Search

Lane B Benes1, Nikhil S Bassi2, Michael H Davidson1 1Department of Medicine, Section of Cardiology, 2Department of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA Abstract: The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on cholesterol management placed greater emphasis on statin therapy given the well-established benefits in primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Residual risk may remain after statin initiation, in part because of triglyceride-rich lipoprotein cholesterol. Several large trials have failed to show benefit with non-statin cholesterol-lowering medications in the reduction of cardiovascular events. Yet, subgroup analyses showed a benefit in those with hypertriglyceridemia and lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, a high-risk pattern of dyslipidemia. This review discusses the benefits of omega-3 carboxylic acids, a recently approved formulation of omega-3 fatty acid with enhanced bioavailability, in the treatment of dyslipidemia both as monotherapy and combination therapy with a statin. Keywords: omega-3 carboxylic acids, non-HDL-C, hypertriglyceridemia, residual risk, statin

Kevin C Maki1, Mary R Dicklin1, Michael H Davidson2, Patrick D Mize3, Krishnaji R Kulkarni31Provident Clinical Research/Biofortis North America, Glen Ellyn, IL, 2The University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, 3Atherotech, Birmingham, AL, USAObjective: Progression of carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) is a surrogate indicator for the early stages of atherosclerosis.Methods: The study investigated relationships between baseline lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride (TG), and apolipoprotein (Apo) B levels assessed with density gradient ultracentrifugation (DGU) and progression of posterior wall common CIMT in men (45–75 years of age) and women (55–74 years of age) in the control arm of a clinical trial. Participants had baseline posterior wall CIMT 0.7–2.0 mm, without significant stenosis. CIMT was assessed using B-mode ultrasound at baseline, and 12 and ~18 months. A DGU cholesterol panel that assessed the major lipoprotein classes and subclasses, plus triglycerides, lipoprotein (a) cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) peak time (inversely related to LDL particle density), and Apo B were performed on fasting baseline samples. Apo B was also measured using an enzyme linked immunosorbent assay.Results: Baseline CIMT was inversely associated (P < 0.001) with CIMT progression. After adjustment for baseline CIMT, significant predictors of posterior wall CIMT progression in linear regression analyses included LDL peak time (inverse, P = 0.045), total high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (inverse, P = 0.001), HDL2-C (inverse, P = 0.005), HDL3-C (inverse, P = 0.003), very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL)-C (P = 0.037), and VLDL1+2-C (P = 0.016).Conclusion: These data indicate that DGU-derived indicators of the “atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype,” including increased TG-rich lipoprotein cholesterol, lower HDL-C and HDL-C subfractions, and a greater proportion of LDL-C carried by more dense LDL particles, are associated with CIMT progression in men and women at moderate risk for coronary heart disease.Keywords: carotid intima media thickness, density gradient ultracentrifugation, coronary heart disease risk, lipids, atherosclerosis, lipoprotein subfractions

Monotherapy with lipid-modifying medication is frequently insufficient to normalize lipid abnormalities in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes mellitus. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of fenofibric acid + statin combination therapy in this population. A pooled, subgroup analysis of three randomized, controlled, double-blind, 12-week trials. Multiple clinical research facilities in the US and Canada. Patients with mixed dyslipidemia and type 2 diabetes (n = 586). Fenofibric acid (Trilipix(R)) 135 mg monotherapy; low-, moderate-, or high-dose statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin [Crestor(R)] 10, 20, or 40 mg; simvastatin [Zocor(R)] 20, 40, or 80 mg; or atorvastatin [Lipitor(R)] 20, 40, or 80 mg); or fenofibric acid + low- or moderate-dose statin. Mean percentage changes in lipid parameters, percentages of patients achieving optimal serum lipid/apolipoprotein levels, and incidence of adverse events. 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

Background: Coadministration of statin and fenofibrate monotherapies is frequently used to treat patients with dyslipidemia; however, a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet is not currently marketed. Objective: This study evaluates a new FDC tablet of atorvastatin 40 mg and fenofibrate 100 mg. Methods: This was a 12-week, multicenter, doubleblind, randomized, parallel-group Phase IIb study. Adults with dyslipidemia (non-HDL-C >130 mg/dL and triglycerides [TG] greater than or equal to 150 but less tha nor equal to 500 mg/dL) were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive the FDC, atorvastatin 40 mg, or fenofibrate 145 mg for 12 weeks. Study medication was taken once daily in the evening, without regard to meals. Patients attended follow-up visits after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of the double-blind treatment. The primary efficacy end points were the mean percentage changes from baseline to the final visit (week 12) in non-HDL-C, HDL-C, and TG. Secondary variables were LDL-C, VLDL-C particle concentration, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein (a), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, fibrinogen, homocysteine, creatinine, myeloperoxidase, and