Search

Background: Statins are the gold standard in the treatment of dyslipidemia, significantly reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease., Objective: To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Moderate-intensity Rosuvastatin Plus Ezetimibe compared with High-intensity Rosuvastatin in treating Composite Cardiovascular Events., Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, China Biological Literature Database, Wan Fang Database, and Weipu Database were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and efficacy of the two therapies from the time of construction to December 2023. The Jadad scale assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and Review Manager 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of outcomes was estimated by the I2 test, where we applied risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI to present continuous outcomes. We used funnel plots to assess study publication bias and sensitivity analysis was used to address significant clinical heterogeneity., Results: The meta-analysis described 21 RCTs involving 24592 participants. The findings indicated that moderate-intensity statin combination therapy improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (MD -8.06, 95% CI [-9.48, -6.64] p < 0.05), total cholesterol (TG) (MD -5.66, 95% CI [-8.51, -2.82] p < 0.05), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) (MD -17.04, 95% CI [-29.55, -4.54] p < 0.05) to a greater extent and superior in achieving LDL-C <70 (RR1.26, 95% CI [1.22, 1.29] p < 0.05) and LDL-C <55 (RR1.66, 95% CI [1.56, 1.77] p < 0.05) ratios and in the incidence of adverse events than the high-intensity Rosuvastatin monotherapy group. However, there was no statistical difference between the two in improving HDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), and preventing long-term composite adverse cardiovascular events (ACE). Funnel plots indicated publication bias. Sensitivity analysis suggested instability in long-term composite cardiovascular events, HDL-C, and TC results., Conclusions: Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe with combination therapy had better efficacy and safety than high-intensity statins. Future validation is needed with more long-term high-quality large samples., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Liu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Objective: Hyperlipidemia plays a crucial role in increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases such as atherosclerosis. Recent studies have established that inclisiran positively influences lipid regulation. Nevertheless, its effectiveness in comparison to conventional treatments is still questionable. Hence, a methodical assessment of its effectiveness and safety is required. This research evaluates the efficacy and safety of inclisiran, PCSK9 inhibitors, and the combination of statins with ezetimibe in the treatment of hyperlipidemia via a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)., Methods: We performed an extensive search of English-language publications in the PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases until April 2024. We conducted a web-based meta-analysis and reported in accordance with the guidelines. We selected the percentage change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides (TG), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) as efficacy evaluation metrics and the incidence of adverse events as safety evaluation metrics for analysis and comparison., Result: We incorporated 33 studies involving 23,375 patients, evaluating three interventions regarding their effects on LDL-C, TC, TG, HDL-C, and adverse events. All treatments improved metrics over placebo. Inclisiran significantly reduced LDL-C compared to statins (mean - 15.21, 95% CI [-25.19, -5.23]) but showed no significant difference from statin + ezetimibe. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) rankings placed inclisiran highest for LDL-C reduction (26.2%). The combination of statin and ezetimibe was the most efficacious for triglyceride reduction (mean 17.2, 95% CI [10.22, 24.19]; mean 15.61, 95% CI [16.87, 24.35]). The safety profiles were comparable across treatments., Conclusion: Inclisiran with its superior LDL-C reduction and low frequency of administration, appears promising for hyperlipidemia treatment, particularly for patients with adherence issues or side effects from other medications., Systematic Review Registration: CRD42024550852., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Backgrounds: High-intensity statin is recommended for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and ezetimibe is recommended to be added in patients not achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe can reduce LDL-C levels similar to high-intensity statin. The aim of this study is to examine the long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe as the first-line strategy compared to high-intensity statin in patients undergoing PCI., Method: Data was obtained from the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database of South Korea. Patients who underwent PCI from 2012 to 2017 were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, revascularization, or ischemic stroke. The safety endpoint was new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM)., Results: A total of 45,501 patients received high-intensity statin (n = 38,340) or moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (n = 7,161). Among propensity-score-matched 7,161 pairs, MACCEs occurred in 1,460 patients with high-intensity statin and 1,406 patients with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (33.8% vs. 31.9%, hazard ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89-1.03, P = 0.27) at a median follow-up of 2.7 years. DM was newly diagnosed in 398 patients with high-intensity statin and 342 patients with moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (12.5% vs. 10.7%; hazard ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.97, P = 0.02)., Conclusion: In patients undergoing PCI, moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe demonstrated a similar risk of MACCEs but a lower risk of new-onset DM than high-intensity statin. Early combination treatment of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe may be a useful and safe lipid-lowering strategy after PCI., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Abstract: In vitro investigations have established metformin's capacity to downregulate proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) expression, suggesting a potential beneficial effect on atherogenic lipoprotein particles when combined with metformin therapy. Our objective was to assess whether metformin could mitigate statin-induced adverse effects on PCSK9, thereby improving lipid profiles in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but without diabetes. Employing an open-label, placebo-controlled, randomized trial, we randomized patients with CAD but without diabetes into CLA (cholesterol-lowering agents alone: atorvastatin ± ezetimibe, n = 38) and Met + CLA groups (metformin plus CLA, n = 33) in a 1:1 ratio. The primary end point was the therapeutic impact of 1-month metformin combination treatment on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and PCSK9 levels. Baseline LDL-C and PCSK9 levels were 76.18 mg·dL -1 and 80.54 ng·mL -1 , respectively. After 1 month, metformin significantly reduced LDL-C (-20.81%, P < 0.001), enabling 72% of patients to attain guideline-recommended LDL-C goals. Noteworthy reductions in PCSK9 levels (-15.03%, P < 0.001) were observed. Moreover, Met + CLA markedly reduced LDL particle number more than CLA alone (-10.65% vs. 1.45%, P = 0.009), primarily due to diminished small-dense LDL particle count. Mechanistically, our study demonstrated metformin's inhibition of statin-induced PCSK9 expression in human hepatocellular cells. In summary, a 1-month metformin combination regimen reduced LDL-C levels in patients with CAD but without diabetes by inhibiting PCSK9 expression., Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier: ChiCTR1900026925 (26/10/2019)., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It remains controversial whether adding ezetimibe to low/moderate-intensity statins has a more beneficial impact on the treatment efficacy and safety of patients with existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared to high-intensity statin regimens., Hypothesis: A combination of low/moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe might be more effective and safer than high-intensity statin monotherapy., Methods: We searched databases for randomized controlled trials comparing lipid profile alterations, drug-related adverse events, and MACE components between high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy. Pooled risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were estimated using a random-effects model., Results: Our comprehensive search resulted in 32 studies comprising 6162 patients treated with monotherapy against 5880 patients on combination therapy. Combination therapy was more effective in reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels compared to monotherapy (MD = -6.6, 95% CI: -10.6 to -2.5); however, no significant differences were observed in other lipid parameters. Furthermore, the combination therapy group experienced a lower risk of myalgia (RR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.13-0.57) and discontinuation due to adverse events (RR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51-0.74). The occurrence of MACE was similar between the two treatment groups., Conclusions: Adding ezetimibe to low/moderate-intensity statins resulted in a greater reduction in LDL-C levels, a lower rate of myalgia, and less drug discontinuation compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with existing cardiovascular disease. However, according to our meta-analysis, the observed reduction in LDL-C levels in the combination group did not correlate with a reduction in MACE compared to the high-intensity statin group., (© 2024 The Author(s). Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC.)

