Benefits and Risks of Antihyperlipidemic Medication in Adults with Different Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Based on the Number Needed to Treat.

PURPOSE: The objective of this investigation is to examine the benefits and potential risks of these drugs in individuals by varying baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) values, utilizing the concept of the number needed to treat (NNT). METHODS: We extensively searched electronic databases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science, up to 6 August 2023. Baseline LDL-C values were stratified into four categories: < 100, 100-129, 130-159, and ≥ 160 mg/dL. Risk ratios (RRs) and NNT values were computed. RESULTS: This analysis incorporated data from 46 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), encompassing a total of 237,870 participants. The meta-regression analysis demonstrated an incremental diminishing risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) with increasing baseline LDL-C values. Statins exhibited a significant reduction in MACE [number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 25-37], but this effect was observed only in individuals with baseline LDL-C values of 100 mg/dL or higher. Ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors also were effective in reducing MACE (NNTB 18, 95% CI 11-41, and NNTB 18, 95% CI 16-24). Notably, the safety outcomes of statins and ezetimibe did not reach statistical significance, while the incidence of injection-site reactions with PCSK9 inhibitors was statistically significant [number needed to treat to harm (NNTH) 41, 95% CI 80-26]. CONCLUSION: Statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors demonstrated a substantial capacity to reduce MACE, particularly among individuals whose baseline LDL-C values were relatively higher. The NNT visually demonstrates the gradient between baseline LDL-C and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Registration: PROSPERO identifier number: CRD42023458630.

Pragmatic Trial of Messaging to Providers About Treatment of Hyperlipidemia (PROMPT-LIPID): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) is underutilized for very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. PROMPT-LIPID (PRagmatic Trial of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of HyperLIPIDemia) sought to determine whether electronic health record (EHR) alerts improve 90-day LLT intensification in patients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS: PROMPT-LIPID was a pragmatic trial in which cardiovascular and internal medicine clinicians within Yale New Haven Health (New Haven, CT) were cluster-randomized to receive an EHR alert with individualized LLT recommendations or no alert for outpatients with very high-risk atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), ≥70 mg/dL. The primary outcome was 90-day LLT intensification (change to high-intensity statin and addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9i [proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors]). Secondary outcomes included LDL-C level, proportion of patients with LDL-C of <70 or < 55 mg/dL, rate of major adverse cardiovascular events, ED visit incidence, and 6-month mortality. Results were analyzed using logistic and linear regression clustered at the provider level. RESULTS: The no-alert group included 47 clinicians and 1370 patients (median age, 71 years; 50.1% female, median LDL-C, 93 mg/dL); the alert group included 49 clinicians and 1130 patients (median age, 72 years; 47% female, median LDL-C 91, mg/dL). The primary outcome was observed in 14.1% of patients in the alert group as compared with 10.4% in the no-alert group. There were no differences in any secondary outcomes at 6 months. Among 542 patients whose clinicians (n=46) did not dismiss the EHR alert recommendations, LLT intensification was significantly greater (21.2% versus 10.4%, odds ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.48-3.66]). CONCLUSIONS: With a real-time, targeted, individualized EHR alert as compared with usual care, the proportion of patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with LLT intensification was numerically higher but not statistically significant. Among clinicians who did not dismiss the alert, there was a > 2-fold increase in LLT intensification. EHR alerts, coupled with strategies to reduce clinician dismissal, may help address persistent gaps in LDL-C management. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04394715, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT04394715.

Association of Use and Dose of Lipid-Lowering Therapy Post Acute Myocardial Infarction With 5-Year Survival in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Older people are underrepresented in randomized trials. The association between lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) and its intensity after acute myocardial infarction and long-term mortality in this population deserves to be assessed. METHODS: The FAST-MI (French Registry of Acute ST-Elevation or Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) program consists of nationwide French surveys including all patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction ≤48 hours from onset over a 1- to 2-month period in 2005, 2010, and 2015, with long-term follow-up. Numerous data were collected and a centralized 10-year follow-up was organized. The present analysis focused on the association between prescription of LLT (atorvastatin ≥40 mg or equivalent, or any combination of statin and ezetimibe) and 5-year mortality in patients aged ≥80 years discharged alive. Cox multivariable analysis and propensity score matching were used to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Among the 2258 patients aged ≥80 years (mean age, 85±4 years; 51% women; 39% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; 58% with percutaneous coronary intervention), 415 were discharged without LLT (18%), 866 with conventional doses (38%), and 977 with high-dose LLT (43%). Five-year survival was 36%, 47.5%, and 58%, respectively. Compared with patients without LLT, high-dose LLT was significantly associated with lower 5-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.66-0.92]), whereas conventional-intensity LLT was not (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.80-1.09]). In propensity score-matched cohorts (n=278 receiving high-intensity LLT and n=278 receiving no statins), 5-year survival was 52% with high-intensity LLT at discharge and 42% without statins (hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.62-0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: In these observational cohorts, high-intensity LLT at discharge after acute myocardial infarction was associated with reduced all-cause mortality at 5 years in an older adult population. These results suggest that high-intensity LLT should not be denied to patients on the basis of old age. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT00673036, NCT01237418, and NCT02566200.

