Immunogenicity of pembrolizumab in patients with advanced tumors.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab is a potent, humanized, monoclonal anti-programmed death 1 antibody that has demonstrated effective antitumor activity and acceptable safety in multiple tumor types. Therapeutic biologics can result in the development of antidrug antibodies (ADAs), which may alter drug clearance and neutralize target binding, potentially reducing drug efficacy; such immunogenicity may also result in infusion reactions, anaphylaxis, and immune complex disorders. Pembrolizumab immunogenicity and its impact on exposure, safety, and efficacy was assessed in this study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pembrolizumab immunogenicity was assessed in 3655 patients with advanced or metastatic cancer treated in 12 clinical studies. Patients with melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, colorectal cancer, urothelial cancer, and Hodgkin lymphoma were treated with pembrolizumab at 2 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, 10 mg/kg every 3 weeks, or 200 mg every 3 weeks. An additional study involving 496 patients with stage III melanoma treated with 200 mg adjuvant pembrolizumab every 3 weeks after complete resection was analyzed separately. RESULTS: Of 3655 patients, 2000 were evaluable for immunogenicity analysis, 36 (1.8%) were treatment-emergent (TE) ADA-positive; 9 (0.5%) of these TE-positive patients had antibodies with neutralizing capacity. The presence of pembrolizumab-specific ADAs did not impact pembrolizumab exposure, nor did pembrolizumab immunogenicity affect the incidence of drug-related adverse events (AEs) or infusion-related reactions. There was no clear relationship between the presence of pembrolizumab-specific ADAs and changes in tumor size across treatment regimens. Of the 496 patients treated with pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy, 495 were evaluable, 17 (3.4%) were TE ADA-positive; none had neutralizing antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of TE (neutralizing positive) ADAs against pembrolizumab was low in patients with advanced tumors. Furthermore, immunogenicity did not appear to have any clinically relevant effects on the exposure, safety, or efficacy of pembrolizumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01295827 (February 15, 2011), NCT01704287 (October 11, 2012), NCT01866319 (May 31, 2013), NCT01905657 (July 23, 2013), NCT02142738 (May 20, 2014), NCT01848834 (May 8, 2013), NCT02255097 (October 2, 2014), NCT02460198 (June 2, 2015), NCT01953692 (October 1, 2013), NCT02453594 (May 25, 2015), NCT02256436 (October 3, 2014), NCT02335424 (January 9, 2015), NCT02362594 (February 13, 2015).

Vorapaxar in the secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events.

BACKGROUND: Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS: We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS: At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.).

Intravenous desmoteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke selected by MRI perfusion-diffusion weighted imaging or perfusion CT (DIAS-2): a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that desmoteplase, a novel plasminogen activator, has clinical benefit when given 3-9 h after the onset of the symptoms of stroke in patients with presumptive tissue at risk that is identified by magnetic resonance perfusion imaging (PI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging study, patients with acute ischaemic stroke and tissue at risk seen on either MRI or CT imaging were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to 90 microg/kg desmoteplase, 125 microg/kg desmoteplase, or placebo within 3-9 h after the onset of symptoms of stroke. The primary endpoint was clinical response rates at day 90, defined as a composite of improvement in National Institutes of Health stroke scale (NIHSS) score of 8 points or more or an NIHSS score of 1 point or less, a modified Rankin scale score of 0-2 points, and a Barthel index of 75-100. Secondary endpoints included change in lesion volume between baseline and day 30, rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality rates. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00111852. FINDINGS: Between June, 2005, and March, 2007, 193 patients were randomised, and 186 patients received treatment: 57 received 90 microg/kg desmoteplase; 66 received 125 microg/kg desmoteplase; and 63 received placebo. 158 patients completed the study. The median baseline NIHSS score was 9 (IQR 6-14) points, and 30% (53 of 179) of the patients had a visible occlusion of a vessel at presentation. The core lesion and the mismatch volumes were small (median volumes were 10.6 cm(3) and 52.5 cm(3), respectively). The clinical response rates at day 90 were 47% (27 of 57) for 90 microg/kg desmoteplase, 36% (24 of 66) for 125 microg/kg desmoteplase, and 46% (29 of 63) for placebo. The median changes in lesion volume were: 90 microg/kg desmoteplase 14.0% (0.5 cm(3)); 125 microg/kg desmoteplase 10.8% (0.3 cm(3)); placebo -10.0% (-0.9 cm(3)). The rates of symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage were 3.5% (2 of 57) for 90 microg/kg desmoteplase, 4.5% (3 of 66) for 125 microg/kg desmoteplase, and 0% for placebo. The overall mortality rate was 11% (5% [3 of 57] for 90 microg/kg desmoteplase; 21% [14 of 66] for 125 microg/kg desmoteplase; and 6% [4 of 63] for placebo). INTERPRETATION: The DIAS-2 study did not show a benefit of desmoteplase given 3-9 h after the onset of stroke. The high response rate in the placebo group could be explained by the mild strokes recorded (low baseline NIHSS scores, small core lesions, and small mismatch volumes that were associated with no vessel occlusions), which possibly reduced the potential to detect any effect of desmoteplase. FUNDING: PAION Deutschland GmbH; Forest Laboratories.

