C>or=130 mg/dL, TG>or=150 mg/dL, and HDL-C<40 mg/dL (<50 mg/dL for women) were randomized to either ABT-335 (135 mg), rosuvastatin (10, 20, or 40 mg), or ABT-335+rosuvastatin 10 or 20 mg, and treated for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy comparisons were mean percent change in HDL-C and TG (ABT-335+rosuvastatin vs. corresponding dose of rosuvastatin), and LDL-C (ABT-335+rosuvastatin vs. ABT-335). RESULTS: Combination therapy with ABT-335+rosuvastatin 10 mg resulted in significantly (p<0.001) greater improvements in HDL-C (20.3% vs. 8.5%) and TG (-47.1% vs. -24.4%) compared to rosuvastatin 10 mg; and LDL-C (-37.2% vs. -6.5%) compared to ABT-335. Similarly, significantly (p<0.001) greater improvements were observed with ABT-335+rosuvastatin 20 mg in HDL-C (19.0% vs. 10.3%) and TG (-42.9% vs. -25.6%) compared to rosuvastatin 20 mg; and LDL-C (-38.8% vs. -6.5%) compared to ABT-335 monotherapy. Greater improvements in multiple secondary endpoints were noted with combination therapy compared to prespecified monotherapies. Both combination therapy doses were generally well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with ABT-335 and rosuvastatin monotherapies. No rhabdomyolysis or unexpected hepatic, renal, or muscle safety signals were identified. CONCLUSION: In patients with mixed dyslipidemia, combination therapy with ABT-335+rosuvastatin resulted in more effective control of multiple lipid parameters than either monotherapy alone, with a safety profile similar to both monotherapies. This combination may be an appropriate therapeutic option to treat mixed dyslipidemia.

Efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid in combination with a statin in patients with mixed dyslipidemia: Pooled analysis of three phase 3, 12-week randomized, controlled studies.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mixed dyslipidemia often require combination therapy to manage multiple lipid abnormalities. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fenofibric acid in combination with a statin across three studies of patients with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: As prospectively planned, data were pooled from three randomized, double-blind, phase 3 studies of patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥130mg/dL, triglycerides (TG) ≥150mg/dL, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) <40mg/dL (men) or <50mg/dL (women). A total of 2715 patients were randomly assigned to 12-week treatment with fenofibric acid 135mg monotherapy; low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin (rosuvastatin, simvastatin, or atorvastatin, depending on study) monotherapy; or fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin. The primary efficacy comparisons were mean percent change in HDL-C and TG (combination therapy vs. statin) and LDL-C (combination therapy vs. fenofibric acid). RESULTS: Fenofibric acid + low-dose statin increased HDL-C (18.1% vs. 7.4%) and reduced TG (-43.9% vs. -16.8%) versus low-dose statin monotherapy and reduced LDL-C (-33.1% vs. -5.1%) versus fenofibric acid monotherapy (P <.001 for all). Fenofibric acid + moderate-dose statin increased HDL-C (17.5% vs. 8.7%) and reduced TG (-42.0% vs. -23.7%) versus moderate-dose statin monotherapy and reduced LDL-C (-34.6% vs. -5.1%) versus fenofibric acid monotherapy (P <.001 for all). Combination therapy was generally well tolerated, and safety profiles were similar to monotherapies. No rhabdomyolysis was reported. CONCLUSION: In patients with mixed dyslipidemia, combination therapy simultaneously improved multiple lipid abnormalities more effectively than fenofibric acid or statin monotherapies.

