Effect of Rosuvastatin on Carotid Intima-Media Thickness in Children With Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia: The CHARON Study (Hypercholesterolemia in Children and Adolescents Taking Rosuvastatin Open Label).

BACKGROUND: Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) is an autosomal dominant disorder leading to premature atherosclerosis. Children with HeFH exhibit early signs of atherosclerosis manifested by increased carotid intima-media thickness (IMT). In this study, we assessed the effect of 2-year treatment with rosuvastatin on carotid IMT in children with HeFH. METHODS: Children with HeFH (age, 6-<18 years) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >4.9 mmol/L or >4.1 mmol/L in combination with other risk factors received rosuvastatin for 2 years, starting at 5 mg once daily, with uptitration to 10 mg (age, 6-<10 years) or 20 mg (age, 10-<18 years). Carotid IMT was assessed by ultrasonography at baseline and 12 and 24 months in all patients and in age-matched unaffected siblings. Carotid IMT was measured at 3 locations (common carotid artery, carotid bulb, internal carotid artery) in both the left and right carotid arteries. A linear mixed-effects model was used to evaluate differences in carotid IMT between children with HeFH and the unaffected siblings. P values were adjusted for age, sex, carotid artery site, and family relations. RESULTS: At baseline, mean±SD carotid IMT was significantly greater for the 197 children with HeFH compared with the 65 unaffected siblings (0.397±0.049 and 0.377±0.045 mm, respectively; P=0.001). During 2 years of follow-up, the change in carotid IMT was 0.0054 mm/y (95% confidence interval, 0.0030-0.0082) in children with HeFH and 0.0143 mm/y (95% confidence interval, 0.0095-0.0192) in unaffected siblings (P=0.002). The end-of-study difference in mean carotid IMT between children with HeFH and unaffected siblings after 2 years was no longer significant (0.408±0.043 and 0.402±0.042 mm, respectively; P=0.2). CONCLUSIONS: In children with HeFH who were ≥6 years of age, carotid IMT was significantly greater at baseline compared with unaffected siblings. Rosuvastatin treatment for 2 years resulted in significantly less progression of increased carotid IMT in children with HeFH than untreated unaffected siblings. As a result, no difference in carotid IMT could be detected between the 2 groups after 2 years of rosuvastatin. These findings support the value of early initiation of statin treatment for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction in children with HeFH. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01078675.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin therapy in children and adolescents with familial hypercholesterolemia: Results from the CHARON study.

OBJECTIVE: Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) is an autosomal dominant disorder leading to premature atherosclerosis. Guidelines recommend initiating statins early to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Studies have evaluated rosuvastatin in children aged ≥10 years, but its efficacy and safety in younger children is unknown. METHODS: Children with HeFH and fasting LDL-C >4.92 mmol/L (190 mg/dL) or >4.10 mmol/L (>158 mg/dL) with other cardiovascular risk factors received rosuvastatin 5 mg daily. Based on LDL-C targets (<2.85 mmol/L [<110 mg/dL]), rosuvastatin could be uptitrated to 10 mg (aged 6-9 years) or 20 mg (aged 10-17 years). Treatment lasted 2 years. Changes in lipid values, growth, sexual maturation, and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat analysis included 197 patients. At 24 months, LDL-C was reduced by 43, 45, and 35% vs baseline in patients aged 6-9, 10-13, and 14-17 years, respectively (P < .001 for all groups). Most AEs were mild. Intermittent myalgia was reported in 11 (6%) patients and did not lead to discontinuation of rosuvastatin treatment. Serious AEs were reported by 9 (5%) patients, all considered unrelated to treatment by the investigators. No clinically important changes in hepatic biochemistry were reported. Rosuvastatin treatment did not appear to adversely affect height, weight, or sexual maturation. CONCLUSIONS: In HeFH patients aged 6-17 years, rosuvastatin 5-20 mg over 2 years significantly reduced LDL-C compared with baseline. Treatment was well tolerated, with no adverse effects on growth or sexual maturation.

Comparison of lipid-modifying efficacy of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with acute coronary syndrome (from the LUNAR study).