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., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

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.

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., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures F.J. Raal has received research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for professional input and lectures from Sanofi, Regeneron, Amgen, and Novartis; and travel support to attend the 2023 European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) Congress from EAS. R.A. Hegele reports receiving consulting fees from Acasti, Aegerion, Akcea/Ionis, Amgen, Boston Heart, HLS Therapeutics, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Ultragenyx; and lecture fees from Amgen, HLS Therapeutics, and Novartis. A. Ruzza is a former employee and a stockholder of Amgen. He is a current employee and a stockholder of GlaxoSmithKline. He holds a pending patent application PCT/US2021/034489 on PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9) inhibitors and methods of use thereof to treat cholesterol-related disorders. J.A.G. López, A.K. Bhatia, H. Wang, and J. Wu are employees and stockholders of Amgen. D. Gaudet reports receiving research grants, honoraria, or consulting fees for professional input and lectures from Alnylam, Amgen, Applied Therapeutics, Arrowhead, Boehringer Ingelhein, Chiesi (Amryt), CRISPR Therapeutics, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Ionis, Kowa, New Amsterdam Pharma, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Ultragenyx, Uniqure, and Verve Therapeutics. A. Wiegman reports research support for pharmaceutical trials of lipid-lowering agents from Amgen, Sanofi-Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Silence Therapeutics, Esperion, and Ultragenyx; and is member of a safety board for Amryt. R.D. Santos reports receiving consulting fees and lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Aché, Biolab, Getz Pharma, Eli Lilly, Libbs, Merck, PTC Therapeutics, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; and grant support from Amgen, Kowa, Esperion, Novartis, and Sanofi-Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. The other author reports no conflicts.

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Schiele reports research grants/lecture fees from Amgen, Bayer, Bouchara-Recordati, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Novo Nordisk, Lilly, Organon, Bouchara-Recordati, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, and Amarin. Dr Ferrières reports speaking fees for Amgen, Sanofi, Servier, and Merck, Sharp & Dohme. Dr Puymirat has received research grants/lecture fees from Abbott, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bouchara-Recordati, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracco, Cordis, Daiichi-Sankyo, Lilly, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, Pfizer, Sanofi, Servier, Sunpharm, and Vifor Pharma. Dr Lemesle reports having received fees for consulting and travel support from Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, Pfizer, Recordati, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier. Dr Cayla has received research grants/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards, Microport Cardiac Rhythm Management, Medtronic, and Pfizer. Dr Simon reports having received grants or lecture fees or participation in scientific boards from Ablative Solutions,Air Liquide, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Novartis, Servier, and 4Living Biotech Sanofi. Dr Danchin has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Intercept, Merck, Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Servier, Union Chimique Belge Pharmaceuticals, and Vifor, all outside the submitted work. The other authors report no conflicts.

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None, (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Desai receives support from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop and maintain performance measures that are used for public reporting and payment programs; receives research support from and provides consulting for Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cytokinetics, Novartis, SC Pharmaceuticals, and Vifor; and serves on the medical review committee for Anthem. R.J. Riello is a consultant for Alexion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, PhaseBio, and Portola. The other authors report no conflicts.

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: S.X., F.G., E.O., S.C., and M.C. report no disclosures. A.L.C. received research funding and/or honoraria for advisory boards, consultancy, or speaker bureau from Aegerion, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Mediolanum, Merck, or MSD, Pfizer, Recordati, Rottapharm, Sanofi-Regeneron, Sigma-Tau. T.F.L. received honoraria and research grants from Roche, Basel Switzerland for running the Dal-Vessel trial. Outside this work, he has received educational and research grants from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, and Vifor., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

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) ( P int =0.14 and P int =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.

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., Competing Interests: The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (© Copyright: Yonsei University College of Medicine 2024.)

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., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

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.

Aim: We compared the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in patients with hypercholesterolemia., Methods: This trial was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, parallel-group trial. A total of 293 patients were randomly assigned into four groups receiving 2 mg pitavastatin, 4 mg pitavastatin, 2 mg pitavastatin/10 mg ezetimibe (K-924 LD), and 4 mg pitavastatin/10 mg ezetimibe (K-924 HD) once daily for 12 weeks., Results: The percentage changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), the primary endpoint, were -39.5% for 2 mg pitavastatin, -45.2% for 4 mg pitavastatin, -51.4% for K-924 LD, and -57.8% for K-924 HD. Compared with pitavastatin monotherapy, the pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination significantly reduced LDL-C, total cholesterol, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Meanwhile, the cholesterol synthesis marker, lathosterol, was significantly decreased with pitavastatin monotherapy and the pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination, although the decrease was attenuated in the latter. On the other hand, the cholesterol absorption markers, beta-sitosterol and campesterol, were reduced with the fixed-dose combination but not with pitavastatin monotherapy. The incidence of adverse events and adverse drug reactions was not significantly different between the two groups receiving the fixed-dose combination and monotherapy. The mean values of laboratory tests that are related to liver function and myopathy increased but remained within the reference range in all groups., Conclusions: The pitavastatin/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination showed an excellent LDL-C-reducing effect by the complementary pharmacological action of each component, and its safety profile was similar to that of pitavastatin monotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04289649).

