The relationship between nonfasting and fasting lipid measurements in patients with or without type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving treatment with 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors

BACKGROUND: Studies have confirmed a lack of patient and physician adherence to the revised National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines. These guidelines state that lipid panels should be obtained while the patient is in the fasting state. However, this restriction may limit the ordering of these tests and thus decrease the number of patients on drug therapy and the number treated until goal cholesterol levels are reached. Evidence shows that testing in the nonfasting state may not be clinically or significantly different from testing in the fasting state in identifying patients at risk for a future cardiovascular event. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a relationship exists between nonfasting and fasting lipid values in diabetic or nondiabetic patients that will permit the more ready identification of patients who require treatment to meet NCEP ATP III guidelines. A secondary goal was to determine whether diabetic patients who appear to have reached goal cholesterol levels in the fasting state meet those goals when the non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are measured in the nonfasting state. METHODS: This observational study was conducted at Androscoggin Cardiology Associates (Auburn, Maine). Patients with hyperlipidemia receiving statin therapy whose doses had not changed for > or =2 months were enrolled. For all patients, nonfasting and fasting lipid panels (total cholesterol, triglycerides [TGs], and HDL-C) were calculated, whereas low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)levels were measured directly. The direct LDL-C method was used to determine the variance of the calculated LDL-C from the actual value. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive hyperlipidemic patients were tested. Patients included 70 men and 30 women, with a mean (SD) age of 66.2 (12.0) years(range, 24-93 years). Eighteen patients had type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM). Non-fasting TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C levels were able to identify almost all patients who did not meet ATP III guidelines in terms of cholesterol levels (95%, 100%, and 95%, respectively). No predictive differences were found, regardless of whether the patients had type 2 DM. For the total population, statistically significant differences were found between calculated nonfasting and fasting measurements for mean (SD)LDL-C levels (90.2 [24.8] mg/dL vs 99.7 [26.1] mg/dL, respectively; P < 0.001).The regression equation was fasting LDL-C = 22.7 + 0.854 x nonfasting LDL-C.A nonfasting LDL-C level >130 mg/dL predicted a fasting LDL-C level >100 mg/dL(95% CI, -12.79 to -6.24), and a nonfasting LDL-C level >130 mg/dL predicted cases of fasting LDL-C level >100 mg/dL (95% CI, -5.79 to -1.35). CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, nonfasting TG, HDL-C, and LDL-C levels successfully identified almost all patients who did not meet ATP III guidelines for cholesterol levels. No clinically significant difference was found in diabetic or nondiabetic patients.     

Implication of the new low-density lipoprotein goals in dyslipidemia management of patients with acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to meet the recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of 100 mg/dL and optional aggressive lowering to 70 mg/dL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients diagnosed as having ACS who had lipid levels measured within 24 hours of admission from January 1, 1998, through December 31, 2002, were assessed for the ability to meet the 2 target LDL-C levels. Patients were considered to have ACS if they were diagnosed as having myocardial infarction, had significant disease on angiography, or had a history of coronary artery disease. Patients were classified into 1 of 4 groups on the basis of the degree of LDL-C lowering required to meet the 2 different goals: less than 33%, 33% to 39%, 40% to 49%, and 50% or more. Patients with myocardial infarction who had lipid sampling performed more than 24 hours after admission were excluded. RESULTS: The mean plus-or-minus SD LDL-C level was 111 plus-or-minus 43 mg/dL in the 1322 patients who met criteria for ACS and had LDL-C levels assessed. On the basis of a target LDL-C value of less than 100 mg/dL, 43% of patients were at goal and did not require treatment, and only 2.5% had an LDL-C level that required a 50% or greater reduction to meet goal. In contrast, using the newer LDL-C target of 70 mg/dL, 85% patients required treatment, and 23% of patients required a 50% or greater decrease in LDL-C level and therefore were likely to require more than 1 lipid-lowering agent. CONCLUSION: Decreasing the LDL-C target to less than 70 mg/dL substantially increases the number of patients with ACS who would require treatment. A significant proportion of patients will require a reduction in LDL-C level of 50% or more, which is not easily achievable with current lipid-lowering monotherapy.     

