Comparison of Statin With Ezetimibe Combination Therapy Versus Statin Monotherapy for Primary Prevention in Middle-Aged Adults.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middle-aged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. METHODS: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. RESULTS: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs. 10.1%; hazard ratio (HR), 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980-1.064; p=0.309). Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460-0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Analysis of the efficacy of retrodiscal approach percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis with WHIP catheter® in patients with lumbar radiculopathy: A retrospective study.

Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis (PEA) is an effective treatment for patients with lumbar radiculopathy unresponsive to single steroid injections. Various approaches and instruments have been developed to access these lesions. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of a retrodiscal approach for epidural adhesiolysis using a WHIP catheter®. This retrospective study was conducted at Bundang Seoul National University Hospital, reviewing cases from January to December 2022. Forty-seven patients diagnosed with lumbar radiculopathy, aged 20 to 80 years, who underwent PEA with the WHIP catheter® were included. Outcomes assessed Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for pain, Patients' Global Impression of Change (PGIC) scores, and the incidence of procedure-related complications. Follow-up evaluations occurred at 1, 3, and 6 months post-procedure. Among 47 patients, 41 completed the study, showing significant pain reduction at all follow-up points: 1 month (N = 41, 1.32 ±â€…1.68, P < .001), 3 months (N = 31, 1.90 ±â€…2.14, P < .001), and 6 months (N = 30, 2.50 ±â€…2.30, P < .001). PGIC scores indicated that 40% of the patients reported substantial improvement at one-month post-procedure. The complications were minimal, with only one case of intradiscal injection and 2 cases of vascular uptake. The retrodiscal approach PEA using the WHIP catheter® demonstrated significant efficacy in pain reduction with minimal safety concerns for patients with lumbar radiculopathy. These findings suggest that this procedure is a viable option for patients who are unresponsive to conservative treatment. However, the retrospective nature of this study and its small sample size necessitate further prospective controlled studies to confirm our results and establish long-term outcomes.

The Efficacy and Tolerability of Irbesartan/Amlodipine Combination Therapy in Patients With Essential Hypertension Whose Blood Pressure Were not Controlled by Irbesartan Monotherapy.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of irbesartan (IRB) and amlodipine (AML) combination therapy in patients with essential hypertension whose blood pressure (BP) was not controlled by IRB monotherapy. METHODS: Two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III studies were conducted in Korea (the I-DUO 301 study and the I-DUO 302 study). After a 4-week run-in period with either 150 mg IRB (I-DUO 301 study) or 300 mg IRB (I-DUO 302 study), patients with uncontrolled BP (ie, mean sitting systolic BP [MSSBP] ≥140 mmHg to <180 mmHg and mean sitting diastolic BP <110 mmHg) were randomized to the placebo, AML 5 mg, or AML 10 mg group. A total of 428 participants were enrolled in the 2 I-DUO studies. In the I-DUO 301 study, 271 participants were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive either IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, or IRB 150 mg/placebo. In the I-DUO 302 study, 157 participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive IRB/AML 300/5 mg or IRB 300 mg/placebo. The primary endpoint was the change in MSSBP from baseline to week 8. Tolerability was assessed according to the development of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinically significant changes in physical examination, laboratory tests, pulse, and 12-lead electrocardiography. FINDINGS: In I-DUO 301, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -14.78 (12.35) mmHg, -21.47 (12.78) mmHg, and -8.61 (12.19) mmHg in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In I-DUO 302, the mean (SD) changes of MSSBP at week 8 from baseline were -13.30 (12.47) mmHg and -7.19 (15.37) mmHg in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively. In both studies, all combination groups showed a significantly higher reduction in MSSBP than the IRB monotherapy groups (P < 0.001 for both). TEAEs occurred in 10.00%, 10.99%, and 12.22% of participants in the IRB/AML 150/5 mg, IRB/AML 150/10 mg, and IRB 150 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 301 and in 6.33% and 10.67% of participants in the IRB/AML 300/5 mg and IRB 300 mg/placebo groups, respectively, in I-DUO 302, with no significant between-group differences. Overall, there was one serious adverse event throughout I-DUO study. IMPLICATIONS: The combination of IRB and AML has superior antihypertensive effects compared with IRB alone over an 8-week treatment period, with placebo-like tolerability. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05476354 (I-DUO 301), NCT05475665 (I-DUO 302).