lipoproteinassociated phospholipase A2. Tolerability was assessed by adverse events, laboratory parameters, vital signs, physical examinations, and ECGs. Results: Patients (n = 220) were aged 26 to 87 years; 115 (52.3%) were men and 105 (47.7%) were women; 189 (85.9%) were white, 17 (7.7%) were black, and 15 (6.8%) were Hispanic or Latino; and mean (SD) weight was 200.5 (40.85) lb (range, 103.5DS367.4 lb). Previous treatments were statins (25.9% [57/220]), fibrates (1.8% [4/220]), and dietary supplements (25.5% [56/220]); 57.7% (127/220) of patients were treatment naive. Use of the FDC was associated with an improvement in non-HDL-C (-44.8%) that was significantly greater than with fenofibrate monotherapy (-16.1%; P < 0.001) but was not significantly different from that with atorvastatin monotherapy (-40.2%; P = NS). HDL-C increased significantly more in the FDC group (19.7%) than with atorvastatin (6.5%; P < 0.001) but was not significantly different from fenofibrate (18.2%; P = NS). TG lowering in the FDC group (-49.1%) was significantly greater than with both atorvastatin (-28.9%; P < 0.001) and fenofibrate (-27.8%; P = 0.001). LDL-C lowering in the FDC group (-42.3%) was significantly greater than with fenofibrate (-13.9%; P < 0.001) but not significantly different from atorvastatin (-43.1%; P = NS). The FDC had either comparable or significantly greater improvements in other lipid variables and multiple secondary variables. The FDC was generally well tolerated; the tolerability profile was consistent with those of atorvastatin and fenofibrate monotherapies. Treatment-emergent adverse events (ie, those occurring after the first dose of study medication) were recorded in 43 of 73 patients (58.9%) for the FDC, 49 of 74 (66.2%) for atorvastatin, and 48 of 73 (65.8%) for fenofibrate. Conclusions: In this 12-week study, patients with dyslipidemia treated with the 40/100-mg atorvastatin/ fenofibrate FDC had a significantly greater reduction in TG than those treated with atorvastatin 40 mg or higher-dose fenofibrate 145 mg. Treatment with the FDC was also associated with a significantly greater reduction in non-HDL-C compared with fenofibrate alone and a greater increase in HDL-C compared with atorvastatin alone. All treatments were generally well tolerated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: This post hoc analysis of the Aggressive Lipid-Lowering Initiation Abates New Cardiac Events (ALLIANCE) Study investigates the effect of focused atorvastatin therapy versus usual care on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) with and without chronic kidney disease (CKD). STUDY DESIGN: Prospective randomized open-label; median follow-up, 54.3 months. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Managed care or Veterans Affairs facilities; 2,442 patients with CHD with dyslipidemia; mean age, 61.6 years. INTERVENTION: Focused atorvastatin therapy to a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal of less than 80 mg/dL or maximum dose of 80 mg/d versus usual care as deemed appropriate by patients' regular physicians. PREDICTOR: Baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated using the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study equation of less than 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (patients with CKD) and 60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) or greater (patients without CKD). OUTCOMES & MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was time to first cardiovascular event. Change from baseline eGFR was assessed in 1,768 patients with follow-up renal data. RESULTS: At baseline, 579 patients (23.7%) had CKD: 31.6% of these patients experienced a primary cardiovascular event during the study versus 23.6% of patients without CKD (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18 to 1.68; P < 0.001). Compared with usual care, atorvastatin therapy reduced the relative risk of a primary outcome by 28% in patients with CKD (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.97; P = 0.02) and 11% in patients without CKD (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.07; P = 0.3) (P for treatment by CKD interaction = 0.2). There was no decrease in eGFR in atorvastatin-treated patients during the course of the study. LIMITATIONS: Follow-up of atorvastatin patients was restricted to every 6 months; interim data were unavailable for usual-care patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CHD and CKD are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. Compared with usual care, focused atorvastatin treatment decreased cardiovascular risk for established patients in real-world settings, with no significant difference in treatment effects observed between patients with and without CKD. Copyright © 2009 National Kidney Foundation, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Inhibition of acyl coenzyme A:cholesterol acyltransferase (ACAT), an intracellular enzyme involved in cholesterol accumulation, with pactimibe was developed to assist in the prevention of cardiovascular disease.Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pactimibe in inhibition of atherosclerosis.Design, Setting, and Patients: A prospective, randomized, stratified, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (Carotid Atherosclerosis Progression Trial Investigating Vascular ACAT Inhibition Treatment Effects [CAPTIVATE]) of 892 patients heterozygous for familial hypercholesterolemia conducted at 40 lipid clinics in the United States, Canada, Europe, South Africa, and Israel between February 1, 2004, and December 31, 2005. Study was terminated on October 26, 2005.Intervention: Participants received either 100 mg/d of pactimibe (n = 443) or matching placebo (n = 438), in addition to standard lipid-lowering therapy.Main Outcome Measures: Carotid atherosclerosis, assessed by ultrasound carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), at baseline, 12, 18, and 24 months. Maximum CIMT was the primary end point and mean CIMT the secondary end point.Results: Because pactimibe failed to show efficacy in the intravascular coronary ultrasound ACTIVATE study, the CAPTIVATE study was terminated prematurely after a follow-up of 15 months. After 6 months of treatment with pactimibe, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased by 7.3% (SD, 23%) compared with 1.4% (SD, 28%) in the placebo group (P = .001). The carotid ultrasonographic scans of the 716 patients with at least 2 scans and obtained at least 40 weeks apart were analyzed. Maximum CIMT measurements did not show a pactimibe treatment effect (difference, 0.004 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.023 to 0.015 mm; P = .64); however, the less variable mean CIMT measurement revealed an increase of 0.014 mm (95% CI, -0.027 to 0.000 mm; P = .04) in patients administered pactimibe vs placebo. Major cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) occurred more often in patients administered pactimibe vs placebo (10/443 [2.3%] vs 1/438 [0.2%]; P = .01).Conclusions: In patients with familial hypercholesterolemia, pactimibe had no effect on atherosclerosis as assessed by changes in maximum CIMT compared with placebo but was associated with an increase in mean CIMT as well as increased incidence of major cardiovascular events.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00151788. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: High-dose HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) fail to prevent approximately two-thirds of cardiovascular events. This fact has focused increased attention on treating abnormalities of non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (non-HDL-C), HDL-C, and triglycerides in national guidelines and has intensified interest in combination therapy. METHODS: The OCEANS study (Open-label evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a Combination of niacin ER and simvAstatin in patieNts with dySlipidemia; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00080275) evaluated the safety and efficacy of a combination of niacin extended release and simvastatin (NER/S; SIMCOR((R))) over 52 weeks in 520 patients with mixed dyslipidemia. After a >/=4-week run-in phase of diet modification and simvastatin 40 mg/day, median baseline values (mg/dL) were: non-HDL-C = 141, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) = 110, HDL-C = 45, and triglyceride = 151. Patients were randomized to an 8- or 12-week niacin titration scheme to a maximum NER/S dosage of 2000/40 mg/day. RESULTS: Differences between titration groups in tolerability, safety, and efficacy were minimal; therefore, all results are for pooled titration groups. The safety of NER/S was consistent with the safety profile of each individual component. Treatment with NER/S was well tolerated: 71% of patients experienced flushing and 92% of flushing episodes were mild or moderate in intensity. Overall, 61% of patients experienced flushing episodes that were rated as mild or moderate in intensity. Flushing decreased over time: <40% of those who had flushing during titration experienced flushing during the final 12 weeks. A total of 20% of patients discontinued treatment because of a treatment-related adverse event, including 7% who discontinued because of flushing. Median changes from baseline (following the simvastatin 40 mg/day run-in phase) to 24 weeks were: non-HDL-C = -27.3%, LDL-C = -25.0%, HDL-C = +23.9%, and triglycerides = -35.9% (all p < 0.0001 vs baseline). In lipid-treatment-naive patients, NER/S 2000/40 mg/day decreased non-HDL-C, LDL-C, and triglycerides by approximately 50% and increased HDL-C by approximately 25% when week-24 lipid values were compared with lipid values obtained prior to the simvastatin 40 mg/day run-in. All three therapeutic lipid targets (LDL-C [risk-adjusted goal], HDL-C >/=40 mg/dL, and triglycerides <150 mg/dL) were achieved concurrently by 65% of patients treated with NER/S. CONCLUSION: Treatment with NER/S 2000/40 mg/day is well tolerated, has no unanticipated adverse events, and provides additional, clinically relevant improvements in multiple lipid parameters beyond statin monotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Carotid artery intima-media thickness (CIMT) is a marker of coronary atherosclerosis and independently predicts cardiovascular events, which are increased in type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). While studies of relatively short duration have suggested that thiazolidinediones such as pioglitazone might reduce progression of CIMT in persons with diabetes, the results of longer studies have been less clear.Objective: To evaluate the effect of pioglitazone vs glimepiride on changes in CIMT of the common carotid artery in patients with type 2 DM.Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, comparator-controlled, multicenter trial in patients with type 2 DM conducted at 28 clinical sites in the multiracial/ethnic Chicago metropolitan area between October 2003 and May 2006. The treatment period was 72 weeks (1-week follow-up). CIMT images were captured by a single ultrasonographer at 1 center and read by a single treatment-blinded reader using automated edge-detection technology. Participants were 462 adults (mean age, 60 [SD, 8.1] years; mean body mass index, 32 [SD, 5.1]) with type 2 DM (mean duration, 7.7 [SD, 7.2] years; mean glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c] value, 7.4% [SD, 1.0%]), either newly diagnosed or currently treated with diet and exercise, sulfonylurea, metformin, insulin, or a combination thereof.Interventions: Pioglitazone hydrochloride (15-45 mg/d) or glimepiride (1-4 mg/d) as an active comparator.Main Outcome Measure: Absolute change from baseline to final visit in mean posterior-wall CIMT of the left and right common carotid arteries.Results: Mean change in CIMT was less with pioglitazone vs glimepiride at all time points (weeks 24, 48, 72). At week 72, the primary end point of progression of mean CIMT was less with pioglitazone vs glimepiride (-0.001 mm vs +0.012 mm, respectively; difference, -0.013 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.024 to -0.002; P = .02). Pioglitazone also slowed progression of maximum CIMT compared with glimepiride (0.002 mm vs 0.026 mm, respectively, at 72 weeks; difference, -0.024 mm; 95% confidence interval, -0.042 to -0.006; P = .008). The beneficial effect of pioglitazone on mean CIMT was similar across prespecified subgroups based on age, sex, systolic blood pressure, duration of DM, body mass index, HbA(1c) value, and statin use.Conclusion: Over an 18-month treatment period in patients with type 2 DM, pioglitazone slowed progression of CIMT compared with glimepiride.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00225264 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: This study evaluated the effects of colesevelam on plasma lipids. aortic plaque area, and reverse cholesterol transport enzymes and genes in a rabbit model of atherosclerosis. Methods: Thirty New Zealand white rabbits were fed standard chow for 1 week, placed on a 0,5% cholesterol diet for 2 weeks, then randomized equally to receive either the 0.5% cholesterol diet (control) or the 0.5% cholesterol diet with 1.5 g of colesevelam for 11 weeks. Serum total cholesterol and high density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations and lecithin-cholesterol acythansferase (LCAT) activity were measured before randomization and at treatment endpoint. Rabbits were killed and plaque area was measured in one aorta segment. Gene expression was measured by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction in liver RNA extracts. Results: Colesevelam markedly reduced the circulating cholesterol concentration and decreased plaque area by 81% compared with controls (P<0.001). LCAT fractional rate was markedly increased versus controls (12.6% and 0.2%. respectively: P<0.001). Colesevelam enhanced fecal cholesterol concentrations more than two-fold. Colesevelam significantly increased hepatic gene expression for scavenger receptor type BI, apolipoprotein A1, LCAT. cholesterol ester transfer protein, cholesterol 7-[alpha]-hydroxylase (CYP7A1), low-density lipoprotein receptor, and liver X receptor (LXR). Conclusions: In cholesterol-fed rabbits, colesevelam reduced atherosclerosis through cholesterol lowering and potentially by enhancing reverse cholesterol transport, mediated by changes in LXR-regulated proteins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The updated NCEP ATP III guidelines offer options to intensify cholesterol-lowering therapy for moderate- and high-risk patients. Lifestyle modifications, including diet, weight loss, and physical activity, are still the cornerstones of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The available statin drugs have similar pharmacodynamic properties but are not equal in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering efficacy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of lovastatin and fluvastatin in lowering LDL-C. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of patients aged >20 years with primary hypercholesterolemia conducted at 44 clinical sites across the United States. After a 6-week National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step I diet lead-in period in patients taking lipid-lowering drugs at screening, patients were randomized to receive lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg/d or fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d (the doses available at the time the study was conducted) for 6 weeks. Patients not taking lipid-lowering drugs at screening and who had been following the Step I diet for at least 6 weeks proceeded to the treatment phase. All patients received instruction for a Step I diet, which they followed throughout the treatment phase. After the treatment period, total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL-C, and triglycerides were measured, and TC:HDL-C and LDL-C:HDL-C ratios were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 838 patients (476 men, 362 women; mean [SD] age, 59 [12] years) were included in the study. Lovastatin 20 and 40 mg/d significantly reduced mean LDL-C compared with the same dosages of fluvastatin. TC and the LDL-C:HDL-C ratio decreased more with lovastatin than with fluvastatin at a given dose level. Approximately 50% of patients treated with lovastatin 20 and 40 mg/d compared with approximately 25% treated with fluvastatin 20 and 40 mg/d reached NCEP Adult Treatment Panel II LDL-C goals. CONCLUSION: In this small study population of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia taking lipid-lowering drugs, short-term (6-week) treatment with lovastatin was more efficacious than fluvastatin in lowering cholesterol levels and reaching LDL-C treatment goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The primary objective of this 6-week, parallel-group, open-label, randomized, multicenter trial was to compare rosuvastatin with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin across dose ranges for reduction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Secondary objectives included comparing rosuvastatin with comparators for