Chronic consumption of rebaudioside A, a steviol glycoside, in men and women with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

This trial evaluated the effects of 16 weeks of consumption of 1000mg rebaudioside A (n=60) a steviol glycoside with potential use as a sweetener, compared to placebo (n=62) in men and women (33-75 years of age) with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Mean+/-standard error changes in glycosylated hemoglobin levels did not differ significantly between the rebaudioside A (0.11+/-0.06%) and placebo (0.09+/-0.05%; p=0.355) groups. Changes from baseline for rebaudioside A and placebo, respectively, in fasting glucose (7.5+/-3.7mg/dL and 11.2+/-4.5mg/dL), insulin (1.0+/-0.64microU/mL and 3.3+/-1.5microU/mL), and C-peptide (0.13+/-0.09ng/mL and 0.42+/-0.14ng/mL) did not differ significantly (p>0.05 for all). Assessments of changes in blood pressure, body weight, and fasting lipids indicated no differences by treatment. Rebaudioside A was well-tolerated, and records of hypoglycemic episodes showed no excess vs. placebo. These results suggest that chronic use of 1000mg rebaudioside A does not alter glucose homeostasis or blood pressure in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The hemodynamic effects of rebaudioside A in healthy adults with normal and low-normal blood pressure.

Rebaudioside A and stevioside are steviol glycosides extracted from the plant Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni and are used in several countries as food and beverage sweeteners. This randomized, double-blind trial evaluated the hemodynamic effects of 4weeks consumption of 1000mg/day rebaudioside A vs. placebo in 100 individuals with normal and low-normal systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Subjects were predominantly female (76%, rebaudioside A and 82%, placebo) with a mean age of approximately 41 (range 18-73) years. At baseline, mean resting, seated SBP/DBP was 110.0/70.3mmHg and 110.7/71.2mmHg for the rebaudioside A and placebo groups, respectively. Compared with placebo, rebaudioside A did not significantly alter resting, seated SBP, DBP, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) or 24-h ambulatory blood pressures responses. These results indicate that consumption of as much as 1000mg/day of rebaudioside A produced no clinically important changes in blood pressure in healthy adults with normal and low-normal blood pressure.

Study of the pharmacokinetic interaction between simvastatin and prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters.

The coadministration of prescription omega-3-acid ethyl esters (P-OM3) with a statin may present a treatment option for patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. This open-label, randomized, 2-way crossover, drug-drug interaction study evaluated the impact of P-OM3 capsules on plasma simvastatin pharmacokinetics in 24 healthy volunteers. Under fasted conditions, 80 mg simvastatin was administered with or without 4 g P-OM3 for two 14-day periods. After 14 days of dosing to achieve steady state, no significant differences were found in either the extent (AUC(tau)) or rate (Cmax) of exposure to simvastatin or its major beta-hydroxy metabolite after coadministration of P-OM3 with simvastatin compared with administration of simvastatin alone. At steady state, the coadministration of P-OM3 capsules did not appear to affect the pharmacokinetics of simvastatin tablets. The combination of P-OM3 capsules and simvastatin appeared to be well tolerated.

New guidelines for managing hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize for pharmacists the Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III), recently issued guidelines for managing hypercholesterolemia, from the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP). DATA SOURCES: Executive summary of ATP III, and other pertinent literature as determined by the author. STUDY SELECTION: Not applicable. DATA EXTRACTION: By the author. DATA SYNTHESIS: Like previous guidelines issued by NCEP, ATP III focuses on lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as a primary focus and using exercise, diet, and pharmacotherapy as a primary means of lowering patients' coronary heart disease (CHD) risks. The new guidelines recognize LDL-C levels of less than 100 mg/dL as optimal for all patients, and increase attention on high triglyceride levels (above 200 mg/dL). ATP III places more emphasis on identifying patients at risk for CHD and CHD events (e.g., myocardial infarctions, revascularization procedures). To apply the recommendations of ATP III in pharmaceutical care practice, pharmacists should follow a six-step process: (1) Assess the patient's lipid profile (full panel, not just total cholesterol); (2) assess and categorize the patient's CHD risk (using a point system reflecting the levels of risk inherent in certain factors); (3) establish treatment goals and approaches (the greater the risk, the more aggressive the management); (4) initiate therapeutic lifestyle changes (including new recommendations for low intake of saturated fats and dietary cholesterol); (5) initiate LDL-C lowering drug therapy (often with combination therapy); and (6) consider other lipid factors (particularly hypertriglyceridemia and the metabolic syndrome). CONCLUSION: Most patients who begin lipid-lowering therapy stop it within 1 year, and only about one-third of patients reach treatment goals. The release of the ATP III guidelines provides pharmacists a great opportunity to enhance pharmaceutical care services directed specifically at patients with hyperlipidemia.

