Comparison of the efficacy of administering a combination of ezetimibe plus fenofibrate versus atorvastatin monotherapy in the treatment of dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: This trial compares the efficacy of administering a combination of ezetimibe plus fenofibrate as an alternative to statin monotherapy for the treatment of dyslipidemia. In this randomized, unblinded crossover study, 43 patients with documented hypercholesterolemia requiring pharmacotherapy were randomized to receive six weeks of either a combination of 10 mg of ezetimibe plus 160 mg of fenofibrate (combination) or 10 mg of atorvastatin monotherapy (atorvastatin). The primary endpoint was the percentage reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). RESULTS: LDL-C decreased by 34.6% with the combination therapy versus 36.7% with atorvastatin monotherapy. The difference between the two groups was not statistically significant (p = 0.46). Both study interventions provided similar improvements in total cholesterol (-25.1% with combination versus -24.6% with atorvastatin, p = 0.806) and high-density lipoproteins (+10.0% with combination versus +8.9% with atorvastatin, p = 0.778). Combination therapy showed a trend towards a greater reduction in triglycerides (-25.4% with combination versus -14.5% with atorvastatin, p = 0.079), although there was no significant difference between the two study interventions in terms of the improvement in the TC:HDL ratio (-29.0% with combination versus -28.7% with atorvastatin, p = 0.904). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ezetimibe plus fenofibrate appeared to produce nearly identical alterations in serum lipoprotein levels when compared to monotherapy with 10 mg of atorvastatin. Daily treatment with the combination of ezetimibe plus fenofibrate is an acceptable alternative to atorvastatin for the treatment of dyslipidemia in patients who are intolerant of statins.

Plasma PCSK9 levels are significantly modified by statins and fibrates in humans.

BACKGROUND: Proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin-like 9 (PCSK9) is a secreted glycoprotein that is transcriptionally regulated by cholesterol status. It modulates levels of circulating low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLC) by negatively regulating low density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) levels. PCSK9 variants that result in 'gain of function' have been linked to autosomal dominant hypercholesterolemia, while significant protection from coronary artery disease has been documented in individuals who carry 'loss of function' PCSK9 variants. PCSK9 circulates in human plasma, and we previously reported that plasma PCSK9 is positively correlated with total cholesterol and LDLC in men. RESULTS: Herein, we report the effects of two lipid-modulating therapies, namely statins and fibrates, on PCSK9 plasma levels in human subjects. We also document their effects on endogenous PCSK9 and LDLR expression in a human hepatocyte cell line, HepG2, using immunoprecipitation and immunoblot analyses. Changes in plasma PCSK9 following fenofibrate or gemfibrozil treatments (fibric acid derivatives) were inversely correlated with changes in LDLC levels (r = -0.558, p = 0.013). Atorvastatin administration (HMGCoA reductase inhibitor) significantly increased plasma PCSK9 (7.40%, p = 0.033) and these changes were inversely correlated with changes in LDLC levels (r = -0.393, p = 0.012). Immunoblot analyses of endogenous PCSK9 and LDLR expression by HepG2 cells in response to statins and fibrates showed that LDLR is more upregulated than PCSK9 by simvastatin (2.6x vs 1.5x, respectively at 10 muM), while fenofibrate did not induce changes in either. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that in vivo (1) statins directly increase PCSK9 expression while (2) fibrates affect PCSK9 expression indirectly through its modulation of cholesterol levels and (3) that these therapies could be improved by combination with a PCSK9 inhibitor, constituting a novel hypercholesterolemic therapy, since PCSK9 was significantly upregulated by both treatments.

Comparison between a low glycemic load diet and a Canada Food Guide diet in cardiac rehabilitation patients in Ontario.

BACKGROUND: A high dietary glycemic load is associated with an increased risk of noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a low glycemic load diet on cardiac rehabilitation patients. METHODS: One hundred twenty patients who were advised to follow a low glycemic load diet were evaluated and compared with 1434 patients who were advised to follow the principles of Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating for People Four Years and Over as part of the Ontario Cardiac Rehabilitation Pilot Project. RESULTS: Patients on the low glycemic load diet lost more weight at six months (2.8 kg loss versus 0.2 kg gain, P < 0.0001), had a greater reduction in abdominal obesity (2.9 cm versus 0.4 cm, P < 0.0001), and had a greater improvement in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (0.14 mmol/L versus 0.02 mmol/L, P < 0.0001), triglycerides (-0.44 mmol/L versus -0.08 mmol/L, P < 0.0001) and glycemic control (fasting glucose -0.94 mmol/L versus 0.91 mmol/L, P = 0.0019). After one year of follow-up, the low glycemic load patients had maintained (weight gain 0.7 kg, triglycerides -0.07 mmol/L, fasting glucose -0.10 mmol/L and glycosylated hemoglobin A1c -0.18%; all not significant) or augmented (waist circumference -1.3 cm, P = 0.038; high density lipoprotein cholesterol 0.08 mmol/L, P < 0.0001) the initial results. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a low glycemic load diet was associated with substantial and sustained improvements in abdominal obesity, cholesterol and glycemic control.

Efficacy of alternate day versus daily dosing of rosuvastatin.

BACKGROUND: Compared with other statins, rosuvastatin has a relatively long half-life, which may allow for the administration of this medication on an alternate day basis. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of administering rosuvastatin on a daily basis versus on an alternate day basis for the treatment of dyslipidemia. METHODS: In the present crossover study, 45 patients with documented hypercholesterolemia requiring pharmacotherapy were administered either 20 mg of rosuvastatin on alternate days or 10 mg of rosuvastatin daily for six weeks. After a four-week washout period, patients were then switched to the other regimen for another six weeks. The primary end point was the percentage reduction of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). RESULTS: LDL-C decreased by 48.5% versus 40.9% with daily and alternate day dosing, respectively. This represented an additional absolute reduction of LDL-C of 7.6% (95% CI 1.8% to 13.4%, P=0.012) with the daily dosing regimen. Both dosing regimens provided similar improvements in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with alternate day dosing, daily dosing of rosuvastatin provides a statistically significant advantage in LDL-C reduction. However, the alternate day regimen may be a viable option for those patients in whom cost is a limitation to compliance.