18-Month efficacy and safety analysis of monthly subcutaneous buprenorphine injection for opioid use disorder: Integrated analysis of phase 3 studies.

BACKGROUND: Few studies investigate the natural history of patients on long-term treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). We evaluated the long-term efficacy, safety, and tolerability experience of monthly extended-release buprenorphine (BUP-XR) in participants seeking treatment for OUD, via integrated analysis of phase 3 studies. METHODS: Study 1 was a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of participants receiving monthly injections of BUP-XR (300 mg × 2, 100 mg × 4 [n = 203] or 300 mg × 6 [n = 201]) or placebo (n = 100). Study 2 was a 48-week, open-label trial enrolling 257 participants who completed study 1 and 412 de novo participants, to receive 6 and 12 BUP-XR injections, respectively. Study 3 was a 24-week, open-label extension enrolling 208 participants who completed study 2 for 6 additional injections. We assessed opioid abstinence as the proportion of urine opioid negative participants by visit and the percentage of each participant's negative opioid assessments during the first 6 months. RESULTS: In total, 916 participants were treated with BUP-XR or placebo. By the end of 18 months, 92.7 % of the de novo cohort and 81.8 % of the study 1 cohort were urine negative for opioids. Among early nonresponders (percentage of abstinence ≤20 %), 73.1 % were urine negative after 18 months. The longer treatment period was well tolerated, with no new safety concerns, and a low incidence of opioid withdrawal signs and symptoms, and hepatic disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Extending BUP-XR treatment beyond 6 months sustained improvement in opioid abstinence and was well tolerated, supporting clinical benefit up to 18 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02357901 (study 1); NCT02510014 (study 2); NCT02896296 (study 3).

Treating Opioid Use Disorder With a Monthly Subcutaneous Buprenorphine Depot Injection: 12-Month Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy Analysis.

BACKGROUND: BUP-XR (RBP-6000 or SUBLOCADE) is the first Food and Drug Administration-approved subcutaneously administered monthly extended-release buprenorphine medication for the treatment of moderate or severe opioid use disorder. The primary objective of this phase III study was to assess the long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of BUP-XR. METHODS: This open-label multicenter study in adults with moderate or severe opioid use disorder enrolled 257 participants from a previously conducted placebo-controlled, double-blind phase III study (rollover group) and 412 de novo participants not previously treated with BUP-XR. Participants received an initial injection of BUP-XR 300 mg and subsequent monthly 300 mg or 100 mg flexible doses. By study end, participants received up to 12 injections. RESULTS: Overall, 66.8% of participants reported more than 1 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE). Injection-site TEAEs (13.2% of participants) were mostly mild or moderate in severity. There were no clinically meaningful changes in safety assessments. An integrated analysis of the double-blind and open-label study participants showed that the incidence of TEAEs, including injection-site TEAEs, was lower in the second 6 months of treatment versus the first 6 months. After 12 months of treatment, 61.5% of the rollover participants and 75.8% of the de novo participants were abstinent. Retention rates after 12 months were 50.6% for the participants who initiated BUP-XR in the double-blind study and 50.5% for de novo participants. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the clinical benefits and acceptable safety profile of BUP-XR demonstrated in the 6-month double-blind study are sustained over a 12-month open-label study, with lower incidence of TEAEs in the second 6 months of treatment.

Evaluation of Potential Disease-Mediated Drug-Drug Interaction in Patients With Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis Receiving Dupilumab.

This open-label drug-drug interaction study assessed whether blockade by dupilumab of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-13 signaling affects the pharmacokinetics of drugs metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes. The pharmacokinetics of five CYP450 substrates given orally (midazolam, omeprazole, S-warfarin, caffeine, and metoprolol, metabolized by CYP3A, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP1A2, and CYP2D6, respectively) were evaluated before and 28 days after initiation of dupilumab treatment (subcutaneous 300 mg weekly) in 14 patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab had no clinically relevant effects on the pharmacokinetics of CYP450 substrates, provided substantial clinical benefit, and was generally well tolerated. Only one serious adverse event was reported, an episode of systemic inflammatory response syndrome that resolved after treatment was discontinued. In summary, blockade of IL-4/IL-13 signaling in patients with type 2 inflammation does not appear to significantly affect CYP450 enzyme activities; the use of dupilumab in atopic dermatitis patients is unlikely to influence the pharmacokinetics of CYP450 substrates.

Safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the oral toll-like receptor 7 agonist GS-9620 in treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: GS-9620 is a potent oral agonist of toll-like receptor 7, a key modulator of the innate immune response. In healthy volunteers, low doses of GS-9620 (2, 4 and 6 mg) induced significant expression of peripheral interferon-stimulated-gene (ISG) mRNA in the absence of detectable serum interferon-α and systemic adverse events (AEs). We evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of GS-9620 in treatment-naive patients chronically infected with HCV genotype 1. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 51 patients were randomized 5:1 (active:placebo) to receive either a single dose or two once-weekly doses of GS-9620 at four dose levels (0.3, 1, 2 and 4 mg) or placebo. Pharmacodynamic assessments included peripheral ISG15 mRNA expression, serum interferon-α and interferon-γ-inducible protein (IP)-10 levels and HCV RNA quantification. RESULTS: GS-9620 was well-tolerated at all doses. Most AEs were mild or moderate in severity. GS-9620 exhibited dose-linear pharmacokinetics with a median half-life in plasma of 18 h. Transient, dose-dependent ISG15 induction was observed at 1, 2 and 4 mg, with peak mean fold change within 48 h followed by a decline to baseline levels within 7 days of dosing. Serum interferon-α induction post-baseline was detected in 16.7% (8/48) of patients. No clinically significant reductions in HCV RNA were observed. CONCLUSIONS: GS-9620 was safe, well-tolerated and biologically active in patients with HCV infection. Induction of ISG15 occurred in the absence of detectable serum interferon-α or systemic AEs in most patients, supporting a pre-systemic mechanism of action. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01591668.

Successful dose finding with sublingual fentanyl tablet: combined results from 2 open-label titration studies.

OBJECTIVE: This analysis was conducted to determine the likelihood of identifying an effective dose of fentanyl sublingual tablet during the initial titration phase of 2 clinical trials, to characterize the actual effective dose in patients achieving successful titration, and to examine the relationship between baseline characteristics and likelihood of achieving an effective dose. METHODS: Data were derived from 2 clinical trials (Study 1, n=131; Study 2, n=139) of fentanyl sublingual tablet in patients with cancer-associated breakthrough pain (BTP). Both trials comprised a 2-week titration phase and 12-month maintenance phase. The initial dose was 100 µg, titrated to an effective dose (producing effective relief of all BTP episodes on 2 consecutive days) of 100 to 800 µg. RESULTS: A total of 270 patients entered the titration phase. Mean (SD) baseline BTP opioid dose was 25.7 (88.9) mg morphine equivalent, and mean baseline around-the-clock opioid dose was 196.5 (151.6) mg morphine equivalent. Using conservative criteria for determining effective dose, 174 patients (64.4%) were successfully titrated to an effective dose (mean [SD], 498.2 [234.8] µg). The most frequent (27.6%) effective dose was 800 µg, and more than 85% of patients required an effective dose ≥300 µg. There were no significant relationships between any baseline characteristics and titration success. CONCLUSION: Despite stringent criteria, 64.4% of patients achieved an effective dose of fentanyl sublingual tablet within the dose range of 100 to 800 µg. Baseline characteristics were not identified to be associated with the likelihood of successful titration or with the actual effective dose of fentanyl sublingual tablet.

