Pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (KEYNOTE-183): subgroup analysis in Japanese patients.

The global, randomized, open-label KEYNOTE-183 phase 3 study was closed early after an interim analysis showed unfavorable risk-benefit when pembrolizumab was added to pomalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM). This subgroup analysis reported outcomes in 27 Japanese patients randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone (n = 15) or pomalidomide and dexamethasone alone (n = 12). Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). After a median (range) follow-up of 9.6 (1.4-15.3) months in Japanese patients, median PFS [6.5 vs 2.8 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.16 (95% CI 0.03-0.83)] and OS [not reached vs 14.8 months; HR 0.46 (95% CI 0.05-4.20)] seemed to favor the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone arm. Objective response rate was numerically higher in this group (47%) than in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (25%). The safety profile was consistent with that of the overall study population. No deaths were attributed to a study drug by the investigators. Although adding pembrolizumab to pomalidomide and dexamethasone did not show unfavorable risk-benefit in the Japanese subgroup of KEYNOTE-183, the analysis is limited by short follow-up and small sample size, which affects the generalizability of the results.

Efficacy of Pembrolizumab Monotherapy for Advanced Gastric/Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer with Programmed Death Ligand 1 Combined Positive Score ≥10.

PURPOSE: Pembrolizumab demonstrated efficacy in PD-L1-positive [combined positive score (CPS) ≥1] advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer in the first-, second-, and third-line setting in KEYNOTE-062, KEYNOTE-061, and KEYNOTE-059, respectively. To better delineate the specificity of CPS as a predictor of clinical outcomes, we analyzed pembrolizumab efficacy in patients with CPS ≥ 10 in these trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Included were patients with CPS ≥ 10 tumors from KEYNOTE-059 cohort 1 (pembrolizumab, n = 46; post hoc), KEYNOTE-061 (pembrolizumab, n = 53; chemotherapy, n = 55; post hoc), and KEYNOTE-062 (pembrolizumab, n = 92; chemotherapy, n = 90; primary). Efficacy outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and duration of response (DOR). RESULTS: In KEYNOTE-059, median follow-up was 6 months, median OS was 8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 5.8-11.1], ORR was 17%, and median (range) DOR was 21 months (3+ to 35+). In KEYNOTE-061, median follow-up was 9 months, median OS (pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy) was 10 versus 8 months (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.41-1.02), median PFS was 3 months versus 3 months (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.56-1.33), ORR was 25% versus 9%, and median (range) DOR was not reached (4 to 26+ months) versus 7 months (3-7). In KEYNOTE-062, median follow-up was 11 months, median OS (pembrolizumab vs. chemotherapy) was 17 months versus 11 months (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97), median PFS was 3 months versus 6 months (HR, 1.09, 95% CI; 0.79-1.49), ORR was 25% versus 38%, and median (range) DOR was 19 months (1+ to 34+) versus 7 months (2+ to 30+). CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive analysis showed consistent improvements toward more favorable clinical outcomes with pembrolizumab across lines of therapy in patients with CPS ≥ 10 G/GEJ cancer.

