Anacetrapib as lipid-modifying therapy in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (REALIZE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Present guidelines emphasise the importance of low concentrations of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) in patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia. In most patients with the disease, however, these concentrations are not achieved with present treatments, so additional treatment is therefore warranted. Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein has been shown to reduce LDL-C concentrations in addition to regular statin treatment in patients with hypercholesterolaemia or at high risk of cardiovascular disease. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of anacetrapib, a cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, patients aged 18-80 years with a genotype-confirmed or clinical diagnosis of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, on optimum lipid-lowering treatment for at least 6 weeks, and with an LDL-C concentration of 2·59 mmol/L or higher without cardiovascular disease or 1·81 mmol/L or higher with cardiovascular disease from 26 lipid clinics across nine countries were eligible. We randomly allocated participants with a computer-generated allocation schedule (2:1; block size of six; no stratification) to oral anacetrapib 100 mg or placebo for 52 weeks, with a 12 week post-treatment follow-up afterwards. We masked patients, care providers, and those assessing outcomes to treatment groups throughout the study. The primary outcome was percentage change from baseline in LDL-C concentration. We did analysis using a constrained longitudinal repeated measures model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01524289. FINDINGS: Between Feb 10, 2012, and Feb 12, 2014, we randomly allocated 204 patients to anacetrapib and 102 to placebo. One patient in the anacetrapib group did not receive the drug. At week 52, anacetrapib reduced mean LDL-C concentration from 3·3 mmol/L (SD 0·8) to 2·1 mmol/L (0·8; percentage change 36·0% [95% CI -39·5 to -32·5] compared with an increase with placebo from 3·4 mmol/L (1·2) to 3·5 mmol/L (1·6; percentage change 3·7% [-1·2 to 8·6], with a difference in percentage change between anacetrapib and placebo of -39·7% (95% CI -45·7 to -33·7; p<0·0001). The number of cardiovascular events was increased in patients given anacetrapib compared with those given placebo (4 [2%] of 203 vs none [0%] of 102; p=0·1544), but the proportion with adverse events leading to discontinuation was similar (12 [6%] of 203 vs five [5%] of 102). INTERPRETATION: In patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia, treatment with anacetrapib for 1 year was well tolerated and resulted in substantial reductions in LDL-C concentration. Whether this change leads to a reduction of cardiovascular events will be answered in an outcome study. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB levels are inter-correlated and all predict risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or high TG. These levels are lowered by extended-release niacin (ERN), and changes in the ratios of these levels may affect ASCVD risk. This analysis examined the effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) on the relationships between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. METHODS: T2DM patients (n = 796) had LDL-C ≥1.55 and <2.97 mmol/L and TG <5.65 mmol/L following a 4-week, lipid-modifying run-in (~78 % taking statins). ApoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were assessed after randomized (4:3), double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo for 12 weeks. Pearson correlation coefficients between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C were computed and simple linear regression models were fitted for apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C at baseline and Week 12, and the correlations between measured apoB and measured vs predicted values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C were studied. RESULTS: LDL-C and especially non-HDL-C were well correlated with apoB at baseline, and treatment with ERN/LRPT increased these correlations, especially between LDL-C and apoB. Despite the tighter correlations, many patients who achieved non-HDL-C goal, and especially LDL-C goal, remained above apoB goal. There was a trend towards greater increases in these correlations in the higher TG subgroup, non-significant possibly due to the small number of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ERN/LRPT treatment increased association of apoB with LDL-C and non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. Lowering LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB with niacin has the potential to reduce coronary risk in patients with T2DM.

Measurement of LDL-C after treatment with the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib.

Estimation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) using the Friedewald (FR) formula is often inaccurate when triglycerides are elevated or VLDL particle composition is altered. We hypothesized that LDL-C estimation by the FR formula and other measurement methods might also be inaccurate in individuals treated with a cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor. An assay comparison study was conducted using pre and posttreatment serum samples from 280 of the 811 patients treated with the CETP inhibitor anacetrapib in the DEFINE study (determining the efficacy and tolerability of CETP inhibition with anacetrapib). After 24 weeks of treatment with anacetrapib, mean LDL-C values by FR formula, Roche direct method (RDM) and Genzyme direct method (GDM) deviated from that measured by the ß-quantification (BQ) reference method by -12.2 ± 7.5, -10.2 ± 6.6, -10.8 ± 8.8 mg/dl, respectively. After treatment with anacetrapib, the FR formula and detergent-based direct methods provided lower LDL-C values than those obtained by the BQ reference method. The bias by the FR formula appeared to be due to an overestimation of VLDL-C by the TG/5 component of the formula. Evaluation of the clinical significance of these findings awaits comprehensive lipid and cardiovascular outcome data from ongoing Phase III clinical studies of anacetrapib.

