Effectiveness of Levoamlodipine Maleate for Hypertension Compared with Amlodipine Besylate: a Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Study.

PURPOSE: Antihypertensive treatment is the most important method to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients. However, there is scant evidence of the benefits of levoamlodipine maleate for antihypertensive treatment using a head-to-head comparison in the real-world. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of levoamlodipine maleate used to treat outpatients with primary hypertension compared with amlodipine besylate in a real-world setting. METHODS: This was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness study carried out at 110 centers across China in outpatients with primary hypertension treated with levoamlodipine maleate or amlodipine besylate, with 24 months of follow-up. The primary outcomes used for evaluating the effectiveness were composite major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), adverse reactions, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Among the included 10,031 patients, there were 482 MACCE, 223 (4.4%) in the levoamlodipine maleate group (n = 5018) and 259 (5.2%) in the amlodipine besylate group (n = 5013) (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.75-1.08, P = 0.252). The levoamlodipine maleate group had lower overall incidences of any adverse reactions (6.0% vs. 8.4%, P < 0.001), lower extremity edema (1.1% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001) and headache (0.7% vs. 1.1%, P = 0.045). There was a nearly 100% chance of the levoamlodipine maleate being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of 150,000 Yuan per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, resulting in more QALYs (incremental QALYs: 0.00392) and cost savings (saving 2725 Yuan or 28.8% reduction in overall costs) per patient. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, levoamlodipine maleate could reduce cost by 29% with a similar MACCE incidence rate and lower occurrence of adverse reactions (especially edema and headache) compared with amlodipine besylate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01844570 registered at May 1, 2013.

Safety assessment of niacin in the US Food and Drug Administration's mini-sentinel system.

PURPOSE: The Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) trial found higher incidence rates of adverse reactions, including bleeding, in patients receiving the combination of extended-release niacin and laropiprant versus placebo. It is not known whether these adverse events are attributable to laropiprant, not approved in the USA, or to extended-release niacin. We compared rates of major gastrointestinal bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage among initiators of extended-release niacin and initiators of fenofibrate. METHODS: We used Mini-Sentinel (now Sentinel) to conduct an observational, new user cohort analysis. We included data from 5 Data Partners covering the period from January 1, 2007 to August 31, 2013. Individuals who initiated extended-release niacin were propensity score-matched to individuals who initiated fenofibrate. Within the matched cohorts, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare rates of hospitalization for major gastrointestinal bleeding events and intracranial hemorrhage assessed using validated claims-based algorithms. RESULTS: A total of 234 242 eligible extended-release niacin initiators were identified, of whom 210 389 (90%) were 1:1 propensity score-matched to eligible fenofibrate initiators. In propensity score-matched analyses, no differences were observed between exposure groups in rates of major gastrointestinal bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.18) or intracranial hemorrhage (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.66 to 2.22). Results were similar in pre-specified sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe evidence for an association between extended-release niacin versus fenofibrate and rates of major gastrointestinal bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage.

Effects of Vascular and Nonvascular Adverse Events and of Extended-Release Niacin With Laropiprant on Health and Healthcare Costs.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release niacin with laropiprant did not significantly reduce the risk of major vascular events and increased the risk of serious adverse events in Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE), but its net effects on health and healthcare costs are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: 25 673 participants aged 50 to 80 years with previous cardiovascular disease were randomized to 2 g of extended-release niacin with 40 mg of laropiprant daily versus matching placebo, in addition to effective statin-based low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering treatment. The net effects of niacin-laropiprant on quality-adjusted life years and hospital care costs (2012 UK £; converted into US $ using purchasing power parity index) during 4 years in HPS2-THRIVE were evaluated using estimates of the impact of serious adverse events on health-related quality of life and hospital care costs. During the study, participants assigned niacin-laropiprant experienced marginally but not statistically significantly lower survival (0.012 fewer years [standard error (SE) 0.007]), fewer quality-adjusted life years (0.023 [SE 0.007] fewer using UK EQ-5D scores; 0.020 [SE 0.006] fewer using US EQ-5D scores) and accrued greater hospital costs (UK £101 [SE £37]; US $145 [SE $53]). Stroke, heart failure, musculoskeletal events, gastrointestinal events, and infections were associated with significant decreases in health-related quality of life in both the year of the event and in subsequent years. All serious vascular and nonvascular events were associated with substantial increases in hospital care costs. CONCLUSIONS: In HPS2-THRIVE, the addition of extended-release niacin-laropiprant to statin-based therapy reduced quality of life-adjusted survival and increased hospital costs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00461630.

