Post-switch Effectiveness of Etanercept Biosimilar Versus Continued Etanercept in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients with Stable Disease: A Prospective Multinational Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: To better inform clinicians about the use of etanercept biosimilar (SB4) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), COMPANION-B, a prospective real-world observational study, evaluated the effectiveness of the voluntary switch from originator (etanercept, ETN) to SB4 in patients with stable RA (low-disease activity/remission). METHODS: The study recruited adult patients (18 years or older) with RA (2010 American College of Rheumatology criteria) prescribed ETN as their first or second biologic for at least 6 months across 14 sites in Canada and five in Australia. Patients had stable disease (Disease Activity Score-28 using erythrocyte sedimentation rate [DAS28-ESR] less than 3.2) at enrollment with no evidence of flare within the previous 3 months. Concomitant disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) were permitted. Patients could elect to continue ETN or voluntarily switch to SB4 in consultation with their doctors. The primary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening (defined as a DAS28-ESR increase of at least 1.2 from baseline and minimum score of at least 3.2 or a defined modification in RA treatment) during 12 months of follow-up. The secondary effectiveness measure was the proportion of patients with disease worsening at month 6. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and non-serious adverse reactions (NSARs) were recorded. RESULTS: Of 163 patients enrolled, 109 elected to continue on ETN and 54 switched to SB4; 65.8% of patients received non-biologic DMARD(s), 52.6% methotrexate, and 10.5% oral corticosteroid(s). At month 12, the proportion of patients with disease worsening was comparable in the ETN group (22.8% [95% CI 15.0-32.2]) and SB4 group (17.6% [95% CI 8.4-30.9]). Similarly, the proportions of patients with disease worsening were also comparable at month 6 (ETN: 7.9% [95% CI 3.5-15.0]; SB4: 7.8% [95% CI 2.2-18.9]). SAEs were low and similar across both groups (ETN: 8.7%; SB4: 5.7%). NSARs were slightly higher in the SB4 vs. ETN group (13.2% vs. 2.9%). CONCLUSIONS: SB4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to ETN over 12 months in patients with stable RA who voluntarily switched to the biosimilar in a real-world setting.

Changes in skin score in early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis are associated with changes in global disease severity.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether skin score changes are associated with changes in overall disease severity, function and quality of life in early dcSSc patients. METHODS: A total of 154 and 128 dcSSc patients from the Canadian Scleroderma Research Group database with 1 and 2 year follow-up and a disease duration ⩽5 years without end-stage organ damage and/or significant comorbidity at the initial visit were included. Skin was assessed using the modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) and disease severity by the summed Medsger disease severity score (DSS) (without skin domain), physician and patient global assessments, function [HAQ disability index (HAQ-DI)] and quality of life [36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical component summary (PCS)]. Analyses were repeated in patients with a disease duration ⩽3 years. RESULTS: At 2 years, 64 (50%) patients had improved skin (mRSS decrease of ⩾5 points and/or ⩾25%). Skin improvers had improved summed DSS (P = 0.002); better physician global assessments of disease activity, severity and damage (all P ⩽ 0.003); better HAQ-DI (P = 0.001) and SF-36 PCS (P = 0.005). Changes in the mRSS were positively correlated with changes in summed DSS (P = 0.006) and other disease outcomes. In the 26 (20.3%) patients with worsened skin (mRSS increase of ⩾5 points and/or ⩾25%), the summed DSS and physician global assessments were worse (P = 0.01 and P ⩽ 0.009, respectively). In the subgroup with a disease duration ⩽3 years, similar associations were found. CONCLUSION: At 1 and 2 years, overall disease improvement parallels skin improvement in early dcSSc. This is important for prognosis and reflects the value of mRSS as an outcome measure in trials with these patients.