Lipid management: tools for getting to the goal.

The treatment of hypercholesterolemia in the United States begins with the recognition of elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) as the primary target. An optimal LDL-C level has been defined as < 100 mg/dL. The first step in lowering LDL-C continues to be lifestyle modification, which includes a restriction of saturated fat and cholesterol, increased physical activity, and weight loss, if applicable. Approximately half of all patients with elevated LDL-C levels will ultimately need treatment with a lipid-lowering drug to achieve treatment goals. The preferred drug for first-line treatment in most patients is a statin; a bile acid resin or niacin can be used in patients who cannot tolerate statins or who are not candidates for stain therapy. Combination therapy is an option, with several combinations showing efficacy in lowering LDL-C (statin plus bile acid resin, niacin plus bile acid resin) and in lowering both LDL-C and triglycerides (statin plus fibrate, statin plus niacin, bile acid resin plus niacin). Successful lipid management includes treating to reach the LDL-C goal level, treating to reach the non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal level if applicable, and managing other risk factors for coronary heart disease.

Effect of niacin and atorvastatin on lipoprotein subclasses in patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia.

This study was conducted to determine the efficacy of atorvastatin and niacin on lipoprotein subfractions in patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia. This was a multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-design study of patients with total cholesterol >200 mg/dl, triglycerides between 200 and 800 mg/dl, and apolipoprotein B >110 mg/dl. Patients were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 10 mg or immediate release niacin 3,000 mg daily for 12 weeks following a low-fat diet stabilization period. Lipoprotein subclasses were measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Atorvastatin and niacin both significantly reduced the concentrations of very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) particles (-31% and -29%, respectively) and small low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles (-44% and -35%, respectively). Niacin increased the concentration of large LDL (+75%). Atrovastatin reduced the number of LDL particles more than niacin (31% vs 14%). In patients with atherogenic dyslipidemia, both drugs had important effects on lipoprotein subfractions, which contributed to a reduction in coronary heart disease risk. The drugs equally reduced VLDL subclass levels. Niacin shifted the LDL subclass distribution toward the larger particles, more effectively converted patients from LDL phenotype B to phenotype A, and increased levels of the larger and perhaps more cardioprotective high-density lipoprotein particles. In contrast, atorvastatin preferentially lowered the concentration of small LDL particles without increasing levels of large LDL, and more effectively, reduced LDL particle numbers. Atorvastatin had a preferred LDL effect, whereas niacin had a preferred high-density lipoprotein effect.

Pharmacotherapy of dyslipidemia.

Reducing elevated levels of low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) significantly reduces the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) events and mortality in hypercholesterolemic patients. CHD risk reduction is proportional to LDL-C reduction. Despite this knowledge, many physicians are not applying existing treatment guidelines to the extent required to achieve target LDL-C levels. Target LDL-C levels are not achievable for most patients without drug therapy. Based on their lipid-lowering abilities, safety, and tolerability profiles, the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are the first-line pharmacotherapeutic agents for hypercholesterolemia. The ability of statins to reduce CHD events and total mortality in primary- and secondary-prevention patients also supports this assertion. For combined dyslipidemia, statin monotherapy is a reasonable initial approach in patients with moderate hypertriglyceridemia because statins effectively lower both LDL-C and triglycerides. Fibrates or niacin are effective therapies for severe hypertriglyceridemia. Resins are moderately effective in isolated hypercholesterolemia, and are a useful alternative to statins in pregnant women or patients with liver disease. For severe hyperlipidemia that does not respond to single drug therapy, combination drug therapy may be required. This article reviews the various manifestations of dyslipidemia and assesses the most efficacious treatments.

