Intravascular Imaging-Guided Optimization of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention by Sex: A Subgroup Analysis of the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI Trial.

Importance: There have been heterogeneous results related to sex differences in prognosis after percutaneous coronary artery intervention (PCI) for complex coronary artery lesions. Objective: To evaluate potential differences in outcomes with intravascular imaging-guided PCI of complex coronary artery lesions between women and men. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified substudy evaluates the interaction of sex in the investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI randomized clinical trial, which demonstrated the superiority of intravascular imaging-guided PCI compared with angiography-guided PCI in patients with complex coronary artery lesions. The trial was conducted at 20 sites in Korea. Patients with complex coronary artery lesions undergoing PCI were enrolled between May 2018 and May 2021, and the median (IQR) follow-up period was 2.1 (1.4-3.0) years. Data were analyzed from December 2022 to December 2023. Interventions: After diagnostic coronary angiography, eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The choice and timing of the intravascular imaging device were left to the operators' discretion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was target vessel failure, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Secondary end points included individual components of the primary end point. Results: Of 1639 included patients, 339 (20.7%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 65.6 (10.2) years. There was no difference in the risk of the primary end point between women and men (9.4% vs 8.3%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 0.89-2.18; P = .15). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI tended to have lower incidence of the primary end point than angiography-guided PCI in both women (5.2% vs 14.5%; adjusted HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.15-0.78; P = .01) and men (8.3% vs 11.7%; adjusted HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P = .09) without significant interaction (P for interaction = .86). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing complex PCI, compared with angiographic guidance, intravascular imaging guidance was associated with similar reduction in the risk of target vessel failure among women and men. The treatment benefit of intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed no significant interaction between treatment strategy and sex. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03381872.

Efficacy and Safety of Triple Therapy of Telmisartan/Amlodipine/Rosuvastatin in Patients with Dyslipidemia and Hypertension: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background: Hypertension and dyslipidemia significantly contribute to cardiovascular disease development. Their coexistence poses challenges in managing multiple medications, influencing treatment adherence. Objective: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of a combined treatment approach using a fixed-dose combination therapy. Methods: This multicenter, 8-week, randomized, double-blind, Phase IV trial was named Telmisartan/Amlodipine/Rosuvastatin from Samjin Pharmaceuticals and evaluated the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination treatment in patients with essential hypertension and dyslipidemia. They were randomly assigned to 2 fixed-dose combination therapy groups, telmisartan 40 mg/amlodipine 5 mg/rosuvastatin 10 mg (TEL/ALD/RSV) or amlodipine 5 mg/atorvastatin 10 mg (ALD/ATV) after washout/run-in period. The primary outcomes were the change in mean sitting systolic blood pressure and the percentage change of LDL-C after 8 weeks of medical treatment. Adverse drug reactions and events were assessed. Results: Of a total of 304 patients who underwent screening, 252 were randomized to the TEL/ALD/RSV group (125 patients) and the ALD/ATV group (127 patients). The mean (SD) ages of the TEL/ALD/RSV group and the ALD/ATV group were 67.4 (11.3) and 68.2 (10.6) years, respectively (P = 0.563). The least-squares mean (SE) in mean sitting systolic blood pressure changes between the 2 groups were -16.27 (0.93) mm Hg in the TEL/ALD/RSV group, -6.85 (0.92) mm Hg in the ALD/ATV group (LSM difference = -9.42 mm Hg; 95% CI, -11.99 to -6.84; P < .001). For LDL-C level changes, a significant difference was noted between the 2 groups: -50.03% (1.18%) in the TEL/ALD/RSV group, -39.60% (1.17%) in the ALD/ATV group (LSM difference = -10.43%; 95% CI, -13.70 to -7.16; P < .001). No severe adverse events were observed. Conclusions: TEL/ALD/RSV proved to be more efficient than ALD/ATV in lowering blood pressure and reducing LDL-C levels among patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia, with no notable safety concerns. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2024; XX:XXX-XXX). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03860220.

