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.

The effects of laropiprant on the antiplatelet activity of co-administered clopidogrel and aspirin.

Laropiprant is an antagonist of the prostaglandin PGD2 receptor DP1. Laropiprant has a weak affinity for the thromboxane A2 receptor TP. Two double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover studies evaluated the effects of multiple-dose laropiprant at steady state on the antiplatelet effects of multiple-dose aspirin and clopidogrel. Study 1 had two treatment periods, in which each healthy subject received laropiprant 40 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and aspirin 80 mg (Treatment A), or placebo, clopidogrel 75 mg, and aspirin 80 mg (Treatment B) once daily for 7 days. Study 2 consisted of three treatment periods. In the first two, each patient with hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia received laropiprant 40 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and aspirin 81 mg (Treatment A), or placebo, clopidogrel 75 mg, and aspirin 81 mg (Treatment B) once daily for 7 days. In period 3, patients received a single dose of two tablets of extended release nicotinic acid 1 g/laropiprant 20 mg (Treatment C). In both studies, pharmacodynamic endpoints included bleeding time at 24 (primary) and 4 hours (secondary) post-dose following 7 days of once-daily laropiprant in combination with clopidogrel and aspirin, and platelet aggregation in platelet-rich plasma at 4 and 24 hours post-dose on day 7 (secondary). After 7 days, increased bleeding time of 27% (Study 1) and 23% (Study 2) at 24 hours post-dose was observed with laropiprant compared to placebo (both combined with clopidogrel and aspirin), with corresponding upper bounds of the 90% CI marginally exceeding the prespecified upper comparability bound of 1.50 in both studies. The GMR and 90% CI for bleeding time of laropiprant compared to placebo (both combined with clopidogrel and aspirin) at 4 hours post-dose on day 7 was 0.92 (0.70, 1.21) in Study 1, and 1.46 (1.20, 1.78) in Study 2. Compared with placebo, laropiprant (both combined with clopidogrel and aspirin) increased the inhibition of collagen- and ADP-induced platelet aggregation, respectively, by ∼2.4% and ∼8.1% in Study 1 and by ∼4% and ∼5.4% in Study 2, at 24 hours post-dose on day 7. The inhibition of collagen- and ADP-induced platelet aggregation, respectively, was increased by ∼0.1% and ∼5.0% in Study 1, and by ∼5% and ∼12% in Study 2, at 4 hours post-dose on day 7. In conclusion, co-administration of multiple doses of laropiprant with aspirin and clopidogrel induced a prolongation of bleeding time and an inhibitory effect on platelet aggregation ex vivo in healthy subjects and patients with dyslipidemia.

Efficacy and safety after cessation of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib (MK-0859) in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia.

This report describes the lipid and safety data collected during an off-drug period that followed 8 weeks of treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, anacetrapib (ANA). A total of 589 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia were randomized to placebo, atorvastatin (ATV) 20 mg, and varying doses of ANA, provided as monotherapy or coadministered with ATV 20 mg daily. Patients were treated for 8 weeks, followed by an 8-week follow-up period, during which ANA was switched to placebo. At week 16 (8 weeks after ANA was stopped), persistent reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were evident for the monotherapy groups receiving ANA 150 and 300 mg (-9.3% and -15.3%, respectively), and residual increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) were observed for the monotherapy groups receiving ANA 40 mg (18.6%), 150 mg (40.5%), and 300 mg (43.4%). The effects on apolipoprotein B and apolipoprotein A-I were consistent with the changes observed for LDL-C and HDL-C, respectively. Corresponding residual changes in LDL-C and HDL-C were also noted in the ATV coadministration groups at the similar doses of ANA compared with ATV 20 mg alone. Residual plasma drug levels accompanied by reductions in cholesteryl ester transfer protein activity were observed at week 16 and may account for the alterations in plasma lipids 8 weeks after cessation of ANA.

Efficacy and safety of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib as monotherapy and coadministered with atorvastatin in dyslipidemic patients.

