Efficacy and Tolerability of Pitavastatin Versus Pitavastatin/Fenofibrate in High-risk Korean Patients with Mixed Dyslipidemia: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blinded, Parallel, Therapeutic Confirmatory Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Dyslipidemia is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins are known to effectively reduce not only low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level but also death and nonfatal myocardial infarction due to coronary heart disease. The risk for CVD from atherogenic dyslipidemia persists when elevated triglyceride (TG) and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are not controlled with statin therapy. Therefore, statin/fenofibrate combination therapy is more effective in reducing CVD risk. Here, we assessed the efficacy and tolerability of pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and a high risk for CVD. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, therapeutic-confirmatory clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination therapy with pitavastatin/fenofibrate 2/160 mg in Korean patients with a high risk for CVD and a controlled LDL-C level (<100 mg/dL) and a TG level of 150-500 mg/dL after a run-in period with pitavastatin 2 mg alone. In the 8-week main study, 347 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive pitavastatin 2 mg with or without fenofibrate 160 mg after a run-in period. In the extension study, patients with controlled LDL-C and non-HDL-C (<130 mg/dL) levels were included after the completion of the main study. All participants in the extension study received the pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy for 16 weeks for the assessment of the tolerability of long-term treatment. FINDINGS: The difference in the mean percentage change in non-HDL-C from baseline to week 8 between the combination therapy and monotherapy groups was -12.45% (95% CI, -17.18 to -7.72), and the combination therapy was associated with a greater reduction in non-HDL-C. The changes in lipid profile, including apolipoproteins, fibrinogen, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 were statistically significant with combination therapy compared to monotherapy at all time points. Furthermore, the rates of achievement of non-HDL-C and apolipoprotein B targets at week 8 in the combination therapy and monotherapy groups were 88.30% versus 77.98% (P = 0.0110) and 78.94% versus 68.45% (P = 0.0021), respectively. The combination therapy was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of statin monotherapy. IMPLICATIONS: In these Korean patients with mixed dyslipidemia and a high risk for CVD, combination therapy with pitavastatin/fenofibrate was associated with a greater reduction in non-HDL-C compared with that with pitavastatin monotherapy, and a significantly improvement in other lipid levels. Moreover, the combination therapy was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of statin monotherapy. Therefore, pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy could be effective and well tolerated in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03618797.

Efficacy and Safety of Adding Omega-3 Fatty Acids in Statin-treated Patients with Residual Hypertriglyceridemia: ROMANTIC (Rosuvastatin-OMAcor iN residual hyperTrIglyCeridemia), a Randomized, Double-blind, and Placebo-controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of adding ω-3 fatty acids to rosuvastatin in patients with residual hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment. METHODS: This study was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. After a 4-week run-in period of rosuvastatin treatment, the patients who had residual hypertriglyceridemia were randomized to receive rosuvastatin 20 mg/d plus ω-3 fatty acids 4 g/d (ROSUMEGA group) or rosuvastatin 20 mg/d (rosuvastatin group) with a 1:1 ratio and were prescribed each medication for 8 weeks. FINDINGS: A total of 201 patients were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 58.1 [10.7] years; 62.7% male). After 8 weeks of treatment, the percentage change from baseline in triglycerides (TGs) and non-HDL-C was significantly greater in the ROSUMEGA group than in the rosuvastatin group (TGs: -26.3% vs -11.4%, P < 0.001; non-HDL-C: -10.7% vs -2.2%, P = 0.001). In the linear regression analysis, the lipid-lowering effect of ω-3 fatty acids was greater when baseline TG or non-HDL-C levels were high and body mass index was low. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the 2 groups. IMPLICATIONS: In patients with residual hypertriglyceridemia despite statin treatment, a combination of ω-3 fatty acids and rosuvastatin produced a greater reduction of TGs and non-HDL-C than rosuvastatin alone. Further study is needed to determine whether the advantages of this lipid profile of ω-3 fatty acids actually leads to the prevention of cardiovascular event. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03026933.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Telmisartan/Amlodipine + Hydrochlorothiazide Versus Telmisartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy for Essential Hypertension Uncontrolled With Telmisartan/Amlodipine: The Phase III, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind TAHYTI Study.