Phase 3, randomized, controlled trial of atrasentan in patients with nonmetastatic, hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Atrasentan is a potent, oral, selective endothelin-A (ET(A)) receptor antagonist that has clinical activity in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). In this article, the authors report the results from a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of atrasentan in patients with nonmetastatic HRPC. METHODS: Of 941 patients who had adequate androgen suppression and no radiographic evidence of metastases but rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, 467 patients were randomized to receive atrasentan at a dose of 10 mg, and 474 patients were randomized to receive placebo daily. The primary endpoint was the time to disease progression (TTP), which was defined as the onset of metastases. Secondary endpoints were the time to PSA progression, change in bone alkaline phosphatase (BALP) levels, PSA doubling time, and overall survival. RESULTS: There was a 93-day delay in the median TTP with atrasentan, but the difference from placebo in TTP was not statistically significant (P= .288). Large geographic differences in the median TTP were noted: in the US: The difference was 81 days longer with placebo; whereas, in non-US sites, the difference was 180 days longer with atrasentan. Atrasentan lengthened the PSA doubling time (P= .031) and slowed the increase in BALP (P< .001). The median survival was 1477 days with atrasentan and 1403 days with placebo. The most common adverse events associated with atrasentan were peripheral edema, nasal congestion, and headache, consistent with the vasodilatory properties of ET(A) receptor antagonists. CONCLUSIONS: Although the primary endpoint was not achieved, large regional differences in TTP were noted, suggesting that trial conduct may have influenced the results. The biologic activity was consistent with findings from other clinical trials of atrasentan in HRPC.

Evaluation of a new formulation of fenofibric acid, ABT-335, co-administered with statins : study design and rationale of a phase III clinical programme.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Atherogenic lipid parameters in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia have been demonstrated to increase atherosclerotic coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. Clinical studies have shown that HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor (statin) and fibric acid derivative (fibrate) combination therapy is effective at improving multiple lipid abnormalities in different patient populations at increased risk of CHD. However, inconsistencies with respect to trial designs and safety issues have limited the clinical use of this combination therapy. A comprehensive, controlled clinical trial programme was thus designed to evaluate three separate statins in combination with ABT-335, a new formulation of fenofibric acid. METHODS: Three separate 22-week, phase III, double-blind, active-controlled trials will evaluate combination therapy with ABT-335 135 mg/day and either rosuvastatin (10 mg/day and 20 mg/day), atorvastatin (20 mg/day and 40 mg/day) or simvastatin (20 mg/day and 40 mg/day) in comparison to either ABT-335 or the corresponding statin monotherapy. An approximate total of 2400 patients with elevated triglycerides (TG) [> or =150 mg/dL], reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) [<40 mg/dL for men and <50 mg/dL for women], and elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) [> or =130 mg/dL] will be randomized to one of six intervention arms per trial (two combination therapy and four monotherapy groups). The pre-specified primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of the mean percent changes in HDL-C and TG (comparing each combination therapy with the corresponding statin monotherapy dose) and LDL-C (comparing each combination therapy with ABT-335 monotherapy). Secondary endpoints include mean percent changes in non-HDL-C, very LDL-C, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and high sensitivity C-reactive protein levels. At study end, patients may enroll in a 12-month open-label extension study that will evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of combination therapy. CONCLUSION: This is the largest phase III randomized, controlled clinical programme to date evaluating the efficacy and safety of the combined use of a new formulation of fenofibric acid (ABT-335) with three commonly prescribed statins in patients with mixed dyslipidaemia.

Long-term safety and efficacy of fenofibric acid in combination with statin therapy for the treatment of patients with mixed dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Co-administration of a fibrate and statin is an effective treatment option for patients with multiple lipid abnormalities, yet adequate long-term safety and efficacy data are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of fenofibric acid combined with statins in adults with mixed dyslipidemia. METHODS: Three large, 12-week, phase three, double-blind, randomized, controlled trials evaluated fenofibric acid 135 mg combined with a low- or moderate-dose statin compared to fenofibric acid or statin monotherapy, and a subsequent 52-week open-label extension study evaluated fenofibric acid 135 mg combined with moderate-dose statin (rosuvastatin 20 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, or atorvastatin 40 mg). This prespecified analysis integrated results from these studies to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of combination therapy. RESULTS: Across the controlled studies and the extension study, 2201 patients received at least one dose of fenofibric acid + statin for a median duration of 364 days. The most common adverse events were headache, upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and back pain, with the incidence of all adverse events being similar across all combination therapy treatment groups. Rhabdomyolysis or treatment-related death was not reported in any group. Combination therapy resulted in sustained improvements in multiple lipid parameters, including triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. CONCLUSION: Long-term fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy was generally well tolerated and resulted in comprehensive and sustained improvements in multiple lipid parameters in adults with mixed dyslipidemia.

