Search

Background: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) has been associated with increased cardiovascular risk when untreated or when normal LDL-C concentrations are not reached. Some patients with FH do not reach LDL-C goals despite intensive combination therapy., Objective: This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of colesevelam added to maximally tolerated, stable-dose combination treatment with a statin + ezetimibe., Methods: This Phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled patients aged 18 to 75 years with FH and an LDL-C concentration >2.5 mmol/L who were receiving a maximally tolerated and stable regimen of a statin + ezetimibe. Patients were randomly assigned to receive colesevelam 3.75 g/d or placebo added to the statin + ezetimibe for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy outcome was the difference in LDL-C between the colesevelam and placebo groups after 6 weeks. Secondary efficacy outcomes were between-group differences in LDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), HDL-C, triglyceride (Tg), apolipoprotein (apo) B, and apoA-I concentrations, as well as apoB/apoA-I ratio after 12 weeks. Tolerability was assessed based on the prevalences of adverse events by organ system class in each treatment group., Results: Eighty-six patients were randomized (45 colesevelam, 41 placebo), of whom 84 (44 colesevelam, 40 placebo) were included in the primary analysis. The mean (SD) age of the participants was 52.8 (10.8) years, and 51 (59%) were men. The difference (95% CI) in LDL-C between colesevelam and placebo after 6 weeks was -18.5% (-25.3 to -11.8). Between-group differences in LDL-C, TC, HDL-C, Tg, and apoB/apoA-I ratio after 12 weeks were -12.0% (-17.8 to -6.3), -7.3% (-12.0 to -2.6), +3.3% (-2.4 to +9.0), +2.8% (-10.4 to +15.9), and -12.2% (-20.2 to -4.2), respectively. Colesevelam was generally well tolerated, with gastrointestinal adverse events in 12 of 45 patients (27%) versus 7 of 40 (18%) in the placebo group (P = NS)., Conclusion: In these patients with FH, colesevelam added to a combination of a statin + ezetimibe was associated with significantly improved LDL-C concentrations compared with placebo during the 12-week study period and was generally well tolerated.

The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) has recently been shown to effectively increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. This study examined the use of the CETP inhibitor JTT-705 combined with pravastatin. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 155 patients with type II dyslipidemia using pravastatin 40 mg were treated with placebo or JTT-705 300 or 600 mg. Four weeks of treatment with JTT-705 600 mg led to a 30% decrease in CETP activity (p <0.001), a 28% increase in HDL cholesterol (p <0.001), and a 5% decrease in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p <0.03). Combination therapy using JTT-705 and pravastatin effectively increases HDL cholesterol levels and is safe and well tolerated up to 4 weeks of administration.

In the 2-year Atorvastatin versus Simvastatin on Atherosclerosis Progression extension study, patients with familial hypercholesterolemia who continued to take atorvastatin 80 mg for an additional 2 years had complete arrest of the progression of mean carotid intima-media thickness (0.89 mm at the start vs 0.90 mm at the end of the study, p = 0.58). In contrast, patients previously taking simvastatin 40 mg had significant regression of intima-media thickness (0.95 mm at the start vs 0.92 mm at the end of the study, p = 0.01). Therefore, both placebo- and statin-treated patients with familial hypercholesterolemia are best treated with high-dose atorvastatin, a therapeutic regimen that induces atherosclerosis regression and is safe and well tolerated over a 4-year period.

Background: Use of cholesterol-lowering regimens has been shown to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), both in primary and secondary prevention. However, there have been few studies of the relative benefits and risks of the various cholesterol-lowering agents in patient groups with specific risk factors for CHD., Objective: The primary goal of this study was to compare the proportions of adult patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and a moderate to high risk for CHD achieving National Cholesterol Education Program low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals with titrate-to-goal regimens of simvastatin and fluvastatin., Methods: This was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study enrolling adult patients with type IIa or IIb primary hypercholesterolemia, LDL-C levels <6.0 mmol/L (<232.0 mg/dL), and triglyceride levels <4.5 mmol/L (<398.6 mg/dL), and either CHD or other atherosclerotic disease (the CHD, or high-risk, group), or multiple risk factors for CHD (the MRF, or moderate-risk, group). After a 6-week washout period, patients were randomized to 18 weeks of treatment at an initial dosage of simvastatin 10 mg once daily or fluvastatin 20 mg once daily. At 6- and 12-week titration visits, the dosage in patients who had not acheived the LDL-C goal could be increased to simvastatin 20 mg once daily and then 40 mg once daily, or to fluvastatin 40 mg once daily and then 40 mg twice daily. Lipid profiles were obtained at each titration visit and at the end of treatment. In addition to the comparison between treatments, secondary comparisons were made between the CHD and MRF subgroups within each treatment group. Statistical significance was assessed using analysis of variance., Results: A total of 478 patients were enrolled, 237 in the simvastatin group and 241 in the fluvastatin group. There were no significant between-group differences in patients' characteristics at baseline. At the end of the study, 60.8% (135/222) of patients in the simvastatin group had reached target LDL-C goals, compared with 35.1% (76/216) in the fluvastatin group (P < 0.001). In the simvastatin CHD and MRF subgroups, 49% and 73%, respectively, reached the LDL-C target, compared with 19% and 50% in the corresponding fluvastatin subgroups (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients requiring titration was higher in the fluvastatin group than in the simvastatin group (87.1% and 64.1%, respectively; P = 0.001). The incidence of adverse events was similar between groups., Conclusion: In this study, more patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and CHD or multiple risk factors for CHD reached LDL-C goals with simvastatin treatment and required less titration than those who received fluvastatin treatment.

Purpose: To determine the incidence and predictability and to elucidate the pathogenesis of amiodarone-induced thyrotoxicosis (AIT) and hypothyroidism (AIH)., Patients and Methods: A prospective study was performed in 58 consecutive euthyroid patients living in an area with moderately sufficient iodine intake, who had never been treated for thyroid disease and who started amiodarone therapy for the first time., Main Outcome Measures: Development of thyrotoxicosis or hypothyroidism., Results: The follow-up period was 6 to 54 months (mean, 21 months). The incidence of AIT was 12.1%. A steady occurrence of new cases was observed. The development of AIT was unpredictable and of unexplained sudden onset. The incidence of AIH was 6.9%. All AIH cases occurred early in the course of amiodarone therapy. The development of AIH was related to pre-existent thyroid disease: the relative risk for women with microsomal and/or thyroglobulin autoantibodies prior to treatment was 13.5 (95% confidence interval 3.2 to 57.4). The development of AIT or AIH was not related to the extent of iodine overload or to the occurrence of de novo thyroid autoantibodies. When a decreased thyrotropin (TSH) response to thyrotropin-releasing hormone occurred (in the absence of AIT), continuation of amiodarone medication was associated with a normalization of the TSH response in eight of 11 cases (73%); in contrast, an increased TSH response (in the absence of AIH) returned to normal in one of four cases (25%)., Conclusion: In euthyroid subjects living in an area with a moderately sufficient intake of iodine, there is a higher incidence of AIT than of AIH. AIH is an early event, occurring especially in women with thyroid autoantibodies prior to treatment. Cases of AIT continue to occur during amiodarone therapy; its development is unpredictable and of unexplained sudden onset. The value of regular thyroid function testing is therefore limited during amiodarone administration.