Triglyceride Lowering with Pemafibrate to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk.

BACKGROUND: High triglyceride levels are associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but whether reductions in these levels would lower the incidence of cardiovascular events is uncertain. Pemafibrate, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator, reduces triglyceride levels and improves other lipid levels. METHODS: In a multinational, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride level, 200 to 499 mg per deciliter), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels of 40 mg per deciliter or lower to receive pemafibrate (0.2-mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo. Eligible patients were receiving guideline-directed lipid-lowering therapy or could not receive statin therapy without adverse effects and had low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 100 mg per deciliter or lower. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: Among 10,497 patients (66.9% with previous cardiovascular disease), the median baseline fasting triglyceride level was 271 mg per deciliter, HDL cholesterol level 33 mg per deciliter, and LDL cholesterol level 78 mg per deciliter. The median follow-up was 3.4 years. As compared with placebo, the effects of pemafibrate on lipid levels at 4 months were -26.2% for triglycerides, -25.8% for very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, -25.6% for remnant cholesterol (cholesterol transported in triglyceride-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling), -27.6% for apolipoprotein C-III, and 4.8% for apolipoprotein B. A primary end-point event occurred in 572 patients in the pemafibrate group and in 560 of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.15), with no apparent effect modification in any prespecified subgroup. The overall incidence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups, but pemafibrate was associated with a higher incidence of adverse renal events and venous thromboembolism and a lower incidence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes, mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia, and low HDL and LDL cholesterol levels, the incidence of cardiovascular events was not lower among those who received pemafibrate than among those who received placebo, although pemafibrate lowered triglyceride, VLDL cholesterol, remnant cholesterol, and apolipoprotein C-III levels. (Funded by the Kowa Research Institute; PROMINENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03071692.).

Comparison of the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profile of a single oral dose of pitavastatin 4 mg in adult subjects with severe renal impairment not on hemodialysis versus healthy adult subjects.

Pitavastatin is a novel statin recently approved in the United States as an adjunctive therapy with diet to reduce elevated total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and triglycerides and to increase high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. This open-label study enrolled 16 subjects as follows: group A: 8 adult subjects with severe renal impairment who were not on hemodialysis (estimated glomerular filtration rate of 15-29 mL/min/1.73 m2) and group B: 8 healthy adult subjects (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥80 mL/min/1.73 m2). On day 1, the subjects received a single oral dose of pitavastatin 4 mg and remained in the clinic on days 1-3 for safety and pharmacokinetic assessments. Comparing group A with group B, the geometric mean ratio of AUC(0-inf) for pitavastatin was 1.36 (90% confidence interval, 0.88-2.11). For Cmax, the corresponding ratio was 1.18 (90% confidence interval, 0.68-2.02). There were no severe treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), serious AEs, deaths, or treatment-emergent AEs leading to study drug discontinuation. A single dose of pitavastatin 4 mg was safe and well tolerated by the subjects in this study with severe renal impairment, who were not on hemodialysis.

Pitavastatin versus pravastatin in adults with HIV-1 infection and dyslipidaemia (INTREPID): 12 week and 52 week results of a phase 4, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: People living with HIV-1 infection are at greater risk for cardiovascular disease than seronegative adults. Treatment of dyslipidaemia with statins has been challenging in people with HIV because of an increased potential for drug interactions due to competing cytochrome P450 metabolism between statins and commonly used antiretroviral agents. Neither pitavastatin nor pravastatin depend on cytochrome P450 for primary metabolism. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of pitavastatin versus pravastatin in adults with HIV and dyslipidaemia. METHODS: In the INTREPID (HIV-infected patieNts and TREatment with PItavastatin vs pravastatin for Dyslipidemia) randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, phase 4 trial (INTREPID, we recruited adults aged 18-70 years with controlled HIV (with CD4 counts >200 cells per µL and HIV-1 RNA <200 copies per mL) on antiretroviral therapy for at least 6 months and dyslipidaemia (LDL cholesterol 3·4-5·7 mmol/L and triglycerides ≤4·5 mmol/L) from 45 sites in the USA and Puerto Rico. Patients being treated with darunavir, or who had homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia or any condition causing secondary dyslipidaemia, or a history of statin intolerance, diabetes, or coronary artery disease were not eligible. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to pitavastatin 4 mg or pravastatin 40 mg with matching placebos once daily orally for 12 weeks, followed by a 40 week safety extension. Randomisation was stratified by viral hepatitis B or C coinfection and computer-generated. Investigators, patients, study staff, and those assessing outcomes were masked to treatment group. The primary endpoint was percentage change in fasting serum LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 12 and the primary efficacy analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population. The safety analysis included all patients who took at least one dose of study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01301066. FINDINGS: Between Feb 23, 2011, and March 29, 2013, we randomly assigned 252 patients to the pitavastatin (n=126) or pravastatin group (n=126). LDL cholesterol reduction was 31·1% with pitavastatin and 20·9% with pravastatin (least squares mean difference -9·8%, 95% CI -13·8 to -5·9; p<0·0001) at 12 weeks. At week 52, four patients (3%) in the pitavastatin group and six (5%) in the pravastatin group had virological failure, with no significant difference between treatments. Both treatments had neutral effects on glucose metabolism parameters. 85 patients treated with pitavastatin (68%) and 88 patients treated with pravastatin (70%) reported treatment-emergent adverse events, and these caused study discontinuation in six patients (5%) versus five patients (4%). No serious adverse event occurred in more than one participant and none were treatment-related according to investigator assessment. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea in the pitavastatin group (n=12, 10%) and upper respiratory tract infection in the pravastatin group (n=14, 11%). 11 treatment-emergent serious adverse events were noted in seven patients (6%) in the pitavastatin group (atrial septal defect, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chest pain, diverticulitis, enterovesical fistula, gastroenteritis, viral gastroenteritis, herpes dermatitis, multiple fractures, respiratory failure, and transient ischaemic attack) and four events in three patients (2%) in the pravastatin group (cerebrovascular accident, arteriosclerosis coronary artery, myocardial infraction, and muscle haemorrhage). In the pravastatin treatment group, one additional patient discontinued due to an adverse event (prostate cancer that was diagnosed during the screening period, 42 days before first dose of study treatment, and therefore was not a treatment-emergent adverse event). INTERPRETATION: The INTREPID results support guideline recommendations for pitavastatin as a preferred drug in the treatment of dyslipidaemia in people with HIV. FUNDING: Kowa Pharmaceuticals America and Eli Lilly and Company.