other lipid modifications and achievement of National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and Joint European Task Force LDL cholesterol goals. After a dietary lead-in period, 2,431 adults with hypercholesterolemia (LDL cholesterol > or =160 and <250 mg/dl; triglycerides <400 mg/dl) were randomized to treatment with rosuvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg. At 6 weeks, across-dose analyses showed that rosuvastatin 10 to 80 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by a mean of 8.2% more than atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg, 26% more than pravastatin 10 to 40 mg, and 12% to 18% more than simvastatin 10 to 80 mg (all p <0.001). Mean percent changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the rosuvastatin groups were +7.7% to +9.6% compared with +2.1% to +6.8% in all other groups. Across dose ranges, rosuvastatin reduced total cholesterol significantly more (p <0.001) than all comparators and triglycerides significantly more (p <0.001) than simvastatin and pravastatin. Adult Treatment Panel III LDL cholesterol goals were achieved by 82% to 89% of patients treated with rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg compared with 69% to 85% of patients treated with atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg; the European LDL cholesterol goal of <3.0 mmol/L was achieved by 79% to 92% in rosuvastatin groups compared with 52% to 81% in atorvastatin groups. Drug tolerability was similar across treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe administered with simvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.Background: Despite the availability of statins, many patients do not achieve lipid targets. Combination therapy with lipid-lowering agents that act via a complementary pathway may allow additional patients to achieve recommended cholesterol goals.Methods: After dietary stabilization, a 2- to 12-week washout period, and a 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or =145 mg/dl to < or =250 mg/dl and triglycerides (TG) < or =350 mg/dl were randomized to one of the following 10 groups administered daily for 12 consecutive weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was percentage reduction from baseline to end point in direct LDL-C for the pooled ezetimibe plus simvastatin groups versus pooled simvastatin groups.Results: Ezetimibe plus simvastatin significantly improved LDL-C (p < 0.01), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (p = 0.03), and TG (p < 0.01) compared with simvastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus simvastatin (pooled doses) provided an incremental 13.8% LDL-C reduction, 2.4% HDL-C increase, and 7.5% TG reduction compared with pooled simvastatin alone. Coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin provided LDL-C reductions of 44% to 57%, TG reductions of 20% to 28%, and HDL-C increases of 8% to 11%, depending on the simvastatin dose. Ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 10 mg and simvastatin 80 mg alone each provided a 44% LDL-C reduction. The coadministration of ezetimibe with simvastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to those of simvastatin and of placebo.Conclusions: When coadministered with simvastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG, as well as increases in HDL-C. Coadministration of ezetimibe with simvastatin was well tolerated and comparable to statin alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ATP III focuses on aggressive lowering of LDL cholesterol levels in a larger subset of patients. This article helps you identify who they are. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Because lovastatin is efficiently extracted by the liver and because its administration in divided doses is associated with increased efficacy, an extended-release (ER) formulation may have the potential for a dose-sparing advantage relative to the immediate-release (IR) formulation in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the short-term pharmacodynamics, safety, and pharmacokinetics of multiple doses of lovastatin ER with those of lovastatin IR in patients with fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels between 130 and 250 mg/dL and fasting triglyceride levels < 350 mg/dL. METHODS: The study had a randomized, single-blind, positive-controlled, 2-way crossover design, with a 4-week diet/placebo run-in period and two 4-week active-treatment periods. During period 1, patients received either lovastatin ER or lovastatin IR (both 40 mg OD). After 4 weeks of the initial study treatment and a 2-week washout period, patients were switched to the alternate treatment (period 2). Pharmacodynamic parameters (LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and triglyceride levels) were evaluated by combining data from weeks 3 and 4 of treatment. In a pharmacokinetic substudy, maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to 24 hours (AUC(024)) were determined for lovastatin, lovastatin acid, and total and active inhibitors of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase on days 1 and 28 of active treatment. The geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-24) (lovastatin ER/lovastatin IR) was also calculated for each of these substances. RESULTS: Of 76 patients who entered the run-in period, 26 (12 men, 14 women; mean age, 56.2 years) were randomized to receive active treatment and 24 were included in the efficacy analysis; 13 patients were included in the pharmacokinetic substudy, 12 of whom had complete pharmacokinetic data. Compared with lovastatin IR, lovastatin ER produced a 3.9% greater reduction in LDL-C (P = 0.044). Changes in other lipid parameters were not statistically significant. In the pharmacokinetic substudy, C(max) values for lovastatin, lovastatin acid, and in hibitors of HMG-CoA reductase were lower at day 28 with lovastatin ER than with lovastatin IR. The AUC(0-24) ratio for lovastatin was 1.91 (90% CI, 1.77 - 3.35), reflecting higher bioavailability of the prodrug with lovastatin ER; in contrast, the ratios for lovastatin acid and active and total inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase were < 1. CONCLUSIONS: In this short-term study in a small number of patients, lovastatin ER 40 mg produced significantly greater LDL-C lowering than did an equal dose of lovastatin IR, with a relatively low C(max) and comparable systemic exposure to lovastatin acid and active and total inhibitors of HMG-CoA reductase. Lovastatin ER was well tolerated, with no discontinuations due to adverse events. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Hypercholesterolemia is a major risk factor for coronary heart disease and nutrition management is the initial therapeutic approach. OBJECTIVE: This multicenter study evaluated the long-term effectiveness of psyllium husk fiber as an adjunct to diet in the treatment of persons with primary hypercholesterolemia. DESIGN: Men and women with hypercholesterolemia were recruited. After following an American Heart Association Step I diet for 8 wk (dietary adaptation phase), eligible subjects with serum LDL-cholesterol concentrations between 3.36 and 4.91 mmol/L were randomly assigned to receive either 5.1 g psyllium or a cellulose placebo twice daily for 26 wk while continuing diet therapy. RESULTS: Serum total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations were 4.7% and 6.7% lower in the psyllium group than in the placebo group after 24-26 wk (P < 0.001). Other outcome measures did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with 5.1 g psyllium twice daily produces significant net reductions in serum total and LDL-cholesterol concentrations in men and women with primary hypercholesterolemia. Psyllium therapy is an effective adjunct to diet therapy and may provide an alternative to drug therapy for some patients. Copyright © 2000 American Society for Clinical Nutrition [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A predominance of small, dense low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles (subclass pattern B) has been associated with a 2- to threefold increase in coronary heart disease risk. Recently, it has been reported that LDL subclass pattern B is associated with hyperfibrinogenemia, which is also a coronary heart disease risk factor. The present study examined the relation between hyperfibrinogenemia and LDL subclass pattern in 258 postmenopausal women. A significant univariate correlation was observed between the concentration of cholesterol carried in small, dense LDL particles and plasma fibrinogen concentration (r = 0.17, p = 0.01). The prevalence of LDL subclass pattern B was 41.9% in the highest fibrinogen tertile, compared with 27.9% and 24.4% in the first and second tertiles, respectively (global chi-square 6.8, p = 0.03). The crude odds ratio (OR) for LDL subclass pattern B among women in the highest fibrinogen tertile, compared with the lower tertiles, was 2.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18 to 3.51, p = 0.01). After adjustment for age and plasma lipids (log(e) triglycerides, LDL cholesterol, and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the OR was 2.14 (95% CI 1.17 to 3.96, p = 0.01). Further adjustment for hematocrit, indicators of carbohydrate homeostasis, body mass index, waist circumference, and several variables related to lifestyle did not attenuate this association (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.27, p = 0.01). These data suggest that hyperfibrinogenemia and LDL subclass pattern B may be 2 components of a common syndrome and suggest that hyperfibrinogenemia may contribute to the increased coronary heart disease risk associated with LDL subclass pattern B. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Orlistat, a gastrointestinal lipase inhibitor that reduces dietary fat absorption by approximately 30%, may promote weight loss and reduce cardiovascular risk factors.Objective: To test the hypothesis that orlistat combined with dietary intervention is more effective than placebo plus diet for weight loss and maintenance over 2 years.Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted from October 1992 to October 1995.Setting and Participants: Obese adults (body mass index [weight in kilograms divided by the square of height in meters], 30-43 kg/m2) evaluated at 18 US research centers.Intervention: Subjects received placebo plus a controlled-energy diet during a 4-week lead-in. On study day 1, the diet was continued and subjects were randomized to receive placebo 3 times a day or orlistat, 120 mg 3 times a day, for 52 weeks. After 52 weeks, subjects began a weight-maintenance diet, and the placebo group (n = 133) continued to receive placebo and orlistat-treated subjects were rerandomized to receive placebo 3 times a day (n = 138), orlistat, 60 mg (n = 152) or 120 mg (n = 153) 3 times a day, for an additional 52 weeks.Main Outcome Measures: Body weight change and changes in blood pressure and serum lipid, glucose, and insulin levels.Results: A total of 1187 subjects entered the protocol, and 892 were randomly assigned on day 1 to double-blind treatment. For intent-to-treat analysis, 223 placebo-treated subjects and 657 orlistat-treated subjects were evaluated. During the first year orlistat-treated subjects lost more weight (mean +/- SEM, 8.76+/-0.37 kg) than placebo-treated subjects (5.81+/-0.67 kg) (P<.001). Subjects treated with orlistat, 120 mg 3 times a day, during