Evaluation of a new safety peripheral IV catheter designed to reduce mucocutaneous blood exposure.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated performance and clinical acceptability of a new peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) designed to reduce blood exposure. METHODS: A two phased, unblinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted at a clinical research center in New Jersey, USA. In Phase 1, clinicians were asked to evaluate two devices: a PIVC with blood control (BD Insyte Autoguard * BC [Blood Control] Shielded IV Catheter), and a reference conventional PIVC (BD Insyte Autoguard Shielded IV Catheter). In Phase 2, clinicians compared two insertions of the investigational PIVC with blood control (PIVC-BC); one with venous compression and one without. The PIVC-BC was evaluated for superiority to the conventional PIVC with regard to blood exposure and for equivalence in general performance characteristics. RESULTS: Seventy-eight clinicians (mean age: 41.4 years; 89.7% female) and 234 healthy volunteers (mean age: 40.2 years; 61.5% female) were enrolled. Blood leakage occurred significantly more in the conventional PIVC group (39.1%) as compared to the PIVC-BC group (2.0%) (difference: 37.1% [95% CI: 28.8%; 45.15%]). Blood leakage rates for the PIVC-BC with or without use of venous compression were similar, 2.6% and 1.3% respectively (difference: 1.3% [95% CI: -7.8%; 4.7%]). A total of 98.7% of clinicians rated the PIVC-BC as clinically acceptable compared to 89.6% with the reference PIVC (difference: -9.1; 95% CI: -18; -1.5%) and 98.7% agreed it replaced the need for venous compression during catheter insertion (95% CI: 92.8%; 100%). Although the inability to blind clinicians to the investigational product was a potential source of bias, this was unlikely to affect assessments of observed blood leakage. CONCLUSIONS: The PIVC with blood control demonstrated reduced blood leakage during insertion and was rated no different for clinical acceptability and insertion performance compared to the conventional PIVC. Clinicians agreed that the new design replaced the need for venous compression to control blood flow during IV catheter insertion.

Long-term effectiveness and tolerability of sublingual fentanyl orally disintegrating tablet for the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) is a transient exacerbation of cancer pain in patients with otherwise stable, persistent background pain. This study evaluated the long-term effectiveness and tolerability of sublingual fentanyl orally disintegrating tablet (sublingual fentanyl ODT), for the treatment of BTcP in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a non-randomized, open-label, multi-center, Phase III study conducted in opioid-tolerant patients (aged ≥17 years) with BTcP. The study comprised a 2-week titration phase, followed by a maintenance phase of up to 12 months. Patients self-administered sublingual fentanyl ODT for episodes of BTcP. Effectiveness was assessed using patients' global evaluation of medication (PGEM), the brief pain inventory (BPI) and the depression, anxiety and positive outlook scale (DAPOS). Adverse events were recorded throughout. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00263575 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/). RESULTS: Of 139 recruited patients, 69% identified an effective dose of sublingual fentanyl ODT (a dosage that successfully treated all episodes of BTcP over two consecutive days) and entered the maintenance phase, during which they were treated for a median of 149.0 days (mean dose 507.5 µg). The study recorded a significant increase in reported satisfaction with pain medication at the 6-month and end-of-study visits, compared to screening (p ≤ 0.01). Evaluation of quality of life using BPI and DAPOS identified no deterioration in scores and significant improvements in certain parameters (p < 0.05). Sublingual fentanyl ODT was well tolerated, with no study drug-related deaths, and 49 patients (35.3%) experiencing ≥1 study drug-related adverse event. The most common of these included nausea (8.6%), constipation (5.8%) and somnolence (5.8%). There was no evidence of sublingual mucosal irritation due to the study medication. The pattern of adverse events was similar to that previously observed with transmucosal fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual fentanyl ODT was effective and well tolerated for the long-term treatment of BTcP in opioid-tolerant cancer patients. There was an increase in satisfaction with pain medication during the study, and sublingual fentanyl ODT showed an acceptable safety profile over 12 months of treatment.