Efficacy and safety of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide compared with benazepril and amlodipine besylate.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with stage 2 hypertension require two or more antihypertensive agents in order to achieve the BP goals recommended in current treatment guidelines. Accordingly, combinations of two drugs with different mechanisms of antihypertensive action are widely used. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, double-blind, multicenter 12-week study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of a combination of olmesartan medoxomil/hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with that of benazepril plus amlodipine besylate in patients with stage 2 hypertension. METHODS: Patients were eligible for randomization following a 3- to 4-week placebo run-in period if they had either (i) mean seated DBP>or=90 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg and mean seated SBP>or=160 mm Hg but <200 mm Hg, or (ii) mean seated DBP>or=100 mm Hg but<115 mm Hg. The difference in mean seated SBP measured on two separate visits during the run-in period was required to beor=95 mm Hg and<115 mm Hg or SBP>145 mm Hg and

Effects of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin on C-reactive protein in a large cohort of hypercholesterolemic patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the effect of coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin on high sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in a large subject cohort (N=1089). METHODS: Data were combined from two nearly identical prospective trials. After dietary stabilization, washout period, and placebo lead-in period, patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or =3.75-6.50 mmol/l and triglycerides (TG) < or =4.0 mmol/l were randomized to one of the following daily treatments for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; simvastatin monotherapy (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); ezetimibe 10mg plus simvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); or placebo. The primary analysis was the percent change in hs-CRP for the pooled ezetimibe plus simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy cohorts. RESULTS: Ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin more than doubled the hs-CRP reduction compared to simvastatin monotherapy (-33.3% versus -14.3%, p<0.01). At each individual simvastatin dose level, coadministration therapy exerted significant further incremental hs-CRP reductions compared to simvastatin monotherapy. Similar hs-CRP reductions with coadministered ezetimibe and simvastatin were observed in the major subgroups examined (coronary heart disease, gender, age, baseline LDL-C, and body mass index). CONCLUSION: In this large subject cohort, ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin significantly reduced hs-CRP, suggesting a possible additional anti-inflammatory/anti-atherosclerotic action of combination therapy compared to simvastatin monotherapy.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of ezetimibe coadministration in statin-treated patients not at cholesterol goal: application to Germany, Spain and Norway.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing use of statins, many hypercholesterolaemic patients fail to reach their lipid goal and remain at elevated risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Alternative treatment strategies, such as ezetimibe coadministration and statin titration, can help patients achieve greater lipid control, and thereby lower their CHD risk. But is it cost effective to more aggressively lower cholesterol levels across a broad range of current statin users? METHODS: Using a decision-analytic model based on epidemiological and clinical trials data, we project the lifetime benefit and cost of alternative lipid-lowering treatment strategies for CHD and non-CHD diabetic patients in Germany, Spain and Norway. RESULTS: It is projected that from 40% to 76% of these patients who have failed to reach their lipid goal with their current statin treatment will be able to reach their goal with ezetimibe coadministration; this represents a gain of up to an additional absolute 14% who will be able to reach their goal compared with a 'titrate to goal' strategy where patients are titrated in order to reach their lipid goal (up to the maximum approved dose). For CHD patients, the estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ezetimibe coadministration is under Euro 18 000 per life-year gained (Euro/LYG) and 26 000 Euro/LYG compared with strategies based on the observed titration rates and the aggressive 'titrate to goal' strategy, respectively; for non-CHD diabetic patients, these ratios are under 26 000 Euro/LYG and 48 000 Euro/LYG for ezetimibe coadministration compared with the two titration strategies. CONCLUSION: Compared with statin titration, ezetimibe coadministration is projected to be cost effective in the populations and countries studied.

