Search

Statin therapy is associated with a slightly increased risk of developing diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance in patients without diabetes. Ezetimibe combined with statins may be considered for high-risk patients who do not achieve optimal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering on statin monotherapy or who are statin intolerant. Changes in fasting serum glucose (FSG) levels during ezetimibe, ezetimibe/statin, and statin treatments were assessed using data pooled from clinical trials in hypercholesterolemic and heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemic patients, who were or were not receiving statin therapy. Study types included first-line trials in statin-naive/wash-out patients and second-line add-on and uptitration studies in patients on stable statin therapy. Similar analyses of FSG changes were performed separately for each study type in patients who were nondiabetic at baseline. Across all study types and treatments, mean FSG increases from baseline were small (0.5 to 3.7 mg/dl with ezetimibe/statin; 0.2 to 4.6 mg/dl with statins) and decreased over time; between-treatment differences (0.3 to 1.4 mg/dl) were nonsignificant for all comparisons. Proportions of patients with elevated FSG ≥126 mg/dl during therapy were low and similar for all treatments in the overall cohort (1.2% to 4.3%). Elevations were highest (3.3% to 25.7%) among patients with baseline factors characteristic of metabolic syndrome and prediabetes, including higher FSG, body mass index, and triglyceride levels, and numerically lower baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; however, these factors were not related to FSG increases. Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, body mass index, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B were not significantly correlated with FSG increases. In conclusion, statin therapy was associated with small FSG increases, and the addition of ezetimibe did not further increase FSG levels beyond those of statins when given to patients who are statin naive or those on statin therapy., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In numerous clinical trials, lowering LDL-C with statin therapy has been demonstrated to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in primary and secondary prevention settings. Guidelines recommend statins for first-line therapy in cholesterol-lowering management of patients with CVD risk. Despite increased statin monotherapy use over the last decade, a number of patients with high CVD risk do not achieve optimal LDL-C lowering. Guidelines recommend consideration of statin combination therapy with nonstatin agents for these patients. However, combination therapy approaches have been hampered by neutral findings. Recently, ezetimibe added to simvastatin therapy reduced cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome patients, more than simvastatin alone. This article provides an overview of various agents in combination with statin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes. Other lipid-lowering agents in development, including PCSK9 and CETP inhibitors in development, are also described.