A six-month, multicenter, open-label, noncomparative, prospective, observational study of the efficacy and tolerability of atorvastatin in the primary care setting(estudio del control de las hiperlipidemiasen atención primaria): the cheap study

Background: A close relationship exists between high levels of total cholesterol (TC) (particularly low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C]) and low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), which is associated with an increased risk for arteriosclerosis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Evidence shows that atorvastatin produces significantly greater reductions in LDL-C and TC than other hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors. However, the results achieved in clinical studies could be different from those found in general clinical practice, where patient follow-up is less thorough and poorer compliance may reduce the effectiveness of the lipid-lowering therapy.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of atorvastatin in achieving the LDL-C levels recommended by several Spanish scientific societies, as well as its tolerability in standard clinical use.Methods: This 6-month, open-label, noncomparative, prospective, observational study was conducted in 1351 primary care centers in Spain. All patients were aged 18 to 80 years and had primary hypercholesterolemia (TC >200 mg/dL and triglycerides [TG] <200 mg/dL) or combined hyperlipidemia (TC >200 mg/dL and fasting TG 200-400 mg/dL). All patients also had LDL-C levels higher than those established by the Spanish Society of Arteriosclerosis (Sociedad Española de Arteriosclerosis [SEA]) according to baseline cardiovascular risk and previous use of lipid-lowering therapy (for patients with low, moderate, or high cardiovascular risk, the recommended LDL-C goals are ≤175 mg/dL, ≤155 mg/dL, and ≤135 mg/dL, respectively; for patients with CVD, the LDL-C goal is ≤100 mg/dL). None of the patients had creatine kinase activity ≥540 U/L or alanine aminotransferase (ALT) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels ≥60 U/L. Study visits occurred at months 0, 2, and 6 of treatment. Patients received atorvastatin calcium 10 mg/d for 2 months. The dosage was then doubled to 20 mg/d in patients who did not achieve the SEA LDL-C goal and also in those patients whose primary care physicians (PCPs) deemed this higher dosage necessary; this dosage was continued for at least 4 additional months, to complete at least a 6-month course of treatment. The percentage of patients who achieved their goals was used to measure atorvastatin effectiveness. Percentages of change in LDL-C, TC, TG, and HDL-C from baseline to the final study visit also were used as measures of effectiveness. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) per 10,000 patient-months was used for the primary tolerability analysis. A secondary tolerability analysis was performed in all patients treated with atorvastatin who had some recorded follow-up, regardless of whether the patient met inclusion criteria. Information was obtained from data recorded in the case-report forms.Results: A total of 5317 outpatients (2715 women, 2598 men, 4 sex unknown; mean [SD] age, 58.7 [10.5] years) were enrolled. Among patients receiving known dosages of atorvastatin, 1580 of 4033 (39.2%) and 2378 of 3585 (66.3%) patients met the SEA LDL-C goal after 2 and 6 months of therapy, respectively (P<0.001 for 2 months vs 6 months). Among the patients with low and moderate cardiovascular risk, 85.8% achieved the SEA LDL-C goal compared with 64.4% of high-risk patients (P<0.001). Mean LDL-C decreased by 36.2%. Mean reductions in TC and TG levels were 26.9% and 19.2%, respectively. Mean HDL-C increased 17.0%. One hundred forty-eight patients (2.9%) experienced at least 1 AE and 25 (0.5%) had serious AEs. Eighty-nine patients had 134 AEs considered treatment related. Two of the serious AEs (phlebitis and a severe increase in ALT and AST activity) were considered treatment related. A total of 98.5% and 97.2% of PCPs and patients, respectively, reported excellent or good tolerability with atorvastatin.Conclusions: In this study population, the use of atorvastatin in the primary care setting was associated with high achievement rates of the SEA LDL-C goals and with a substantial decrease in TG levels. In addition, a considerable increase in HDL-C levels occurred. Tolerability with atorvastatin was reported to be excellent or good by most of the patients and PCPs. The incidence of serious AEs was minimal, as reported by both patients and PCPs.     

Comparative effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with characteristics of metabolic syndrome