Clinical Benefit of Intravascular Imaging Compared With Conventional Angiography in Left Main Coronary Artery Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI (Randomized Controlled Trial of Intravascular Imaging Guidance Versus Angiography-Guidance on Clinical Outcomes After Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) demonstrated that intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved clinical outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for patients with complex coronary artery lesions. This study aims to assess whether the prognostic benefit of intravascular imaging-guided procedural optimization persists in patients undergoing PCI for left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: Of 1639 patients enrolled in the RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI, 192 patients with left main coronary artery disease were selected for the current prespecified substudy. Selected patients were randomly assigned to either the intravascular imaging-guided PCI group (n=138) or the angiography-guided PCI group (n=54). The primary end point was target vessel failure defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range 1.1 to 3.0 years), intravascular imaging-guided PCI was associated with lower incidence of primary end point compared with angiography-guided PCI (6.8% versus 25.1%; hazard ratio, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13-0.76]; P=0.010). This significant reduction in primary end point was mainly driven by a lower risk of cardiac death or spontaneous target vessel-related myocardial infarction (1.6% versus 12.7%; hazard ratio, 0.16 [95% CI, 0.03-0.82]; P=0.028). Intravascular imaging-guided PCI was independently associated with a lower risk of primary end point, even after adjusting for various clinical factors (hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% CI, 0.12-0.72]; P=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Intravascular imaging-guided PCI showed clinical benefit over angiography-guided PCI for left main coronary artery disease in reducing the risk of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03381872.

Effectiveness of low-intensity atorvastatin 5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg combination therapy compared with moderate-intensity atorvastatin 10 mg monotherapy: A randomized, double-blinded, multi-center, phase III study.

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy and safety of low-intensity atorvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy with moderate-intensity atorvastatin monotherapy in patients requiring cholesterol-lowering therapy. METHODS: At 19 centers in Korea, 290 patients were randomized to 4 groups: atorvastatin 5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg (A5E), ezetimibe 10 mg (E), atorvastatin 5 mg (A5), and atorvastatin 10 mg (A10). Clinical and laboratory examinations were performed at baseline, and at 4-week and 8-week follow-ups. The primary endpoint was percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels at the 8-week follow-up. Secondary endpoints included percentage changes from baseline in additional lipid parameters. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar among the study groups. At the 8-week follow-up, percentage changes in LDL cholesterol levels were significantly greater in the A5E group (49.2%) than in the E (18.7%), A5 (27.9%), and A10 (36.4%) groups. Similar findings were observed regarding the percentage changes in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels. Triglyceride levels were also significantly decreased in the A5E group than in the E group, whereas high-density lipoprotein levels substantially increased in the A5E group than in the E group. In patients with low- and intermediate-cardiovascular risk, 93.3% achieved the target LDL cholesterol levels in the A5E group, 40.0% in the E group, 66.7% in the A5 group, and 92.9% in the A10 group. In addition, 31.4% of patients in the A5E group, 8.1% in E, 9.7% in A5, and 7.3% in the A10 group reached the target levels of both LDL cholesterol < 70 mg/dL and reduction of LDL ≥ 50% from baseline. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of ezetimibe to low-intensity atorvastatin had a greater effect on lowering LDL cholesterol than moderate-intensity atorvastatin alone, offering an effective treatment option for cholesterol management, especially in patients with low and intermediate risks.

Comparison of efficacy and safety between third-dose triple and third-dose dual antihypertensive combination therapies in patients with hypertension.

We compared the efficacy and safety of third-standard-dose triple and third-standard-dose dual antihypertensive combination therapies in patients with mild to moderate hypertension. This was a phase II multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial. After a 4-week placebo run-in period, 245 participants were randomized to the third-dose triple combination (ALC group; amlodipine 1.67 mg + losartan potassium 16.67 mg + chlorthalidone 4.17 mg) or third-dose dual combination (AL group; amlodipine 1.67 mg + losartan potassium 16.67 mg, LC group; losartan potassium 16.67 mg + chlorthalidone 4.17 mg, AC group; amlodipine 1.67 mg + chlorthalidone 4.17 mg) therapy groups and followed up for 8 weeks. The mean systolic blood pressure (BP) reduction was -18.3 ± 13.2, -13.0 ± 13.3, -16.3 ± 12.4, and -13.8 ± 13.2 mmHg in the ALC, AL, LC, and AC groups, respectively. The ALC group showed significant systolic BP reduction compared to the AL and AC groups at weeks 4 (P = .010 and P = .018, respectively) and 8 (P = .017 and P = .036, respectively). At week 4, the proportion of systolic BP responders was significantly higher in the ALC group (42.6%) than in the AL (22.0%), LC (23.3%), and AC (27.1%) groups (P = .013, P = .021, and P = .045, respectively). At week 8, the proportion of systolic and diastolic BP responders was significantly higher in the ALC group (59.7%) than in the AL (39.3%) and AC (42.4%) groups (P = .022 and P = .049, respectively) at week 8. Third-standard-dose triple antihypertensive combination therapy demonstrated early effective BP control compared to third-standard-dose dual combination therapies, without increasing adverse drug reactions in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension.

