Effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL-cholesterol and non-HDL-cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB levels are inter-correlated and all predict risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and/or high TG. These levels are lowered by extended-release niacin (ERN), and changes in the ratios of these levels may affect ASCVD risk. This analysis examined the effects of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) on the relationships between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. METHODS: T2DM patients (n = 796) had LDL-C ≥1.55 and <2.97 mmol/L and TG <5.65 mmol/L following a 4-week, lipid-modifying run-in (~78 % taking statins). ApoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were assessed after randomized (4:3), double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo for 12 weeks. Pearson correlation coefficients between apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C were computed and simple linear regression models were fitted for apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C at baseline and Week 12, and the correlations between measured apoB and measured vs predicted values of LDL-C and non-HDL-C were studied. RESULTS: LDL-C and especially non-HDL-C were well correlated with apoB at baseline, and treatment with ERN/LRPT increased these correlations, especially between LDL-C and apoB. Despite the tighter correlations, many patients who achieved non-HDL-C goal, and especially LDL-C goal, remained above apoB goal. There was a trend towards greater increases in these correlations in the higher TG subgroup, non-significant possibly due to the small number of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: ERN/LRPT treatment increased association of apoB with LDL-C and non-HDL-C in patients with T2DM. Lowering LDL-C, non-HDL-C and apoB with niacin has the potential to reduce coronary risk in patients with T2DM.

Blood pressure-lowering effects of extended-release niacin alone and extended-release niacin/laropiprant combination: a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, placebo-controlled trial in dyslipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia and high blood pressure are both major cardiovascular disease risk factors. Niacin is an effective lipid-altering agent that has been reported to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the more widespread use of niacin is limited, mainly due to the occurrence of flushing. Laropiprant (LRPT) is a selective antagonist of prostaglandin D(2) receptor subtype 1 that reduces extended-release niacin (ERN)-induced flushing without affecting its beneficial lipid effects. While the lipid effects of ERN are well known, the blood pressure effects are unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to examine the blood pressure effects of ERN and ERN/LRPT. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a 24-week, worldwide, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel, Phase III, previously published study of dyslipidemic patients, which examined the effect of ERN and ERN/LRPT on systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). RESULTS: A total of 1613 men and women, aged 21 to 85 years, with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia (66% on statins), were included in the original analysis. ERN alone, or in combination with LRPT, was associated with significant reductions in SBP and DBP at 24 weeks from baseline. The placebo-adjusted mean changes from baseline at week 24 in SBP were -2.2 and -3.1 mm Hg for the ERN and ERN/LRPT groups, respectively (P < 0.05 and P < 0.001). Similar changes in DBP were observed; -2.7 and -2.5 mm Hg in the ERN and ERN/ LRPT groups, respectively (both, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of a 24-week trial found that ERN alone, or in combination with LRPT, was associated with significant placebo-adjusted reductions from baseline in blood pressure in these hyperlipidemic hypertensive or normotensive subjects.

Flushing profile of extended-release niacin/laropiprant at initiation of therapy in Asian lipid clinic patients.

OBJECTIVE: Niacin is underutilized due to flushing, which occurs in over 90% of niacin-treated patients. Laropiprant (LRPT) reduces flushing associated with niacin. This study compared flushing with a combination tablet of extended-release (ER) niacin (ERN)/LRPT to niacin ER (N-ER; without LRPT) during the first week of therapy among patients in Asia. METHODS: Following a 1-week placebo run-in, 332 patients with dyslipidemia from China, Korea and Singapore were randomized to ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg, N-ER 1 g (given as Niaspan(R)) or placebo in a 2:2:1 ratio for 1 week. Patient-reported flushing severity was assessed using the Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS; none/mild = 0-3; moderate = 4-6; severe = 7-9; extreme = 10). RESULTS: Compared with N-ER, the ERN/LRPT group experienced significantly less flushing (p < 0.001), as measured by maximum GFSS categorized as none/mild, moderate, severe or extreme. Overall, 23.8% of patients in the ERN/LRPT group and 50.0% in the N-ER group (p < 0.001), versus 12.1% in the placebo group, had moderate or greater flushing (GFSS > or =4). Except for flushing, which occurred more frequently in the N-ER group, ERN/LRPT had a safety/tolerability profile similar to that of N-ER. CONCLUSION: ERN/LRPT produced significantly less flushing than N-ER during the initiation of therapy and was generally well tolerated in Asian patients with dyslipidemia.

