Nepafenac 0.3% after Cataract Surgery in Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy: Results of 2 Randomized Phase 3 Studies.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of once-daily nepafenac 0.3% ophthalmic suspension versus vehicle, based on clinical outcomes, after cataract surgery in patients with diabetes. DESIGN: Two prospective, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, vehicle-controlled phase 3 studies. PARTICIPANTS: Total, 615 patients in study 1 and 605 patients in study 2. METHODS: Patients were randomized (1:1) to topical nepafenac 0.3% or vehicle once-daily starting the day before surgery and continuing for 90 days thereafter. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Key efficacy variables were: patients (%) in whom macular edema (ME) developed (≥30% increase from preoperative baseline central subfield macular thickness) within 90 days after cataract surgery and the patients (%) with a best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improvement of ≥15 letters from preoperative baseline through day 14 maintained through day 90. Secondary end points included: patients (%) with a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters from preoperative baseline through days 90 and 60 and safety over 3 months. RESULTS: A significantly lower percentage of patients demonstrated ME within 90 days after surgery with nepafenac 0.3% versus vehicle (study 1: 2.3% vs. 17.3%; P < 0.001; study 2: 5.9% vs. 14.3%; P = 0.001; pooled: 4.1% vs. 15.9%; P < 0.001). The percentage of patients achieving a ≥15-letter improvement from baseline through day 14 maintained through day 90 with nepafenac 0.3% versus vehicle was 61.7% versus 43.0% (P < 0.001) in study 1, 48.8% versus 50.5% (P = 0.671) in study 2, and 55.4% versus 46.7% (P = 0.003) in the pooled analysis. A greater percentage of patients treated with nepafenac 0.3% versus vehicle in study 1 and similar percentage in study 2 had a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters from preoperative baseline through day 90 (77.2% vs. 67.7% [P = 0.009] and 65.4% vs. 65.9% [P = 0.888]) and through day 60 (76.2% vs. 64.7% [P = 0.002] and 68.9% vs. 62.1% [P = 0.092]). No unanticipated adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: These studies demonstrated the clinical benefits of nepafenac 0.3% over vehicle in reducing the risk of postoperative ME, with the integrated analysis showing improved BCVA after cataract surgery in patients with diabetic retinopathy, with no unanticipated safety events.

Information-based sample size re-estimation in group sequential design for longitudinal trials.

Group sequential design has become more popular in clinical trials because it allows for trials to stop early for futility or efficacy to save time and resources. However, this approach is less well-known for longitudinal analysis. We have observed repeated cases of studies with longitudinal data where there is an interest in early stopping for a lack of treatment effect or in adapting sample size to correct for inappropriate variance assumptions. We propose an information-based group sequential design as a method to deal with both of these issues. Updating the sample size at each interim analysis makes it possible to maintain the target power while controlling the type I error rate. We will illustrate our strategy with examples and simulations and compare the results with those obtained using fixed design and group sequential design without sample size re-estimation.

Flagging clinical adverse experiences: reducing false discoveries without materially compromising power for detecting true signals.

Comparative analyses of safety/tolerability data from a typical phase III randomized clinical trial generate multiple p-values associated with adverse experiences (AEs) across several body systems. A common approach is to 'flag' any AE with a p-value less than or equal to 0.05, ignoring the multiplicity problem. Despite the fact that this approach can result in excessive false discoveries (false positives), many researchers avoid a multiplicity adjustment to curtail the risk of missing true safety signals. We propose a new flagging mechanism that significantly lowers the false discovery rate (FDR) without materially compromising the power for detecting true signals, relative to the common no-adjustment approach. Our simple two-step procedure is an enhancement of the Mehrotra-Heyse-Tukey approach that leverages the natural grouping of AEs by body systems. We use simulations to show that, on the basis of FDR and power, our procedure is an attractive alternative to the following: (i) the no-adjustment approach; (ii) a one-step FDR approach that ignores the grouping of AEs by body systems; and (iii) a recently proposed two-step FDR approach for much larger-scale settings such as genome-wide association studies. We use three clinical trial examples for illustration.

Gene-set analysis and reduction.

