Odanacatib for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis: results of the LOFT multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and LOFT Extension study.

BACKGROUND: Odanacatib, a cathepsin K inhibitor, reduces bone resorption while maintaining bone formation. Previous work has shown that odanacatib increases bone mineral density in postmenopausal women with low bone mass. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of odanacatib to reduce fracture risk in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. METHODS: The Long-term Odanacatib Fracture Trial (LOFT) was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven study at 388 outpatient clinics in 40 countries. Eligible participants were women aged at least 65 years who were postmenopausal for 5 years or more, with a femoral neck or total hip bone mineral density T-score between -2·5 and -4·0 if no previous radiographic vertebral fracture, or between -1·5 and -4·0 with a previous vertebral fracture. Women with a previous hip fracture, more than one vertebral fracture, or a T-score of less than -4·0 at the total hip or femoral neck were not eligible unless they were unable or unwilling to use approved osteoporosis treatment. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral odanacatib (50 mg once per week) or matching placebo. Randomisation was done using an interactive voice recognition system after stratification for previous radiographic vertebral fracture, and treatment was masked to study participants, investigators and their staff, and sponsor personnel. If the study completed before 5 years of double-blind treatment, consenting participants could enrol in a double-blind extension study (LOFT Extension), continuing their original treatment assignment for up to 5 years from randomisation. Primary endpoints were incidence of vertebral fractures as assessed using radiographs collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months, yearly, and at final study visit in participants for whom evaluable radiograph images were available at baseline and at least one other timepoint, and hip and non-vertebral fractures adjudicated as being a result of osteoporosis as assessed by clinical history and radiograph. Safety was assessed in participants who received at least one dose of study drug. The adjudicated cardiovascular safety endpoints were a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and new-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter. Individual cardiovascular endpoints and death were also assessed. LOFT and LOFT Extension are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00529373) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number 2007-002693-66). FINDINGS: Between Sept 14, 2007, and Nov 17, 2009, we randomly assigned 16 071 evaluable patients to treatment: 8043 to odanacatib and 8028 to placebo. After a median follow-up of 36·5 months (IQR 34·43-40·15) 4297 women assigned to odanacatib and 3960 assigned to placebo enrolled in LOFT Extension (total median follow-up 47·6 months, IQR 35·45-60·06). In LOFT, cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 3·7% (251/6770) versus 7·8% (542/6910), hazard ratio (HR) 0·46, 95% CI 0·40-0·53; hip fractures 0·8% (65/8043) versus 1·6% (125/8028), 0·53, 0·39-0·71; non-vertebral fractures 5·1% (412/8043) versus 6·7% (541/8028), 0·77, 0·68-0·87; all p<0·0001. Combined results from LOFT plus LOFT Extension for cumulative incidence of primary outcomes for odanacatib versus placebo were: radiographic vertebral fractures 4·9% (341/6909) versus 9·6% (675/7011), HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·42-0·55; hip fractures 1·1% (86/8043) versus 2·0% (162/8028), 0·52, 0·40-0·67; non-vertebral fractures 6·4% (512/8043) versus 8·4% (675/8028), 0·74, 0·66-0·83; all p<0·0001. In LOFT, the composite cardiovascular endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 273 (3·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 245 (3·1%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·95-1·34; p=0·18). New-onset atrial fibrillation or flutter occurred in 112 (1·4%) of 8043 patients in the odanacatib group versus 96 (1·2%) of 8028 in the placebo group (HR 1·18, 0·90-1·55; p=0·24). Odanacatib was associated with an increased risk of stroke (1·7% [136/8043] vs 1·3% [104/8028], HR 1·32, 1·02-1·70; p=0·034), but not myocardial infarction (0·7% [60/8043] vs 0·9% [74/8028], HR 0·82, 0·58-1·15; p=0·26). The HR for all-cause mortality was 1·13 (5·0% [401/8043] vs 4·4% [356/8028], 0·98-1·30; p=0·10). When data from LOFT Extension were included, the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in significantly more patients in the odanacatib group than in the placebo group (401 [5·0%] of 8043 vs 343 [4·3%] of 8028, HR 1·17, 1·02-1·36; p=0·029, as did stroke (2·3% [187/8043] vs 1·7% [137/8028], HR 1·37, 1·10-1·71; p=0·0051). INTERPRETATION: Odanacatib reduced the risk of fracture, but was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, specifically stroke, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Based on the overall balance between benefit and risk, the study's sponsor decided that they would no longer pursue development of odanacatib for treatment of osteoporosis. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Comparing remnant lipoprotein cholesterol measurement methods to evaluate efficacy of ezetimibe/statin vs statin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods. METHODS: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies. RESULTS: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29-0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: -5.0 and -12.0, -2.0 and -5.4, and -1.5 and -12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: -5.0 and -19.9 and -2.0 and -7.3) in second-line studies. CONCLUSION: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements.

