Search

Elizabeth Marrett,1 Changgeng Zhao,1 Ning Jackie Zhang,2 Qiaoyi Zhang,1 Dena R Ramey,1 Joanne E Tomassini,1 Andrew M Tershakovec,1 David R Neff11Merck & Co, Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA; 2College of Health and Public Affairs, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USABackground: Guidelines endorse statin therapy for lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) to recommended levels, in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, if needed, after lifestyle changes. Atorvastatin is a common statin with greater LDL-C lowering efficacy than most other statins; its availability in generic form will likely increase its use. This study assessed attainment of guideline-recommended LDL-C levels in high-risk CVD patients treated with atorvastatin monotherapy.Methods: Analyses of two retrospective US cohorts of patients who received a prescription for atorvastatin monotherapy between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2010 (index date defined as first prescription date) in the GE Centricity Electronic Medical Record (EMR) (N=10,693) and Humana Medicare (N=16,798) databases. Eligible patients were ≥18 years, diagnosed with coronary heart disease or atherosclerotic vascular disease, with ≥1 LDL-C measurement between 3 months and 1 year postindex date, and continuously enrolled for 1 year prior to and following the index date.Results: Of the eligible patients, 21.8%, 29.6%, 29.9%, and 18.7% (GE Centricity EMR) and 25.4%, 32.9%, 27.8%, and 14.0% (Humana Medicare) received 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg doses of atorvastatin, respectively. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) follow-up LDL-C levels were 2.1±0.8 mmol/L (83±30 mg/dL) and 2.3±0.8 mmol/L (88±31 mg/dL) for the GE Centricity EMR and Humana Medicare cohorts, respectively. Regardless of dose, only 28.3%-34.8% of patients had LDL-C levels 1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL), and of these, 30%-40% had LDL-C levels ≥0.5 mmol/L (≥20 mg/dL) above this, regardless of dose. This suggests that more effective lipid-lowering strategies, such as statin uptitration, switching to a higher efficacy statin, and/or combination therapy, may be required to achieve optimal LDL-C lowering in high-risk patients.Keywords: statin therapy, managed-care, lipid-lowering therapy

JoAnne M Foody,1 Peter P Toth,2 Joanne E Tomassini,3 Shiva Sajjan,3 Dena R Ramey,3 David Neff,3 Andrew M Tershakovec,3 Henry Hu,3 Kaan Tunceli31Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, 2CGH Medical Center, Sterling, IL, and University of Illinois College of Medicine, Peoria, IL, 3Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USABackground: Many high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) patients on statin monotherapy do not achieve guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals, and combination lipid-lowering therapy may be considered for these individuals. The effect of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin therapy versus titrating these statins on LDL-C changes and goal attainment in CHD or CHD risk-equivalent patients was assessed in a large, managed-care database in the US.Methods: Eligible patients (n = 17,830), initially on statin monotherapy who were ≥18 years with baseline and follow-up LDL-C values, no concomitant use of other lipid-lowering therapy, and on lipid-lowering therapy for ≥42 days, were identified between November 1, 2002 and September 30, 2009. The percent change from baseline in LDL-C levels and the odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C

