Search

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]

Subjects with increased cholesterol absorption might benefit more from statin therapy combined with a cholesterol absorption inhibitor. We assessed whether baseline cholesterol absorption markers were associated with response to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy, in terms of LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and cholesterol absorption inhibition, in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH). In a posthoc analysis of the two-year ENHANCE trial, we assessed baseline cholesterol-adjusted campesterol (campesterol/TC) and sitosterol/TC ratios in 591 FH patients. Associations with LDL-C changes and changes in cholesterol absorption markers were evaluated by multiple regression analysis. No association was observed between baseline markers of cholesterol absorption and the extent of LDL-C response to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy (beta = 0.020, P = 0.587 for campesterol/TC and beta<0.001, P = 0.992 for sitosterol/TC). Ezetimibe/simvastatin treatment reduced campesterol levels by 68% and sitosterol levels by 62%; reductions were most pronounced in subjects with the highest cholesterol absorption markers at baseline, the so-called high absorbers (P < 0.001). Baseline cholesterol absorption status does not determine LDL-C lowering response to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy in FH, despite more pronounced cholesterol absorption inhibition in high absorbers. Hence, these data do not support the use of baseline absorption markers as a tool to determine optimal cholesterol lowering strategy in FH patients. However, due to the exploratory nature of any posthoc analysis, these results warrant further prospective evaluation in different populations.

Zetia (ezetimibe) is a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, which potently inhibits the absorption of biliary and dietary cholesterol from the small intestine without affecting the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, triglycerides or bile acids. Ezetimibe reduces the small intestinal enterocyte uptake and absorption of cholesterol by binding to Niemann-Pick C1 Like 1 (NPC1L1), which keeps cholesterol in the intestinal lumen for excretion. Ezetimibe undergoes glucuronidation to a single metabolite and localizes at the intestinal wall, where it binds with higher affinity for NPC1L1 than ezetimibe to prevent cholesterol absorption. Enterohepatic recirculation of ezetimibe and/or its glucuronide ensures repeated delivery to the intestinal site of action and limited peripheral exposure. Ezetimibe has no effect on the activity of major drug metabolizing enzymes (CYP450), which reduces any potential drug-drug interactions with other medications. Ezetimibe (10 mg/day) was found to inhibit cholesterol absorption by an average of 54% in hypercholesterolemic individuals and by 58% in vegetarians. Ezetimibe alone reduced plasma total and LDL-Cholesterol (18%) levels in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. When ezetimibe was added to on-going statin treatment, an additional 25% reduction in LDL-C was found in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia and an additional 21% reduction in LDL-C in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Ezetimibe in combination with statins produces additional reductions in plasma cholesterol levels and allows for more patients to achieve their LDL-C goals.

Aims: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study evaluated the safety and efficacy of ezetimibe 10 mg/day in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia., Methods and Results: Following dietary stabilization, a 2-12-week washout period, and a 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, 827 patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or =3.36 mmol/l (130 mg/dl) to < or =6.47 mmol/l (250 mg/dl) and triglycerides < or =3.95 mmol/l (350 mg/dl) were randomized 3:1 to receive ezetimibe 10 mg or placebo orally once daily in the morning for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage reduction in direct plasma LDL-C. Ezetimibe reduced direct LDL-C by a mean of 17.7% from baseline to endpoint, compared with an increase of 0.8% with placebo (P<0.01). Response to ezetimibe was generally consistent across all subgroups analyzed. Ezetimibe also significantly improved levels of plasma total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, high-density lipoprotein(2)-cholesterol and lipoprotein(a), and elicited a trend toward lower triglyceride levels. Ezetimibe did not alter the serum concentrations of lipid-soluble vitamins or significantly affect baseline or stimulated cortisol production. Ezetimibe was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of placebo., Conclusions: Ezetimibe, which significantly reduces LDL-C and favorably affects other lipid variables, may provide a well tolerated and effective new option for lipid management in the future.