Comparative Safety and Efficacy of Low/Moderate-Intensity Statin plus Ezetimibe Combination Therapy vs. High-Intensity Statin Monotherapy in Patients with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

AIM: Statin therapy is considered the gold standard for treating hypercholesterolemia. This updated meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of a low/moderate-intensity statin in combination with ezetimibe compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS: A systematic search of two databases (PubMed and Cochrane CENTRAL) was conducted from inception to January 2023 and a total of 21 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were identified and included in the analysis. Data were pooled using Hedges's g and a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to derive standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (Cis). The primary outcome studied was the effect of these treatments on lipid parameters and safety events. RESULTS: The results revealed that combination therapy was more effective in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (SMD= - 0.41; CI - 0.63 to - 0.19; P = 0.0002). There was no significant change in the levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), triglyceride (TG), high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP), Apo A1, or Apo B. The safety of these treatments was assessed by the following markers alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and creatine phosphokinase (CK), and a significant difference was only observed in CK (SMD: - 0.81; CI - 1.52 to - 0.10; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrated that the use of low/moderate-intensity statin combination therapy significantly reduced LDL-C levels compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy, making it preferable for patients with related risks. However, further trials are encouraged to evaluate potential adverse effects associated with combined therapy.

Medium-intensity statin with ezetimibe versus high-intensity statin in acute ischemic cerebrovascular disease (MESIA): A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: High-risk stroke patients are recommended to receive high-intensity statin therapy to reduce the risk of stroke recurrence. However, doubling the dosage of statin drugs did not increase the achievement rate of LDL-C target or provide additional clinical benefits, but significantly increased the risk of adverse reactions. Statins and ezetimibe work through different mechanisms and the combined use of statins and ezetimibe significantly improves outcomes with comparable safety profiles. We tested the hypothesis that moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe may offer advantages over the conventional high-intensity statin regimen in terms of efficacy and safety. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with acute ischemic cerebrovascular disease. We randomly assigned (1:1) participants within the acute phase of ischemic stroke, i.e., within 1 week after the onset of mild ischemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤ 5), within 1 month for severe cases (NIHSS score ≥ 16), and within 2 weeks for the rest, as well as patients with TIA within 1 week of symptom onset, to receive either moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (either 10-20 mg atorvastatin calcium tablets plus a 10 mg ezetimibe tablet, or 5-10 mg rosuvastatin calcium tablets once per day plus a 10 mg ezetimibe tablet once per day) or high-intensity statin (40 mg atorvastatin calcium tablets or 20 mg rosuvastatin calcium tablets once per day) for 3 months. Randomization was performed using a random number table method. The primary efficacy outcome was the level and achievement rate of LDL-C after 3 months of treatment, specifically LDL-C ≤ 1.8 mmol/L or a reduction in LDL-C ≥ 50 %. The secondary outcome was the incidence of new stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 3 months. The safety outcome was liver and renal function tests, and the occurrence of statin-related muscle events within 3 months. FINDINGS: This trial took place between March 15, 2022, and March 7, 2023. Among 382 patients screened, 150 patients were randomly assigned to receive either medium-intensity statins with ezetimibe (n = 75) or high-intensity statins (n = 75). Median age was 60.0 years (IQR 52.75-70.25); 49 (36.6 %) were women and 85 (63.4 %) were men. The target achievement of LDL-C at 3 months occurred in 62 (89.86 %) of 69 patients in the medium-intensity statin with ezetimibe group and 46 (70.77 %) of 65 patients in the high-intensity statin group (P=0.005, OR=0.273, 95 % CI: 0.106, 0.705). The reduction magnitude of LDL-C in moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe group was significantly higher (-56.540 % vs -47.995 %, P=0.001). Moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe group showing a trend of a greater reduction in LDL-C absolute value than high-intensity statin group but without statistical significance (-1.77±0.90 vs -1.50±0.89, P=0.077). New AIS or TIA within 3 months, liver and renal function tests, and the occurrence of statin-related muscle events within 3 months were also statistically insignificant. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that both gender and lipid-lowering regimen as independent risk factors influencing the rate of LDL-C achievement in individuals diagnosed with acute ischemic cerebrovascular disease, but only lipid-lowering regimen had predictive value. INTERPRETATION: Compared to guideline-recommended high-intensity statin therapy, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe further improved the achievement rate of LDL-C in patients with acute ischemic cerebrovascular disease, with a higher reduction magnitude in LDL-C. In terms of safety, there was no significant difference between the two regimens, suggesting that moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe can also be considered as an initial treatment option for patients with acute ischemic cerebrovascular disease.

