Analysis of C. difficile infection-related outcomes in European participants in the bezlotoxumab MODIFY I and II trials.

The MODIFY I/II trials demonstrated that bezlotoxumab, a human monoclonal antibody against Clostridioides difficile toxin B, given during antibiotic treatment for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) significantly reduced C. difficile recurrence (rCDI) in adults at high risk for rCDI. Efficacy of CDI-directed intervention may depend on ribotype regional epidemiology, and patient characteristics. This post hoc analysis assessed the efficacy of bezlotoxumab in the subgroup of MODIFY I/II trial participants enrolled in Europe. Data from the bezlotoxumab (10 mg/kg single intravenous infusion) and placebo (0.9% saline) groups from MODIFY I/II were compared to assess initial clinical cure (ICC), rCDI, all-cause, and CDI-associated rehospitalizations within 30 days of discharge, and mortality through 12 weeks post-infusion. Of 1554 worldwide participants, 606 were from Europe (bezlotoxumab n = 313, 51%; placebo n = 292; 48%). Baseline characteristics were generally similar across groups, although there were more immunocompromised participants in the bezlotoxumab group (27.2%) compared with placebo (20.1%). Fifty-five percent of participants were female, and 86% were hospitalized at randomization. The rate of ICC was similar between treatment groups. The rate of rCDI in the bezlotoxumab group was lower compared with placebo among European participants overall, and among those with ≥ 1 risk factor for rCDI. Bezlotoxumab reduced 30-day CDI-associated rehospitalizations compared with placebo. These results are consistent with overall results from the MODIFY trials and demonstrate that bezlotoxumab reduces rCDI and CDI-associated rehospitalizations in European patients with CDI. MODIFY I/II (NCT01241552 and NCT01513239).

Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection in Patients at Increased Risk for Recurrence.

Background: Bezlotoxumab is a human monoclonal antibody against Clostridium difficile toxin B indicated to prevent C. difficile infection (CDI) recurrence (rCDI) in adults at high risk for rCDI. This post hoc analysis of pooled monocolonal antibodies for C.difficile therapy (MODIFY) I/II data assessed bezlotoxumab efficacy in participants with characteristics associated with increased risk for rCDI. Methods: The analysis population was the modified intent-to-treat population who received bezlotoxumab or placebo (n = 1554) by risk factors for rCDI that were prespecified in the statistical analysis plan: age ≥65 years, history of CDI, compromised immunity, severe CDI, and ribotype 027/078/244. The proportion of participants with rCDI in 12 weeks, fecal microbiota transplant procedures, 30-day all cause and CDI-associated hospital readmissions, and mortality at 30 and 90 days after randomization were presented. Results: The majority of enrolled participants (75.6%) had ≥1 risk factor; these participants were older and a higher proportion had comorbidities compared with participants with no risk factors. The proportion of placebo participants who experienced rCDI exceeded 30% for each risk factor compared with 20.9% among those without a risk factor, and the rCDI rate increased with the number of risk factors (1 risk factor: 31.3%; ≥3 risk factors: 46.1%). Bezlotoxumab reduced rCDI, fecal microbiota transplants, and CDI-associated 30-day readmissions in participants with risk factors for rCDI. Conclusions: The risk factors prespecified in the MODIFY statistical analysis plan are appropriate to identify patients at high risk for rCDI. While participants with ≥3 risk factors had the greatest reduction of rCDI with bezlotoxumab, those with 1 or 2 risk factors may also benefit. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01241552 (MODIFY I) and NCT01513239 (MODIFY II).

Thirty-Day Readmissions in Hospitalized Patients Who Received Bezlotoxumab With Antibacterial Drug Treatment for Clostridium difficile Infection.

Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01241552 (MODIFY I) and NCT01513239 (MODIFY II).