PURPOSE: This 8-week study in Korea aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a telmisartan/amlodipine + hydrochlorothiazide (TAH) combination versus telmisartan/amlodipine (TA) combination in patients with essential hypertension that did not respond appropriately to 4-week treatment with TA. METHODS: All patients who met the inclusion criteria received TA (40/5 mg) during a 4-week run-in period (period 1). Patients who met the criteria for essential hypertension (mean sitting systolic blood pressure [MSSBP], ≥140 and <200 mm Hg, or ≥130 and<200 mm Hg in those with diabetes mellitus or chronic kidney disease) after period 1 were randomly assigned to receive TA 40/5 mg + hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg (test group) or TA only (control group). The test and control drugs were administered in each group for 2 weeks (period 2). Patients who completed period 2 underwent 6-week treatment (period 3) with a TAH and TA dose twice that in period 2. The primary end point was the change in MSSBP at week 8 of treatment. Secondary end points were the change in MSSBP at week 2 and MS diastolic BP, BP control rate, and BP response rate at weeks 2 and 8. Treatment tolerability was assessed based on adverse events (AEs), laboratory evaluations (chemistry, hematology, and urinalysis), 12-lead ECG, and physical examination including vital sign measurements. FINDINGS: We randomized 310 patients to the treatment groups. The mean (SD) ages of the TAH and TA groups were 62.0 (10.8) and 63.4 (10.4) years, respectively. The least squares mean change in MSSBP was significantly greater in the TAH group than in the TA group after 8 weeks (-18.7 vs -12.2 mm Hg; P < 0.001). Similar results were obtained on changes in MSSBP after 2 weeks and changes in sitting diastolic BP, BP control rate, and BP response rate at weeks 2 and 8 compared with the respective baseline values. The prevalences of treatment-emergent AEs (29.0% vs 16.3%; P = 0.008) and adverse drug reactions (20.0% vs 10.5%; P = 0.020) were significantly greater in the TAH group than in the TA group. Most treatment-emergent AEs were mild or moderate; none were severe. The most frequently reported AEs were dizziness and headache. IMPLICATION: TAH triple therapy was more effective than was TA double therapy in reducing BP in these patients in Korea with essential hypertension that did not adequately respond to TA. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02738632.

Conservative versus aggressive treatment strategy with angiographic guidance alone in patients with intermediate coronary lesions: The SMART-CASE randomized, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Although coronary angiography is still the technique most widely used to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the appropriate angiographic indication of revascularization for intermediate coronary lesions remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare conservative versus aggressive strategies with angiographic guidance alone in patients with intermediate coronary lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 899 patients with intermediate coronary lesions between 50% and 70% diameter stenosis by quantitative coronary analysis were randomly assigned to the conservative group (n=449) or the aggressive group (n=450). For intermediate lesions, PCI was performed using everolimus-eluting stents in the aggressive group, but was deferred in the conservative group. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 1year. The number of treated lesions per patient was 0.8±0.9 in the conservative group and 1.7±0.9 in the aggressive group (p<0.001). The cumulative rate of the primary endpoint was 7.3% in the conservative group and 6.8% in the aggressive group (the upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4%; p=0.006 for non-inferiority with a predefined non-inferiority margin of 5.0%). The risk of death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio [HR] 0.50; 95% CI, 0.19-1.33; p=0.17) and revascularization (HR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.80-2.52; p=0.23) was not significantly different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative revascularization was non-inferior to aggressive revascularization for intermediate coronary lesions. Revascularization of intermediate lesions can be safely deferred in patients undergoing PCI with angiographic guidance alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00743899.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of the Lercanidipine/Valsartan Combination in Korean Patients With Essential Hypertension Not Adequately Controlled With Lercanidipine Monotherapy: A Randomized, Multicenter, Parallel Design, Phase III Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the lercanidipine/valsartan combination compared with lercanidipine monotherapy in patients with hypertension. METHODS: Part 1 of this study was the randomized, multicenter, double-blind, parallel group, Phase III, 8-week clinical trial to compare superiority of lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 80 mg (L10/V80) and lercanidipine 10 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L10/V160) combinations with lercanidipine 10 mg (L10) monotherapy. At screening, hypertensive patients, whose diastolic blood pressure (DBP) was >90 mm Hg after 4 weeks with L10, were randomized to 3 groups of L10, L10/V80, and L10/V160. The primary end point was the change in the mean sitting DBP from baseline (week 0) after 8 weeks of therapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to L10/V160 and whose mean DBP was still ≥ 90 mm Hg in part 1 were enrolled to the up-titration extension study with lercanidipine 20 mg/valsartan 160 mg (L20/V160) (part 2). FINDINGS: Of 772 patients screened, 497 were randomized to 3 groups (166 in the L10 group, 168 in the L10/V80 group, and 163 in the L10/V160 group). Mean (SD) age was 55 (9.9) years, and male patients comprised 69%. The mean (SD) baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP)/DBP were 148.4 (15.1)/94.3 (9.5) mm Hg. No significant differences were found between groups in baseline characteristics except the percentages of previous history of antihypertensive medication. The primary end points, the changes of mean (SD) DBP at week 8 from the baseline were -2.0 (8.8) mm Hg in the L10 group, -6.7 (8.5) mm Hg in L10/V80 group, and -8.1 (8.4) mm Hg in L10/V160 group. The adjusted mean difference between the combination groups and the L10 monotherapy group was -4.6 mm Hg (95% CI, -6.5 to -2.6; P < 0.001) in the L10/V80 group and -5.9 mm Hg (95% CI, -7.9 to -4.0, P < 0.001) in the L10/V160 group, which had significantly greater efficacy in BP lowering. A total of 74 patients were enrolled in the part 2 extension study. Changes of mean (SD) DBP and SBP from week 8 to week 12 and week 16 were -5.6 (7.9)/-8.0 (12.0) mm Hg and -5.5 (7.0)/-8.5 (11.3) mm Hg, respectively. For evaluation of the safety profile, the frequencies of adverse events between groups were also not significantly different. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache (6 cases, 20.7%) in the L10 group, dizziness (8 cases, 16.3%) in L10/V80 group, and nasopharyngitis (3 cases, 9.4%) in L10/V160 group, and the incidences of adverse events were not different between groups. IMPLICATIONS: Treatment of L10/V80 or L10/V160 combination therapy resulted in significantly greater BP lowering compared with L10 monotherapy. Moreover, the L20/V160 high dose combination had additional BP lowering effect compared with nonresponders with the L10/V160 combination. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01928628.