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 β-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.

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.

Background and Aims: Currently, less than 20% of patients at very high-risk achieve ESC/EAS dyslipidemia guideline-recommended LDL-C target levels in Europe. "Jena auf Ziel-JaZ" is a prospective cohort study in which early combination therapy with atorvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg was initiated on admission in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and lipid-lowering therapy was escalated during follow-up with bempedoic acid and PCSK9 inhibitors to achieve recommended LDL-C targets in all patients. Moreover, we evaluated side-effects of lipid-lowering therapy., Methods: Patients admitted with STEMI at Jena University Hospital were started on atorvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg on admission. Patients were followed for EAS/ESC LDL-C target achievement during follow-up., Results: A total of 85 consecutive patients were enrolled in the study. On discharge, 32.9% achieved LDL-C targets on atorvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg. After 4-6 weeks, 80% of all patients on atorvastatin 80 mg and ezetimibe started at the index event were on ESC/EAS LDL-C targets. In 20%, combined lipid-lowering therapy was escalated with either bempedoic acid or PCSK9 inhibitors. All patients achieved LDL-C levels of or below 55 mg/dL during follow-up on triple lipid-lowering therapy. Combined lipid-lowering therapy was well-tolerated with rare side effects., Conclusions: Early combination therapy with a high-intensity statin and ezetimibe and escalation of lipid-lowering therapy with either bempedoic acid or PCSK9 inhibitors gets potentially all patients with STEMI on recommended ESC/EAS LDL-C targets without significant side effects., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interests None reported., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2023, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest SPG / ELO – no conflicts of interest. JHO – Speaker Bureau for Amgen. CJL – Speaker Bureau for Amgen, Esperion, and consultant for Novartis., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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)., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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. C max , AUC 0-t , and AUC 0-∞ 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 C max , AUC 0-t , and AUC 0-∞ 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., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