Background: Little is known regarding relationships between high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and lipoproteins other than low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). High-density lipoprotein (HDL), with both anti-inflammatory and cholesterol-mediating effects, is of particular interest. This exploratory analysis assessed associations between hsCRP and lipids in older (>65 years) patients with moderate and/or high cardiovascular disease risk, before and after treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) or atorvastatin (ATV)., Methods: An analysis of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, 12-week study. Correlations were assessed in 1054 patients with both baseline and 12-week hsCRP ≤ 10 mg/L, pooled across doses of E/S (10/20 and 10/40 mg) and ATV (10, 20, and 40 mg), and combined E/S + ATV treatments. Because of multiple comparisons, observed relationships were considered significant only if P values were < .01., Results: Correlations between baseline levels of hsCRP and either LDL-C, non-HDL-C, or apolipoprotein B were weak and nonsignificant in the E/S, ATV, and E/S + ATV groups. After 12 weeks of treatment, these correlations increased slightly and significantly in all groups, except for LDL-C in the ATV group. HDL-C was significantly but inversely correlated with hsCRP in the ATV and E/S + ATV groups at baseline, and in all groups at 12 weeks. Only with HDL-C did change correlate with change in hsCRP in both the E/S and combined groups., Conclusions: Relationships between hsCRP and lipid factors in older patients were weak at baseline and somewhat stronger after treatment. HDL-C was inversely and consistently correlated with baseline and 12-week on-treatment hsCRP and with therapy-induced changes in HDL-C and hsCRP., (Copyright © 2016 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We compared the variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to treatment with ezetimibe + statins versus statins in hypercholesterolemic patients., Methods: An analysis of patient-level data pooled from 27 double-blind, placebo and/or active-controlled studies in 21,671 patients treated with ezetimibe + statins versus statins on first-line (statin-naïve/wash-out) or second-line (on statin, randomized to ezetimibe versus placebo [add-on] or ezetimibe versus uptitrated statin [uptitrate]) for 6-24 wks. Variances (standard deviation [SD], coefficient of variation [CV], and root mean squared error [RMSE] adjusted for various factors) for % change from baseline in LDL-C were compared., Results: In first-line and second-line add-on studies, the variability (SD, RMSE) of % change from baseline in LDL-C was lower in ezetimibe + statin-treated patients versus statin-treated patients, ±covariates. Differences were small but statistically significant due to the large sample size. In second-line uptitrate studies, ezetimibe + statin treatment resulted in greater unadjusted variability (SD) versus statin therapy, while the adjusted variability (RMSE) was significantly lower. Relative variability (CV=SD/mean) was lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statin therapy for all study types, being more pronounced in second-line add-on and uptitrate studies, attributed to larger mean LDL-C reductions for ezetimibe + statins versus statin groups. When assessed by individual study/type, statin brand, potency or dose, the CVs remained lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statins in second-line studies. The SDs showed no consistent trend for either therapy., Conclusion: In hypercholesterolemic patients, the absolute variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to ezetimibe + statins was not greater versus statins alone and appeared lower when adjusted for other factors. Relative variability was lower in patients treated with statins + ezetimibe. A better understanding of the variability of the LDL-C lowering response may help guide clinicians in making therapeutic decisions., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Co-administration of ezetimibe with atorvastatin is a generally well-tolerated treatment option that reduces LDL-C levels and improves other lipids with greater efficacy than doubling the atorvastatin dose. The objective of the study was to demonstrate the equivalent lipid-modifying efficacy of fixed-dose combination (FDC) ezetimibe/atorvastatin compared with the component agents co-administered individually in support of regulatory filing. Two randomized, 6-week, double-blind cross-over trials compared the lipid-modifying efficacy of ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10/20 mg (n = 353) or 10/40 mg (n = 280) vs. separate co-administration of ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 346) or 40 mg (n = 280), respectively, in hypercholesterolemic patients. Percent changes from baseline in LDL-C (primary endpoint) and other lipids (secondary endpoints) were assessed by analysis of covariance; triglycerides were evaluated by longitudinal-data analysis. Expected differences between FDC and the corresponding co-administered doses were predicted from a dose-response relationship model; sample size was estimated given the expected difference and equivalence margins (±4%). LDL-C-lowering equivalence was based on 97.5% expanded confidence intervals (CI) for the difference contained within the margins; equivalence margins for other lipids were not prespecified. Ezetimibe/atorvastatin FDC 10/20 mg was equivalent to co-administered ezetimibe+atorvastatin 20 mg in reducing LDL-C levels (54.0% vs. 53.8%) as was FDC 10/40 mg and ezetimibe+atorvastatin 40 mg (58.9% vs. 58.7%), as predicted by the model. Changes in other lipids were consistent with equivalence (97.5% expanded CIs <±3%, included 0); triglyceride changes varied more. All treatments were generally well tolerated. Hypercholesterolemic patients administered ezetimibe/atorvastatin 10/20 and 10/40 mg FDC had equivalent LDL-C lowering. This FDC formulation proved to be an efficacious and generally well-tolerated lipid-lowering therapy., (© 2014 Société Française de Pharmacologie et de Thérapeutique.)