Gene-set analysis aims to identify differentially expressed gene sets (pathways) by a phenotype in DNA microarray studies. We review here important methodological aspects of gene-set analysis and illustrate them with varying performance of several methods proposed in the literature. We emphasize the importance of distinguishing between 'self-contained' versus 'competitive' methods, following Goeman and Bühlmann. We also discuss reducing a gene set to its subset, consisting of 'core members' that chiefly contribute to the statistical significance of the differential expression of the initial gene set by phenotype. Significance analysis of microarray for gene-set reduction (SAM-GSR) can be used for an analytical reduction of gene sets to their core subsets. We apply SAM-GSR on a microarray dataset for identifying biological gene sets (pathways) whose gene expressions are associated with p53 mutation in cancer cell lines. Codes to implement SAM-GSR in the statistical package R can be downloaded from http://www.ualberta.ca/~yyasui/homepage.html.

Comparison of the Intraocular Pressure-Lowering Efficacy and Safety of the Brinzolamide/Brimonidine Fixed-Dose Combination versus Concomitant Use of Brinzolamide and Brimonidine for Management of Open-Angle Glaucoma or Ocular Hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate that the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy of a twice-daily brinzolamide 10 mg/mL (BRINZ)/brimonidine 2 mg/mL (BRIM) fixed-dose combination (BBFC) was non-inferior to its individual components (BRINZ+BRIM) dosed concomitantly in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). Safety was also evaluated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This was a Phase III, multicenter, observer-masked study in patients from China, Russia and Taiwan. Patients aged ≥18 years with a mean IOP ≥21 mmHg and ≤36 mmHg in the same eye after washout of other IOP-lowering medications were included. Eligible patients were randomized (1:1) to receive BBFC or BRIZ+BRIM eye drops twice daily for 3 months. The primary endpoint was the mean change in diurnal IOP (averaged over 09:00, +2 h, and +7 h) from baseline to Month 3. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the study. RESULTS: The per-protocol set included 349 patients (BBFC, n=172; BRINZ+BRIM, n=177). The mean±standard deviation diurnal IOP at baseline was 24.6±2.66 mmHg in both groups. At Month 3, the least square mean±standard error change in diurnal IOP from baseline was -7.2±0.34 mmHg and -7.3±0.34 mmHg with BBFC and BRINZ+BRIM, respectively (between-group difference: 0.1 mmHg [95% CI -0.5, 0.7]). In the BBFC and BRINZ+BRIM groups, 53.3% and 55.0% of patients achieved a diurnal IOP <18 mmHg, and 43.2% and 37.4% of patients, respectively, achieved a mean diurnal IOP reduction >30% from baseline at Month 3. Ocular AEs were reported in 28.7% (BBFC) and 22.5% (BRINZ+BRIM) of patients; conjunctival hyperemia was the most frequent ocular AE (BBFC, 6.4%; BRINZ+BRIM, 6.8%). Non-ocular AEs were reported in 32.4% (BBFC) and 30.4% (BRINZ+BRIM) of patients. CONCLUSION: The study findings demonstrate that the efficacy of twice-daily BBFC was non-inferior to BRINZ+BRIM in patients with OAG/OHT. The safety profile of BBFC was similar to that of BRINZ+BRIM.

A cautionary note on the evaluation of biomarkers of subtypes of a single disease.

Heterogeneity in the molecular characteristics of a disease presents a challenge to investigators attempting to identify biomarkers of the disease. Preceding the biomarker discovery effort with stratification within a heterogeneous disease group, which amounts to grouping disease cases into more homogeneous subtypes, seems to be a natural strategy for discovering subtype-specific biomarkers. This is because biologically more homogeneous subgroups are presumably easier to distinguish from the nondiseased than the entire heterogeneous disease group. The misleading benefits of this two-step approach are illustrated using an example from a protein biomarker discovery project for breast cancer. A potential analytical pitfall in this framework is explained using a conditional probability argument.

A randomized clinical trial of elk velvet antler in rheumatoid arthritis.

This article examines the effects of elk velvet antler on joint pain and swelling, patient/physician global assessment of disease activity, functional ability, quality of life, blood levels of C-reactive protein, and adverse events in persons with stage 2 to 3 rheumatoid arthritis experiencing residual symptoms after standard treatment. Patients (N=168) were enrolled in a 6-month randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Instruments included the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale, the Health Assessment Questionnaire, tender and swollen joint counts, and 100 mm-length visual analogue scales, along with blood tests. There were no significant differences between groups on any measures. The pattern of change of the measures across time points was essentially the same for both groups. Although some patients reported clinical improvements in their symptoms, there were no statistically significant differences between groups. Overall, elk velvet antler does not effectively manage residual symptoms in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Comparative evaluation of gene-set analysis methods.