Evolocumab Treatment in Pediatric Patients With Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia: Pooled Data From Three Open-Label Studies.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH) have an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and difficulty meeting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. In this post hoc analysis, we evaluated pooled safety and efficacy data from 3 studies in pediatric patients with HoFH treated with the PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) monoclonal antibody inhibitor evolocumab. METHODS: Patients with HoFH aged 10 to 17 years received treatment with open-label evolocumab 420 mg subcutaneously monthly or biweekly in the TAUSSIG, RAMAN, or HAUSER-OLE clinical studies. All patients received background statins with or without ezetimibe. Study duration ranged from 12 to 260 weeks. The primary end point was treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years. Efficacy end points were changes from baseline to week 12 in lipids and PCSK9. RESULTS: Of the 39 patients in the pooled analysis, 69.2% were males, median age was 13.0 years, and 79.5% (31/39) had genotyped HoFH with LDLR pathogenic variants. Overall, median exposure to evolocumab was 18.2 (Q1, Q3: 3.0, 18.5) months. Treatment-emergent adverse events with an exposure-adjusted patient incidence rate of ≥5% were upper respiratory tract infection (6.6%), influenza (5.2%), and acne (5.0%) per 100 patient-years. Exposure-adjusted patient incidence of serious treatment-emergent adverse events was 13.3% per 100 patient-years. Excluding 4 patients receiving lipoprotein apheresis, week 12 median percentage change from baseline in LDL-C was -2.9% (Q1, Q3: -21.7, 1.5); however, 42.9% (15/35) of patients achieved ≥15% reduction in LDL-C from baseline. Residual LDLR (LDL receptor) activity was not associated with a reduction in LDL-C. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled data analysis from 3 studies in pediatric patients with HoFH, evolocumab was well tolerated, with no new safety signals reported. These safety findings are consistent with findings from previous studies of evolocumab. Patients showed marked variability in LDL-C reduction. Results from this pooled analysis support guidelines suggesting a trial of PCSK9 inhibitor therapy regardless of estimated residual LDLR function. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01624142, NCT03403374, and NCT02624869.

Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke among Patients Treated with High-Intensity Statins versus Pitavastatin-Ezetimibe: A Population Based Study.

High-intensity statin (HIS) is recommended for high-risk patients in current guidelines. However, the risk of hemorrhagic stroke (HS) with HIS is a concern for Asians. Pitavastatin carries pharmacological differences compared with other statins. We compared the risk of HS in patients treated with pitavastatin-ezetimibe vs. HIS. We conducted a population-based, propensity score-matched cohort study using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. From January 2013 to December 2018, adults (≥ 18 years) who received pitavastatin 2-4 mg/day plus ezetimibe 10 mg/day (combination group, N = 3,767) and those who received atorvastatin 40 mg/day or rosuvastatin 20 mg/day (HIS group, N = 37,670) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was HS. We also assessed the difference of a composite safety endpoint of hepatitis or myopathy requiring hospitalization and new-onset diabetes mellitus. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between study endpoints and different treatment. After a mean follow-up of 3.05 ± 1.66 years, less HS occurred in combination group (0.74%) than in HIS group (1.35%) [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.95]. In subgroup analysis, the lower risk of HS in combination group was consistent among all pre-specified subgroups. There was no significant difference of the composite safety endpoint between the 2 groups (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.02). In conclusion, pitavastatin-ezetimibe combination treatment had less HS compared with high-intensity atorvastatin and rosuvastatin. Pitavastatin-ezetimibe may be a favorable choice for Asians who need strict lipid control but with concern of HS.