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the effect of ezetimibe on glucose metabolism in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence points to an increased incidence of new-onset diabetes and a negative impact on glucose parameters with statin use. This study examined the safety of ezetimibe vs placebo for change from baseline to week 24 in HbA1c (primary endpoint), glycoalbumin, and fasting plasma glucose (secondary endpoints) in Japanese subjects with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multi-site trial. Adults with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia whose LDL-C measured <140 mg/dl (subjects receiving lipid-lowering drugs) or <160 mg/dl (subjects not receiving lipid-lowering drugs) at the start of the screening phase, were randomized after a 5-week wash-out period to ezetimibe 10 mg or placebo (1:1) for 24 weeks. Changes in HbA1c, glycoalbumin and fasting plasma glucose from baseline to week 24 were evaluated. The non-inferiority margin was set at 0.5% for HbA1c. RESULTS: Overall, 152 subjects were randomized (75 to ezetimibe and 77 to placebo). From baseline to 24 weeks, HbA1c significantly increased in both the ezetimibe and placebo groups (between-treatment difference 0.08 [95% CI: -0.07 to 0.23]). Ezetimibe was statistically non-inferior to placebo. At 24 weeks, the mean change from baseline in glycoalbumin levels (between-treatment differences 0.00 [95% CI: -0.47, 0.47]) and fasting plasma glucose (between-treatment differences -4.8 [95% CI: -12.1, 2.1]) were similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that ezetimibe 10 mg does not result in dysregulation of glucose metabolism in Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia over 24 weeks of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01611883 .

Atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe versus titration to atorvastatin 40 mg: attainment of European and Canadian guideline lipid targets in high-risk subjects ≥65 years.

BACKGROUND: Few clinical studies have focused on the efficacy of lipid-lowering therapies in patients ≥65 years. METHODS: After stabilization on atorvastatin 10 mg, hypercholesterolemic subjects ≥65 years at high/very high risk for CHD and not at LDL-C <1.81 mmol/L (with atherosclerotic vascular disease [AVD]) or <2.59 mmol/L (without AVD) were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg or uptitration to atorvastatin 20 mg (6 weeks) followed by uptitration to 40 mg (additional 6 weeks). A post-hoc analysis compared between-group differences in percent attainment of individual and combined LDL-C, non-HDL-C and Apo B targets based on recommendations from 2012 European and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) guidelines for dyslipidemia treatment. RESULTS: Atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe produced significantly greater attainment of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and Apo B individual and dual/triple targets vs. atorvastatin 20 mg for the entire cohort and very high-risk groups at 6 weeks. After 12 weeks, very high-risk subjects maintained significantly greater achievement of LDL-C <1.8 mmol/L (47% vs. 35%), non-HDL-C <2.6 mmol/L (63% vs. 53%) and Apo B <0.8 g/L (47% vs. 38%) single targets and dual/triple targets with atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe vs. atorvastatin 40 mg, while attainment of European target for high-risk subjects was generally similar for both treatments. Achievement of Canadian targets was significantly greater with combination therapy vs. atorvastatin 20 mg (6 weeks) or atorvastatin 40 mg (12 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: Atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe provided more effective treatment than uptitration to atorvastatin 20/40 mg for attainment of most European and Canadian guideline-recommended lipid targets in older at-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00418834.

Consistency of effect of ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with intensified lipid-lowering treatment strategies in obese and non-obese diabetic subjects.

PURPOSE: This post hoc analysis assessed switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg in subgroups of obese (BMI ≥30 kg/m2) and non-obese (BMI <30 kg/m2) diabetic subjects. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, 12-week study of adults 18-79 years with cardiovascular disease with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 and ≤160 mg/dl. Percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was estimated. RESULTS: In obese subjects (n = 466), percent changes in LDL-C and most other lipids were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin. In non-obese subjects (n = 342), percent changes in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, Apo B and Apo A-I were greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs doubling the baseline statin dose or switching to rosuvastatin; and treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin resulted in greater changes in triglycerides vs rosuvastatin and HDL-C vs doubling the baseline statin dose. The safety profiles were generally similar. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of baseline obesity status, switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin was more effective at reducing LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and Apo B vs doubling the baseline statin dose to simvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg in high cardiovascular risk patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: A considerable number of patients with severely elevated LDL-C do not achieve recommended treatment targets, despite treatment with statins. Adults at high cardiovascular risk with hypercholesterolemia and LDL-C ≥ 2.59 and ≤ 4.14 mmol/L (N = 250), pretreated with atorvastatin 20 mg were randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 weeks. The percent change in LDL-C and other lipids was assessed using a constrained longitudinal data analysis method with terms for treatment, time, time-by-treatment interaction, stratum, and time-by-stratum interaction. Percentage of subjects achieving LDL-C < 1.81 mmol/L, < 2.00 mmol/L, or < 2.59 mmol/L was assessed using a logistic regression model with terms for treatment and stratum. Tolerability was assessed. RESULTS: Switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin resulted in significantly greater changes in LDL-C (-26.81% vs.-11.81%), total cholesterol (-15.97% vs.-7.73%), non-HDL-C (-22.50% vs.-10.88%), Apo B (-17.23% vs.-9.53%), and Apo A-I (2.56% vs.-2.69%) vs. doubling the atorvastatin dose (all p ≤ 0.002), but not HDL-C, triglycerides, or hs-CRP. Significantly more subjects achieved LDL-C < 1.81 mmol/L (29% vs. 5%), < 2.00 mmol/L (38% vs. 9%) or < 2.59 mmol/L (69% vs. 41%) after switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin vs. doubling the atorvastatin dose (all p < 0.001). The overall safety profile appeared generally comparable between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In high cardiovascular risk subjects with hypercholesterolemia already treated with atorvastatin 20 mg but not at LDL-C < 2.59 mmol/L, switching to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg provided significantly greater LDL-C lowering and greater achievement of LDL-C targets compared with doubling the atorvastatin dose to 40 mg. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00782184.

