A case study using the PrOACT-URL and BRAT frameworks for structured benefit risk assessment.

While benefit-risk assessment is a key component of the drug development and maintenance process, it is often described in a narrative. In contrast, structured benefit-risk assessment builds on established ideas from decision analysis and comprises a qualitative framework and quantitative methodology. We compare two such frameworks, applying multi-criteria decision-analysis (MCDA) within the PrOACT-URL framework and weighted net clinical benefit (wNCB), within the BRAT framework. These are applied to a case study of natalizumab for the treatment of relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. We focus on the practical considerations of applying these methods and give recommendations for visual presentation of results. In the case study, we found structured benefit-risk analysis to be a useful tool for structuring, quantifying, and communicating the relative benefit and safety profiles of drugs in a transparent, rational and consistent way. The two frameworks were similar. MCDA is a generic and flexible methodology that can be used to perform a structured benefit-risk in any common context. wNCB is a special case of MCDA and is shown to be equivalent to an extension of the number needed to treat (NNT) principle. It is simpler to apply and understand than MCDA and can be applied when all outcomes are measured on a binary scale.

Using controlled clinical trials to learn more about acute drug-induced liver injury.

Drug-induced liver injury (DILI) is of major interest to hepatologists and clinicians in general, patients, government regulators, and the pharmaceutical industry. Understanding why this form of injury occurs only in certain individuals has major implications for the development and availability of drug therapies and in the prevention of these events. A single controlled clinical trial may be unlikely to show cases of such rare events, but in the aggregate, clinical trials offer a unique resource for learning more about individual susceptibility and developing truly predictive new biomarkers for DILI. We pose the question as to whether clinical trials could be modified or improved to provide data that would better answer some of the outstanding issues. At a recent (March 2008) public meeting, experts from academia, industry, and regulatory bodies discussed several major issues regarding liver safety in clinical trials including: what signals of liver injury should justify stopping administration of study drug or allowing it to continue; if deliberate rechallenge should be done and under what circumstances; whether patients with liver disease should be included in clinical trials; and what kinds of new biomarkers will be needed to answer these questions more clearly. Past clinical trials have not provided data to settle those issues, and reliance has defaulted to consensus of expert opinions. Modified and better clinical trials with standardized collection of data and biospecimens are probably the best source of new and potentially valuable information to supplant current rules based on consensus of expert opinions and to understand by what mechanisms and how to distinguish those individuals who are susceptible to severe DILI.

Safety of rosuvastatin.

The safety and tolerability of rosuvastatin were assessed (as of August 2003) using data from 12,400 patients who received 5 to 40 mg of rosuvastatin in a multinational phase II/III program, which represented 12,212 patient-years of continuous exposure to rosuvastatin. An integrated database was used to examine adverse events and laboratory data. In placebo-controlled trials, adverse events, irrespective of causality assessment, occurred in 57.4% of patients who received 5 to 40 mg of rosuvastatin (n = 744) and 56.8% of patients who received placebo (n = 382). In fixed-dose trials with comparator statins, 5 to 40 mg of rosuvastatin showed an adverse event profile similar to those for 10 to 80 mg of atorvastatin, 10 to 80 mg of simvastatin, and 10 to 40 mg of pravastatin. Clinically significant elevations in alanine aminotransferase (>3 times the upper limit of normal) and creatine kinase (>10 times the upper limit of normal) were uncommon (10 times the upper limit of normal with muscle symptoms) that was possibly related to treatment occurred in

Rosuvastatin-induced arrest in progression of renal disease.

Preclinical and limited clinical data suggest that statins decrease the progressive decline in renal function that occurs in patients with renal disease. Pooled analysis of data obtained from a population of hyperlipidemic patients enrolled in the rosuvastatin (Crestor) clinical development program permitted assessment of its effects on renal function both early and later in the course of treatment. Study participants were initially included in controlled clinical trials that evaluated the lipid-lowering efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin when compared with placebo or other lipid-lowering agents (i.e., atorvastatin, simvastatin, pravastatin, cholestyramine, fenofibrate or extended-release niacin). The median duration of treatment with the various doses of statins in these trials was approximately 8 weeks. Following completion of a controlled clinical trial, patients were permitted to enter an open-label extension trial and received rosuvastatin treatment. These data permitted assessment of renal function in a diverse group of over 10,000 patients who received rosuvastatin in its recommended dose range (5-40 mg) for up to 3.8 years. Mean serum creatinine concentrations were lower when compared with baseline both early and later in the course of rosuvastatin treatment. In contrast, no change in mean serum creatinine was observed with placebo. Mean glomerular filtration rates (GFR) predicted from the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) equation were higher when compared with baseline both early and later in the course of rosuvastatin treatment. No change in GFR was observed in the placebo group. Among patients who received long-term rosuvastatin treatment (> or =96 weeks), GFR was unchanged or tended to increase, rather than decrease, when compared with baseline irrespective of age, gender, hypertensive or diabetic status, level of renal function (GFR > or =60 vs. <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) at entry or urine dipstick protein status prior to or during the period of treatment. These findings suggest that rosuvastatin may arrest the progression of renal disease.