Skin improvement is a surrogate for favourable changes in other organ systems in early diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: Skin improvement in diffuse cutaneous SSc (dcSSc), measured with modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS), is frequently used as a primary outcome in clinical trials, but it is uncertain whether mRSS changes reflect changes in other organ systems. This aim of this study was to explore if skin changes in early dcSSc over 1 and 2 years are associated with changes in severity of other organ involvement. METHODS: Canadian Scleroderma Research Group database patients with dcSSc, disease duration of ≤5 years, no evidence of initial end-stage organ damage and/or significant comorbidity who had 1 year (n = 154) and 2 years (n = 128) of follow-up data were included. mRSS changes of 25% and/or ≥5 points were considered significant. Organ involvement was assessed by Medsger Disease Severity Score and Canadian Scleroderma Research Group definitions using bivariate, chi-square, ANOVA, adjusted regression and longitudinal mixed effect model analyses. RESULTS: Improvement in mRSS was found in 41% of patients at 1 year and in 50% at 2 years. Improved patients showed less forced vital capacity decline (P = 0.012) and less frequent new cardiac involvement (P = 0.02) over 1 year, as well as better lung (by both Disease Severity Score, P = 0.006, and Δforced vital capacity%, P = 0.026), peripheral vascular (P = 0.006) and joint/tendon (P = 0.002) involvement over 2 years. mRSS worsening was consistently linked to less favourable lung outcomes at both 1- and 2-year follow-up visits, and more severe gastrointestinal disease at 2 years. CONCLUSION: Changes in lung function in early dcSSc closely parallel skin changes. mRSS improvement reflects better prognosis for visceral disease and may be a reliable outcome measure in clinical trials.

Real-world data to assess changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and predicted cardiovascular risk after ezetimibe discontinuation post reporting of the Ezetimibe and Simvastatin in Hypercholesterolemia Enhances Atherosclerosis Regression trial.

BACKGROUND: The 2008 Ezetimibe and Simvastatin in Hypercholesterolemia Enhances Atherosclerosis Regression (ENHANCE) study demonstrated ezetimibe + simvastatin vs simvastatin alone had a neutral effect on the surrogate endpoint of carotid intima-media thickness. Subsequent media portrayal of the study prompted ezetimibe discontinuation in many patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the impact of ENHANCE reporting on ezetimibe discontinuation, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) changes, and potential cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. METHODS: This analysis used claims data in a retrospective, observational study of patients receiving ezetimibe + statin and compared LDL-C for patients who discontinued ezetimibe (n = 970) vs those who continued ezetimibe + statins (n = 3706) after ENHANCE results disclosure. Change in relative CVD risk was estimated from the absolute LDL-C difference between groups per the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' meta-analysis of statin trials. RESULTS: The rate of ezetimibe discontinuation was 2% in the 6 months before and 21% in the 6 months after reporting of ENHANCE results. Among patients who ultimately discontinued vs continued ezetimibe, respective mean LDL-C levels were 79.8 and 78.3 mg/dL 6 months before reporting of the ENHANCE results and 93.5 and 78.1 mg/dL 6 months after reporting of ENHANCE. Predictive application of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' meta-analysis suggested the 13.9 mg/dL increase in mean LDL-C translated to a 9.4% increase in relative CVD risk for those who discontinued ezetimibe. CONCLUSION: After reporting of the neutral ENHANCE results, ezetimibe discontinuation rate increased, LDL-C levels increased, and predicted CVD risk increased among those who discontinued ezetimibe. Characterization of clinical outcomes regarding lipid-altering agents based on surrogate biomarker studies not designed to assess CVD outcomes may be misleading, potentially placing patients at increased CVD risk.