BACKGROUND: High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are inversely associated with cardiovascular risk. Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibition is one strategy for increasing HDL-C. This study evaluated the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib as monotherapy or coadministered with atorvastatin in patients with dyslipidemia. METHODS: A total of 589 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia or mixed hyperlipidemia (53.8% of the study population had low HDL-C) were randomized equally to one of 10 groups: 5 groups received background statin therapy of atorvastatin 20 mg and 5 did not, and each of these was randomized to placebo, anacetrapib 10, 40, 150, and 300 mg once daily for 8 weeks. An equal proportion of patients had triglycerides >150 mg/dL in each group. RESULTS: For placebo and anacetrapib monotherapy (10, 40, 150, and 300 mg), least squares mean percent changes from baseline to week 8 for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were 2%, -16%, -27%, -40%, and -39%, respectively, and for HDL-C were 4%, 44%, 86%, 139%, and 133%, respectively (P < .001 vs placebo for all doses). Coadministration of anacetrapib with atorvastatin produced significant incremental LDL-C reductions and similar HDL-C increases versus atorvastatin monotherapy. For both anacetrapib monotherapy and coadministration with atorvastatin, the LDL-C reductions were similar in patients with baseline triglyceride levels greater than and less than or equal to the median. Anacetrapib was well tolerated, and the incidence of adverse events was similar for placebo and all active treatment groups. There were no increases in systolic or diastolic blood pressure in any treatment arm. CONCLUSIONS: Anacetrapib, as monotherapy or coadministered with atorvastatin, produced significant reductions in LDL-C and increases in HDL-C; the net result of treatment with anacetrapib + atorvastatin was approximately 70% lowering of LDL-C and more than doubling of HDL-C. Anacetrapib was generally well tolerated with no discernable effect on blood pressure.

Rationale and design of IMPROVE-IT (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial): comparison of ezetimbe/simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) improves clinical outcomes in patients with chronic coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes (ACSs). The combination of ezetimibe/simvastatin produces greater reductions in LDL-C compared to simvastatin monotherapy. The IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-control trial designed to test the hypothesis that the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy, using ezetimibe/simvastatin, will translate into increased clinical benefit on cardiovascular outcomes relative to simvastatin monotherapy in patients with ACS. STUDY DESIGN: The study will recruit up to 18,000 moderate- to high-risk patients stabilized after ACS. Patients are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to once-daily doses of either ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg or simvastatin monotherapy 40 mg. Follow-up visits are at 1 and 4 months, and every 4 months thereafter. If consecutive measures of LDL-C are >79 mg/dL at follow-up visits, the simvastatin dose will be increased to 80 mg in a double-blind manner. The primary end point is the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, rehospitalization for unstable angina, coronary revascularization (occurring at least 30 days after randomization), or stroke. Patients will be followed for a minimum of 2.5 years and until at least 5,250 patients experience a primary end point. SUMMARY: IMPROVE-IT will determine whether the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy, using ezetimibe/simvastatin, improves cardiovascular outcomes compared with simvastatin monotherapy in patients after ACS. In addition, the difference in achieved LDL-C levels between the groups will provide data on whether the target for LDL-C lowering should be reduced further.

Incidence of hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis with sugammadex.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of hypersensitivity and anaphylaxis after administration of sugammadex. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: Sugammadex clinical development program and post-marketing experience. PATIENTS: Surgical patients and healthy volunteers who received sugammadex or placebo/comparator with anesthesia and/or neuromuscular blockade (NMB). INTERVENTIONS: Sugammadex administered as 2.0 mg/kg at reappearance of the second twitch, 4.0 mg/kg at 1-2 post-tetanic count, or 16.0 mg/kg at 3 min after rocuronium 1.2 mg/kg. MEASUREMENTS: Three analytical methods were used: 1) automated MedDRA queries; 2) searches of adverse events (AEs) consistent with treatment-related hypersensitivity reactions as diagnosed by the investigator; and 3) a retrospective adjudication of AEs suggestive of hypersensitivity by a blinded, independent adjudication committee (AC). In addition, a search of all post-marketing reports of events of hypersensitivity was performed, and events were retrospectively adjudicated by an independent AC. Anaphylaxis was determined according to Sampson Criterion 1. MAIN RESULTS: The pooled dataset included 3519 unique subjects who received sugammadex and 544 who received placebo. The automated MedDRA query method showed no apparent increase in hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis with sugammadex as compared to placebo or neostigmine. Similarly, there was a low overall incidence of AEs of treatment-related hypersensitivity (<1%), with no differences between sugammadex and placebo or neostigmine. Finally, the retrospective adjudication of AEs suggestive of hypersensitivity showed a low incidence of hypersensitivity (0.56% and 0.21% for sugammadex 2 mg/kg and 4 mg/kg, respectively), with an incidence similar to subjects who received placebo (0.55%). There were no confirmed cases of anaphylaxis in the pooled studies. During post-marketing use, spontaneous reports of anaphylaxis occurred with approximately 0.01% of sugammadex doses. CONCLUSIONS: Subjects who received sugammadex with general anesthesia and/or NMB had a low overall incidence of hypersensitivity, with no apparent increase in hypersensitivity or anaphylaxis with sugammadex as compared to placebo or neostigmine.