Efficacy and Safety of Pembrolizumab or Pembrolizumab Plus Chemotherapy vs Chemotherapy Alone for Patients With First-line, Advanced Gastric Cancer: The KEYNOTE-062 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Safe and effective therapies for untreated, advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancer remain an unmet need. Objective: To evaluate the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, or chemotherapy alone in patients with untreated, advanced G/GEJ cancer with programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or greater. Design, Setting, and Participants: The phase 3 KEYNOTE-062 randomized, controlled, partially blinded interventional trial enrolled 763 patients with untreated, locally advanced/unresectable or metastatic G/GEJ cancer with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater from 200 centers in 29 countries between September 18, 2015, and May 26, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (cisplatin 80 mg/m2/d on day 1 plus fluorouracil 800 mg/m2/d on days 1 to 5 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily), or chemotherapy plus placebo, every 3 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with PD-L1 CPS of 1 or greater or 10 or greater. Results: A total of 763 patients were randomized to pembrolizumab (n = 256), pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 257), or chemotherapy (n = 250). The median (range) age of all patients in the study cohort was 62 (20-87) years; 554 of 763 (72.6%) were men. At final analysis, after a median (range) follow-up of 29.4 (22.0-41.3) months, pembrolizumab was noninferior to chemotherapy for OS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (median, 10.6 vs 11.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 99.2% CI, 0.69-1.18). Pembrolizumab monotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy in patients with CPS of 1 or greater. Pembrolizumab prolonged OS vs chemotherapy in patients with CPS of 10 or greater (median, 17.4 vs 10.8 months; HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97), but this difference was not statistically tested. Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy for OS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (12.5 vs 11.1 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70-1.03; P = .05) or CPS of 10 or greater (12.3 vs 10.8 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.17; P = .16) or for PFS in patients with CPS of 1 or greater (6.9 vs 6.4 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.70-1.02; P = .04). Grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse event rates for pembrolizumab, pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy, and chemotherapy were 17%, 73%, and 69%, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that among patients with untreated, advanced G/GEJ cancer, pembrolizumab was noninferior to chemotherapy, with fewer adverse events observed. Pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy was not superior to chemotherapy for the OS and PFS end points tested. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02494583.

Pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (KEYNOTE-183): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pomalidomide and dexamethasone is a standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma in whom bortezomib and lenalidomide treatment has failed. KEYNOTE-183 assessed efficacy and safety of pomalidomide and dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we present the findings of an unplanned, ad-hoc interim analysis at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: KEYNOTE-183 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 97 medical centres across 11 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, and USA). Patients aged at least 18 years with multiple myeloma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, previously treated with at least two lines of therapy (excluding pomalidomide) and refractory to the last line were randomly assigned 1:1 to the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group via an interactive voice response or integrated web response system. Patients received oral pomalidomide 4 mg daily on days 1-21 and oral low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles, with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02576977, and it is closed for accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2016, and June 7, 2017, 249 patients were randomly assigned to either the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=125) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=124). On July 3, 2017, the FDA established that risks associated with the triple combination outweighed benefits and halted the study. Median follow-up was 8·1 months (IQR 4·5-10·9). Median progression-free survival was 5·6 months (95% CI 3·7-7·5) in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 8·4 months (5·9-not reached) in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; progression-free survival estimates at 6 months were 48% (95% CI 37-58) versus 60% (49-69) at 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1·53; 95% CI 1·05-2·22; p=0·98). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 12·9-not reached) versus 15·2 months (12·7-not reached; HR 1·61; 95% CI 0·91-2·85; p=0·95); overall survival estimates at 6 months were 82% (95% CI 74-88) versus 90% (82-95). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (63%) of 120 patients in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 56 (46%) of 121 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Four (3%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (one each of unknown cause, neutropenic sepsis, myocarditis, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome); myocarditis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome were considered related to pembrolizumab. No treatment-related deaths were reported in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. INTERPRETATION: The results from this unplanned, FDA-requested, interim analysis showed that the benefit-risk profile of pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone is unfavourable for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co (Kenilworth, NJ, USA).

Lipid-Modifying Efficacy and Tolerability of Anacetrapib Added to Ongoing Statin Therapy in Patients with Hypercholesterolemia or Low High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.

To assess the effects of anacetrapib added to statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia and not at their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal (as per National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP ATP III] guidelines) and in those with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Patients on a stable dose of moderate/high-intensity statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies with LDL-C ≥70, ≥100, ≥130, or ≥160 mg/dl for very high, high, moderate, and low coronary heart disease risk, respectively, or at LDL-C goal with HDL-C ≤40 mg/dl, were randomized 1:1:1, stratified by background therapy use, to anacetrapib 100 mg (n = 153), anacetrapib 25 mg (n = 152), or placebo (n = 154) for 24 weeks, followed by a 12-week off-drug reversal phase. The primary end points were percent change from baseline in LDL-C (beta-quantification method) and HDL-C, as well as the safety profile of anacetrapib. Both doses of anacetrapib reduced LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein (Apo) B, and lipoprotein a and increased HDL-C and Apo AI versus placebo (p <0.001 for all). There were no meaningful differences between the anacetrapib 25 mg, 100 mg, and placebo groups in the proportions of discontinuations due to drug-related adverse events (0.7%, 1.3% vs 1.3%) or in abnormalities in liver enzymes (0%, 0% vs 0.7%), creatine kinase elevations overall (0%, 0.7% vs 0%) or with muscle symptoms (none seen), blood pressure, electrolytes, or adjudicated cardiovascular events (0.7%, 0.7% vs 1.3%). In conclusion, treatment with anacetrapib resulted in substantial reductions in LDL-C and increases in HDL-C and was generally well tolerated.

