Low density lipoprotein‐cholesterol variability in patients with type 2 diabetes taking atorvastatin compared to simvastatin: justification for direct measurement?

Aim: The benefit of direct, as opposed to calculated, low density lipoprotein ‐cholesterol (LDL‐C) measurement remains unclear. This study compared the biological variability of direct LDL in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) on equivalent doses of the short half‐life statin, simvastatin or the longer half‐life statin, atorvastatin. Methods: A cross‐over study of biological variation of lipids in 26 patients with T2DM taking either simvastatin 40 mg (n = 10) or atorvastatin 10 mg. After 3 months on one statin, fasting lipids were measured on 10 occasions over a 5‐week period. The same procedure was then followed on the other statin. The variability of LDL‐C was established using a Beckman direct assay. Results: As a group, mean LDL was no different between statins (mean ± s.d.) (1.69 ± 0.60 mmol/l simvastatin vs. 1.67 ± 0.60 mmol/l atorvastatin, p = 0.19). However, in all patients, the intraindividual biological variability of LDL while taking simvastatin was markedly higher than with atorvastatin (average s.d. = 0.17 mmol /l simvastatin vs. 0.01 mmol/l, p < 0.0001). Friedewald calculated LDL variability was no different between statins (average s.d. = 0.34 mmol /l simvastatin vs. 0.21 mmol/l atorvastatin, p = 0.19). Conclusions: In contrast to calculated values, direct measurement revealed LDL to be much more stable (the s.d. being an order of magnitude) in T2DM patients taking atorvastatin rather than simvastatin. This means LDL targets can be consistently met with less lipid monitoring using atorvastatin rather than simvastatin. Direct LDL measurement may therefore have a particular role in monitoring patients on statin treatment.     

Low HDL‐cholesterol is common in European Type 2 diabetic patients receiving treatment for dyslipidaemia: data from a pan‐European survey

Aims To measure the prevalence of low high‐density lipoprotein (HDL)‐cholesterol (men < 1.03 mmol/l; women < 1.29 mmol/l) in European Type 2 diabetic patients receiving treatment for dyslipidaemia. Methods The pan‐European Survey of HDL‐cholesterol measured lipids and other cardiovascular risk factors in 3866 patients with Type 2 diabetes and 4436 non‐diabetic patients undergoing treatment for dyslipidaemia in 11 European countries. Results Diabetic patients were more likely to be obese or hypertensive than non‐diabetic patients. Most patients received lifestyle interventions (87%) and/or a statin (89%); treatment patterns were similar between groups. Diabetic patients had [means (SD)] lower HDL‐cholesterol [1.22 (0.37) vs. 1.35 mmol/l (0.44) vs. non‐diabetic patients, P < 0.001] and higher triglycerides [2.32 (2.10) vs. 1.85 mmol/l (1.60), P < 0.001]. More diabetic vs. non‐diabetic patients had low HDL‐cholesterol (45% vs. 30%), high triglycerides (≥ 1.7 mmol/l; 57% vs. 42%) or both (32% vs. 19%). HDL‐cholesterol < 0.9 mmol/l was observed in 18% of diabetic and 12% of non‐diabetic subjects. Differences between diabetic and non‐diabetic groups were slightly greater for women. LDL‐ and total cholesterol were lower in the diabetic group [3.02 (1.05) vs. 3.30 mmol/l (1.14) and 5.12 (1.32) vs. 5.38 mmol/l (1.34), respectively, P < 0.001 for each]. Conclusions Low HDL‐cholesterol is common in diabetes: one in two diabetic women has low HDL‐cholesterol and one diabetic man in four has very low HDL‐cholesterol. Management strategies should include correction of low HDL‐cholesterol to optimize cardiovascular risk in diabetes.     

Comparison of efficacy and safety of atorvastatin (10mg) with simvastatin (10mg) at six weeks. ASSET Investigators