Effects of Age, Sex, and Obesity on the Single-Dose Pharmacokinetics of Omarigliptin in Healthy Subjects.

Omarigliptin is being developed as a potent, once-weekly, oral dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study evaluated the effects of age, sex, and obesity on the pharmacokinetics of omarigliptin in healthy subjects. A single oral dose of omarigliptin 10 mg (n = 6/panel) or placebo (n = 2/panel) was administered in the fasted state to elderly nonobese men and women, young obese (30 ≤ body mass index [BMI] ≤ 35 kg/m(2) ) men and women, and young nonobese women of nonchildbearing potential. Plasma was collected at selected postdose times for evaluation of omarigliptin concentrations. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared with historical data from a previously-conducted single-dose study in young, healthy, nonobese men. There were no clinically significant differences in omarigliptin AUC0-∞ , the primary pharmacokinetic parameter for assessing efficacy and safety, based on age, sex, or BMI (pooled nonobese elderly versus pooled nonobese young, young nonobese female versus young nonobese male, and pooled young obese versus pooled young nonobese). There were no serious adverse events or hypoglycemic events attributable to omarigliptin administration. Demographic factors and BMI had no meaningful effect on omarigliptin pharmacokinetics, suggesting that dose adjustment based on age, sex, or obesity is not required.

Vorapaxar, an oral PAR-1 receptor antagonist, does not affect the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential effects of vorapaxar on the pharmacokinetics and safety of rosiglitazone. METHODS: This was an open-label, two-period, two-treatment, fixed-sequence study in 18 healthy subjects. On Day 1, Period 1, subjects received a single dose of rosiglitazone 8 mg. In Period 2, subjects received vorapaxar 40 mg on Day 1, vorapaxar 7.5 mg once-daily on Days 2-7, and a single dose of rosiglitazone 8 mg on Day 7. Rosiglitazone and N-desmethylrosiglitazone pharmacokinetics were assessed alone (Period 1) and after coadministration with vorapaxar (Period 2). Vorapaxar and its M20 metabolite pharmacokinetics were assessed on Day 7, Period 2. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Coadministration of rosiglitazone with vorapaxar had no effect on rosiglitazone or N-desmethylrosiglitazone pharmacokinetics. The ratio of geometric means (GMR) and 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the coadministration versus monotherapy for Cmax (GMR 95; 90% CI 88, 103) and AUC0-24 h (GMR 103; 90% CI 98, 108) were within the 80-125% bioequivalence criteria. The metabolite-to-parent exposure ratio with and without vorapaxar was unaltered. Coadministration of vorapaxar with rosiglitazone was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of vorapaxar with rosiglitazone or drugs metabolized via CYP2C8 is unlikely to cause a significant pharmacokinetic interaction.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Sitagliptin Compared with Glimepiride in Elderly Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Inadequate Glycemic Control: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Non-Inferiority Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of sitagliptin compared with glimepiride in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and inadequate glycemic control with diet and exercise alone. METHODS: This was a randomized, parallel-group, multinational, non-inferiority clinical trial with an active-controlled, double-blind treatment period in which patients ≥ 65 and ≤ 85 years of age with T2DM were screened at 85 sites. Patients were randomized to once-daily sitagliptin (100 or 50 mg, depending on renal function) or glimepiride (in titrated doses) for 30 weeks. The main outcome measures were change from baseline in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and body weight; and the incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia. RESULTS: The mean baseline HbA1c was 7.8% in both the sitagliptin group (n = 197) and the glimepiride group (n = 191). After 30 weeks, the least squares (LS) mean change in HbA1c baseline was -0.32% with sitagliptin and -0.51 % with glimepiride, for a between-group difference (95% CI) of 0.19% (0.03-0.34). This result met the pre-specified criterion for declaring non-inferiority, which required that the upper 95% confidence limit lie below 0.4%. The LS mean change in FPG from baseline was -14.5 mg/dL with sitagliptin and -21.2 mg/dL with glimepiride, for a between-group difference (95% CI) of 6.7 mg/dL (0.7-12.7). The percentages of patients with adverse events of symptomatic hypoglycemia were 0.8% in the sitagliptin group and 4.7% in the glimepiride group (between-treatment difference = -3.9%, p = 0.009). The LS mean change in body weight from baseline was 0.4 kg with sitagliptin and 1.1 kg with glimepiride, for a between-group difference of -0.7 kg (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: In elderly patients with T2DM and inadequate glycemic control with diet and exercise alone, sitagliptin provided non-inferior glycemic control after 30 weeks of treatment compared with glimepiride. Compared with glimepiride, sitagliptin had a lower risk of hypoglycemia. Sitagliptin was weight-neutral; while the between-group difference in change from baseline in body weight was statistically significant, the modest difference may not be clinically meaningful. STUDY IDENTIFIER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01189890.