Phenotype-dependent and -independent actions of rosuvastatin on atherogenic lipoprotein subfractions in hyperlipidaemia.

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study evaluated the effects of rosuvastatin (40 mg/day for 8 weeks) on atherogenic apolipoprotein B-containing lipoprotein subfractions. Subjects, recruited based on raised plasma triglyceride (TG) or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), were divided into normotriglyceridaemic (NTG, n = 13; TG < 2.0 mmol/l) and hypertriglyceridaemic (HTG, n = 16; TG > or = 2.0 mmol/l) groups. Similar reductions on rosuvastatin were observed for both groups in LDL-C (NTG -60%; HTG -56%), apoB (both -49%), intermediate-density lipoprotein (NTG -57%; HTG -54%) and LDL circulating mass (NTG -52%, HTG -58%) (all P < 0.001 versus placebo), i.e., these changes were phenotype independent. Phenotype dependency in response was observed in HTG relative to NTG in concentration of small dense LDL (LDL-III) (NTG -44%, P = NS; HTG -69%, P < 0.001), very-low-density lipoprotein1 (NTG -18%, P = NS; HTG 46%, P < 0.01), and remnant-like particle cholesterol (NTG -31%, P = NS; HTG -48%, P < 0.05). Rosuvastatin reduced cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by 33% in NTG and 37% in HTG (both P < 0.001); a reduction in cholesteryl ester transfer activity (-59%, P < 0.001) was observed in HTG only. Rosuvastatin therefore, in addition to lowering LDL and apoB-concentrations, largely corrected the TG and LDL abnormalities in subjects who had the propensity to develop the atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype.

Lipid and apolipoprotein ratios: association with coronary artery disease and effects of rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin.

Plasma lipid and apolipoprotein ratios that include both an atherogenic and an antiatherogenic lipid component (eg, total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein [HDL] cholesterol ratio, low-density lipoprotein [LDL] cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio, non-HDL cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio, and apolipoprotein [apo] B/apo A-I ratio) have been found to be strong predictors of coronary artery disease (CAD) risk. Three trials that compared the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg versus atorvastatin 10 mg and 2 trials that compared the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg versus simvastatin 20 mg and pravastatin 20 mg on lipid ratios in patients with hypercholesterolemia were prospectively designed for pooled analysis. At 12 weeks, in the 3-trial pooled analysis, rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 389) showed significantly greater reductions in all 4 lipid ratios compared with atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) (p <0.001). The mean percent reduction from baseline in the LDL cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio was 51% in patients treated with rosuvastatin 10 mg versus 39% in patients treated with atorvastatin 10 mg. In the 2-trial pooled analysis, treatment with rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 226) also resulted in significantly greater reductions in all 4 lipid ratios compared with both simvastatin 20 mg (n = 249) and pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) (p <0.001). Mean percent reductions from baseline in the LDL cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio were 52%, 39%, and 30% for rosuvastatin 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 20 mg, respectively, in these 2 trials.

Effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin compared over 52 weeks of treatment in patients with hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Despite the demonstrated benefits of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction in reducing the risk of coronary heart disease, many patients receiving lipid-lowering therapy fail to achieve LDL-C goals. We compared the effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in reducing LDL-C and achieving LDL-C goals in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this 52-week, randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial (4522IL/0026), 412 patients with LDL-C 160 to <250 mg/dL received a 5-mg dose of rosuvastatin (n = 138), a 10-mg dose of rosuvastatin (n = 134), or a 10-mg dose of atorvastatin (n = 140) for 12 weeks; during the following 40 weeks, dosages could be sequentially doubled up to 80 mg if National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel II (ATP-II) LDL-C goals were not achieved. At 12 weeks, 5- and 10-mg doses of rosuvastatin were associated with significantly greater LDL-C reductions than 10-mg doses of atorvastatin (46% and 50% vs 39%, both P <.001). At 12 weeks, both rosuvastatin dosages brought more patients to within ATP-II and European LDL-C goals than atorvastatin (86% and 89% vs 73% and 75%, and 86% vs 55%, respectively). At 52 weeks, compared with atorvastatin, both initial rosuvastatin treatment groups significantly reduced LDL-C (47% and 53% vs 44%, P <.05 and P <.001). Overall, more patients in the initial rosuvastatin 10-mg group achieved their ATP-II LDL-C goal than those in the initial atorvastatin 10-mg group (98% vs 87%), with 82% of patients treated with rosuvastatin achieving their goal at the 10-mg starting dosage without the need for titration, compared with 59% of patients treated with atorvastatin. Both treatments were well tolerated over 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: Compared with atorvastatin, rosuvastatin produced greater reductions in LDL-C, which may offer advantages in LDL-C goal attainment over existing lipid-lowering therapies.