A Phase I, Open-Label, Single-Dose Safety, Pharmacokinetic, and Tolerability Study of the Sumatriptan Iontophoretic Transdermal System in Adolescent Migraine Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan delivered by the iontophoretic transdermal system (TDS) in adolescent patients. BACKGROUND: Since nausea can be a prominent and early symptom of migraine, nonoral treatment options are often required. Sumatriptan iontophoretic TDS is approved for the acute treatment of migraine in adults. The present study evaluates the pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan administered via the iontophoretic TDS in adolescents, contrasting the findings with historical data from adults. DESIGN: Patients aged 12-17 years (inclusive) with acute migraine were treated with sumatriptan iontophoretic TDS for 4 hours. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic profiling of sumatriptan were obtained prior to dosing and at predetermined time points covering the 12 hours postonset of treatment. Key pharmacokinetic endpoints included Cmax (peak plasma drug concentration), tmax (time to Cmax ), AUC0-∞ (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity), and t½ (terminal elimination half-life). Safety was evaluated by monitoring of adverse events in addition to laboratory and clinical assessments. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 37 patients, and 36 were included in the PK evaluable population. Cmax , tmax , AUC0-∞ , and t½ values were all similar between male and female patients and between younger (12-14 years) and older (15-17 years) adolescents. When compared with historical adult data, adolescent patients demonstrated similar systemic exposures to those observed in adults (mean Cmax 20.20 (±6.43) ng/mL in adolescents vs 21.89 (±6.15) ng/mL in adults; mean AUC0-∞ 98.1 (±28.1) ng·h/mL in adolescents vs 109.7 (±26.1) ng·h/mL in adults). All adverse events were mild or moderate, with application-site paresthesia being the most common (32%). No clinically relevant changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or electrocardiogram findings were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The iontophoretic TDS produced mean systemic exposures to sumatriptan in younger and older adolescents, in line with what was seen in adult subjects. It was generally well tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin compared with pravastatin and simvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, double-blind, 52-week trial.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy of rosuvastatin with that of pravastatin and simvastatin for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial, lipid levels were measured in 477 patients (baseline LDL-C > or =160 and <250 mg/dL) who received fixed doses of 5 mg of rosuvastatin, 10 mg of rosuvastatin, 20 mg of pravastatin, or 20 mg of simvastatin for 12 weeks. For an additional 40 weeks, individual daily doses were sequentially doubled to a maximum of 80 mg of rosuvastatin, 40 mg of pravastatin, and 80 mg of simvastatin, according to investigator discretion and if National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II (ATP II) LDL-C goals were not achieved. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, percent LDL-C reductions after both 5-mg and 10-mg rosuvastatin treatment, which were 39.1% and 47.4%, respectively, were significantly different (P <.05) from LDL-C reductions after 20-mg pravastatin (26.5%) and 20-mg simvastatin (34.6%) treatment. After 52 weeks, more rosuvastatin-treated patients remained at their starting dose than did simvastatin or pravastatin patients. After dose titration, 88% and 87.5% of the rosuvastatin 5-mg and 10-mg groups, respectively, achieved their ATP II LDL-C goals, compared with 60% for pravastatin and 72.5% for simvastatin. All study treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin reduced LDL-C levels more than pravastatin or simvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia in a 52-week dose-titration study.

Efficacy of rosuvastatin compared with other statins at selected starting doses in hypercholesterolemic patients and in special population groups.

A total of 5 randomized, double-blind trials in patients with hypercholesterolemia were prospectively designed to allow pooling of plasma lipid data after 12 weeks of treatment. The purpose was (1) to compare rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg with atorvastatin 10 mg (data from 3 of the 5 trials); (2) to compare rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg with simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 20 mg (data from 2 of the 5 trials); and (3) to summarize overall efficacy and subset analyses of rosuvastatin data from all 5 trials. Rosuvastatin 5 mg (n = 390) and 10 mg (n = 389) reduced low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol significantly more than did atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) (41.9% and 46.7% vs 36.4%, both p <0.001). Treatment with rosuvastatin 5 mg (n = 240) and 10 mg (n = 226) also resulted in significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol compared with both simvastatin 20 mg (n = 249) and pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) (40.6% and 48.1% vs 27.1% and 35.7%, all p <0.001). Significant differences favoring rosuvastatin 10 mg were also observed for total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein (apo) B, and apo A-I versus atorvastatin 10 mg, and for total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, and apo B versus simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 20 mg. Analyses of all the rosuvastatin 10 mg data (n = 615) from the 5 trials in subgroups defined by age > or =65 years, female sex, postmenopausal status, hypertension, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, and obesity showed that rosuvastatin had consistent efficacy across patient subgroups.