Overtreatment and undertreatment with anticoagulation in relation to cardioversion of atrial fibrillation (the RHYTHM-AF study).

Antithrombotic therapy is central to the management of atrial fibrillation. This analysis from the RHYTHM-atrial fibrillation (RHYTHM-AF) registry explored the appropriateness of antithrombotic therapy in relation to stroke risk and atrial fibrillation duration in patients with atrial fibrillation. RHYTHM-AF, a prospective multinational registry, enrolled consecutive adult patients with atrial fibrillation considered for cardioversion. We compared the type of antithrombotic therapy administered at the time of cardioversion and at discharge with stroke risk ("high stroke risk" defined by CHA2DS2-VASc >1) and duration of atrial fibrillation (≤48 vs >48 hours or unknown duration). Of 2,972 patients who were cardioverted (34.5% through pharmacologic cardioversion [PCV] and 65.5% through electrical cardioversion [ECV]), 65% were at high risk of stroke and 30% presented with atrial fibrillation of >48-hour or unknown duration. At the time of PCV and ECV, 36% (n = 242) and 84% (n = 1,075) of high-risk patients, respectively, were taking vitamin K antagonists or heparin. At discharge, these rates increased to 62% (n = 414) and 93% (n = 1,191), respectively. Of all low-stroke risk patients with short-duration atrial fibrillation undergoing PCV (n = 260) and ECV (n = 111), 7% (n = 17) and 30% (n = 33), respectively, were taking vitamin K antagonists or heparin at the time of cardioversion. At discharge, these rates increased to 19% (n = 50) and 40% (n = 44), respectively. In conclusion, ECV was frequently performed under appropriate antithrombotic therapy for most high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation, whereas PCV was frequently performed without appropriate antithrombotic therapy. To enhance pericardioversion stroke prevention, cardioversion algorithms should focus less on the type of conversion and more on stroke risk factors and atrial fibrillation duration.

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.

Efficacy and safety of sitagliptin versus glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate-to-severe chronic renal insufficiency.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and chronic kidney disease have an increased risk of micro- and macrovascular disease, but limited options for antihyperglycemic therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of sitagliptin with glipizide in patients with T2DM and moderate-to-severe chronic renal insufficiency and inadequate glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients (n = 426) were randomized 1:1 to sitagliptin (50 mg every day [q.d.] for moderate renal insufficiency and 25 mg q.d. for severe renal insufficiency) or glipizide (2.5 mg q.d., adjusted based on glycemic control to a 10-mg twice a day maximum dose). Randomization was stratified by: 1) renal status (moderate or severe renal insufficiency); 2) history of cardiovascular disease; and 3) history of heart failure. RESULTS: At week 54, treatment with sitagliptin was noninferior to treatment with glipizide in A1C change from baseline (-0.8 vs. -0.6%; between-group difference -0.11%; 95% CI -0.29 to 0.06) because the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 0.4%. There was a lower incidence of symptomatic hypoglycemia adverse events (AEs) with sitagliptin versus glipizide (6.2 and 17.0%, respectively; P = 0.001) and a decrease in body weight with sitagliptin (-0.6 kg) versus an increase (1.2 kg) with glipizide (difference, -1.8 kg; P < 0.001). The incidence of gastrointestinal AEs was low with both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with T2DM and chronic renal insufficiency, sitagliptin and glipizide provided similar A1C-lowering efficacy. Sitagliptin was generally well-tolerated, with a lower risk of hypoglycemia and weight loss versus weight gain, relative to glipizide.

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.

Identification of genes affecting apolipoprotein B secretion following siRNA-mediated gene knockdown in primary human hepatocytes.

