Search

Importance: Muscle-related statin intolerance is reported by 5% to 20% of patients., Objective: To identify patients with muscle symptoms confirmed by statin rechallenge and compare lipid-lowering efficacy for 2 nonstatin therapies, ezetimibe and evolocumab., Design, Setting, and Participants: Two-stage randomized clinical trial including 511 adult patients with uncontrolled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and history of intolerance to 2 or more statins enrolled in 2013 and 2014 globally. Phase A used a 24-week crossover procedure with atorvastatin or placebo to identify patients having symptoms only with atorvastatin but not placebo. In phase B, after a 2-week washout, patients were randomized to ezetimibe or evolocumab for 24 weeks., Interventions: Phase A: atorvastatin (20 mg) vs placebo. Phase B: randomization 2:1 to subcutaneous evolocumab (420 mg monthly) or oral ezetimibe (10 mg daily)., Main Outcome and Measures: Coprimary end points were the mean percent change in LDL-C level from baseline to the mean of weeks 22 and 24 levels and from baseline to week 24 levels., Results: Of the 491 patients who entered phase A (mean age, 60.7 [SD, 10.2] years; 246 women [50.1%]; 170 with coronary heart disease [34.6%]; entry mean LDL-C level, 212.3 [SD, 67.9] mg/dL), muscle symptoms occurred in 209 of 491 (42.6%) while taking atorvastatin but not while taking placebo. Of these, 199 entered phase B, along with 19 who proceeded directly to phase B for elevated creatine kinase (N = 218, with 73 randomized to ezetimibe and 145 to evolocumab; entry mean LDL-C level, 219.9 [SD, 72] mg/dL). For the mean of weeks 22 and 24, LDL-C level with ezetimibe was 183.0 mg/dL; mean percent LDL-C change, -16.7% (95% CI, -20.5% to -12.9%), absolute change, -31.0 mg/dL and with evolocumab was 103.6 mg/dL; mean percent change, -54.5% (95% CI, -57.2% to -51.8%); absolute change, -106.8 mg/dL (P < .001). LDL-C level at week 24 with ezetimibe was 181.5 mg/dL; mean percent change, -16.7% (95% CI, -20.8% to -12.5%); absolute change, -31.2 mg/dL and with evolocumab was 104.1 mg/dL; mean percent change, -52.8% (95% CI, -55.8% to -49.8%); absolute change, -102.9 mg/dL (P < .001). For the mean of weeks 22 and 24, between-group difference in LDL-C was -37.8%; absolute difference, -75.8 mg/dL. For week 24, between-group difference in LDL-C was -36.1%; absolute difference, -71.7 mg/dL. Muscle symptoms were reported in 28.8% of ezetimibe-treated patients and 20.7% of evolocumab-treated patients (log-rank P = .17). Active study drug was stopped for muscle symptoms in 5 of 73 ezetimibe-treated patients (6.8%) and 1 of 145 evolocumab-treated patients (0.7%)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with statin intolerance related to muscle-related adverse effects, the use of evolocumab compared with ezetimibe resulted in a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C levels after 24 weeks. Further studies are needed to assess long-term efficacy and safety., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01984424.

Statins are the accepted standard for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). However, 5% to 10% of statin-treated patients report intolerance, mostly due to muscle-related adverse effects. Challenges exist to objective identification of statin-intolerant patients. Evolocumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), resulting in marked LDL-C reduction. We report the design of Goal Achievement After Utilizing an Anti-PCSK9 Antibody in Statin-Intolerant Subjects 3 (GAUSS-3), a phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, ezetimibe-controlled study to compare effectiveness of 24 weeks of evolocumab 420 mg monthly vs ezetimibe 10 mg daily in hypercholesterolemic patients unable to tolerate an effective statin dose. The study incorporates a novel atorvastatin-controlled, double-blind, crossover phase to objectively identify statin intolerance. Eligible patients had LDL-C above the National Cholesterol Education Project Adult Treatment Panel III target level for the appropriate coronary heart disease risk category and were unable to tolerate ≥3 statins or 2 statins (one of which was atorvastatin ≤10 mg/d) or had a history of marked creatine kinase elevation accompanied by muscle symptoms while on 1 statin. This trial has 2 co-primary endpoints: mean percent change from baseline in LDL-C at weeks 22 and 24 and percent change from baseline in LDL-C at week 24. Key secondary efficacy endpoints include change from baseline in LDL-C, percent of patients attaining LDL-C <70 mg/dL (1.81 mmol/L), and percent change from baseline in total cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. Recruitment of 511 patients was completed on November 28, 2014., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) and consequent acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are substantial contributors to morbidity and mortality across Europe. Fortunately, as much as two thirds of this disease's burden is modifiable, in particular by lipid-lowering therapy (LLT). Current guidelines are based on the sound premise that, with respect to low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), "lower is better for longer", and recent data have strongly emphasised the need for also "the earlier the better". In addition to statins, which have been available for several decades, ezetimibe, bempedoic acid (also as fixed dose combinations), and modulators of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9 inhibitors and inclisiran) are additionally very effective approaches to LLT, especially for those at very high