Indices of cholesterol metabolism and relative responsiveness to ezetimibe and simvastatin.

CONTEXT: The level and duration of exposure to circulating low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) are major contributors to coronary atherosclerosis. Therefore, optimal prevention will require long-term LDL-C reduction, making it important to select the most effective agent for each individual. OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that individuals with high fractional absorption of cholesterol respond better to the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe than to simvastatin, whereas low absorbers, who have elevated rates of cholesterol synthesis, respond better to simvastatin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was performed in 215 African- and European-American men. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to placebo, ezetimibe (10 mg/d), simvastatin (10 mg/d), and both drugs for 6 wk each. MAIN OUTCOME: Plasma levels of LDL-C, surrogate markers for cholesterol absorption (campesterol) and synthesis (lathosterol), and proprotein convertase subtilisin-like kexin type 9 were measured at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS: LDL-C levels were reduced by 19% (ezetimibe), 25% (simvastatin), and 41% (ezetimibe+simvastatin) from a baseline of 146 +/- 20 mg/dl; results were similar between ethnic groups. Reduction in LDL-C correlated poorly with baseline levels of noncholesterol sterols and proprotein convertase subtilisin-like kexin type 9. Although individual responses varied widely, change in LDL-C on ezetimibe correlated with response to simvastatin (r = 0.46, P < 0.001). Combination therapy lowered LDL-C by 15% or greater in more than 95% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline cholesterol absorption and synthesis did not predict responsiveness to LDL-lowering drugs. Responsiveness to simvastatin and ezetimibe were highly correlated, suggesting that factors downstream of the primary sites of action of these drugs are a major determinant of response.

Pregnancy outcomes after maternal exposure to simvastatin and lovastatin.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to determine the frequency of adverse outcomes after maternal exposure to simvastatin and/or lovastatin during pregnancy in postmarketing experience. METHODS: We reviewed the Merck & Co., Inc. (West Point, PA) pharmacovigilance database for reports of exposure to simvastatin or lovastatin during pregnancy. The reports were classified as prospective (reported prior to pregnancy outcome) or retrospective (reported after pregnancy outcome) and were evaluated for timing of exposure, outcome, congenital anomalies, and other events. Outcome rates were calculated for prospective pregnancies. RESULTS: We identified 477 reports (386 prospective and 91 retrospective) with 225 prospective outcomes reported: 154 live born infants, 49 elective abortions, 18 spontaneous abortions, and 4 fetal deaths. Six congenital anomalies were reported: chromosomal translocation, trisomy 18, hypospadias, duodenal atresia, cleft lip, and skin tag. The rate of congenital anomalies (congenital anomalies/live births plus fetal deaths) was 3.8%, which is similar to the background population rate (3.2%; relative ratio, 1.21; 95% 1-sided upper confidence interval [CI], 2.02). There were 13 retrospective reports describing a range of congenital anomalies. No specific pattern of anomalies was identified in either the prospective or retrospective reports. Rates for other outcomes were similar to background rates. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of reports was relatively small, there was no evidence of a notable increase in congenital anomalies in women exposed to simvastatin or lovastatin versus the general population. Greater reporting of congenital abnormalities in the retrospective cohort is not unexpected and may reflect a reporting bias. Drugs should be used during pregnancy only if the benefits outweigh the risks. Simvastatin and lovastatin remain contraindicated during pregnancy.