Safety of anacetrapib in patients with or at high risk for coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Anacetrapib is a cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor that raises high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety profile of anacetrapib in patients with coronary heart disease or at high risk for coronary heart disease. Eligible patients who were taking a statin and who had an LDL cholesterol level that was consistent with that recommended in guidelines were assigned to receive 100 mg of anacetrapib or placebo daily for 18 months. The primary end points were the percent change from baseline in LDL cholesterol at 24 weeks (HDL cholesterol level was a secondary end point) and the safety and side-effect profile of anacetrapib through 76 weeks. Cardiovascular events and deaths were prospectively adjudicated. RESULTS: A total of 1623 patients underwent randomization. By 24 weeks, the LDL cholesterol level had been reduced from 81 mg per deciliter (2.1 mmol per liter) to 45 mg per deciliter (1.2 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group, as compared with a reduction from 82 mg per deciliter (2.1 mmol per liter) to 77 mg per deciliter (2.0 mmol per liter) in the placebo group (P<0.001)--a 39.8% reduction with anacetrapib beyond that seen with placebo. In addition, the HDL cholesterol level increased from 41 mg per deciliter (1.0 mmol per liter) to 101 mg per deciliter (2.6 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group, as compared with an increase from 40 mg per deciliter (1.0 mmol per liter) to 46 mg per deciliter (1.2 mmol per liter) in the placebo group (P<0.001)--a 138.1% increase with anacetrapib beyond that seen with placebo. Through 76 weeks, no changes were noted in blood pressure or electrolyte or aldosterone levels with anacetrapib as compared with placebo. Prespecified adjudicated cardiovascular events occurred in 16 patients treated with anacetrapib (2.0%) and 21 patients receiving placebo (2.6%) (P = 0.40). The prespecified Bayesian analysis indicated that this event distribution provided a predictive probability (confidence) of 94% that anacetrapib would not be associated with a 25% increase in cardiovascular events, as seen with torcetrapib. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with anacetrapib had robust effects on LDL and HDL cholesterol, had an acceptable side-effect profile, and, within the limits of the power of this study, did not result in the adverse cardiovascular effects observed with torcetrapib. (Funded by Merck Research Laboratories; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00685776.).

Phase 2b Randomized Trial of the Oral PCSK9 Inhibitor MK-0616.

BACKGROUND: MK-0616 is an oral macrocyclic peptide inhibitor of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) in development for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia. OBJECTIVES: This Phase 2b, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MK-0616 in participants with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: This trial was planned to include 375 adult participants with a wide range of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk. Participants were assigned randomly (1:1:1:1:1 ratio) to MK-0616 (6, 12, 18, or 30 mg once daily) or matching placebo. The primary endpoints included percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) at Week 8 and the proportion of participants with adverse events (AEs) and study intervention discontinuations due to AEs; participants were monitored for AEs for an additional 8 weeks after the 8-week treatment period. RESULTS: Of the 381 participants randomized, 49% were female, and the median age was 62 years. Among 380 treated participants, all doses of MK-0616 demonstrated statistically significant (P < 0.001) differences in least squares mean percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to Week 8 vs placebo: -41.2% (6 mg), -55.7% (12 mg), -59.1% (18 mg), and -60.9% (30 mg). AEs occurred in a similar proportion of participants in the MK-0616 arms (39.5% to 43.4%) as placebo (44.0%). Discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 2 or fewer participants in any treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: MK-0616 demonstrated statistically significant and robust, dose-dependent placebo-adjusted reductions in LDL-C at Week 8 of up to 60.9% from baseline and was well tolerated during 8 weeks of treatment and an additional 8 weeks of follow-up. (A Study of the Efficacy and Safety of MK-0616 [Oral PCSK9 Inhibitor] in Adults With Hypercholesterolemia [MK-0616-008]; NCT05261126).

Efficacy and safety after cessation of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib (MK-0859) in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia.