The 6-week efficacy and safety of atorvastatin versus simvastatin was determined during a 54-week, open-label, multicenter, parallel-arm, treat-to-target study. In all, 1,424 patients with mixed dyslipidemia (triglyceride 200 to 600 mg/dl [2.26 to 6.77 mmol/L]) were stratified to 1 of 2 groups (diabetes or no diabetes). Patients were then randomized to receive either atorvastatin 10 mg/ day (n = 730) or simvastatin 10 mg/day (n = 694). Efficacy was determined by measuring changes from baseline in lipid parameters including low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, total cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B. Compared with simvastatin, atorvastatin produced significantly greater (p < 0.0001) reductions from baseline in LDL cholesterol (37.2% vs 29.6%), total cholesterol (27.6% vs 21.5%), triglycerides (22.1% vs 16.0%), the ratio of LDL cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol (41.1% vs 33.7%), and apolipoprotein B (28.3% vs 21.2%), and a comparable increase from baseline in HDL cholesterol (7.4% vs 6.9%). Atorvastatin was also significantly (p < 0.0001) more effective than simvastatin at treating the overall patient population to LDL cholesterol goals (55.6% vs 38.4%). Fewer than 6% of patients in either treatment group experienced drug-attributable adverse events, which were mostly mild to moderate in nature. Diabetic patients treated with either statin had safety characteristics similar to nondiabetics, with atorvastatin exhibiting superior efficacy to simvastatin. In conclusion, atorvastatin, at a dose of 10 mg/day, is more effective than simvastatin 10 mg/day at lowering lipids and reaching LDL cholesterol goals in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. Both statins are well tolerated with safety profiles similar to other members of the statin class.     

Effects of patient‐tailored atorvastatin therapy on ameliorating the levels of atherogenic lipids and inflammation beyond lowering low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol in patients with type 2 diabetes

Aims/Introduction

Recently, patient‐tailored statin therapy was proven effective for achieving target low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. It is unclear, however, whether this therapeutic modality would be effective for atherogenic lipid profiles and inflammation in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Materials and Methods

The present study was an 8‐week, multicenter, single‐step titration trial of patient‐tailored atorvastatin therapy (10, 20 and 40 mg) according to baseline LDL cholesterol levels in 440 patients with type 2 diabetes. We measured the LDL particle size by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, and used high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein (hsCRP) and adiponectin as surrogate markers of inflammation.

Results

In the intention‐to‐treat analysis, 91% of the patients achieved their LDL cholesterol targets (<2.6 mmol/L) at week 8. There were significant reductions at week 8 in total cholesterol, triglycerides, non‐high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) cholesterol, and the total cholesterol:HDL cholesterol ratio compared with the baseline values for all of the doses. The mean LDL particle size was significantly increased, and the small, dense LDL cholesterol levels were decreased in a dose‐dependent manner over the study period. In addition, the hsCRP levels were decreased in those high‐risk patients with baseline hsCRP levels over 3 mg/L (P < 0.001), and the adiponectin levels tended to increase with all of the doses (P = 0.004) at 8 weeks.

Conclusions

Patient‐tailored atorvastatin therapy based on LDL cholesterol at baseline was effective in ameliorating atherogenic LDL particle size and inflammation, in addition to achieving the target LDL cholesterol level without an undesirable effect on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (no. NCT01239849).     

Influence of Atorvastatin Versus Simvastatin on Fibrinogen and Other Hemorheological Parameters in Patients with Severe Hypercholesterolemia Treated with Regular Low‐Density Lipoprotein Immunoadsorption Apheresis

Abstract: Low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) apheresis is a treatment option in patients with coronary artery disease and elevated LDL cholesterol concentrations if maximal drug therapy fails to achieve adequate LDL cholesterol reduction. This therapy is more effective when combined with strong lipid‐lowering drugs, such as atorvastatin. However, conflicting data have been published concerning the effect of atorvastatin on fibrinogen concentration. Therefore, we investigated the effect of atorvastatin compared to simvastatin on fibrinogen concentration and other hemorheological parameters in patients treated by weekly LDL apheresis. Hemorheological parameters were, studied twice in 9 patients (4 female, 5 male, 54.0 ± 8.9 years) with coronary artery disease treated by weekly LDL immunoadsorption, once during concomitant simvastatin therapy (40 mg daily) and once during atorvastatin therapy (40 mg daily). Fibrinogen concentration, plasma and blood viscosity at different shear rates, parameters of red cell aggregation at stasis and shear rate 3/s, and erythrocyte filterability were determined 7 days after the last LDL apheresis after each drug had been given for a minimum for 8 weeks. Fibrinogen concentration did not show any statistically significant difference during therapy with atorvastatin (3.09 ± 0.36 g/L) compared to simvastatin (3.13 ± 0.77 g/L). Plasma and blood viscosity as well as erythrocyte filterability were also unchanged. The increase in red cell aggregation at stasis during atorvastatin treatment (5.82 ± 1.00 U versus 4.89±0.48 U during simvastatin; p < 0.05) was inversely correlated with a lower high‐density liprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentration (1.17 ± 0.21 mmol/L versus 1.31 ± 0.30 mmol/L during simvastatin; p < 0.05). LDL cholesterol showed a strong trend to lower concentrations during atorvastatin (4.14 ± 0.61 mmol/L versus 4.56 ± 0.66 mmol/L during simvastatin; p = 0.07), despite a reduced plasma volume treated (3,547 ± 1,239 ml during atorvastatin versus 3,888 ± 1,206 mL during simvastatin; p < 0.05). In conclusion, fibrinogen concentration and other hemorheological parameters were unchanged during atorvastatin compared to simvastatin therapy with the exception of a higher red cell aggregation at stasis. Therefore, with respect to hemorheology, we conclude that atorvastatin should not be withheld from hypercholesterolemic patients regularly treated with LDL immunoadsorption.     