Gender Disparities in Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Cardiovascular Disease: Insights from a Managed Care Population.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have documented the strong inverse relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, women are less likely to be screened for hypercholesterolemia, receive lipid-lowering therapy (LLT), and achieve optimal LDL-C levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were extracted from a U.S. administrative claims database between January 2008 and December 2012 for patients with established ASCVD. The earliest date of valid LDL-C value was defined as the index date. Patients were followed for ±12 months from the index date and were stratified by gender, by baseline LDL-C level, and whether they were initially treated with a LLT then propensity score matched by gender using demographic and clinical characteristics. Both descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to explore the association of gender with the frequency of LDL-C monitoring, LLT treatment initiation in initially untreated patients, and prescribing patterns in initially treated patients. RESULTS: A total of 76,414 subjects with established ASCVD were identified; 42% of the sample was women. In the unmatched cohort, 50.3% of men and 32.0% of women were prescribed a preindex statin (p < 0.0001). Among matched patients (n = 51,764), women initially treated with LLT were significantly less likely to receive a prescription for a higher potency LLT. Even among those with LDL-C levels above 160 mg/dL, women were more likely to discontinue LLT, odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 1.8 (1.2-2.3). Female gender and older age were significant predictors of discontinuation, and the potency of the index medication was the strongest predictor of dose titration. Initially untreated women were less likely to initiate LLT treatment than men, irrespective of index LDL-C levels (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The observed disparities further reinforce the need for targeted efforts to reduce the gender gap for secondary prevention in women at high risk of cardiovascular disease.

Impact of Switching From High-Efficacy Lipid-Lowering Therapies to Generic Simvastatin on LDL-C Levels and LDL-C Goal Attainment Among High-Risk Primary and Secondary Prevention Populations in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: High cholesterol, especially high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity/mortality. Switching from high-efficacy lipid-lowering therapies (HETs) to simvastatin might lead to sub-optimal control of LDL-C. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of switching from HETs to generic simvastatin on LDL-C levels and LDL-C goal attainment among the high-risk primary and secondary prevention populations in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using Clinical Practice Research Datalink database. Included were individuals with more than 2 months of prescriptions of the following HETs between August 1, 2004 and December 31, 2008: simvastatin/ezetimibe fixed dose (S/E), simvastatin and ezetimibe co-administration (S+E), atorvastatin and ezetimibe co-administration (A+E), rosuvastatin and ezetimibe co-administration (R+E), rosuvastatin monotherapy, and atorvastatin monotherapy. For each baseline HET, we used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to estimate the least squares mean (LSM) difference in the percentage change from baseline in LDL-C between switchers and non-switchers, and logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio of attaining the LDL-C goal (<3 mmol/L for primary prevention and <2 mmol/L for secondary prevention, by JBS2) at follow-up. Propensity score adjusted analyses were conducted to reduce selection bias. FINDINGS: 30,148 patients met the eligibility criteria with 83.8% received atorvastatin, 9.5% rosuvastatin and 2.6% S/E and S+E combined. 89.1% of patients switching from atorvastatin switched to an equivalent or higher dose of simvastatin (dose equivalency was determined by relative efficacy of one statin to other statins), while 100% of those switching from simvastatin/ezetimibe and 96.8% of those switching from rosuvastatin switched to lower than equivalent dose of simvastatin. Compared to non-switchers, the adjusted least squares mean differences in the percentage change in LDL-C levels from baseline were 18.74% (p = 0.0003), 16.73% (p < 0.0001), and -0.11% (p = 0.9044) when switching from simvastatin/ezetimibe, rosuvastatin, and atorvastatin, respectively. The odds of LDL-C goal attainment at follow-up among switchers from simvastatin/ezetimibe, rosuvastatin, and atorvastatin were 0.40 (95% CI: 0.23-0.70), 0.36 (95% CI: 0.26-0.51) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.92-1.15) relative to non-switchers respectively. IMPLICATIONS: Among the high risk CVD population in UK, switching to simvastatin from HET, especially rosuvastatin and simvastatin/ezetimibe, resulted in an increase in LDL-C levels and lower goal attainment. These historical data reinforce the appropriateness of the changes in the new Joint British Guideline (JBS3) which no longer recommends starting simvastatin 40 mg.