Comparison of effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus simvastatin versus atorvastatin in reducing C-reactive protein and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

The lowering effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapy on low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) were compared with those of simvastatin or atorvastatin monotherapy in a large cohort of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. To compare ezetimibe/simvastatin with simvastatin, data were combined from 3 identical, prospective 12-week trials in which patients were randomized to receive placebo; ezetimibe 10 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg added to simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg. To compare ezetimibe/simvastatin with atorvastatin, data were analyzed from a phase III double-blind, active-controlled study in which patients were randomized equally to receive ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg or atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg for 6 weeks. When averaged across doses, ezetimibe/simvastatin produced significantly greater reductions compared with simvastatin alone in LDL cholesterol (52.5% vs 38.0%, respectively) and CRP levels (31.0% vs 14.3%, respectively). At each individual simvastatin dose, co-administration with ezetimibe produced significant further CRP reductions versus simvastatin alone. Ezetimibe/simvastatin was significantly more effective at lowering LDL cholesterol than atorvastatin when pooled across doses (53.4% vs 45.3%, respectively) and in each milligram-equivalent dose comparison. Reductions in CRP of similar magnitude were observed with ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin when averaged across doses and at each milligram-equivalent statin dose comparison. In conclusion, the lipid-modulating and anti-inflammatory effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin provide additional benefits not realized by statin monotherapy alone.

Striated muscle safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin (Vytorin).

Despite the excellent benefit/risk profile of statins, their use is limited by a dose-related risk of adverse events, particularly those related to muscle toxicity. Ezetimibe/simvastatin (Vytorin) is a cholesterol-lowering therapy that inhibits the intestinal absorption (ezetimibe) and synthesis (simvastatin) of cholesterol. This analysis compared the muscle safety profiles of ezetimibe/simvastatin and simvastatin monotherapy. We reviewed muscle-related adverse event (AE) data from 17 randomized, blinded clinical trials (13 base and 4 extension studies), in which ezetimibe and simvastatin were either co-administered as separate entities or given as a combination tablet to 4,558 patients. The following AE categories were summarized: incidence of musculoskeletal or connective-tissue AEs (all and drug related); discontinuations due to musculoskeletal or connective-tissue AEs (all and drug related); incidence of AEs reported under the term "myalgia" (all and drug related); discontinuation due to myalgia (all and drug related); incidence of "myopathy" (all and drug related); increases in creatine kinase to 3 to < 5, 5 to < 10, and > or = 10 times the upper limit of normal. For all AE categories examined, the incidence of muscle-related clinical and laboratory AEs or discontinuations due to muscle-related AEs was no more common in patients taking ezetimibe/simvastatin than in those taking simvastatin alone. Thus, the clinical trial experience with ezetimibe/simvastatin suggests that ezetimibe does not enhance or aggravate the muscle effects of simvastatin.