Increasing Diversity in Clinical Trials: Overcoming Critical Barriers.

Clinical trial results provide the critical evidence base for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new medicines and medical products. Efficacy and safety may differ among population subgroups depending on intrinsic/extrinsic factors, including sex, age, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, and genetic background. Racial and ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in cardiovascular and other clinical trials. Although barriers to diversity in trials are well recognized, sustainable solutions for overcoming them have proved elusive. We investigated barriers impacting minority patients' willingness to participate in trials and-based on literature review and evaluation, and input from key stakeholders, including minority patients, referring physicians, investigators who were minority-serving physicians, and trial coordinators-formulated potential solutions and tested them across stakeholder groups. We identified key themes from solutions that resonated with stakeholders using a transtheoretical model of behavior change and created a communications message map to support a multistakeholder approach for overcoming critical participant barriers.

Effect on Fasting Serum Glucose Levels of Adding Ezetimibe to Statins in Patients With Nondiabetic Hypercholesterolemia.

Statin therapy is associated with a slightly increased risk of developing diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance in patients without diabetes. Ezetimibe combined with statins may be considered for high-risk patients who do not achieve optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering on statin monotherapy or who are statin intolerant. Changes in fasting serum glucose (FSG) levels during ezetimibe, ezetimibe/statin, and statin treatments were assessed using data pooled from clinical trials in hypercholesterolemic and heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemic patients, who were or were not receiving statin therapy. Study types included first-line trials in statin-naive/wash-out patients and second-line add-on and uptitration studies in patients on stable statin therapy. Similar analyses of FSG changes were performed separately for each study type in patients who were nondiabetic at baseline. Across all study types and treatments, mean FSG increases from baseline were small (0.5 to 3.7 mg/dl with ezetimibe/statin; 0.2 to 4.6 mg/dl with statins) and decreased over time; between-treatment differences (0.3 to 1.4 mg/dl) were nonsignificant for all comparisons. Proportions of patients with elevated FSG ≥126 mg/dl during therapy were low and similar for all treatments in the overall cohort (1.2% to 4.3%). Elevations were highest (3.3% to 25.7%) among patients with baseline factors characteristic of metabolic syndrome and prediabetes, including higher FSG, body mass index, and triglyceride levels, and numerically lower baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; however, these factors were not related to FSG increases. Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, body mass index, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B were not significantly correlated with FSG increases. In conclusion, statin therapy was associated with small FSG increases, and the addition of ezetimibe did not further increase FSG levels beyond those of statins when given to patients who are statin naive or those on statin therapy.

Time-related trends in variability of cIMT changes in statin trials.