Objective: Evaluate the lipid-altering effects of ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, statin titration, switching from statin monotherapy to a more potent statin or to ezetimibe/simvastatin., Methods: A pooled analysis of patient-level data from 17 double-blind, active or placebo-controlled studies of 8667 hypercholesterolemic adults randomized to ezetimibe 10 mg added to ongoing statins, statin titration (doubling), or switching from ongoing statins to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or to ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 and 40 mg). Percent change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was estimated by analysis of variance. Percent of patients who achieved LDL-C and other guideline-recommended targets, and target lipid levels by baseline distance to goal were evaluated., Results: LDL-C percent change from baseline was -26.0 for ezetimibe added to ongoing statin therapy, -27.6 for switching from ongoing statin to ezetimibe/simvastatin, -19.7 for switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg, and -9.7 for dose doubling of the ongoing statin. For patients within 0.8 mmol/L (30 mg/dL) of the target at baseline, LDL-C target attainment rates were 75.9% for adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin, 72.8% for switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin, 61.8% for switching to rosuvastatin, and 44.3% for statin dose-doubling. Similarly, improvements in other lipids and achievement of non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B targets among this patient group were largest for ezetimibe added to ongoing statins and switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin; switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg and statin dose-doubling were less effective., Conclusions: Adding ezetimibe to ongoing statin therapy appeared to be an effective option for patients who do not achieve lipid-lowering goals on statins alone., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Reverse cholesterol transport (RCT) can be defined as a pathway of flux of cholesterol from peripheral tissues to the liver for potential excretion into feces. This prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind crossover study assessed the effect of ezetimibe on several RCT parameters in hyperlipidemic patients., Methods: Following 7 weeks of treatment (ezetimibe 10 mg/day or placebo), 26 patients received 24-h continuous IV infusions of [3,4-(13)C2]-cholesterol, then took heavy water ((2)H2O) by mouth. Cholesterol excretion was measured by quantification of neutral/acid sterols in stool and blood samples during 7 days post-infusion with continued treatment. Plasma de novo cholesterol synthesis was assessed by (2)H-labeling from (2)H2O., Results: Ezetimibe significantly reduced levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (22%, P < 0.001) without significant changes in triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and significantly increased the flux of plasma-derived cholesterol into fecal neutral sterols by 52% (P = 0.04) without change in flux into fecal bile acids. Total fecal neutral sterol output increased by 23% (P = 0.02). Plasma de novo cholesterol synthesis increased by 57% (P < 0.001). The fractional clearance rate (FCR) of plasma cholesteryl-ester trended higher (7%; P = 0.055) with a reduction in absolute cholesteryl-ester production rate (9%, P < 0.01). Whole-body free cholesterol efflux rate from extra-hepatic tissues into plasma was not measurably changed by ezetimibe., Conclusion: Ezetimibe treatment approximately doubled the flux of plasma-derived cholesterol into fecal neutral sterols, in association with increases in total fecal neutral sterol excretion, FCR of plasma cholesterol ester, and plasma de novo cholesterol synthesis. These effects are consistent with increased cholesterol transport through the plasma compartment and excretion from the body, in response to ezetimibe treatment in hyperlipidemic humans. Clintrials.gov: NCT00701727., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Objective: Statins inhibit cholesterol synthesis but can upregulate cholesterol absorption, with higher doses producing larger effects. Ezetimibe inhibits cholesterol absorption but also upregulates synthesis. We tested whether ezetimibe added to on-going statin therapy would be most effective in lowering LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) in subjects on high-potency statins and whether these effects would be related to alterations in cholesterol absorption (β-sitosterol) and synthesis (lathosterol) markers., Methods: Hypercholesterolemic subjects (n = 874) on statins received ezetimibe 10 mg/day. Plasma lipids, lathosterol, and β-sitosterol were measured at baseline and on treatment. Subjects were divided into low- (n = 133), medium- (n = 582), and high- (n = 159) statin potency groups defined by predicted LDL-C-lowering effects of each ongoing statin type and dose (reductions of ~20-30%, ~31-45%, or ~46-55%, respectively)., Results: The high-potency group had significantly lower baseline lathosterol (1.93 vs. 2.58 vs. 3.17 μmol/l; p < 0.001) and higher baseline β-sitosterol values (6.21 vs. 4.58 vs. 4.51 μmol/l, p < 0.001) than medium-/low-potency groups. Ezetimibe treatment in the high-potency group produced significantly greater reductions from baseline in LDL-C than medium-/low-potency groups (-29.1% vs. -25.0% vs. -22.7%; p < 0.001) when evaluating unadjusted data. These effects and group differences were significantly (p < 0.05) related to greater β-sitosterol reductions and smaller lathosterol increases. However, LDL-C reduction differences between groups were no longer significant after controlling for placebo effects, due mainly to modest LDL-C lowering by placebo in the high-potency group., Conclusion: Patients on high-potency statins have the lowest levels of cholesterol synthesis markers and the highest levels of cholesterol absorption markers at baseline, and the greatest reduction in absorption markers and the smallest increases in synthesis markers with ezetimibe addition. Therefore, such patients may be good candidates for ezetimibe therapy if additional LDL-C lowering is needed., (Copyright © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Statin therapy is the mainstay of lipid-lowering therapy; however, many patients, particularly those at high risk, do not achieve sufficient LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering. Thus, there remains an unmet medical need for more effective and well tolerated lipid-lowering agents. Guidelines recommend combining additional lipid-lowering agents with a complementary mode of action for these patients. One approach to complementing statin therapy is combination with inhibitors that block the intestinal absorption of dietary and biliary cholesterol. This review summarizes what is currently known about intestinal sterol transporters and cholesterol absorption inhibitors (CAIs)., Recent Findings: The only lipid-lowering agent currently available that specifically targets an intestinal sterol transporter (Niemann-Pick C1-like 1) is the CAI, ezetimibe. It is effective in lowering LDL-C, both when given alone and when combined with a statin. Clinical outcome data with ezetimibe combined with simvastatin have recently become available, and definitive evidence that the incremental LDL-C lowering attributable to the ezetimibe component reduces cardiovascular events beyond simvastatin alone is currently under study. Other novel CAIs have been evaluated based upon the structure and properties of ezetimibe, but none remain in development., Summary: Additional lipid-lowering agents are needed to fulfill an unmet medical need for those patients who do not achieve optimal LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy. The inhibition of cholesterol absorption is an important therapeutic strategy to reduce cholesterol levels. Based upon the demonstrated lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe, several CAIs have been identified; all to date have been discontinued due to limited efficacy.