This report describes the lipid and safety data collected during an off-drug period that followed 8 weeks of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, anacetrapib (ANA). A total of 589 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia were randomized to placebo, atorvastatin (ATV) 20 mg, and varying doses of ANA, provided as monotherapy or coadministered with ATV 20 mg daily. Patients were treated for 8 weeks, followed by an 8-week follow-up period, during which ANA was switched to placebo. At week 16 (8 weeks after ANA was stopped), persistent reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were evident for the monotherapy groups receiving ANA 150 and 300 mg (-9.3% and -15.3%, respectively), and residual increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were observed for the monotherapy groups receiving ANA 40 mg (18.6%), 150 mg (40.5%), and 300 mg (43.4%). The effects on apolipoprotein B and apolipoprotein A-I were consistent with the changes observed for LDL-C and HDL-C, respectively. Corresponding residual changes in LDL-C and HDL-C were also noted in the ATV coadministration groups at the similar doses of ANA compared with ATV 20 mg alone. Residual plasma drug levels accompanied by reductions in cholesteryl ester transfer protein activity were observed at week 16 and may account for the alterations in plasma lipids 8 weeks after cessation of ANA.

Efficacy and safety of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib as monotherapy and coadministered with atorvastatin in dyslipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular risk. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition is one strategy for increasing HDL-C. This study evaluated the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib as monotherapy or coadministered with atorvastatin in patients with dyslipidemia. METHODS: A total of 589 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia (53.8% of the study population had low HDL-C) were randomized equally to one of 10 groups: 5 groups received background statin therapy of atorvastatin 20 mg and 5 did not, and each of these was randomized to placebo, anacetrapib 10, 40, 150, and 300 mg once daily for 8 weeks. An equal proportion of patients had triglycerides >150 mg/dL in each group. RESULTS: For placebo and anacetrapib monotherapy (10, 40, 150, and 300 mg), least squares mean percent changes from baseline to week 8 for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were 2%, -16%, -27%, -40%, and -39%, respectively, and for HDL-C were 4%, 44%, 86%, 139%, and 133%, respectively (P < .001 vs placebo for all doses). Coadministration of anacetrapib with atorvastatin produced significant incremental LDL-C reductions and similar HDL-C increases versus atorvastatin monotherapy. For both anacetrapib monotherapy and coadministration with atorvastatin, the LDL-C reductions were similar in patients with baseline triglyceride levels greater than and less than or equal to the median. Anacetrapib was well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events was similar for placebo and all active treatment groups. There were no increases in systolic or diastolic blood pressure in any treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Anacetrapib, as monotherapy or coadministered with atorvastatin, produced significant reductions in LDL-C and increases in HDL-C; the net result of treatment with anacetrapib + atorvastatin was approximately 70% lowering of LDL-C and more than doubling of HDL-C. Anacetrapib was generally well tolerated with no discernable effect on blood pressure.

Design of the DEFINE trial: determining the EFficacy and tolerability of CETP INhibition with AnacEtrapib.

BACKGROUND: Residual cardiovascular (CV) risk often remains high despite statin therapy to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). New therapies to raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) are currently being investigated. Anacetrapib is a cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor that raises HDL-C and reduces LDL-C when administered alone or with a statin. Adverse effects on blood pressure, electrolytes, and aldosterone levels, seen with another drug in this class, have not been noted in studies of anacetrapib to date. METHODS: Determining the EFficacy and Tolerability of CETP INhibition with AnacEtrapib (DEFINE) is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety profile of anacetrapib in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk equivalents (clinical trials.gov NCT00685776). Eligible patients at National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III LDL-C treatment goal on a statin, with or without other lipid-modifying medications, are treated with anacetrapib, 100 mg, or placebo for 18 months, followed by a 3-month, poststudy follow-up. The primary end points are percent change from baseline in LDL-C and the safety and tolerability of anacetrapib. Comprehensive preplanned interim safety analyses will be performed at the 6- and 12-month time points to examine treatment effects on key safety end points, including blood pressure and electrolytes. A preplanned Bayesian analysis will be performed to interpret the CV event distribution, given the limited number of events expected in this study. RESULTS: A total of 2,757 patients were screened at 153 centers in 20 countries, and 1,623 patients were randomized into the trial. Lipid results, clinical CV events, and safety outcomes from this trial are anticipated in 2010.