BACKGROUND: Hypercholesterolemic patients with metabolic syndrome (MS) are at high risk for coronary heart disease. The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel III (ATP III) guidelines provide the option of aggressively lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in hypercholesterolemic patients with MS. OBJECTIVE: The lipid-modifying efficacy of simvastatin and atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients with MS as defined by NCEP ATP III was assessed. METHODS: A post hoc subgroup analysis was performed on data from a 36-week, multicenter (54 sites worldwide), randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, dose-escalation (forced-titration) study designed to assess the effects of simvastatin (40-80 mg) and atorvastatin (20-80 mg) on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and apolipoprotein (apo) A-I levels in patients with LDL-C > or = 160 mg/dL. Patients were classified as having MS if they met >/=3 of the following criteria: (1) triglyceride (TG) level > or =150 mg/dL; (2) HDL-C <40 mg/dL (men) or <50 mg/dL (women); (3) secondary diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or taking antidiabetic medication and/or fasting serum glucose (FSG) level > or =110 mg/dL; (4) secondary diagnosis of hypertension and/or taking antihypertensive medication and/or systolic blood pressure (SBP)/diastolic blood pressure (DBP) > or =130/ > or =85 mm Hg; and (5) body mass index (BMI) > or =30 kg/m(2) (surrogate for waist circumference). RESULTS: Of 808 evaluable patients, 212 (26.2%) were classified as having MS at baseline. Compared with the non-MS subgroup, MS patients were slightly older and more likely to be female. They also had higher BMI, SBP/DBP, FSG, and TG levels, and lower HDL-C and apo A-I levels than non-MS patients. The simvastatin group contained 99 patients; the atorvastatin group, 113 patients. Both drugs produced large reductions in total cholesterol, LDL-C, non-HDL-C, TG, and apo B, with atorvastatin producing slightly greater reductions in TG. However, simvastatin consistently produced larger increases in HDL-C and apo A-I than atorvastatin, especially at higher doses. After 36 weeks of treatment, 47.7% and 48.5% in the simvastatin and atorvastatin groups, respectively, no longer met > or =3 of the MS criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In hypercholesterolemic patients with characteristics of MS, simvastatin and atorvastatin had comparable beneficial effects on apo B-containing atherogenic lipids and lipoproteins, and MS status was effectively modified by both drugs. However, although atorvastatin produced slightly larger decreases in TG, simvastatin produced larger increases in HDL-C.     

Effects of simvastatin on the lipid profile and attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals when added to thiazolidinedione therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is the major cause of mortality in individuals with diabetes mellitus (DM). Given the increasingly aggressive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals for patients with DM set by the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III and the American Diabetes Association, many patients remain above target. Treatment with thiazolidinediones (TZDs) improves glycemic control but does not lower (and may raise) LDL-C concentrations. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability of adding the hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A-reductase inhibitor simvastatin to existing TZD therapy in patients with type 2 DM. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. Patients with type 2 DM who were taking a stable dose of pioglitazone or rosiglitazone and had a glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) value < or =9.0% and an LDL-C concentration > 100 mg/dL were randomized to receive simvastatin 40 mg (the recommended initial dose for patients with DM) or placebo for 24 weeks. The primary end point was the effect of treatment on LDL-C concentrations. Other lipid, lipoprotein, and safety measures were also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-three patients (127 [50.2%] men, 126 [49.8%] women; mean age, 56 years) were randomized to treatment (123 simvastatin, 130 placebo). At the end of the study, mean LDL-C concentrations were reduced 34.)% from baseline (from 134.3 to 89.5 mg/dL) in the simvastatin group and were unchanged in the placebo group (P<0.001). Simvastatin produced significant reductions in concentrations of total cholesterol, triglycerides (TG), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B compared with placebo (all, P<0.001 ) and significant increases in concentrations of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) ( P=0.002 ) and apo A-I ( P=0.006 ). In patients who had not attained target concentrations of LDL-C (<100 mg/dL), TG (<150 mg/dL), or HDL-C (>45 mg/dL) at baseline, significantly more simvastatin recipients had achieved these goals at the end of the study compared with placebo recipients (LDL-C: 67.3% vs 5.2%, respectively, P<0.001; HDL-C: 95.3% vs 83.6%, P<0.05; TG: 40.8% vs 11.0%, P<0.001 ). Simvastatin was well tolerated, and no clinically meaningful differences in the incidence of serious adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, or discontinuations due to adverse events were observed between groups. There were no significant between-group differences in glycemic control (HbA1c) or concentrations of fasting insulin, creatine phosphokinase, or hepatic transaminases. CONCLUSION: Simvastatin was an effective and generally well tolerated treatment for hyperlipidemia when used in combination with TZD therapy in this population of patients with type 2 DM.     

Achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals in high-risk patients in managed care: comparison of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, and simvastatin in the SOLAR trial

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate attainment of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) III low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal of less than 100 mg/dL with statin treatments in managed care patients at high risk for coronary heart disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial (SOLAR [Satisfying Optimal LDL-C ATP III goals with Rosuvastatin]) performed at 145 US clinical centers from June 5, 2002 to July 12, 2004, high-risk men and women in a managed care population received typical starting doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg/d), atorvastatin (10 mg/d), or simvastatin (20 mg/d) for 6 weeks. Those who did not meet the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL at 6 weeks had their dose titrated (doubled), and all patients were followed up for another 6 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1632 patients were randomized to 1 of the 3 treatment regimens. After 6 weeks, 65% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 41% with atorvastatin and 39% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). After 12 weeks, 76% of patients taking rosuvastatin reached the LDL-C target of less than 100 mg/dL vs 58% with atorvastatin and 53% with simvastatin (P<.001 vs rosuvastatin for both). Reductions in the LDL-C level, total cholesterol level, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) level, and non-HDL-C/HDL-C ratio were significantly greater with rosuvastatin at both 6 and 12 weeks compared with the other statins. Adverse events were similar in type and frequency in all treatment groups, and only 3% of all patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events. No myopathy was observed, no clinically important impact on renal function was attributed to study medications, and clinically important increases in serum transaminases were rare. CONCLUSION: In a managed care population, 10 mg of rosuvastatin treatment resulted in more patients reaching the NCEP ATP III LDL-C goal compared with 10 mg of atorvastatin and 20 mg of simvastatin, potentially reducing the need for titration visits.     

Effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone on blood lipid levels and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a retrospective review of randomly selected medical records

BACKGROUND: The antihyperglycemic effects of pioglitazone hydrochloride and rosiglitazone maleate are well documented. The results of clinical trials and observational studies have suggested, however, that there are individual differences in the effects of these drugs on blood lipid levels. OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated the effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone on blood lipid levels and glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of randomly selected medical records from 605 primary care practices in the United States in which adults with type 2 diabetes received pioglitazone or rosiglitazone between August 1, 1999, and August 31, 2000. The outcome measures were mean changes in serum concentrations of triglycerides (TG), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values. RESULTS: Treatment with pioglitazone was associated with a reduction in mean TG of 55.17 mg/dL, a reduction in TC of 8.45 mg/dL, an increase in HDL-C of 2.65 mg/dL, and a reduction in LDL-C of 5.05 mg/dL. Treatment with rosiglitazone was associated with a reduction in mean TG of 13.34 mg/dL, an increase in TC of 4.81 mg/dL, a reduction in HDL-C of 0.12 mg/dL, and an increase in LDL-C of 3.56 mg/dL. With the exception of HDL-C, the differences in mean changes in lipid parameters between treatment groups were statistically significant (P < 0.001, pioglitazone vs rosiglitazone). Reductions in HbA1c were statistically equivalent between treatments (1.04% pioglitazone, 1.18% rosiglitazone). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with pioglitazone was associated with greater beneficial effects on blood lipid levels than treatment with rosiglitazone, whereas glycemic control was equivalent between the 2 treatments.     

Efficacy and Tolerability of Pitavastatin Versus Pitavastatin/Fenofibrate in High-risk Korean Patients with Mixed Dyslipidemia: A Multicenter,Randomized, Double-blinded,Parallel, Therapeutic Confirmatory Clinical Trial

PurposeDyslipidemia is an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins are known to effectively reduce not only low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level but also death and nonfatal myocardial infarction due to coronary heart disease. The risk for CVD from atherogenic dyslipidemia persists when elevated triglyceride (TG) and reduced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are not controlled with statin therapy. Therefore, statin/fenofibrate combination therapy is more effective in reducing CVD risk. Here, we assessed the efficacy and tolerability of pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy in patients with mixed dyslipidemia and a high risk for CVD.MethodsThis multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, therapeutic-confirmatory clinical trial evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of fixed-dose combination therapy with pitavastatin/fenofibrate 2/160 mg in Korean patients with a high risk for CVD and a controlled LDL-C level (<100 mg/dL) and a TG level of 150–500 mg/dL after a run-in period with pitavastatin 2 mg alone. In the 8-week main study, 347 eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive pitavastatin 2 mg with or without fenofibrate 160 mg after a run-in period. In the extension study, patients with controlled LDL-C and non–HDL-C (<130 mg/dL) levels were included after the completion of the main study. All participants in the extension study received the pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy for 16 weeks for the assessment of the tolerability of long-term treatment.FindingsThe difference in the mean percentage change in non–HDL-C from baseline to week 8 between the combination therapy and monotherapy groups was −12.45% (95% CI, −17.18 to −7.72), and the combination therapy was associated with a greater reduction in non-HDL-C. The changes in lipid profile, including apolipoproteins, fibrinogen, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein from baseline to weeks 4 and 8 were statistically significant with combination therapy compared to monotherapy at all time points. Furthermore, the rates of achievement of non–HDL-C and apolipoprotein B targets at week 8 in the combination therapy and monotherapy groups were 88.30% versus 77.98% (P = 0.0110) and 78.94% versus 68.45% (P = 0.0021), respectively. The combination therapy was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of statin monotherapy.ImplicationsIn these Korean patients with mixed dyslipidemia and a high risk for CVD, combination therapy with pitavastatin/fenofibrate was associated with a greater reduction in non–HDL-C compared with that with pitavastatin monotherapy, and a significantly improvement in other lipid levels. Moreover, the combination therapy was well tolerated, with a safety profile similar to that of statin monotherapy. Therefore, pitavastatin/fenofibrate combination therapy could be effective and well tolerated in patients with mixed dyslipidemia. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03618797.     