year 1 and year 2 regained less weight during year 2 (3.2+/-0.45 kg; 35.2% regain) than those who received orlistat, 60 mg (4.26+/-0.57 kg; 51.3% regain), or placebo (5.63+/-0.42 kg; 63.4% regain) in year 2 (P<.001). Treatment with orlistat, 120 mg 3 times a day, was associated with improvements in fasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and insulin levels.Conclusions: Two-year treatment with orlistat plus diet significantly promotes weight loss, lessens weight regain, and improves some obesity-related disease risk factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) is a food gum having several structural and functional properties in common with hypocholesterolemic soluble fibers. The safety and cholestero-lowering efficacy of HPMC, incorporated into a National Cholesterol Education Program Step I diet, was compared with placebo in patients with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia. After an 8-week National Cholesterol Education Program Step I dietary lead-in phase, 160 patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol between 130 and 200 mg/dl and triglycerides <300 mg/dl were randomized to placebo, 2.5, 5.0, or 7.5 g/day of HPMC for a 6-week treatment period. Patients returned to the clinic every 2 weeks for lipid measurements and safety assessments. HPMC significantly lowered total, LDL, and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. LDL cholesterol concentrations (average of weeks 4 and 6) decreased by 3.0% (4.9 mg/dl), 5.9% (10.3 mg/dl), 12.1% (20.4 mg/dl), and 11.7% (20.3 mg/dl) from baseline levels in the placebo and 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 g/day HPMC treatment groups, respectively. Statistically significant (p<0.05) reductions in LDL cholesterol were observed in the 5.0 and 7.5 g/day HPMC groups compared with placebo and 2.5 g/day HPMC treatment groups. Total and non-HDL cholesterol responses paralleled those of LDL cholesterol. There were no significant differences between the treatment groups in HDL cholesterol or triglyceride responses, incidence of adverse experiences, or gastrointestinal-related adverse experiences. These results suggest that HPMC is a well-tolerated and effective adjunct to diet for lowering LDL cholesterol in patients with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oat cereals rich in the water-soluble fiber beta-glucan have been studied as a dietary therapy for hypercholesterolemia. To determine the hypocholesterolemic response of beta-glucan in the diet, 156 adults with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels above 4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dL) or between 3.37 and 4.14 mmol/L (130 and 160 mg/dL) with multiple risk factors were randomized to one of seven groups. Six groups received either oatmeal or oat bran at doses (dry weight) of 28 g (1 oz), 56 g (2 oz), and 84 g (3 oz). A seventh group received 28 g of farina (beta-glucan control). At week 6 of treatment, significant differences were found for both total cholesterol and LDL-C levels among the farina control and the treatment groups who were receiving 84 g of oatmeal, 56 g of oat bran, and 84 g of oat bran, with decreases in LDL-C levels of 10.1%, 15.9%, and 11.5%, respectively. Fifty-six grams of oat bran resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C levels than 56 g of oatmeal. Nutrient analysis shows no difference in dietary fat content between these treatment groups; therefore, the higher beta-glucan content of oat bran most likely explains the significantly greater LDL-C reductions. A dose-dependent reduction in LDL-C levels with oat cereals supports the independent hypocholesterolemic effects of beta-glucan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This randomized, multicenter, double-blind parallel-group study was performed to evaluate the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of simvastatin 80 mg/day, a dose twice the current maximum recommended dose. At 20 centers in the United States, 521 male and female hypercholesterolemic patients were randomly assigned in a ratio of 2:3 to receive simvastatin 40 or 80 mg once daily, respectively, for 24 weeks in conjunction with a lipid-lowering diet. Patients met National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol criteria for pharmacologic treatment. The mean percentage reductions (95% confidence intervals) from baseline in LDL cholesterol averaged at weeks 18 and 24 were 38% (-40 to -36) and 46% (-47 to -45) for the 40- and 80-mg groups, respectively (p <0.001 between groups). One third of patients on the 40- and 80-mg doses achieved an LDL cholesterol reduction of 46% and > or = 53%, respectively. Decreases in apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, and triglycerides were also significantly greater among patients receiving 80 mg/day. Simvastatin was well tolerated in both groups. Two patients (0.6%) in the 80-mg group developed myopathy. Consecutive, clinically significant hepatic transaminase elevations occurred in 3 (1.0%) and 6 (1.9%) patients in the 40- and 80-mg groups, respectively (p= 0.486). In conclusion, simvastatin 80 mg/day provided substantial reductions in LDL cholesterol, allowing most patients to reach their NCEP target levels; it also had an excellent safety and tolerability profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effects of consuming foods containing 0 (control), 3.4, 6.8, or 10.2 g psyllium seed husk (PSH)/d for 24 wk on the serum lipid profile were assessed in this randomized, double-blind controlled study. Men and women (n = 286) with LDL-cholesterol concentrations between 3.36 and 5.68 mmol/L (130 and 220 mg/dL) were randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups after following