Blood pressure-lowering effects of extended-release niacin alone and extended-release niacin/laropiprant combination: a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, placebo-controlled trial in dyslipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia and high blood pressure are both major cardiovascular disease risk factors. Niacin is an effective lipid-altering agent that has been reported to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the more widespread use of niacin is limited, mainly due to the occurrence of flushing. Laropiprant (LRPT) is a selective antagonist of prostaglandin D(2) receptor subtype 1 that reduces extended-release niacin (ERN)-induced flushing without affecting its beneficial lipid effects. While the lipid effects of ERN are well known, the blood pressure effects are unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to examine the blood pressure effects of ERN and ERN/LRPT. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, worldwide, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel, Phase III, previously published study of dyslipidemic patients, which examined the effect of ERN and ERN/LRPT on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). RESULTS: A total of 1613 men and women, aged 21 to 85 years, with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia (66% on statins), were included in the original analysis. ERN alone, or in combination with LRPT, was associated with significant reductions in SBP and DBP at 24 weeks from baseline. The placebo-adjusted mean changes from baseline at week 24 in SBP were -2.2 and -3.1 mm Hg for the ERN and ERN/LRPT groups, respectively (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001). Similar changes in DBP were observed; -2.7 and -2.5 mm Hg in the ERN and ERN/ LRPT groups, respectively (both, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of a 24-week trial found that ERN alone, or in combination with LRPT, was associated with significant placebo-adjusted reductions from baseline in blood pressure in these hyperlipidemic hypertensive or normotensive subjects.

Effects of sources of variability on sample sizes required for RCTs, applied to trials of lipid-altering therapies on carotid artery intima-media thickness.

OBJECTIVE: Studies measuring progression of carotid artery intima-media thickness (cIMT) have been used to estimate the effect of lipid-modifying therapies cardiovascular event risk. The likelihood that future cIMT clinical trials will detect a true treatment effect is estimated by leveraging results from prior studies. The present analyses assess the impact of between- and within-study variability based on currently published data from prior clinical studies on the likelihood that ongoing or future cIMT trials will detect the true treatment effect of lipid-modifying therapies. METHODS: Published data from six contemporary cIMT studies (ASAP, ARBITER 2, RADIANCE 1, RADIANCE 2, ENHANCE, and METEOR) including data from a total of 3563 patients were examined. Bayesian and frequentist methods were used to assess the impact of between study variability on the likelihood of detecting true treatment effects on 1-year cIMT progression/regression and to provide a sample size estimate that would specifically compensate for the effect of between-study variability. RESULTS: In addition to the well-described within-study variability, there is considerable between-study variability associated with the measurement of annualized change in cIMT. Accounting for the additional between-study variability decreases the power for existing study designs. In order to account for the added between-study variability, it is likely that future cIMT studies would require a large increase in sample size in order to provide substantial probability (> or =90%) to have 90% power of detecting a true treatment effect.Limitation Analyses are based on study level data. Future meta-analyses incorporating patient-level data would be useful for confirmation. CONCLUSION: Due to substantial within- and between-study variability in the measure of 1-year change of cIMT, as well as uncertainty about progression rates in contemporary populations, future study designs evaluating the effect of new lipid-modifying therapies on atherosclerotic disease progression are likely to be challenged by large sample sizes in order to demonstrate a true treatment effect.

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.

Efficacy and safety of the coadministration of ezetimibe/simvastatin with fenofibrate in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Mixed hyperlipidemia is characterized by elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglyceride (TG), and TG-rich lipoprotein levels. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel arm trial, eligible patients were 18 to 79 years of age, with mixed hyperlipidemia (LDL-C 130-220 mg/dL, TG 150-500 mg/dL). Patients with type 2 diabetes were limited to those with LDL-C of 100 to 180 mg/dL. Patients (N = 611) were randomized in a 3:3:3:1 ratio to one of 4 treatment arms for 12 weeks: ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (EZE/SIMVA) + fenofibrate 160 mg (FENO), EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg, FENO 160 mg, or placebo. The primary objective was to evaluate the LDL-C-lowering efficacy of EZE/SIMVA + FENO versus FENO monotherapy. RESULTS: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was significantly (P < .05) reduced with EZE/SIMVA + FENO (-45.8%) compared with FENO (-15.7%) or placebo (-3.5%), but not when compared with EZE/SIMVA (-47.1%). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I levels were significantly increased with EZE/SIMVA + FENO (18.7% and 11.1%, respectively) treatment compared with EZE/SIMVA (9.3% and 6.6%) or placebo (1.1% and 1.6%), but not when compared with FENO (18.2% and 10.8%). Triglyceride, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels were significantly reduced with EZE/SIMVA + FENO (-50.0%, -50.5%, and -44.7%, respectively) versus all other treatments. Treatment with EZE/SIMVA + FENO was generally well tolerated with a safety profile similar to the EZE/SIMVA and FENO therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of EZE/SIMVA + FENO effectively improved the overall atherogenic lipid profile of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. Clinical trial registry number: NCT 00093899 (http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov).