This brief article provides complementary data supporting the results reported in "Changing Characteristics of Statin-related cIMT Trials from 1988 to 2006" [1]. That article described time-related trends in baseline factors and study characteristics that may have influenced the variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) endpoints (mean of mean and maximum common carotid artery [CCA]/cIMT) in published statin trials. In this brief report, additional details for the studies included in the analysis, and further supporting data, including mean of the maximum CCA/cIMT changes and subgroup data (mean and maximum CCA/cIMT) are provided. For the analysis, study-level data was extracted from 17 statin cIMT trials conducted during 1988-2006, selected on the basis of having at least one statin monotherapy arm in the absence of mixed therapy, and baseline- and study-end values for mean mean and mean maximum CCA/cIMT endpoints. The baseline mean CCA/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Interestingly, all 8 studies conducted before 2000 were significant for cIMT change in which patients did not receive prior LLT; whereas after 2000, the results were more variable and in 4 of 6 trials that did not show a significant cIMT change, patients had received prior treatment. Baseline mean maximum cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized changes in studies conducted before 2000 were higher than those conducted after 2000, similar to the results reported in the original article for the mean mean cIMT endpoint. These findings were consistent across study populations of patients with CHD risk versus those without, and in studies with greater LDL-C reductions and with thickened baseline cIMT at study entry for both mean and maximum cIMT changes. Taken together, these results are consistent with trends in recent years toward greater use of lipid-lowering therapy and control of LDL-C that may have impacted the variability in the results of cIMT studies.

Changing characteristics of statin-related cIMT trials from 1988 to 2006.

OBJECTIVES: Changes in cIMT have not been consistently correlated with cardiovascular risk reduction in clinical studies. The variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) changes in published statin LDL-C-lowering studies in relation to various baseline and study characteristics was assessed. METHODS: This was an exploratory analysis of study-level data pooled from statin-treatment arms of 13 studies conducted during 1988-2006. Baseline mean common carotid artery (CCA)/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Potential relationships between prespecified covariates and cIMT changes were assessed. RESULTS: Baseline mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels were higher in the combined studies conducted before year 2000 (0.8521 mm) than after 2000 (0.7458 mm), and somewhat higher in study populations of patients with coronary heart disease risk and those with greater LDL-C reductions. Mean CCA/cIMT changes were also larger for the studies conducted before 2000 (-0.0119 mm/year) than after 2000 (-0.0013 mm/year). Notably, studies conducted before 2000 were of longer duration (≥ 2 years) than after 2000 (<2 years). Heterogeneity in cIMT change was attributed to baseline and study-design characteristics. Longer study duration and greater LDL-C reductions were significantly related to larger annualized cIMT changes. Maximum cIMT results were similar. CONCLUSION: Baseline cIMT and LDL-C levels were lower, and cIMT changes were smaller in statin cIMT trials conducted after 2000 than those before 2000. These trends are consistent with increased treatment and control of high LDL-C levels over recent years in clinical practice, and may influence the results of cIMT studies.

Variability of the LDL-C lowering response to ezetimibe and ezetimibe + statin therapy in hypercholesterolemic patients.

OBJECTIVE: We compared the variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to treatment with ezetimibe + statins versus statins in hypercholesterolemic patients. METHODS: An analysis of patient-level data pooled from 27 double-blind, placebo and/or active-controlled studies in 21,671 patients treated with ezetimibe + statins versus statins on first-line (statin-naïve/wash-out) or second-line (on statin, randomized to ezetimibe versus placebo [add-on] or ezetimibe versus uptitrated statin [uptitrate]) for 6-24 wks. Variances (standard deviation [SD], coefficient of variation [CV], and root mean squared error [RMSE] adjusted for various factors) for % change from baseline in LDL-C were compared. RESULTS: In first-line and second-line add-on studies, the variability (SD, RMSE) of % change from baseline in LDL-C was lower in ezetimibe + statin-treated patients versus statin-treated patients, ±covariates. Differences were small but statistically significant due to the large sample size. In second-line uptitrate studies, ezetimibe + statin treatment resulted in greater unadjusted variability (SD) versus statin therapy, while the adjusted variability (RMSE) was significantly lower. Relative variability (CV=SD/mean) was lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statin therapy for all study types, being more pronounced in second-line add-on and uptitrate studies, attributed to larger mean LDL-C reductions for ezetimibe + statins versus statin groups. When assessed by individual study/type, statin brand, potency or dose, the CVs remained lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statins in second-line studies. The SDs showed no consistent trend for either therapy. CONCLUSION: In hypercholesterolemic patients, the absolute variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to ezetimibe + statins was not greater versus statins alone and appeared lower when adjusted for other factors. Relative variability was lower in patients treated with statins + ezetimibe. A better understanding of the variability of the LDL-C lowering response may help guide clinicians in making therapeutic decisions.