Extended-release niacin vs gemfibrozil for the treatment of low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Niaspan-Gemfibrozil Study Group.

OBJECTIVE: To provide a direct comparison of agents that raise plasma levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) to help devise strategies for coronary risk reduction. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the effects of extended-release niacin (Niaspan), at doses increased sequentially from 1000 to 2000 mg at bedtime, with those of gemfibrozil, 600 mg given twice daily, in raising low levels of HDL-C. Enrollment criteria included an HDL-C level of 1.03 mmol/L or less (< or =40 mg/dL), a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 4.14 mmol/L or less (< or =160 mg/dL) or less than 3.36 mmol/L (<130 mg/dL) with atherosclerotic disease, and a triglyceride level of 4.52 mmol/L or less (< or =400 mg/dL). RESULTS: Among 173 patients, 72 (82%) of the 88 assigned to Niaspan treatment and 68 (80%) of the 85 assigned to gemfibrozil treatment completed the study. Niaspan, at 1500 and 2000 mg, vs gemfibrozil raised the HDL-C level more (21% and 26%, respectively, vs 13%), raised the apolipoprotein A-I level more (9% and 11% vs 4%), reduced the total cholesterol-HDL-C ratio more (-17% and -22% vs -12%), reduced the lipoprotein(a) level (-7% and -20% vs no change), and had no adverse effect on the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (2% and 0% change vs a 9% increase). Significance levels for comparisons between medications ranged from P<.001 to P<.02. Gemfibrozil reduced the triglyceride level more than Niaspan (P<.001 to P = .06, -40% for gemfibrozil vs -16% to -29% for Niaspan, 1000 to 2000 mg). Effects on plasma fibrinogen levels were significantly favorable for Niaspan compared with gemfibrozil (P<.02), as gemfibrozil increased the fibrinogen level (from 5% to 9%) and Niaspan tended to decrease the fibrinogen level (from -1% to -6%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a low baseline HDL-C level, Niaspan at its higher doses provided up to 2-fold greater HDL-C increases, decreases in lipoprotein(a), improvements in lipoprotein cholesterol ratios, and lower fibrinogen levels compared with gemfibrozil. Gemfibrozil gave a greater triglyceride reduction but also increased the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, which did not occur with Niaspan.

Pharmaceutical care services and results in project ImPACT: hyperlipidemia.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that pharmacists, working collaboratively with patients and physicians and having immediate access to objective point-of-care patient data, promote patient persistence and compliance with prescribed dyslipidemic therapy that enables patients to achieve their National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goals. DESIGN: Observational study. PARTICIPANTS: 26 community-based ambulatory care pharmacies: independent, chain-professional, chain-grocery store, home health/home infusion, clinic, health maintenance organization/managed care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of patient persistence and compliance with medication therapy and achievement of target therapeutic goals. RESULTS: In a population of 397 patients over an average period of 24.6 months, observed rates for persistence and compliance with medication therapy were 93.6% and 90.1%, respectively, and 62.5% of patients had reached and were maintained at their NCEP lipid goal at the end of the project. CONCLUSION: Working collaboratively with patients, physicians, and other health care providers, pharmacists who have ready access to objective clinical data, and who have the necessary knowledge, skills, and resources, can provide an advanced level of care that results in successful management of dyslipidemia.

Improving cholesterol control in managed care populations.

Cholesterol management has clearly emerged as a top priority for prevention-oriented management of coronary artery disease, and National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines provide the best treatment targets for these efforts. However, even in the highest risk patients, where managed care organizations naturally tend to focus their prevention budgets, the percentage of patients attaining NCEP targets is dismal. To improve success rates in patients requiring pharmacologic therapy, more effective use of new and existing drug therapies may be required. This article provides an update on current options for lipid-modifying drug therapy and offers examples of combination regimens that may assist practitioners in attaining target lipid levels.

A randomized trial of ecadotril versus placebo in patients with mild to moderate heart failure: the U.S. ecadotril pilot safety study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the short-term safety and tolerability of the addition of ecadotril to conventional therapy in patients with mild to moderate heart failure. METHODS: Fifty ambulatory patients, 18 to 75 years of age, with mild to moderate heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction

Pharmacotherapy of dyslipidemia in postmenopausal women: weighing the evidence.