Intravascular Imaging-Guided or Angiography-Guided Complex PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for complex coronary-artery lesions, as compared with outcomes after angiography-guided PCI, are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, multicenter, open-label trial in South Korea, we randomly assigned patients with complex coronary-artery lesions in a 2:1 ratio to undergo either intravascular imaging-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. In the intravascular imaging group, the choice between intravascular ultrasonography and optical coherence tomography was at the operators' discretion. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1639 patients underwent randomization, with 1092 assigned to undergo intravascular imaging-guided PCI and 547 assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI. At a median follow-up of 2.1 years (interquartile range, 1.4 to 3.0), a primary end-point event had occurred in 76 patients (cumulative incidence, 7.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 60 patients (cumulative incidence, 12.3%) in the angiography group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.89; P = 0.008). Death from cardiac causes occurred in 16 patients (cumulative incidence, 1.7%) in the intravascular imaging group and in 17 patients (cumulative incidence, 3.8%) in the angiography group; target-vessel-related myocardial infarction occurred in 38 (cumulative incidence, 3.7%) and 30 (cumulative incidence, 5.6%), respectively; and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization in 32 (cumulative incidence, 3.4%) and 25 (cumulative incidence, 5.5%), respectively. There were no apparent between-group differences in the incidence of procedure-related safety events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery lesions, intravascular imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target-vessel revascularization than angiography-guided PCI. (Supported by Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; RENOVATE-COMPLEX-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03381872).

Effect of rosuvastatin 20 mg versus rosuvastatin 5 mg plus ezetimibe on statin side-effects in elderly patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: Rationale and design of a randomized, controlled SaveSAMS trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend that patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) use high-intensity statin therapy to lower low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels by at least 50%, irrespective of age. However, in real-world practice, there is reluctance to maintain statin use in response to side-effects, particularly statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Moreover, no randomized trial has been conducted on the safety of statin therapy in elderly patients. TRIAL DESIGN: This investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized clinical trial aimed to investigate the incidence of SAMS and its effect on LDL-cholesterol levels in elderly patients with established ASCVD. Eligible patients were aged 70 years or older with established ASCVD. Consecutive patients who met the inclusion criteria were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive either intensive statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg) or combination therapy (rosuvastatin/ezetimibe, 5/10 mg). The primary endpoint of the study is SAMS at 6 months with regard to treatment strategy. Positive SAMS results are defined as patients with a proposed statin myalgia index score of 7 or higher. The key secondary end-points are target LDL-cholesterol achievement (LDL < 70 mg/dL), incidence of myopathy, rhabdomyolysis, frequency of drug discontinuation, and creatinine kinase, aspartate transaminase, alanine transaminase, total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglyceride, and highly sensitive C-reactive protein levels at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The SaveSAMS study is a multicenter, randomized trial that will compare the incidence of SAMS in patients with established ASCVD who are 70 years or older on intensive statin monotherapy to that combination therapy.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind, Active-controlled, Factorial Design, Phase III Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Combination Therapy of Pitavastatin and Ezetimibe Versus Monotherapy of Pitavastatin in Patients With Primary Hypercholesterolemia.