Comparison of the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profiles of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in older versus younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a post Hoc analysis of subpopulations from three pooled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Despite the need for effective and well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapies for primary hypercholesterolemia in older patients, there is a relative paucity of published data on such treatments in this population. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a post hoc analysis to examine the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety profile of simvastatin (SIMVA) monotherapy, and the coadministration of ezetimibe (EZE) and SIMVA (EZE/SIMVA) in older (ie, aged>or=65 years) versus younger (ie, aged<65 years) patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: We analyzed pooled data from 3 previously published, similarly designed, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After a 6- to 8-week washout, a 4-week dietary stabilization period, and a 4-week placebo run-in period, patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) of 145 to 250 mg/dL were randomized to EZE/SIMVA 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg; SIMVA 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; EZE 10 mg; or placebo for 12 weeks. In this post hoc analysis, the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B (apo B), triglycerides (TG), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) for EZE/SIMVA (pooled across doses) versus SIMVA alone (pooled across doses) was compared between older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Tolerability was assessed by adverse event reports and laboratory and vital signs assessments throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 3083 patients aged 20 to 87 years were included in the 3 studies (2320 were aged<65 years and 763 were aged>or=65 years). Baseline lipid values and patient characteristics were similar among all treatment groups for patients aged<65 years versus those aged>or=65 years except that there was a higher percentage of females (62% vs 50%) and patients with hypertension (46% vs 29%) in the older versus younger subgroup (both, P<0.001). EZE/SIMVA was associated with greater improvements than SIMVA alone in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apo B, TG, and hs-CRP (all, P<0.001); these effects did not appear to differ between the older and younger sub-groups (all, P=NS). Changes in HDL-C did not differ significantly between the EZE/SIMVA and SIMVA groups. More patients receiving EZE/SIMVA than SIMVA monotherapy achieved the target LDL-C level<100 mg/dL (P<0.001), regardless of age subgroup (77% vs 41% for patients aged<65 years and 85% vs 48% for patients aged>or=65 years). In the younger sub-group, the incidence of creatinine phosphokinase (CK) elevations>or=10x the upper limit of normal (ULN) was or=10x ULN were reported. In younger patients, the incidence of consecutive alanine amino-transferase or aspartate aminotransferase levels>or=3x ULN was 0% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 2% for EZE/SIMVA; in older patients, it was 1% for placebo and EZE, <1% for SIMVA, and 0% for EZE/SIMVA. CONCLUSION: This post hoc analysis of pooled data from 3 previously published large clinical trials suggests that EZE/SIMVA was well tolerated and associated with improved lipid profiles in both older and younger patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Consistency of lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin across gender, race, age, baseline low density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and coronary heart disease status: results of a pooled retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The combination tablet containing ezetimibe and simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA), inhibits both the intestinal absorption and endogenous production of cholesterol, providing significantly greater low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering than EZE or SIMVA alone. The purpose of this pooled analysis was to evaluate the consistency of efficacy (i.e., between-treatment difference) of EZE/SIMVA versus SIMVA within several selected subgroups of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: For the present analysis, data were pooled from three similarly designed, 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled factorial studies consisting of 3083 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia (n = 311 in placebo group; n = 302 in EZE group; n = 1234 in pooled SIMVA group; n = 1236 in pooled EZE/SIMVA group). In these clinical studies, primary hypercholesterolemia was defined as an LDL-C value between 145 and 250 mg/dL inclusive and a triglyceride (TG) level of less than 350 mg/dL. The results for the pooled SIMVA and pooled EZE/SIMVA groups were used for the present analyses. The pooled analyses focused on the consistency of the between-treatment differences (i.e., incremental effect) for EZE/SIMVA (pooled across doses) versus SIMVA (pooled across doses) on various lipid and non-lipid parameters within different patient subgroups defined according to gender, race (Caucasian, Non-Caucasian), baseline age (< 65, > or = 65 years), baseline LDL-C (< 160, > or = 160 mg/dL), and coronary heart disease (CHD) history. Tolerability was also examined for pooled EZE/SIMVA and pooled SIMVA within these selected subgroups. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis, an ANOVA model was used for testing the consistency of pooled treatment effects on lipid and non-lipid parameters within each selected subgroup. RESULTS: For the entire cohort, baseline lipid profiles were similar for the patients in the pooled EZE/SIMVA group compared with those in the pooled SIMVA group. Treatment with EZE/SIMVA led to significant (p < 0.001) incremental improvements in LDL-C, non-high density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), apolipoprotein B, TG and high sensitivity C-reactive protein compared to SIMVA, across the entire cohort. These changes were consistent within each of the selected subgroups. Moreover, more patients attained LDL-C goal levels < 100 mg/dL with EZE/SIMVA than with SIMVA in the entire cohort and this was consistent across all subgroups, except baseline LDL-C. In this pooled retrospective analysis, treatment with EZE/SIMVA was generally well tolerated across subgroups, with a safety profile similar to SIMVA monotherapy. Although this pooled analysis was performed on a large cohort of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, the results of this analysis were specific for this select patient population and generalizations to other populations should be applied with caution. CONCLUSION: The enhanced lipid-altering effects of EZE/SIMVA versus those of SIMVA observed in the entire cohort were consistent within all subgroups examined. EZE/SIMVA represents an effective and well-tolerated therapeutic option for the treatment of a wide range of patient subgroups with primary hypercholesterolemia.