Effect of lipid-lowering therapies on C-reactive protein levels: a comprehensive meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Chronic low-degree inflammation is a hallmark of atherosclerotic cardiovascular (CV) disease. To assess the effect of lipid-lowering therapies on C-reactive protein (CRP), a biomarker of inflammation, we conducted a meta-analysis according to the PRISMA guidelines. Databases were searched from inception to July 2023. Inclusion criteria were: (i) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in human, Phase II, III, or IV; (ii) English language; (iii) comparing the effect of lipid-lowering drugs vs. placebo; (iv) reporting the effects on CRP levels; (v) with intervention duration of more than 3 weeks; (vi) and sample size (for both intervention and control group) over than 100 subjects. The between-group (treatment-placebo) CRP absolute mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each drug class separately. A total of 171 668 subjects from 53 RCTs were included. CRP levels (mg/L) were significantly decreased by statins [-0.65 (-0.87 to -0.43), bempedoic acid; -0.43 (-0.67 to -0.20), ezetimibe; -0.28 (-0.48 to -0.08)], and omega-3 fatty acids [omega3FAs, -0.27 (-0.52 to -0.01)]. CRP was reduced by -0.40 (-1.17 to 0.38) with fibrates, although not statistically significant. A slight increase of CRP concentration was observed for proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors [0.11 (0.07-0.14)] and cholesteryl-ester transfer protein inhibitors [0.10 (0.00-0.21)], the latter being not statistically significant. Meta-regression analysis did not show a significant correlation between changes in CRP and LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) or triglycerides. Statins, bempedoic acid, ezetimibe, and omega3FAs significantly reduce serum CRP concentration, independently of LDL-C reductions. The impact of this anti-inflammatory effect in terms of CV prevention needs further investigation.

Lipid-Lowering Therapy and Risk of Hemorrhagic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: There is debate over whether statins increase risk of hemorrhagic stroke, so we assessed current evidence, including data from new statin trials and trials of nonstatin low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)- and triglyceride-lowering therapies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review of large randomized clinical trials (≥1000 patients with ≥2 years follow-up) of LDL-C-lowering therapy (statin, ezetimibe, and PCSK-9 [proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9] inhibitor) and triglyceride-lowering therapy (omega-3 supplements and fibrate) that reported hemorrhagic stroke as an outcome. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to July 2, 2021 and updated a meta-analysis of cardiovascular statin trials published in 2012. Among our several subgroup analyses, we looked at difference depending on stroke status and also depending on age. We identified 37 trials for LDL-C lowering (284 301 participants) and 11 for triglyceride lowering (120 984 participants). Overall, we found a higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke for LDL-C lowering, risk ratio (RR) 1.16 (95% CI, 1.01-1.32, P=0.03). For statins (33 trials, 216 258 participants), RR=1.17 (95% CI, 1.01-1.36); for PCSK-9 inhibitors (2 trials, 46 488 participants), RR=0.86 (95% CI, 0.43-1.74); and for ezetimibe (2 trials, 21 555 participants), RR=1.14 (95% CI, 0.64-2.03). In statin trials of patients with previous stroke/transient ischemic attack, RR was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.05-2.04), and in trials with mean age ≥65 years old, RR=1.34 (95% CI, 1.04-1.73) (Pint=0.14 and Pint=0.23 respectively); for triglyceride lowering (11 trials, 120 984 participants), RR=1.05 (95% CI, 0.86-1.30). CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence for a small increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke events with LDL-C-lowering therapies but no clear evidence for triglyceride-lowering therapies. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42021275363.

Moderate-Intensity Rosuvastatin/Ezetimibe Combination versus Quadruple-Dose Rosuvastatin Monotherapy: A Meta-Analysis and Systemic Review.