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.

Atherothrombotic Risk Stratification and Ezetimibe for Secondary Prevention.

BACKGROUND: Ezetimibe improves cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in patients stabilized after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) when added to statin therapy. After ACS, patients vary considerably in their risk for recurrent CV events. OBJECTIVES: This study tested the hypothesis that atherothrombotic risk stratification may be useful to identify post-ACS patients who have the greatest potential for benefit from the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy. METHODS: The TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS 2°P) is a simple 9-point risk stratification tool, previously developed in a large population with atherothrombosis to predict CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), and ischemic stroke (CV death/MI/ischemic cerebrovascular accident [iCVA]). The current study applied this tool prospectively to 17,717 post-ACS patients randomized either to ezetimibe and simvastatin or to placebo and simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial). Treatment efficacy was assessed by baseline risk for CV death/MI/iCVA, the IMPROVE-IT composite endpoints (CE), and individual component endpoints at 7 years. RESULTS: All 9 clinical variables in the TRS 2°P were independent risk indicators for CV death/MI/iCVA (p < 0.001). The integer-based scheme showed a strong graded relationship with the rate of CV death/MI/iCVA, the trial CE, and the individual components (p trend <0.0001 for each). High-risk patients (n = 4,393; 25%), defined by ≥3 risk indicators, had a 6.3% (95% confidence interval: 2.9% to 9.7%) absolute risk reduction in CV death/MI/iCVA at 7 years with ezetimibe/simvastatin, thus translating to a number-needed-to-treat of 16. Intermediate-risk patients (2 risk indicators; n = 5,292; 30%) had a 2.2% (95% confidence interval: -0.3% to 4.6%) absolute risk reduction. Low-risk patients (0 to 1 risk indicators; n = 8,032; 45%) did not appear to derive benefit from the addition of ezetimibe (p interaction = 0.010). Similar findings were observed for the IMPROVE-IT primary CE. CONCLUSIONS: Atherothrombotic risk stratification using the TRS 2°P identifies high-risk patients who derive greatest benefit from the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy for secondary prevention after ACS. (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial [IMPROVE-IT]; NCT00202878).

A Multiregional, Randomized Evaluation of the Lipid-Modifying Efficacy and Tolerability of Anacetrapib Added to Ongoing Statin Therapy in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia or Low High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol.

This phase 3, multiregional, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessed the efficacy/safety profile of anacetrapib added to ongoing therapy with statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies in patients with hypercholesterolemia who were not at their low-density lipoprotein (LDL-C) goal (as per the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines) and in those with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Patients on a stable dose of statin ± other lipid-modifying therapies and with LDL-C ≥70 to <115, ≥100 to <145, ≥130, or ≥160 mg/dl for very high, high, moderate, or low CHD risk or at LDL-C goal (per CHD risk category) with HDL-C ≤40 mg/dl were randomized in a ratio of 1:1 to anacetrapib 100 mg (n = 290) or placebo (n = 293) for 24 weeks, followed by a 12-week off-drug phase. The co-primary end points were % change from baseline in LDL-C and HDL-C and the safety profile of anacetrapib. Treatment with anacetrapib reduced LDL-C (BQ) by 37% (95% confidence interval -42.5, -31.0) and increased HDL-C by 118% (95% confidence interval 110.6, 125.7) relative to placebo (p <0.001 for both). Anacetrapib also reduced non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein a and increased apolipoprotein AI versus placebo (p <0.001 for all). There were no clinically meaningful differences between the anacetrapib and placebo groups in the % patients who discontinued drug due to an adverse event or in abnormalities in liver enzymes, creatine kinase, blood pressure, electrolytes, or adjudicated cardiovascular events. Treatment with anacetrapib substantially reduced LDL-C and also increased HDL-C and was well tolerated over 24 weeks in statin-treated patients with hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C.