The PLSP summarizes results from the phase 2/3 KidCOVE trial examining mRNA-1273 (Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine) in children 6 through 11 years of age. This study reviewed results from two parts of the KidCOVE clinical trial: Part 1 of the study was performed to select a dose of mRNA-1273 (50 μg or 100 μg) in children. A 50-μg dose was selected for further evaluation based on minimally unwanted side effects and sufficient antibodies (immune responses) against SARS-CoV-2. Part 2 of the study further evaluated the 50-μg dose of mRNA-1273 and compared it with placebo in children. Two 50-μg doses of mRNA-1273 were well tolerated with no new safety concerns. Two 50-μg doses also produced antibodies (immune responses) similar to those in young adults who received mRNA-1273 (100 μg) in a separate phase 3 study (the COVE trial). Study findings suggest that two 50-μg doses of mRNA-1273 were well-tolerated, and can prevent COVID-19 in children 6 through 11 years of age. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT04796896 (ClinicalTrials.gov) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coadministration of a respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine with seasonal influenza or SARS-CoV-2 vaccines could reduce health-care visits and increase vaccination uptake in older adults who are at high risk for severe respiratory disease. The RSV mRNA-1345 vaccine demonstrated efficacy against RSV disease with acceptable safety in the ConquerRSV trial in adults aged 60 years and older. We aimed to evaluate the safety and immunogenicity of mRNA-1345 coadministered with a seasonal influenza vaccine or SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine., Methods: We conducted a two-part, phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in medically stable adults aged 50 years or older in the USA. In part A, participants were randomly assigned in a 7:10:10 ratio to receive 50 μg mRNA-1345 plus placebo (0·9% sodium chloride) or coadministered with 60 μg of a standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (SIIV4), or SIIV4 plus placebo. In part B, participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive 50 μg mRNA-1345 plus placebo or coadministered with 50 μg SARS-CoV-2 mRNA-1273.214 (bivalent [Wuhan-Hu-1 plus omicron BA.1]), or mRNA-1273.214 plus placebo. Random allocation in both parts was stratified by age group (50-59 years, 60-74 years, and ≥75 years) and used interactive response technology. The coprimary objectives in each part were safety in the safety set throughout the study and non-inferiority for six immunogenicity endpoints in the per-protocol set comparing coadministered versus individual vaccines on day 29. Immunogenicity endpoints were geometric mean titre (GMT) ratios (GMRs) of RSV-A neutralising antibodies (nAbs; in parts A and B), GMRs of haemagglutination inhibition (HAI) titres to each of the four influenza strains in SIIV4 (A/Victoria/2570/2019 [H1N1]pdm09-like virus [A/H1N1], A/Cambodia/e0826360/2020 [H3N2]-like virus [A/H3N2], B/Washington/02/2019-like virus [B/Victoria], and B/Phuket/3073/2013-like virus [B/Yamagata]; in part A), GMRs of nAbs against SARS-CoV-2 (ancestral [D614G] and omicron BA.1; part B), and differences in seroresponse rates for nAbs against RSV-A (parts A and B) and SARS-CoV-2 (ancestral [D614G] and omicron BA.1; part B). Non-inferiority was declared when the lower bound of the 95% CI for GMRs was greater than 0·667 and for seroresponse rate differences was greater than -10%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05330975) and is ongoing., Findings: Between April 1 and June 9, 2022, 1631 participants were randomly allocated in part A and 1623 received vaccinations on day 1 (685 [42%] received mRNA-1345 plus SIIV4, 249 [15%] mRNA-1345 plus placebo, and 689 [42%] SIIV4 plus placebo). Due to an interactive response technology error, the mRNA-1345 plus placebo group was smaller than planned (249 vs 420 participants). Of the 1623 participants in the safety set, 877 (54%) were female and 746 (46%) were male. Between July 27 and Sept 28, 2022, 1691 participants were randomly allocated in part B and 1681 received vaccinations on day 1 (564 [34%] received mRNA-1345 plus mRNA-1273.214, 558 [33%] mRNA-1345 plus placebo, and 559 [33%] mRNA-1273.214 plus placebo). Among the 1681 participants in the safety set, 924 (55%) were female and 757 (45%) were male. The reactogenicity profiles of the coadministered regimens were generally similar to the profiles when the vaccines were administered alone. As of the 6-month and 7-month follow-up times for parts A and B, respectively, no serious adverse events, adverse events of special interest, discontinuations due to adverse events, or fatal events considered related to study vaccination were reported. In part A, the GMR of nAbs against RSV-A in the mRNA-1345 plus SIIV4 group versus the mRNA-1345 alone group was 0·81 (95% CI 0·67 to 0·97), and the seroresponse rate difference in nAbs against RSV-A between the groups was -11·2% (95% CI -17·9 to -4·1). GMRs of anti-HAI titres in the mRNA-1345 plus SIIV4 versus SIIV4 alone groups were 0·89 (0·77 to 1·03) for A/H1N1, 0·97 (0·86 to 1·09) for A/H3N2, 0·93 (0·82 to 1·05) for B/Victoria, and 0·91 (0·81 to 1·02) for B/Yamagata. In part B, the GMR of nAbs against RSV-A in the mRNA-1345 plus mRNA-1273.214 versus the mRNA-1345 alone groups was 0·80 (95% CI 0·70 to 0·90), and the seroresponse rate difference was -4·4% (95% CI -9·9 to 1·0). Comparing the mRNA-1345 plus mRNA-1273.214 group with the mRNA-1273.214 alone group, the GMR of nAbs was 0·96 (0·87 to 1·06) for the ancestral (D614G) virus and 1·00 (0·89 to 1·14) for omicron BA.1; seroresponse rate differences were 0·2% (95% CI -6·0 to 6·3) for SARS-CoV-2 ancestral and -0·9% (-6·6 to 4·7) for omicron BA.1., Interpretation: Coadministered mRNA-1345 plus SIIV4 or mRNA-1273.214 vaccines had acceptable safety profiles and elicited mostly non-inferior immune responses compared to individual vaccines in adults aged 50 years or older; only the seroresponse rate difference in nAbs against RSV-A in part A did not meet the non-inferiority criterion. Overall, these data support coadministration of mRNA-1345 with these vaccines in this population; longer-term evaluation continues in this study., Funding: Moderna., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JFC declares no competing interest. JG, DCH, AKS, AK, LW, RDa, XW, AC, VR, LL, JD, HZ, SKS, CAS, CR, EW, JMM, and RDh are employees of Moderna, and may hold stock or stock options in the company as part of their employment. JET is a consultant for Moderna., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Background: The mRNA-1345 vaccine demonstrated efficacy against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease with acceptable safety in adults aged ≥60 years in the ConquerRSV trial. Here, humoral immunogenicity results from the trial are presented., Methods: This phase 2/3 trial randomly assigned adults (≥60 years) to mRNA-1345 50-µg encoding prefusion F (preF) glycoprotein (n = 17 793) vaccine or placebo (n = 17 748). RSV-A and RSV-B neutralizing antibody (nAb) and preF binding antibody (bAb) levels at baseline and day 29 postvaccination were assessed in a per-protocol immunogenicity subset (PPIS; mRNA-1345, n = 1515; placebo, n = 333)., Results: Day 29 nAb geometric mean titers (GMTs) increased 8.4-fold against RSV-A and 5.1-fold against RSV-B from baseline. Seroresponses (4-fold rise from baseline) in the mRNA-1345 groups were 74.2% and 56.5% for RSV-A and RSV-B, respectively. Baseline GMTs were lower among participants who met the seroresponse criteria than those who did not. mRNA-1345 induced preF bAbs at day 29, with a pattern similar to nAbs. Day 29 antibody responses across demographic and risk subgroups were generally consistent with the overall PPIS., Conclusions: mRNA-1345 enhanced RSV-A and RSV-B nAbs and preF bAbs in adults (≥60 years) across various subgroups, including those at risk for severe disease, consistent with its demonstrated efficacy in the prevention of RSV disease., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT05127434., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. G. P. M. reports funding from Moderna, Merck, Sanofi, Pfizer, Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Medicago, GSK, and Cassara. C. J. A. D. reports receiving grants from the Medical Research Council and Wellcome, a consultancy for Synarigen, and is a member of the data and safety monitoring board at Oxford University. J. G., L. L., J. D., A. K., S. M., W. H., H. Z., S. K. S., F. P., N. L., C. A. S., E. W., J. M. M., and R. D. are employees of Moderna, Inc., and may hold stock/stock options in the company. N. L. C., K. S., and J. E. T. are consultants for Moderna, Inc. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Primary vaccination with mRNA-1273 (100-µg) was safe and efficacious at preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the previously reported, blinded Part A of the phase 3 Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE; NCT04470427) trial in adults (≥18 years) across 99 U.S. sites. The open-label (Parts B and C) primary objectives were evaluation of long-term safety and effectiveness of primary vaccination plus a 50-µg booster dose; immunogenicity was a secondary objective. Of 29,035 open-label participants, 19,609 received boosters (mRNA-1273 [n = 9647]; placebo-mRNA-1273 [n = 9952]; placebo [n = 10] groups). Booster safety was consistent with that reported for primary vaccination. Incidences of COVID-19 and severe COVID-19 were higher during the Omicron BA.1 than Delta variant waves and boosting versus non-boosting was associated with a significant, 47.0% (95% CI : 39.0-53.9%) reduction of Omicron BA.1 incidence (24.6 [23.4 - 25.8] vs 46.4 [40.6 - 52.7]/1000 person-months). In an exploratory Cox regression model adjusted for time-varying covariates, a longer median interval between primary vaccination and boosting (mRNA-1273 [13 months] vs placebo-mRNA-1273 [8 months]) was associated with significantly lower, COVID-19 risk (24.0% [16.0% - 32.0%]) during Omicron BA.1 predominance. Boosting elicited greater immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 than primary vaccination, irrespective of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Primary vaccination and boosting with mRNA-1273 demonstrated acceptable safety, effectiveness and immunogenicity against COVID-19, including emergent variants., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Monovalent Omicron XBB.1.5-containing vaccines were approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) 2023-2024 immunizations., Methods: This ongoing, open-label, phase 2/3 study evaluated messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273.815 monovalent (50-µg Omicron XBB.1.5 spike mRNA) and mRNA-1273.231 bivalent (25-µg each Omicron XBB.1.5 and BA.4/BA.5 spike mRNAs) vaccines, administered as fifth doses to adults who previously received primary series, third doses of an original mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, and fourth doses of an Omicron BA.4/BA.5 bivalent vaccine. Interim safety and immunogenicity 29 days after vaccination are reported., Results: Participants (randomized 1:1) received 50-µg of mRNA-1273.815 (n = 50) or mRNA-1273.231 (n = 51); median intervals (interquartile range) from prior BA.4/BA.5 bivalent doses were 8.2 (8.1-8.3) and 8.3 (8.1-8.4) months, respectively. Fold increases in neutralizing antibody (nAb) against the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants from prebooster nAb levels were numerically higher against XBB.1.5, XBB.1.16, EG.5.1, BA.2.86, and JN.1 than BA.4/BA.5, BQ.1.1, or D614G on day 29. Monovalent vaccine also cross-neutralized FL.1.5.1, EG.5.1, BA.2.86, HK.3.1, HV.1, and JN.1 variants in a participant subset (n = 20) 15 days after vaccination. Reactogenicity was similar to that of mRNA-1273 vaccines., Conclusions: XBB.1.5-containing mRNA-1273 vaccines elicit robust, diverse nAb responses against more recent SARS-CoV-2 variants, including JN.1, supporting the XBB.1.5-spike update for COVID-19 vaccines., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . S. C., N. M., B. G., D. K. E., K. W., A. N., D. L., L. E. A., J. F., W. D., J. M. M., and R. D. are employees of Moderna and may hold stock/stock options in the company. J. E. T. is a Moderna consultant. D. C. M. reports funding from Moderna for pseudovirus neutralization assays performed in the study. L. R. B. is a co–primary principal investigator of the COVE trial, funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and conducted in conjunction with Moderna. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: The omicron BA.1 bivalent booster is used globally. Previous open-label studies of the omicron BA.1 (Moderna mRNA-1273.214) booster showed superior neutralising antibody responses against omicron BA.1 and other variants compared with the original mRNA-1273 booster. We aimed to compare the safety and immunogenicity of omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters with the original mRNA-1273 vaccine in a large, randomised controlled trial., Methods: In this large, randomised, observer-blind, active-controlled, phase 3 trial in the UK (28 hospital and vaccination clinic sites), individuals aged 16 years or older who had previously received two injections of any authorised or approved COVID-19 vaccine, with or without an mRNA vaccine booster (third dose), were randomly allocated (1:1) using interactive response technology to receive 50 μg omicron BA.1 monovalent or bivalent vaccines or 50 μg mRNA-1273 administered as boosters via deltoid intramuscular injection. The primary outcomes were safety and immunogenicity at day 29, including prespecified non-inferiority and superiority of booster immune responses, based on the neutralising antibody geometric mean concentration (GMC) ratios of the monovalent and bivalent boosters compared with mRNA-1273. Safety was assessed in all participants who received first or second boosters, and primary immunogenicity outcomes were assessed in all participants who received the planned booster dose, had pre-booster and day 29 antibody data, had no major protocol deviations, and who were SARS-CoV-2-negative. The study is registered with EudraCT (2022-000063-51) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05249829) and is ongoing., Findings: Between Feb 16 and March 24, 2022, 724 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 monovalent (n=366) or mRNA-1273 (n=357), and between April 2 and June 17, 2022, 2824 participants were randomly allocated to receive omicron BA.1 bivalent (n=1418) or mRNA-1273 (n=1395) vaccines as second boosters. Median durations (months) between the most recent COVID-19 vaccine and study boosters were similar for omicron BA.1 monovalent (4·0 months [IQR 3·6-4·7]) and mRNA-1273 (4·1 [3·5-4·7]), and for the omicron BA.1 bivalent (5·5 [4·8-6·2]) and mRNA-1273 (5·4 [4·8-6·2]) boosters. The omicron BA.1 monovalent and bivalent boosters elicited superior neutralising GMCs against the omicron BA.1 variant compared with mRNA-1273, with GMC ratios of 1·68 (99% CI 1·45-1·95) and 1·53 (1·41-1·67) at day 29 post-booster doses in participants without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. Both boosters induced non-inferior ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (Asp614Gly) immune responses with GMCs that were similar for the bivalent (2987·2 [95% CI 2814·9-3169·9]) versus mRNA-1273 (2911·3 [2750·9-3081·0]) and lower for the monovalent (2699·7 [2431·3-2997·7] vs 3020·6 [2776·5-3286·2]) boosters, with respective GMC ratios of 1·05 (99% CI 0·96-1·15) and 0·82 (95% CI 0·74-0·91). Results were comparable regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status. Incidences of solicited adverse reactions with the omicron BA.1 monovalent (335 [91·3%] of 367 participants) and omicron BA.1 bivalent (1285 [90·4%] of 1421 participants) boosters were similar to those observed previously for mRNA-1273, with no new safety concerns identified and no occurrences of fatal adverse events., Interpretation: Omicron-containing booster vaccines generated superior immunogenicity against omicron BA.1 and comparable immunogenicity against the original strain with no new safety concerns. It remains important to continuously monitor the immune responses and real-world vaccine effectiveness as divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants emerge., Funding: Moderna., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ITL, BG, CP, DR, SM, EdW, AS, SC, WD, XC, JF, LT, HZ, JMM, and RD are employees of Moderna and hold stock or stock options in the company. PM reports being a speaker or adviser for and receiving research grants from GSK, Sanofi, Novavax, Moderna, MSD, Janssen, Medicago, and AstraZeneca. CB reports being a National Specialty Advisor (NHS England) Immunology and Allergy and receiving funding to their institution to undertake vaccine trials for Janssen, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Valneva. RN reports being Research Lead for Cambridge and Peterborough Integrated Care Board; and receiving grants from GSK and Novavax. PAK reports being a speaker or adviser for and receiving travel or research grants from GSK, Pfizer, Pharmacosmos, Astellas, Vifor, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Unicyte, Evotec, Fresenius, and Otsuka. PID reports receiving research grants for COVID-19 research studies from Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Atea. MBo reports being a speaker or adviser for GSK, Atea, ViiV, MSD, Janssen, Gilead, Cipla, Mylan, and Roche; and receiving research grants from ViiV, MSD, Janssen, Gilead, Novavax, Valneva, and Moderna. FB reports receiving speaker fees and a research grant to their institution from Gilead Sciences. CJAD reports receiving grants from the Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council. ASFR reports receiving research grants (to their organisation) from Pfizer, Novavax, Valneva, Moderna, and Janssen. PTH reports being a speaker or adviser for and receiving research grants from Pfizer, Novavax, Valneva, Moderna, and Janssen. JET and FJD are Moderna contractors. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This ongoing, open-label, phase 2/3 trial compared the safety and immunogenicity of the Omicron BA.4/BA.5-containing bivalent mRNA-1273.222 vaccine with the ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 mRNA-1273 as booster doses. Two groups of adults who previously received mRNA-1273 as primary vaccination series and booster doses were enrolled in a sequential, nonrandomized manner and received single-second boosters of mRNA-1273 (n = 376) or bivalent mRNA-1273.222 (n = 511). Primary objectives were safety and the noninferiority or superiority of neutralizing antibody (nAb) responses against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 and ancestral SARS-CoV-2 with the D614G mutation (ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (D614G)), 28 days post boost. Superiority and noninferiority were based on prespecified success criteria (lower bounds of 95% CI > 1 and < 0.677, respectively) of the mRNA-1273.222:mRNA-1273 geometric mean ratios. Bivalent Omicron BA.4/BA.5-containing mRNA-1273.222 elicited superior nAb responses against BA.4/BA.5 versus mRNA-1273 and noninferior responses against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (D614G) at day 29 post boost in participants without detectable prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Day 29 seroresponses against Omicron BA.4/BA.5 were higher for mRNA-1273.222 than for mRNA-1273 and similar against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 (D614G), both meeting noninferiority criterion. The safety profile of mRNA-1273.222 was similar to that previously reported for mRNA-1273 with no new safety concerns identified. Continued monitoring of neutralization and real-world vaccine effectiveness are needed as additional divergent-virus variants emerge. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT04927065., (© 2023. Moderna, Inc.)