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., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Overview of: Kim BK, Hong SJ, Lee YJ, et al Long-term efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy versus high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (RACING): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2022;400:380-390., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: Whether moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe could be an alternative to high-intensity statins in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is unclear. We compared the risk of adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statins after a coronary revascularization procedure using data from a large cohort study., Method: Population-based cohort study using nationwide medical insurance data from Korea. Study participants (n = 20,070) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016, and received moderate-intensity statins (atorvastatin 10-20 mg or rosuvastatin 5-10 mg) plus ezetimibe (n = 922) or high-intensity statins (atorvastatin 40-80 mg or rosuvastatin 20 mg; n = 19,148). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for stroke, or revascularization., Results: At 12 months, the incidence rates of the primary outcome were 138.0 vs. 154.0 per 1000 person-years in the moderate-intensity stains plus ezetimibe and the high-intensity statins group, respectively. The fully adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for the primary outcome was 1.11 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86-1.42; p = 0.43). The multivariable-adjusted HR for a composite of cardiovascular mortality, hospitalization for MI, or hospitalization for stroke was 1.05 (95% CI 0.74-1.47; p = 0.80). During follow-up, the proportion of patients maintaining their initial lipid-lowering therapy was significantly higher in the moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe group than in the high-intensity statins group., Conclusions: Patients undergoing a coronary revascularization procedure who received moderate-intensity statins plus ezetimibe showed similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events as patients who received high-intensity statins., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Objective: The combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe has promising clinical benefits with a significant safety and tolerability profile. However, there is a lack of clinical data supporting the drug-drug interaction (DDI) in Chinese population. Thus, the aim of this study is to assess the potential pharmacokinetic DDI between rosuvastatin and ezetimibe in a Chinese population., Methods: In this randomized, open-label, phase 1 study, 12 healthy volunteers were randomized to three treatment groups: 10 mg rosuvastatin plus 10 mg ezetimibe, 10 mg rosuvastatin alone, and 10 mg ezetimibe alone under fasting conditions. The plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe were determined, and the pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. Primary endpoints were peak plasma concentration (C max ), area under the curve from zero to last measurement (AUC 0-t ), and area under the curve from zero to infinity (AUC 0-∞ ) that were log-transformed, and co-administration was compared with monotherapy to evaluate the DDI., Results: The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of rosuvastatin with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were 0.94 (0.80-1.12) for C max , 0.96 (0.85-1.08) for AUC 0-t , and 0.96 (0.86-1.07) for AUC 0-∞ when administered in combination with ezetimibe versus administered alone. The GMRs of unconjugated ezetimibe and total ezetimibe with 90% CIs were 1.15 (1.00-1.32) and 0.93 (0.80-1.07) for C max , 0.96 (0.84-1.10) and 0.95 (0.83-1.08) for AUC 0-t , and 1.06 (0.96-1.18) and 0.94 (0.80-1.11) for AUC 0-∞ , respectively, when administered in combination with rosuvastatin versus administered alone., Conclusion: Co-administration of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe showed no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions in a healthy Chinese population., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Abstract: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) is the lead effector of atherosclerosis and main treatment target. Bempedoic acid is a novel oral drug in the therapeutic armamentarium which is able to reduce LDLc. The objectives of this study were (1) to select the potential patients for administering bempedoic acid such as those with a very high cardiovascular risk in which objectives of LDLc were not achieved despite conventional treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors (PCSK9i) and/or statins and ezetimibe and (2) to estimate the cost-effectiveness of bempedoic acid in different scenarios. The methods used were a multicenter and retrospective study of 652 patients initiating treatment with any PCSK9 inhibitor in 17 different hospitals. Before and on-treatment LDLc cholesterol levels, medical treatments, clinical indication, and baseline characteristics were recorded. The results obtained from 443 subjects in secondary prevention were analyzed. The mean (±) LDLc level at baseline was 142.5 ± 46.4 mg/dL and 61.5 ± 40.5 mg/dL in the follow-up, with a reduction of 55.9% ( P < 0.0001); 71.6% of the patients reached the target of LDL < 55 mg/dL or >50% reduction. Of those patients treated with medium-intensity and low-intensity statins plus PCSK9 inhibitors (with or without ezetimibe), only 5.7% of them were able to reduce LDL below 55 mg/dL and the main LDLc reduction in this group was the lowest (42.9% on average). Patients with TG values >135 mg/dL represented 41.6% of the sample, of which approximately 10% of them were using fibrates. Assuming only LDLc reduction and the UK price, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 88,359€; 83,117€; 82,378€; and 79,015€ for different discount rates. In conclusion, one-third of the patients could achieve the target LDL proposed in the 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines. Approximately 10% of them could also benefit from treating hypertriglyceridemia as indicated in the 2021 ESC guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention. Patients with medium-intensity and low-intensity statins plus PCSK9i and ezetimibe would be the most benefited. Bempedoic acid could be a not cost-efficacy therapy in all the scenarios, but we need to wait for the CLEAR OUTCOMES Trial results., Competing Interests: Authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest related to the results of this study. Dr. Alberto Cordero reports (a) honoraria for lectures from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ferrer, Mylan, Sanofi, and AMGEN and (b) consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Ferrer, and AMGEN., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ezetimibe is a widely used medication to reduce the plasma cholesterol level, particularly low-density lipoprotein level. However, its impact on cancer remains controversial. Here, its impacts on risks of various types of cancers were meta-analyzed., Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched and randomized controlled trials with followed up for at least 24 weeks were selected and included. The experimental group was defined as those patients treated with ezetimibe alone or with other medications, and the control group was defined as those who received a placebo or the matched medication. The number of new cancer cases or cancer-related deaths was extracted. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager (version 5.3)., Results: Nine trials enrolling 35 222 patients were included in the analyses. Compared with the control group, ezetimibe increased the number of new intestine cancer patients [relative risk (RR), 1.30; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.02-1.67; P  = 0.03] and had a trend to increase the number of new breast cancer patients (RR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.98-1.98; P  = 0.07). There was no significant difference in new hepatobiliary cancer, prostate cancer, skin cancer or cancer of other sites. Ezetimibe did not significantly increase the risk of new cancer in total (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P  = 0.38), cancer-related death (RR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.98-1.26; P  = 0.10) or cancer events (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97-1.12; P  = 0.30). In terms of lipid-lowering effect, ezetimibe significantly reduced total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol., Conclusion: Ezetimibe may increase the risk of intestine cancer and has a trend of increasing the risk of breast cancer. There is no evidence to support that it increases or decreases the risk of other types., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease who require additional low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering despite maximally tolerated statins have a significant unmet medical need and are at increased risk of future cardiovascular events and a reduced quality of life., Objective: We aimed to estimate the percentage of cardiovascular events avoided following treatment with a fixed-dose combination of bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe (BA+EZE FDC) versus ezetimibe (EZE) in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease receiving maximally tolerated statins across a range of baseline LDL-C levels., Methods: A Markov cohort simulation model estimated major adverse cardiovascular events avoided over a lifetime horizon among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and baseline LDL-C levels from 80 to >200 mg/dL. BA+EZE FDC was compared with EZE based on mean percent LDL-C reductions versus placebo reported in a phase III trial. Health outcomes for the average patient were extrapolated to a US population of 100,000 persons using evidence on contemporary LDL-C levels from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey., Results: Among patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease not at the LDL-C goal with maximally tolerated statins, the addition of BA+EZE FDC compared with the addition of EZE was predicted to provide incremental absolute reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events dependent on baseline LDL-C levels at the population level. For those with baseline LDL-C of 101-110 mg/dL (n = 15,237), there were 4.9% (744) fewer events predicted, while for patients with baseline LDL-C of > 200 mg/dL (n = 1689), 10.9% (184) fewer events were predicted through the addition of BA+EZE FDC versus EZE., Conclusions: Further LDL-C reductions through the addition of BA+EZE FDC to maximally tolerated statins are predicted to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with the addition of EZE. Benefits are potentially greater among those with higher starting LDL-C., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Aims: The 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) dyslipidaemia guidelines recommend achievement of low-density lipoprotein cholestrol (LDL-C) goals based on an individual's risk. We aimed to evaluate the impact of guideline adoption with statin, ezetimibe, and statin plus ezetimibe fixed-dose combination (FDC) on LDL-C goal achievement and incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across six countries., Methods and Results: A simulation model with a five-year horizon (2020-2024) was developed based on Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation Global Burden of Disease Study database with a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario representing status quo, intervention scenario-1 representing treatment with statin and ezetimibe as separate agents, and intervention scenario-2 representing treatment with statin or statin plus ezetimibe FDC. MACE was defined as the composite of myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, and cardiovascular death. The mean population LDL-C was reduced from 4.25 mmol/L in the BAU scenario, to 3.65 mmol/L and 3.59 mmol/L in intervention scenarios-1 and -2, respectively. Compared with BAU, intervention scenarios-1 and-2 resulted in relative reduction of MACE by 5.4% and 6.4% representing ∼3.7 and 4.4 million MACE averted, respectively, across six countries over 5 years. The absolute benefit in terms of MACE averted was highest for China, whereas France had highest relative reduction in MACE with both intervention scenarios compared with BAU., Conclusion: The 2019 ESC/EAS guideline-based treatment intensification with strategies based on statin, ezetimibe, and statin plus ezetimibe FDC is estimated to result in a substantial population-level benefit in terms of MACE averted compared with BAU., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: M.F. has received consulting fees and lecture fees from Abbott, Amarin, Amgen, Austell, AstraZeneca, Kowa, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Organon, Pfizer, Recordati, Sanofi-Regeneron, Servier, SMB, and Viatris. R.D.S. has received consulting fees and lecture fees from Amgen, Aché, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Roche, Pfizer, Abbott, Libbs, Hypera Pharma, Amryt, Novo Nordisk, Novartis, GETZ Pharma, EMS, PTC Therapeutics, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme; and grant support from Sanofi, Novartis, Kowa, and Amgen. J.C.-S. has received funding from Sanofi; consulting fees and lecture fees from Novartis, Servier, Almirall, Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Mylan, Organon and Sanofi; grant support from Daiichi-Sankyo and Novartis. M.V.E. has received consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, Egis, KRKA, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Recordati, Sanofi, Swicks Pharma and Viatris. J.L. and S.S. have no conflict of interest to declare. D.G.and I.K. are employees of Sanofi and stock options from Sanofi. A.L.C. reports honoraria, lecture fees, or research grants from Aegerion, Amgen, Amryt, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Genzyme, Ionis Pharmaceutical, Kowa, Mediolanum, Medscape, Menarini, Merck, Mylan, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, Recordati, Regeneron, Sanofi, Sigma-Tau, The Corpus., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Understanding how statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9i (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors) are prescribed after a myocardial infarction (MI) or elective coronary revascularization may improve lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) intensification and reduce recurrent atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease events. We described the use and intensification of LLT among US veterans who had a MI or elective coronary revascularization between July 24, 2015, and December 9, 2019, within 12 months of hospital discharge., Methods: LLT intensification was defined as increasing statin dose, or initiating a statin, ezetimibe, or a PCSK9i, overall and among those with an LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) ≥ 70 or 100 mg/dL. Poisson regression was used to determine patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of LLT intensification following hospitalization for MI or elective coronary revascularization., Results: Among 81 372 index events (mean age, 69.0 years, 2.3% female, mean LDL-C 89.6 mg/dL, 33.8% with LDL-C <70 mg/dL), 39.7% were not taking any LLT, and 22.0%, 37.2%, and 0.6% were taking a low-moderate intensity statin, a high-intensity statin, and ezetimibe, respectively, before MI/coronary revascularization during the study period. Within 14 days, 3 months, and 12 months posthospitalization, 33.3%, 41.9%, and 47.3%, respectively, of veterans received LLT intensification. LLT intensification was most common among veterans taking no LLT (82.5%, n=26 637) before MI/coronary revascularization. Higher baseline LDL-C, having a lipid test, and attending a cardiology visit were each associated with a greater likelihood of LLT intensification, while age ≥ 75 versus <65 years was associated with a lower likelihood of LLT intensification within 12 months posthospitalization., Conclusions: Less than half of veterans received LLT intensification in the year after MI or coronary revascularization suggesting a missed opportunity to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk.