Consistency in efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with statins for treatment of hypercholesterolemia in women and men.

BACKGROUND: Women are often not treated as aggressively as men to control levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), despite evidence that women and men realize comparable cardiovascular benefit from lipid-lowering therapy. Statins are the most effective drugs currently available for treating hypercholesterolemia. Despite the impressive cholesterol-lowering capacity of statins, however, many patients on statin therapy fail to reach established target levels of LDL-C. The cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, blocks the intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol, a mechanism of action complementary to that of statins, which inhibit hepatic cholesterol synthesis. Ezetimibe coadministered with statins produces significant incremental reductions in LDL-C compared with statin monotherapy. METHODS: Four randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, balanced-parallel group trials compared the efficacy and safety of statin monotherapy (lovastatin or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; simvastatin or atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg) vs. ezetimibe 10 mg plus statin (as above). A gender subset analysis (women, n = 1065; men, n = 796) on data pooled across these four trials was carried out to determine whether ezetimibe plus statin for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia is equally efficacious in women and men. RESULTS: Compared with statin monotherapy, ezetimibe plus statin demonstrated greater efficacy in reducing blood levels of LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, and triglycerides and raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. The beneficial effects of ezetimibe were comparable in women and men. The safety profile of subjects receiving ezetimibe plus statin was similar to that of patients receiving statin monotherapy and similar between the two sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe plus statin was more effective than statin alone in improving the lipid profile of patients with hypercholesterolemia and was equally efficacious in women and men. Ezetimibe plus statin was well tolerated and had a favorable safety profile in both patient subgroups. Ezetimibe coadministered with statins, a dual inhibition treatment strategy that targets both cholesterol absorption and synthesis, is an effective therapeutic option for women with hypercholesterolemia.

Efficacy and safety of coadministration of ezetimibe and statins in elderly patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of statin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor) monotherapy versus ezetimibe 10mg plus statin in older and younger adults with primary hypercholesterolaemia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, balanced parallel-group trials were pooled for analysis. After washout and placebo run-in period, men and women >/=18 years of age (n = 1861) with primary hypercholesterolaemia (plasma low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [LDL-C] level from >/=3.76 to /=65 years; age <75 versus >/=75 years. RESULTS: Across age groupings, coadministration of ezetimibe and statin produced significant incremental reductions in LDL-C compared with statin monotherapy. The beneficial effects of ezetimibe plus statin on LDL-C, triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) were overall independent of age groupings. Ezetimibe plus statin therapy was generally well tolerated, with similar incidence of adverse events, serious adverse events and changes in liver function and muscle enzymes in the given age groups compared with statin therapy alone. CONCLUSION: The beneficial effects of ezetimibe coadministered with statins on LDL-C, triglycerides and HDL-C were similar between older and younger hypercholesterolaemic patients, with a favourable safety profile across all patient age groups.

Effect of coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein.

This study assessed the effect of ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After dietary stabilization, a 2- to 12-week washout period, and a 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol > or =145 and < or =250 mg/dl and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dl were randomized to one of these daily treatments for 12 consecutive weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; simvastatin monotherapy (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg); or placebo. The primary analysis was the change in hs-CRP for the pooled ezetimibe plus simvastatin versus simvastatin monotherapy groups. Ezetimibe plus simvastatin significantly reduced median hs-CRP levels compared with simvastatin monotherapy (-34.8% vs -18.2%, p<0.01), and incremental reductions were observed at each simvastatin dose level. Combination therapy-induced significant changes in individual lipid parameters did not explain the observed decreases in hs-CRP. Thus, ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin resulted in significant incremental decreases in hs-CRP, possibly consistent with an additional anti-inflammatory effect compared with simvastatin monotherapy.

Ezetimibe: a first-in-class, novel cholesterol absorption inhibitor.