PURPOSE: Pitavastatin is a unique lipophilic statin with moderate efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels by 30% to 50% with a tolerable safety profile. However, the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to pitavastatin in patients with dyslipidemia has not been well investigated. Therefore, the objective of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, Phase III study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in Korean patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Korean men and women aged >19 and <80 years with primary hypercholesterolemia requiring medical treatment were included in this study. During the 8-week screening period, all patients were instructed to make therapeutic lifestyle changes. The screening period consisted of a 4-week washout period and a placebo run-in period (4-8 weeks). During treatment period I, patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 treatments: pitavastatin 2 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, pitavastatin 2 mg, pitavastatin 4 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, or pitavastatin 4 mg. The 8-week double-blind treatment period then commenced. Adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed in all patients. FINDINGS: The percentages in LDL-C from baseline after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment decreased significantly in the pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe (-52.8% [11.2%]) and pooled pitavastatin (-37.1% [14.1%]) groups. Treatment with pitavastatin/ezetimibe resulted in a significantly greater LDL-C-lowering effect than that with pitavastatin (difference, -15.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, -18.7 to -12.9; P < 0.001). The precentages of achieving LDL-C goal in pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe and pooled pitavastatin groups were 94.2% and 69.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions. Serious AEs were comparable between the groups. IMPLICATIONS: Pitavastatin and ezetimibe combinations effectively and safely decreased LDL-C levels by >50% in patients with dyslipidemia. The safety and tolerability of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy were comparable with those of pitavastatin monotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT04584736.

Innate immunity and protective effects of orally administered betaine against viral and bacterial diseases in the olive flounder Paralichthys olivaceus (Temminck & Schlegel).

Sustainable methods that increase farmed fish yield while controlling infections are required to prevent economic losses in aquaculture farms. In this study, we evaluated the effects of betaine-supplemented (0%, 0.1%, 0.5%, and 1.0%) feed on the growth and immunity of the olive flounder Paralichthys olivaceus. Feed conversion ratios, post-infection cumulative mortality rates and innate immune responses were monitored. Weight gain was significantly higher with 0.5% and 1.0% than with 0% and 0.1% betaine-supplemented feed. Lysozyme activity was highest with 1.0% betaine. Respiratory burst activity was highest with 0.5% and 1.0% betaine. Serum bactericidal activity against Edwardsiella tarda was highest with 1.0% betaine (40% increase in survival rates compared with those in the control). Furthermore, serum virucidal activity against the viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV) was higher with 1.0% betaine than with other concentrations. With 0.5% and 1.0% betaine, the survival rates against VHSV were higher than those in the control until day 11, after which they declined. Our study suggests that betaine is a promising agent for promoting the growth of and enhancing immunity against E. tarda in olive flounders. Our findings may further contribute to developing necessary alternatives to conventional antibiotics in fish farming.

Optical coherence tomography in coronary atherosclerosis assessment and intervention.

Since optical coherence tomography (OCT) was first performed in humans two decades ago, this imaging modality has been widely adopted in research on coronary atherosclerosis and adopted clinically for the optimization of percutaneous coronary intervention. In the past 10 years, substantial advances have been made in the understanding of in vivo vascular biology using OCT. Identification by OCT of culprit plaque pathology could potentially lead to a major shift in the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes. Detection by OCT of healed coronary plaque has been important in our understanding of the mechanisms involved in plaque destabilization and healing with the rapid progression of atherosclerosis. Accurate detection by OCT of sequelae from percutaneous coronary interventions that might be missed by angiography could improve clinical outcomes. In addition, OCT has become an essential diagnostic modality for myocardial infarction with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Insight into neoatherosclerosis from OCT could improve our understanding of the mechanisms of very late stent thrombosis. The appropriate use of OCT depends on accurate interpretation and understanding of the clinical significance of OCT findings. In this Review, we summarize the state of the art in cardiac OCT and facilitate the uniform use of this modality in coronary atherosclerosis. Contributions have been made by clinicians and investigators worldwide with extensive experience in OCT, with the aim that this document will serve as a standard reference for future research and clinical application.