Purpose: This study aimed to show that the efficacy of 1PC111 is superior to that of either ezetimibe or pitavastatin alone (monotherapy) for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia., Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, Phase III study. Patients with hypercholesterolemia or mixed dyslipidemia were randomized to receive 1PC111 (which was a fixed-dose combination of pitavastatin 2 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg), pitavastatin 2 mg, or ezetimibe 10 mg daily for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the difference in the percent change in LDL-C from baseline to week 12 between the 1PC111 and each monotherapy group. The secondary end points were the percent change in other lipid profiles from baseline to each visit. All patients were assessed for adverse events until end of study., Findings: A total of 388 patients were randomly assigned to the 1PC111 (n = 128), pitavastatin (n = 132), or ezetimibe (n = 128) group. Generally, baseline characteristics were similar among the 3 groups. A statistically significant decrease in the LDL-C level at week 12 was observed in the 1PC111 group (-50.50% [14.9%]) compared with either the pitavastatin (-36.11% [11.4%]; P < 0.001) or ezetimibe (-19.85% [12.4%]; P < 0.001) group. Also, there was a statistically significant difference between 1PC111 and each monotherapy group in the reduction in total cholesterol, non-HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B levels. Moreover, there was a trend toward more efficient lowering of LDL-C levels in elderly patients (age ≥65 years) than in younger patients (age <65 years) by 1PC111 treatment. In patients given a class I recommendation for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention, the percentage of patients achieving the LDL-C target of <100 mg/dL at week 12 was significantly higher in the 1PC111 group than in both monotherapy groups (P < 0.001). Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar among 3 groups., Implications: 1PC111 was more effective in improving lipid profiles and achieving the LDL-C goal than pitavastatin or ezetimibe alone for hypercholesterolemia treatment. Furthermore, 1PC111 may provide more benefit in treating elderly patients., Clinicaltrials: gov identifier: NCT04643093., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest Dr Jong has received honoraria for lectures from Orient EuroPharma, Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck. Dr Chao has received honoraria for lectures from Orient EuroPharma. The other authors have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest of grants, honoraria, consultancies, speakers bureau or advisory board positions, or significant stock holdings received from industry or organizations, regarding the content of this article. The study sponsor had a role in the study design: the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data. The decision to submit the manuscript for publication was made by the authors., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Pitavastatin is a unique lipophilic statin with moderate efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels by 30% to 50% with a tolerable safety profile. However, the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to pitavastatin in patients with dyslipidemia has not been well investigated. Therefore, the objective of this double-blind, multicenter, randomized, Phase III study was to compare the efficacy and safety of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy with those of pitavastatin monotherapy in Korean patients with primary hypercholesterolemia., Methods: Korean men and women aged >19 and <80 years with primary hypercholesterolemia requiring medical treatment were included in this study. During the 8-week screening period, all patients were instructed to make therapeutic lifestyle changes. The screening period consisted of a 4-week washout period and a placebo run-in period (4-8 weeks). During treatment period I, patients were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 4 treatments: pitavastatin 2 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, pitavastatin 2 mg, pitavastatin 4 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg, or pitavastatin 4 mg. The 8-week double-blind treatment period then commenced. Adverse events (AEs), clinical laboratory data, and vital signs were assessed in all patients., Findings: The percentages in LDL-C from baseline after 8 weeks of double-blind treatment decreased significantly in the pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe (-52.8% [11.2%]) and pooled pitavastatin (-37.1% [14.1%]) groups. Treatment with pitavastatin/ezetimibe resulted in a significantly greater LDL-C-lowering effect than that with pitavastatin (difference, -15.8 mg/dL; 95% CI, -18.7 to -12.9; P < 0.001). The precentages of achieving LDL-C goal in pooled pitavastatin/ezetimibe and pooled pitavastatin groups were 94.2% and 69.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the incidence of overall AEs and adverse drug reactions. Serious AEs were comparable between the groups., Implications: Pitavastatin and ezetimibe combinations effectively and safely decreased LDL-C levels by >50% in patients with dyslipidemia. The safety and tolerability of pitavastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy were comparable with those of pitavastatin monotherapy., Clinicaltrials: gov identifier: NCT04584736., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interest The authors have indicated that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the content of this article. The sponsor supplied the investigational products and funded the laboratory tests and clinical research coordinator expenses. The funding source had no involvement in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the article for publication., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels decreases major cardiovascular events and is recommended for patients at elevated cardiovascular risk. However, appropriate doses of statin therapy are often insufficient to reduce LDL-C in accordance with current guidelines. In such cases, treatment could be supplemented with nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis were conducted on randomized controlled trials of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy added to maximally tolerated statins, including statin-intolerant patients. The primary objective was to assess relative efficacy of nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy in reducing LDL-C levels at week 12. Secondary objectives included the following: LDL-C level reduction at week 24 and change in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B at week 12. There were 48 randomized controlled trials included in the primary network meta-analysis. All nonstatin agents significantly reduced LDL-C from baseline versus placebo, regardless of background therapy. At week 12, evolocumab, 140 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W)/420 mg once a month, and alirocumab, 150 mg Q2W, were the most efficacious regimens, followed by alirocumab, 75 mg Q2W, alirocumab, 300 mg once a month, inclisiran, bempedoic acid/ezetimibe fixed-dose combination, and ezetimibe and bempedoic acid used as monotherapies. Primary end point results were generally consistent at week 24, and for other lipid end points at week 12. Conclusions Evolocumab, 140 mg Q2W/420 mg once a month, and alirocumab, 150 mg Q2W, were consistently the most efficacious nonstatin regimens when added to maximally tolerated statins to lower LDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B levels and facilitate attainment of guideline-recommended risk-stratified lipoprotein levels.