Significant numbers of patients at risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) fail to reach National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)-designated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals in spite of the wide range of currently available treatments, including combination therapies. Ezetimibe, the first in a class of novel cholesterol absorption inhibitors, demonstrated lipid-lowering and antiatherosclerotic activity in experimental and clinical hypercholesterolemia. Studies in hypercholesterolemic dogs showed that ezetimibe coadministered with statins caused greater lipid-lowering effects compared to either drug alone. These effects were confirmed in clinical studies of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia where initiation of treatment with ezetimibe plus a statin, or addition of ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy, produced significant incremental reductions in LDL-C, as well as incremental increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and reductions in triglyceride levels. Combination therapy also significantly increased the number of patients attaining LDL-C goal at the end of treatment, compared to statin monotherapy. In studies using simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and lovastatin, addition of ezetimibe to low dose statin was as effective as a 2- to 3-fold upward titration of the corresponding statin dose. Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy provided similar improvements in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia, as well as with heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Ezetimibe monotherapy effectively reduced plasma campesterol and sitosterol in patients with homozygous sitosterolemia. Clinical studies showed that ezetimibe was well tolerated, with a safety profile comparable to placebo when administered as monotherapy and comparable to statin alone when coadministered with a statin. These data provide strong evidence that, through their complementary lipid-lowering mechanisms, ezetimibe coadministered with a statin offers an effective combination treatment option for patients with hypercholesterolemia, including those with genetically inherited disease.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg administered with pravastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: After dietary stabilization, 2-12 week screening/washout period, and 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, 538 patients with baseline LDL-C > or =3.8 to < or =6.5 mmol/l and TG < or =4.0 mmol/l were randomized to one of eight possible treatments administered daily for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10mg; pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was percent reduction in LDL-C from baseline to study endpoint for ezetimibe 10 mg plus pravastatin (pooled doses) compared to pravastatin alone (pooled doses) and ezetimibe alone. The combined use of ezetimibe and pravastatin resulted in significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG compared to pooled pravastatin alone (p<0.01). Coadministration therapy reduced LDL-C by 34-41%, TG by 21-23%, and increased HDL-C by 7.8-8.4%, depending on the dose of pravastatin. The combined regimen was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to pravastatin alone and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: When coadministered with pravastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG and was well tolerated with a safety profile similar to pravastatin alone.

Effect of ezetimibe coadministered with atorvastatin in 628 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the established efficacy of statins, many patients do not achieve recommended LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. Contributing factors may be inadequate dosing, increased risk for adverse effects with high-dose monotherapy, and increased potential for intolerance and adverse effects with combinations of available agents. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a double-blind study, 628 patients with baseline LDL-C 145 to 250 mg/dL and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dL were randomly assigned to receive 1 of the following for 12 weeks: ezetimibe (10 mg/d); atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/d); ezetimibe (10 mg) plus atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg/d); or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was percentage reduction in LDL-C for pooled ezetimibe plus atorvastatin versus pooled atorvastatin treatment groups. Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin significantly improved LDL-C, HDL cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, total cholesterol:HDL-C, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) compared with atorvastatin alone (P<0.01). Coadministration of ezetimibe provided a significant additional 12% LDL-C reduction, 3% HDL-C increase, 8% triglyceride reduction, and 10% hs-CRP reduction versus atorvastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin provided LDL-C reductions of 50% to 60%, triglyceride reductions of 30% to 40%, and HDL-C increases of 5% to 9%, depending on atorvastatin dose. LDL-C reductions with ezetimibe plus 10 mg atorvastatin (50%) and 80 mg atorvastatin alone (51%) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe plus atorvastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to atorvastatin alone and to placebo. When coadministered with atorvastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and triglycerides and increases in HDL-C. Coadministration of ezetimibe and atorvastatin offers a well-tolerated and highly efficacious new treatment option for patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe coadministered with lovastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia.