Comparison of the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profiles of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in older versus younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a post Hoc analysis of subpopulations from three pooled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite the need for effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapies for primary hypercholesterolemia in older patients, there is a relative paucity of published data on such treatments in this population. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a post hoc analysis to examine the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profile of simvastatin (SIMVA) monotherapy, and the coadministration of ezetimibe (EZE) and SIMVA (EZE/SIMVA) in older (ie, aged>or=65 years) versus younger (ie, aged<65 years) patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: We analyzed pooled data from 3 previously published, similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After a 6- to 8-week washout, a 4-week dietary stabilization period, and a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 145 to 250 mg/dL were randomized to EZE/SIMVA 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg; SIMVA 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; EZE 10 mg; or placebo for 12 weeks. In this post hoc analysis, the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B (apo B), triglycerides (TG), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) for EZE/SIMVA (pooled across doses) versus SIMVA alone (pooled across doses) was compared between older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Tolerability was assessed by adverse event reports and laboratory and vital signs assessments throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 3083 patients aged 20 to 87 years were included in the 3 studies (2320 were aged<65 years and 763 were aged>or=65 years). Baseline lipid values and patient characteristics were similar among all treatment groups for patients aged<65 years versus those aged>or=65 years except that there was a higher percentage of females (62% vs 50%) and patients with hypertension (46% vs 29%) in the older versus younger subgroup (both, P<0.001). EZE/SIMVA was associated with greater improvements than SIMVA alone in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, TG, and hs-CRP (all, P<0.001); these effects did not appear to differ between the older and younger sub-groups (all, P=NS). Changes in HDL-C did not differ significantly between the EZE/SIMVA and SIMVA groups. More patients receiving EZE/SIMVA than SIMVA monotherapy achieved the target LDL-C level<100 mg/dL (P<0.001), regardless of age subgroup (77% vs 41% for patients aged<65 years and 85% vs 48% for patients aged>or=65 years). In the younger sub-group, the incidence of creatinine phosphokinase (CK) elevations>or=10x the upper limit of normal (ULN) was or=10x ULN were reported. In younger patients, the incidence of consecutive alanine amino-transferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels>or=3x ULN was 0% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 2% for EZE/SIMVA; in older patients, it was 1% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 0% for EZE/SIMVA. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 previously published large clinical trials suggests that EZE/SIMVA was well tolerated and associated with improved lipid profiles in both older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Consistency of lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin across gender, race, age, baseline low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and coronary heart disease status: results of a pooled retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The combination tablet containing ezetimibe and simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA), inhibits both the intestinal absorption and endogenous production of cholesterol, providing significantly greater low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering than EZE or SIMVA alone. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the consistency of efficacy (i.e., between-treatment difference) of EZE/SIMVA versus SIMVA within several selected subgroups of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: For the present analysis, data were pooled from three similarly designed, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial studies consisting of 3083 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia (n = 311 in placebo group; n = 302 in EZE group; n = 1234 in pooled SIMVA group; n = 1236 in pooled EZE/SIMVA group). In these clinical studies, primary hypercholesterolemia was defined as an LDL-C value between 145 and 250 mg/dL inclusive and a triglyceride (TG) level of less than 350 mg/dL. The results for the pooled SIMVA and pooled EZE/SIMVA groups were used for the present analyses. The pooled analyses focused on the consistency of the between-treatment differences (i.e., incremental effect) for EZE/SIMVA (pooled across doses) versus SIMVA (pooled across doses) on various lipid and non-lipid parameters within different patient subgroups defined according to gender, race (Caucasian, Non-Caucasian), baseline age (< 65, > or = 65 years), baseline LDL-C (< 160, > or = 160 mg/dL), and coronary heart disease (CHD) history. Tolerability was also examined for pooled EZE/SIMVA and pooled SIMVA within these selected subgroups. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, an ANOVA model was used for testing the consistency of pooled treatment effects on lipid and non-lipid parameters within each selected subgroup. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, baseline lipid profiles were similar for the patients in the pooled EZE/SIMVA group compared with those in the pooled SIMVA group. Treatment with EZE/SIMVA led to significant (p < 0.001) incremental improvements in LDL-C, non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein B, TG and high sensitivity C-reactive protein compared to SIMVA, across the entire cohort. These changes were consistent within each of the selected subgroups. Moreover, more patients attained LDL-C goal levels < 100 mg/dL with EZE/SIMVA than with SIMVA in the entire cohort and this was consistent across all subgroups, except baseline LDL-C. In this pooled retrospective analysis, treatment with EZE/SIMVA was generally well tolerated across subgroups, with a safety profile similar to SIMVA monotherapy. Although this pooled analysis was performed on a large cohort of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, the results of this analysis were specific for this select patient population and generalizations to other populations should be applied with caution. CONCLUSION: The enhanced lipid-altering effects of EZE/SIMVA versus those of SIMVA observed in the entire cohort were consistent within all subgroups examined. EZE/SIMVA represents an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for the treatment of a wide range of patient subgroups with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Effects of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin on C-reactive protein in a large cohort of hypercholesterolemic patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the effect of coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin on high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in a large subject cohort (N=1089). METHODS: Data were combined from two nearly identical prospective trials. After dietary stabilization, washout period, and placebo lead-in period, patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or =3.75-6.50 mmol/l and triglycerides (TG) < or =4.0 mmol/l were randomized to one of the following daily treatments for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; simvastatin monotherapy (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); ezetimibe 10mg plus simvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); or placebo. The primary analysis was the percent change in hs-CRP for the pooled ezetimibe plus simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy cohorts. RESULTS: Ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin more than doubled the hs-CRP reduction compared to simvastatin monotherapy (-33.3% versus -14.3%, p<0.01). At each individual simvastatin dose level, coadministration therapy exerted significant further incremental hs-CRP reductions compared to simvastatin monotherapy. Similar hs-CRP reductions with coadministered ezetimibe and simvastatin were observed in the major subgroups examined (coronary heart disease, gender, age, baseline LDL-C, and body mass index). CONCLUSION: In this large subject cohort, ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin significantly reduced hs-CRP, suggesting a possible additional anti-inflammatory/anti-atherosclerotic action of combination therapy compared to simvastatin monotherapy.