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., (Copyright © 2010 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To assess the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) plus extended-release niacin (N) in hyperlipidaemic patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), metabolic syndrome (MetS) without DM (MetS/non-DM) or neither (non-DM/non-MetS)., Methods: A subgroup analysis of a double-blind, 64-week trial of 1220 randomized patients who received E/S (10/20 mg) + N (to 2 g) or E/S (10/20 mg) for 64 weeks, or N (to 2 g) for 24 weeks then E/S (10/20 mg) + N (2 g) or E/S (10/20 mg) for 40 additional weeks. The evaluable populations of this analysis included n = 765 patients at 24 weeks and n = 574 at 64 weeks. Among those receiving N, only those who attained the 2-g dose were included in the analysis., Results: E/S+N improved levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, other lipids and lipoprotein ratios compared with N and E/S at 24 weeks and E/S at 64 weeks. The combination increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein AI comparably to N and more than E/S. E/S+N reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) levels more effectively than N and similarly to E/S. E/S+N was generally well tolerated. Discontinuations due to flushing with N and E/S+N were comparable and greater than E/S in all subgroups. Fasting glucose trended higher for N vs. E/S. Glucose elevations from baseline to 12 weeks were highest for patients with DM (24.9 mg/dl for N, 21.2 mg/dl for E/S+N, 17.5 mg/dl for E/S); fasting glucose then declined to pretreatment levels at 64 weeks in all subgroups. New-onset DM was more frequent among MetS patients than those without MetS during the first 24 weeks and trended higher among those assigned to N-containing regimens [n = 5(5.1%) for N, n = 2(1.7%) for E/S, n = 21(8.8%) for E/S+N]; during the 24-64 week extension study, diabetes was diagnosed in five additional patients in the E/S(cumulative incidence of 5.9%) and one in the E/S+N (cumulative incidence of 9.2%). Treatment-incident elevations in uric acid levels were increased among subjects assigned to N-containing regimens, but there were no effects on symptomatic gout., Conclusion: Combination E/S+N is a safe treatment option for hyperlipidaemic patients including those with DM and MetS, but requires monitoring of glucose and potentially uric acid levels., (© 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

Aim: To evaluate the effects of the usual starting and next higher doses of ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin on the cholesterol content of lipoprotein subclasses in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypercholesterolaemia., Methods: This post hoc analysis compared the effects of treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg/day and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg/day vs. atorvastatin 40 mg/day on the cholesterol content of lipoprotein subclasses in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (n = 1013) and in subgroups of patients with triglyceride (TG) levels <200 mg/dl (n = 600) and >or=200 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l) (n = 413)., Results: Ezetimibe/simvastatin significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) subclasses LDL(1)-C, LDL(2)-C and LDL(3)-C; real LDL-C (LDL-C(r)); intermediate-density lipoprotein cholesterol (IDL-C), IDL(1)-C, IDL(2)-C; very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), VLDL(3)-C; and remnant-like lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) from baseline more than atorvastatin at all dose comparisons (p < 0.01) in the mITT population. Significant improvements were also observed in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) subclass HDL(3)-C at the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg vs. atorvastatin 20 mg and highest dose comparisons (p < 0.001) and in VLDL(1 + 2)-C at the lowest and highest dose comparisons (p < 0.001). Changes in LDL(4)-C and LDL-C subclass patterns (A, B and I) were comparable for both treatments. Generally, similar results were observed for patients with TG levels <200 and >or=200 mg/dl (2.3 mmol). For both treatments, notable differences between TG subgroups were that patients with elevated TGs had smaller reductions in LDL(2)-C, slightly smaller decreases in all IDL subclasses and greater decreases in all VLDL-C subclasses than those with lower TG levels. Frequency of pattern B was also reduced more in patients with higher TGs for both treatments., Conclusions: Ezetimibe/simvastatin reduced the cholesterol content of most lipoprotein subclasses from baseline with generally similar efficacy in patients with low and high TGs. Despite the different mechanism of action of ezetimibe, the response to ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin treatment related to these lipoprotein subclasses was generally consistent with the overall effects of these therapies on the major lipid/lipoprotein classes. The clinical significance of these results awaits further study.