We previously presented day 29 interim safety and immunogenicity results from a phase 2/3 study (NCT04927065) comparing the Omicron-BA.1-containing bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (50-µg) to the 50-µg mRNA-1273 booster in adults who previously received the mRNA-1273 primary series (100-µg) and mRNA-1273 first booster (50-µg) dose. Primary endpoints were safety, non-inferiority of the neutralizing antibody (nAb) and seroresponse against Omicron BA.1, superiority of the nAb response against Omicron-BA.1, and non-inferiority of the nAb response against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 for second boosters of mRNA-1273.214 versus mRNA-1273 at days 29 and 91. The key secondary endpoint was the seroresponse difference of mRNA-1273.214 versus mRNA-1273 against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 at days 29 and day 91. Participants were sequentially enrolled and dosed with 50-µg of mRNA-1273 (n = 376) or mRNA-1273.214 (n = 437) as second booster doses. Here we present day 91 post-booster results. In participants with no pre-booster, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-infection (SARS-CoV-2), mRNA-1273.214 elicited Omicron-BA.1-nAb titers (95% confidence interval [CI]) that were significantly higher (964.4 [834.4-1114.7]) than those of mRNA-1273 (624.2 [533.1-730.9]) and similar to those of mRNA-1273 against ancestral SARS-CoV-2 at day 91. mRNA-1273.214 also induced higher binding antibody responses against Omicron BA.1 and alpha, gamma and delta variants than mRNA-1273. Safety profiles were similar for both vaccines. The Omicron-BA.1 bivalent vaccine improved antibody responses compared to mRNA-1273 through 90 days post-booster., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: The reactogenicity and immunogenicity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines are well studied. Little is known regarding the relationship between immunogenicity and reactogenicity of COVID-19 vaccines., Methods: This study assessed the association between immunogenicity and reactogenicity after 2 mRNA-1273 (100 µg) injections in 1671 total adolescent and adult participants (≥12 years) from the primary immunogenicity sets of the blinded periods of the Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) and TeenCOVE trials. Associations between immunogenicity through day 57 and solicited adverse reactions (ARs) after the first and second injections of mRNA-1273 were evaluated among participants with and without solicited ARs using linear mixed-effects models., Results: mRNA-1273 reactogenicity in this combined analysis set was similar to that reported for these trials. The vaccine elicited high neutralizing antibody (nAb) geometric mean titers (GMTs) in evaluable participants. GMTs at day 57 were significantly higher in participants who experienced solicited systemic ARs after the second injection (1227.2 [1164.4-1293.5]) than those who did not (980.1 [886.8-1083.2], P = .001) and were associated with fever, chills, headache, fatigue, myalgia, and arthralgia. Significant associations with local ARs were not found., Conclusions: These data show an association of systemic ARs with increased nAb titers following a second mRNA-1273 injection. While these data indicate systemic ARs are associated with increased antibody titers, high nAb titers were observed in participants after both injections, consistent with the immunogenicity and efficacy in these trials. These results add to the body of evidence regarding the relationship of immunogenicity and reactogenicity and can contribute toward the design of future mRNA vaccines., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Messenger RNA (mRNA)-1273 vaccine demonstrated 93.2% efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) trial. The humoral immunogenicity results are now reported., Methods: Participants received 2 mRNA-1273 (100 µg) or placebo injections, 28 days apart. Immune responses were evaluated in a prespecified, randomly selected per-protocol immunogenicity population (n = 272 placebo; n = 1185 mRNA-1273). Serum binding antibodies (bAbs) and neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-spike protein were assessed at days 1, 29, and 57 by baseline SARS-CoV-2-negative (n = 1197) and SARS-CoV-2-positive (n = 260) status, age, and sex., Results: SARS-CoV-2-negative vaccinees had bAb geometric mean AU/mL levels of 35 753 at day 29 that increased to 316 448 at day 57 and nAb inhibitory dilution 50% titers of 55 at day 29 that rose to 1081 at day 57. In SARS-CoV-2-positive vacinees, the first mRNA-1273 injection elicited bAb and nAb levels that were 11-fold (410 049) and 27-fold (1479) higher than in SARS-CoV-2-negative vaccinees, respectively, and were comparable to levels after 2 injections in uninfected participants. Findings were generally consistent by age and sex., Conclusions: mRNA-1273 elicited robust serologic immune responses across age, sex, and SARS-CoV-2 status, consistent with its high COVID-19 efficacy. Higher immune responses in those previously infected support a booster-type effect. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04470427., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. L. R. B., H. M. E., R. R., and S. S. report grants from NIH and/or NIAID during the conduct of the study. D. M. and A. M. disclose research funding from Moderna. R. P., Y. D. P., B. G., A. A., W. D., H. Z., and B. L. report being employees of Moderna, Inc. and may hold stock/stock options in the company. J. E. T. is a Moderna consultant. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: The safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the mRNA-1273 coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) vaccine in young children are unknown., Methods: Part 1 of this ongoing phase 2-3 trial was open label for dose selection; part 2 was an observer-blinded, placebo-controlled evaluation of the selected dose. In part 2, we randomly assigned young children (6 months to 5 years of age) in a 3:1 ratio to receive two 25-μg injections of mRNA-1273 or placebo, administered 28 days apart. The primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and reactogenicity of the vaccine and to determine whether the immune response in these children was noninferior to that in young adults (18 to 25 years of age) in a related phase 3 trial. Secondary objectives were to determine the incidences of Covid-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection after administration of mRNA-1273 or placebo., Results: On the basis of safety and immunogenicity results in part 1 of the trial, the 25-μg dose was evaluated in part 2. In part 2, 3040 children 2 to 5 years of age and 1762 children 6 to 23 months of age were randomly assigned to receive two 25-μg injections of mRNA-1273; 1008 children 2 to 5 years of age and 593 children 6 to 23 months of age were randomly assigned to receive placebo. The median duration of follow-up after the second injection was 71 days in the 2-to-5-year-old cohort and 68 days in the 6-to-23-month-old cohort. Adverse events were mainly low-grade and transient, and no new safety concerns were identified. At day 57, neutralizing antibody geometric mean concentrations were 1410 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1272 to 1563) among 2-to-5-year-olds and 1781 (95% CI, 1616 to 1962) among 6-to-23-month-olds, as compared with 1391 (95% CI, 1263 to 1531) among young adults, who had received 100-μg injections of mRNA-1273, findings that met the noninferiority criteria for immune responses for both age cohorts. The estimated vaccine efficacy against Covid-19 was 36.8% (95% CI, 12.5 to 54.0) among 2-to-5-year-olds and 50.6% (95% CI, 21.4 to 68.6) among 6-to-23-month-olds, at a time when B.1.1.529 (omicron) was the predominant circulating variant., Conclusions: Two 25-μg doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine were found to be safe in children 6 months to 5 years of age and elicited immune responses that were noninferior to those in young adults. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; KidCOVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796896.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: The safety and immunogenicity of the bivalent omicron-containing mRNA-1273.214 booster vaccine are not known., Methods: In this ongoing, phase 2-3 study, we compared the 50-μg bivalent vaccine mRNA-1273.214 (25 μg each of ancestral Wuhan-Hu-1 and omicron B.1.1.529 [BA.1] spike messenger RNAs) with the previously authorized 50-μg mRNA-1273 booster. We administered mRNA-1273.214 or mRNA-1273 as a second booster in adults who had previously received a two-dose (100-μg) primary series and first booster (50-μg) dose of mRNA-1273 (≥3 months earlier). The primary objectives were to assess the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of mRNA-1273.214 at 28 days after the booster dose., Results: Interim results are presented. Sequential groups of participants received 50 μg of mRNA-1273.214 (437 participants) or mRNA-1273 (377 participants) as a second booster dose. The median time between the first and second boosters was similar for mRNA-1273.214 (136 days) and mRNA-1273 (134 days). In participants with no previous severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, the geometric mean titers of neutralizing antibodies against the omicron BA.1 variant were 2372.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2070.6 to 2718.2) after receipt of the mRNA-1273.214 booster and 1473.5 (95% CI, 1270.8 to 1708.4) after receipt of the mRNA-1273 booster. In addition, 50-μg mRNA-1273.214 and 50-μg mRNA-1273 elicited geometric mean titers of 727.4 (95% CI, 632.8 to 836.1) and 492.1 (95% CI, 431.1 to 561.9), respectively, against omicron BA.4 and BA.5 (BA.4/5), and the mRNA-1273.214 booster also elicited higher binding antibody responses against multiple other variants (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta) than the mRNA-1273 booster. Safety and reactogenicity were similar with the two booster vaccines. Vaccine effectiveness was not assessed in this study; in an exploratory analysis, SARS-CoV-2 infection occurred in 11 participants after the mRNA-1273.214 booster and in 9 participants after the mRNA-1273 booster., Conclusions: The bivalent omicron-containing vaccine mRNA-1273.214 elicited neutralizing antibody responses against omicron that were superior to those with mRNA-1273, without evident safety concerns. (Funded by Moderna; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04927065.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Vaccination of children to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) is an urgent public health need. The safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of the mRNA-1273 vaccine in children 6 to 11 years of age are unknown., Methods: Part 1 of this ongoing phase 2-3 trial was open label for dose selection; part 2 was an observer-blinded, placebo-controlled expansion evaluation of the selected dose. In part 2, we randomly assigned children (6 to 11 years of age) in a 3:1 ratio to receive two injections of mRNA-1273 (50 μg each) or placebo, administered 28 days apart. The primary objectives were evaluation of the safety of the vaccine in children and the noninferiority of the immune response in these children to that in young adults (18 to 25 years of age) in a related phase 3 trial. Secondary objectives included determination of the incidences of confirmed Covid-19 and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, regardless of symptoms. Interim analysis results are reported., Results: In part 1 of the trial, 751 children received 50-μg or 100-μg injections of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and on the basis of safety and immunogenicity results, the 50-μg dose level was selected for part 2. In part 2 of the trial, 4016 children were randomly assigned to receive two injections of mRNA-1273 (50 μg each) or placebo and were followed for a median of 82 days (interquartile range, 14 to 94) after the first injection. This dose level was associated with mainly low-grade, transient adverse events, most commonly injection-site pain, headache, and fatigue. No vaccine-related serious adverse events, multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, myocarditis, or pericarditis were reported as of the data-cutoff date. One month after the second injection (day 57), the neutralizing antibody titer in children who received mRNA-1273 at a 50-μg level was 1610 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1457 to 1780), as compared with 1300 (95% CI, 1171 to 1443) at the 100-μg level in young adults, with serologic responses in at least 99.0% of the participants in both age groups, findings that met the prespecified noninferiority success criterion. Estimated vaccine efficacy was 88.0% (95% CI, 70.0 to 95.8) against Covid-19 occurring 14 days or more after the first injection, at a time when B.1.617.2 (delta) was the dominant circulating variant., Conclusions: Two 50-μg doses of the mRNA-1273 vaccine were found to be safe and effective in inducing immune responses and preventing Covid-19 in children 6 to 11 years of age; these responses were noninferior to those in young adults. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; KidCOVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04796896.)., (Copyright © 2022 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