Patients with acute coronary syndrome are recommended for early aggressive low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol-lowering therapy. The LUNAR study compared the efficacy of rosuvastatin with that of atorvastatin in decreasing LDL cholesterol in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Adult patients with coronary artery disease who were hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within 48 hours of first symptoms were randomized (n = 825) to an open-label, once-daily treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg (RSV20), rosuvastatin 40 mg (RSV40), or atorvastatin 80 mg (ATV80) for 12 weeks. Patients were evaluated at weeks 2, 6, and 12. The primary end point was treatment efficacy in lowering LDL cholesterol averaged over 6 to 12 weeks. Changes in other lipoproteins, including high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and safety were evaluated. Analysis of covariance was used to compare least squares mean differences between each rosuvastatin treatment arm and the atorvastatin arm. The efficacy of RSV40 in lowering LDL cholesterol was significantly greater than that of ATV80 (46.8% vs 42.7% decrease, p = 0.02). LDL cholesterol lowering by RSV20 was similar to that by ATV80. Increases in HDL cholesterol were significantly greater with RSV40 (11.9%, p <0.001) and RSV20 (9.7%, p <0.01) than with ATV80 (5.6%). RSV40 was also significantly more effective than ATV80 in improving most other secondary efficacy variables, whereas the effects of RSV20 on these parameters were generally similar to those of ATV80. All 3 treatments were generally well tolerated over 12 weeks. In conclusion, results from the LUNAR study show that RSV40 more effectively decreased LDL cholesterol, increased HDL cholesterol, and improved other blood lipid parameters than ATV80 in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Relationship of ethnic origin, gender, and age to blood creatine kinase levels.

BACKGROUND: Creatine kinase is expressed at high levels in muscle, where it plays a central role in energy metabolism. Highly elevated creatine kinase levels in blood may indicate muscle trauma or disease. However, it is known that baseline creatine kinase levels are higher in African Americans than in whites and that they are higher in men than in women. This analysis explores the relationship of ethnic origin, gender, and age to baseline blood creatine kinase levels in a large group of adults with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Data from the screening phases of 4 North American trials of statins, which included large numbers of specific racial/ethnic populations, were combined for analysis. The pooled population (N=11,346) included 2760 African Americans, 3301 whites, 2930 Hispanics, and 2355 South Asians. RESULTS: Creatine kinase levels varied according to ethnic origin, gender, and age. African American participants had higher median creatine kinase levels than did individuals of the 3 other ethnicities. Within each ethnic group, men had higher median creatine kinase levels than women: African Americans, 135 versus 73 U/L; whites, 64 versus 42 U/L; Hispanics, 69 versus 48 U/L; and South Asians, 74 versus 50 U/L. An age-dependent decrease in creatine kinase levels was noted among men, but no such trend was seen among women. The median creatine kinase levels for younger African American men exceeded the standard upper limit of normal. CONCLUSION: Physicians should use caution when interpreting creatine kinase levels that seem elevated, particularly when treating African American patients and younger men.

Rosuvastatin reduces non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and lipoprotein remnants in patients with dysbetalipoproteinemia (Fredrickson type III hyperlipoproteinemia).

BACKGROUND: Dysbetalipoproteinemia is an uncommon genetic disorder characterized by accumulation of plasma remnant lipoproteins, severe mixed dyslipidemia, elevated apolipoprotein E levels, accelerated atherosclerosis, and premature cardiovascular disease. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin in patients with dysbetalipoproteinemia. METHODS: Following a 6-week washout, 32 patients with dysbetalipoproteinemia received rosuvastatin 10 mg, rosuvastatin 20 mg, and pravastatin 40 mg, each for 6 weeks in a randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover design. Patients subsequently entered an 18-week open-label phase in which the rosuvastatin dosage could be increased from 20 mg to a maximum of 40 mg at 6 weekly intervals to reach National Cholesterol Education Program goals for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and optimal triglyceride (TG). Fibrates (except gemfibrozil) could be added if patients were not at goal on rosuvastatin 40 mg. The primary efficacy variable was percent change from baseline in non-HDL-C during the double-blind phase. The prespecified efficacy criterion was for the 95% confidence interval (CI) of non-HDL-C to lie entirely below -25% for any rosuvastatin dose. RESULTS: Following drug washout, median total cholesterol was 8.86 mmol/L, non-HDL-C 7.61 mmol/L, and TG 5.69 mmol/L. After 6-week treatment, median change in non-HDL-C was -48.2% (95% CI -56.7% to -45.6%) for rosuvastatin 10 mg, -56.4% (95% CI -61.4% to -48.5%) for rosuvastatin 20 mg, and -35.1% (95% CI -41.6% to -29.6%) for pravastatin 40 mg. Rosuvastatin increased HDL-C and apolipoprotein A-I and substantially reduced total, very low-, intermediate-, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and TG, and corresponding apolipoproteins. Efficacy was maintained in the open-label phase, with reduction in non-HDL-C of -61.5%, -62.8% and -65.8% at weeks 24, 30 and 36, respectively. All treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin 10 and 20 mg favorably modify the dyslipidemia of patients with dysbetalipoproteinemia.

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.

Safety of rosuvastatin: update on 16,876 rosuvastatin-treated patients in a multinational clinical trial program.