Pooled analysis of two randomized, open-label studies comparing the effects of nomegestrol acetate/17ß-estradiol and drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol on bleeding patterns in healthy women.

OBJECTIVES: To obtain more precise and detailed information regarding the bleeding patterns of nomegestrol acetate (NOMAC)/17ß-estradiol (E2) and drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol (DRSP/EE) and to identify whether baseline demographic characteristics were associated with unscheduled bleeding, absent scheduled bleeding, or amenorrhea. STUDY DESIGN: This analysis pooled results from two pivotal open-label, randomized trials that compared bleeding patterns of NOMAC/E2 and DRSP/EE. In the two studies 4317 women aged 18-50 years from 24 countries across the Americas, Europe, and Asia underwent treatment. RESULTS: 2835 women taking NOMAC/E2 (2.5 mg/1.5 mg) in a 24/4-day regimen and 938 women taking DRSP/EE (3 mg/30 µg) in a 21/7-day regimen had at least 1 evaluable cycle for vaginal bleeding analyses. The frequency of absent scheduled bleeding was higher (p<.0001) for women using NOMAC/E2 than DRSP/EE across all 11 cycles (cycles 2-12), ranging between 17.6% and 31.6% and between 3.4% and 5.8%, respectively. For women who had absent scheduled bleeding in cycles 2, 3, or 4 the incidence of absent scheduled bleeding in subsequent cycles was high and ranged between approximately 50%-60% for NOMAC/E2 and approximately 40%-50% for DRSP/EE. Amenorrhea increased over time with both regimens, being higher with NOMAC/E2. Both absent scheduled bleeding and amenorrhea with NOMAC/E2 were more common in older women, overweight women, switchers, and smokers; unscheduled bleeding was more common in starters, but had no association with age, body mass index, and smoking. CONCLUSIONS: NOMAC/E2 is associated with a higher prevalence of absent scheduled bleeding compared with DRSP/EE. Absent scheduled bleeding and amenorrhea were associated with age, body weight, switching and smoking. Unscheduled bleeding was more common in starters. IMPLICATIONS: Information about the factors associated with bleeding patterns may help clinicians provide guidance to women considering use of the NOMAC/E2 oral contraceptive.

Reduction in Total Cardiovascular Events With Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome: The IMPROVE-IT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Intensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol therapy with ezetimibe/simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) significantly reduced the first primary endpoint (PEP) in patients post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to placebo/simvastatin. OBJECTIVES: This analysis tested the hypothesis that total events, including those beyond the first event, would also be reduced with ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy. METHODS: All PEP events (cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, unstable angina [UA] leading to hospitalization, coronary revascularization ≥30 days post-randomization) during a median 6-year follow-up were analyzed in patients randomized to receive ezetimibe/simvastatin or placebo/simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT. Negative binomial regression was used for the primary analysis. RESULTS: Among 18,144 patients, there were 9,545 total PEP events (56% were first events and 44% subsequent events). Total PEP events were significantly reduced by 9% with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs placebo/simvastatin (incidence-rate ratio [RR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 0.97; p = 0.007), as were the 3 pre-specified secondary composite endpoints and the exploratory composite endpoint of CV death, MI, or stroke (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.96; p = 0.002). The reduction in total events was driven by decreases in total nonfatal MI (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.96; p = 0.004) and total NF stroke (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.93; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Lipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe plus simvastatin improved clinical outcomes. Reductions in total PEP events, driven by reductions in MI and stroke, more than doubled the number of events prevented compared with examining only the first event. These data support continuation of intensive combination lipid-lowering therapy after an initial CV event. (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial [IMPROVE-IT]; NCT00202878).