The mRNA-1273 vaccine for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) demonstrated 93.2% efficacy in reduction of symptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections in the blinded portion of the Phase 3 Coronavirus Efficacy (COVE) trial. While mRNA-1273 demonstrated high efficacy in prevention of COVID-19, including severe disease, its effect on the viral dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 infections is not understood. Here, in exploratory analyses, we assessed the impact of mRNA-1273 vaccination in the ongoing COVE trial (number NCT04470427) on SARS-CoV-2 copy number and shedding, burden of disease and infection, and viral variants. Viral variants were sequenced in all COVID-19 and adjudicated COVID-19 cases (n = 832), from July 2020 in the blinded part A of the study to May 2021 of the open-label part B of the study, in which participants in the placebo arm started to receive the mRNA-1273 vaccine after US Food and Drug Administration emergency use authorization of mRNA-1273 in December 2020. mRNA-1273 vaccination significantly reduced SARS-CoV-2 viral copy number (95% confidence interval) by 100-fold on the day of diagnosis compared with placebo (4.1 (3.4-4.8) versus 6.2 (6.0-6.4) log 10 copies per ml). Median times to undetectable viral copies were 4 days for mRNA-1273 and 7 days for placebo. Vaccination also substantially reduced the burden of disease and infection scores. Vaccine efficacies (95% confidence interval) against SARS-CoV-2 variants circulating in the United States during the trial assessed in this post hoc analysis were 82.4% (40.4-94.8%) for variants Epsilon and Gamma and 81.2% (36.1-94.5%) for Epsilon. The detection of other, non-SARS-CoV-2, respiratory viruses during the trial was similar between groups. While additional study is needed, these data show that in SARS-CoV-2-infected individuals, vaccination reduced both the viral copy number and duration of detectable viral RNA, which may be markers for the risk of virus transmission., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Chikungunya virus (CHIKV) infection causes acute disease characterized by fever, rash and arthralgia, which progresses to severe and chronic arthritis in up to 50% of patients. Moreover, CHIKV infection can be fatal in infants or immunocompromised individuals and has no approved therapy or prevention. This phase 1, first-in-human, randomized, placebo-controlled, proof-of-concept trial conducted from January 2019 to June 2020 evaluated the safety and pharmacology of mRNA-1944, a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated messenger RNA encoding the heavy and light chains of a CHIKV-specific monoclonal neutralizing antibody, CHKV-24 ( NCT03829384 ). The primary outcome was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating doses of mRNA-1944 administered via intravenous infusion in healthy participants aged 18-50 years. The secondary objectives included determination of the pharmacokinetics of mRNA encoding for CHKV-24 immunoglobulin heavy and light chains and ionizable amino lipid component and the pharmacodynamics of mRNA-1944 as assessed by serum concentrations of mRNA encoding for CHKV-24 immunoglobulin G (IgG), plasma concentrations of ionizable amino lipid and serum concentrations of CHKV-24 IgG. Here we report the results of a prespecified interim analysis of 38 healthy participants who received intravenous single doses of mRNA-1944 or placebo at 0.1, 0.3 and 0.6 mg kg -1 , or two weekly doses at 0.3 mg kg -1 . At 12, 24 and 48 h after single infusions, dose-dependent levels of CHKV-24 IgG with neutralizing activity were observed at titers predicted to be therapeutically relevant concentrations (≥1 µg ml -1 ) across doses that persisted for ≥16 weeks at 0.3 and 0.6 mg kg -1 (mean t 1/2 approximately 69 d). A second 0.3 mg kg -1 dose 1 week after the first increased CHKV-24 IgG levels 1.8-fold. Adverse effects were mild to moderate in severity, did not worsen with a second mRNA-1944 dose and none were serious. To our knowledge, mRNA-1944 is the first mRNA-encoded monoclonal antibody showing in vivo expression and detectable ex vivo neutralizing activity in a clinical trial and may offer a treatment option for CHIKV infection. Further evaluation of the potential therapeutic use of mRNA-1944 in clinical trials for the treatment of CHIKV infection is warranted., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: At interim analysis in a phase 3, observer-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, the mRNA-1273 vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). After emergency use of the vaccine was authorized, the protocol was amended to include an open-label phase. Final analyses of efficacy and safety data from the blinded phase of the trial are reported., Methods: We enrolled volunteers who were at high risk for Covid-19 or its complications; participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive two intramuscular injections of mRNA-1273 (100 μg) or placebo, 28 days apart, at 99 centers across the United States. The primary end point was prevention of Covid-19 illness with onset at least 14 days after the second injection in participants who had not previously been infected with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The data cutoff date was March 26, 2021., Results: The trial enrolled 30,415 participants; 15,209 were assigned to receive the mRNA-1273 vaccine, and 15,206 to receive placebo. More than 96% of participants received both injections, 2.3% had evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection at baseline, and the median follow-up was 5.3 months in the blinded phase. Vaccine efficacy in preventing Covid-19 illness was 93.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91.0 to 94.8), with 55 confirmed cases in the mRNA-1273 group (9.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 7.2 to 12.5) and 744 in the placebo group (136.6 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 127.0 to 146.8). The efficacy in preventing severe disease was 98.2% (95% CI, 92.8 to 99.6), with 2 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 106 in the placebo group, and the efficacy in preventing asymptomatic infection starting 14 days after the second injection was 63.0% (95% CI, 56.6 to 68.5), with 214 cases in the mRNA-1273 group and 498 in the placebo group. Vaccine efficacy was consistent across ethnic and racial groups, age groups, and participants with coexisting conditions. No safety concerns were identified., Conclusions: The mRNA-1273 vaccine continued to be efficacious in preventing Covid-19 illness and severe disease at more than 5 months, with an acceptable safety profile, and protection against asymptomatic infection was observed. (Funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; COVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04470427.)., (Copyright © 2021 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Elevated remnant lipoprotein cholesterol (RLP-C) levels increase cardiovascular disease risk. However, RLP-C measurement methods are not standardized, leading to variations across studies., Objective: To evaluate the effect of ezetimibe (Eze) + statins vs statin monotherapy on RLP-C using immunoseparation (IM), vertical auto profile (VAP) ultracentrifugation, and calculated RLP-C measurement methods., Methods: This post hoc analysis evaluated data pooled from 3 first-line (all-statin [simvastatin 10/20/40/80 mg] vs Eze + statin [Eze 10 mg + simvastatin]) and 2 second-line (statin [atorvastatin uptitrated to 40/80 mg] vs statin + Eze [atorvastatin 20/40 mg + Eze 10 mg]) studies. Similarity of RLP-C methods was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. RLP-C changes and percent changes from baseline were measured by all 3 methods in first-line and VAP and calculated methods in second-line studies., Results: Correlations between methods were generally moderate to strong for RLP-C levels, changes, and percent changes across treatment groups (r = 0.29-0.79) but with little evidence of agreement by Bland-Altman plots. Baseline RLP-C levels for Eze + statin vs all-statin groups were lower by IM (14.0 vs 14.0) compared with VAP (36.9 vs 35.9) and calculated (32.8 vs 33.3) methods. RLP-C changes (mg/dL) and percent changes from baseline were significantly greater (P < .01) with Eze + statins vs statins by VAP, calculated, and IM methods (between-treatment differences: -5.0 and -12.0, -2.0 and -5.4, and -1.5 and -12.1, respectively) in first-line, and VAP and calculated methods (between-treatment differences: -5.0 and -19.9 and -2.0 and -7.3) in second-line studies., Conclusion: Although the 3 methods showed little agreement, each supported Eze + statins for achieving greater RLP-C reductions vs statin monotherapy; variability of results reinforces urgent need to standardize RLP-C measurements., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) and programmed cell death ligand-1 (PD-L1) checkpoint blockade immunotherapy elicits durable antitumor effects in multiple cancers, yet not all patients respond. We report the evaluation of >300 patient samples across 22 tumor types from four KEYNOTE clinical trials. Tumor mutational burden (TMB) and a T cell-inflamed gene expression profile (GEP) exhibited joint predictive utility in identifying responders and nonresponders to the PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab. TMB and GEP were independently predictive of response and demonstrated low correlation, suggesting that they capture distinct features of neoantigenicity and T cell activation. Analysis of The Cancer Genome Atlas database showed TMB and GEP to have a low correlation, and analysis by joint stratification revealed biomarker-defined patterns of targetable-resistance biology. These biomarkers may have utility in clinical trial design by guiding rational selection of anti-PD-1 monotherapy and combination immunotherapy regimens., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.)