Limitations of real-world treatment with atorvastatin monotherapy for lowering LDL-C in high-risk cardiovascular patients in the US.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines endorse statin therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, if needed, after lifestyle changes. Atorvastatin is a common statin with greater LDL-C lowering efficacy than most other statins; its availability in generic form will likely increase its use. This study assessed attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in high-risk CVD patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy. METHODS: Analyses of two retrospective US cohorts of patients who received a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (index date defined as first prescription date) in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record (EMR) (N=10,693) and Humana Medicare (N=16,798) databases. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, with ≥1 LDL-C measurement between 3 months and 1 year postindex date, and continuously enrolled for 1 year prior to and following the index date. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients, 21.8%, 29.6%, 29.9%, and 18.7% (GE Centricity EMR) and 25.4%, 32.9%, 27.8%, and 14.0% (Humana Medicare) received 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) follow-up LDL-C levels were 2.1±0.8 mmol/L (83±30 mg/dL) and 2.3±0.8 mmol/L (88±31 mg/dL) for the GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare cohorts, respectively. Regardless of dose, only 28.3%-34.8% of patients had LDL-C levels <1.8 mmol/L (<70 mg/dL), and 72.0%-78.0% achieved LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL) in both cohorts. As many as 41% and 13% of patients had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above LDL-C 1.8 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) and 2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL), respectively, in both cohorts; these percentages were generally similar across atorvastatin doses. CONCLUSION: In this real-world US setting, a large number of high-risk CVD patients did not attain guideline-recommended LDL-C levels with atorvastatin monotherapy. More than 65% of the patients had LDL-C levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL), and of these, 30%-40% had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above this, regardless of dose. This suggests that more effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin uptitration, switching to a higher efficacy statin, and/or combination therapy, may be required to achieve optimal LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.

Therapeutic practice patterns related to statin potency and ezetimibe/simvastatin combination therapies in lowering LDL-C in patients with high-risk cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Statin combination therapy and statin uptitration have been shown to be efficacious in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and are recommended for patients with high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) who do not reach guideline-endorsed LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy. OBJECTIVE: This analysis evaluated treatment practice patterns and LDL-C lowering for patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin monotherapy in a real-world practice setting in the United States. METHODS: In this retrospective, observational study, patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin therapy were identified during 2004 to 2008 in a US managed care database. Prescribing patterns and effect of switching from statin monotherapy to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy vs uptitration to higher statin dose/potency level and no change from initial statin potency on LDL-C lowering were assessed. Percentage of change from baseline in LDL-C levels and odds ratios for LDL-C goal attainment were estimated with analyses of covariance and logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 27,919 eligible patients on statin therapy, 2671 (9.6%) switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy, 11,035 (39.5%) uptitrated statins, and 14,213 (50.9%) remained on the same statin monotherapy. LDL-C reduction from baseline and attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were substantially greater for patients who switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy (-24.0%, 81.2%, and 35.2%, respectively) than for patients who titrated (-9.6%, 68.0%, and 18.4%, respectively) or remained on initial statin therapy (4.9%, 72.2%, and 23.7%, respectively). The odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were also higher for patients who switched than for patients who uptitrated and had no therapy change than for patients who titrated vs no therapy change. Similarly, among a subgroup of patients not at LDL-C <100 mg/dL on baseline therapy, attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL was greater for patients who switched than for statin uptitration vs no change, as well as for patients who uptritrated statins vs no therapy change. CONCLUSION: In this study, LDL-C lowering and goal attainment rates improved substantially for patients with high-risk CHD on statin monotherapy who switched to combination ezetimibe/statin or uptitrated their statin therapies; however, approximately one-third of these patients still did not attain the optional recommended LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL. Moreover, these higher efficacy lipid-lowering therapies were infrequently prescribed, indicating the need for further assessment of barriers to LDL-C goal attainment in actual practice settings.