Background: Drug combinations rather than increasing doses of one drug can achieve greater efficacy and lower risks. Thus, as an alternative to high-intensity statin monotherapy, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy can lower LDL cholesterol concentrations effectively while reducing adverse effects. However, evidence from randomised trials to compare long-term clinical outcomes is needed., Methods: In this randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) at 26 clinical centres in South Korea were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg). The primary endpoint was the 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, or non-fatal stroke, in the intention-to-treat population with a non-inferiority margin of 2·0%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03044665 and is complete., Findings: Between Feb 14, 2017, and Dec 18, 2018, 3780 patients were enrolled: 1894 patients to the combination therapy group and 1886 to the high-intensity statin monotherapy group. The primary endpoint occurred in 172 patients (9·1%) in the combination therapy group and 186 patients (9·9%) in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (absolute difference -0·78%; 90% CI -2·39 to 0·83). LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years were observed in 73%, 75%, and 72% of patients in the combination therapy group, and 55%, 60%, and 58% of patients in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (all p<0·0001). Discontinuation or dose reduction of the study drug by intolerance was observed in 88 patients (4·8%) and 150 patients (8·2%), respectively (p<0·0001)., Interpretation: Among patients with ASCVD, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy was non-inferior to high-intensity statin monotherapy for the 3-year composite outcomes with a higher proportion of patients with LDL cholesterol concentrations of less than 70 mg/dL and lower intolerance-related drug discontinuation or dose reduction., Funding: Hanmi Pharmaceutical., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests M-KH has received speaker's fees from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Pfizer. YJ has received institutional research grants from Biotronik and Hanmi. B-KK has received speaker's fees from Medtronic and Abbott Vascular. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

International guidelines strongly recommend statins alone or in combination with other lipid-lowering agents to lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels for patients with asymptomatic/symptomatic carotid stenosis (AsxCS/SCS). Lowering LDL-C levels is associated with significant reductions in transient ischemic attack, stroke, cardiovascular (CV) event and death rates. The aim of this multi-disciplinary overview is to summarize the benefits and risks associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin medications for Asx/SCS patients. The cerebrovascular and CV beneficial effects associated with statins, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors and other non-statin lipid-lowering agents (e.g. fibrates, ezetimibe) are reviewed. The use of statins and PCSK9 inhibitors is associated with several beneficial effects for Asx/SCS patients, including carotid plaque stabilization and reduction of stroke rates. Ezetimibe and fibrates are associated with smaller reductions in stroke rates. The side-effects resulting from statin and PCSK9 inhibitor use are also highlighted. The benefits associated with lowering LDL-C with statins or non-statin lipid lowering agents (e.g. PCSK9 inhibitors) outweigh the risks and potential side-effects. Irrespective of their LDL-C levels, all Asx/SCS patients should receive high-dose statin treatment±ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors for reduction not only of LDL-C levels, but also of stroke, cardiovascular mortality and coronary event rates., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mendelian randomization studies use genetic variants as natural experiments to provide evidence about causal relations between modifiable risk factors and disease. Recent Mendelian randomization studies suggest each mmol/L reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) sustained over a lifetime can reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by more than half. However, these findings have not been replicated in randomized clinical trials, and the effect of treatment duration on the magnitude of risk reduction remains uncertain. The aim of this article was to evaluate the relationship between lipid-lowering drug exposure time and relative risk reduction of major cardiovascular events in randomized clinical trials., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials of statins, ezetimibe, and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors that report LDL-C levels and effect sizes for each year of follow-up. The primary end point was major vascular events, defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularization. Hazard ratios during each year of follow-up were meta-analyzed using random-effects models., Results: A total of 21 trials with 184 012 patients and an average mean follow-up of 4.4 years were included. Meta-regression showed there was greater relative risk reduction in major vascular events with increasing duration of treatment ( P <0.001). For example, each mmol/L LDL-C lowered was associated with a relative risk reduction in major vascular events of 12% (95% CI, 8%-16%) for year 1, 20% (95% CI, 16%-24%) for year 3, 23% (95% CI, 18%-27%) for year 5, and 29% (95% CI, 14%-42%) for year 7., Conclusions: The benefits of LDL-C lowering do not seem to be fixed but increase steadily with longer durations of treatment. The results from short-term randomized trials are compatible with the very strong associations between LDL-C and cardiovascular events seen in Mendelian randomization studies.