OBJECTIVE: Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) are useful in studying the complex pathways underlying diseases such as atherosclerosis; however, additional testing is often necessary to identify the disease causal genes linked to GWAS loci. We used siRNA-mediated gene knockdown in primary human hepatocytes (PHuH) to identify potential GWAS causal genes affecting the hepatic secretion of apolipoprotein B (ApoB), ApoA1, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidate causal genes within GWAS loci affecting human plasma levels of total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, and triglycerides were identified from the literature; 191 genes were selected from 74 loci. A functional siRNA screen was performed using PHuH. RESULTS: Four genes: poly (ADP-ribose) polymerases member 10, haptoglobin, fucosyltransferase 1, and lysophosphatidic acid receptor 2 were identified and confirmed. Knocking down these genes reduced cell-associated and secreted ApoB levels. CONCLUSION: Modification of these four genes may affect plasma lipids through modulation of ApoB secretion.

Effects of coadministered extended-release niacin/laropiprant and simvastatin on lipoprotein subclasses in patients with dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: The use of extended-release niacin and the prostaglandin D2 receptor antagonist laropiprant (ERN/LRPT) reduces niacin-induced flushing in patients while preserving its lipid-modifying effects. OBJECTIVE: This predefined exploratory analysis examined the individual and combined effects of ERN/LRPT and simvastatin (SIM) on lipoprotein subclasses. METHODS: This double-blind study randomized 1398 dyslipidemic patients equally to ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg, SIM (10, 20, or 40 mg), or ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIM (10, 20, or 40 mg) once daily for 4 weeks. At week 5, doses were doubled, except SIM 40 mg (unchanged) and ERN/LRPT 1 g/20 mg + SIM 40 mg (switched to ERN/LRPT 2 g/40 mg + SIM 40 mg). Cholesterol associated with lipoprotein subclasses was quantified by vertical auto profile II (VAP II). RESULTS: ERN/LRPT + SIM and SIM alone lowered LDL-C 1 and 3, whereas the effects were variable for ERN/LRPT; all three treatments increased LDL-C 4. ERN/LRPT + SIM and ERN/LRPT raised HDL-C 2 and 3, with greater relative percent changes in HDL 2 than HDL 3. ERN/LRPT + SIM for 12 weeks produced substantial reductions in IDL-C, which was additive compared with each monotherapy. CONCLUSION: Coadministered ERN/LRPT + SIM produced marked reductions in atherogenic lipoproteins, with the greatest effect on IDL-C, and increases in protective HDL subclasses.

A comparison of the natriuretic and kaliuretic effects of cicletanine and hydrochlorothiazide in prehypertensive and hypertensive humans.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the single-dose effects of thiazide-type diuretics cicletanine and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), on natriuresis and kaliuresis in prehypertensive and treatment-naïve, stage 1 hypertensive patients and to explore the impact of GRK4 gene polymorphisms on thiazide-induced urinary electrolyte excretion. METHODS: The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-period, four-treatment, balanced incomplete block, cross-over study in male patients assigned to treatment sequences consisting of placebo, cicletanine 50 mg, cicletanine 150 mg, and HCTZ 25 mg, doses used to treat hypertension. Cumulative urine samples were collected predosing and over 24 h after dosing in each period to compare urine electrolyte excretion profiles of potassium (UKV), sodium (UNaV), magnesium, calcium, phosphate, chloride, and pH among groups. Each treatment was administered to 18 different patients in each period, and an equal number of patients had less than and at least three GRK4 allele variants. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, mean UKV was significantly increased with HCTZ 25 mg (12.7 mmol/day; P ≤ 0.001), cicletanine 50 mg (4.6 mmol/day; P = 0.026), and cicletanine 150 mg (5.5 mmol/day; P = 0.011), and mean UNaV was significantly increased with HCTZ 25 mg (102.2 mmol/day; P ≤ 0.001), cicletanine 50 mg (21.7 mmol/day; P = 0.005), and cicletanine 150 mg (57.9 mmol/day; P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: All treatments had more natriuresis, diuresis, and kaliuresis than placebo, and both doses of cicletanine had less kaliuresis than HCTZ. These findings suggest that cicletanine is a favorable and well tolerated option for the treatment of hypertension with an improved safety profile compared with HCTZ.

Sitagliptin more effectively achieves a composite endpoint for A1C reduction, lack of hypoglycemia and no body weight gain compared with glipizide.

Sitagliptin and glipizide added to metformin provided similar degrees of glycemic efficacy in patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycemic control on metformin monotherapy at 1 year; however, significantly more patients in the sitagliptin group achieved an A1C reduction of >0.5% without hypoglycemia and without an increase in body weight.