BACKGROUND: Multiple data-analytic methods have been proposed for evaluating gene-expression levels in specific biological pathways, assessing differential expression associated with a binary phenotype. Following Goeman and Bühlmann's recent review, we compared statistical performance of three methods, namely Global Test, ANCOVA Global Test, and SAM-GS, that test "self-contained null hypotheses" Via. subject sampling. The three methods were compared based on a simulation experiment and analyses of three real-world microarray datasets. RESULTS: In the simulation experiment, we found that the use of the asymptotic distribution in the two Global Tests leads to a statistical test with an incorrect size. Specifically, p-values calculated by the scaled chi2 distribution of Global Test and the asymptotic distribution of ANCOVA Global Test are too liberal, while the asymptotic distribution with a quadratic form of the Global Test results in p-values that are too conservative. The two Global Tests with permutation-based inference, however, gave a correct size. While the three methods showed similar power using permutation inference after a proper standardization of gene expression data, SAM-GS showed slightly higher power than the Global Tests. In the analysis of a real-world microarray dataset, the two Global Tests gave markedly different results, compared to SAM-GS, in identifying pathways whose gene expressions are associated with p53 mutation in cancer cell lines. A proper standardization of gene expression variances is necessary for the two Global Tests in order to produce biologically sensible results. After the standardization, the three methods gave very similar biologically-sensible results, with slightly higher statistical significance given by SAM-GS. The three methods gave similar patterns of results in the analysis of the other two microarray datasets. CONCLUSION: An appropriate standardization makes the performance of all three methods similar, given the use of permutation-based inference. SAM-GS tends to have slightly higher power in the lower alpha-level region (i.e. gene sets that are of the greatest interest). Global Test and ANCOVA Global Test have the important advantage of being able to analyze continuous and survival phenotypes and to adjust for covariates. A free Microsoft Excel Add-In to perform SAM-GS is available from http://www.ualberta.ca/~yyasui/homepage.html.

Improving gene set analysis of microarray data by SAM-GS.

BACKGROUND: Gene-set analysis evaluates the expression of biological pathways, or a priori defined gene sets, rather than that of individual genes, in association with a binary phenotype, and is of great biologic interest in many DNA microarray studies. Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) has been applied widely as a tool for gene-set analyses. We describe here some critical problems with GSEA and propose an alternative method by extending the individual-gene analysis method, Significance Analysis of Microarray (SAM), to gene-set analyses (SAM-GS). RESULTS: Using a mouse microarray dataset with simulated gene sets, we illustrate that GSEA gives statistical significance to gene sets that have no gene associated with the phenotype (null gene sets), and has very low power to detect gene sets in which half the genes are moderately or strongly associated with the phenotype (truly-associated gene sets). SAM-GS, on the other hand, performs very well. The two methods are also compared in the analyses of three real microarray datasets and relevant pathways, the diverging results of which clearly show advantages of SAM-GS over GSEA, both statistically and biologically. In a microarray study for identifying biological pathways whose gene expressions are associated with p53 mutation in cancer cell lines, we found biologically relevant performance differences between the two methods. Specifically, there are 31 additional pathways identified as significant by SAM-GS over GSEA, that are associated with the presence vs. absence of p53. Of the 31 gene sets, 11 actually involve p53 directly as a member. A further 6 gene sets directly involve the extrinsic and intrinsic apoptosis pathways, 3 involve the cell-cycle machinery, and 3 involve cytokines and/or JAK/STAT signaling. Each of these 12 gene sets, then, is in a direct, well-established relationship with aspects of p53 signaling. Of the remaining 8 gene sets, 6 have plausible, if less well established, links with p53. CONCLUSION: We conclude that GSEA has important limitations as a gene-set analysis approach for microarray experiments for identifying biological pathways associated with a binary phenotype. As an alternative statistically-sound method, we propose SAM-GS. A free Excel Add-In for performing SAM-GS is available for public use.

Pooled analysis of two studies evaluating efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride 0.77% in patients with allergic conjunctivitis.