Efficacy and tolerability of fluvastatin extended-release delivery system: a pooled analysis

BACKGROUND: At high doses, the pharmacokinetics of fluvastatin immediate-release (IR) are nonlinear, possibly due to saturation of hepatic uptake. Fluvastatin delivery to the liver in a slower but sustained fashion would be expected to avoid hepatic saturation without elevating systemic drug levels. OBJECTIVE: This pooled analysis compared the efficacy and tolerability of extended-release (XL) 80-mg and IR 40-mg formulations of fluvastatin in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglyceride (TG) levels and raising high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels in patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: Data were pooled from 3 double-blind, randomized, active-controlled, multicenter, parallel-group studies that compared changes in lipid and apolipoprotein levels with fluvastatin XL 80 mg at bedtime (HS) with changes in fluvastatin IR 40 mg HS or BID in patients aged > or =18 years with primary hypercholesterolemia (consistently elevated LDL-C level [> or =160 mg/dL] and plasma TG levels < or =400 mg/dL). The primary efficacy variable was percent change in LDL-C from baseline. RESULTS: The pooled analysis provided an intent-to-treat efficacy study population of 1674 patients. At 4 weeks, fluvastatin XL 80 mg HS reduced LDL-C levels by a mean of 36.3% (median 38%), significantly greater than a mean reduction of 25.9% (median 27%) seen with fluvastatin IR 40 mg HS, and an incremental additional mean reduction in LDL-C of 10.4% (P < 0.001). At 4 and 24 weeks, fluvastatin XL 80 mg HS provided an LDL-C reduction equivalent to fluvastatin IR 40 mg BID (P < 0.001 for noninferiority). Significant, dose-related changes in HDL-C, LDL-C:HDL-C ratio, total cholesterol, TG, and apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein B levels also occurred. Mean HDL-C level increased by 8.7% and median TG level decreased by 19% with fluvastatin XL 80 mg HS (P < 0.001 and P < 0.05 vs fluvastatin IR 40 mg HS, respectively). Maximum mean increases in HDL-C level (21%) and median decreases in TG level (31%) with fluvastatin XL 80 mg HS occurred in patients with type IIb dyslipidemia and the highest baseline TG. Adverse events were mild, with similar frequency in all treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily administration of fluvastatin XL 80 mg provides enhanced efficacy with an additional 10.4% reduction in LDL-C levels compared with fluvastatin IR 40 mg HS, and superior increases in HDL-C levels, particularly in patients with elevated TG levels (P < 0.05 vs fluvastatin IR 40 mg HS). Fluvastatin XL 80 mg HS has a good tolerability profile and is effective as starting and maintenance lipid-lowering treatment in patients with type II hypercholesterolemia.     

Twelve-week, multicenter, randomized, open-label comparison of the effects of rosuvastatin 10 mg/d and atorvastatin 10 mg/d in high-risk adults: a DISCOVERY study