Aims: The primary aims of these two single-centre, randomized, evaluator-blind, placebo/positive-controlled, parallel-group studies were to evaluate the potential for pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interaction between ezetimibe 0.25, 1, or 10 mg and simvastatin 10 mg (Study 1), and a pharmacodynamic interaction between ezetimibe 10 mg and simvastatin 20 mg (Study 2). Evaluation of the tolerance of the coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin was a secondary objective., Methods: Eighty-two healthy men with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >or=130 mg dl-1 received study drug once daily in the morning for 14 days. In Study 1 (n=58), five groups of 11-12 subjects received simvastatin 10 mg alone, or with ezetimibe 0.25, 1, or 10 mg or placebo. In Study 2 (n=24), three groups of eight subjects received simvastatin 20 mg alone, ezetimibe 10 mg alone, or the combination. Blood samples were collected to measure serum lipids in both studies. Steady-state pharmacokinetics of simvastatin and its beta-hydroxy metabolite were evaluated in Study 1 only., Results: In both studies, reported side-effects were generally mild, nonspecific, and similar among treatment groups. In Study 1, there were no indications of pharmacokinetic interactions between simvastatin and ezetimibe. All active treatments caused statistically significant (P<0.01) decreases in LDL-C concentration vs placebo from baseline to day 14. The coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin caused a dose-dependent reduction in LDL-C and total cholesterol, with no apparent effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) or triglycerides. The coadministration of ezetimibe 10 mg and simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg caused a statistically (P<0.01) greater percentage reduction (mean -17%, 95% CI -27.7, -6.2, and -18%, -28.4, -7.4, respectively) in LDL-C than simvastatin alone., Conclusions: The coadministration of ezetimibe at doses up to 10 mg with simvastatin 10 or 20 mg daily was well tolerated and caused a significant additive reduction in LDL-C compared with simvastatin alone. Additional clinical studies to assess the efficacy and safety of coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin are warranted.

Background: Two hundred eighteen patients were evaluated in a two-phase approach (time to first appropriate discharge, survival after discharge) to identify factors that may be related to maximal benefit derived from use of an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD)., Methods and Results: One hundred ninety-seven patients survived implantation of AICD, with or without concomitant cardiac surgery. One hundred five patients had an AICD discharge associated with syncope, presyncope, documented sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation, or sleep at 9.1 +/- 11.1 months after implantation. Patients survived 23.8 +/- 18.0 months after AICD discharge. Left ventricular dysfunction (p = 0.008 for ejection fraction less than 25%) was associated with earlier AICD discharge and shortened survival after AICD discharge (p = 0.008 for ejection fraction less than 25%; p = 0.01 for New York Heart Association functional class III and IV). beta-Blocker administration (p = 0.006) and coronary bypass surgery (p = 0.06) were associated with later AICD discharge. Coronary bypass surgery (p = 0.035) but not beta-blockers was associated with more prolonged survival after AICD discharge., Conclusions: These data suggest that a relatively easy algorithm can be applied to predict which patient will benefit most from AICD implantation.

Concomitant use of a pacemaker and an automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) is common. Seventeen percent of patients receiving an AICD at The Johns Hopkins Hospital also had a permanent pacemaker implanted before (16 patients), at the same time as (2 patients) or after (12 patients) AICD implantation. Four types of interactions were noted: 1) transient failure to sense or capture immediately after AICD discharge (seven patients); 2) oversensing of the pacemaker stimulus by the AICD, leading to double counting (one patient); 3) AICD failure to sense ventricular fibrillation resulting from pacemaker stimulus oversensing (three patients, one only at high asynchronous output); and 4) pacemaker reprogramming caused by AICD discharge (three patients). No clinical sequelae of these interactions were noted during follow-up study. Thus, potentially adverse clinical interactions are common and routine screening is recommended. With proper attention to lead placements and programming of the devices, clinical consequences of these interactions can be avoided.