Purpose: LDL-lowering therapy is beneficial to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Higher statin doses lower LDL-C levels and prevent CVD; however, they increase adverse events, such as muscle-related adverse events and new-onset diabetes mellitus (DM). Ezetimibe combined with statin therapy improves LDL-C-lowering levels and tolerability in patients with established CVD. We aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of a fixed-dose rosuvastatin and ezetimibe (R+E) combination therapy in intermediate-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia and no DM after 12 months of visiting a primary physician., Methods: This multicenter, open-label, single-arm, prospective observational study involved 5717 patients from 258 primary health care centers in Korea enrolled between 2016 and 2018. Patients had no DM or previous CVD but had cardiovascular risk factors and were taking a statin or a fixed-dose combination of E (10 mg) + R (5, 10, or 20 mg). We analyzed 700 patients using propensity score matching., Findings: A fixed-dose R+E combination therapy significantly reduced LDL-C in 5/10 mg R+E (29.35%), 10/10 mg R+E (36.19%), and 20/10 mg R+E (41.83%) compared with statin monotherapy (19.09%) at 12-month follow-up (P = 0.017). Compared with statin monotherapy, HDL-C levels increased in 5/10 mg R+E (mean change at 12 months; P = 0.004), and triglyceride levels decreased in 10/10 mg R+E (mean change at 12 months; P = 0.033). The fixed-dose R+E combination therapy was associated with fewer adverse events and a neutral effect on glucose deterioration compared with statin monotherapy at 12 months of follow-up., Implications: In a possible paradigm shift, a fixed-dose R+E combination therapy may be beneficial for primary cardiovascular prevention with potent LDL-lowering efficacy and tolerability; however, further large prospective studies are needed., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The LISTEN trial (ClinicalTrial.gov accession: NCT01950884) is a phase IV 52 weeks double blind parallel randomized controlled trial that evaluated the effect of ezetimibe plus lifestyle and dietary intervention (eze) vs. lifestyle and dietary intervention alone (placebo) on progression and complications of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) evaluated by liver histology., Methods and Results: Forty patients with NASH ascertained by histology were randomly allocated on the two study groups and subjected to a follow-up of 52 weeks, when they underwent a second liver biopsy. Main composite end point (EP) was based on the histological improvement in the severity of NASH. Thirty patients completed the study, Eze treatment was not able to improve the primary EP in comparison with placebo, with and odds ratio of 1.029 (0.18-6.38), p = 0.974. Treatment emergent adverse events registered during the study were not more prevalent in the treatment arm., Conclusions: ezetimibe administered on top of lifestyle and dietary modification failed to improve the histology of NASH in comparison with lifestyle and dietary modification alone., Trial Accession Number: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01950884., (Copyright © 2022 The Italian Diabetes Society, the Italian Society for the Study of Atherosclerosis, the Italian Society of Human Nutrition and the Department of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, Federico II University. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the high incidence of patients with statin tolerance problems, randomized evaluations of nonstatin oral treatment options for lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in this population are sparse., Objective: To assess the LDL-C lowering effect of bempedoic acid in patients not taking statins., Methods: This was a pooled analysis of data from patients enrolled in four phase 3 bempedoic acid studies (12 to 52 weeks in duration) who were not taking concomitant statins (Phase 3 No Statin Cohort) and a phase 3 bempedoic acid plus ezetimibe fixed-dose combination study (BA+EZE FDC No Statin Cohort). The primary endpoint for all studies was the percent change from baseline to week 12 in LDL-C levels. Safety and tolerability were assessed by laboratory values and adverse events., Results: In the Phase 3 No Statin Cohort, bempedoic acid (n = 394) lowered LDL-C levels at week 12 significantly more than placebo (n = 192; -26.5% [95% CI, -29.7%, -23.2%]; P<0.001). The fixed-dose combination of bempedoic acid with ezetimibe lowered LDL-C by 39.2% (95% CI, -51.7% to -26.7%; P<0.001). Muscle-related disorders occurred at a rate of 26.4 and 28.6 per 100 person-years with bempedoic acid and placebo, respectively., Conclusions: In patients with hypercholesterolemia unable to take statins, bempedoic acid lowered LDL-C levels by a mean of 26.5% vs placebo and bempedoic acid + ezetimibe fixed-dose combination lowered LDL-C by 39.2%. The treatments were generally well tolerated, suggesting that bempedoic acid may be efficacious and well tolerated in this challenging-to-treat patient population., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Despite the availability of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) that are safe and effective, the overall rate of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control at a population level in real-life studies is low. Higher-intensity treatment, earlier intervention, and longer-term treatment have all been shown to improve outcomes. However, in clinical practice, actual exposure to LLT is a product of the duration and intensity of, and adherence to, the treatment. To increase exposure to LLTs, the European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommended a stepwise optimization of LLTs by increasing statin intensity to the maximally tolerated dose, with subsequent addition of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors. Evidence from randomized controlled trials performed in a range of patients suggested that adding ezetimibe to statins rather than doubling the statin dose resulted in significantly more patients at LDL-C goal and significantly fewer patients discontinuing treatment because of adverse events. In addition, data showed that combination treatments effectively increased exposure to LLT. Despite these data and recommendations, optimization of LLT is often limited to increasing statin dose. Therapeutic inertia and poor treatment adherence are significant and prevalent barriers to increasing treatment exposure. They are known to be influenced by pill burden and complexity of treatment. Single-pill combinations provide a strategic approach that supports the intensification of treatment without increasing pill burden or treatment complexity. Single-pill combinations, compared with free associations, have been shown to increase the adherence to LLT and the percentage of patients at LDL-C goal., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Importance: The benefits and risks associated with intensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering statin-based therapies to lessen the risk of recurrent stroke have not been established., Objective: To conduct a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to evaluate the association of more intensive vs less intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies with outcomes for patients with ischemic stroke., Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1970, to July 31, 2021., Study Selection: This meta-analysis included randomized clinical trials that compared more intensive vs less intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies and recorded the outcome of recurrent stroke among patients with stroke., Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Relative risk (RR) with 95% CI was used as a measure of the association of more intensive vs less intensive LDL-C lowering with primary and secondary outcomes., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was recurrent stroke, and the secondary outcomes were major cardiovascular events and hemorrhagic stroke., Results: The final analysis included 11 randomized clinical trials with 20 163 patients (13 518 men [67.0%]; mean [SD] age, 64.9 [3.7] years) with stroke. The mean follow-up was 4 years (range, 1-6.1 years). Pooled results showed that more intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies were associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke compared with less intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies (absolute risk, 8.1% vs 9.3%; RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) and that the benefit associated with these LDL-C-lowering therapies was not different among LDL-C-lowering strategies (statins vs no statins: RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.81-1.01; more statins or ezetimibe vs less statins or ezetimibe: RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96; and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors plus statins vs placebo plus statins: RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.15; P = .42 for interaction). More intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies were associated with a reduced risk of major cardiovascular events, but with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke, compared with less intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies. More intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies were associated with a reduced risk of recurrent stroke in trials with all patients having evidence of atherosclerosis (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.91), but not in trials with most patients not having evidence of atherosclerosis (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85-1.07; P = .04 for interaction), compared with less intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies., Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that the benefits and risks of more intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies for recurrent stroke risk reduction might be more favorable than the benefits and risks of less intensive LDL-C-lowering statin-based therapies, especially for patients with evidence of atherosclerosis.