Immunogenicity of rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Ebola vaccine (ERVEBO®) in African clinical trial participants by age, sex, and baseline GP-ELISA titer: A post hoc analysis of three Phase 2/3 trials.

BACKGROUND: ERVEBO®, a live recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) vaccine containing the Zaire ebolavirus glycoprotein (GP) in place of the VSV GP (rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP), was advanced through clinical development by Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA in collaboration with multiple partners to prevent Ebola virus disease (EVD) and has been approved for human use in several countries. METHODS: We evaluated data from three Phase 2/3 clinical trials conducted in Liberia (PREVAIL), Guinea (FLW), and Sierra Leone (STRIVE) during the 2013-2016 West African EVD outbreak to assess immune responses using validated assays. We performed a post hoc analysis of the association of vaccine response with sex, age (18-50 yrs & >50 yrs), and baseline (BL) GP-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) titer (<200 & ≥200 EU/mL), including individual study (PREVAIL, FLW, or STRIVE) data and pooled data from all 3 studies. The endpoints were total IgG antibody response (EU/mL) measured by the GP-ELISA and neutralizing antibody response measured by the plaque reduction neutralization test (PRNT) to rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP at Days 28, 180, and 365 postvaccination. RESULTS: In the overall pooled population, in all subgroups, and in each trial independently, GP-ELISA and PRNT geometric mean titers increased from BL, generally peaking at Day 28 and persisting through Day 365. Immune responses were greater in women and participants with BL GP-ELISA ≥ 200 EU/mL, but did not differ across age groups. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP elicits a robust and durable immune response through 12 months postvaccination in participants regardless of age, sex, or BL GP-ELISA titer. The higher immune responses observed in women and participants with pre-existing immunity are consistent with those described previously and for other vaccines. Trials were registered as follows: PREVAIL: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02344407; FLW: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201503001057193; STRIVE: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02378753. Protocols V920-009, 011, and 018.

Costs associated with outpatient, emergency room and inpatient care for migraine in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Data on the average US costs of an outpatient visit, emergency room (ER) visit or hospitalization for migraine are scant, with the most recent available values based on healthcare charges reported from 1994 data. METHODS: We estimated healthcare costs associated with outpatient and ER visits and inpatient hospitalizations related to migraine retrospectively obtained from the 2007 Medstat MarketScan Commercial Claims & Encounters database. Tabulated costs reflected payments from insurers, patients and other sources. All costs were adjusted to 2010 US dollars. RESULTS: The estimated mean cost (95% CI) for migraine-related care per outpatient visit (N = 680,946) was $139.88 ($139.35-140.41); per ER visit (N = 88,128) was $775.09 ($768.10-782.09); and per inpatient hospitalization (N = 5516) was $7317.07 ($7134.96-7499.17). The most frequently coded procedures at outpatient and ER visits were subcutaneous or intra-muscular injection, and for hospitalizations was computed tomography. Estimated annual US healthcare costs in 2010 for migraine associated with: outpatient visits were $3.2 billion, ER visits were $700 million, and inpatient hospitalizations were $375 million. CONCLUSIONS: Direct healthcare costs associated with patient visits and hospitalizations for migraine headaches have increased since previously published estimates. Further research is needed to understand the current overall healthcare cost burden per patient and within the US population.