Changes in LDL-C levels and goal attainment associated with addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin compared with titrating statin monotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Many high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) patients on statin monotherapy do not achieve guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, and combination lipid-lowering therapy may be considered for these individuals. The effect of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy versus titrating these statins on LDL-C changes and goal attainment in CHD or CHD risk-equivalent patients was assessed in a large, managed-care database in the US. METHODS: Eligible patients (n=17,830), initially on statin monotherapy who were ≥18 years with baseline and follow-up LDL-C values, no concomitant use of other lipid-lowering therapy, and on lipid-lowering therapy for ≥42 days, were identified between November 1, 2002 and September 30, 2009. The percent change from baseline in LDL-C levels and the odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C<1.8 and <2.6 mmol/L (70 and 100 mg/dL) were estimated using an analysis of covariance and logistic regression, respectively, adjusted for various baseline factors. RESULTS: LDL-C reductions from baseline and goal attainment improved substantially in patients treated with ezetimibe added onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy (n=2,312) versus those (n=13,053) who titrated these statins. In multivariable models, percent change from baseline in LDL-C was -13.1% to -14.8% greater for those who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin versus those who titrated. The odds of attaining LDL-C<1.8 and <2.6 mmol/L (70 and 100 mg/dL) increased by 2.6-3.2-fold and 2.5-3.1-fold, respectively, in patients who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin versus titrating statins. CONCLUSION: CHD/CHD risk-equivalent patients in a large US managed-care database, who added ezetimibe onto simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin, had greater LDL-C reductions and goal attainment than those who uptitrated these statin therapies. Our study suggests that high-risk CHD patients in need of more intensive LDL-C lowering therapy may benefit by adding ezetimibe onto statin therapy.

Treatment pattern changes in high-risk patients newly initiated on statin monotherapy in a managed care setting.

BACKGROUND: For high-risk patients who do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C levels, more intensive treatment including statin-uptitration to higher doses or potency, as well as combination therapy may be considered. A better understanding of statin treatment patterns in real-world clinical practice may contribute to improved lipid-lowering management in these patients. OBJECTIVE: We determined treatment pattern changes among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal on statin monotherapy. METHODS: Treatment pattern changes were evaluated among patients newly initiated on statins between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2009, in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Rates and mean time to first and second treatment changes were examined in patients with claims for coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD), and diabetes mellitus during 12 months before index, who were not at LDL-C <70 mg/dL at their first-eligible LDL-C test (≥ 4 weeks after index). Therapy change was assessed for 12 months after the LDL-C result. RESULTS: Of 11,473 eligible subjects, 61.3% had diabetes, 26.6% had CHD and AVD, and 12.1% had CHD and AVD and diabetes. At index, patients were prescribed medium-potency levels of statins, including simvastatin (44.7%), atorvastatin (31.5%), and other statins (23.8%). Mean ± SD LDL-C before statin initiation was 138 ± 34 mg/dL, and at the first-eligible LDL-C result after index, it was 101 ± 25 mg/dL. During follow-up, 7444 subjects (64.9%) experienced a first treatment change, with mean time to change of 93.8 ± 92 days, whereas 4029 (36.1%) had no treatment change. Discontinuation of index therapy occurred in 46.9% of subjects and medication switches or titration in 18.0% (index statin titration, switch to other statins, other lipid-lowering therapies [LLT], including ezetimibe). Of the discontinuers, 27.4% restarted LLT. Of subjects with a first treatment change who did not discontinue, 48.9% experienced a second therapy change. Results were similar between the 3 high-risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this managed-care setting, among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at LDL-C goal, statins were usually started at medium-potency doses without being titrated up, whereas nearly one-half had a discontinuation of LLT within 12 months. These treatment patterns indicate the need for better patient and provider education as well as other system-wide modifications to improve medication adherence.