Effects of anacetrapib on plasma lipids in specific patient subgroups in the DEFINE (Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability of CETP INhibition with AnacEtrapib) trial.

BACKGROUND: In the Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) INhibition with AnacEtrapib (DEFINE) trial, anacetrapib added to statin produced robust low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)-raising vs placebo in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Predictors of the degree of LDL-C and HDL-C responses to anacetrapib, however, are poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: Lipid effects of anacetrapib in patient subgroups within the DEFINE trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00685776) are reported. METHODS: The percent of placebo-corrected changes from baseline for LDL-C (estimated by Friedewald calculation [Fc-LDL-C]) and HDL-C after 24 weeks of anacetrapib 100 mg/day were compared among patients by age, gender, race, diabetes status, type of concomitant statin with or without other lipid therapies, and baseline HDL-C, Fc-LDL-C, and triglyceride (TG) levels. RESULTS: Percent decreases in Fc-LDL-C and increases in HDL-C with anacetrapib were similar (magnitude of difference generally <1/5 of the overall treatment effect) across subgroups by age, gender, diabetes status, lipid-modifying regimen, and baseline Fc-LDL-C, HDL-C, or TG. On the other hand, anacetrapib effects on Fc-LDL-C (-24% vs -41%) and HDL-C (+75% vs +139%) appeared to be less in black vs white patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: Effects of anacetrapib on Fc-LDL-C and HDL-C were generally comparable across subgroups, including being relatively independent of baseline Fc-LDL-C, HDL-C, or TG levels. The clinical impact of the lipid-modifying effects of anacetrapib is being evaluated in the cardiovascular disease outcomes trial, Randomized EValuation of the Effects of Anacetrapib though Lipid-modification (REVEAL).

Lipids, safety parameters, and drug concentrations after an additional 2 years of treatment with anacetrapib in the DEFINE study.

Anacetrapib is a cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor that has previously been shown to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in patients with or at high risk of coronary heart disease in the 76-week, placebo-controlled, Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability of CETP Inhibition with Anacetrapib (DEFINE) trial. Here, we report the results of the 2-year extension to the DEFINE study where patients (n = 803) continued on the same assigned treatment as in the original 76-week study. Treatment with anacetrapib during the 2-year extension was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to patients on placebo. No clinically important abnormalities in liver enzymes, blood pressure, electrolytes, or adverse experiences were observed during the extension. At the end of the extension study, relative to the original baseline value, anacetrapib reduced Friedewald-calculated LDL-C by 39.9% and increased HDL-C by 153.3%, compared to placebo. The apparent steady state mean plasma trough concentration of anacetrapib was ∼640 nmol/L. Geometric mean plasma concentrations of anacetrapib did not appear to increase beyond week 40 of the 2-year extension of the 76-week DEFINE base study. In conclusion, an additional 2 years of treatment with anacetrapib were well tolerated with durable lipid-modifying effects on LDL-C and HDL-C.

Evaluation of lipids, drug concentration, and safety parameters following cessation of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib in patients with or at high risk for coronary heart disease.

The aim of this study was to assess the effects on lipids and safety during a 12-week reversal period after 18 months of treatment with anacetrapib. The cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib was previously shown to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 39.8% (estimated using the Friedewald equation) and increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol by 138.1%, with an acceptable side-effect profile, in patients with or at high risk for coronary heart disease in the Determining the Efficacy and Tolerability of CETP Inhibition With Anacetrapib (DEFINE) trial. A total of 1,398 patients entered the 12-week reversal-phase study, either after completion of the active-treatment phase or after early discontinuation of the study medication. In patients allocated to anacetrapib, placebo-adjusted mean percentage decreases from baseline were observed at 12 weeks off the study drug for Friedewald-calculated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (18.6%), non-HDL cholesterol (17.6%), and apolipoprotein B (10.2%); placebo-adjusted mean percentage increases were observed for HDL cholesterol (73.0%) and apolipoprotein A-I (24.5%). Residual plasma anacetrapib levels (about 40% of on-treatment apparent steady-state trough levels) were also detected 12 weeks after cessation of anacetrapib. No clinically important elevations in liver enzymes, blood pressure, electrolytes, or adverse experiences were observed during the reversal phase. Preliminary data from a small cohort (n = 30) revealed the presence of low concentrations of anacetrapib in plasma 2.5 to 4 years after the last anacetrapib dose. In conclusion, after the cessation of active treatment, anacetrapib plasma lipid changes and drug levels decreased to approximately 40% of on-treatment trough levels at 12 weeks after dosing, but modest HDL cholesterol elevations and low drug concentrations were still detectable 2 to 4 years after the last dosing.

