Achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in high-risk patients in managed care: comparison of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin in the SOLAR trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attainment of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of less than 100 mg/dL with statin treatments in managed care patients at high risk for coronary heart disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (SOLAR [Satisfying Optimal LDL-C ATP III goals with Rosuvastatin]) performed at 145 US clinical centers from June 5, 2002 to July 12, 2004, high-risk men and women in a managed care population received typical starting doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg/d), atorvastatin (10 mg/d), or simvastatin (20 mg/d) for 6 weeks. Those who did not meet the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL at 6 weeks had their dose titrated (doubled), and all patients were followed up for another 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1632 patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment regimens. After 6 weeks, 65% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 41% with atorvastatin and 39% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). After 12 weeks, 76% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 58% with atorvastatin and 53% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). Reductions in the LDL-C level, total cholesterol level, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level, and non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio were significantly greater with rosuvastatin at both 6 and 12 weeks compared with the other statins. Adverse events were similar in type and frequency in all treatment groups, and only 3% of all patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No myopathy was observed, no clinically important impact on renal function was attributed to study medications, and clinically important increases in serum transaminases were rare. CONCLUSION: In a managed care population, 10 mg of rosuvastatin treatment resulted in more patients reaching the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal compared with 10 mg of atorvastatin and 20 mg of simvastatin, potentially reducing the need for titration visits.

Repaglinide versus nateglinide monotherapy: a randomized, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: A randomized, parallel-group, open-label, multicenter 16-week clinical trial compared efficacy and safety of repaglinide monotherapy and nateglinide monotherapy in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with diet and exercise. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 150) had received treatment with diet and exercise in the previous 3 months with HbA(1c) >7 and < or =12%. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with repaglinide (n = 76) (0.5 mg/meal, maximum dose 4 mg/meal) or nateglinide (n = 74) (60 mg/meal, maximum dose 120 mg/meal) for 16 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy end points were changes in HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values from baseline, respectively. Postprandial glucose, insulin, and glucagon were assessed after a liquid test meal (baseline, week 16). Safety was assessed by incidence of adverse events or hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) values were similar in both groups (8.9%). Final HbA(1c) values were lower for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (7.3 vs. 7.9%). Mean final reductions of HbA(1c) were significantly greater for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (-1.57 vs. -1.04%; P = 0.002). Mean changes in FPG also demonstrated significantly greater efficacy for repaglinide than nateglinide (-57 vs. -18 mg/dl; P < 0.001). HbA(1c) values <7% were achieved by 54% of repaglinide-treated patients versus 42% for nateglinide. Median final doses were 6.0 mg/day for repaglinide and 360 mg/day for nateglinide. There were 7% of subjects treated with repaglinide (five subjects with one episode each) who had minor hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) versus 0 patients for nateglinide. Mean weight gain at the end of the study was 1.8 kg in the repaglinide group as compared with 0.7 kg for the nateglinide group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients previously treated with diet and exercise, repaglinide and nateglinide had similar postprandial glycemic effects, but repaglinide monotherapy was significantly more effective than nateglinide monotherapy in reducing HbA(1c) and FPG values after 16 weeks of therapy.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin compared with pravastatin and simvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, double-blind, 52-week trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin with that of pravastatin and simvastatin for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, lipid levels were measured in 477 patients (baseline LDL-C > or =160 and <250 mg/dL) who received fixed doses of 5 mg of rosuvastatin, 10 mg of rosuvastatin, 20 mg of pravastatin, or 20 mg of simvastatin for 12 weeks. For an additional 40 weeks, individual daily doses were sequentially doubled to a maximum of 80 mg of rosuvastatin, 40 mg of pravastatin, and 80 mg of simvastatin, according to investigator discretion and if National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II (ATP II) LDL-C goals were not achieved. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, percent LDL-C reductions after both 5-mg and 10-mg rosuvastatin treatment, which were 39.1% and 47.4%, respectively, were significantly different (P <.05) from LDL-C reductions after 20-mg pravastatin (26.5%) and 20-mg simvastatin (34.6%) treatment. After 52 weeks, more rosuvastatin-treated patients remained at their starting dose than did simvastatin or pravastatin patients. After dose titration, 88% and 87.5% of the rosuvastatin 5-mg and 10-mg groups, respectively, achieved their ATP II LDL-C goals, compared with 60% for pravastatin and 72.5% for simvastatin. All study treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin reduced LDL-C levels more than pravastatin or simvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia in a 52-week dose-titration study.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes with a combination regimen of repaglinide plus pioglitazone.

The efficacy and safety of combination therapy (repaglinide plus pioglitazone) was compared to repaglinide or pioglitazone in 24-week treatment of type 2 diabetes. This randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group study enrolled 246 adults (age 24-85) who had shown inadequate response in previous sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy (HbA(1c) > 7%). Prior therapy was withdrawn for 2 weeks, followed by randomization to repaglinide, pioglitazone, or repaglinide/pioglitazone. In the first 12 weeks of treatment, repaglinide doses were optimized, followed by 12 weeks of maintenance therapy. Pioglitazone dosage was fixed at 30 mg per day. Baseline HbA(1c) values were comparable (9.0% for repaglinide, 9.1% for pioglitazone, 9.3% for combination). Mean changes in HbA(1c) values at the end of treatment were -1.76% for repaglinide/pioglitazone, -0.18% for repaglinide, +0.32% for pioglitazone. Fasting plasma glucose reductions were -82 mg/dl for combination therapy, -34 mg/dl for repaglinide, -18 mg/dl for pioglitazone. Minor hypoglycemia occurred in 5% of patients for the combination, 8% for repaglinide, and 3% for pioglitazone. Weight gains for combination therapy were correlated to individual HbA(1c) reductions. In summary, for patients who had previously failed oral antidiabetic monotherapy, the combination repaglinide/pioglitazone had acceptable safety, with greater reductions of glycemic parameters than therapy using either agent alone.

Patient perception and use of an insulin injector/glucose monitor combined device.

PURPOSE: This clinical trial assessed patient preference, satisfaction, and use of an insulin injector/glucose monitor combination device versus syringes and a separate glucose monitor. METHODS: In a randomized, multicenter, 2-period crossover study, 15 patients with type 1 diabetes were randomized to use either a combined injector/monitor device or syringes, a vial, and a separate glucose monitor, then switched to the alternate treatment. Efficacy, safety, preference, satisfaction, and actual use (via meter download) of the 2 systems were compared. RESULTS: Most of the patients preferred using the combination device to syringes and a separate meter. Results from the Handling of Delivery Systems questionnaire given at the end of the study indicated that 49% of patients felt they tested their blood glucose more often with the combination device than with a separate meter. A higher frequency of daily monitoring was reported with the combination device in patients overall (approximately 1 more reading per week). However, a large subset of patients (32%) showed substantial increases in their frequency of daily glucose monitoring (an average of 1 additional reading per day). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the combination device was associated with significant improvements in patient treatment satisfaction.