PURPOSE: Two individual phase 3 conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) studies of similar design have assessed the efficacy and safety of olopatadine hydrochloride (HCl) 0.77% for the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the integrated efficacy and safety of olopatadine HCl 0.77% from a larger dataset by pooling data from the two individual CAC studies. METHODS: Data were pooled from two phase 3, randomized, multicenter, double-masked, active- and vehicle-controlled CAC studies. The primary comparison was on ocular itching scores between olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus vehicle (at onset and 24 hours) and olopatadine HCl 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% (at 24 hours). Additional end points included conjunctival redness, total redness, and proportion of itching responders at onset and 24-hour duration of CAC. For both primary and secondary analysis, mixed model repeated measures analysis was used, except for proportion of ocular itching responders. Sensitivity analyses were carried out using a two-sample t-test. RESULTS: This analysis included 448 patients. Olopatadine HCl 0.77% was superior to vehicle (P<0.0001) at onset and 24-hour duration of action (difference in means: -1.14 to -1.52) and to olopatadine 0.2% (P=0.0009) at 24-hour duration of action in relieving ocular itch. Additionally, olopatadine HCl 0.77% substantially reduced conjunctival redness and total redness over vehicle and olopatadine 0.2% at onset and 24-hour duration of action. At 24 hours CAC, there were a higher proportion of itching responders with olopatadine HCl 0.77% compared to vehicle or olopatadine 0.2% (difference in proportion of responders: 43.17%, P<0.0001, and 17.25%, P=0.0012, respectively). No safety concerns were identified. CONCLUSION: This analysis confirms the findings from the individual studies. The rapid onset and prolonged duration of action (for 24 hours) of olopatadine HCl 0.77% supports once-daily dosing in the treatment of allergic conjunctivitis.

Efficacy of nepafenac ophthalmic suspension 0.1% in improving clinical outcomes following cataract surgery in patients with diabetes: an analysis of two randomized studies.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of nepafenac 0.1% ophthalmic suspension in improving the clinical outcomes following cataract surgery (CS) in patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. METHODS: In two similar multicenter, randomized studies, patients received either nepafenac 0.1% or vehicle, instilled three times daily starting a day prior to surgery and continuing for 90 days postoperatively. A post hoc analysis of these two studies was conducted to assess 1) the likelihood for development of postoperative macular edema (ME), based on the percentage of patients who developed ME (≥30% increase from preoperative baseline in central subfield macular thickness) within 90 days following CS and 2) best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) endpoints, including the percentage of patients with a BCVA improvement of ≥15 letters from preoperative baseline to Day 14 and maintained through Day 90. Results for individual studies and their pooled estimates (only visual acuity endpoints) are reported. Primary inference was based on odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: This post hoc analysis included 411 patients (nepafenac 0.1%: 205; vehicle: 206). The incidence of postoperative ME within 90 days of CS was notably lower in the nepafenac-treated patients than in vehicle-treated patients (study 1: 3.2% vs 16.7%; OR =0.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] =0.1, 0.5, P=0.001; study 2: 5.0% vs 17.5%; OR =0.2, 95% CI =0.1, 0.8, P=0.018). A higher percentage of nepafenac-treated patients than vehicle-treated patients gained ≥15 letters from preoperative baseline to Day 14, which was maintained through Day 90 (study 1: 38.4% vs 21.4%; OR =2.4, 95% CI =1.4, 4.2, P=0.003; study 2: 35.0% vs 25.0%; OR =1.6, 95% CI =0.8, 3.2, P=0.172; pooled: 37.1% vs 22.8%; OR =2.0, 95% CI =1.3, 3.1, P=0.001). The odds of >5-letter and >10-letter loss in BCVA from postoperative Day 7 were higher in vehicle-treated than in nepafenac-treated patients. CONCLUSION: These results support the clinical benefit of prophylactic use of nepafenac 0.1% for reducing the risk of postoperative ME and for improvement in BCVA outcomes following CS in patients with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy.