Patients with the metabolic syndrome are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and might require intensive lipid therapy. Many patients remain at the starting dose of lipid therapy and might not be titrated up to a higher dose. The present double-blind, randomized, 6-week study assessed the lipid-lowering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus atorvastatin 10 or 20 mg, and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg versus atorvastatin 40 mg in 1,128 patients with hypercholesterolemia and the metabolic syndrome. The primary end point was the percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Additional end points included changes in other lipids, lipoprotein ratios, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and attainment of prespecified lipid levels. Significantly greater improvements in the levels of LDL cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipid/lipoprotein ratios resulted with ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with atorvastatin at all specified dose comparisons (p <0.001). The attainment of prespecified LDL cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was also significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin at all dose comparisons (p <0.05). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol increases were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg than with atorvastatin 10 mg (p <0.05) and ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/40 mg than with atorvastatin 40 mg (p <0.01). The changes in triglycerides, very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were similar for both treatments. The incidence of liver, muscle, and gastrointestinal-, hepatitis- and allergic reaction/rash-related adverse events were low and generally similar to those in previous studies of ezetimibe/simvastatin and/or atorvastatin. In conclusion, ezetimibe/simvastatin was more likely to result in lipid treatment end points than atorvastatin and was generally well tolerated at the doses compared in our patients.

The percentage of change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol after the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 40 mg was compared with uptitration to atorvastatin 80 mg. In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group study, adult hypercholesterolemic patients using atorvastatin 40 mg/day were randomly assigned to atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or uptitration to atorvastatin 80 mg. After 6 weeks of treatment, compared with atorvastatin 80 mg, atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe significantly reduced the primary end point of LDL cholesterol by -27% versus atorvastatin 80 mg by -11% (p <0.001), as well as significantly reduced non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, and triglycerides significantly more than atorvastatin 80 mg (all p <0.001). Percentages of change in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein A-I were similar between groups. Significantly more patients treated with atorvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe reached LDL cholesterol <70 mg/dl versus patients treated with atorvastatin 80 mg (74% vs 32%; p <0.001). Safety and tolerability profiles and incidence of liver and muscle adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. In conclusion, these results showed that adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin 40 mg was significantly more effective than uptitrating to atorvastatin 80 mg at lowering LDL cholesterol and other lipid parameters. Both treatments were generally well tolerated (clinical trial no. NCT00276484).

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg added to atorvastatin 20 mg compared with doubling atorvastatin to 40 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease who did not reach low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl with atorvastatin 20 mg. In this 6-week, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study, 196 patients treated with atorvastatin 20 mg received atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg or atorvastatin 40 mg for 6 weeks. Adding ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 20 mg produced significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol than increasing atorvastatin to 40 mg (-31% vs -11%, p <0.001). Significantly greater reductions were also seen in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (p <0.001). Significantly more patients reached LDL cholesterol levels <100 mg/dl with atorvastatin 20 mg plus ezetimibe compared with atorvastatin 40 mg (84% vs 49%, p <0.001). The 2 treatment groups had comparable results for high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, apolipoprotein A-I, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The incidences of clinical and laboratory adverse experiences were generally similar between groups. In conclusion, the addition of ezetimibe 10 mg to atorvastatin 20 mg was generally well tolerated and resulted in significantly greater lipid-lowering efficacy compared with doubling atorvastatin to 40 mg in patients with hypercholesterolemia at moderately high risk for coronary heart disease.

Ezetimibe is a cholesterol absorption inhibitor that blocks the intestinal absorption of both biliary and dietary cholesterol. It appears to exert its effect by blocking intestinal sterol transporters, specifically Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 proteins, thereby inhibiting the intestinal absorption of cholesterol, phytosterols and certain oxysterols. Ezetimibe monotherapy and in combination with statin therapy is primarily indicated for lowering LDL-cholesterol levels. In addition, it may favorably affect other parameters that could potentially further reduce atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk, such as raising HDL-cholesterol and lowering levels of triglycerides, non-HDL-cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and remnant-like particle cholesterol. Further effects of ezetimibe include a reduction in circulating phytosterols and oxysterols and, when used in combination with statins, a reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein. The clinical significance of the LDL-cholesterol lowering and other effects of ezetimibe is being evaluated in clinical outcome studies.