Fixed-dose combination ezetimibe+atorvastatin lowers LDL-C equivalent to co-administered components in randomized trials: use of a dose-response model.

Co-administration of ezetimibe with atorvastatin is a generally well-tolerated treatment option that reduces LDL-C levels and improves other lipids with greater efficacy than doubling the atorvastatin dose. The objective of the study was to demonstrate the equivalent lipid-modifying efficacy of fixed-dose combination (FDC) ezetimibe/atorvastatin compared with the component agents co-administered individually in support of regulatory filing. Two randomized, 6-week, double-blind cross-over trials compared the lipid-modifying efficacy of ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10/20 mg (n = 353) or 10/40 mg (n = 280) vs. separate co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 346) or 40 mg (n = 280), respectively, in hypercholesterolemic patients. Percent changes from baseline in LDL-C (primary endpoint) and other lipids (secondary endpoints) were assessed by analysis of covariance; triglycerides were evaluated by longitudinal-data analysis. Expected differences between FDC and the corresponding co-administered doses were predicted from a dose-response relationship model; sample size was estimated given the expected difference and equivalence margins (±4%). LDL-C-lowering equivalence was based on 97.5% expanded confidence intervals (CI) for the difference contained within the margins; equivalence margins for other lipids were not prespecified. Ezetimibe/atorvastatin FDC 10/20 mg was equivalent to co-administered ezetimibe+atorvastatin 20 mg in reducing LDL-C levels (54.0% vs. 53.8%) as was FDC 10/40 mg and ezetimibe+atorvastatin 40 mg (58.9% vs. 58.7%), as predicted by the model. Changes in other lipids were consistent with equivalence (97.5% expanded CIs <±3%, included 0); triglyceride changes varied more. All treatments were generally well tolerated. Hypercholesterolemic patients administered ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10/20 and 10/40 mg FDC had equivalent LDL-C lowering. This FDC formulation proved to be an efficacious and generally well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy.

Achieving goal lipid levels with ezetimibe plus statin add-on or switch therapy compared with doubling the statin dose. A pooled analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, statin titration, switching from statin monotherapy to a more potent statin or to ezetimibe/simvastatin. METHODS: A pooled analysis of patient-level data from 17 double-blind, active or placebo-controlled studies of 8667 hypercholesterolemic adults randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg added to ongoing statins, statin titration (doubling), or switching from ongoing statins to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or to ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 and 40 mg). Percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was estimated by analysis of variance. Percent of patients who achieved LDL-C and other guideline-recommended targets, and target lipid levels by baseline distance to goal were evaluated. RESULTS: LDL-C percent change from baseline was -26.0 for ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, -27.6 for switching from ongoing statin to ezetimibe/simvastatin, -19.7 for switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg, and -9.7 for dose doubling of the ongoing statin. For patients within 0.8 mmol/L (30 mg/dL) of the target at baseline, LDL-C target attainment rates were 75.9% for adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin, 72.8% for switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin, 61.8% for switching to rosuvastatin, and 44.3% for statin dose-doubling. Similarly, improvements in other lipids and achievement of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B targets among this patient group were largest for ezetimibe added to ongoing statins and switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin; switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg and statin dose-doubling were less effective. CONCLUSIONS: Adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy appeared to be an effective option for patients who do not achieve lipid-lowering goals on statins alone.