Response by sex to statin plus ezetimibe or statin monotherapy: a pooled analysis of 22,231 hyperlipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite documented benefits of lipid-lowering treatment in women, a considerable number are undertreated, and fewer achieve treatment targets vs. men. METHODS: Data were combined from 27 double-blind, active or placebo-controlled studies that randomized adult hypercholesterolemic patients to statin or statin+ezetimibe. Consistency of treatment effect among men (n = 11,295) and women (n = 10,499) was assessed and percent of men and women was calculated to evaluate the between-treatment ability to achieve specified treatment levels between sexes. RESULTS: Baseline lipids and hs-CRP were generally higher in women vs. men. Between-treatment differences were significant for both sexes (all p < 0.001 except apolipoprotein A-I in men = 0.0389). Men treated with ezetimibe+statin experienced significantly greater changes in LDL-C (p = 0.0066), non-HDL-C, total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL-C, apolipoprotein A-I (all p < 0.0001) and apolipoprotein B (p = 0.0055) compared with women treated with ezetimibe+statin. The odds of achieving LDL-C < 100 mg/dL, apolipoprotein B < 90 mg/dL and the dual target [LDL-C < 100 mg/dL & apoliprotein B < 90 mg/dL] was significantly greater for women vs. men and the odds of achieving hs-CRP < 1 and < 2 mg/L and dual specified levels of [LDL-C < 100 mg/dL and hs-CRP < 2 mg/L] were significantly greater for men vs. women. Women reported significantly more gall-bladder-related, gastrointestinal-related, and allergic reaction or rash-related adverse events (AEs) vs. men (no differences between treatments). Men reported significantly more CK elevations (no differences between treatments) and hepatitis-related AEs vs. women (significantly more with ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. statin). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that small sex-related differences may exist in response to lipid-lowering treatment and achievement of specified lipid and hs-CRP levels, which may have implications when managing hypercholesterolemia in women.

Development of Pandemic Vaccines: ERVEBO Case Study.

Preventative vaccines are considered one of the most cost-effective and efficient means to contain outbreaks and prevent pandemics. However, the requirements to gain licensure and manufacture a vaccine for human use are complex, costly, and time-consuming. The 2013-2016 Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak was the largest EVD outbreak to date and the third Public Health Emergency of International Concern in history, so to prevent a pandemic, numerous partners from the public and private sectors combined efforts and resources to develop an investigational Zaire ebolavirus (EBOV) vaccine candidate (rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP) as quickly as possible. The rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP vaccine was approved as ERVEBOTM by the European Medicines Authority (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2019 after five years of development. This review describes the development program of this EBOV vaccine, summarizes what is known about safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy, describes ongoing work in the program, and highlights learnings applicable to the development of pandemic vaccines.

Corrigendum to: Renal Impairment, C. difficile Recurrence, and the Differential Effect of Bezlotoxumab: A Post Hoc Analysis of Pooled Data From 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/ofid/ofaa248.].

Estimation of the correlates of protection of the rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP Zaire ebolavirus vaccine: a post-hoc analysis of data from phase 2/3 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Establishment of immune correlates of protection can provide a measurable criterion for assessing protection against infection or disease. For some vaccines, such as the measles vaccine, antibodies serve as the correlate of protection, but for others, such as human papillomavirus, the correlate of protection remains unknown. Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA, in collaboration with multiple partners, developed a live recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus vaccine (rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP [ERVEBO]) containing the Zaire ebolavirus glycoprotein (GP) in place of the recombinant vesicular stomatitis virus GP to prevent Ebola virus disease. Seroresponse, defined as post-vaccination GP-ELISA of 200 ELISA units (EU) per mL or higher and two-times or more above baseline, was proposed; however, correlates of protection have not been determined. The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to infer possible correlates of protection for rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP. METHODS: In this post-hoc analysis we included vaccinated participants with serology data from three phase 2/3 immunogenicity trials in Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Liberia (n=2199). Two of the trials were open-label, single-arm trials (one randomised [STRIVE], one non-randomised [FLW]); and one trial was randomised, placebo-controlled with two vaccine comparators (PREVAIL). Endpoints were total IgG antibody response (EU per mL) to rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP measured by GP-ELISA and neutralising antibody response to rVSVΔG-ZEBOV-GP measured by plaque reduction neutralisation test at days 14, 28, 180, and 365 after vaccination. Reverse cumulative distribution curves of the antibody concentrations were used to estimate statistical correlates of protection between 70% and 100% that might be applied to vaccine efficacy and effectiveness estimates. FINDINGS: Although GP-ELISA and plaque reduction neutralisation tests showed similar response patterns, GP-ELISA provided a wider range of measurable titres and better differentiation for estimating correlates of protection compared with the plaque reduction neutralisation test. At day 14 after vaccination in the FLW trial, 1060 (100%) of 1060 participants had GP-ELISA levels at or above 68 EU per mL and 742 (70%) of 1060 had levels at or above 313 EU per mL. At day 28 after vaccination in the pooled population, 1953 (100%) of 1953 participants had levels at or above 73 EU per mL and 1368 (70%) of 1953 participants had levels at or above 735 EU per mL. GP-ELISA seroresponse 200 EU per mL or higher and two-times or more increase in antibody level from baseline occurred in 80% or higher of participants at each assessment and in 94% or higher of participants at any time after vaccination. INTERPRETATION: Our results are consistent with previous work suggesting that seroresponse defined as GP-ELISA of 200 EU per mL or higher and two-times or more from baseline associated with vaccination might be the most appropriate dichotomous correlate of protection and falls within the seroprotective threshold range described herein. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, US Department of Health and Human Services.