Comparison of the lipid-lowering effects of pitavastatin 4 mg versus pravastatin 40 mg in adults with primary hyperlipidemia or mixed (combined) dyslipidemia: a Phase IV, prospective, US, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, superiority trial.

PURPOSE: Results from a Phase III, European, non-inferiority trial in elderly (age ≥65 years) patients with primary hyperlipidemia or mixed (combined) dyslipidemia demonstrated significantly greater reductions in LDL-C for pitavastatin versus pravastatin across 3 pair-wise dose comparisons (1 mg vs 10 mg, 2 mg vs 20 mg, and 4 mg vs 40 mg, respectively). The present study investigated whether pitavastatin 4 mg is superior to pravastatin 40 mg in LDL-C reduction in adults (18-80 years old) with primary hyperlipidemia or mixed (combined) dyslipidemia. METHODS: This was a Phase IV, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-control superiority study conducted in the United States. Patients with baseline LDL-C levels of 130 to 220 mg/dL (inclusive) and triglyceride levels ≤400 mg/dL after a 6-week washout/dietary stabilization period were randomized to 12 weeks of once-daily treatment with either pitavastatin 4 mg or pravastatin 40 mg. FINDINGS: A total of 328 subjects (164 per treatment arm) were randomized (mean age, 57.9 years [76% were aged <65 years]; 49.4% women; mean body mass index, 30.2 kg/m(2)) to treatment. The median percent change in LDL-C from baseline to the week 12 endpoint was -38.1% for pitavastatin 4 mg and -26.4% for pravastatin 40 mg; the difference in median percent change between treatments was -12.5% (P < 0.001). Differences between treatments in median percent reductions from baseline for apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, and non-HDL-C were also significant in favor of pitavastatin (P < 0.001). Both treatments significantly (P < 0.001) increased HDL-C and decreased triglycerides, but the differences between treatments were not statistically significant. The overall rate of treatment-emergent adverse events was 47.6% (78 of 164) for pitavastatin and 44.5% (73 of 164) for pravastatin. Myalgia was reported by 3 patients (1.8%) in the pitavastatin group and by 4 patients (2.4%) in the pravastatin group. There were no reports of myositis or rhabdomyolysis. IMPLICATIONS: Pitavastatin 4 mg demonstrated superior LDL-C reductions compared with pravastatin 40 mg after 12 weeks of therapy in adults with primary hyperlipidemia or mixed (combined) dyslipidemia. There were no new safety findings in the trial. Clinical Trials.gov identifier: NCT01256476.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir and pitavastatin when co-administered to healthy adult volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of hyperlipidaemia in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients has become increasingly important. However, treatment options are limited because of the drug-drug interaction between certain statins and HIV medications metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to investigate the steady-state pharmacokinetics of pitavastatin when co-administered with darunavir/ritonavir. The secondary objective was to investigate the steady-state pharmacokinetics of both darunavir and ritonavir when co-administered with pitavastatin. METHODS: This was a single-centre, open-label, multi-dose, fixed-sequence study in HIV seronegative healthy volunteers. Pitavastatin 4 mg was administered once daily on days 1-5 and on days 12-16, and darunavir 800 mg/ritonavir 100 mg once daily on days 6-16. Pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed on days 5, 11 and 16. No significant interaction was concluded if the 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for total exposure [i.e. the area under the plasma concentration-time curve over a dosing interval at steady state (AUC(0-τ))] and for peak exposure [i.e. the maximum plasma concentration (C(max))] of the two treatments were within the 80-125 % range. RESULTS: Twenty-eight subjects (mean age 30.5 years) were enrolled, and pharmacokinetic data were available for 27 subjects. For pitavastatin, the GMRs and 90 % CIs for the AUC(0-τ) and C(max) ratios with co-administration were 0.74 (0.69-0.80) and 0.96 (0.84-1.09), respectively. For both darunavir and ritonavir, the 90 % CIs for the AUC(0-τ) and C max ratios were within 80-125 % with pitavastatin co-administration. No significant safety issues were reported. CONCLUSION: Darunavir/ritonavir decreased total exposure to pitavastatin by 26 %, while peak exposures were similar. Pitavastatin did not influence the pharmacokinetics of darunavir or ritonavir. There is limited interaction between pitavastatin and darunavir/ritonavir.