Potent mitochondria-targeted peptides reduce myocardial infarction in rats.

OBJECTIVE: Previously, we demonstrated that a novel opiate peptide, 2',6'-dimethyl-tyrosine-D-Arg-Phe-Lys-NH2, provided cardioprotection against myocardial stunning in vivo. We subsequently showed that this peptide targeted mitochondria and can scavenge reactive oxygen species. The objective of this study was to determine the role of opioid versus antioxidant activity in cardioprotection. METHODS: We compared two mitochondria-targeted peptide analogs that lacked opioid activity: SS-31 (D-Arg-2',6'-dimethyl-tyrosine-Lys-Phe-NH2) and SS-20 (Phe-D-Arg-Phe-Lys-NH2). They differ in that only SS-31 has scavenging ability. Rats (n=8/group) were randomized to SS-31, SS-20 or placebo. The drugs (3 mg/kg) or saline was administered intraperitoneally 30 min before ligation of the left anterior descending artery for 60 min, and another dose given intraperitoneally 5 min before reperfusion for 60 min. Study endpoints included myocardial infarct size, cardiac arrhythmia and myocardial lipid peroxidation. RESULTS: The area at risk was similar among the groups. The infarct area/area at risk, however, was significantly smaller in the treatment groups (53.9+/-1.1% in SS-31 group, 47.1+/-1.4% in SS-20 group, versus 59.9+/-1% in the controls, P<0.01). Lipid peroxidation was significantly reduced by both SS-31 and SS-20 treatment. Arrhythmia occurred only during the early period of coronary occlusion and was less frequent and less severe in the peptide treatment groups than in the controls (Lambeth score 5 points, 3 points, versus 13 points in the controls, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that pretreatment with both SS-31 and SS-20 significantly reduced myocardial lipid peroxidation and infarct size in ischemia-reperfusion injury, and suggests that the cardioprotective properties of 2',6'-dimethyl-tyrosine-D-Arg-Phe-Lys-NH2 was primarily mediated by its antioxidant properties. As SS-20 does not scavenge reactive oxygen species, it most likely reduces reactive oxygen species production during ischemia-reperfusion.

Growth factor-mediated reversal of senescent dysfunction of ischemia-induced cardioprotection.

Based on the role of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) in ischemic preconditioning (IPC) and the age-associated loss of both TNF-alpha-induced platelet-derived growth factor-AB (PDGF-AB)-mediated cardioprotection and IPC-mediated cardioprotection, we hypothesized that targeting of PDGF-AB-based pathways would restore cardioprotection by IPC in the aging heart. To study this, IPC was induced in 4- and 24-mo-old F344 rats. Sections of young hearts isolated 1 day post-IPC revealed increased TNF-alpha compared with controls. In old rats, TNF-alpha was higher at baseline than IPC young rats and was not significantly altered after IPC. Treatment of old rats with PDGF-AB with vascular endothelial growth factor and angiopoietin-2 (a combination termed PVA), but not PDGF-AB alone, at the time of IPC decreased TNF-alpha. In addition, when compared with young hearts, IPC induced greater apoptosis in the old hearts, which was decreased with PVA treatment but was markedly increased with PDGF-AB. To test the significance of these findings, additional rats underwent permanent coronary ligation 1 day post-IPC. IPC was cardioprotective in young rats [14 days postmyocardial infarction (MI), fractional shortening 29 +/- 6% vs. control MI 17 +/- 4%, P < 0.05; Masson's trichrome stain MI size: 13 +/- 2% vs. control MI 17 +/- 4% left ventricular area (LVA); P < 0.05]. In old rats, however, IPC reduced the post-MI 14-day survival (33% vs. controls 67%; P < 0.05). Treatment of IPC-aging rats with PVA, but not PDGF-AB-alone, reversed IPC-induced mortality (PVA-IPC-MI survival, 88%; PDGF-AB-IPC-MI, 14%) and reduced myocardial injury (fractional shortening: PVA-IPC, 31 +/- 1% vs. control MI, 21 +/- 6%, P < 0.05; MI size: PVA-IPC, 12 +/- 2% vs. control MI, 18 +/- 3% LVA, P < 0.05) and thus demonstrated that PDGF-AB-based pathways can reverse the senescent impairment in IPC-mediated cardioprotection.