Ezetimibe/simvastatin vs simvastatin in coronary heart disease patients with or without diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Treatment guidelines recommend LDL-C as the primary target of therapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia. Moreover, combination therapies with lipid-lowering drugs that have different mechanisms of action are recommended when it is not possible to attain LDL-C targets with statin monotherapy. Understanding which treatment or patient-related factors are associated with attaining a target may be clinically relevant. METHODS: Data were pooled from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind studies. After stabilization on simvastatin 20 mg, patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) alone and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg/simvastatin 20 mg (EZ/Simva) or simvastatin 40 mg. The change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), TC/HDL-C ratio, triglycerides, and the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) after 6 weeks of treatment were assessed, and factors significantly correlated with the probability of achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L in a population of high cardiovascular risk Italian patients were identified. A stepwise logistic regression model was conducted with LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L at endpoint as the dependent variable and study, treatment, gender, age (> or = 65 years or < 65 years), as independent variables and baseline LDL-C (both as continuous and discrete variable). RESULTS: EZ/Simva treatment (N = 93) resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, TC, and TC/HDL-C ratio and higher attainment of LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L vs doubling the simvastatin dose to 40 mg (N = 106). Study [including diabetic patients (OR = 2.9, p = 0.003)], EZ/Simva treatment (OR = 6.1, p < 0.001), and lower baseline LDL-C (OR = 0.9, p = 0.001) were significant positive predictors of LDL-C target achievement. When baseline LDL-C was expressed as a discrete variable, the odds of achieving LDL-C < 2.6 mmol/L was 4.8 in favor of EZ/Simva compared with Simva 40 mg (p < 0.001), regardless of baseline LDL-C level. CONCLUSION: EZ/Simva is an effective therapeutic option for patients who have not achieved recommended LDL-C treatment targets with simvastatin 20 mg monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trial registration numbers: NCT00423488 and NCT00423579.

Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading?

BACKGROUND: Some patients administered cholesterol-lowering therapies may experience an increase in the proportion of small LDL particles, which may be misinterpreted as a worsening of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk. This study assessed the lipid effects of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin or doubling the atorvastatin dose on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (and the cholesterol content of LDL subclasses), LDL particle number (approximated by apolipoprotein B), and LDL particle size. This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of hypercholesterolemic, high atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk patients. After stabilization of atorvastatin 40 mg, 579 patients with LDL-C >70 mg/dL were randomized to 6 weeks of ezetimibe + atorvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg. Efficacy parameters included changes from baseline in LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and lipoprotein subclasses (Vertical Auto Profile II) and pattern for the overall population, as well as patient subgroups with baseline triglyceride levels <150 mg/dL or ≥150 mg/dL. RESULTS: Both treatments significantly reduced LDL-C (and the cholesterol content of most LDL subfractions [LDL1-4]) apolipoprotein B, non-HDL-C levels, but did not reduce the proportion of smaller, more dense LDL particles; in fact, the proportion of Pattern B was numerically increased. Results were generally similar in patients with triglyceride levels <150 or ≥150 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: When assessing the effects of escalating cholesterol-lowering therapy, effects upon Pattern B alone to assess coronary heart disease risk may be misleading when interpreted without considerations of other lipid effects, such as reductions in LDL-C, atherogenic lipoprotein particle concentration, and non-HDL-C levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: Clinical trial # NCT00276484).

Ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk hypercholesterolemic patients stratified by prior statin treatment potency.

OBJECTIVE: This post-hoc analysis compared the lipid-altering efficacy of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/20 mg (EZ/Simva) versus Rosuvastatin 10 mg (Rosuva) in patients stratified by statin potency/dose prior to randomization. METHODS: Patients with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) despite prior statin treatment (n=618) were randomized 1:1 to EZ/Simva 10/20 mg or Rosuva 10 mg for 6 weeks. Percent change from baseline in lipids and attainment of lipid targets were assessed within each subgroup (low potency n=369, high potency n=249). Consistency of the treatment effect across subgroups was evaluated by testing for treatment-by-subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made. RESULTS: Significant treatment-by-subgroup interaction occurred for LDL-C (p=0.013), total cholesterol (p=0.025), non-HDL-C (p=0.032), and apolipoprotein B (p=0.016) with greater between-treatment differences in favor of EZ/Simva observed in patients from the high potency stratum vs low potency stratum. Individual and triple target attainment was higher for Eze/Simva compared with Rosuva in both strata. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with Rosuva, switching to EZ/Simva provided greater reductions in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C and apolipoprotein B and higher target attainment in patients on prior statin treatment, regardless of potency, although patients treated with higher potency statins prior to randomization experienced greater between treatment differences in favor of EZ/Simva. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00479713.

Renal Impairment, C. difficile Recurrence, and the Differential Effect of Bezlotoxumab: A Post Hoc Analysis of Pooled Data From 2 Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Renal impairment is not a consistently cited risk factor for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (rCDI). We examined the association between renal impairment and rCDI and the effect of bezlotoxumab, an anti-toxin B monoclonal antibody, in reducing rCDI in participants with renal impairment. METHODS: We pooled data from 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase 3 clinical trials conducted in participants receiving bezlotoxumab or placebo infusion during oral antibacterial drug treatment for CDI. We assessed the association between renal impairment and rCDI in placebo-treated participants and evaluated the effect of bezlotoxumab vs placebo in reducing rCDI among participants with renal impairment, defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <90 mL/min. RESULTS: The proportion of placebo-treated participants experiencing rCDI within 12 weeks was higher in those with renal impairment (n = 919) vs those without renal impairment (n = 612; 36.6% and 27.7%, respectively; difference, 8.9%; 95% CI, 1.3% to 16.3%). Renal impairment was significantly associated with a higher rate of recurrence in placebo-treated participants lacking commonly recognized risk factors for rCDI (renal impairment as only risk factor, 28.8%; vs normal renal function and no risk factors, 12.5%; difference, 16.3%; 95% CI, 3.4% to 28.8%). Among all participants with renal impairment, the rate of rCDI was 19.5% among bezlotoxumab-treated vs 36.6% among placebo-treated participants (difference, -17.1%; 95% CI, -23.4% to -10.6%). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis adds to the literature suggesting an association of renal impairment as an independent risk factor for rCDI and provides preliminary evidence that patients with renal impairment who suffer with CDI may benefit from adjunctive treatment with bezlotoxumab.

Bezlotoxumab Is Associated With a Reduction in Cumulative Inpatient-Days: Analysis of the Hospitalization Data From the MODIFY I and II Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients with recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (rCDI) are more likely to have a hospital readmission and spend increased time in inpatient settings compared with patients with primary CDI. MODIFY I and II demonstrated that bezlotoxumab significantly reduced rCDI vs placebo. A post hoc within-trial analysis assessed whether bezlotoxumab was associated with a reduction in cumulative inpatient-days. METHODS: Data were pooled from the MODIFY trials to estimate the cumulative hospitalized days summed over the 84-day follow-up period. We adjusted inpatient use data from pooled MODIFY I and II for survival and censoring to estimate 84-day cumulative inpatient-days, overall and for subgroups. Treatment effects were obtained using recycled predictions based on trial protocol and rCDI risk, and 95% confidence intervals were obtained using 1000 bootstrap replicates. RESULTS: Mean cumulative inpatient-days were greater in the placebo arm (14.1 days) vs the bezlotoxumab arm (12.1 days) in the overall population. The mean difference between treatment groups was 2.1 days (95% confidence interval, -0.4 to -3.7). This was consistent in participants with risk factors for rCDI: age ≥65 years, compromised immunity, severe CDI, prior CDI, and ribotype 027/078/244 infection. As the number of risk factors increased, bezlotoxumab resulted in greater reductions in the number of inpatient-days compared with placebo (difference: -1.2 days, -2.3 days, -2.5 days, and -3.0 days for 0, 1, 2, and ≥3 risk factors, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Bezlotoxumab was associated with a reduction in cumulative inpatient-days, suggesting that treatment with bezlotoxumab may substantially reduce rCDI-associated health care resource use. Trial registrations. MODIFY I (MK-3415A-001, NCT01241552) and II (MK-3415A-002, NCT01513239).