Phase 3 Randomized Double-Masked Study of Efficacy and Safety of Once-Daily 0.77% Olopatadine Hydrochloride Ophthalmic Solution in Subjects With Allergic Conjunctivitis Using the Conjunctival Allergen Challenge Model.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy and safety of a novel once-daily 0.77% olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution in subjects with allergic conjunctivitis (AC) using the conjunctival allergen challenge (CAC) model. METHODS: In this 5-week, multicenter, double-masked, phase 3, randomized trial, subjects aged ≥18 years with a history of AC and a confirmed positive bilateral CAC response were randomized 2:2:2:1 to receive olopatadine 0.77%, olopatadine 0.2%, olopatadine 0.1%, or vehicle, respectively, following a single topical dose in each eye. The primary objective was superiority of olopatadine 0.77% over all comparators on ocular itching according to a 0 to 4 scale (0 = none and 4 = incapacitating itch) at 24-hour duration of action and over vehicle only at the onset of action (3, 5, and 7 minutes after CAC for both). RESULTS: In total, 345 subjects were randomized. Olopatadine 0.77% was superior to the vehicle at alleviating ocular itching at all post-CAC time points at the onset of action and at 24 hours (difference in means: -0.9 to -1.5; P < 0.0001). Superiority in relieving ocular itching was also demonstrated for olopatadine 0.77% versus olopatadine 0.2% and 0.1% at 24 hours (difference in means: -0.3 to -0.5; P < 0.05). Additionally, olopatadine 0.77% significantly improved conjunctival redness and total redness compared with all comparators at the onset of action (differences in means: -0.3 to -0.6 and -0.8 to -2.0, respectively; both P < 0.05). No safety concerns for olopatadine 0.77% were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Olopatadine 0.77% demonstrated a rapid onset and prolonged duration of action. It was superior to all comparators in alleviating AC-associated ocular itching with a favorable safety profile.Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01743027.

Effect of extended-release niacin on new-onset diabetes among hyperlipidemic patients treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin in a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of niacin on fasting glucose (FG) and new-onset diabetes in statin/ezetimibe-treated patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prespecified secondary analysis among 942 hyperlipidemic patients randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S; 10/20 mg) or E/S + extended-release niacin (N; titrated to 2 g) over 64 weeks. RESULTS: FG levels peaked by 8-12 weeks, then declined even without antidiabetic medication. At 64 weeks, 3.5% taking E/S+N versus 2.6% taking E/S met criteria for new-onset diabetes (P = 0.66). An additional 1.4% taking E/S+N versus 0.4% taking E/S transiently met criteria for diabetes and then remitted (P = 0.46). Of 28 new-diabetes diagnoses in the E/S+N group, 25 occurred by 24 weeks. Among patients with baseline diabetes, 13.9% taking E/S+N and 11.6% taking E/S underwent antidiabetic treatment modification. CONCLUSIONS: Increased FG and new-onset diabetes with E/S+N occurred mainly around the time of initial uptitration of N and often improved or remitted without specific treatment.

Private medical providers' knowledge and practices concerning medical abortion in Nigeria.

To investigate the knowledge and practices regarding medical abortion and postabortion care in northern Nigeria among private physicians--the principal providers of such services in the area--122 doctors operating separate clinics in five states--Bauchi, Borno, Kaduna, Niger, and Taraba--were interviewed by means of a structured questionnaire. The results showed that 22 percent of the doctors reported that they terminate unwanted pregnancies, whereas nearly all reported that they manage complications of unsafe abortion. Manual vacuum aspiration and dilatation and curettage performed singly or in combination were the most common methods of abortion and postabortion care reported by the doctors. Only one doctor reported exclusive use of medical abortion in the first trimester, and three reported its exclusive use in the second trimester. Only 35 percent of the doctors listed misoprostol as a drug that they knew could be used for abortion and postabortion care, and only 12 percent listed mifepristone. By contrast, 49 percent listed inappropriate or dangerous drugs for use in abortion provision in the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. We conclude that private practitioners in northern Nigeria have limited knowledge of medical abortion and postabortion care, and that a capacity-building program on the subject should be instituted for them.

Long-term safety and efficacy of triple combination ezetimibe/simvastatin plus extended-release niacin in patients with hyperlipidemia.