Safety and tolerability of extended-release niacin-laropiprant: Pooled analyses for 11,310 patients in 12 controlled clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events (HPS2-THRIVE) showed that adding extended-release niacin-laropiprant (ERN-LRPT) to statin provided no incremental cardiovascular benefit vs placebo (PBO). ERN-LRPT was also associated with an excess of serious adverse experiences (AEs), some of which were unexpected (infections and bleeding). These findings led to the withdrawal of ERN-LRPT from all markets. OBJECTIVE: We examined the safety profile of ERN-LRPT vs the comparators ERN alone and statins in the ERN-LRPT development program to assess whether similar safety signals were observed to those seen in HPS-THRIVE and whether these might be attributed to ERN or LRPT. METHODS: Postrandomization safety data from 12 clinical studies, 12 to 52 weeks in duration and involving 11,310 patients, were analyzed across 3 treatments: (1) ERN-LRPT; (2) ERN-NSP (ERN, Merck & Co, Inc or Niaspan [NSP], Abbott Laboratories); and (3) statin-PBO (statin or PBO). RESULTS: The safety profiles of ERN-LRPT and ERN-NSP were similar, except for less flushing with ERN-LRPT. Nonflushing AEs reported more frequently with ERN-LRPT or ERN-NSP than with statin-PBO were mostly nonserious and typical of niacin (nausea, diarrhea, and increased blood glucose). There was no evidence for an increased risk of serious AEs related to diabetes, muscle, infection, or bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled data from 11,310 patients revealed that, except for reduced flushing, the safety profile of ERN-LRPT was similar to that of ERN-NSP; LRPT did not appear to adversely affect the side-effect profile of ERN. The inability to replicate the unexpected AE findings in HPS2-THRIVE could be because of the smaller sample size and substantially shorter duration of these studies.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant significantly improves lipid levels in type 2 diabetes mellitus irrespective of baseline glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: The degree of glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may alter lipid levels and may alter the efficacy of lipid-modifying agents. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the lipid-modifying efficacy of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) in subgroups of patients with T2DM with better or poorer glycemic control. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of clinical trial data from patients with T2DM who were randomized 4:3 to double-blind ERN/LRPT or placebo (n=796), examining the lipid-modifying effects of ERN/LRPT in patients with glycosylated hemoglobin or fasting plasma glucose levels above and below median baseline levels. RESULTS: At Week 12 of treatment, ERN/LRPT significantly improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and lipoprotein (a), compared with placebo, with equal efficacy in patients above or below median baseline glycemic control. Compared with placebo, over 36 weeks of treatment more patients treated with ERN/LRPT had worsening of their diabetes and required intensification of antihyperglycemic medication, irrespective of baseline glycemic control. Incidences of other adverse experiences were generally low in all treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The lipid-modifying effects of ERN/LRPT are independent of the degree of baseline glycemic control in patients with T2DM (NCT00485758).

Achieving lipoprotein goals in patients at high risk with severe hypercholesterolemia: efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with atorvastatin.

BACKGROUND: Despite the efficacy of statins in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, many patients who are at high risk for heart disease with hypercholesterolemia require additional LDL-C level reduction. The cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, has been shown to provide significant incremental reductions in LDL-C levels when co-administered with statins. This study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe (10 mg) plus response-based atorvastatin titration versus response-based atorvastatin titration alone in the attainment of LDL-C goals in subjects who are at high risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) and are not at their LDL-C goal on the starting dose of atorvastatin. METHODS: This was a 14-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled study conducted in 113 clinical research centers in 21 countries. Participants were adults with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH), CHD, or multiple (> or =2) cardiovascular risk factors, and a LDL-C level > or =130 mg/dL after a 6- to 10-week dietary stabilization and atorvastatin (10 mg/day) open-label run-in period. Eligible subjects continued to receive atorvastatin (10 mg) and were randomized to receive blinded treatment with ezetimibe (10 mg/day; n = 305) or an additional 10 mg/day of atorvastatin (n = 316). The atorvastatin dose in both groups was doubled after 4 weeks, 9 weeks, or both when the LDL-C level was not at its goal (< or =100 mg/dL), so that patients receiving combined therapy could reach 40 mg/day and patients receiving atorvastatin alone could reach 80 mg/day. The primary end point was the proportion of subjects achieving their LDL-C level goal at week 14. A secondary end point was the change in LDL-C level and other lipid parameters at 4 weeks after ezetimibe co-administration with 10 mg/day of atorvastatin versus 20 mg/day of atorvastatin monotherapy. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects reaching their target LDL-C level goal of < or =100 mg/dL was significantly higher in the co-administration group than in the atorvastatin monotherapy group (22% vs 7%; P <.01). At 4 weeks, levels of LDL-C, triglycerides, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol were reduced significantly more by combination therapy than by doubling the dose of atorvastatin (LDL-C -22.8% versus -8.6%; P <.01). The combination regimen had a safety and tolerability profile similar to that of atorvastatin alone. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ezetimibe to the starting dose of 10 mg/day of atorvastatin followed by response-based atorvastatin dose titration to a maximum of 40 mg/day provides a more effective means for reducing LDL-C levels in patients at high risk for CHD than continued doubling of atorvastatin as high as 80 mg/day alone.

Effects of simvastatin on C-reactive protein in mixed hyperlipidemic and hypertriglyceridemic patients.