Effects of ezetimibe, simvastatin and ezetimibe/simvastatin on correlations between apolipoprotein B, LDL cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND/SYNOPSIS: Apolipoprotein (apo) B is highly predictive of coronary risk, especially in patients with high triglycerides (TG). This post hoc analysis evaluated the effects of lipid-lowering therapy on correlations between apoB and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (apoB:LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (apoB:non-HDL-C) in patients with TG< and ≥ 200 mg/dL. METHODS: This analysis used data from 3 randomized clinical trials in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia receiving placebo, ezetimibe (EZE), simvastatin (SIMVA) or EZE/SIMVA for 12 weeks. Simple linear regression analyses predicted LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels corresponding to apoB values (80 mg/dL) at baseline and Week 12. RESULTS: ApoB correlated with LDL-C (r ≥ 0.76) and non-HDL-C (r ≥ 0.86) at baseline. The correlations were strengthened with SIMVA and EZE/SIMVA at Week 12 (r ≥ 0.88 for LDL-C and r ≥ 0.94 for non-HDL-C). The predicted LDL-C and non-HDL-C values were lower following treatment with SIMVA or EZE/SIMVA than for placebo and EZE. For SIMVA and EZE/SIMVA, the predicted LDL-C and non-HDL-C values were closer to more aggressive LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels (i.e., 70 and 100 mg/dL, respectively). The apoB:LDL-C and apoB:non-HDL-C correlations were weaker and the predicted LDL-C values were generally lower in high TG patients than in low TG patients both at baseline and Week 12. In contrast, the predicted non-HDL-C values were generally higher in high versus low TG patients at baseline but less so at Week 12. CONCLUSION: After treatment with EZE, SIMVA, or EZE/SIMVA, a given apoB value corresponds to lower LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels than those obtained from untreated patients.

Niacin lipid efficacy is independent of both the niacin receptor GPR109A and free fatty acid suppression.

Nicotinic acid (niacin) induces beneficial changes in serum lipoproteins and has been associated with beneficial cardiovascular effects. Niacin reduces low-density lipoprotein, increases high-density lipoprotein, and decreases triglycerides. It is well established that activation of the seven-transmembrane G(i)-coupled receptor GPR109A on Langerhans cells results in release of prostaglandin D2, which mediates the well-known flushing side effect of niacin. Niacin activation of GPR109A on adipocytes also mediates the transient reduction of plasma free fatty acid (FFA) levels characteristic of niacin, which has been long hypothesized to be the mechanism underlying the changes in the serum lipid profile. We tested this "FFA hypothesis" and the hypothesis that niacin lipid efficacy is mediated via GPR109A by dosing mice lacking GPR109A with niacin and testing two novel, full GPR109A agonists, MK-1903 and SCH900271, in three human clinical trials. In mice, the absence of GPR109A had no effect on niacin's lipid efficacy despite complete abrogation of the anti-lipolytic effect. Both MK-1903 and SCH900271 lowered FFAs acutely in humans; however, neither had the expected effects on serum lipids. Chronic FFA suppression was not sustainable via GPR109A agonism with niacin, MK-1903, or SCH900271. We conclude that the GPR109A receptor does not mediate niacin's lipid efficacy, challenging the long-standing FFA hypothesis.

Relationships between metabolic syndrome and other baseline factors and the efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolemia.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate relationships between baseline factors and treatment-associated efficacy changes in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN: AND METHODS Multivariable analyses of treatment response in 1,229 type 2 diabetic patients with hypercholesterolemia who received ezetimibe/simvastatin or atorvastatin in a randomized double-blind 6-week study. RESULTS: Increasing age was related to improvements in all lipid assessments. Men had greater triglyceride and non-HDL cholesterol reductions than women, and black/Hispanic patients had less favorable lipid effects than other races/ethnicities. Increasing baseline LDL cholesterol was associated with improvements in most lipids; higher baseline non-HDL cholesterol with improved HDL cholesterol and triglycerides; higher baseline HDL cholesterol with greater non-HDL cholesterol and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) reductions; and higher baseline hs-CRP with smaller LDL cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B reductions. Patients with high baseline non-HDL cholesterol or triglycerides less frequently attained LDL cholesterol targets. Obesity was inversely related to HDL cholesterol and hs-CRP changes, and higher baseline A1C to smaller apolipoprotein B reductions. Metabolic syndrome was not a significant predictor. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment responses in type 2 diabetic patients were related to baseline factors, although treatment effects (ezetimibe/simvastatin being more effective than atorvastatin) remained consistent. The presence of predictive factors should be considered in planning lipid-altering therapy.