Efficacy and Safety of SID142 in Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled, Parallel-Group, Phase III Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Renexin® is a combination pill of cilostazol and Ginkgo biloba leaf extract that is used for the improvement of ischemic symptoms associated with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). SID142 is a controlled-release tablet of cilostazol (200 mg) and G biloba leaf extract (160 mg) that was developed to address the limitation of BID administration with Renexin. This study aimed to verify that SID142 was not inferior to Renexin in the treatment of patients with PAD. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group, Phase III clinical trial. Study subjects were randomized to receive SID142 once daily or Renexin twice a day for 12 weeks. The primary end point was a change in the patient assessment of lower leg pain intensity with the use of a visual analog scale (VAS) after 12 weeks of treatment. If the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI was greater than -10, the study drug was declared noninferior to the reference drug. Secondary efficacy end points included cold sensation, ankle-brachial index, ankle systolic pressure, maximum walking distance, pain-free walking distance, and investigator's global assessment. Study group results were compared 4, 8, and 12 weeks after treatment. Adverse events were assessed as a safety end point. FINDINGS: In total, 344 subjects from 19 medical centers were screened, and a total of 170 subjects were randomly assigned to either the SID142 (n = 86) or the Renexin (n = 84) group. Analysis of the change in lower extremity pain at 12 weeks compared with baseline revealed that SID142 was not inferior to Renexin (21.44 [19.23] vs 22.30 [17.75]; 95% CI, -7.70 to 5.97; P = 0.5942). No significant differences were found between groups in any secondary efficacy end point. However, the incidence of adverse reactions was significantly lower in the SID142 group (22.35% vs 39.29%; P = 0.0171). IMPLICATIONS: SID142 once daily was not inferior to Renexin twice a day for efficacy in patients with PAD. SID142 had a favorable safety profile. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT03318276.

Catheter-based ultrasound renal denervation in patients with resistant hypertension: the randomized, controlled REQUIRE trial.

Renal denervation is a promising new non-pharmacological treatment for resistant hypertension. However, there is a lack of data from Asian patients. The REQUIRE trial investigated the blood pressure-lowering efficacy of renal denervation in treated patients with resistant hypertension from Japan and South Korea. Adults with resistant hypertension (seated office blood pressure ≥150/90 mmHg and 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure ≥140 mmHg) with suitable renal artery anatomy were randomized to ultrasound renal denervation or a sham procedure. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 3 months. A total of 143 patients were included (72 renal denervation, 71 sham control). Reduction from baseline in 24-hour ambulatory systolic blood pressure at 3 months was not significantly different between the renal denervation (-6.6 mmHg) and sham control (-6.5 mmHg) groups (difference: -0.1, 95% confidence interval -5.5, 5.3; p = 0.971). Reductions from baseline in home and office systolic blood pressure (differences: -1.8 mmHg [p = 0.488] and -2.0 mmHg [p = 0.511], respectively), and medication load, did not differ significantly between the two groups. The procedure-/device-related major adverse events was not seen. This study did not show a significant difference in ambulatory blood pressure reductions between renal denervation and a sham procedure in treated patients with resistant hypertension. Although blood pressure reduction after renal denervation was similar to other sham-controlled studies, the sham group in this study showed much greater reduction. This unexpected blood pressure reduction in the sham control group highlights study design issues that will be addressed in a new trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02918305 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov ).

Effects of Fixed-dose Combination of Low-intensity Rosuvastatin and Ezetimibe Versus Moderate-intensity Rosuvastatin Monotherapy on Lipid Profiles in Patients With Hypercholesterolemia: A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter, Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether the combination therapy of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is an useful alternative to moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients requiring cholesterol-lowering therapy. METHODS: This was a multicenter randomized, double-blind study to investigate the safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin 2.5 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg (R2.5+E10) compared to those of ezetimibe 10 mg monotherapy (E10), rosuvastatin 2.5 mg (R2.5), and rosuvastatin 5 mg monotherapy (R5) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. A total of 348 patients at 15 centers in Korea were screened, and 279 patients were randomized to different groups in the study. Clinical and laboratory examinations were performed at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks after intervention. The primary endpoint was the percentage change of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels at the 8-week follow-up. FINDINGS: Baseline characteristics were similar among the four groups. There were significant changes in lipid profiles at the 8-week follow-up. A greater decrease in the LDL cholesterol levels (primary endpoint) were found in the R2.5+E10 group (-45.7±18.6%) than in the E10 group (-16.7±14.7%, p<0.0001), R2.5 group (-32.6±15.1%, p<0.0001), and R5 group (-38.9±13.9%, p=0.0003). Similar outcomes were observed regarding the decrease in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B protein. In addition, changes in the triglyceride and HDL levels in the R2.5+E10 group were significantly different compared with those in the E10 group; however, the changes were similar to those in the other treatment groups. In patients with low and moderate risk, all patients achieved the target LDL cholesterol levels in the R2.5+E10 group (100%) compared to 13.0% in the E10 group, 47.6% in the R2.5 group, and 65.2% in the R5 group. Adverse effects were rare and similar in the four groups. IMPLICATIONS: Fixed-dose combination of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe was more effective in lowering LDL cholesterol and achieving LDL cholesterol goals than moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy. These findings suggest that the combination therapy of low-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe is an useful alternative to moderate-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy for cholesterol management, particularly in patients with low and moderate risk. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04652349.