PURPOSE: There are few studies in the literature on the dosage of statin that equivalently reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to an ezetimibe combination and whether such regimens have differences in safety. We compared the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety of 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe to those of 20 mg rosuvastatin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Sciences, and SCOPUS databases up to December 2021. Human studies investigating the two aforementioned regimens with a randomized controlled design were selected. Outcome variables included the percentage reduction in LDL-C and other lipid parameters and rates of composite adverse events (AEs), including muscle-related symptoms. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed after heterogeneity testing between studies. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The percentage LDL-C reduction did not differ between the combination and monotherapy groups [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.26; p=0.35]. The risk of composite AEs (odds ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.72; p=0.27) of the combination was not different compared to the monotherapy group. The percentage of total cholesterol reduction was greater in the combination group (SMD 0.22; p=0.02), whereas that of triglyceride reduction and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol elevation did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe had largely comparable lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability as 20 mg rosuvastatin.

The Efficacy and Safety of Moderate-Intensity Rosuvastatin with Ezetimibe versus High-Intensity Rosuvastatin in High Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open, Parallel, Phase 4 Study.

BACKGRUOUND: To investigate the efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin/ezetimibe combination compared to highintensity rosuvastatin in high atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS: This study was a randomized, multicenter, open, parallel phase 4 study, and enrolled T2DM subjects with an estimated 10-year ASCVD risk ≥7.5%. The primary endpoint was the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) change rate after 24-week rosuvastatin 10 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg treatment was non-inferior to that of rosuvastatin 20 mg. The achievement proportion of 10-year ASCVD risk <7.5% or comprehensive lipid target (LDL-C <70 mg/dL, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL, and apolipoprotein B <80 mg/dL) without discontinuation, and several metabolic parameters were explored as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: A hundred and six participants were assigned to each group. Both groups showed significant reduction in % change of LDL-C from baseline at week 24 (-63.90±6.89 vs. -55.44±6.85, combination vs. monotherapy, p=0.0378; respectively), but the combination treatment was superior to high-intensity monotherapy in LDL-C change (%) from baseline (least square [LS] mean difference, -8.47; 95% confidence interval, -16.44 to -0.49; p=0.0378). The combination treatment showed a higher proportion of achieved comprehensive lipid targets rather than monotherapy (85.36% vs. 62.22% in monotherapy, p=0.015). The ezetimibe combination significantly improved homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function even without A1c changes (LS mean difference, 17.13; p=0.0185). CONCLUSION: In high ASCVD risk patients with T2DM, the combination of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe was not only non-inferior but also superior to improving dyslipidemia with additional benefits compared to high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.

[Update on lipid lowering therapy in peripheral artery disease]. / Update ­ Lipidsenkende Therapie bei pAVK.

Despite clear guideline recommendations, only about every second PAD patient is prescribed statins, women less often than men. There is an international consensus that every PAD patient should be treated with statins, as these not only lower lipids but also stabilize plaque, resulting in a prognostic benefit. Limb-related endpoints (MALE) can be reduced by 24% compared to placebo by lowering lipids. The combination of low-dose, high-potency statin with ezetimibe can be equivalent to high-dose statin monotherapy and, with better tolerability, promote therapy adherence. Statin intolerance is observed more frequently in certain risk groups but is very rare overall. Effective alternatives are bempedoic acid and PCSK9 inhibitors. About 20% of the population have severely elevated Lp(a) levels that require risk factor management beyond lipid management. A high Lp(a) concentration is associated with PAD progression as an independent risk factor for all atherosclerosis manifestations. Every adult should have an Lp(a) assessment once in their lifetime.

Expanding the therapeutic landscape: ezetimibe as non-statin therapy for dyslipidemia.

Dyslipidemia is a significant risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and statins are the primary therapeutic options for reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. However, it can be challenging to achieve optimal LDL-C goals with statin monotherapy. Ezetimibe, a cholesterol absorption inhibitor, offers a potential non-statin therapy to optimize LDL-C management. Key clinical trials, such as IMPROVE-IT and RACING, have demonstrated that the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy leads to further decreases in LDL-C or significant decreases in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), particularly in patients with high ASCVD risk. Subsequent meta-analyses and clinical trials have further supported the beneficial effect of ezetimibe, suggesting additive decreases in LDL-C and MACEs, as well as pleiotropic effects. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the clinical implications of ezetimibe for managing dyslipidemia; it also evaluates the available evidence that supports the role of ezetimibe as an adjunct non-statin therapy for long-term use. However, the long-term pleiotropic effects of ezetimibe remain controversial because of limited clinical data. Therefore, additional research is needed to clarify its potential benefits beyond LDL-C reduction. Nonetheless, an understanding of the role of ezetimibe in dyslipidemia management will help clinicians to develop effective treatment strategies.