Effectiveness and safety of laropiprant on niacin-induced flushing.

Extended-release niacin (ERN) improves multiple lipid parameters but is underused owing to niacin-induced flushing (NIF). Laropiprant (LRPT) reduces NIF; however, its effects on chronic flushing (>6 months) have not been studied. We examined whether after 20 weeks of treatment with ERN/LRPT, patients who continued ERN/LRPT would experience less NIF than patients who stopped LRPT and continued ERN alone. A total of 1,152 dyslipidemic patients were randomized 2:2:1 to group 1, ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg/day from 0 to 4 weeks and then ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg/day from 5 to 32 weeks; group 2, ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg/day from 0 to 4 weeks, ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg/day from 5 to 20 weeks, and then ERN 2 g/day without LRPT from 21 to 32 weeks; or group 3, placebo for the entire study. The end points included the number of days each week with a moderate or greater Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS) ≥4 (primary end point) and the percentage of patients with a maximum GFSS of ≥4 (secondary end point) during the postwithdrawal period (weeks 21 to 32). ERN/LRPT produced significantly less NIF than ERN alone during the postwithdrawal period, as measured by the number of days each week with a GFSS of ≥4 (p <0.001) and the percentage of patients with a maximum GFSS of ≥4 (p <0.001; ERN/LRPT 19.6%; ERN 48.9%; placebo 9.2%). Compared with ERN alone, ERN/LRPT produced fewer drug-related adverse experiences during the postwithdrawal period. After 20 weeks of stable maintenance therapy, dyslipidemic patients treated continuously with ERN/LRPT experienced less NIF than did patients who had had LRPT withdrawn and had continued with ERN alone. In conclusion, the results of our study support the long-term efficacy of ERN/LRPT in reducing NIF symptoms.

Effects of laropiprant on nicotinic acid-induced flushing in patients with dyslipidemia.

Niacin (nicotinic acid) is not optimally used mainly because of flushing, a process mediated primarily by prostaglandin D(2), which leads to poor patient compliance and suboptimal dosing. This phase II dose-ranging study was designed to assess whether the prostaglandin D(2) receptor 1 antagonist laropiprant (LRPT; MK-0524) would (1) reduce extended-release niacin (ERN)-induced flushing in dyslipidemic patients and (2) support a novel accelerated ERN dosing paradigm: initiating ERN at 1 g and advancing rapidly to 2 g. In part A of the study, 154 dyslipidemic patients were randomized to LRPT 150 mg/day or placebo in a 9-week, 2-period crossover study. Patients who completed part A (n = 122) entered part B (after a 2-week washout), together with additional patients who entered part B directly (n = 290). Part B patients were randomized to placebo, ERN 1 g (Niaspan, no previous titration), or ERN 1 g coadministered with LRPT 18.75, 37.5, 75, or 150 mg for 4 weeks, with doubling of the respective doses for the remaining 4 weeks. Patients treated with LRPT plus ERN experienced significantly less ERN-induced flushing than those treated with ERN alone during the initiation of treatment (ERN 1 g, week 1) and the maintenance treatment (ERN 1 to 2 g, weeks 2 to 8). All doses of LRPT were maximally effective in inhibiting niacin-induced flushing. LRPT did not alter the beneficial lipid effects of ERN. LRPT plus ERN was well tolerated. In conclusion, the significant reduction in ERN-induced flushing provided by LRPT plus ERN supports an accelerated ERN dose-advancement paradigm to achieve rapidly a 2-g dose in dyslipidemic patients.