A gene expression signature that classifies human atherosclerotic plaque by relative inflammation status.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerosis is a complex disease requiring improvements in diagnostic techniques and therapeutic treatments. Both improvements will be facilitated by greater exploration of the biology of atherosclerotic plaque. To this end, we carried out large-scale gene expression analysis of human atherosclerotic lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Whole genome expression analysis of 101 plaques from patients with peripheral artery disease identified a robust gene signature (1514 genes) that is dominated by processes related to Toll-like receptor signaling, T-cell activation, cholesterol efflux, oxidative stress response, inflammatory cytokine production, vasoconstriction, and lysosomal activity. Further analysis of gene expression in microdissected carotid plaque samples revealed that this signature is differentially expressed in macrophage-rich and smooth muscle cell-containing regions. A quantitative PCR gene expression panel and inflammatory composite score were developed on the basis of the atherosclerotic plaque gene signature. When applied to serial sections of carotid plaque, the inflammatory composite score was observed to correlate with histological and morphological features related to plaque vulnerability. CONCLUSIONS: The robust mRNA expression signature identified in the present report is associated with pathological features of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaque and may be useful as a source of biomarkers and targets of novel antiatherosclerotic therapies.

Loss of early gains in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment among high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) measurement of <70 mg/dL as a reasonable goal in high-risk patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) or atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD). METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study examined LDL-C goal attainment monthly trends from January 1, 2004, to August 31, 2008, in a large, managed-care claims database in the United States. High-risk CHD or AVD patients who had at least one LDL-C test during that time period were included (N = 284,915). Average LDL-C values and percent of patients not achieving LDL-C goal (LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL) were obtained by averaging patient level LDL-C values for each month. A linear trend analysis with first-order autocorrelated errors was conducted. RESULTS: The proportion of patients treated with lipid-lowering therapy gradually increased from 58.5% in 2004 to 70.5% in 2008. Mean LDL-C values in patients treated with lipid-lowering therapy decreased from 100.4 to 96.4 mg/dL, whereas LDL-C remained relatively constant in untreated patients (114.3 mg/dL). In treated patients, the percentage with LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL decreased from 87.5% in January 2004 to 73.8% in December 2006 (P < .0001), then gradually declined between January 2007 (79.6%) and August 2008 (76.2%; P < .0001). Among untreated patients, 92.9% had LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL in January 2004 and 93.0% in August 2008. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, the percentage of high-risk patients with CHD or AVD treated with lipid-lowering therapy who achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL levels has increased since 2004, although a large proportion of these patients still do not meet this goal. Additionally, 1 of 4 high-risk patients otherwise eligible for lipid-lowering therapy remains untreated. These data suggest the need for renewed efforts to support guideline-based LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.

Switching from high-efficacy lipid-lowering therapies to simvastatin and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goal attainment in coronary heart disease/coronary heart disease-equivalent patients.

BACKGROUND: The availability of generic simvastatin in 2006 has prompted substantial changes in formulary recommendations for lipid-management agents. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of switches from high-efficacy lipid-lowering therapy to simvastatin on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and goal attainment in coronary heart disease (CHD) or CHD risk-equivalent patients in a managed care setting. METHODS: In this retrospective observational study, we estimated the least squares mean difference in the percent change from baseline LDL-C and the odds ratios for LDL-C goal attainment rates (<100 mg/dL and <70 mg/dL) at follow-up for each baseline high-efficacy lipid-lowering therapy with the analysis of covariance and logistic regressions, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 18,061 patients who, between September 1, 2004 and October 31, 2008, were either switched from or remained on their initial high-efficacy LDL-C lowering therapy: ezetimibe/simvastatin fixed-dose combination (E/S), rosuvastatin, or atorvastatin. The difference in percent change in LDL-C levels from baseline were 25.2 (95% confidence interval 21.2-29.2), 13.0 (6.0-20.0), and 3.1 (0.3-5.9) greater in switchers to simvastatin in the E/S, rosuvastatin, and atorvastatin comparisons, respectively, after adjusting for age, sex, and starting dose of the initial therapy. For switchers, the percent of patients at LDL-C <100 mg/dL at follow-up decreased from 83.5% to 63.8% in the E/S, 67.7% to 52.7% in the rosuvastatin, and 65.1% to 60.2% in the atorvastatin cohorts. The percent of patients at LDL-C <70 mg/dL at follow-up was lower for all switcher groups compared with nonswitchers. CONCLUSIONS: Among CHD/CHD risk-equivalent patients, switching to simvastatin was associated with increases in LDL-C levels and lower LDL-C goal attainment rates. The public health impact of this phenomenon on population risk and CHD events remains to be determined.