This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study assessed the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe administered with lovastatin in primary hypercholesterolemia. After dietary stabilization, a 2- to 12-week washout period, and a 4-week single-blind placebo lead-in period, 548 patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or =145 mg/dl (3.75 mmol/L) and < or =250 mg/dl (6.47 mmol/L) and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dl (3.99 mmol/L) were randomized to one of the following, administered daily for 12 weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was percentage decrease in direct LDL cholesterol from baseline to end point for pooled ezetimibe plus lovastatin versus pooled lovastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus lovastatin significantly improved concentrations of LDL cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and triglycerides compared with lovastatin alone (p <0.01). The coadministration of ezetimibe provided an incremental 14% LDL cholesterol decrease, a 5% HDL cholesterol increase, and a 10% decrease in triglycerides compared with pooled lovastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus lovastatin provided mean LDL cholesterol decreases of 33% to 45%, median triglyceride decreases of 19% to 27%, and mean HDL cholesterol increases of 8% to 9%, depending on the statin dose. The coadministration of ezetimibe 10 mg plus the starting dose of lovastatin (10 mg) provided comparable efficacy to high-dose lovastatin (40 mg) across the lipid profile (LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides). Ezetimibe plus lovastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to both lovastatin alone and placebo. The coadministration of ezetimibe and lovastatin may offer a new treatment option in lipid management of patients with hypercholesterolemia.

Ezetimibe coadministered with simvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe administered with simvastatin in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. BACKGROUND: Despite the availability of statins, many patients do not achieve lipid targets. Combination therapy with lipid-lowering agents that act via a complementary pathway may allow additional patients to achieve recommended cholesterol goals. METHODS: After dietary stabilization, a 2- to 12-week washout period, and a 4-week, single-blind, placebo lead-in period, patients with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or =145 mg/dl to < or =250 mg/dl and triglycerides (TG) < or =350 mg/dl were randomized to one of the following 10 groups administered daily for 12 consecutive weeks: ezetimibe 10 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or placebo. The primary efficacy variable was percentage reduction from baseline to end point in direct LDL-C for the pooled ezetimibe plus simvastatin groups versus pooled simvastatin groups. RESULTS: Ezetimibe plus simvastatin significantly improved LDL-C (p < 0.01), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (p = 0.03), and TG (p < 0.01) compared with simvastatin alone. Ezetimibe plus simvastatin (pooled doses) provided an incremental 13.8% LDL-C reduction, 2.4% HDL-C increase, and 7.5% TG reduction compared with pooled simvastatin alone. Coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin provided LDL-C reductions of 44% to 57%, TG reductions of 20% to 28%, and HDL-C increases of 8% to 11%, depending on the simvastatin dose. Ezetimibe 10 mg plus simvastatin 10 mg and simvastatin 80 mg alone each provided a 44% LDL-C reduction. The coadministration of ezetimibe with simvastatin was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to those of simvastatin and of placebo. CONCLUSIONS: When coadministered with simvastatin, ezetimibe provided significant incremental reductions in LDL-C and TG, as well as increases in HDL-C. Coadministration of ezetimibe with simvastatin was well tolerated and comparable to statin alone.

Efficacy and safety of a potent new selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

The efficacy and safety of ezetimibe, a new cholesterol absorption inhibitor, was evaluated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 892 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. After > or =2 weeks on the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step I or a stricter diet and a 4- to 8-week single-blind placebo lead-in, patients with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol 130 to 250 mg/dl and triglycerides < or =350 mg/dl were randomized 3:1 to receive ezetimibe 10 mg or placebo orally each morning for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was the percent reduction in direct plasma LDL cholesterol from baseline to end point. A total of 434 men and 458 women (ages 18 to 85 years) received randomized treatment (666 ezetimibe 10 mg, 226 placebo). Demographics and baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups. Ezetimibe significantly reduced direct LDL cholesterol by a mean of 16.9%, compared with an increase of 0.4% with placebo (p <0.01). Subgroup analysis indicated that response to ezetimibe was generally consistent across all subgroups, regardless of risk-factor status, gender, age, race, or baseline lipid profile. Ezetimibe effects on LDL cholesterol occurred early (2 weeks) and persisted throughout the 12-week treatment period. Compared with placebo, ezetimibe 10 mg also significantly improved calculated LDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and HDL(3) cholesterol (p <0.01). Ezetimibe was well tolerated. There were no differences in laboratory or clinical safety parameters, or gastrointestinal, liver, or muscle side effects from that of placebo. Ezetimibe 10 mg/day is well tolerated, reduces LDL cholesterol approximately 17%, and improves other key lipid parameters.