In the United States, coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death in women. The incidence of CHD rises dramatically in women following menopause, which can be partially attributed to a more atherogenic lipoprotein profile. For years, observational and epidemiological data have suggested that estrogen and progesterone therapy reduced CHD end points. However, the first prospective trial that evaluated hormone replacement therapy (HRT) for secondary CHD prevention demonstrated no positive cardiovascular benefit of HRT compared with placebo. In interventional studies, the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA)reductase inhibitors significantly reduced CHD outcomes in postmenopausal women, and these agents have emerged as the drugs of choice for primary and secondary CHD prevention. The selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) may have a role in CHD prevention, but long-term clinical trials evaluating end points are needed. An evidence-based approach is necessary when deciding the appropriate pharmacotherapy of dyslipidemia in postmenopausal women.

The cost of reaching National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) goals in hypercholesterolaemic patients. A comparison of atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin and fluvastatin.

OBJECTIVE: Recognising the importance of treating hyperlipidaemia, the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) has established widely accepted treatment goals for low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Medications used most commonly to achieve these LDL-C goals are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. The relative resource utilisation and cost associated with the use of reductase inhibitors of different LDL-C lowering efficacy are unknown, but are major health and economic concerns. The objective of this study was to determine the mean total cost of care to reach NCEP goals with various reductase inhibitors. DESIGN: In a randomised, 54-week, 30-centre controlled trial we compared resources used and costs associated with treating patients to achieve NCEP goals using 4 reductase inhibitors: atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin and fluvastatin. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: The trial studied 662 patients; 318 had known atherosclerotic disease. INTERVENTIONS: Reductase inhibitor therapy was initiated at recommended starting doses and increased according to NCEP guidelines and package insert information. For patients who did not reach the goal at the highest recommended dose of each reductase inhibitor, the resin colestipol was added. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Patients treated with atorvastatin, compared-with other reductase inhibitors, were more likely to reach NCEP goals during treatment (p < 0.05), required fewer office visits (p < 0.001) and less adjuvant colestipol therapy (p = 0.001). Consequently, the mean total cost of care (1996 values) to reach NCEP goals was lower with atorvastatin [$US1064; 95% confidence interval (CI): $US953 to $US1176] compared with simvastatin ($US1471, 95% CI: $US1304 to $US1648), lovastatin ($US1972; 95% CI: $US1758 to $US2186) and fluvastatin ($US1542; 95% CI: $US1384 to $US1710). Results were similar for patients with or without known atherosclerotic disease. CONCLUSIONS: In patients requiring drug therapy for hypercholesterolaemia, NCEP LDL-C goals are achieved significantly more often using fewer resources with atorvastatin compared with simvastatin, lovastatin or fluvastatin.

A randomized trial of the effects of atorvastatin and niacin in patients with combined hyperlipidemia or isolated hypertriglyceridemia. Collaborative Atorvastatin Study Group.

BACKGROUND: To assess the lipid-lowering effects and safety of atorvastatin and niacin in patients with combined hyperlipidemia or isolated hypertriglyceridemia. METHODS: We performed a randomized, open-label, parallel-design, active-controlled, study in eight centers in the United States. We enrolled 108 patients with total cholesterol (TC) of > or =200 mg/dL, serum triglycerides (TG) > or =200 and < or =800 mg/dL, and apolipoprotein B (apo B) > or =110 mg/dL. Patients were randomly assigned to receive atorvastatin 10 mg once daily (n=55) or immediate-release niacin 1 g three times daily for 12 weeks (n=53). Patients were stratified based on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C): Patients with LDL-C > or =135 mg/dL were considered to have combined hyperlipidemia and patients with LDL-C <135 mg/dL were considered to have isolated hypertriglyceridemia. The primary outcome measure was percent change from baseline in LDL-C. Other lipid levels were evaluated as secondary parameters. RESULTS: Atorvastatin reduced LDL-C 30% and TC 26% from baseline, and increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) 4%. Total TG were reduced 17%. Niacin reduced LDL-C 2%, TC 7%, increased HDL-C 25%, and reduced total TG 29% from baseline. There was a significant difference in LDL-C reduction, the primary efficacy parameter, between the two treatment groups (P <0.05, favoring atorvastatin), as well as a significant difference in the improvement in HDL-C (P <0.05, favoring niacin). The effect of atorvastatin was relatively consistent between patients with combined hyperlipidemia and isolated hypertriglyceridemia, whereas there was more variability between these strata in the niacin treatment group. Atorvastatin was better tolerated than niacin. CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin may allow patients with combined hyperlipidemia to be treated with monotherapy and offers an efficacious and well-tolerated alternative to niacin for the treatment of patients with isolated hypertriglyceridemia.