The safety and efficacy of combination ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) plus extended-release niacin was assessed in 942 patients with type IIa/IIb hyperlipidemia for 64 weeks in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients received E/S (10/20 mg) plus niacin (to 2 g) or E/S (10/20 mg) for 64 weeks, or niacin (to 2 g) for 24 weeks and then E/S (10/20 mg) plus niacin (2 g) or E/S (10/20 mg) for an additional 40 weeks. The primary end point, the safety of E/S plus niacin, included prespecified adverse events (ie, liver, muscle, discontinuations due to flushing, gallbladder-related, cholecystectomy, fasting glucose changes, new-onset diabetes). The secondary end points included the percentage of change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, other lipids, lipoprotein ratios and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The anticipated niacin-associated flushing led to a greater rate of study discontinuations with the E/S plus niacin regimen than with E/S alone (0.7%, p <0.001). The rate of liver and muscle adverse events was low (<1%) in both groups. Four patients had gallbladder-related adverse events; 1 patient in the E/S and 1 in the E/S plus niacin group underwent cholecystectomy. The occurrence of new-onset diabetes was 3.1% for the E/S and 4.9% for the E/S plus niacin group. The fasting glucose levels increased to greater than baseline during the first 12 weeks (E/S, 3.2 mg/dl; E/S plus niacin, 7.7 mg/dl) and gradually decreased to pretreatment levels by 64 weeks in both groups. E/S plus niacin significantly improved HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and A-I, and lipoprotein ratios compared with E/S (p

Safety and efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin combination versus atorvastatin alone in adults ≥65 years of age with hypercholesterolemia and with or at moderately high/high risk for coronary heart disease (the VYTELD study).

Higher than 80% of coronary heart disease-related mortality occurs in patients ≥65 years of age. Guidelines recommend low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol targets for these at-risk patients; however, few clinical studies have evaluated lipid-lowering strategies specifically in older adults. This multicenter, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of the usual starting dose of ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 mg) versus atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg and the next higher dose of ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/40 mg) versus atorvastatin 40 mg in 1,289 hypercholesterolemic patients ≥65 years of age with or without cardiovascular disease. Patients randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin had greater percent decreases in LDL cholesterol (-54.2% for 10/20 mg vs -39.5% and -46.6% for atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg, respectively; -59.1% for 10/40 mg vs -50.8% for atorvastatin 40 mg; p <0.001 for all comparisons) and the number attaining LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl (51.3% for 10/20 mg, 68.2% for 10/40 mg) and <100 mg/dl (83.6% for 10/20 mg; 90.3% for 10/40 mg) was significantly larger compared to those receiving atorvastatin for all prespecified dose comparisons (p <0.05 to <0.001). A significantly larger percentage of high-risk patients achieved LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl on ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (54.3%) versus atorvastatin 10 mg (10.9%, p <0.001) or 20 mg (28.9%, p <0.001) and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg (69.2%) versus atorvastatin 40 mg (38.2%, p <0.001), and a significantly larger percentage of intermediate-risk patients achieved LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl on ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (82.1%) versus atorvastatin 10 mg (59.3%, p <0.05). Improvements in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein ratios were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than atorvastatin for all comparisons (p <0.01 to <0.001). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride results were variable. All treatments were generally well tolerated. In conclusion, ezetimibe/simvastatin provided significantly greater improvements in key lipid parameters and higher attainment of LDL cholesterol targets than atorvastatin, with comparable tolerability.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia and the metabolic syndrome (from the VYMET study).

Patients with the metabolic syndrome are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and might require intensive lipid therapy. Many patients remain at the starting dose of lipid therapy and might not be titrated up to a higher dose. The present double-blind, randomized, 6-week study assessed the lipid-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg in 1,128 patients with hypercholesterolemia and the metabolic syndrome. The primary end point was the percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Additional end points included changes in other lipids, lipoprotein ratios, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and attainment of prespecified lipid levels. Significantly greater improvements in the levels of LDL cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipid/lipoprotein ratios resulted with ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with atorvastatin at all specified dose comparisons (p <0.001). The attainment of prespecified LDL cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was also significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin at all dose comparisons (p <0.05). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol increases were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg than with atorvastatin 10 mg (p <0.05) and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg than with atorvastatin 40 mg (p <0.01). The changes in triglycerides, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were similar for both treatments. The incidence of liver, muscle, and gastrointestinal-, hepatitis- and allergic reaction/rash-related adverse events were low and generally similar to those in previous studies of ezetimibe/simvastatin and/or atorvastatin. In conclusion, ezetimibe/simvastatin was more likely to result in lipid treatment end points than atorvastatin and was generally well tolerated at the doses compared in our patients.