Safety of extended-release niacin/laropiprant in patients with dyslipidemia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety profile of extended-release niacin/laropiprant (ERN/LRPT), pooling data from studies in the clinical development program. METHODS: Data were pooled from three active- or placebo-controlled phase 3 studies and three 1-year extensions of phase 2 studies that ranged from 12 to 52 weeks (N = 4747): ERN/LRPT = 2548; ERN or Niaspan® (ERN-NSP = 1268); or simvastatin or placebo (SIMVA-PBO = 931). RESULTS: The safety and tolerability profile for ERN/LRPT was similar to that of ERN-NSP, except for fewer flushing-related adverse experiences and discontinuations with ERN/LRPT than ERN-NSP. The incidence of consecutive ≥3× the upper limit of normal increases in alanine aminotransferase and/or aspartate aminotransferase was numerically (but not statistically) greater with ERN/LRPT (1.0%) than ERN-NSP (0.5%) and similar to SIMVA-PBO (0.9%). Elevations were reversible with therapy discontinuation and not associated with clinical hepatotoxicity. There was no evidence that ERN/LRPT administered alone or concurrently with a statin had adverse effects on muscle. ERN/LRPT and ERN-NSP produced small median increases in fasting blood glucose levels (∼4 mg/dL) after 24 weeks of treatment, consistent with known effects of niacin. CONCLUSION: The favorable safety and tolerability profile of ERN/LRPT for up to 1 year supports the use of LRPT to achieve improved therapeutic dosing of niacin, an agent with comprehensive lipid-modifying efficacy and shown to reduce cardiovascular risk.

Flushing profile of extended-release niacin/laropiprant versus gradually titrated niacin extended-release in patients with dyslipidemia with and without ischemic cardiovascular disease.

Niacin has beneficial effects on a patient's lipid and lipoprotein profiles and cardiovascular risk, particularly at doses >2 g/day, but is underused due to flushing. Laropiprant (LRPT), a selective prostaglandin D(2) receptor-1 antagonist, decreases flushing associated with extended-release niacin (ERN). We compared flushing with ERN/LRPT dosed by a simplified 1-g --> 2-g regimen versus gradually titrated niacin extended-release (N-ER; given as NIASPAN, trademark of Kos Life Sciences LLC). Patients with dyslipidemia (n = 1,455) were randomized 1:1 to ERN/LRPT (1 g for 4 weeks advanced to 2 g for 12 weeks) or N-ER (0.5 g for 4 weeks titrated in 0.5-g increments every 4 weeks to 2 g for the final 4 weeks). Aspirin/nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were allowed to mitigate flushing. Flushing severity was assessed using the validated Global Flushing Severity Score (GFSS; none 0, mild 1 to 3, moderate 4 to 6, severe 7 to 9, extreme 10). Patients on ERN/LRPT, despite more rapid niacin titration, had less flushing than those on N-ER, as measured by number of days per week with moderate or greater GFSS across the treatment period (p <0.001). More than 2 times as many patients had no episodes of moderate, severe, or extreme flushing (GFSS > or =4) with ERN/LRPT than with N-ER (47.0% vs 22.0%, respectively) across the treatment period. Fewer patients on ERN/LRPT discontinued due to flushing than those on N-ER (7.4% vs 12.4%, p = 0.002). Other than the decrease in flushing, the safety and tolerability profile of ERN/LRPT was similar to that of N-ER. In conclusion, improvement in flushing with ERN/LRPT versus gradually titrated N-ER supports a rapidly advanced 1-g --> 2-g dosing regimen, allowing patients to start at 1 g and quickly reach and tolerate the optimal 2 g dose of ERN.

Extended-release niacin/laropiprant: reducing niacin-induced flushing to better realize the benefit of niacin in improving cardiovascular risk factors.

Treatment with niacin effectively improves multiple lipid parameters and cardiovascular outcomes. Widespread use of niacin, however, is limited by flushing, which is mediated primarily by prostaglandin D2 (PGD2). Laropiprant is a selective PGD2 receptor 1 (DP1) antagonist that reduces objective measures of niacin-induced flushing symptoms upon initiation of therapy and with more chronic use. Results from early dosing and formulation studies have culminated in the development of a combination extended-release (ER) niacin/laropiprant tablet aimed at providing the beneficial lipid-modifying effects of niacin, while reducing niacin-induced flushing. The improvement in the tolerability of niacin with ER niacin/laropiprant allows niacin dosing to initiate directly at 1 g and rapidly advance to a 2-g target dose. ER niacin/laropiprant generally is tolerated well and represents a new treatment option for dyslipidemia that offers the potential for more patients to receive the lipid-modifying and cardiovascular benefits of niacin.