We analyzed the results of exercise testing performed in the absence of all antiarrhythmic drugs in 11 case patients with newly documented polymorphic ventricular tachycardia in response to type Ia antiarrhythmic agents. These results were compared with those found in 11 control patients matched for age, sex, and heart disease to determine whether the response of the QT interval to exercise testing was abnormal in patients who developed worsening of arrhythmia while taking antiarrhythmic drugs. QT, RR, and QTc intervals (by Bazett's method) were evaluated at rest and at 3 minutes of exercise in both groups. At rest, there was no significant difference in the QT interval (410 +/- 13 vs. 386 +/- 11 msec), RR interval (890 +/- 56 vs. 781 +/- 43 msec), or corrected QT interval (438 +/- 10 vs. 438 +/- 4 msec) in the case patients and the control patients. Both groups demonstrated a similar chronotropic response to exercise. The QT interval shortened in both groups with exercise (p less than 0.001), but the degree of shortening tended to be greater in the control patients (to 310 +/- 9 msec) than in the case patients (to 357 +/- 11 msec) (p = 0.06). Thus, there was a paradoxical increase in the QTc interval in the patients who experienced a proarrhythmic effect of type Ia drugs but not in the control patients (to 482 +/- 8 vs. 431 +/- 5 msec; p less than 0.001). Ten of 11 case patients but only one of 11 control patients had an increase in QTc interval of more than 10 msec with exercise (p less than 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The purpose of the present study was to examine at autopsy the effect of multiple defibrillations on the myocardium and the pathologic consequences of short- and long-term placement of the intravascular and interpericardial leads of the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Twenty-five patients were examined at autopsy; 8 of them underwent lead implantation only and 17 received both leads and the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator. Twelve patients (48%) died of ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation; seven (28%) died of other causes. Acute pericarditis occurred in all patients, resulting in a localized, progressive fibrosis around the apical patch lead without giving rise to pericardial restriction. Thrombus formation was associated with the superior vena cava spring electrode in four patients (17%) and the right ventricular rate-sensing electrode in one patient (4%). Asymptomatic pulmonary emboli occurred in two patients (8%). In one patient who underwent defibrillation 59 times, superior vena cava changes consisted of vein wall destruction, fibrosis and thrombus formation. Pathologic changes under the apical patch related to defibrillation were observed in seven patients; two of these had fewer than 5 defibrillations, one had 8 defibrillations and four had 21 to 74 defibrillations. These changes consisted of contraction band necrosis in four patients, vacuolar cytoplasmic clearing and loss of myocytes confined to the myocardium under the patch electrode in five patients who had multiple defibrillations. The observed pathologic changes were estimated to affect less than 2% of the total myocardial mass. Thus, the automatic implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead system and multiple defibrillations result in localized myocardial injury confined to the tissue under the patch electrode.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Amiodarone is an investigational antiarrhythmic agent known to cause pulmonary toxicity. This report describes two patients with previous amiodarone pulmonary toxicity and complete resolution who at rechallenge 5 to 6 months later developed within 2 weeks of therapy a significant reduction in lung diffusion capacity before overt clinical toxicity occurred. This suggests that toxicity may present early with reduction in diffusion capacity and that such changes may warrant the need to alter treatment.

Forty-two patients with refractory, recurrent life-threatening ventricular tachycardia and spontaneous ventricular tachycardia (greater than or equal to 3 beats, heart rate greater than 100 beats/min) on baseline 24 hour Holter recording were treated with amiodarone. After 1 week of amiodarone therapy and during the follow-up period (22 +/- 11 months, mean +/- SD), patients had serial 24 hour Holter recordings (10.6 +/- 3.8 per patient). Twenty-four hour, 48 hour or 72 hour Holter monitoring was performed during the second week of therapy. Ventricular tachycardia was suppressed on all follow-up serial Holter recordings in 17 patients (40%). Ventricular tachycardia was suppressed in 34 (81%) of 42 patients with 24 hour Holter recordings, 21 (72%) of 29 patients with 48 hour recordings and 20 (69%) of 29 patients with 72 hour recordings during the second week of therapy. At follow-up 24 patients (57%) were free of clinical arrhythmic events (Sustained ventricular tachycardia or sudden death). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and predictive accuracy of ventricular tachycardia on 24, 48 and 72 hour Holter recordings during the second week of therapy for predicting subsequent events were analyzed. The positive and negative predictive values were 100 and 71% for 24 hour Holter recordings, 88 and 71% for 48 hour recordings and 89 and 75% for 72 hour recordings. Overall predictive accuracy was 76, 76 and 79%, respectively.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