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for the prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD) advocate reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC) levels as the primary goals. However, approximately 50% to 60% of patients fail to reach recommended cholesterol goals. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this Direct Statin Comparison of LDL-C Values: An Evaluation of Rosuvastatin Therapy Compared with Atorvastatin (DISCOVERY) trial was to compare the efficacy of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors rosuvastatin calcium and atorvastatin calcium in achieving the 1998 Second Joint Task Force (JTF) of European and Other Societies on Coronary Prevention target for LDL-C. Secondary objectives included comparing the efficacy of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in achieving the 1998 JTF-recommended goal for TC and modifying other lipid levels, and to compare the tolerability of the 2 statins. METHODS: This 12-week, randomized, open-label, 2-arm, parallel-group trial was conducted at 210 centers in Finland, Iceland, and Ireland. Patients aged > or =18 years with a high risk for CHD and primary hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C >3.5 mmol/L [>135 mg/dL]) were randomized (2:1) to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg or atorvastatin 10 mg PO OD for 12 weeks. Before randomization, statin-naive patients underwent 6 weeks of dietary counseling, whereas patients receiving treatment with a starting dose of another lipid-lowering therapy but with an LDL-C level >3.1 mmol/L (>120 mg/dL) were switched to study drug immediately after they were determined eligible for the study Patients were assessed for fasting lipid levels at weeks 0 and 12, and the proportions of patients attaining 1998 and 2003 JTF lipid goals (1998: LDL-C, <3.0 mmol/L [<116 mg/dL]; TC, <5.0 mmol/L [<193 mg/dL]; 2003: LDL-C, <2.5 mmol/L [<97 mg/dL]; TC, <4.5 mmol/L [<174 mg/dL]) were calculated. Tolerability was monitored for the 12-week study and for an additional 36-week optional extension period. RESULTS: One thousand twenty-four patients were randomized to treatment (568 men, 456 women; mean age, 60.7 years). Patient demographic characteristics were similar between the 2 treatment groups. The efficacy analysis consisted of 911 patients (504 men, 407 women; mean age, 60.7 years; mean body weight, 82.4 kg); 627 received rosuvastatin and 284 received atorvastatin. Compared with atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was associated with significantly greater reductions in LDL-C and TC (both, P < 0.05), and with a significantly greater increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol level (P < (105). A greater proportion of patients in the rosuvastatin group compared with the atorvastatin group reached the 1998 goals for LDL-C (83.4% vs 683%; P < 0.001) and TC (76.4% vs 59.5%; P < 0.001). Also, compared with the atorvastatin group, greater proportions of patients in the rosuvastatin group achieved the 2003 JTF goals for LDL-C and TC (both, P < 0.001). Both agents were well tolerated: serious drug-related events were observed in < or =3.0% of patients in each group, and no clinically significant differences were found between the 2 treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this study of selected patients at high risk for CHD and with primary hypercholesterolemia, rosuvastatin 10 mg/d for 12 weeks was associated with significantly greater reductions in LDL-C and TC levels compared with atorvastatin 10 mg/d. Furthermore, significantly more patients receiving rosuvastatin achieved the 1998 and 2003 JTF-recommended lipid targets compared with those receiving atorvastatin. Both agents were well tolerated.     

Impact of Blood Lipids on 10-Year Cardiovascular Risk in Individuals Without Dyslipidemia and With Low Risk Factor Burden

ObjectiveTo determine the association of plasma lipids with the prevalence of subclinical atherosclerosis and 10-year risk of incident cardiovascular (CV) events among healthy individuals without dyslipidemia and with low risk factor burden.Patients and MethodsThe analysis (June 24, 2020, through June 12, 2021) included 1204 participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) study who were current nonsmokers and did not have CV disease, hypertension (blood pressure ≥130/80 mm Hg or antihypertensive use), diabetes (fasting glucose ≥126 mg/dL or glucose-lowering medication use), and dyslipidemia (low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol [LDL-C] ≥160 mg/dL, high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol [HDL-C] <40 mg/dL, total cholesterol [TC] ≥240 mg/dL, triglycerides [TGs] ≥150 mg/dL, or lipid-lowering medication use) at baseline. Associations of lipids with baseline atherosclerosis (presence of carotid plaque and/or coronary calcification) and incident CV events over 10 years were examined using multivariable relative risk regression and Cox regression, respectively.ResultsAt baseline, participants’ median age was 54 (IQR, 49 to 62) years, and 10-year CV risk was 2.7% (IQR, 1.0% to 6.6%); 43.4% had subclinical atherosclerosis. A 1-SD higher LDL-C (23.4 mg/dL), TC (24.7 mg/dL), non–HDL-C (25.3 mg/dL), TC/HDL-C (0.75), and LDL-C/HDL-C (0.66) was associated with a higher prevalence of atherosclerosis of between 6% and 9% (P<.05). For every 1-SD higher LDL-C, non–HDL-C, TC/HDL-C, LDL-C/HDL-C, and TG/HDL-C (0.49), the 10-year incidence of CV events was significantly increased by 40%, 44%, 51%, 49%, and 39%, respectively. For every 1-SD lower HDL-C (13.5 mg/dL), CV risk was increased by 37%. Triglycerides had no association with either outcome.ConclusionExcept for TGs, all lipid variables were associated with atherosclerosis and future risk of CV disease among persons without dyslipidemia and with low risk factor burden.     