Impact of statin therapy on LDL and non-HDL cholesterol levels in subjects with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia

Background and aimsCardiovascular risk in heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HeFH) is driven by LDL cholesterol levels. Since lipid response to statin therapy presents individual variation, this study aimed to compare mean LDL and non-HDL cholesterol reductions and their variability achieved with different types and doses of the most frequently prescribed statins.Methods and resultsAmong primary hypercholesterolaemia cases on the Spanish Arteriosclerosis Society registry, 2894 with probable/definite HeFH and complete information on drug therapy and lipid profile were included.LDL cholesterol reduction ranged from 30.2 ± 17.0% with simvastatin 10 mg to 48.2 ± 14.7% with rosuvastatin 40 mg. After the addition of ezetimibe, an additional 26, 24, 21 and 24% reduction in LDL cholesterol levels was obtained for rosuvastatin, 5, 10, 20 and 40 mg, respectively. Subjects with definite HeFH and a confirmed genetic mutation had a more discrete LDL cholesterol reduction compared to definite HeFH subjects with no genetic mutation. A suboptimal response (<15% or <30% reduction in LDL cholesterol levels, respectively with low-/moderate-intensity and high-intensity statin therapy) was observed in 13.5% and, respectively, 20.3% of the subjects.ConclusionAccording to the LDL cholesterol reduction in HeFH patients, the ranking for more to less potent statins was rosuvastatin, atorvastatin and simvastatin; however, at maximum dosage, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin were nearly equivalent. HeFH subjects with positive genetic diagnosis had a lower lipid-lowering response. Approximately 1 in 5 patients on high-intensity statin therapy presented a suboptimal response.     

Treating patients with documented atherosclerosis to national cholesterol education program-recommended low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol goals with atorvastatin,fluvastatin, lovastatin and simvastatin

Objectives. This study compared the efficacy and safety of atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, and simvastatin in patients with documented atherosclerosis treated to U.S. National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) recommended low-density-lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration (≤100 mg/dl [2.59 mmol/liter]).Background. For patients with advanced atherosclerosis, NCEP recommends lipid-lowering drug therapy if LDL cholesterol remains ≥130 mg/dl (3.36 mmol/liter).Methods. A total of 318 men or women with documented atherosclerosis and LDL cholesterol ≥130 mg/dl (3.36 mmol/liter) and ≤250 mg/dl (6.5 mmol/liter), and triglycerides ≤400 mg/dl (4.5 mmol/liter) participated in this 54-week, multicenter, open-label, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled, treat-to-target study. Patients were titrated at 12-week intervals until the LDL cholesterol goal was reached. Number of patients reaching target LDL cholesterol levels and dose to reach target were evaluated.Results. At the starting doses, atorvastatin 10 mg produced significantly greater decreases (p < 0.05) in plasma LDL cholesterol than the other treatments. Subsequently, the percentage of patients reaching goal at the starting dose was 32% for atorvastatin, 1% for fluvastatin, 10% for lovastatin and 22% for simvastatin. Atorvastatin-treated patients required a lower median dose than other treatments. Median doses at week 54 with the last available visit carried forward were atorvastatin 20 mg/day, fluvastatin 40 mg/day + colestipol 20 g/day, lovastatin 80 mg/day, simvastatin 40 mg/day.Conclusions. A significantly greater number (p < 0.05) of patients with confirmed atherosclerosis treated with atorvastatin reached the target LDL cholesterol concentration at the starting dose than patients treated with fluvastatin or lovastatin, and significantly fewer (p < 0.05) patients treated with atorvastatin required combination therapy with colestipol to achieve target LDL cholesterol concentrations than all other statins tested.     