Effects of ezetimibe, simvastatin, atorvastatin, and ezetimibe-statin therapies on non-cholesterol sterols in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia.

BACKGROUND: Levels of cholesterol are regulated by its synthesis, absorption, and elimination. Plasma levels of phytosterols (e.g., sitosterol, campesterol) and ratios of these sterols to total cholesterol (TC) are reported to correlate with efficiency of intestinal cholesterol absorption, whereas levels of certain cholesterol precursor sterols (e.g., desmosterol, lathosterol) and their ratios to TC correlate with cholesterol biosynthesis. However, there is a paucity of published data concerning the effects of combined treatment using HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and a cholesterol absorption inhibitor (ezetimibe) on these parameters. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the effects of ezetimibe co-administered with statins, compared with each treatment alone, on cholesterol precursor sterols and plasma phytosterol levels. METHODS: A post-hoc analysis was performed to determine the effects of treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg, simvastatin (10-80 mg), and atorvastatin (10-80 mg), alone or in combination, on these non-cholesterol sterols using plasma samples from two randomized controlled trials involving patients with primary hypercholesterolemia (low-density lipo protein [LDL-C] = 145-250 mg/dL; triglycerides < or = 350 mg/dL; N = 975) but without a recent (< or = 6-month) history of coronary heart disease (CHD) or either uncontrolled or newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus. RESULTS: Ezetimibe monotherapy significantly reduced plasma sitosterol and campesterol concentrations from baseline compared with placebo (both p < 0.001), whereas statins significantly lowered desmo sterol and lathosterol levels (p < 0.001 vs. placebo). Co-administration of ezetimibe and statins significantly decreased plasma levels of all of these sterols (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The observed effects of co-administration of ezetimibe and statins on non-cholesterol sterols are consistent with net inhibition of sterol absorption (driven by ezetimibe) in conjunction with net inhibition of cholesterol synthesis (driven by statins). The potential influence of treatment-induced changes in phytosterols on cardiovascular risk warrants further investigation in long-term, prospective, randomized controlled trials. This post-hoc study was by nature exploratory, and, because data from such analyses are not customarily adjusted for multiple comparisons, some associations may have emerged as statistically significant by chance. Future prospective randomized controlled studies may help to confirm our findings and address other research issues, such as the generalizability of our findings to patients with CHD or diabetes mellitus and possible dose:response relationships between escalating statin (or ezetimibe-statin) doses and circulating non-cholesterol levels.

Plasma sitosterol elevations are associated with an increased incidence of coronary events in men: results of a nested case-control analysis of the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Sitosterolemia, a rare genetic disorder characterized by profoundly elevated plasma sitosterol concentrations, is associated with premature atherosclerosis in some individuals. This study was conducted to evaluate if the modest sitosterol elevations seen in the general population are also associated with the occurrence of coronary events. METHODS AND RESULTS: A nested case-control study using stored samples from male participants in the Prospective Cardiovascular Münster (PROCAM) study was performed. Each of 159 men who suffered a myocardial infarction or sudden coronary death (major coronary event) within 10 years of follow-up in PROCAM was matched with 2 controls (N = 318) by age, smoking status, and date of investigation. Analysis was performed using conditional logistic regression. Plasma sitosterol concentrations were elevated in cases compared with controls (4.94 +/- 3.44 micromol/L versus 4.27 +/- 2.38 micromol/L; P = 0.028). The upper quartile of sitosterol (>5.25 micromol/L) was associated with a 1.8-fold increase in risk (P < 0.05) compared with the lower three quartiles. Among men with an absolute coronary risk > or = 20% in 10 years as calculated using the PROCAM algorithm, high sitosterol concentrations were associated with an additional 3-fold increase in the incidence of coronary events (P = 0.032); a similar, significant relationship was observed between a high sitosterol/cholesterol ratio and coronary risk (P = 0.030). CONCLUSIONS: Elevations in sitosterol concentrations and the sitosterol/cholesterol ratio appear to be associated with an increased occurrence of major coronary events in men at high global risk of coronary heart disease. Further evaluations are warranted to confirm these preliminary findings.