Efficacy and long-term tolerability of sublingual fentanyl orally disintegrating tablet in the treatment of breakthrough cancer pain.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Breakthrough cancer pain (BTcP) represents an important clinical challenge in the care of patients with cancer. This trial evaluated the efficacy and long-term tolerability of a sublingual formulation of the fast-acting opioid fentanyl, for the treatment of BTcP in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a randomized, placebo-controlled, multi-center, phase III trial, conducted in opioid-tolerant male and female patients (aged > or =17 years) with BTcP. The study was conducted at 36 centers across the USA. The study comprised a 2-week open-label titration phase, followed by a double-blind efficacy phase, during which patients received sublingual fentanyl citrate orally disintegrating tablet (sublingual fentanyl ODT) or placebo, in a random order. The primary efficacy endpoint was the sum of pain intensity difference (SPID) over 30 min post-administration. Secondary efficacy endpoints included pain intensity difference (PID) and pain relief (PR) throughout the 60-min post-dose assessment period. Following efficacy evaluation, patients entered a long-term safety phase of up to 12 months. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study. [ CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00262678] RESULTS: A total of 131 patients entered the titration phase, of whom 61 were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Sublingual fentanyl ODT provided significant improvements in SPID relative to placebo at 30 min (49.5 vs. 36.6, p = 0.0004) and 60 min post-administration (143.0 vs. 104.5, p = 0.0002). Furthermore, sublingual fentanyl ODT provided significant improvements in PID and PR compared to placebo, from 10 min post-dose (p = 0.0055 and p = 0.049 for PID and PR, respectively). Patient recruitment was stopped early, due to positive interim analysis results (significant at prespecified level, p < or = 0.0414). Overall, sublingual fentanyl ODT was well-tolerated both systemically and sublingually, with 41 patients experiencing > or =1 study drug-related adverse event (AE). The most common AEs included nausea (12.2%), vomiting (5.3%) and somnolence (4.6%). One serious AE (mild affect lability) was considered possibly related to study medication. The observed pattern of AEs was consistent with that previously observed with fentanyl. CONCLUSIONS: Sublingual fentanyl ODT was efficacious and well-tolerated for the treatment of BTcP in opioid-tolerant patients with cancer. Sublingual fentanyl ODT provided significant improvements in pain intensity compared to placebo, from 10 min post-administration and throughout the 60-min post-dose assessment period. Sublingual fentanyl ODT was well tolerated over 12 months of treatment.

Achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in high-risk patients in managed care: comparison of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin in the SOLAR trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attainment of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of less than 100 mg/dL with statin treatments in managed care patients at high risk for coronary heart disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (SOLAR [Satisfying Optimal LDL-C ATP III goals with Rosuvastatin]) performed at 145 US clinical centers from June 5, 2002 to July 12, 2004, high-risk men and women in a managed care population received typical starting doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg/d), atorvastatin (10 mg/d), or simvastatin (20 mg/d) for 6 weeks. Those who did not meet the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL at 6 weeks had their dose titrated (doubled), and all patients were followed up for another 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1632 patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment regimens. After 6 weeks, 65% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 41% with atorvastatin and 39% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). After 12 weeks, 76% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 58% with atorvastatin and 53% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). Reductions in the LDL-C level, total cholesterol level, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level, and non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio were significantly greater with rosuvastatin at both 6 and 12 weeks compared with the other statins. Adverse events were similar in type and frequency in all treatment groups, and only 3% of all patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No myopathy was observed, no clinically important impact on renal function was attributed to study medications, and clinically important increases in serum transaminases were rare. CONCLUSION: In a managed care population, 10 mg of rosuvastatin treatment resulted in more patients reaching the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal compared with 10 mg of atorvastatin and 20 mg of simvastatin, potentially reducing the need for titration visits.

A multicenter, open-label, randomized, two-period crossover trial comparing glycemic control, satisfaction, and preference achieved with a 31 gauge x 6 mm needle versus a 29 gauge x 12.7 mm needle in obese patients with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Optimal needle length for subcutaneous insulin injection may differ for obese and nonobese patients, which could affect management of diabetes mellitus (DM). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether 31 gauge (G) x 6 mm (shorter) needles are appropriate alternatives to 29 G x 12.7 mm (longer) needles in obese patients with DM. METHODS: A multicenter, open-label, randomized, 2-period crossover trial was conducted in insulin-treated patients with type 1 or 2 DM with body mass index >or=30 kg/m(2) and glycosylated hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) concentration