Longitudinal screening of serum lipids in children and adolescents with Type 1 diabetes in a UK clinic population

Aims To determine the prevalence of abnormal lipid levels in a large group of children and adolescents with Type 1 diabetes and to examine the changes longitudinally. In addition, to study the relationships of any lipid abnormalities to glycaemic control, age and duration of diabetes. Methods Non‐fasting blood samples were taken annually from all the patients in the Oxford Children's diabetes clinic and total cholesterol (TC), high‐density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides (TG) and glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c) measured over a period of 8 years. Low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and non‐HDL were calculated from these values and compared. Tests performed less than 4 months after diagnosis were excluded. Results A total of 229 children had complete data from more than 1 year and 798 sets of data were examined. TC was lower in males and increased with duration of diabetes and with increasing HbA_1c. HDL cholesterol fell with increasing age, but independently increased with duration, and was not related to HbA_1c. LDL cholesterol and non‐HDL cholesterol were highly correlated (r = 0.9). Both were lower in males and increased with duration of diabetes. Non‐HDL cholesterol increased with HbA_1c. A total of 23.7% had HDL cholesterol < 1.1 mmol/l and 22.5% had TC > 5.2 mmol/l. Thirty‐eight per cent had LDL cholesterol > 2.6 mmol/l and 10.8% > 3.4 mmol/l, the thresholds for lifestyle and drug intervention respectively. Conclusions Abnormalities in plasma lipid levels are common in this age group and the prevalence increases with poor glycaemic control and with duration of diabetes. Around 10% of adolescents would fit criteria for lipid‐lowering medication in adults, but further study is needed to examine the risks and benefits in this age group.     

The effects of Canola oil on cardiovascular risk factors: A systematic review and meta-analysis with dose-response analysis of controlled clinical trials

Background and aimsCanola oil (CO) is a plant-based oil with the potential to improve several cardiometabolic risk factors. We systematically reviewed controlled clinical trials investigating the effects of CO on lipid profiles, apo-lipoproteins, glycemic indices, inflammation, and blood pressure compared to other edible oils in adults.Methods and resultsOnline databases were searched for articles up to January 2020. Forty-two articles met the inclusion criteria. CO significantly reduced total cholesterol (TC, −0.27 mmol/l, n = 37), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C, −0.23 mmol/l, n = 35), LDL-C to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio (LDL/HDL, −0.21, n = 10), TC/HDL (−0.13, n = 15), apolipoprotein B (Apo B, −0.03 g/l, n = 14), and Apo B/Apo A-1 (−0.02, n = 6) compared to other edible oils (P < 0.05). Compared to olive oil, CO decreased TC (−0.23 mmol/l, n = 9), LDL-C (−0.17 mmol/l, n = 9), LDL/HDL (−0.39, n = 2), and triglycerides in VLDL (VLDL-TG, −0.10 mmol/l, n = 2) (P < 0.05). Compared to sunflower oil, CO improved LDL-C (−0.14 mmol/l, n = 11), and LDL/HDL (−0.30, n = 3) (P < 0.05). In comparison with saturated fats, CO improved TC (−0.59 mmol/l, n = 11), TG (−0.08 mmol/l, n = 11), LDL-C (−0.49 mmol/l, n = 10), TC/HDL (−0.29, n = 5), and Apo B (−0.09 g/l, n = 4) (P < 0.05). Based on the nonlinear dose–response curve, replacing CO with ~15% of total caloric intake provided the greatest benefits.ConclusionCO significantly improved different cardiometabolic risk factors compared to other edible oils. Further well-designed clinical trials are warranted to confirm the dose–response associations.     

A multinational,multi‐centre,observational, cross‐sectional survey assessing diabetes secondary care in Central and Eastern Europe (DEPAC Survey)

Aims The objective of this study was to assess diabetes care in outpatient diabetes clinics in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Methods Questionnaires for each randomly enrolled patient were completed by an endocrinologist or diabetologist. Data concerning age, sex, diabetes duration, diabetes type, treatment type, glycated haemoglobin (HbA_1c), total cholesterol (TC), low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C), triglycerides (TG) and high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C), blood pressure (BP) and short‐ and long‐term diabetes complications were recorded. Questionnaires were analysed centrally for each country and stratified for Type 1 diabetes (T1D), Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and other types of diabetes. Results Data on 10 950 individuals were analysed (mean population age 56.2 years; females 52%; T1D 22.9%; T2D 75.3%; mean time from diagnosis 11 years). Patients with HbA_1c within target (< 6.5%): T1D 13.1%, T2D 21.4%; for TC levels (< 4.5 mmol/l): T1D 37%, T2D 20%; for TG levels (< 1.7 mmol/l): T1D 78%, T2D 44%; for HDL‐C (> 1.1 mmol/l): T1D 81%, T2D 60%; for LDL‐C (< 2.5 mmol/l): T1D 36%, T2D 23%; for BP (< 130/80 mm Hg): T1D 42%, T2D 9%. The prevalence of severe hypoglycaemia (within the last 6 months) was 12% in T1D and 2% in T2D. Prevalence of diabetic ketoacidosis was 0.3–6.6%, blindness 0.15–1.3% and diabetic nephropathy 19–42%. Conclusions The data show the current quality of care and potential areas for improvement. The quality of care is generally comparable with that in Western Europe.     

Comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of simvastatin and atorvastatin in the treatment of hypercholesterolemia

BACKGROUND: Simvastatin and atorvastatin are effective statins for treating hypercholesterolemia. HYPOTHESIS: The study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and tolerability of simvastatin 20 and 40 mg/day and atorvastatin 10 and 20 mg/day. METHODS: In this multinational, open-label, crossover study, 258 patients with primary hypercholesterolemia were randomized after 4 weeks of diet plus placebo to once-daily administration of a starting dose sequence of simvastatin (20 mg) or atorvastatin (10 mg), or a higher dose sequence of simvastatin (40 mg) or atorvastatin (20 mg) for 6 weeks. Patients were then switched after a 1-week washout to the corresponding starting or higher dose of the alternate drug for a second 6-week period. The primary endpoint was the mean percent change from baseline to Week 6 in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol; percent changes from baseline in total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein B were also compared. Safety was assessed through adverse experiences and laboratory measurements. RESULTS: Both statins produced statistically significant improvements in all measured plasma lipids and lipoproteins. The main treatment comparison showed no statistically significant difference in changes in LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, whereby the overall effects were comparable when doses of 20 mg and 40 mg of simvastatin were compared with atorvastatin 10 mg and 20 mg. The mean percent reductions for LDL cholesterol from baseline to Week 6 ranged from 35-42% for the entire study cohort. An LDL cholesterol level < or = 130 mg/dl (3.4 mmol/l) was achieved in approximately 70% of patients treated with both drugs in this study. Simvastatin and atorvastatin were well tolerated at the doses studied. CONCLUSION: In patients with hypercholesterolemia, the most commonly used doses of simvastatin and atorvastatin produced similar changes in LDL cholesterol and achieved an LDL cholesterol level < or = 130 mg/dl (3.4 mmol/l) in a similar number of patients. Both statins were well tolerated.     

Comparison of once-daily,niacin extended-release/lovastatin with standard doses of atorvastatin and simvastatin (the ADvicor Versus Other Cholesterol-Modulating Agents Trial Evaluation [ADVOCATE])

This study compared the relative efficacy of a once-daily niacin extended-release (ER)/lovastatin fixed-dose combination with standard doses of atorvastatin or simvastatin, with a special emphasis on relative starting doses. Subjects (n = 315) with elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol blood levels (defined as LDL cholesterol blood levels > or =160 mg/dl without coronary artery disease, or > or =130 mg/dl if coronary artery disease was present, and HDL cholesterol <45 mg/dl in men and <50 mg/dl in women) were randomized to atorvastatin, simvastatin, or niacin ER/lovastatin for 16 weeks. The primary efficacy variables were the mean percent change in LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol levels from baseline. After 8 weeks, the starting dose niacin ER/lovastatin 1,000/40 mg and the 10-mg starting dose atorvastatin both lowered mean LDL cholesterol by 38%. After 12 weeks, niacin ER/lovastatin 1,000/40 mg lowered LDL cholesterol by 42% versus 34% with the 20-mg starting dose of simvastatin (p <0.001). Niacin ER/lovastatin increased HDL cholesterol significantly more than atorvastatin or simvastatin at all compared doses (p <0.001). Niacin ER/lovastatin also provided significant improvements in triglycerides, lipoprotein(a), apolipoprotein A-1, apolipoprotein B, and HDL subfractions. A total of 6% of study subjects receiving niacin ER/lovastatin withdrew because of flushing. No significant differences were seen among study groups in discontinuance due to elevated liver enzymes. No drug-induced myopathy was observed. Niacin ER/lovastatin was comparable to atorvastatin 10 mg and more effective than simvastatin 20 mg in reducing LDL cholesterol, was more effective in increasing HDL cholesterol than either atorvastatin or simvastatin, and provided greater global improvements in non-HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a).     