An open-label, uncontrolled, prospective study of the effects of atorvastatin 10 mg on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in chinese adults with coronary artery disease and hypercholesterolemia

Background: A high level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is a major risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). Evidence shows that lowering LDL-C improves the outcomes of patients with CAD. Atorvastatin is an established drug for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia.Objective: The purpose of this open-label, uncontrolled, prospective study was to assess the effectiveness of treatment with atorvastatin 10 mg/d for 18 weeks in achieving the target level of LDL-C (<2.6 mmol/L [<100 mg/dL]) established by the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) (United States) for patients with established CAD and hypercholesterolemia.Methods: Chinese patients with CAD, hypercholesterolemia (defined as a baseline LDL-C level between 3.4 and 5.2 mmol/L [131-201 mg/dL]), and body mass index <30 kg/m² were eligible. Atorvastatin 10 mg/d was given to each patient for 18 weeks. Lipid profiles were checked at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. To assess the extent of the achievement of NCEP LDL-C target levels, patients were categorized into 3 groups retrospectively according to baseline LDL-C level: group 1, 3.4 to 4.0 mmol/L (131-154 mg/dL); group 2, 4.01 to 4.6 mmol/L (155-178 mg/dL); and group 3, 4.61 to 5.2 mmol/L (179-201 mg/dL).Results: A total of 63 patients (50 men, 13 women; mean age, 64.3 years) were enrolled. Significant decreases in total cholesterol (31.3% at week 18), LDL-C (42.9% at week 18), and triglycerides (21.8% at week 18) from baseline levels were found at 6, 12, and 18 weeks of treatment (P < 0.001 for all). The changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels were nonsignificant. In group 1, 83.3% of patients met the target level of LDL-C; group 2, 87.5%; group 3, 37.5%; groups 1 and 2 combined, 85.2%. Atorvastatin 10 mg/d was well tolerated. Clinical adverse events were mild and transient; no severe adverse events were reported. One patient (1.6%) developed an elevated alanine aminotransferase level and withdrew. Sixty-two of 63 patients (98.4%) completed the study.Conclusions: In this group of Chinese patients with CAD and hypercholesterolemia treated with atorvastatin 10 mg/d for 18 weeks, 85.2% of patients with a baseline LDL-C level of 3.4 to 4.6 mmol/L achieved the NCEP target LDL-C level of <2.6 mmol/L, suggesting that atorvastatin 10 mg/d is efficacious in preventing secondary CAD.     

Effects of rosuvastatin versus atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin on non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoproteins, and lipid ratios in patients with hypercholesterolemia: additional results from the STELLAR trial

BACKGROUND: Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), apolipoprotein (apo) B, and lipid and apolipoprotein ratios that include both atherogenic and antiatherogenic lipid components have been found to be strong predictors of coronary heart disease risk. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine prospectively the effects of rosuvastatin, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin across dose ranges on non-HDL-C, apo B, apo A-I, and total cholesterol (TC):HDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C):HDL-C, non-HDL-C:HDL-C, and apo B:apo A-I ratios in patients with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C > or =160 mg/dL and <250 mg/dL and triglycerides <400 mg/dL) in the Statin Therapies for Elevated Lipid Levels compared Across doses to Rosuvastatin (STELLAR) trial. METHODS: In this randomized, Multicenter, parallel-group, open-label trial (4522IL/0065), patients > or =18 years of age received rosuvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; simvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg; or pravastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg for 6 weeks. Pairwise comparisons were prospectively planned and performed between rosuvastatin 10, 20, and 40 mg and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of comparators. RESULTS: A total of 2268 patients were randomized to the rosuvastatin 10- to 40-mg, atorvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin groups. Fifty-one percent of patients were women, the mean (SD) age was 57 (12) years, and 19% had a documented history of atherosclerotic disease. Over 6 weeks, rosuvastatin significantly reduced non-HDL-C, apo B, and all lipid and apolipoprotein ratios assessed, compared with milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of simvastatin and pravastatin (all, P < 0.002). Rosuvastatin reduced non-HDL-C by 42.0% to 50.9% compared with 34.4% to 48.1% with atorvastatin, 26.0% to 41.8% with simvastatin, and 18.6% to 27.4% with pravastatin. Rosuvastatin reduced apo B by 36.7% to 45.3% compared with 29.4% to 42.9% with atorvastatin, 22.2% to 34.7% with simvastatin, and 14.7% to 23.0% with pravastatin. The highest increase in apo A-I (8.8%) was observed in the rosuvastatin 20-mg group, and this increase was significantly greater than in the atorvastatin 40-mg and 80-mg groups (both, P < 0.002). CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin 10 to 40 mg was more efficacious in improving the lipid profile of patients with hypercholesterolemia than milligram-equivalent doses of atorvastatin and milligram-equivalent or higher doses of simvastatin and pravastatin.     