Variability in Plasma Lipids Between Intensive Statin Therapy and Conventional-Dose Statins Combined with Ezetimibe Therapy in Patients with Coronary Atherosclerosis Disease.

Dyslipidemia has been widely recognized as a significant risk factor for coronary atherosclerosis disease (CAD). In fact, lipid variability has emerged as a more reliable predictor of cardiovascular events. In this study, we aimed to examine the variability in plasma lipids under two different lipid-lowering regimens (intensive statin therapy versus the combination of conventional-dose statins with ezetimibe). In total, we have retrospectively examined 1275 patients with CAD from January 2009 to April 2019 and divided them into two groups: intensive statin group and conventional-dose statins combined with ezetimibe group. All patients were followed up for at least 1 year. Lipid variability was verified by standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and variability independent of mean (VIM) triple methods. Multiple linear regression and subgroup analyses were performed. In the overall participants, the mean age was 62.3 ± 10.4 years old, and 72.8% were male. Multivariate linear regression analysis indicated that the intensive statin group had lower variability in terms of total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) in all SD, CV, and VIM triple methods than statins combined with ezetimibe group (P for all <0.05). Similar results were established in the subgroup analyses based on atorvastatin or rosuvastatin, diabetes mellitus or not, and hypertension or not (P for all < 0.05). Thus, we can conclude that intensive statin therapy could contribute in lowering lipid variability than conventional-dose statins combined with ezetimibe therapy among patients with CAD.

A Randomized, Multicenter, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of a Quadruple Combination of Amlodipine, Losartan, Rosuvastatin, and Ezetimibe in Patients with Concomitant Essential Hypertension and Dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of a single-pill combination (SPC) consisting of four medications in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of a fixed-dose SPC consisting of 5 mg amlodipine, 100 mg losartan, 20 mg rosuvastatin, and 10 mg ezetimibe (A/L/R/E) in patients with concomitant hypertension and dyslipidemia. METHODS: This was a 14-week, randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial. In total, 145 patients were randomized to receive A/L/R/E, A/L, or L/R/E. The primary endpoints were the average change in the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level in the A/L/R/E and A/L groups and the sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP) in the A/L/R/E and L/R/E groups. The numbers of patients with adverse drug reactions (ADRs) were compared as safety variables. RESULTS: The average percentage change in the LDL-C level as the least squares mean (LSM) from the baseline LDL-C level at the end of the 8-week treatment was - 59.0% in the A/L/R/E group and 0.2% in the A/L group (LSM difference - 59.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 68.1 to - 50.4; p < 0.0001). The average change in the sitSBP as the LSM was - 15.8 mmHg in the A/L/R/E group and -4.7 mmHg in the L/R/E group (LSM difference - 11.1, 95% CI - 16.8 to - 5.4; p = 0.0002). No ADRs occurred in the A/L/R/E group. CONCLUSIONS: A/L/R/E as an SPC could be an effective treatment for patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia without significant safety issues. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04074551 (registered 30 August 2019).

Bioequivalence Study of Ezetimibe Tablets After a Single Oral Dose of 10 mg in Healthy Japanese Subjects Under Fasting Conditions.

This study compared the pharmacokinetic and safety profiles between a new generic and a branded reference product of 10-mg ezetimibe (EZE) tablets in 24 healthy Japanese male volunteers under fasting conditions, obtaining sufficient evidence for the marketing approval of the new generic product. The bioequivalence study was conducted with an open-label, 2 × 2, single-dose, crossover design in which the test and reference products were administered to volunteers after fasting for ≥10 hours. Blood samples were collected 24 times before to 72 hours after the administration of the investigational drug. We evaluated the peak drug concentration and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to the last measured concentration of EZE, EZEG, and total EZE (EZE + ezetimibe glucuronide [EZEG]). The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratios for peak drug concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to the last measured concentration of the test and reference products fell within the bioequivalence limits of 0.80 to 1.25 for EZE, EZEG, and total EZE. The test and reference products were well tolerated, and no adverse events occurred during the study. The test product was bioequivalent to the reference product.

PCSK9 inhibitor, ezetimibe, and bempedoic acid: Evidence-based therapies for statin-intolerant patients.