Purpose: Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol reduction by statin therapy is dose-dependent, varies among different statins, and has wide inter-individual variability. The present study aimed to compare mean LDL cholesterol reduction and its variability achieved with different doses of the three statins most frequently used in monotherapy or combined with ezetimibe in a real clinical setting., Methods: Of 5620 cases with primary hypercholesterolemia on the Spanish Arteriosclerosis Society Registry, 1004 with non-familial hypercholesterolemia and complete information on drug therapy and lipid profile were included., Results: The lowest mean percentage LDL cholesterol reduction was observed with simvastatin 10 mg (32.5 ± 18.5%), while the highest mean percentage LDL reduction was obtained with rosuvastatin 40 mg (58.7 ± 18.8%). As to combined treatment, the lowest and highest mean percentage LDL cholesterol reductions were obtained with simvastatin 10 mg combined with ezetimibe (50.6 ± 24.6%) and rosuvastatin 40 mg combined with ezetimibe (71.6 ± 11.1%), respectively. Factors associated with a suboptimal response were male sex, lower age, body mass index, and baseline LDL cholesterol levels. Combined treatment was associated with less variability in LDL cholesterol reduction (OR 0.603, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: In a real clinical setting, rosuvastatin was superior to the other statins in lowering LDL cholesterol, both as monotherapy or combined with ezetimibe. Factors associated with a suboptimal response in LDL cholesterol decline were male sex, age, body mass index, and baseline LDL cholesterol levels. Combined treatment was associated with less variability in LDL cholesterol improvement., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Purpose of Review: A number of new cholesterol-lowering drugs have been recently developed and approved, enriching the pharmacological armamentarium beyond and above statins. Ezetimibe, available since two decades, and bempedoic acid, a new drug inhibiting the same biosynthetic pathway targeted by statins but at an early step, represent valuable tools for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, particularly in specific groups of patients., Recent Findings: Bempedoic acid, either alone or in combination with ezetimibe, appears to reduce significantly LDL-C levels, an effect that has been observed also in patients with statin intolerance. A Mendelian randomization study has anticipated a protective cardiovascular effect of bempedoic acid; a randomized clinical trial is currently assessing whether the pharmacological control of hypercholesterolemia with bempedoic acid translates into a clinical benefit. Bempedoic acid, as well as ezetimibe, does not appear to induce adverse events in muscles; moreover, whereas statins are associated with a modest, although significant, increased risk of new-onset diabetes, bempedoic acid does not, at least based on the available evidence., Summary: On the basis of available data, and while awaiting the results of the outcome trial, bempedoic acid appears to represent a valuable approach for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, either alone or in combination in ezetimibe., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Statin is highly recommended for dyslipidemia to prevent atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular diseases and death. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies and safeties of low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy. Meta-analysis was conducted on data included in published studies performed to compare the effects of the two treatments on lipid parameters and hs-CRP. Safety-related parameters were also evaluated. Eighteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy, low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe reduced LDL-C (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153-0.463), TC (SE = 0.217; 95% CI 0.098-0.337), triglyceride (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153-0.463), and hs-CRP (SE = 0.190; 95% CI 0.018-0.362) significantly more than high-intensity statin therapy. In terms of safety, the two treatments were not significantly different in terms of ALT elevation, but high-intensity statin increased AST and CK significantly more than combination therapy. This analysis indicates that low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combined therapy is more effective and safer than high-intensity statin monotherapy, which suggests the addition of ezetimibe to statin should be preferred over increasing statin dose and that high-intensity statin should be used more carefully, especially in patients with related risks., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.