and extremely high cardiovascular risk. In real life, however, clinical practice goals are still not met in a substantial proportion of patients (even in 70%). However, with the options we have available, we should render lipid disorders a rare disease. In April 2021, the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP) published its first position paper on the optimal use of LLT in post-ACS patients, which complemented the existing guidelines on the management of lipids in patients following ACS, which defined a group of "extremely high-risk" individuals and outlined scenarios where upfront combination therapy should be considered to improve access and adherence to LLT and, consequently, the therapy's effectiveness. These updated recommendations build on the previous work, considering developments in the evidential underpinning of combination LLT, ongoing education on the role of lipid disorder therapy, and changes in the availability of lipid-lowering drugs. Our aim is to provide a guide to address this unmet clinical need, to provide clear practical advice, whilst acknowledging the need for patient-centred care, and accounting for often large differences in the availability of LLTs between countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decreasing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is one of the few established and proven principles for the prevention and treatment of atherosclerosis. The higher the individual cardiovascular risk, the higher the benefit of lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy. Therefore, treatment options are chosen based on a patient's total cardiovascular risk. The latter depends not only on the levels of LDL-C but also on the presence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and on the number and severity of other risk factors. Current guidelines recommend the lowering of LDL-C to 115 mg/dl (3 mmol/l) in patients with low and moderate risk. The LDL-C treatment target is <100 mg/dl (2.6 mmol/l) for patients at high risk and <70 mg/dl (1.8 mmol/l) for patients at very high risk. Although lifestyle measures remain a fundamental part of treatment, many patients require drug therapy to achieve their LDL-C targets. Statins are the drugs of choice, with other options including ezetimibe and the newly available monoclonal antibodies against PCSK9 ( proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9). In some cases, bile acid-binding sequestrants and fibrates can also be considered. Nicotinic acid is no longer available in Germany. PCSK9 antibodies decrease LDL-C about 50-60 % and are well tolerated. Their effects on clinical endpoints are being investigated in large randomized trials. The aim of the present review is to summarize the current guidelines and treatment options for hypercholesterolemia. Moreover, we provide an appraisal of PCSK9 antibodies and propose their use in selected patient populations, particularly in those at very high cardiovascular risk whose LDL-C levels under maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy are significantly over their treatment target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context and Objective: Investigating the effects of lipid-lowering drugs on HDL subclasses has shown ambiguous results. This study assessed the effects of ezetimibe, simvastatin, and their combination on HDL subclass distribution. Design and Participants: A single-center randomized parallel 3-group open-label study was performed in 72 healthy men free of cardiovascular disease with a baseline LDL-cholesterol of 111±30 mg/dl (2.9±0.8 mmol/l) and a baseline HDL-cholesterol of 64±15 mg/dl (1.7±0.4 mmol/l). They were treated with ezetimibe (10 mg/day, n = 24), simvastatin (40 mg/day, n = 24) or their combination (n = 24) for 14 days. Blood was drawn before and after the treatment period. HDL subclasses were determined using polyacrylamide gel-tube electrophoresis. Multivariate regression models were used to determine the influence of treatment and covariates on changes in HDL subclass composition. Results: Baseline HDL subclasses consisted of 33±10% large, 48±6% intermediate and 19±8% small HDL. After adjusting for baseline HDL subclass distribution, body mass index, LDL-C and the ratio triglycerides/HDL-C, there was a significant increase in large HDL by about 3.9 percentage points (P<0.05) and a decrease in intermediate HDL by about 3.5 percentage points (P<0.01) in both simvastatin-containing treatment arms in comparison to ezetimibe. The parameters obtained after additional adjustment for the decrease in LDL-C indicated that about one third to one half of these effects could be explained by the extent of LDL-C-lowering. Conclusions: In healthy men, treatment with simvastatin leads to favorable effects on HDL subclass composition, which was not be observed with ezetimibe. Part of these differential effects may be due to the stronger LDL-C-lowering effects of simvastatin. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00317993 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) is a secreted inhibitor of the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) receptor and an important regulator of LDL metabolism. Elevated PCSK9 levels have been associated with cardiovascular risk. The purpose of this study was to investigate how ezetimibe and simvastatin, alone and in combination, affect PCSK9 circulating concentrations. Methods: A single center, randomized, open-label parallel 3-group study in healthy men (mean age 32±9 years, body mass index 25.7±3.2 kg/m2) was performed. Each group of 24 subjects was treated for 14 days with either simvastatin 40 mg/d, ezetimibe 10 mg/d, or with both drugs. Multivariate analysis was used to investigate parameters influencing the change in PCSK9 concentrations under treatment. Results: The baseline plasma PCSK9 concentrations in the total cohort were 52±20 ng/mL with no statistically significant differences between the groups. They were increased by 68±85% by simvastatin (P = 0.0014), by 10±38% by ezetimibe (P = 0.51) and by 67±91% by simvastatin plus ezetimibe (P = 0.0013). The increase in PCSK9 was inversely correlated with baseline PCSK9 concentrations (Spearman’s R = –0.47, P<0.0001) and with the percent change in LDL cholesterol concentrations (Spearman’s R = –0.30, P<0.01). In multivariate analyses, only baseline PCSK9 concentrations (β = –1.68, t = –4.04, P<0.0001), percent change in LDL cholesterol from baseline (β = 1.94, t = 2.52, P = 0.014), and treatment with simvastatin (P = 0.016), but not ezetimibe (P = 0.42), significantly influenced changes in PCSK9 levels. Parameters without effect on PCSK9 concentration changes were age, body mass index, body composition, thyroid function, kidney function, glucose metabolism parameters, adipokines, markers of cholesterol synthesis and absorption, and molecular markers of cholesterol metabolism. Conclusions: Ezetimibe does not increase circulating PCSK9 concentrations while simvastatin does. When added to simvastatin, ezetimibe does not cause an incremental increase in PCSK9 concentrations. Changes in PCSK9 concentrations are tightly regulated and mainly influenced by baseline PCSK9 levels and changes in LDL cholesterol. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00317993 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Statins decrease cardiovascular events mainly by lowering cholesterol but anti-inflammatory effects also play a role. The effects of the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe on markers of inflammation remain unclear. We performed an exploratory post-hoc analysis whether these drugs influence the pro-inflammatory markers interleukin-6 and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in subjects with very-low cardiovascular risk. Design. Single center, randomized, parallel 3-group study in 72 healthy men without apparent cardiovascular disease (age 32 ± 9 years, BMI 25.7 ± 3.2 kg/m²). Each group of 24 subjects received a 14-day treatment with either simvastatin 40 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg, or their combination. Results. Baseline IL-6 and hsCRP concentrations in the total cohort were 0.72 ±0.57 ng/1 and 0.40 ±0.65 mg/1, respectively, with no differences between the 3 groups. Median changes (interquartile range) in IL-6 and hsCRP concentrations were -22% (-43 to 0%) and -30% (-44 to +19%) after simvastatin, -5% (-36 to +30%) and +9% (-22 to +107%) after ezetimibe, and +15% (-15 to +86%) and +1 (-30 to +49%) after the combination. Using a generalized linear model, the multivariable adjusted overall P-values for these changes were 0.008 (IL-6) and 0.1 (hsCRP). Conclusions. Simvastatin decreases the pro-inflammatory markers IL-6 and almost significantly hsCRP while ezetimibe monotherapy or the combination with simvastatin has no effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The predominance of small dense low-density lipoproteins (sdLDLs) has been associated with increased cardiovascular risk. The effect of ezetimibe on LDL subfraction distribution has not been fully elucidated. This study assessed by gradient gel electrophoresis the effects of ezetimibe alone, simvastatin alone, and their combination on sdLDL subfraction distribution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Abstract: Objective: The combination of simvastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, and ezetimibe, an inhibitor of Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 protein, decreases cholesterol synthesis and absorption and reduces circulating LDL-cholesterol concentrations. The molecular mechanisms underlying the pronounced lipid-lowering effects of this combination have not been fully elucidated in humans. Methods and results: One center, prospective, randomized, parallel three-group study in 72 healthy men (mean age 32±9 years, mean body mass index 25.7±3.2kg/m2). Each group of twenty-four subjects received a 14-day treatment with either ezetimibe (10mg/day), simvastatin (40mg/day) or their combination. Lipid levels, the ratio of non-cholesterol sterols to cholesterol concentrations (used as markers of cholesterol synthesis and absorption), cell surface LDL receptor (LDLR) protein as well as LDLR and HMG-CoA reductase gene expression in mononuclear blood cells were measured at baseline and at the end of the study. LDL-C decreased in all groups. Simvastatin decreased, ezetimibe increased and their combination had no effect on HMG-CoA reductase activity. Simvastatin and the combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin increased the HMG-CoA reductase and LDLR gene expression while ezetimibe had no effect. The cell surface LDLR protein expression remained unchanged in all groups. The combination of ezetimibe and simvastatin increased the expression of the serine protease proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9), an enzyme shown to down-regulate LDLR protein levels. Conclusions: The co-administration of ezetimibe and simvastatin abrogates the ezetimibe-induced increase in cholesterol synthesis and up-regulates the LDLR gene but not protein expression, an effect possibly mediated through a parallel upregulation of PCSK9 expression. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]