This study examined the effects of simvastatin on C-reactive protein (CRP) and other inflammatory markers in study subjects with significant elevations in triglyceride (TG) blood levels. CRP, vascular cellular adhesion molecule (VCAM), serum amyloid A (SAA), and interleukin 6 (IL-6) were measured in archived plasma samples from 2 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies designed to examine the lipid-altering efficacy of simvastatin in study subjects with elevated TGs. In the first study, 130 study subjects with mixed hyperlipidemia (low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol > or =130 mg/dl; TGs 300 to 700 mg/dl) received placebo or simvastatin 40 or 80 mg once daily for three 6-week periods in a complete-block crossover design. In the second study, 195 study subjects with hypertriglyceridemia (TGs 300 to 900 mg/dl) received daily doses of placebo or simvastatin 20, 40, or 80 mg for 6 weeks. Significant but weak correlations were observed between baseline CRP values and baseline levels of LDL cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, but not with TGs. CRP was also correlated with body mass index and fasting levels of glucose and insulin. Treatment with simvastatin 20, 40, and 80 mg led to significant reductions in CRP plasma levels versus placebo (p <0.05). Although CRP change was weakly correlated with changes in LDL cholesterol, TGs, and HDL cholesterol, results of regression analyses showed that only baseline CRP and treatment allocation were significant predictors of CRP response after 6 weeks of study drug administration. Simvastatin had no effect on VCAM, SAA, or IL-6. In summary, simvastatin significantly reduced CRP in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia and hypertriglyceridemia.

Comparative effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with characteristics of metabolic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Hypercholesterolemic patients with metabolic syndrome (MS) are at high risk for coronary heart disease. The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines provide the option of aggressively lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in hypercholesterolemic patients with MS. OBJECTIVE: The lipid-modifying efficacy of simvastatin and atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with MS as defined by NCEP ATP III was assessed. METHODS: A post hoc subgroup analysis was performed on data from a 36-week, multicenter (54 sites worldwide), randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-escalation (forced-titration) study designed to assess the effects of simvastatin (40-80 mg) and atorvastatin (20-80 mg) on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein (apo) A-I levels in patients with LDL-C > or = 160 mg/dL. Patients were classified as having MS if they met >/=3 of the following criteria: (1) triglyceride (TG) level > or =150 mg/dL; (2) HDL-C <40 mg/dL (men) or <50 mg/dL (women); (3) secondary diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or taking antidiabetic medication and/or fasting serum glucose (FSG) level > or =110 mg/dL; (4) secondary diagnosis of hypertension and/or taking antihypertensive medication and/or systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or =130/ > or =85 mm Hg; and (5) body mass index (BMI) > or =30 kg/m(2) (surrogate for waist circumference). RESULTS: Of 808 evaluable patients, 212 (26.2%) were classified as having MS at baseline. Compared with the non-MS subgroup, MS patients were slightly older and more likely to be female. They also had higher BMI, SBP/DBP, FSG, and TG levels, and lower HDL-C and apo A-I levels than non-MS patients. The simvastatin group contained 99 patients; the atorvastatin group, 113 patients. Both drugs produced large reductions in total cholesterol, LDL-C, non-HDL-C, TG, and apo B, with atorvastatin producing slightly greater reductions in TG. However, simvastatin consistently produced larger increases in HDL-C and apo A-I than atorvastatin, especially at higher doses. After 36 weeks of treatment, 47.7% and 48.5% in the simvastatin and atorvastatin groups, respectively, no longer met > or =3 of the MS criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In hypercholesterolemic patients with characteristics of MS, simvastatin and atorvastatin had comparable beneficial effects on apo B-containing atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins, and MS status was effectively modified by both drugs. However, although atorvastatin produced slightly larger decreases in TG, simvastatin produced larger increases in HDL-C.

Effects of simvastatin on the lipid profile and attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals when added to thiazolidinedione therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the major cause of mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Given the increasingly aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for patients with DM set by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and the American Diabetes Association, many patients remain above target. Treatment with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) improves glycemic control but does not lower (and may raise) LDL-C concentrations. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability of adding the hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A-reductase inhibitor simvastatin to existing TZD therapy in patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients with type 2 DM who were taking a stable dose of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone and had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value < or =9.0% and an LDL-C concentration > 100 mg/dL were randomized to receive simvastatin 40 mg (the recommended initial dose for patients with DM) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the effect of treatment on LDL-C concentrations. Other lipid, lipoprotein, and safety measures were also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three patients (127 [50.2%] men, 126 [49.8%] women; mean age, 56 years) were randomized to treatment (123 simvastatin, 130 placebo). At the end of the study, mean LDL-C concentrations were reduced 34.)% from baseline (from 134.3 to 89.5 mg/dL) in the simvastatin group and were unchanged in the placebo group (P<0.001). Simvastatin produced significant reductions in concentrations of total cholesterol, triglycerides (TG), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B compared with placebo (all, P<0.001 ) and significant increases in concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ( P=0.002 ) and apo A-I ( P=0.006 ). In patients who had not attained target concentrations of LDL-C (<100 mg/dL), TG (<150 mg/dL), or HDL-C (>45 mg/dL) at baseline, significantly more simvastatin recipients had achieved these goals at the end of the study compared with placebo recipients (LDL-C: 67.3% vs 5.2%, respectively, P<0.001; HDL-C: 95.3% vs 83.6%, P<0.05; TG: 40.8% vs 11.0%, P<0.001 ). Simvastatin was well tolerated, and no clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, or discontinuations due to adverse events were observed between groups. There were no significant between-group differences in glycemic control (HbA1c) or concentrations of fasting insulin, creatine phosphokinase, or hepatic transaminases. CONCLUSION: Simvastatin was an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for hyperlipidemia when used in combination with TZD therapy in this population of patients with type 2 DM.