Assessment of potential pharmacokinetic interactions of ezetimibe/simvastatin and extended-release niacin tablets in healthy subjects.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to lower plasma lipid levels sometimes require multiple agents with different mechanisms of action to achieve results specified by national treatment guidelines. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, three-period, multiple-dose crossover study that assessed the potential for pharmacokinetic interaction between extended-release niacin and ezetimibe/simvastatin and their major metabolites. Eighteen adults received three randomized treatments: (A) extended-release (ER) niacin 1000 mg/day for 2 days, followed by 2000 mg/day for 5 days; (B) ezetimibe/simvastatin 10 mg/20 mg/day; (C) coadministration of Treatments A and B. Treatments were given once a day after a low fat breakfast for a total of 7 days, with a 7-day inter-dose period. RESULTS: There were small (mean ≤35%) increases in drug exposure for all analytes after coadministration of ER niacin and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10 mg/20 mg. The least-square mean between treatment C(max) (maximum plasma concentration) ratios (×100) were 97, 98, and 109% for ezetimibe, simvastatin and niacin, respectively. The corresponding ratios for total ezetimibe, simvastatin acid, and nicotinuric acid were 99, 118, and 110%. The AUC((0-24)) (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h after dosing) ratios for ezetimibe, simvastatin, and niacin were 109, 120, and 122%, respectively, and the corresponding ratios for total ezetimibe, simvastatin acid, and nicotinuric acid were 126, 135 and 119%. CONCLUSION: There is a small pharmacokinetic drug interaction between ER niacin and ezetimibe/simvastatin and although this is not considered to be clinically significant, the concomitant use of these drugs should be appropriately monitored, especially during the niacin titration period.

A "hot" topic in dyslipidemia management--"how to beat a flush": optimizing niacin tolerability to promote long-term treatment adherence and coronary disease prevention.

Niacin is the most effective lipid-modifying agent for raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, but it also causes cutaneous vasodilation with flushing. To determine the frequency of flushing in clinical trials, as well as to delineate counseling and treatment approaches to prevent or manage flushing, a MEDLINE search was conducted of English-language literature from January 1, 1985, through April 7, 2009. This search used the title keywords niacin or nicotinic acid crossed with the Medical Subject Headings adverse effects and human. Niacin flushing is a receptor-mediated, mainly prostaglandin D(2)-driven phenomenon, the frequency, onset, and duration of which are largely determined by the distinct pharmacological and metabolic profiles of different niacin formulations. Subjective assessments include ratings of redness, warmth, itching, and tingling. In clinical trials, most (>60%) niacin users experienced mild or moderate flushing, which tended to decrease in frequency and severity with continued niacin treatment, even with advancing doses. Approximately 5% to 20% of patients discontinued treatment because of flushing. Flushing may be minimized by taking niacin with meals (or at bedtime with a low-fat snack), avoiding exacerbating factors (alcohol or hot beverages), and taking 325 mg of aspirin 30 minutes before niacin dosing. The current review advocates an initially slow niacin dose escalation from 0.5 to 1.0 g/d during 8 weeks and then from 1.0 to 2.0 g in a single titration step (if tolerated). Through effective counseling, treatment prophylaxis with aspirin, and careful dose escalation, adherence to niacin treatment can be improved significantly. Wider implementation of these measures should enable higher proportions of patients to reach sufficient niacin doses over time to prevent cardiovascular events.

Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST): psychometric properties of a new measure assessing flushing symptoms and clinical impact of niacin therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A common adverse effect of niacin therapy is flushing, manifested by cutaneous warmth, redness, itching and/or tingling. The Flushing ASsessment Tool (FAST) was developed to assess flushing symptoms and their impact on patients receiving niacin therapy. This study evaluated the reliability, validity and responsiveness of the FAST. The minimal important difference (MID) of the FAST was also examined. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group 8-week study conducted to evaluate the psychometric characteristics of the FAST. The instrument is administered daily using an electronic patient diary. The study was conducted at 41 clinical sites in the US. 276 patients with dyslipidaemia were randomized to treatment and were at least 18 years of age, with fasting laboratory values of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <250 mg/dL and one of the following: high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) <40 mg/dL for males or <50 mg/dL for females; or triglycerides (TG) > or = 150 and < or = 400 mg/dL; or LDL-C > or = 70 mg/dL for patients with a history of coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk equivalents, or > or = 100 mg/dL for subjects with two risk factors, or > or = 160 mg/dL for subjects with 0-1 risk factors. Patients were randomized (1 : 1 : 1) to receive niacin extended-release (NER) 500 mg/day in week 1, 1000 mg/day in week 2 and 2000 mg/day in weeks 3-6/aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA]), NER/ASA placebo, or NER placebo/ASA placebo. RESULTS: FAST test-retest reliability in stable patients during the first 2 weeks was demonstrated for overall flushing severity using patient and physician overall treatment effect (OTE) ratings (intraclass correlation coefficients of >0.7 for mean overall and individual flushing severity scores). Over the 6-week treatment period, FAST scores demonstrated significant correlations with individual symptoms, impact on daily activities and sleep, and dissatisfaction related to flushing (p < 0.01). Changes in FAST scores were associated with treatment satisfaction (p < 0.01) and patient- and physician-rated OTE (p < 0.01). Using patient-rated OTE, the mean maximum flushing severity scores improved 1.85 points in responders and only 0.18 points in non-responders (p < 0.001); responders were defined by improved patient- or physician-rated OTE. Among patients with flushing, mean maximum overall flushing scores differed between patients who subsequently discontinued due to flushing (7.9 points) and those who did not discontinue (4.7 points; p < 0.001). The probable range in this study for a detectable change in flushing symptoms (MID) was 0.29-0.38 points for mean flushing severity and 0.66-0.86 points for maximum flushing severity. CONCLUSION: The FAST exhibited test-retest reliability, good evidence of construct validity, and, overall, flushing severity was responsive to change over time. The FAST is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing the impact of niacin-induced flushing in patients with dyslipidaemia.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of once-daily niacin for the treatment of dyslipidemia associated with type 2 diabetes: results of the assessment of diabetes control and evaluation of the efficacy of niaspan trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic dyslipidemia is characterized by high triglyceride levels; low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels; small, dense low-density lipoprotein particles; and high free fatty acid levels. Niacin reduces concentrations of triglyceride-rich and small low-density lipoprotein particles while increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. It also lowers levels of free fatty acids and lipoprotein(a). However, the use of niacin in patients with diabetes has been discouraged because high doses can worsen glycemic control. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of once-daily extended-release (ER) niacin in patients with diabetic dyslipidemia. METHODS: During a 16-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 148 patients were randomized to placebo (n = 49) or 1000 (n = 45) or 1500 mg/d (n = 52) of ER niacin. Sixty-nine patients (47%) were also receiving concomitant therapy with statins. RESULTS: Dose-dependent increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (+19% to +24% [P<.05] vs placebo for both niacin dosages) and reductions in triglyceride levels (-13% to -28% [P<.05] vs placebo for the 1500-mg ER niacin) were observed. Baseline and week 16 values for glycosylated hemoglobin levels were 7.13% and 7.11%, respectively, in the placebo group; 7.28% and 7.35%, respectively, in the 1000-mg ER niacin group (P=.16 vs placebo); and 7.2% and 7.5%, respectively, in the 1500-mg ER niacin group (P=.048 vs placebo). Four patients discontinued participation because of inadequate glucose control. Rates of adverse event rates other than flushing were similar for the niacin and placebo groups. Four patients discontinued participation owing to flushing (including 1 receiving placebo). No hepatotoxic effects or myopathy were observed. CONCLUSION: Low doses of ER niacin (1000 or 1500 mg/d) are a treatment option for dyslipidemia in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Biological and environmental determinants of plasma homocysteine.

This article gives an overview over common physiological, lifestyle, and pathological conditions that may modulate the homocysteine status. The interplay of several environmental factors, including age, gender, nutrition, smoking, and coffee consumption and physical activity with commonly used drugs and prevalent diseases are described. In most cases, an abnormal homocysteine status is not caused by a single factor alone but often is the result of combined effects. We address these frequently found "clusters" of homocysteine-modulating factors. Finally, we give an overview of likely causes of hyperhomocysteinemia found in an authentic material. This material is based on 2462 routine measurements of plasma total homocysteine carried out at the Haukeland University Hospital. The data represent the total number of combined homocysteine and methylmalonic acid determinations, requested by general practitioners in Norway during February 1998.

ASHP Therapeutic Position Statement on the safe use of niacin in the management of dyslipidemias. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

ASHP supports the use of niacin as an effective therapy for the management of dyslipidemias in adults. Successful and safe therapy requires ongoing supervision and instruction by qualified health care providers to monitor the efficacy of therapy and minimize niacin's potential for adverse effects. Because many niacin products are available without a prescription, pharmacists are in a unique position to help ensure that patients make the best use of this medication.

A randomized trial to assess effectiveness and cost in clinical practice: rationale and design of the Cholesterol Reduction Intervention Study (CRIS).

To compare the effectiveness and costs of two alternative approaches to the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, a prospective randomized trial is being undertaken at Southern California Kaiser Permanente, a large health maintenance organization. Six hundred and twelve patients with postdiet LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) levels in the range of 190-230 mg/dl (or 160-230 mg/dl for those with coronary heart disease or two or more coronary risk factors) were randomized to a stepped-care regimen (initial treatment with niacin followed by other agents if needed) or to initial use of lovastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor. All patients are being followed for 1 year. The study seeks to approximate conditions of typical clinical practice: provider compliance with these plans of treatment is encouraged but not enforced and patients pay for medication as they customarily would. Principal outcomes of interest include the proportion of participants who achieve goal LDL-C at one year, the mean change in total cholesterol and LDL-C levels between baseline and the end of follow-up, and the costs of cholesterol-lowering therapy.