Background: The 2008 Ezetimibe and Simvastatin in Hypercholesterolemia Enhances Atherosclerosis Regression (ENHANCE) study demonstrated ezetimibe + simvastatin vs simvastatin alone had a neutral effect on the surrogate endpoint of carotid intima-media thickness. Subsequent media portrayal of the study prompted ezetimibe discontinuation in many patients., Objective: The objective of the study was to assess the impact of ENHANCE reporting on ezetimibe discontinuation, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) changes, and potential cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk., Methods: This analysis used claims data in a retrospective, observational study of patients receiving ezetimibe + statin and compared LDL-C for patients who discontinued ezetimibe (n = 970) vs those who continued ezetimibe + statins (n = 3706) after ENHANCE results disclosure. Change in relative CVD risk was estimated from the absolute LDL-C difference between groups per the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' meta-analysis of statin trials., Results: The rate of ezetimibe discontinuation was 2% in the 6 months before and 21% in the 6 months after reporting of ENHANCE results. Among patients who ultimately discontinued vs continued ezetimibe, respective mean LDL-C levels were 79.8 and 78.3 mg/dL 6 months before reporting of the ENHANCE results and 93.5 and 78.1 mg/dL 6 months after reporting of ENHANCE. Predictive application of the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' meta-analysis suggested the 13.9 mg/dL increase in mean LDL-C translated to a 9.4% increase in relative CVD risk for those who discontinued ezetimibe., Conclusion: After reporting of the neutral ENHANCE results, ezetimibe discontinuation rate increased, LDL-C levels increased, and predicted CVD risk increased among those who discontinued ezetimibe. Characterization of clinical outcomes regarding lipid-altering agents based on surrogate biomarker studies not designed to assess CVD outcomes may be misleading, potentially placing patients at increased CVD risk., (Copyright © 2017 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Tumor-associated PD-L1 expression is predictive of clinical response to PD-1-directed immunotherapy. However, PD-L1-negative patients may also respond to PD-1 checkpoint blockade, suggesting that other PD-1 ligands may be relevant to the clinical activity of these therapies. The prevalence of PD-L2, the other known ligand of PD-1, and its relationship to response to anti-PD-1 therapy were evaluated. Experimental Design: PD-L2 expression was assessed in archival tumor tissue from seven indications using a novel immunohistochemical assay. In addition, relationships between clinical response and PD-L2 status were evaluated in tumor tissues from patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) with recurrent or metastatic disease, treated with pembrolizumab. Results: PD-L2 expression was observed in all tumor types and present in stromal, tumor, and endothelial cells. The prevalence and distribution of PD-L2 correlated significantly with PD-L1 ( P = 0.0012-<0.0001); however, PD-L2 was detected in the absence of PD-L1 in some tumor types. Both PD-L1 and PD-L2 positivity significantly predicted clinical response to pembrolizumab on combined tumor, stromal and immune cells, with PD-L2 predictive independent of PD-L1. Response was greater in patients positive for both PD-L1 and PD-L2 (27.5%) than those positive only for PD-L1 (11.4%). PD-L2 status was also a significant predictor of progression-free survival (PFS) with pembrolizumab independent of PD-L1 status. Longer median times for PFS and overall survival were observed for PD-L2-positive than PD-L2-negative patients. Conclusions: Clinical response to pembrolizumab in patients with HNSCC may be related partly to blockade of PD-1/PD-L2 interactions. Therapy targeting both PD-1 ligands may provide clinical benefit in these patients. Clin Cancer Res; 23(12); 3158-67. ©2017 AACR ., (©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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