The effect of atorvastatin on serum lipids,lipoproteins and NMR spectroscopy defined lipoprotein subclasses in type 2 diabetic patients with ischaemic heart disease

The effect of statin therapy on subclasses of LDL, VLDL and HDL lipoproteins is unclear. We compared changes in serum lipids, apolipoproteins and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy measured lipoprotein subclass concentration and average particle size over a minimum 6 months treatment period of atorvastatin 10 mg vs. placebo in 122 men and women. All subjects had type 2 diabetes and a modest dyslipidaemia (mean LDL-cholesterol 3.2 mmol/l and median triglycerides 1.8 mmol/l) and had a previous myocardial infarction. Compared with placebo, atorvastatin therapy was associated with a greater decrease in medium VLDL (median within person change -13.4 vs. -5.9 nmol/l, P<0.001 adjusted for baseline level), small VLDL (median change -17.8 vs. -8.1 nmol/l, P=0.002), large LDL (mean within person change -167.9 vs. -48.6 nmol/l, P<0.001) and medium LDL (median within person change -101.8 vs. -22.3 nmol/l, P=0.017). Atorvastatin therapy was also associated with a greater increase in large HDL than placebo (median change 1.40 vs. 0.80 micromol/l, P=0.02) and there was little change in small HDL so that average HDL particle size increased significantly with atorvastatin (P=0.04). In addition to reducing levels of (enzymatically measured) triglyceride, LDL-cholesterol and apolipoprotein B in diabetic patients, atorvastatin significantly reduces NMR measured medium and small VLDL and large and medium LDL, and increases large HDL.     

Efficacy and safety of ezetimibe co-administered with simvastatin compared with atorvastatin in adults with hypercholesterolemia

This study compared the efficacy and safety of co-administered ezetimibe + simvastatin with atorvastatin monotherapy in adults with hypercholesterolemia. Seven hundred eighty-eight patients were randomized 1:1:1 to 3 treatment groups; each group was force-titrated over four 6-week treatment periods: (1) 10 mg of atorvastatin as the initial dose was titrated to 20, 40, and 80 mg; (2) co-administration of 10 mg of ezetimibe and 10 mg of simvastatin (10/10 mg) was titrated to 10/20, 10/40, and 10/80 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin; and (3) co-administration of 10/20 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin was titrated to 10/40 mg (for 2 treatment periods) and 10/80 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin. Key efficacy measures included percent changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL) from baseline to the ends of (1) treatment periods 1 and 2 (for LDL cholesterol) comparing co-administration of 10/20 mg and 10/10 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin with 10 mg of atorvastatin and (2) treatment period 4 (for LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol) comparing co-administration of 10/80 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin with 80 mg of atorvastatin. Baseline LDL and HDL cholesterol levels were comparable between treatment groups. At the end of treatment period 1, the mean decrease of LDL cholesterol was significantly (p ≤0.001) greater for co-administration of 10/10 mg and 10/20 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin than for 10 mg of atorvastatin. At the end of treatment period 4 and after comparing maximum doses, co-administration of 10/80 mg of ezetimibe + simvastatin was superior to 80 mg of atorvastatin in the percent LDL cholesterol decrease (−59.4% vs −52.5%, p <0.001) and HDL cholesterol increase (12.3% vs 6.5%; p <0.001). All treatments were well tolerated. Thus, a greater LDL cholesterol decrease and HDL cholesterol increase were attained by treating patients with co-administration of ezetimibe and simvastatin than with atorvastatin.     

Lipid-altering efficacy and safety profile of combination therapy with ezetimibe/statin vs. statin monotherapy in patients with and without diabetes: an analysis of pooled data from 27 clinical trials

Aim: This post hoc analysis compared the lipid‐altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe 10 mg plus statin (EZE/statin) vs. statin monotherapy in hypercholesterolaemic patients with and without diabetes. Methods: A pooled analysis of 27 previously published, randomized, double‐blind, active‐ or placebo‐controlled clinical trials comprising 21 794 adult patients with (n = 6541) and without (n = 15253) diabetes receiving EZE/statin or statin alone for 4–24 weeks evaluated percentage change from baseline in lipids and other parameters. Consistency of the treatment effect across the subgroups was tested using treatment × subgroup interaction. No multiplicity adjustments were made. Results: Treatment effects within both subgroups were generally consistent with the overall population. EZE/statin was more effective than statin alone in improving low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL‐C), total cholesterol (TC), high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL‐C), triglycerides (TGs), non‐HDL‐C, apolipoprotein (apo) B and high‐sensitivity C‐reactive protein (hs‐CRP) in the overall population and both subgroups. Patients with diabetes achieved significantly larger reductions in LDL‐C, TC and non‐HDL‐C compared with non‐diabetic patients. Incidences of adverse events or creatine kinase elevations were similar between groups. A small but significantly higher incidence of alanine aminotransferase or aspartate aminotransferase elevations was seen in patients receiving EZE/statin (0.6%) vs. statin monotherapy (0.3%) in the overall population. Conclusions: Treatment with EZE/statin vs. statin monotherapy provided significantly larger reductions in LDL‐C, TC, TG, non‐HDL‐C, apo B and hs‐CRP and significantly greater increases in HDL‐C, with a similar safety profile in patients with and without diabetes. Reductions in LDL‐C, TC and non‐HDL‐C were larger in patients with diabetes than in patients without diabetes.     