Reduction of cardiovascular events by simvastatin in nondiabetic coronary heart disease patients with and without the metabolic syndrome: subgroup analyses of the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of simvastatin treatment on the risk of cardiovascular events in nondiabetic patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) with and without the metabolic syndrome, as defined by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP-III). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Subgroup analyses were performed on data from 3933 nondiabetic patients with clinically established CHD, serum total cholesterol level 5.5-8.0 mmol/l, and serum triglyceride level

LDL-C goal attainment with ezetimibe plus simvastatin coadministration vs atorvastatin or simvastatin monotherapy in patients at high risk of CHD.

AIMS: To compare the proportion of patients at high risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) achieving the recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) treatment goal of < 100 mg/dL and the optional LDL-C target of < 70 mg/dL with coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) vs either atorvastatin or simvastatin monotherapy. PATIENTS: Patients with established CHD or CHD risk equivalent according to National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) criteria with baseline LDL-C = 130 mg/dL and triglycerides (TG) < or = 350 mg/dL. METHODS: A post hoc analysis from 2 separate studies assessed the percentage of high-risk patients achieving the LDL-C targets (< 100 and < 70 mg/dL) after 6 weeks on the usual recommended starting doses of the following treatments: EZE/SIMVA (10/20 mg) vs atorvastatin (10 mg) or simvastatin (20 mg). Depending on the study, EZE/SIMVA 10/10 or 10/40 mg was also compared with either atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg. Percent change in other lipid parameters from baseline to study endpoint was also examined. RESULTS: In both studies, the proportions of patients achieving an LDL-C of < 100 mg/dL were significantly (P < .001) greater for EZE/SIMVA 10/10, 10/20, or 10/40 mg vs either atorvastatin 10 mg or simvastatin 20 mg after 6 weeks. The percentage reaching the optional LDL-C treatment target of < 70 mg/dL was also significantly higher with EZE/SIMVA compared with either atorvastatin or simvastatin. Percent reduction in LDL-C was significantly (P < .001) larger with all doses of EZE/SIMVA (46% to 59%) compared with either atorvastatin 10 mg (37%) or simvastatin 20 mg (38%) monotherapy after 6 weeks. Changes in other lipid parameters consistently favored EZE/SIMVA vs statin monotherapy. All treatments were well tolerated in both studies. CONCLUSION: Patients at high risk for CHD are more likely to attain LDL-C treatment targets with the usual recommended starting dose of EZE/SIMVA (10 or 20 mg) therapy than with that of atorvastatin (10 mg) or simvastatin (20 mg) monotherapy.