Background and Aims: Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a life-threatening disease, characterized by elevated LDL-C levels and a premature, increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) that is globally underdiagnosed. The percentage of patients with possible or probable FH in various countries was examined in the Dyslipidemia International Study (DYSIS)., Methods: DYSIS is a multinational, cross-sectional observational study of 54,811 adult outpatients treated with statin therapy. The percentages of patients with high levels of LDL-C, and with possible or probable FH, were assessed using the Dutch scoring method for FH across 29 countries, in age subgroups for the analysis population and among diabetes patients., Results: Despite statin therapy, 16.1% (range 4.4-27.6%) of patients had LDL-C >3.6 mmol/L (140 mg/dL) across countries and the prevalence of possible FH was 15.0% (range 5.5-27.8%) and 1.1% (range 0.0-5.4%) for probable FH. The highest percentages of probable FH occurred in Egypt (5.4%), the Baltic states (4.2%), Russia (3.2%), and Slovenia (3.1%), with the lowest rates in Israel (0.0%), Canada (0.2%), and Sweden (0.3%). Rates of FH were the highest in younger patients (45-54 years) for secondary prevention, regardless of the presence/absence of diabetes., Conclusions: Despite statin therapy, high LDL-C levels and rates of possible and probable FH were observed in some countries. The prevalence of FH was the highest in younger age patients, and >60% of patients with probable FH displayed CHD. Earlier diagnosis and treatment of patients with FH are needed to reduce CHD risk in these patients., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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

Objectives: Changes in cIMT have not been consistently correlated with cardiovascular risk reduction in clinical studies. The variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) changes in published statin LDL-C-lowering studies in relation to various baseline and study characteristics was assessed., Methods: This was an exploratory analysis of study-level data pooled from statin-treatment arms of 13 studies conducted during 1988-2006. Baseline mean common carotid artery (CCA)/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Potential relationships between prespecified covariates and cIMT changes were assessed., Results: Baseline mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels were higher in the combined studies conducted before year 2000 (0.8521 mm) than after 2000 (0.7458 mm), and somewhat higher in study populations of patients with coronary heart disease risk and those with greater LDL-C reductions. Mean CCA/cIMT changes were also larger for the studies conducted before 2000 (-0.0119 mm/year) than after 2000 (-0.0013 mm/year). Notably, studies conducted before 2000 were of longer duration (≥ 2 years) than after 2000 (<2 years). Heterogeneity in cIMT change was attributed to baseline and study-design characteristics. Longer study duration and greater LDL-C reductions were significantly related to larger annualized cIMT changes. Maximum cIMT results were similar., Conclusion: Baseline cIMT and LDL-C levels were lower, and cIMT changes were smaller in statin cIMT trials conducted after 2000 than those before 2000. These trends are consistent with increased treatment and control of high LDL-C levels over recent years in clinical practice, and may influence the results of cIMT studies., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

This brief article provides complementary data supporting the results reported in "Changing Characteristics of Statin-related cIMT Trials from 1988 to 2006" [1]. That article described time-related trends in baseline factors and study characteristics that may have influenced the variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) endpoints (mean of mean and maximum common carotid artery [CCA]/cIMT) in published statin trials. In this brief report, additional details for the studies included in the analysis, and further supporting data, including mean of the maximum CCA/cIMT changes and subgroup data (mean and maximum CCA/cIMT) are provided. For the analysis, study-level data was extracted from 17 statin cIMT trials conducted during 1988-2006, selected on the basis of having at least one statin monotherapy arm in the absence of mixed therapy, and baseline- and study-end values for mean mean and mean maximum CCA/cIMT endpoints. The baseline mean CCA/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Interestingly, all 8 studies conducted before 2000 were significant for cIMT change in which patients did not receive prior LLT; whereas after 2000, the results were more variable and in 4 of 6 trials that did not show a significant cIMT change, patients had received prior treatment. Baseline mean maximum cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized changes in studies conducted before 2000 were higher than those conducted after 2000, similar to the results reported in the original article for the mean mean cIMT endpoint. These findings were consistent across study populations of patients with CHD risk versus those without, and in studies with greater LDL-C reductions and with thickened baseline cIMT at study entry for both mean and maximum cIMT changes. Taken together, these results are consistent with trends in recent years toward greater use of lipid-lowering therapy and control of LDL-C that may have impacted the variability in the results of cIMT studies.