Antiplatelet Therapy and Clinical Outcomes Following Myocardial Infarction Among Patients in a U.S. Employer-Based Insurance Database.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of residual cardiovascular risks among patients who have experienced a recent acute myocardial infarction (MI) are predominantly derived from secondary prevention trial populations, patient registries, and population-based cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To generate real-world evidence of antiplatelet treatment and recurrent events following MI in patients on antiplatelet treatment among commercial, employer-based insured patients in a large administrative database. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort claims database study using the Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental databases between 2007-2011. Patients with an acute MI hospitalization with a discharge date between 2008 and 2010 were included. Excluded were those patients with documentation of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or severe bleeding at or before index hospitalization and with concomitant use of anticoagulant therapy following index hospitalization. Patients treated with clopidogrel following the index MI hospitalization were followed up to 1 year for repeat MI, stroke, and coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Among 33,943 post-MI continuous clopidogrel users without history of stroke, TIA, or bleeding, 22% had diabetes, whereas angina and renal impairment were less prevalent (5% and 7%, respectively). Over the 1-year follow-up, 2.4% experienced a repeat MI or stroke, and 8.2% underwent coronary revascularization. Angina, diabetes, and renal impairment were associated with elevated 1-year risk of repeat MI or stroke. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is residual cardiovascular risk, although relatively low, in an insured, secondary prevention population on antiplatelet treatment following an MI. In patients with MI, identifying angina, diabetes, and renal impairment may aid risk stratification and guide the effective management of these higher-risk patients. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this research was provided by Merck & Co. Although Merck & Co. formally reviewed a penultimate draft, the opinions expressed are those of the authorship and may not necessarily reflect those of the company. Reed Chase, Wu, Mavros, Heithoff, and Hanson are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., and may own stock and/or hold stock options in the company. Patel was an employee of Merck & Co. during the conduct of this study and preparation of the manuscript. Simpson is a paid consultant for Merck, Pfizer, and Amgen and has received speaker's fees from Merck and Pfizer. Study concept and design were contributed by all authors except Hanson. Heifhoff and Patel collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Simpson, Mavros, Patel, Wu, and Hanson. The manuscript was written by Hanson, Mavros, and Patel and revised by Heithoff, Wu, Simpson, and Reed Chase.

Randomized trial assessing the safety and efficacy of sitagliptin in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled on sulfonylurea alone or combined with metformin.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a significant burden in China, where approximately 114 million patients have been diagnosed with diabetes. Chinese patients present with prominent ß-cell failure, with resulting deficiency in insulin secretion, particularly early phase insulin secretion leading to postprandial hyperglycemia. Sitagliptin, a selective once-daily oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, has been shown to improve glycemic control as monotherapy and in combination with other antihyperglycemic agents, including sulfonylureas and metformin. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study conducted in China. The study assessed the safety and efficacy of the addition of sitagliptin 100 mg once daily versus placebo on changes from baseline at Week 24 in HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) and 2-h post-meal glucose (PMG). Patients were aged 18-79 years, had T2DM with inadequate glycemic control, and were taking a sulfonylurea, with or without metformin. RESULTS: After 24 weeks, sitagliptin reduced HbA1c, FPG, and 2-h PMG significantly more than placebo (between-treatment differences: -0.61 %, -16.8 mg/dL, and -32.9 mg/dL, respectively; P < 0.001 for all). The addition of sitagliptin was generally well tolerated, with a comparable incidence of adverse events and drug-related adverse events in both treatment groups. The sitagliptin group had a higher incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia than the placebo group (25/248 [10.1 %] vs 13/249 [5.2 %], respectively; P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Sitagliptin 100 mg once daily significantly improved glycemic control in Chinese patients with T2DM who had inadequate glycemic control with sulfonylurea, with or without metformin therapy. The addition of sitagliptin was generally well tolerated. (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01590771).