Long-term safety and efficacy of triple combination ezetimibe/simvastatin plus extended-release niacin in patients with hyperlipidemia.

The safety and efficacy of combination ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) plus extended-release niacin was assessed in 942 patients with type IIa/IIb hyperlipidemia for 64 weeks in a randomized, double-blind study. Patients received E/S (10/20 mg) plus niacin (to 2 g) or E/S (10/20 mg) for 64 weeks, or niacin (to 2 g) for 24 weeks and then E/S (10/20 mg) plus niacin (2 g) or E/S (10/20 mg) for an additional 40 weeks. The primary end point, the safety of E/S plus niacin, included prespecified adverse events (ie, liver, muscle, discontinuations due to flushing, gallbladder-related, cholecystectomy, fasting glucose changes, new-onset diabetes). The secondary end points included the percentage of change from baseline in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, other lipids, lipoprotein ratios and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The anticipated niacin-associated flushing led to a greater rate of study discontinuations with the E/S plus niacin regimen than with E/S alone (0.7%, p <0.001). The rate of liver and muscle adverse events was low (<1%) in both groups. Four patients had gallbladder-related adverse events; 1 patient in the E/S and 1 in the E/S plus niacin group underwent cholecystectomy. The occurrence of new-onset diabetes was 3.1% for the E/S and 4.9% for the E/S plus niacin group. The fasting glucose levels increased to greater than baseline during the first 12 weeks (E/S, 3.2 mg/dl; E/S plus niacin, 7.7 mg/dl) and gradually decreased to pretreatment levels by 64 weeks in both groups. E/S plus niacin significantly improved HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, non-HDL cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and A-I, and lipoprotein ratios compared with E/S (p

Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and goal achievement with ezetimibe/simvastatin versus atorvastatin or rosuvastatin in patients with diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or neither disease, stratified by National Cholesterol Education Program risk category.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and metabolic syndrome are at increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Studies have shown differential statin efficacy on low-density lipid cholesterol (LDL-C) by CHD risk strata. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the consistency of effect with ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) combination therapy, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin in patients with DM, metabolic syndrome, or neither condition (No DM/metabolic syndrome), stratified by the National Cholesterol Education Panel Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) CHD risk group. METHODS: Post hoc analyses of 2 multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 6-week studies comparing E/S 10/10, 10/20, 10/40, or 10/80 mg with either atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg, or rosuvastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg. Treatments were compared by pooling across all doses for LDL-C reduction and NCEP LDL-C goal attainment in patients with DM, metabolic syndrome without DM, or No DM/metabolic syndrome across NCEP CHD risk strata. RESULTS: NCEP LDL-C goal attainment was lowest in the high-risk group with atherosclerotic vascular disease (12-64%) and greatest in the moderate and low-risk groups (84-100%). In contrast, LDL-C reduction was generally similar irrespective of disease or risk subgroup. All treatments were generally well tolerated, with overall similar safety regardless of disease and risk level. CONCLUSIONS: In these studies, CHD risk strata were inversely related to the likelihood of attaining NCEP LDL-C goals, but did not appear to affect the percentage LDL-C change from baseline. This demonstrates the need for especially aggressive cholesterol lowering necessary to reach the lower LDL-C goal for high-risk patients.

The value of a wound score for diabetic foot infections in predicting treatment outcome: a prospective analysis from the SIDESTEP trial.