Effects of ezetimibe added to on-going statin therapy on the lipid profile of hypercholesterolemic patients with diabetes mellitus or metabolic syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a post-hoc assessment of the lipid-modifying effects of adding the cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, to on-going statin therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) or metabolic syndrome (MetS). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering efficacy and safety of adding ezetimibe 10 mg/day versus placebo to ongoing, open-label statin treatment for 8 weeks in hypercholesterolemic patients. Qualifying LDL-C levels and target LDL-C goals were based on National Cholesterol Education Program risk categories. The DM subgroup were patients who entered the study with a prior diagnosis of DM. Patients were classified as having MetS if they met 3 or more of the following criteria at baseline: triglycerides (TG) > or = 150 mg/dL (1.69 mmol/L); high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) < 40 mg/dL (1.04 mmol/L) for men or < 50 mg/dL (1.29 mmol/L) for women; fasting serum glucose (FSG) > or = 110 mg/dL (> or = 6.1 mmol/L); a diagnosis of hypertension or taking hypertension medication or blood pressure > or = 130/> or = 85 mmHg; waist circumference > 88 cm (women) or > 102 cm (men). DM patients were excluded from the MetS subgroup analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The objectives were to assess the effects of treatment on plasma concentrations of LDL-C and other lipid variables, and on the percentage of patients achieving LDL-C target levels at the end of the study. RESULTS: Of 769 patients enrolled in the original study, there were 191 (24.8%) with DM and 195 (25.4%) with MetS. Regardless of subgroup, ezetimibe + statin was significantly more effective than statin alone at lowering plasma levels of LDL-C, non-HDL-C, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and triglycerides (between-group p < 0.001 for all). For all lipid parameters, the relative treatment effects were generally consistent regardless of DM or MetS status. Significantly more ezetimibe than placebo patients in all subgroups achieved prespecified LDL-C goals (p < 0.001 for all), and although more patients in the DM and MetS groups, respectively, achieved the goal compared with their non-DM and non-MetS counterparts [83.6% (DM) versus 67.2 (non-DM) and 71.8% (MetS) versus 65.6% (non-MetS)], these differences were not significant after adjusting for differences in baseline LDL-C levels. Ezetimibe was well-tolerated and had a favorable safety profile in all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: The co-administration of ezetimibe with statins, a therapeutic regimen that inhibits both the absorption and synthesis of cholesterol, offers a well-tolerated and efficacious treatment to lower LDL-C in patients with DM and MetS.

Differential effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I are consistent across hypercholesterolemic patient subgroups.

BACKGROUND: In addition to lowering plasma levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), statins also raise high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). HYPOTHESIS: Recent studies have shown that treatment with simvastatin results in larger increases in HDL-C than those seen with atorvastatin. The results of three clinical studies are analyzed, comparing the effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on HDL-C and apolipoprotein A-I (apo A-I) in the total cohort and in several subgroups of hypercholesterolemic patients. The three studies were all multicenter, randomized clinical trials that included simvastatin (20-80 mg) and atorvastatin (10-80 mg) treatment arms. The subgroup analyses performed were gender; age (< 65 and > or = 65 years); baseline HDL-C (male: < 40 or > or = 40 mg/dl; female: < 45 or > or = 45 mg/dl), baseline LDL-C (< 160 or > or = 160 mg/dl), and baseline triglycerides (< 200 or > or = 200 mg/dl). RESULTS: Both drugs produced similar increases in HDL-C levels at low doses; however, at higher drug doses (40 and 80 mg), HDL-C showed a significantly greater increase with simvastatin than with atorvastatin (p < 0.05 to < 0.001). Therefore, while HDL-C remained consistently elevated across all doses of simvastatin, there appeared to be a pattern of decreasing HDL-C with an increasing dose of atorvastatin. A similar negative dose response pattern was also observed with apo A-I in atorvastatin-treated patients, suggesting a reduction in the number of circulating HDL particles at higher doses. Both drugs reduced LDL-C and triglycerides in a dose-dependent fashion, with atorvastatin showing slightly greater effects. The differential effects of atorvastatin and simvastatin on HDL-C and apo A-I were observed for both the whole study cohorts and all subgroups examined; thus, no consistent treatment-by-subgroup interactions were observed. CONCLUSION: The data presented show that, across different hypercholesterolemic patient subgroups, simvastatin increases HDL-C and apo A-I more than atorvastatin at higher doses, with evidence of a negative dose response effect on HDL-C and apo A-I with atorvastatin, but not simvastatin.