Characteristics of non-culprit plaques in acute coronary syndrome patients with calcified plaque at the culprit lesion.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the non-culprit plaques (NCPs) characteristics in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with calcified plaques (CP). BACKGROUND: Recently, a new in vivo classification of calcified culprit plaques in patients with ACS was proposed. Characteristics of NCPs in this group of patients are unknown. METHODS: A total of 692 NCPs from 492 ACS patients were retrospectively compared based on the culprit plaque phenotype: 71 from CP patients, 383 from plaque rupture (PR) patients, 238 from plaque erosion (PE) patients. RESULTS: NCPs of CP patients had greater maximal calcium thickness, wider calcium arc, longer calcium length, and greater calcium index, compared to PR or PE patients (CP vs. PR: all p < .001, CP vs. PE: all p < .001). Thin-cap fibroatheroma was less prevalent (p = .023), fibrous cap was thicker (p = .035), and mean lipid arc was narrower in CP than in PR (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, NCPs of CP patients had greater calcium burden and less vulnerability. This information may help to better understand the underlying mechanisms of ACS and to develop strategy for tailored management.

Efficacy and safety of co-administered telmisartan/amlodipine and rosuvastatin in subjects with hypertension and dyslipidemia.

Single risk factors, such as hypertension and dyslipidemia, can combine to exacerbate the development and severity of cardiovascular disease. Treatment goals may be more effectively achieved if multiple disease factors are targeted with combination treatment. We enrolled 202 patients who were randomly divided into the following three groups: telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg, telmisartan 80 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg, and telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg. The primary efficacy variables were changes from baseline in mean sitting systolic blood pressure (MSSBP) between telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg and telmisartan 80 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg at 8 weeks, and the percent changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol between telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg and telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg at 8 weeks. The secondary efficacy variables were changes in MSSBP, mean sitting diastolic blood pressure (MSDBP), LDL cholesterol and other lipid levels at 4 weeks and 8 weeks, as well as observed adverse events during follow-up. There were no significant differences between the three groups in demographic characteristics and no significant difference among the three groups in terms of baseline characteristics for the validity evaluation variables. The mean overall treatment compliance in the three groups was, respectively, 98.42%, 96.68%, and 98.12%, indicating strong compliance for all patients. The Least-Square (LS) mean (SE) for changes in MSSBP in the two (telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg and telmisartan 80 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg) groups were -19.3 (2.68) mm Hg and -6.69 (2.76) mm Hg. The difference between the two groups was significant (-12.60 (2.77) mm Hg, 95% CI -18.06 to -7.14, P < .0001). The LS Mean for the percent changes from baseline in LDL cholesterol in the two (telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg + rosuvastatin 20 mg and telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg) groups were -52.45 (3.23) % and 2.68 (3.15) %. The difference between the two groups was significant (-55.13 (3.20) %, 95% CI -61.45 to -48.81, P < .0001). There were no adverse events leading to discontinuation or death. Combined administration of telmisartan/amlodipine 80/5 mg and rosuvastatin 20 mg for the treatment of hypertensive patients with dyslipidemia significantly reduces blood pressure and improves lipid control. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03067688.