Scoring the severity of a diabetic foot wound infection may help assess the severity, determine the type and urgency of antibiotic and surgical treatment needed, and predict clinical outcomes. We developed a 10-item diabetic foot infection wound score (results could range from 3 to 49 [least to most severe]) incorporating semi-quantitative grading of both wound measurements and various infection parameters. Using data from a prospective diabetic foot infection antibiotic trial (SIDESTEP), we evaluated the score's accuracy in predicting outcome, analyzed its components and tested it for consistency, construct, and validity. Wound scores for 371 patients significantly correlated with the clinical response; it was favorable at the follow-up assessment in 94.8% with a baseline score 19. Scores demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha >0.70 to <0.95). Patients with more severe wounds had higher scores, supporting construct validity. Excluding scores for wound discharge (purulent and nonpurulent), leaving an eight-item score, provided better measurement statistics. This easily performed wound score appears to be a reliable, valid, and useful tool for predicting clinical outcomes. Further validation studies in different patient populations should refine the items included.

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with hypercholesterolemia and the metabolic syndrome (from the VYMET study).

Patients with the metabolic syndrome are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and might require intensive lipid therapy. Many patients remain at the starting dose of lipid therapy and might not be titrated up to a higher dose. The present double-blind, randomized, 6-week study assessed the lipid-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg in 1,128 patients with hypercholesterolemia and the metabolic syndrome. The primary end point was the percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Additional end points included changes in other lipids, lipoprotein ratios, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and attainment of prespecified lipid levels. Significantly greater improvements in the levels of LDL cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipid/lipoprotein ratios resulted with ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with atorvastatin at all specified dose comparisons (p <0.001). The attainment of prespecified LDL cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was also significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin at all dose comparisons (p <0.05). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol increases were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg than with atorvastatin 10 mg (p <0.05) and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg than with atorvastatin 40 mg (p <0.01). The changes in triglycerides, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were similar for both treatments. The incidence of liver, muscle, and gastrointestinal-, hepatitis- and allergic reaction/rash-related adverse events were low and generally similar to those in previous studies of ezetimibe/simvastatin and/or atorvastatin. In conclusion, ezetimibe/simvastatin was more likely to result in lipid treatment end points than atorvastatin and was generally well tolerated at the doses compared in our patients.

Clinical predictors of treatment failure for diabetic foot infections: data from a prospective trial.

To aid clinicians in selecting the appropriate approach for treating patients with diabetic foot infections, we investigated whether any baseline clinical findings predicted an unfavourable clinical outcome. Using data from a large, prospective treatment trial of diabetic foot infections (SIDESTEP), we assessed the association between clinical treatment failure and baseline history, physical and laboratory findings, by univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Among 402 patients clinically evaluable 10 days after completing antibiotic therapy, baseline factors significantly (P < 0.05) associated by univariate analysis with treatment failure were 'severe' (versus 'moderate') University of Texas (UT) wound grade; elevated white blood cell count, C-reactive protein or erythrocyte sedimentation rate; high wound severity score; inpatient treatment; low serum albumin; male sex; and skin temperature of affected foot >10 degrees C above that of unaffected foot. By multivariate logistic regression only severe UT wound grade (odds ratio 2.1) and elevated white blood cell count [odds ratio 1.7 for a 1 standard deviation (2971 cells/mm(3)) increase] remained statistically significant. Clinical failure rates were 46% for patients with both risk factors compared with 10% for patients with no risk factors and 16-17% for patients with one risk factor. Increased white blood cell count and severe UT wound grade at baseline, but not other features, were significant independent and additive risk factors for clinical failure in patients treated for a diabetic foot infection.