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of the recommended usual starting and next highest doses of ezetimibe/ simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia., Patients and Methods: This double-blind, multicenter study (June 22 to December 7, 2005) consisted of adult patients randomized to the recommended usual starting (ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d, vs atorvastatin, 10 or 20 mg/d) or next highest (ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/40 mg/d, vs atorvastatin, 40 mg/d) doses. Efficacy end points included percent changes from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (primary) and proportion of patients attaining LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL (secondary)., Results: A total of 1229 patients participated in the study. Significantly greater mean reductions were found in LDL-C levels with ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d (-53.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -55.4% to -51.8%), than with atorvastatin, 10 mg/d (-38.3%; 95% CI, -40.1% to -36.5%; P < .001) or 20 mg/d (-44.6%; 95% CI, -46.4% to -42.8%; P < .001), and with ezetimibe/simvastatin, 10/40 mg/d (-57.6%; 95% CI, -59.4% to -55.8%), vs atorvastatin, 40 mg/d (-50.9%; 95% CI, -52.7% to -49.1%; P < .001). Ezetimibe/simvastatin was also superior to atorvastatin in attainment of LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL (P < .001 for all dose comparisons). Significantly better improvements with ezetimibe/simvastatin than with atorvastatin (P < or = .001) were observed for total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Ezetimibe/ simvastatin, 10/20 mg/d, reduced high-sensitivity C-reactive protein and triglyceride levels significantly more than atorvastatin, 10 mg/d (P = .02), with comparable reductions at other doses. Incidences of clinical adverse events, including serious drug-related and prespecified gastrointestinal-, gallbladder-, and hepatitis-related allergic reactions or rash events, and laboratory adverse events, including repeated elevation of hepatic transaminases or creatine kinase levels, were similar for both treatments., Conclusion: Ezetimibe/simvastatin provided additional lipid-modifying benefits over atorvastatin monotherapy at the recommended usual starting and next highest doses in patients with type 2 diabetes. Both treatments were generally well tolerated.

Objective: To assess the lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin single tablet product compared with rosuvastatin at the approved usual starting, next highest, and maximum doses., Research Design and Methods: Double-blind, multicenter, 6-week, parallel-group study in hypercholesterolemic patients (n = 2959). Patients were randomized based on stratification by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels to ezetimibe/simvastatin or rosuvastatin, respectively, at the usual starting (10/20 or 10 mg/day), the next highest (10/40 or 20 mg/day), and maximum doses (10/80 or 40 mg/day)., Results: At all doses and across doses, ezetimibe/simvastatin reduced LDL-C levels significantly more (52-61%) than rosuvastatin (46-57%; p < or = 0.001). Significantly greater percentages of all patients (p < 0.001) and high risk patients (p < or = 0.005) attained LDL-C levels < 70 mg/dL (1.8 mmol/L) following ezetimibe/simvastatin treatment compared with rosuvastatin at the prespecified doses and across doses. Ezetimibe/simvastatin also produced significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol (p < 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.001), lipid ratios (p < or = 0.003), and apolipoprotein B (p < 0.05). Reductions in triglycerides were significantly greater with ezetimibe/simvastatin than rosuvastatin at the usual starting (p = 0.004) and next highest (p = 0.006) doses, and across all doses (p < 0.001). Increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and decreases in high sensitivity C reactive protein (hsCRP) were similar between treatment groups. Safety profiles were comparable for both treatments; however, the percent of patients with proteinuria was significantly higher following rosuvastatin treatment than ezetimibe/simvastatin, respectively at 10 mg versus 10/20 mg/day (p = 0.004) and 40 mg versus 10/80 mg/day (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Ezetimibe/simvastatin was more effective than rosuvastatin in LDL-C lowering, and provided greater or comparable improvements in other lipid measures and hsCRP at the approved usual starting, next highest, and maximum doses in hypercholesterolemic patients. Although the doses compared in this study were not equivalent on a milligram basis, the results provide clinically relevant information regarding the use of these drugs for initial therapy and for subsequent use at higher doses when appropriate. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated; however, this study was not powered nor of sufficient duration to assess the prevalence of rare clinical adverse effects. Overall, ezetimibe/simvastatin offers an effective and tolerable treatment option for lipid management. An assessment of its full clinical benefit awaits evaluation in longer-term clinical studies.