Comparison of effects on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol with rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with type IIa or IIb hypercholesterolemia.

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 52 centers in North America to compare the effects of the new, highly effective statin, rosuvastatin, with atorvastatin and placebo in hypercholesterolemic patients. After a 6-week dietary run-in, 516 patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or =4.14 mmol/L (160 mg/dl) and < 6.47 mmol/L (250 mg/dl) and triglycerides < or =4.52 mmol/L (400 mg/dl) were randomized to 12 weeks of once-daily placebo (n = 132), rosuvastatin 5 mg (n = 128), rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 129), or atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 127). The primary efficacy end point was percent change in LDL cholesterol. Secondary efficacy variables were achievement of National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel II (ATP II), ATP III, and European Atherosclerosis Society LDL cholesterol goals and percent change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and apolipoprotein A-I. Rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 10 mg were associated with greater LDL cholesterol reductions (-40% and -43% vs 35%; p <0.01 and p <0.001, respectively) and HDL cholesterol increases (13% and 12% vs 8%, p <0.01 and p <0.05, respectively). Total cholesterol and apolipoprotein B reductions and apolipoprotein A-I increases were also greater with rosuvastatin; triglyceride reductions were similar. Rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg were associated with improved achievement in ATP II (84% in both rosuvastatin groups vs 73%) and ATP III (84% and 82% vs 72%) LDL cholesterol goals, and rosuvastatin 10 mg was more effective than atorvastatin in achieving European Atherosclerosis Society LDL cholesterol goals. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Beneficial effects of rosuvastatin alone and in combination with extended-release niacin in patients with a combined hyperlipidemia and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

Patients with combined hyperlipidemia and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels may benefit from combination therapy with a statin and niacin; therefore, we assessed the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin and extended-release (ER) niacin alone and in combination in 270 patients with this atherogenic dyslipidemia. Men and women > or =18 years with fasting total cholesterol levels > or =200 mg/dl, triglycerides 200 to 800 mg/dl, apolipoprotein B > or cf=110 mg/dl, and HDL cholesterol <45 mg/dl were randomized to 1 of 4 treatments in this 24-week, open-label, multicenter trial: rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg; ER niacin 0.5 to 2 g; rosuvastatin 40 mg/ER niacin 0.5 to 1 g; or rosuvastatin 10 mg/ER niacin 0.5 to 2 g. Percent changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and other lipid measurements at week 24 were determined by analysis of variance, with statistical testing performed separately between the rosuvastatin monotherapy group and each remaining treatment group. Daily doses of rosuvastatin 40 mg reduced LDL and non-HDL cholesterol significantly more than either ER niacin 2 g or rosuvastatin 10 mg/ER niacin 2 g (-48% vs -0.1% and -36% for LDL cholesterol and -49% vs -11% and -38% for non-HDL cholesterol, respectively; p <0.01 for all comparisons); no additional reduction in LDL or non-HDL cholesterol was observed with the combination of rosuvastatin 40 mg/ER niacin 1.0 g (-42% and -47%; p = NS). Triglyceride reductions ranged from -21% (ER niacin monotherapy) to -39% (rosuvastatin 40 mg/ER niacin 1 g), but no observed differences were statistically significant. Compared with rosuvastatin alone, rosuvastatin 10 mg/ER niacin 2 g produced significantly greater increases in HDL cholesterol (11% vs 24%, p <0.001) and apolipoprotein A-I (5% vs 11%, p <0.017). Similar increases in HDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein A-I were noted between the monotherapy groups. Over 24 weeks, rosuvastatin alone was better tolerated than either ER niacin alone or the combinations of rosuvastatin and ER niacin.

Comparative effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin across their dose ranges in patients with hypercholesterolemia and without active arterial disease.