Background: Patients with diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular disease may not achieve adequate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering on statin monotherapy, attributed partly to atherogenic dyslipidemia. More intensive LDL-C-lowering therapy can be considered for these patients. A previous randomized, controlled study demonstrated greater LDL-C lowering in diabetic patients with symptomatic cardiovascular disease who switched from simvastatin 20 mg (S20) or atorvastatin 10 mg (A10) to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (ES10/20) therapy, compared with statin dose-doubling (to S40 or A20) or switching to rosuvastatin 10 mg (R10). The effect of these regimens on novel biomarkers of atherogenic dyslipidemia (low- and high-density lipoprotein particle number and lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 [Lp-PLA2]) was assessed., Methods and Results: Treatment effects on low- and high-density lipoprotein particle number (by NMR) and Lp-PLA2 (by ELISA) were evaluated using plasma samples available from 358 subjects in the study. Switching to ES10/20 reduced low-density lipoprotein-particle number numerically more than did statin dose-doubling and was comparable with R10 (-133.3, -94.4, and -56.3 nmol/L, respectively; P>0.05). Increases in high-density lipoprotein particle number were significantly greater with switches to ES10/20 versus statin dose-doubling (1.5 and -0.5 μmol/L; P<0.05) and comparable with R10 (0.7 μmol/L; P>0.05). Percentages of patients attaining low-density lipoprotein particle number levels <990 nmol/L were 62.4% for ES10/20, 54.1% for statin dose-doubling, and 57.0% for R10. Switching to ES10/20 reduced Lp-PLA2 activity significantly more than did statin dose-doubling (-28.0 versus -3.8 nmol/min per mL, P<0.05) and was comparable with R10 (-28.0 versus -18.6 nmol/min per mL; P>0.05); effects on Lp-PLA2 concentration were modest., Conclusions: In diabetic patients with dyslipidemia, switching from statins to combination ES10/20 therapy generally improved lipoprotein subclass profile and Lp-PLA2 activity more than did statin dose-doubling and was comparable with R10, consistent with its lipid effects., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00862251., (© 2015 The Authors. [Ngoc‐Anh Le and Peter W. F. Wilson] and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. All rights reserved. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

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

Background: Goal attainment of guideline-recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is suboptimal. Little is known about how patient factors influence physicians' treatment decision-making in hypercholesterolemia. We examined physicians' treatment recommendations in high-risk patients whose LDL-C remained uncontrolled despite statin monotherapy., Methods: Physicians completed a questionnaire prior to randomization into period I of a two-period randomized controlled trial evaluating LDL-C goal attainment in patients whose LDL-C remained ≥100 mg/dL after 5 weeks' treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/day (NCT01154036). Physicians' treatment recommendations were surveyed for two hypothetical and one real scenario: (1) LDL-C presumed near goal (between 100-105 mg/dL), (2) LDL-C presumed far from goal (~120 mg/dL), and (3) observed baseline LDL-C of enrolled patients. Prognostic factors considered during decision-making were identified by regression analysis. Observed lipid outcomes at the end of period I (following 6 weeks' treatment with ezetimibe 10 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg, atorvastatin 20 mg, or rosuvastatin 10 mg) were compared with estimated LDL-C outcomes for physicians' treatment recommendations after 6 weeks (based on individual patients' pre-randomization LDL-C and expected incremental change)., Results: Questionnaires were completed for 1,534 patients. No change in therapy, or double atorvastatin dose, were frequently recommended, even when LDL-C was far from goal (6.5% and 52.2% of patients, respectively). Double atorvastatin dose was commonly recommended in all scenarios (43-52% of patients). More intensive LDL-C-lowering regimens were recommended infrequently e.g. double atorvastatin dose and add ezetimibe only <12% in all scenarios. Overall, cardiovascular risk factors and desire to achieve a more aggressive LDL-C goal were prominent factors in decision-making for treatment. Comparison of observed and estimated LDL-C levels showed that physicians tended to overestimate the effectiveness of their recommendations., Conclusions: This study provides insight into physicians' perspectives on clinical management of hypercholesterolemia and highlights a gap in knowledge translation from guidelines to clinical practice. The need for lower LDL-C and cardiovascular risk were key drivers in clinical decision-making, but physicians' treatment choices were more conservative than guideline recommendations, potentially resulting in poorer LDL-C reduction. When compared with actual outcomes, projected LDL-C control was better if physicians used more comprehensive strategies rather than simply doubling the statin dose., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01154036.