Achievement of target plasma cholesterol levels in hypercholesterolaemic patients being treated in general practice

A total of 1028 hypercholesterolaemic men and women aged 18-75 participated in an open label, randomised, parallel group, 6-month treatment-to-target study conducted in 240 general practices throughout Australia. The study compared atorvastatin monotherapy with simvastatin monotherapy or, if necessary, with the combination of simvastatin and cholestyramine in terms of their abilities to achieve a plasma total cholesterol target of<5.0 mmol/l. The initial daily dose of each drug was 10 mg. If the target was not achieved, the dose was doubled at 6 week intervals to a maximum daily dose of 80 mg atorvastatin or 40 mg simvastatin, with the simvastatin supplemented if necessary with 4 g cholestyramine. The percentage of patients achieving the target at 10 and 20 mg doses of atorvastatin were comparable to 20 and 40 mg of simvastatin, respectively. Despite relatively high baseline levels of plasma total cholesterol (mean levels of 7.41 and 7.31 mmol/l in the atorvastatin and simvastatin groups, respectively) the majority of patients in each group achieved the plasma total cholesterol target of<5.0 mmol/l. Treatment with atorvastatin achieved the target in 83% of patients, while simvastatin (or simvastatin plus cholestyramine) achieved the target in 66% of the patients (P<0.005). The target was achieved with 10 mg atorvastatin in 38% of patients and with 10 mg simvastatin in 26% of cases (P<0.005). In patients whose baseline cholesterol levels were between 5.6 and 6.5 mmol/l, 95% of the atorvastatin group and 86% of the simvastatin group reached the target. Even with baseline cholesterol levels between 7.6 and 8.5 mmol/l, the target was reached in 78% of the atorvastatin group and 61% of the simvastatin group. It is thus realistic for general practitioners to expect the majority of their at risk patients to achieve target plasma cholesterol levels that have been shown in population studies to be associated with relatively low rates of coronary heart disease. These targets are achieved in significantly more patients and at lower mg doses with atorvastatin than simvastatin.     

Comparisons of effects of statins (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin) on fasting and postprandial lipoproteins in patients with coronary heart disease versus control subjects

The effects of atorvastatin at 20, 40, and 80 mg/day on plasma lipoprotein subspecies were examined in a randomized, placebo-controlled fashion over 36 weeks in 97 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) with low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of >130 mg/dl and compared directly with the effects of fluvastatin (n = 28), pravastatin (n = 22), lovastatin (n = 24), and simvastatin (n = 25). The effects of placebo and 40 mg/day of each statin were also examined in subjects with CHD with subjects in the fasting state and in the fed state 4 hours after a meal rich in saturated fat and cholesterol and compared with results in age- and gender-matched control subjects. At all doses tested in the fasting and fed states, atorvastatin was significantly (p <0.01) more effective in lowering LDL cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol than all other statins, and significantly (p <0.05) more effective than all statins, except for simvastatin, in lowering triglyceride and remnant lipoprotein (RLP) cholesterol. At 40 mg/day in the fasting state, atorvastatin was significantly (p <0.01) more effective than all statins, except for lovastatin and simvastatin, in lowering cholesterol levels in small LDL, and was significantly (p <0.05) more effective than all statins, except for simvastatin, in increasing cholesterol in large HDL and in lowering LDL particle numbers. Our data indicate that atorvastatin was the most effective statin tested in lowering cholesterol in LDL, non-HDL, and RLP in the fasting and fed states, and getting patients with CHD to established goals, with fluvastatin, pravastatin, lovastatin, and simvastatin having about 33%, 50%, 60%, and 85% of the efficacy of atorvastatin, respectively, at the same dose in the same patients.     