The lipid-lowering effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin were determined across their dose ranges in a 6-week, randomized, double-blind trial. Three hundred seventy-four hypercholesterolemic patients with fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or =160 but <250 mg/dl (> or =4.14 but <6.47 mmol/L) and fasting triglycerides <400 mg/dl (<4.52 mmol/L) and without active arterial disease within 3 months of entry received once-daily rosuvastatin (5, 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg [n = 209]) or atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg [n = 165]). The percentage decrease in plasma LDL cholesterol versus dose was log-linear for each drug, ranging from -46.6% to -61.9% for rosuvastatin 10 and 80 mg, compared with -38.2% to -53.5% for atorvastatin 10 and 80 mg. The dose curve for rosuvastatin yielded an 8.4% greater decrease in LDL cholesterol compared with atorvastatin at any given dose (p <0.001). Similarly greater decreases were observed for rosuvastatin across the dose range in total cholesterol (-4.9%), non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol (-7.0%), apolipoprotein B (-6.3%), and related ratios versus atorvastatin (all p <0.001). Because dose responses for HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein A-I were non-log-linear and nonparallel between the 2 drugs, percentage changes from baseline were compared at each dose. Significantly greater increases for rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin were observed for HDL cholesterol at 40 and 80 mg, and for apolipoprotein A-I at 80 mg. Significantly greater triglyceride decreases were seen at 80 mg with atorvastatin over rosuvastatin. Both rosuvastatin and atorvastatin were well tolerated over 6 weeks.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin alone and in combination with cholestyramine in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe hypercholesterolemia may need greater cholesterol reductions than can be achieved with statin therapy alone. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy of a combination of rosuvastatin plus cholestyramine with that of rosuvastatin alone for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels after 6 weeks of treatment. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, comparator trial, adult patients with severe hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C level, 190-400 mg/dL) received rosuvastatin 40 mg/d for 6 weeks after a 6-week dietary lead-in period and were then randomized to 6 weeks of treatment with rosuvastatin 80 mg/d alone or rosuvastatin 80 mg/d plus cholestyramine 16 g/d (8 g BID with meals). RESULTS: Of 153 eligible patients, 147 (83 men, 64 women; mean [SD] age, 54.5 [13.7] years; mean [SD] bodyweight, 81.3 [14.4] kg) received randomized treatment, and 144 had post baseline measurements and were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) reduction in LDL-C was 522% (13.0%) after treatment with rosuvastatin 40 mg, and the least squares mean (SE) reductions in LDL-C were 56.4% (1.8%) and 60.5% (1.8%) after treatment with rosuvastatin 80 mg alone (n = 69) and rosuvastatin 80 mg plus cholestyramine (n = 75), respectively. No significant differences between treatments were found for these or other lipid measurements. Incremental LDL-C reductions >30% were obtained in 29% (22/75) of patients receiving combination therapy and 4% (3/69) of patients receiving rosuvastatin alone. The combination therapy was less well tolerated, primarily due to gastrointestinal symptoms; otherwise, the treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In this group of patients with severe hypercholesterolemia, the combination of rosuvastatin 80 mg with cholestyramine 16 g/d did not provide a significantly greater efficacy benefit than rosuvastatin alone.

Rosuvastatin improves the atherogenic and atheroprotective lipid profiles in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.

BACKGROUND: We examined the effects of rosuvastatin treatment on triglyceride levels and lipid measures in a parallel-group multicenter trial (4522IL/0035) in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (Fredrickson Type IIb or IV). METHODS: After a 6-week dietary lead-in period while on a National Cholesterol Education Program step I diet, 156 patients with fasting triglyceride levels >/= 300 and < 800 mg/dl were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blinded treatment: once-daily rosuvastatin of 5, 10, 20, 40 or 80 mg or placebo. The primary end point was mean percentage change from baseline in total serum triglyceride levels at week 6 as determined by analysis of variance. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin at all doses produced significant mean reductions in triglycerides compared with placebo (-18 to -40 compared with +2.9%, P 5 mg. The occurrence of adverse events was generally low and not dose related, although some adverse events occurred more frequently in the rosuvastatin 80 mg group. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin reduced triglyceride levels and improved the overall atherogenic and atheroprotective lipid profiles in hypertriglyceridemic patients.