Statins are first-line therapy for treating dyslipidemia because of their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering efficacy, superior event-reduction data and unrivaled cost-effectiveness. Yet, many people are intolerant of statins, whether due to true adverse events or the nocebo effect, so within one year about two-thirds of primary prevention patients and one-third of secondary prevention patients are no longer taking their prescription. Statins still dominate this landscape, but other agents, often used in combination, potently reduce LDL-C levels, regress atherosclerosis and lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Ezetimibe lowers LDL-C by reducing intestinal absorption of cholesterol. Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) lower LDL-C by increasing the number and durability of hepatic LDL receptors. Bempedoic acid reduces hepatic cholesterol synthesis. Ezetimibe, PCSK9i and bempedoic are evidence-based, non-statin therapies that synergistically lower LDL-C and reduce risk of MACE; they also have benign side-effect profiles and are generally well tolerated.

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.

Ezetimibe alleviates acetic acid-induced ulcerative colitis in rats: targeting the Akt/NF-κB/STAT3/CXCL10 signaling axis.

OBJECTIVE: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a relapsing inflammatory health state posing significant worldwide problems. Ezetimibe is a cholesterol-lowering drug having anti-inflammatory and pleiotropic properties. METHODS: Twenty-four rats were classified into four groups (n = 6). Group (I) was considered negative control. Acetic acid (AA) was instilled intrarectally in groups (II-IV). Group (II) was considered UC-control. Groups (III and IV) were orally treated with Ezetimibe (5 and 10 mg/kg/day; 14 days). KEY FINDING: AA installation resulted in severe macroscopic colonic lesions associated with elevations in the relative colon weight, the wet weight/length ratio and oxidative stress markers in the colorectum tissues. UC-control rats showed significantly elevated colorectal tissue CXCL10 and STAT3 gene expression. Akt, phosphorylated Akt, phosphorylated STAT3, TNF-α, IL-6 and NF-κB were expressively upregulated in the UC-control group. AA installation also resulted in significant histopathological alterations in the colorectum tissues of UC-control rats along with increasing the colorectal tissues' immunohistochemical iNOS expression. Collectively, these data suggest activation of the Akt/NF-κB/STAT3/CXCL10 signaling axis. Ezetimibe treatment significantly ameliorated all the aforementioned parameters. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to elucidate the modulatory actions of Ezetimibe against oxidative stress and inflammation associated with AA-induced UC in rats. Ezetimibe treatment mitigates UC via downregulation of the Akt/NF-κB/STAT3/CXCL10 signaling axis.

A Bioequivalence Study of Ezetimibe/Rosuvastatin Fixed Dose Combination (10 mg/10 mg) Versus the Individual Formulations Taken Concomitantly.

INTRODUCTION: This study evaluated the bioequivalence of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin fixed dose combination compared to the concomitant administration of individual formulations (ezetimibe and rosuvastatin) in Chinese healthy subjects under fasting conditions. METHODS: This was a phase I, randomized, open-label, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, crossover study conducted in healthy Chinese participants under fasting conditions. Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ from test and individual reference formulations were evaluated to assess bioequivalence. The safety assessments included adverse events (AEs)/treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), potential clinically significant abnormalities (PCSAs) in vital signs, 12-lead electrocardiogram (12-ECG), and clinical laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Of the 68 subjects enrolled, 67 were treated. Systemic exposure to rosuvastatin based on Cmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ was similar in both treatments, with respective arithmetic values 12.4 ng/ml, 117 ng·h/mL, and 120 ng·h/mL for test formulation and 12.7 ng/ml, 120 ng·h/mL, and 123 ng·h/mL for reference formulations. Similarly, systemic exposure to unconjugated ezetimibe was 4.14 ng/ml, 89.7 ng·h/mL, and 102 ng·h/mL for the test formulation and 3.80 ng/ml, 89.7 ng·h/mL, and 102 ng·h/mL for reference formulations. Systemic exposure to total ezetimibe was 70.5 ng/ml, 664 ng·h/mL, and 718 ng·h/mL for test formulation and 60.2 ng/ml, 648 ng·h/mL, and 702 ng·h/mL for reference formulations. The point estimates for rosuvastatin unconjugated ezetimibe and total ezetimibe were in the acceptable range of 0.80-1.25. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Fixed dose combination of ezetimibe/rosuvastatin (10 mg/10 mg) achieved bioequivalence with reference to commercial tablets. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTR20202108.