Rofecoxib 12.5 mg, rofecoxib 25 mg, and celecoxib 200 mg in the treatment of symptomatic osteoarthritis: results of two similarly designed studies.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of rofecoxib and celecoxib for the treatment of knee or hip OA over 6 weeks. METHODS: Two similarly designed, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Patients were randomly assigned 3:3:3:1 in Study 1 to once daily (QD) rofecoxib 12.5 mg (N = 456), rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 459), celecoxib 200 mg (N = 456), or placebo (N = 150) and 3:3:1 in Study 2 to QD rofecoxib 25 mg (N = 471), celecoxib 200 mg (N = 460), or placebo (N = 151). There was no rofecoxib 12.5 mg arm in Study 2. The primary outcome measure of both studies was pain at night over 6 weeks for rofecoxib 25 mg vs. celecoxib 200 mg. Efficacy comparisons with rofecoxib 12.5 mg in Study 1 were included as pre-specified study objectives but not as pre-specified study hypotheses. Secondary endpoints included Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) over 6 weeks and over 1 week. Safety was evaluated through the assessment of spontaneously reported adverse experiences (AEs), evaluation of vital signs, and laboratory data reported by investigators and patients. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, reduction in pain at night over 6 weeks in Study 1 was not significantly different between active treatments; in Study 2 rofecoxib 25 mg significantly (p = 0.023) reduced pain at night compared with celecoxib 200 mg over 6 weeks. For the secondary endpoints, in both studies, significantly (p < 0.05) more patients treated with rofecoxib 25 mg than celecoxib 200 mg had a good or excellent PGART over 6 weeks, and over the first week (p < 0.01). In both studies, there were no significant differences between active medications in the incidence of reported overall, serious, or drug-related AEs. The reported AE rates with the active treatments were generally similar to those with placebo in the two studies. CONCLUSIONS: Rofecoxib 25 mg was significantly better than celecoxib 200 mg in relieving night pain at 6 weeks in one study; this was not confirmed in the accompanying study.

Treatment of patients with osteoarthritis with rofecoxib compared with nabumetone.

BACKGROUND: Rofecoxib and nabumetone were developed to provide gastrointestinal benefits over traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). However, there is limited comparative information relating to these 2 drugs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare rofecoxib and nabumetone, at their lower, recommended doses, in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: Nine hundred seventy-eight patients with knee OA and a positive history of NSAID response were randomized to 12.5 mg rofecoxib per day (N=390), nabumetone 500 mg twice a day (N=392), or placebo (N=196) for 6 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was percent of patients with a "good" or "excellent" Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART) at week 6; PGART was also evaluated over days 1 to 6. Additional end points included investigator assessment of response, pain walking over 6 days and 6 weeks, joint tenderness, discontinuation as a result of lack of efficacy, and quality of life. Adverse experiences (AEs) were collected. RESULTS: Significantly more rofecoxib (50.4%) than nabumetone (43.3%, P=0.043) or placebo (29.5%, P<0.001) patients had a good or excellent PGART at week 6. Median time to a good or excellent PGART was significantly shorter with rofecoxib (52 hours) than nabumetone (100 hours, P=0.001) or placebo (>124 hours, P<0.001). Results for rofecoxib and nabumetone were similar in all additional end points except pain in walking over 6 days and 6 weeks, in both of which the rofecoxib treatment group demonstrated better results. There were significantly (P<0.050) more overall and serious AEs and discontinuations resulting from AEs with rofecoxib than nabumetone. Five rofecoxib and one nabumetone patients had confirmed thrombotic cardiovascular events (P=0.123). Information on thrombotic cardiovascular events from this study was included in a published, prespecified pooled analysis and is included here for completeness. CONCLUSIONS: At their recommended starting doses for OA, both agents were more effective than placebo. Rofecoxib at a dosage of 12.5 mg demonstrated significantly better efficacy in PGART than 1000 mg nabumetone in these patients known to be NSAID responders. Significantly more AEs occurred with rofecoxib than nabumetone. Considering these data and other recent safety information regarding cyclooxygenase-2 selective and nonselective NSAIDS, physicians must make risk/benefit assessments for each individual patient when considering the use of these agents, as recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.