a low-fat diet for > or = 8 wk. At week 24, LDL cholesterol was 3% above baseline in the control group. In the group consuming 10.2 g PSH/d, LDL cholesterol remained below baseline during treatment, with a value 5.3% below that of the control group at week 24 (P < 0.05 compared with the control group). No significant differences were observed in HDL cholesterol or triacylglycerol. Although modest, the effect of 10.2 g PSH/d on LDL cholesterol (relative to the control) persisted throughout the 24-wk treatment period, indicating potential for long-term benefit. Copyright (c) 1998 American Society for Clinical Nutrition [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Combination lipid-lowering therapy may be desirable in patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high triglycerides, and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. This study was conducted to determine the lipid-lowering efficacy of the combination of low-dose simvastatin and niacin in patients with combined hyperlipidemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized trial, 180 patients with hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia and/or low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were randomized to combination simvastatin (10 mg/day) and niacin (0.75 g/day) or to either drug alone for 9 weeks. The dose of niacin was doubled (from 0.75 g/day to 1.5 g/day) in both the combination and niacin arms for the remaining 8 weeks. The combination of simvastatin, 10 mg/day, and niacin, 1.5 g/day, reduced total, low-density lipoprotein, and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides by 24%, 29%, 45%, and 31%, respectively, while increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 31%. The addition of niacin to simvastatin did not enhance the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 31%. The addition of niacin to simvastatin did not enhance the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering effect of simvastatin; however, the combination was more effective than either monotherapy at raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lowering very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P <.05). More patients discontinued treatment because of an adverse event in the niacin (P <.03) and combination groups (P =.06) than the simvastatin group. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of patients with combined hyperlipidemia and/or low high-density lipoprotein with combination low-dose simvastatin and niacin resulted in large reductions in total, low-density lipoprotein, and very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increases in HDL cholesterol. Although the combination was well tolerated in the current trial, its safety needs to be evaluated in larger trials of longer duration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The updated NCEP ATP III guidelines offer options to intensify cholesterol-lowering therapy for moderate- and high-risk patients. Lifestyle modifications, including diet, weight loss, and physical activity, are still the cornerstones of treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plasma lipid and apolipoprotein ratios that include both an atherogenic and an antiatherogenic lipid component (eg, total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol ratio, low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio, non-HDL cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio, and apolipoprotein [apo] B/apo A-I ratio) have been found to be strong predictors of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. Three trials that compared the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg versus atorvastatin 10 mg and 2 trials that compared the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg versus simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 20 mg on lipid ratios in patients with hypercholesterolemia were prospectively designed for pooled analysis. At 12 weeks, in the 3-trial pooled analysis, rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 389) showed significantly greater reductions in all 4 lipid ratios compared with atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) (p <0.001). The mean percent reduction from baseline in the LDL cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio was 51% in patients treated with rosuvastatin 10 mg versus 39% in patients treated with atorvastatin 10 mg. In the 2-trial pooled analysis, treatment with rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 226) also resulted in significantly greater reductions in all 4 lipid ratios compared with both simvastatin 20 mg (n = 249) and pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) (p <0.001). Mean percent reductions from baseline in the LDL cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio were 52%, 39%, and 30% for rosuvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 20 mg, respectively, in these 2 trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of combination therapy is an effective way to manage dyslipidemia in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, combination therapy is not a frequently used strategy in the treatment of CAD. Aggressive lipid-altering therapy often requires the use of combination therapy involving statins in conjunction with niacin, fibric-acid derivatives, ezetimibe, or bile acid resins. Yet, safety concerns regarding the combination of statins with other lipid-altering drugs and patient acceptance of combination therapy have influenced its application in the treatment of CAD. This article discusses several safety and regulatory considerations for the use of combination therapy for dyslipidemia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]