We recently reported a retrospective experience with serial Holter monitoring as a guide to therapy in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia treated with amiodarone. To confirm and substantiate these findings, a prospective study was designed that included baseline 24 hr Holter monitoring and serial Holter monitoring after 1 week of therapy with amiodarone. Fifty-two patients with documented sustained ventricular tachycardia who manifest nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on baseline Holter monitoring were treated with amiodarone. Thirty-four patients (group I) had nonsustained ventricular tachycardia completely suppressed and 18 patients (group II) had continued nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on serial Holter monitoring performed on days 8, 9, and 10 of therapy. At 11.6 +/- 1.0 (mean +/- SE) months follow-up, three (9%) group I patients and 12 (67%) group II patients had recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia or sudden cardiac death (p less than .01). The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and predictive accuracy of ventricular tachycardia on 24, 48, and 72 hr Holter monitoring over days 8, 9, and 10 for predicting recurrent sustained ventricular tachycardia or sudden cardiac death were analyzed. The positive and negative predictive values were 89% and 84%, 69% and 89%, and 67% and 91% for 24, 48, and 72 hr Holter monitoring, respectively. Overall predictive accuracy was 85%, 83%, and 83%, respectively. We conclude that early Holter monitoring is useful in assessing the clinical efficacy of amiodarone in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia who manifest nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on baseline Holter monitoring.

To determine predictors of inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation by programmed electrical stimulation in patients with coronary artery disease and ventricular tachyarrhythmias, 14 clinical and angiographic variables were analyzed in 60 consecutive patients. All patients had angiographically documented coronary artery disease and symptomatic ventricular arrhythmias (sustained ventricular tachycardia in 21, ventricular fibrillation in 21 and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia in 18). Baseline programmed electrical stimulation while the patient was not taking antiarrhythmic drugs was performed with use of single, double and triple extrastimuli and burst pacing from two right ventricular sites. The variables analyzed were presenting arrhythmia; presence, frequency and complexity of ventricular ectopic activity on baseline 24 h electrocardiographic (Holter) monitoring; greater than or equal to 70% narrowing in either the left anterior descending, proximal left anterior descending, right coronary or circumflex coronary artery (independently assessed); single, double or triple vessel coronary disease; anterior, apical or inferior wall motion abnormalities; segmental dyskinesia and ejection fraction. Thirty-seven patients (62%) had inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia (rate greater than 100 beats/min, duration greater than 30 s or requiring cardioversion) and two patients (3%) had ventricular fibrillation induced. Eleven patients (18%) had nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (duration greater than or equal to 3 beats, less than 30 s) induced and 10 patients (17%) had no inducible arrhythmia (duration less than 3 beats). Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis identified three independent variables predictive of inducible sustained ventricular arrhythmias: sustained ventricular tachycardia as the presenting arrhythmia (p = 0.004), proximal left anterior descending artery lesion (p = 0.002) and anterior wall motion abnormality (p = 0.005).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The use of serum reverse T3 (rT3) levels in the assessment of amiodarone efficacy is controversial. We prospectively studied 10 patients with frequent ventricular ectopy and symptomatic ventricular tachycardia (VT) treated with amiodarone. Serial 24-h Holter monitor, thyroid function studies including serum rT3, and 12-lead electrocardiogram were performed on each patient at baseline, and at 1, 4, 12, and 24 weeks of oral amiodarone therapy. Serial Holter monitors on therapy were analyzed for 100% suppression of VT, 90% suppression of couplets, and 85% suppression of ventricular ectopic beats (VEBs) compared with baseline Holter, defining patient groups VT-, Co-, and VEB-, respectively. Lack of arrhythmia suppression to this degree defined groups as VT+, Co+, and VEB+. There were no statistically significant differences in rT3 levels between VT+ and VT- groups, Co+ and Co- groups, or the VEB+ and VEB- groups. VT suppression could not be predicted at any rT3 level. We conclude that serum rT3 is an insensitive means of assessing amiodarone efficacy.