The incidence of upper gastrointestinal adverse events in clinical trials of etoricoxib vs. non-selective NSAIDs: an updated combined analysis.

OBJECTIVE: In spite of numerous studies demonstrating the serious gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity associated with non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), many patients at high GI risk continue to receive prescriptions for these drugs, often without gastroprotective agents. Etoricoxib, a COX-2 specific inhibitor, was developed to provide similar efficacy and less GI toxicity than non-selective NSAIDs. We compared the incidence of upper GI Perforations, symptomatic gastroduodenal Ulcers, and upper GI Bleeding (PUBs) in a combined analysis of all randomized, double-blind, clinical trials of chronic treatment with etoricoxib versus NSAIDs completed by June 2003. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data for 5441 individual subjects with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, or ankylosing spondylitis were pooled from all 10 multinational etoricoxib trials completed by June 2003. Information on suspected PUBs was prospectively collected in all protocols, and all investigator-reported PUBs were judged by a blinded, external adjudication committee using pre-specified criteria. PUBs were analyzed using COX proportional hazards models using terms for treatment and known PUB risk factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of confirmed PUBs among patients treated with etoricoxib 60 mg, 90 mg, or 120 mg (combined N=3226) was compared to that among patients treated with ibuprofen, diclofenac, or naproxen (combined N=2215). RESULTS: The incidence of PUBs over 44.3 months was significantly lower with etoricoxib vs. NSAIDs [cumulative incidence 1.24% vs. 2.48%, p < 0.001; rate/100 patient-years 1.00 vs. 2.47; relative risk 0.48, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.32, 0.73]. Results of analysis of events occurring during the first year of treatment and subgroup analyses were consistent with the primary result. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with etoricoxib was associated with a significantly lower incidence of PUBs than was treatment with non-selective NSAIDs. The difference was consistent in subgroups of patients defined by a variety of known risk factors.

Postponed development of disability in elderly runners: a 13-year longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: The magnitude and duration of the benefit of running and other aerobic exercise on disability and mortality in elderly persons are not well understood. We sought to quantify the benefits of aerobic exercise, including running, on disability and mortality in elderly persons and to examine whether morbidity can be compressed into later years of life by regular exercise. METHODS: A 13-year prospective cohort study of 370 members of a runners' club for persons aged 50 and older and 249 control subjects initially aged 50 to 72 years (mean, 59 years), with annual ascertainment of the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability score, noting any deaths and their causes. Linear mixed models were used to compute postponement in disability, and survival analysis was conducted to determine the time to and causes of death. RESULTS: Significantly (P<.001) lower disability levels in runners' club members vs controls and in ever runners vs never runners were sustained for at least 13 years. Reaching a Health Assessment Questionnaire disability level of 0.075 was postponed by 8.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-13.7) years in runners' club members vs controls. Running club membership and participation in other aerobic exercise protected against mortality (rate ratio, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.20-0.65] and 0.88 [95% CI, 0.77-0.99], respectively), while male sex and smoking were detrimental (rate ratio, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.4-4.2] and 2.2 [95% CI, 1.1-4.6], respectively). Controls had a 3.3 times higher rate of death than runners' club members, with higher death rates in every disease category. Accelerated rates of disability and mortality were still not seen in the runners' club members; true compression of morbidity was not yet observable through an average age of 72 years. CONCLUSION: Running and other aerobic exercise in elderly persons protect against disability and early mortality, and are associated with prolongation of a disability-free life.