Repaglinide versus nateglinide monotherapy: a randomized, multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: A randomized, parallel-group, open-label, multicenter 16-week clinical trial compared efficacy and safety of repaglinide monotherapy and nateglinide monotherapy in type 2 diabetic patients previously treated with diet and exercise. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Enrolled patients (n = 150) had received treatment with diet and exercise in the previous 3 months with HbA(1c) >7 and < or =12%. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with repaglinide (n = 76) (0.5 mg/meal, maximum dose 4 mg/meal) or nateglinide (n = 74) (60 mg/meal, maximum dose 120 mg/meal) for 16 weeks. Primary and secondary efficacy end points were changes in HbA(1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) values from baseline, respectively. Postprandial glucose, insulin, and glucagon were assessed after a liquid test meal (baseline, week 16). Safety was assessed by incidence of adverse events or hypoglycemia. RESULTS: Mean baseline HbA(1c) values were similar in both groups (8.9%). Final HbA(1c) values were lower for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (7.3 vs. 7.9%). Mean final reductions of HbA(1c) were significantly greater for repaglinide monotherapy than nateglinide monotherapy (-1.57 vs. -1.04%; P = 0.002). Mean changes in FPG also demonstrated significantly greater efficacy for repaglinide than nateglinide (-57 vs. -18 mg/dl; P < 0.001). HbA(1c) values <7% were achieved by 54% of repaglinide-treated patients versus 42% for nateglinide. Median final doses were 6.0 mg/day for repaglinide and 360 mg/day for nateglinide. There were 7% of subjects treated with repaglinide (five subjects with one episode each) who had minor hypoglycemic episodes (blood glucose <50 mg/dl) versus 0 patients for nateglinide. Mean weight gain at the end of the study was 1.8 kg in the repaglinide group as compared with 0.7 kg for the nateglinide group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients previously treated with diet and exercise, repaglinide and nateglinide had similar postprandial glycemic effects, but repaglinide monotherapy was significantly more effective than nateglinide monotherapy in reducing HbA(1c) and FPG values after 16 weeks of therapy.

Patient perception and use of an insulin injector/glucose monitor combined device.

PURPOSE: This clinical trial assessed patient preference, satisfaction, and use of an insulin injector/glucose monitor combination device versus syringes and a separate glucose monitor. METHODS: In a randomized, multicenter, 2-period crossover study, 15 patients with type 1 diabetes were randomized to use either a combined injector/monitor device or syringes, a vial, and a separate glucose monitor, then switched to the alternate treatment. Efficacy, safety, preference, satisfaction, and actual use (via meter download) of the 2 systems were compared. RESULTS: Most of the patients preferred using the combination device to syringes and a separate meter. Results from the Handling of Delivery Systems questionnaire given at the end of the study indicated that 49% of patients felt they tested their blood glucose more often with the combination device than with a separate meter. A higher frequency of daily monitoring was reported with the combination device in patients overall (approximately 1 more reading per week). However, a large subset of patients (32%) showed substantial increases in their frequency of daily glucose monitoring (an average of 1 additional reading per day). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the combination device was associated with significant improvements in patient treatment satisfaction.

Treatment of type 2 diabetes with a combination regimen of repaglinide plus pioglitazone.

The efficacy and safety of combination therapy (repaglinide plus pioglitazone) was compared to repaglinide or pioglitazone in 24-week treatment of type 2 diabetes. This randomized, multicenter, open-label, parallel-group study enrolled 246 adults (age 24-85) who had shown inadequate response in previous sulfonylurea or metformin monotherapy (HbA(1c) > 7%). Prior therapy was withdrawn for 2 weeks, followed by randomization to repaglinide, pioglitazone, or repaglinide/pioglitazone. In the first 12 weeks of treatment, repaglinide doses were optimized, followed by 12 weeks of maintenance therapy. Pioglitazone dosage was fixed at 30 mg per day. Baseline HbA(1c) values were comparable (9.0% for repaglinide, 9.1% for pioglitazone, 9.3% for combination). Mean changes in HbA(1c) values at the end of treatment were -1.76% for repaglinide/pioglitazone, -0.18% for repaglinide, +0.32% for pioglitazone. Fasting plasma glucose reductions were -82 mg/dl for combination therapy, -34 mg/dl for repaglinide, -18 mg/dl for pioglitazone. Minor hypoglycemia occurred in 5% of patients for the combination, 8% for repaglinide, and 3% for pioglitazone. Weight gains for combination therapy were correlated to individual HbA(1c) reductions. In summary, for patients who had previously failed oral antidiabetic monotherapy, the combination repaglinide/pioglitazone had acceptable safety, with greater reductions of glycemic parameters than therapy using either agent alone.

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.

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.