BACKGROUND: The safety and tolerability of rosuvastatin were assessed using data from 16,876 patients who received rosuvastatin 5-40 mg in a multinational phase II/III/IIIb/IV program, representing 25,670 patient-years of continuous exposure to rosuvastatin. METHODS: An integrated database, consisting of 33 trials whose databases were locked up to and including September 16, 2005, was used to examine adverse events and laboratory data. RESULTS: In placebo-controlled trials, adverse events irrespective of causality assessment occurred in 52.1% of patients receiving rosuvastatin 5-40 mg (n = 931) and 51.8% of patients receiving placebo (n = 483). In all controlled clinical trials with comparator statins, rosuvastatin 5-40 mg was associated with an adverse event profile similar to profiles for atorvastatin 10-80 mg, simvastatin 10-80 mg, and pravastatin 10-40 mg. Clinically significant elevations in alanine aminotransferase (> 3 times the upper limit of normal [ULN] on at least 2 consecutive occasions) were uncommon (< or = 0.2%) in the rosuvastatin and comparator statin groups. Elevated creatine kinase > 10 times ULN occurred in < or = 0.3% of patients receiving rosuvastatin or other statins. Myopathy (creatine kinase > 10 times ULN with muscle symptoms) possibly related to treatment occurred in 0.03% of patients taking rosuvastatin at doses < or = 40 mg. The frequency of dipstick-positive proteinuria at rosuvastatin doses < or = 20 mg was comparable to that seen with other statins, and the development of proteinuria was not predictive of acute or progressive renal disease. Both short- and long-term rosuvastatin treatment were associated with small increases in estimated glomerular filtration rate, with improvements appearing to be somewhat greater in those patients beginning treatment with greater renal impairment. In the phase II-IV program, no deaths were attributed to rosuvastatin; at doses of rosuvastatin < or = 40 mg, 1 case of rhabdomyolysis occurred in a patient who received rosuvastatin 20 mg and concomitant gemfibrozil treatment. CONCLUSION: In summary, rosuvastatin was well tolerated by a broad range of patients with dyslipidemia, and its safety profile was similar to those of comparator statins investigated in the clinical program. (Nota bene: The clinical development program for rosuvastatin initially evaluated rosuvastatin doses up to 80 mg. Following completion of the phase III/IIIb program, a decision was made not to pursue marketing approval for the 80-mg dose because the additional lipid-modifying benefits of this dose did not justify the potential risks for use in the general population of patients with dyslipidemia.)

SLC11A1 (formerly NRAMP1) and susceptibility to visceral leishmaniasis in The Sudan.

Genetic susceptibility to visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is indicated by differences in incidence and clinical phenotypes between ethnic groups in Sudan. In mice, innate susceptibility to Leishmania donovani, the etiological agent of VL, is controlled by Slc11a1 (formerly Nramp1). We therefore examined polymorphisms at SLC11A1 in 59 multicase families of VL from the high-incidence Masalit tribe in Sudan. Multipoint nonparametric analysis in ALLEGRO shows a significant linkage across SLC11A1 (Zlr scores 2.38-2.55; 0.008< or =P< or =0.012; information content 0.88). The extended transmission disequilibrium test shows biased transmission of alleles at 5' polymorphisms in the promoter (P=0.0145), exon 3 (P=0.0037) and intron 4 (P=0.0049), and haplotypes formed by them (P=0.0089), but not for 3' polymorphisms at exon 15 or the 3'UTR. Stepwise logistic regression analysis using a case/pseudo-control data set derived from the 59 families was consistent with main effects contributed by the intron 4 469+14G/C polymorphism. Although the two alleles for 469+14G/C lie on haplotypes carrying different alleles for the functional promoter GTn polymorphism, the latter did not itself contribute separate main effects. Sequence analysis of 36 individuals failed to identify new putative functional polymorphisms in the coding region, intron 1, intron/exon boundaries, intron 4/exon 4a, or in the 3'UTR. One novel promoter polymorphism (-86G/A) was located within a putative nuclear factor kappa B binding site that could be functional. Further work will determine whether additional polymorphisms occur upstream in the promoter, which could be in linkage disequilibrium with the intron 4 polymorphism. These studies contribute to knowledge of the role of SLC11A1 in infectious disease.

Efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin alone and in combination with cholestyramine in patients with severe hypercholesterolemia: a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe hypercholesterolemia may need greater cholesterol reductions than can be achieved with statin therapy alone. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this trial was to compare the efficacy of a combination of rosuvastatin plus cholestyramine with that of rosuvastatin alone for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels after 6 weeks of treatment. METHODS: In this open-label, multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, comparator trial, adult patients with severe hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C level, 190-400 mg/dL) received rosuvastatin 40 mg/d for 6 weeks after a 6-week dietary lead-in period and were then randomized to 6 weeks of treatment with rosuvastatin 80 mg/d alone or rosuvastatin 80 mg/d plus cholestyramine 16 g/d (8 g BID with meals). RESULTS: Of 153 eligible patients, 147 (83 men, 64 women; mean [SD] age, 54.5 [13.7] years; mean [SD] bodyweight, 81.3 [14.4] kg) received randomized treatment, and 144 had post baseline measurements and were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) reduction in LDL-C was 522% (13.0%) after treatment with rosuvastatin 40 mg, and the least squares mean (SE) reductions in LDL-C were 56.4% (1.8%) and 60.5% (1.8%) after treatment with rosuvastatin 80 mg alone (n = 69) and rosuvastatin 80 mg plus cholestyramine (n = 75), respectively. No significant differences between treatments were found for these or other lipid measurements. Incremental LDL-C reductions >30% were obtained in 29% (22/75) of patients receiving combination therapy and 4% (3/69) of patients receiving rosuvastatin alone. The combination therapy was less well tolerated, primarily due to gastrointestinal symptoms; otherwise, the treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In this group of patients with severe hypercholesterolemia, the combination of rosuvastatin 80 mg with cholestyramine 16 g/d did not provide a significantly greater efficacy benefit than rosuvastatin alone.

Comparison of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia.

Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HFH) is a common genetic disorder that confers a significantly increased risk of early coronary artery disease. This study compared atorvastatin and rosuvastatin in reducing low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in HFH in a global, 18-week, weighted-randomization, double-blind, parallel-group, forced-titration study. Following a 6-week diet lead-in, 623 patients were randomized to 20 mg/day of atorvastatin (n = 187) or rosuvastatin (n = 436) with forced titration at 6-week intervals to 80 mg/day. The primary end point was percentage change in LDL cholesterol from baseline to week 18. At week 18, rosuvastatin therapy produced a significantly greater reduction in LDL cholesterol than atorvastatin (-57.9% vs -50.4%; p <0.001) and a significantly greater increase in high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (12.4% vs 2.9%; p <0.001). Rosuvastatin also produced significantly greater reductions in apolipoprotein-B and all 4 major lipid ratios, as well as a significantly greater increases in apolipoprotein A-I (all p <0.001). More patients with HFH with coronary artery disease achieved the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III goal of LDL cholesterol <100 mg/dl (<2.6 mmol/L) on rosuvastatin 40 and 80 mg than atorvastatin 80 mg (17%, 24%, and 4.5%, respectively). High-sensitivity C-reactive protein median values were reduced by 33% to 34% in both the 80-mg rosuvastatin- and atorvastatin-treated groups. Both treatments were well tolerated. Thus, in HFH, rosuvastatin force titrated from 20 to 80 mg/day produced significantly greater reductions than atorvastatin 20 to 80 mg/day in LDL cholesterol and improvements in HDL cholesterol and other lipid parameters, and enabled more patients to achieve LDL cholesterol goals.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin across doses (STELLAR* Trial).

The primary objective of this 6-week, parallel-group, open-label, randomized, multicenter trial was to compare rosuvastatin with atorvastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin across dose ranges for reduction of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Secondary objectives included comparing rosuvastatin with comparators for other lipid modifications and achievement of National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and Joint European Task Force LDL cholesterol goals. After a dietary lead-in period, 2,431 adults with hypercholesterolemia (LDL cholesterol > or =160 and <250 mg/dl; triglycerides <400 mg/dl) were randomized to treatment with rosuvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg. At 6 weeks, across-dose analyses showed that rosuvastatin 10 to 80 mg reduced LDL cholesterol by a mean of 8.2% more than atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg, 26% more than pravastatin 10 to 40 mg, and 12% to 18% more than simvastatin 10 to 80 mg (all p <0.001). Mean percent changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in the rosuvastatin groups were +7.7% to +9.6% compared with +2.1% to +6.8% in all other groups. Across dose ranges, rosuvastatin reduced total cholesterol significantly more (p <0.001) than all comparators and triglycerides significantly more (p <0.001) than simvastatin and pravastatin. Adult Treatment Panel III LDL cholesterol goals were achieved by 82% to 89% of patients treated with rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg compared with 69% to 85% of patients treated with atorvastatin 10 to 80 mg; the European LDL cholesterol goal of <3.0 mmol/L was achieved by 79% to 92% in rosuvastatin groups compared with 52% to 81% in atorvastatin groups. Drug tolerability was similar across treatments.

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.