Effects of steady-state lopinavir/ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of pitavastatin in healthy adult volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: Pitavastatin, a statin recently approved in the United States, has a potential benefit of reduced risk of cytochrome P450 (CYP)-mediated drug-drug interaction due to minimal metabolism by the CYP system. The primary objective was to investigate pharmacokinetic (PK) effects of lopinavir/ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg twice daily on pitavastatin 4 mg when coadministered. DESIGN: This was an open-label one-arm study. METHOD: Pitavastatin 4 mg was administered once daily (days 1-5 and days 20-24). Lopinavir/ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg was administered twice daily (days 9-24). Plasma samples for PK assessments were collected on days 5, 19, and 24. Plasma concentrations of analytes were determined by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection methods. RESULTS: PK data were available for 23 of 24 subjects enrolled. For pitavastatin, area under the concentration time curve (AUC0-τ) and maximum concentration (C(max)) were 136.8 ± 52.9 ng·h(-1)·mL(-1) and 58.6 ± 30.4 ng/mL, respectively, when given alone, versus 113.9 ± 53.8 ng·h(-1)·mL(-1) and 58.2 ± 32.7 ng/mL when combined with lopinavir/ritonavir. The geometric mean ratio for AUC(0-τ) for pitavastatin with lopinavir/ritonavir versus pitavastatin alone was 80.0 (90% confidence interval: 73.4 to 87.3) and C(max) was 96.1 (90% confidence interval: 83.6 to 110.4). Median T(max) of pitavastatin was approximately 0.5 hours for both treatments. The PK effect of pitavastatin on lopinavir/ritonavir was minimal. No significant safety issues were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The effect on exposures when pitavastatin and lopinavir/ritonavir are coadministered was minimal. Concomitant use of pitavastatin and lopinavir/ritonavir was safe and well tolerated in healthy adult volunteers.

Effect of pitavastatin vs. rosuvastatin on international normalized ratio in healthy volunteers on steady-state warfarin.

OBJECTIVE: Statins have been shown to impact international normalized ratio (INR) when coadministered with warfarin. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of pitavastatin compared with rosuvastatin on steady-state pharmacodynamics (PD) of warfarin by measuring INR in healthy adult subjects. METHODS: Subjects received oral doses of warfarin 5 mg once daily on days 1 through 3. The dose was titrated on days 4 through 9 to reach a steady-state INR of 1.5 to 2.2. Warfarin was continued on days 10 through 21 and pitavastatin 4 mg or rosuvastatin 40 mg was administered once daily on days 14 through 22. After a 14-day washout period, the process was repeated with the alternate statin. STUDY NUMBER: NK-104-4.03US. RESULTS: For pitavastatin, mean INR changed from 1.73 ± 0.18 (n = 42) on day 14 before starting statin dosing, to 1.78 ± 0.29 (n = 42) on day 22 at treatment end; the difference in INR was not significant (p = 0.219). For rosuvastatin, mean INR increased significantly from 1.74 ± 0.20 (n = 43) at baseline to 1.90 ± 0.30 (n = 43) at treatment end (p < 0.001). Rosuvastatin caused a significantly greater increase in INR than pitavastatin (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Steady-state INR during warfarin treatment did not change significantly when pitavastatin 4 mg was added to the regimen, while a significant increase was observed when rosuvastatin 40 mg was added. The effect of rosuvastatin on INR was significantly larger than the effect of pitavastatin. This study is limited because it was done in healthy volunteers. Further studies in patient populations are needed to better understand the clinical significance of the results.