A phase 3 randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of atrasentan in men with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atrasentan (Xinlay), a selective endothelin-A receptor antagonist, in patients with metastatic hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC). METHODS: This multinational, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 809 men with metastatic HRPC. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either atrasentan 10 mg per day or placebo. The primary endpoint was time to disease progression (TTP), which was determined according to radiographic and clinical measures. Analyses of overall survival and changes in biomarkers also were performed. RESULTS: Atrasentan did not reduce the risk of disease progression relative to placebo (hazards ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.04; P = .136). Most patients progressed radiographically at the first 12-week bone scan without concomitant clinical progression. In exploratory analyses, increases from baseline to final bone alkaline phosphatase (BAP) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were significantly lower with atrasentan treatment (P < .05 for each). The median time to BAP progression (>/=50% increase from nadir) was twice as long with atrasentan treatment (505 days vs 254 days; P < .01). The delay in time to PSA progression did not reach statistical significance. Atrasentan generally was tolerated well, and the most common adverse events associated with treatment were headache, rhinitis, and peripheral edema, reflecting the vasodilatory and fluid-retention properties of endothelin-A receptor antagonism. CONCLUSIONS: Atrasentan did not delay disease progression in men with metastatic HRPC despite evidence of biologic effects on PSA and BAP as markers of disease burden.

Dual effects of rifampin on the pharmacokinetics of atrasentan.

The effect of rifampin, a cytochrome P450 3A4 inducer, on the pharmacokinetics of atrasentan was assessed in 12 healthy male subjects in an open-label study. Single doses of atrasentan 10 mg were administered orally on days 1 and 12. Rifampin 600 mg was given once daily from days 4 through 14. On day 12, atrasentan and rifampin were administered simultaneously. Blood samples were collected before and during 72 hours after each atrasentan dose. On average, rifampin increased atrasentan peak plasma concentrations by 150% and reduced its terminal half-life by 77% (P<.05), without affecting the AUC or peak time of atrasentan. Rifampin may affect atrasentan pharmacokinetics by acting as both an inhibitor of organic anion transporting polypeptide-mediated hepatic uptake of atrasentan and an inducer of atrasentan metabolism. The effect of rifampin on atrasentan pharmacokinetics may depend on the time of rifampin administration relative to that of atrasentan.

Effects of visual sexual stimuli and apomorphine SL on cerebral activity in men with erectile dysfunction.

PURPOSE: The present study investigates whether cerebral activation during visually evoked sexual arousal is different in patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) compared to the known pattern observed in healthy men, and additionally how cerebral activity during visual sexual stimulation is modified by treatment with apomorphine SL and whether the observed cerebral activity correlates with penile rigidity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cerebral activity was measured before and after treatment in 12 patients with erectile dysfunction randomised to receive either apomorphine SL or placebo using [15O]H(2)O-PET. Two PET scans were performed prior to administration of the study medication, the first after a neutral audiovisual stimulus and the second following a sexually stimulating audiovisual presentation. After receiving the study medication, patients were subjected to two additional scans each preceded by a sexually stimulating stimulus. Penile rigidity was assessed with the RigiScan device. Evaluation for significant regional cerebral activation was performed using statistical parametric mapping (SPM99). RESULTS: Cerebral activity increased significantly after the sexually stimulating video sequence compared to the neutral one in the inferior frontal cortex (Brodmann areas [BA] 47, 10, 11) and the rostral anterior cingulate (BA 32), and cerebral activity was observed to decrease in both inferior temporal cortices (BA 20). 4 out of 6 patients showed significant penile rigidity after apomorphine SL and in none of those receiving placebo. Apomorphine SL was observed to increase cerebral activity in the right superior prefrontal area (BA 6) that was not seen with placebo, while neither apomorphine SL nor placebo produced decreased cerebral activity. Penile rigidity correlated with increased cerebral activity in the anterior cingulum and right prefrontal cortex, and with decreased activity in the temporal cortex. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with erectile dysfunction, the pattern of increased and decreased cerebral activity in response to visual sexual stimuli in this study is similar to that reported in the literature in healthy men. Apomorphine SL appears to induce additional cerebral activity in the right prefrontal cortex, an area previously shown to be associated with sexual arousal in male volunteers during orgasm. This increased cerebral activity was associated with penile rigidity, further supporting the conclusion that apomorphine SL improves erectile function in men with ED by enhancing the natural central erectile signals that normally occur during sexual stimulation.