Effects of simvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with elevated levels of serum triglycerides (TG) often have other associated lipid abnormalities (e.g., low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]) and are at increased risk of developing coronary heart disease. Although the therapeutic benefits of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) in hypercholesterolemic patients have been well established, less is known about the effects of statins in patient populations with hypertriglyceridemia. HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the lipoprotein-altering efficacy of simvastatin in hypertriglyceridemic patients. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. In all, 195 patients with fasting serum triglyceride levels between 300 and 900 mg/dl received once daily doses of placebo or simvastatin 20, 40, or 80 mg for 6 weeks. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, simvastatin treatment across all doses resulted in significant reductions (p < 0.05 - < 0.001) in serum levels of triglycerides (-20 to -31% decrease) and TG-rich lipoprotein particles. Significant (p < 0.001) reductions were also seen in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-25 to -35%) and non-HDL-C (-26 to -40%). Levels of HDL-C were increased (7-11%) in the simvastatin groups compared with placebo (p < 0.05 - < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrate the beneficial effects of simvastatin in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of co-administered extended release niacin/laropiprant and simvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) reduces flushing and preserves the lipid-modifying effects of ERN. This study compared the efficacy and safety of ERN/LRPT plus simvastatin (ERN/LRPT+SIMVA) with atorvastatin (ATORVA) in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. METHODS: After a 4-week placebo run-in, 2340 patients (LDL-C ≥ 130 and ≤ 190 mg/dL, TG ≥ 150 and ≤ 500 mg/dL and above NCEP ATP III risk-based LDL-C goal) were randomized to 1 of 6 treatment arms: ERN/LRPT 1g/20mg+SIMVA (10 or 20mg), or ATORVA (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg) once daily. RESULTS: At Week 12, ERN/LRPT+SIMVA was superior to ATORVA in decreasing LDL-C/HDL-C (primary endpoint) at each pre-specified dose comparison: ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 20mg vs. ATORVA 10mg (-13.2%; p<0.001); ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 40 mg vs. ATORVA 20mg (-10.8%; p<0.001); ATORVA 40 mg (-5.1%; p<0.001); and ATORVA 80 mg (-4.2%; p=0.007). At Week 12, ERN/LRPT+SIMVA was superior to ATORVA in increasing HDL-C and reducing TG for all pre-specified treatment comparisons, and reducing non-HDL-C and LDL-C for the ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 20mg versus ATORVA 10mg and ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 40 mg versus ATORVA 20-mg dose comparisons, but not the ERN/LRPT+SIMVA 40 mg versus ATORVA 40- and 80-mg dose comparisons. Adverse experiences (AEs) typically associated with niacin (flushing, pruritus, increased glucose, increased uric acid) were more common with ERN/LRPT+SIMVA, and hepatic-related laboratory AEs were more common with ATORVA. CONCLUSION: ERN/LRPT+SIMVA was generally superior to ATORVA in improving lipid parameters after 12 weeks and was generally well tolerated in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.

Consistency of extended-release niacin/laropiprant effects on Lp(a), ApoB, non-HDL-C, Apo A1, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio across patient subgroups.