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

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

Lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease: each 1.0 mmol/L (38.7 mg/dL) reduction in LDL-C reduces the incidence of major coronary events, coronary revascularizations, and ischemic stroke by approximately 20%. Statins are a well-established treatment option for dyslipidemia, with LDL-C reduction in the range of 27-55%. Several lipid goal-driven guidelines recommend reducing LDL-C to <2.59 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) or <1.81 mmol/L (70 mg/dL) in very high-risk patients. Many patients treated with statins do not reach these goals, and remain at risk of future cardiovascular events. The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines move away from advocating LDL-C treatment targets with focus placed on identifying patients most likely to benefit from high-intensity or moderate-intensity statin therapy. While increasing the statin dose can prove efficacious in some patients, this approach typically offers limited additional LDL-C lowering, and is associated with increased incidence of adverse side effects. Indeed, this has led to the investigation of statins in combination with other lipid-modifying agents for the treatment of dyslipidemia. This review of the evidence for statin use in combination with fibrates, niacin, bile acid sequestrants, and the cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, in dyslipidemic patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, explores the impact of such combination therapies on lipids, attainment of lipid targets, inflammatory markers, and on cardiovascular outcomes and pathology. Additionally, new and emerging dyslipidemia treatments are summarized., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Statin combination therapy and statin uptitration have been shown to be efficacious in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering and are recommended for patients with high-risk coronary heart disease (CHD) who do not reach guideline-endorsed LDL-C goals on statin monotherapy., Objective: This analysis evaluated treatment practice patterns and LDL-C lowering for patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin monotherapy in a real-world practice setting in the United States., Methods: In this retrospective, observational study, patients with CHD/CHD risk equivalent on statin therapy were identified during 2004 to 2008 in a US managed care database. Prescribing patterns and effect of switching from statin monotherapy to combination ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy vs uptitration to higher statin dose/potency level and no change from initial statin potency on LDL-C lowering were assessed. Percentage of change from baseline in LDL-C levels and odds ratios for LDL-C goal attainment were estimated with analyses of covariance and logistic regression., Results: Of 27,919 eligible patients on statin therapy, 2671 (9.6%) switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy, 11,035 (39.5%) uptitrated statins, and 14,213 (50.9%) remained on the same statin monotherapy. LDL-C reduction from baseline and attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were substantially greater for patients who switched to ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy (-24.0%, 81.2%, and 35.2%, respectively) than for patients who titrated (-9.6%, 68.0%, and 18.4%, respectively) or remained on initial statin therapy (4.9%, 72.2%, and 23.7%, respectively). The odds ratios for attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL were also higher for patients who switched than for patients who uptitrated and had no therapy change than for patients who titrated vs no therapy change. Similarly, among a subgroup of patients not at LDL-C <100 mg/dL on baseline therapy, attainment of LDL-C <100 and <70 mg/dL was greater for patients who switched than for statin uptitration vs no change, as well as for patients who uptritrated statins vs no therapy change., Conclusion: In this study, LDL-C lowering and goal attainment rates improved substantially for patients with high-risk CHD on statin monotherapy who switched to combination ezetimibe/statin or uptitrated their statin therapies; however, approximately one-third of these patients still did not attain the optional recommended LDL-C goal of <70 mg/dL. Moreover, these higher efficacy lipid-lowering therapies were infrequently prescribed, indicating the need for further assessment of barriers to LDL-C goal attainment in actual practice settings., (Copyright © 2014 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Background: For high-risk patients who do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL-C levels, more intensive treatment including statin-uptitration to higher doses or potency, as well as combination therapy may be considered. A better understanding of statin treatment patterns in real-world clinical practice may contribute to improved lipid-lowering management in these patients., Objective: We determined treatment pattern changes among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal on statin monotherapy., Methods: Treatment pattern changes were evaluated among patients newly initiated on statins between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2009, in the HealthCore Integrated Research Database. Rates and mean time to first and second treatment changes were examined in patients with claims for coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD), and diabetes mellitus during 12 months before index, who were not at LDL-C <70 mg/dL at their first-eligible LDL-C test (≥ 4 weeks after index). Therapy change was assessed for 12 months after the LDL-C result., Results: Of 11,473 eligible subjects, 61.3% had diabetes, 26.6% had CHD and AVD, and 12.1% had CHD and AVD and diabetes. At index, patients were prescribed medium-potency levels of statins, including simvastatin (44.7%), atorvastatin (31.5%), and other statins (23.8%). Mean ± SD LDL-C before statin initiation was 138 ± 34 mg/dL, and at the first-eligible LDL-C result after index, it was 101 ± 25 mg/dL. During follow-up, 7444 subjects (64.9%) experienced a first treatment change, with mean time to change of 93.8 ± 92 days, whereas 4029 (36.1%) had no treatment change. Discontinuation of index therapy occurred in 46.9% of subjects and medication switches or titration in 18.0% (index statin titration, switch to other statins, other lipid-lowering therapies [LLT], including ezetimibe). Of the discontinuers, 27.4% restarted LLT. Of subjects with a first treatment change who did not discontinue, 48.9% experienced a second therapy change. Results were similar between the 3 high-risk groups., Conclusions: In this managed-care setting, among patients with high risk of cardiovascular disease who were not at LDL-C goal, statins were usually started at medium-potency doses without being titrated up, whereas nearly one-half had a discontinuation of LLT within 12 months. These treatment patterns indicate the need for better patient and provider education as well as other system-wide modifications to improve medication adherence., (Copyright © 2013 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Combination therapy with ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S) and extended-release niacin (N) has been reported to be safe and efficacious in concomitantly reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in hyperlipidemic patients at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular events. This analysis evaluated the effect of E/S coadministered with N on low-density lipoprotein particle number (LDL-P) and high-density lipoprotein particle number (HDL-P) as assessed by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy in patients with type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia., Methods and Results: This was an analysis of a previously reported 24-week randomized, double-blind study in type IIa/IIb hyperlipidemic patients randomized to treatment with E/S (10/20 mg/day)+N (titrated to 2 g/day) or N (titrated to 2 g/day) or E/S (10/20 mg/day). Samples from a subset of patients (577 of 1220) were available for post hoc analysis of LDL-P and HDL-P by NMR spectroscopy. Increases in HDL-P (+16.2%) and decreases in LDL-P (-47.7%) were significantly greater with E/S+N compared with N (+9.8% for HDL-P and -21.5% for LDL-P) and E/S (+12.8% for HDL-P and -36.8% for LDL-P). In tertile analyses, those with the lowest baseline HDL-P had the greatest percent increase in HDL-P (N, 18.4/7.9/2.1; E/S, 19.3/12.2/5.3; and E/S+N, 26.9/13.8/6.9; all P<0.001). Individuals in the highest tertile of LDL-P had the greatest percent reduction in LDL-P (N, 18.3/23.1/24.6; E/S, 29.7/38.3/41.8; and E/S+N, 44.3/49.0/50.5; all P<0.001)., Conclusions: These results suggest that E/S+N improves lipoprotein particle number, consistent with its lipid-modifying benefits in type IIa or IIb hyperlipidemia patients and may exert the greatest effect in those with high LDL-P and low HDL-P at baseline.

Background: Treatment response to lipid-lowering therapy can vary in patients with the metabolic syndrome (MetS) due to various patient demographic and baseline characteristics., Objective: This study assessed the relationships between baseline characteristics and changes in lipid variables, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and attainment of prespecified low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) levels in MetS patients treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin., Methods: This is a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, 6-week parallel study in >1000 hypercholesterolemic subjects (median age of 59 years) with MetS and moderately high/high coronary heart disease risk who were treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/20 and 10/40 mg) or atorvastatin (10, 20, 40 mg). Factors that could affect these treatments were assessed by multivariate analysis., Results: Increasing age, abdominal obesity (waist circumference ≥ 40/35 inches for men/women), and lower baseline hs-CRP were significant predictors of greater reductions in LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol but not for changes in HDL-C or apolipoprotein AI; effects of race and baseline triglycerides, non-HDL-C, LDL-C, or HDL-C levels were more limited. Age ≥ 65 years (versus <65 years) was also associated with significantly greater attainment of all LDL-C and non-HDL-C targets, whereas abdominal obesity, gender (female > male) and lower baseline LDL-C, non-HDL-C, triglycerides, and hs-CRP were associated with improved attainment for some of these targets. Blood pressure, fasting glucose, Homeostasis Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance tertiles, and diabetes did not predict response for any efficacy variable. Ezetimibe/simvastatin treatment (versus atorvastatin) was a significant predictor for change in most efficacy variables., Conclusions: Treatment responses to ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin in at-risk patients with the MetS were related to age (≥ 65 years), abdominal obesity, and lower baseline hs-CRP. Ezetimibe/simvastatin treatment was found to be consistently more effective than atorvastatin at the specified dose comparisons across these subgroups. The clinical value of predictive factors requires further study in outcome trials., (Copyright © 2013 National Lipid Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cardiovascular disease is increased in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and is the principle cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. In patients with stage 5 CKD, structural changes in the myocardium have been implicated as the principle cardiovascular processes leading to this increase in morbidity and mortality, while atherosclerotic events including acute myocardial infarction and strokes are responsible for approximately 10-15% of cardiovascular deaths. Dyslipidemia is common in CKD patients and is usually not characterized by elevated cholesterol levels, except in patients with marked proteinuria. Increased triglyceride levels in conjunction with decreased high-density lipoprotein levels are the commonest qualitative abnormality. Characteristically, abnormalities in the metabolism of apolipoprotein (apo) B-containing lipoproteins have been described, including both gut derived (apoB-48) as well as those produced by hepatic synthesis (apoB-100). A decrease in enzymatic delipidation as well as reduced receptor removal of these lipoproteins both contribute to the increased levels of these apo-B-containing particles and their remnants (which are believed to be highly atherogenic). Abnormalities in the metabolism of apoA-containing lipoproteins are also present and these changes contribute to the lower levels of HDL seen. Qualitative abnormalities of these HDL particles may be associated with cellular oxidative injury and contribute to a pro-inflammatory, pro-thrombotic milieu that is frequently present in CKD patients.

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

Objective: To determine the effect of niacin on fasting glucose (FG) and new-onset diabetes in statin/ezetimibe-treated patients., Research Design and Methods: This was a prespecified secondary analysis among 942 hyperlipidemic patients randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin (E/S; 10/20 mg) or E/S + extended-release niacin (N; titrated to 2 g) over 64 weeks., Results: FG levels peaked by 8-12 weeks, then declined even without antidiabetic medication. At 64 weeks, 3.5% taking E/S+N versus 2.6% taking E/S met criteria for new-onset diabetes (P = 0.66). An additional 1.4% taking E/S+N versus 0.4% taking E/S transiently met criteria for diabetes and then remitted (P = 0.46). Of 28 new-diabetes diagnoses in the E/S+N group, 25 occurred by 24 weeks. Among patients with baseline diabetes, 13.9% taking E/S+N and 11.6% taking E/S underwent antidiabetic treatment modification., Conclusions: Increased FG and new-onset diabetes with E/S+N occurred mainly around the time of initial uptitration of N and often improved or remitted without specific treatment.