Analytic and clinical performance of two compact cholesterol-testing devices.

Several relatively inexpensive compact analyzers for measuring cholesterol are available for use outside of the clinical laboratory. We evaluated the analytic and clinical performance of total cholesterol assayed with the AccuMeter (ChemTrak) and the LDX (Cholestech). Accuracy of both devices was evaluated by collecting capillary and venous whole blood from 100 subjects and assaying for total cholesterol. Results were compared with the Centers for Disease Control standardized reference laboratory method. Mean percent bias, mean absolute percent bias, and percentage of subjects with total error above +/- 8.9% were calculated and results were compared with recommendations from National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) for total cholesterol measurements. Precision was evaluated by assay of three pooled serum samples with both devices in duplicate in two runs/day for 20 days. The CV for each serum pool for each device was calculated and compared with NCEP recommendations for precision for total cholesterol measurements. Results with the two devices were compared. The total cholesterol mean percent bias for capillary samples was 2.1% for the LDX and -1.0% for the AccuMeter (p<0.01), and for venous samples 1.6 and -2.0%, respectively (p<0.001). The mean absolute percent bias for capillary samples was 5.4 and 5.2%, respectively (p=0.29), and for venous samples was 5.0 and 5.7% (p=0.79). Each device had an excessive number (12-22%) of individual results that exceeded NCEP recommended total error for a single cholesterol measurement (+/- 8.9%). In the precision analysis the average CV from all three serum pools was 4.0% and 5.3% for the LDX and AccuMeter, respectively (p<0.05). Thus both devices failed to meet the NCEP recommendation for precision of 3% CV. They both provided total cholesterol results that correctly classified individual patients into appropriate risk groups 95% of the time or better if values within +/- 8.9% of NCEP cut points for risk classification were ignored. Both devices met the NCEP +/- 3% requirement for total cholesterol mean percent bias but did not meet the +/- 3% requirement for CV as a measure of precision. Because of the variability in results, both devices had excessive numbers of individual subjects with total cholesterol results greater than the recommended total error limit of +/- 8.9% difference from the standardized method. Despite variability in some individual results, the rate of clinical misclassifications for coronary heart disease risk was relatively low for both devices if results near the NCEP cut points were repeated.

The cost of treating dyslipidaemia using National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines.

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of death in industrialised countries and places a large burden on society in terms of healthcare resources and lost productivity. US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines recommend aggressive lipid-modifying therapy for individuals at highest risk for CHD. It has been estimated that more than 50 million individuals in the US (more than one-third of the total population) are candidates for some form of dietary and/or pharmacological intervention to modify their lipid profiles. Most individuals who receive lipid-lowering drug therapy do not meet target goals set by the NCEP; thus, there is a large potential for increased use of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses applying NCEP guidelines are sparse; however, available data (using direct costs) suggest that secondary prevention is more cost effective than primary prevention, but that costs associated with primary prevention are generally in line with those of accepted medical interventions. Cost-effectiveness ratios for secondary prevention improved when indirect costs were assessed in one study. A recent randomised prospective 54-week comparative study of statins in 662 patients with hypercholesterolaemia concurrently measured medical outcomes and economic data. Atorvastatin-treated patients were significantly more likely to achieve NCEP goals (overall and at the initial dosage), and to achieve these goals more quickly than patients treated with fluvastatin, lovastatin and simvastatin. The mean cost to reach NCEP goals was consequently lowest for atorvastatin. Results from pharmacoeconomic studies of primary and secondary prevention are therefore in support of NCEP treatment guidelines for hypercholesterolaemia.