BACKGROUND: According to prior analyses, extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) consistently reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) and increases high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels across a wide range of dyslipidemic patient subgroups. OBJECTIVES: This analysis examined ERN/LRPT's consistency across four phase III, randomized, double-blind trials in improving other lipid/lipoprotein parameters associated with cardiovascular risk, across several key dyslipidemic patient subgroups. METHODS: In three of the studies, the randomized population included patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia; in the remaining study, the population included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The lipid-altering consistency of ERN/LRPT's efficacy was evaluated versus the pre-defined comparator (placebo or active control) among key subgroups of sex, race (White, non-White), region (US, ex-US), baseline age (<65 years, ≥65 years), use of statin therapy (yes, no), coronary heart disease (yes, no), risk status (low, multiple, high), and type of hyperlipidemia (primary hypercholesterolemia, mixed dyslipidemia), as well as across baseline LDL-C, HDL-C, and TG levels. The consistency of the treatment effects on lipoprotein(a).[Lp(a)], apolipoprotein B (ApoB), non-HDL-C, ApoA1, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio was evaluated by examining treatment difference estimates of the percentage change from baseline with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Treatment with ERN/LRPT produced significantly greater improvements in Lp(a), ApoB, non-HDL-C, ApoA1, and ApoB/ApoA1 ratio compared with placebo/active comparator in each study. These effects were generally consistent across key subgroups within each study. CONCLUSION: ERN/LRPT produced lipid-altering efficacy on the parameters evaluated in four controlled studies; these effects were generally consistent across all examined subgroups. ERN/LRPT represents an effective and reliable therapeutic option for the treatment of dyslipidemia in a wide range of patient types. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered as Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00269204, NCT00269217, NCT00479388, and NCT00485758.

Effectiveness and safety of laropiprant on niacin-induced flushing.

Extended-release niacin (ERN) improves multiple lipid parameters but is underused owing to niacin-induced flushing (NIF). Laropiprant (LRPT) reduces NIF; however, its effects on chronic flushing (>6 months) have not been studied. We examined whether after 20 weeks of treatment with ERN/LRPT, patients who continued ERN/LRPT would experience less NIF than patients who stopped LRPT and continued ERN alone. A total of 1,152 dyslipidemic patients were randomized 2:2:1 to group 1, ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg/day from 0 to 4 weeks and then ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg/day from 5 to 32 weeks; group 2, ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg/day from 0 to 4 weeks, ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg/day from 5 to 20 weeks, and then ERN 2 g/day without LRPT from 21 to 32 weeks; or group 3, placebo for the entire study. The end points included the number of days each week with a moderate or greater Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS) ≥4 (primary end point) and the percentage of patients with a maximum GFSS of ≥4 (secondary end point) during the postwithdrawal period (weeks 21 to 32). ERN/LRPT produced significantly less NIF than ERN alone during the postwithdrawal period, as measured by the number of days each week with a GFSS of ≥4 (p <0.001) and the percentage of patients with a maximum GFSS of ≥4 (p <0.001; ERN/LRPT 19.6%; ERN 48.9%; placebo 9.2%). Compared with ERN alone, ERN/LRPT produced fewer drug-related adverse experiences during the postwithdrawal period. After 20 weeks of stable maintenance therapy, dyslipidemic patients treated continuously with ERN/LRPT experienced less NIF than did patients who had had LRPT withdrawn and had continued with ERN alone. In conclusion, the results of our study support the long-term efficacy of ERN/LRPT in reducing NIF symptoms.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant lowers serum phosphorus concentrations in patients with type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Niacin compounds lower serum phosphorus concentrations in patients with end-stage renal disease. METHODOLOGY: We evaluated the impact of extended release niacin, given in fixed-dose combination with laropiprant, a specific inhibitor of prostaglandin-mediated, niacin-induced flushing, versus placebo, on serum phosphorus concentrations measured serially (at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12, 18, 24, 30, and 36) during a 36-week randomized, controlled trial. All subjects had a confirmed diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (n = 446 niacin/laropiprant; n = 339 placebo). Estimated glomerular filtration rate ranged from 36 to 184 mL/min/1.73 m(2), with n = 111 (14.1%) having a value <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). Subjects received one tablet daily of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (1g niacin/ 20 mg laropiprant) for the first 4 weeks, and 2 tablets once daily, thereafter, or matched placebo. Niacin lowered serum phosphorus concentrations by 0.36 mg/dL (95% CI: -0.40, -0.31; P < .001), relative to placebo, from baseline values of 3.57 and 3.56 mg/dL in the niacin and placebo groups, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed no evidence for phosphorus-lowering effect modification by these baseline variables: glomerular filtration rate <60 (n = 111;14.1%) vs ≥60 mL/min/m(2) (n = 674; 85.9%); phosphorus ≤3.5 mg/dL (n = 392; 49.9%) vs >3.5 mg/dL (n = 393; 50.1%); or prior statin use (n = 618; 78.7%) vs nonuse (n = 167; 21.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: These data confirm that niacin's phosphorus-lowering effects-which may have therapeutic implications for the management of hyperphosphatemia and possible prevention of cardiorenal outcomes in renal disease-extend across a broad spectrum of renal function in type 2 diabetics without stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease (a glomerular filtration rate ≥30 mL/min/1.73 m(2)).