Comparison of efficacy and safety of atorvastatin and simvastatin in patients with dyslipidemia with and without coronary heart disease

The efficacy and safety of atorvastatin 10 mg versus simvastatin 20 mg and atorvastatin 80 mg versus simvastatin 80 mg was determined in a 6-week, prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point trial of dyslipidemic patients with and without coronary heart disease. A total of 1,732 patients with hypercholesterolemia and triglycerides < or =600 mg/dl (6.8 mmol/L) were randomized to receive either atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 650), simvastatin 20 mg (n = 650), atorvastatin 80 mg (n = 216), or simvastatin 80 mg (n = 216). The primary efficacy parameter was the change in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol from baseline to week 6. Secondary efficacy parameters included the percent change from baseline to week 6 in total cholesterol, triglyceride, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and the percent of patients achieving their National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) LDL cholesterol goal at study end. Atorvastatin had significantly greater reductions from baseline in LDL cholesterol than simvastatin in both comparator groups: atorvastatin 10 mg (37.1%) versus simvastatin 20 mg (35.4%) (p = 0.0097), and atorvastatin 80 mg (53.4%) versus simvastatin 80 mg (46.7%) (p <0.0001). Atorvastatin 10 and 80 mg also provided significantly greater reductions in total cholesterol, triglycerides, very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B than simvastatin 20 and 80 mg, respectively (all p <0.05). All treatment groups had a significantly decreased LDL cholesterol/HDL cholesterol ratio from baseline (all p <0.0001). In both comparator groups a higher proportion of atorvastatin-treated patients reached their NCEP LDL cholesterol goal compared with simvastatin. All 4 study treatments were well tolerated.     

Lipid‐Altering Efficacy of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/20 mg Compared to Rosuvastatin 10 mg in High‐Risk Patients with and without Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Inadequately Controlled Despite Prior Statin Monotherapy

Aims: This post hoc analysis compared the effects of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg (EZE/SIMVA) or rosuvastatin 10 mg (ROSUVA) in uncontrolled high‐risk hypercholesterolemic patients with/without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) despite statin monotherapy. Methods: Patients (n = 618) at high risk for coronary vascular disease with elevated LDL‐C ≥100 and ≤190 mg/dL despite use of statins were randomized 1:1 to double‐blind EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg or ROSUVA 10 mg for 6 weeks. Patients were classified as having T2DM based on ≥1 of the following: diagnosis of T2DM, antidiabetic medication, or FPG ≥126 mg/dL. This analysis evaluated percent changes from baseline in lipids among patients with (n = 182) and without T2DM (n = 434). Results: EZE/SIMVA was more effective than ROSUVA at lowering LDL‐C, TC, non‐HDL‐C, and apo B in the overall study population and within both subgroups. Numerically, greater between‐treatment reductions in LDL‐C, TC, non‐HDL‐C, and apo B were seen in patients with T2DM versus those without T2DM. A significant interaction (P= 0.015) was seen for LDL‐C indicating that patients with T2DM achieved larger between‐group reductions versus those without T2DM. Conclusions: Switching to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg versus ROSUVA 10 mg provided superior lipid reductions in patients with/without T2DM.     

Effect of Moderate and High‐Dose Simvastatin on Asymmetric Dimethylarginine‐Homocysteine Metabolic Pathways in Patients with Newly Detected Severe Hypercholesterolemia

The assumption that statin therapy can decrease asymmetric dimethylarginine through lowering low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels seems logical and yet arises some controversy. The aim of the present study is to compare the effects of moderate (40 mg) to high (80 mg) simvastatin doses on asymmetric dimethylarginine and total homocysteine levels in patients with newly detected severe hypercholesterolemia (after target LDL‐C levels, ≤2.6 mmol/L, are reached). The study included 120 adult patients with newly detected severe hypercholesterolemia (total cholesterol ≥7.5 mmol/L and low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥4.9 mmol/L). Asymmetric dimethylarginine levels were determined by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay, total homocysteine—by a high‐performance liquid chromatographic method. There was a statistically significant decrease in total cholesterol, triglycerides, low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein‐B levels as well as in the apolipoprotein‐B/apolipoprotein‐A1 index after a 1‐month therapy with 40 mg simvastatin (P <0.001). Asymmetric dimethylarginine and total homocysteine levels were also decreased but the difference did not reach statistical significance (P= 0.571; P= 0.569). A dose‐dependent effect was established, comparing the influence of moderate (40 mg) to high (80 mg) simvastatin doses on the tested atherogenic biomarkers (lipid profile, apolipoprotein‐A1, and apolipoprotein‐B). Asymmetric dimethylarginine and total homocysteine levels were lowered significantly with 80 mg simvastatin (P <0.001;
P= 0.038). In conclusion, optimizing the target values of low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, a moderate dose (40 mg) of simvastatin has no effect on asymmetric dimethylarginine and total homocysteine in contrast to a high dose (80 mg) after target LDL‐C levels are reached (≤2.6 mmol/L) in patients with newly detected severe hypercholesterolemia.