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical trial comparing the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-lowering ability of lovastatin 10, 20, and 40 mg/d with fluvastatin 20 and 40 mg/d

BACKGROUND: The available statin drugs have similar pharmacodynamic properties but are not equal in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering efficacy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of lovastatin and fluvastatin in lowering LDL-C. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study of patients aged >20 years with primary hypercholesterolemia conducted at 44 clinical sites across the United States. After a 6-week National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step I diet lead-in period in patients taking lipid-lowering drugs at screening, patients were randomized to receive lovastatin 10, 20, or 40 mg/d or fluvastatin 20 or 40 mg/d (the doses available at the time the study was conducted) for 6 weeks. Patients not taking lipid-lowering drugs at screening and who had been following the Step I diet for at least 6 weeks proceeded to the treatment phase. All patients received instruction for a Step I diet, which they followed throughout the treatment phase. After the treatment period, total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), LDL-C, and triglycerides were measured, and TC:HDL-C and LDL-C:HDL-C ratios were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 838 patients (476 men, 362 women; mean [SD] age, 59 [12] years) were included in the study. Lovastatin 20 and 40 mg/d significantly reduced mean LDL-C compared with the same dosages of fluvastatin. TC and the LDL-C:HDL-C ratio decreased more with lovastatin than with fluvastatin at a given dose level. Approximately 50% of patients treated with lovastatin 20 and 40 mg/d compared with approximately 25% treated with fluvastatin 20 and 40 mg/d reached NCEP Adult Treatment Panel II LDL-C goals. CONCLUSION: In this small study population of patients with primary hypercholesterolemia taking lipid-lowering drugs, short-term (6-week) treatment with lovastatin was more efficacious than fluvastatin in lowering cholesterol levels and reaching LDL-C treatment goals.     

Association between apolipoprotein E polymorphism and coronary artery disease in the Kermanshah population in Iran

OBJECTIVE: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the major cause of death in developing countries, such as Iran. The apolipoprotein E gene (APOE) is considered an important genetic determinant of CAD. In this study, the relationship between APOE polymorphism with lipid variation in CAD patients in Kermanshah, Iran was investigated. METHODS: This case-control study consisted of 115 CAD patients who angiographically had at least 30% stenosis and 135 unrelated controls. APOE polymorphism was detected by PCR-RFLP and serum lipid level was measured enzymatically. RESULTS: The APOE-epsilon4 and -epsilon2 allele frequencies were significantly higher in the CAD patients than in the control group (P < 0.001). The CAD patients with epsilon3/epsilon4 genotype had also higher TC (P < 0.001) and LDL-C (P < 0.01) and lower HDL-C (P < 0.03) levels than that of the control group. CONCLUSIONS: APOE-epsilon4 allele is a risk factor for CAD, so that carriers of this allele with high levels of LDL-C may be susceptible to CAD and myocardial infarction.     

Metabolic effects of fluvastatin extended release 80 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and low serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels: a 4-month, prospective, open-label, randomized, blinded—end point (probe) trial

Background

Diabetic dyslipidemia is characterized by greater triglyceridation of all lipoproteins and low levels of plasma high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). In this condition, the serum level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is only slightly elevated. The central role of decreased serum HDL-C level in diabetic cardiovascular disease has prompted the establishment of a target of ≥50 mg/dL in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM).

Objective

The aim of the study was to assess the effects of once-daily administration of fluvastatin extended release (XL) 80 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg on serum HDL-C levels in patients with type 2 DM and low levels of serum HDL-C.

Methods

This 4-month, prospective, open-label, randomized, blinded—end point (PROBE) trial was conducted at Endocrinology and Diabetology Service, L. Sacco-Polo University Hospital (Milan, Italy). Patients aged 45 to 71 years with type 2 DM receiving standard oral antidiabetic therapy, with serum HDL-C levels <50 mg/dL, and with moderately high serum levels of LDL-C and triglycerides (TG) were enrolled. After 1 month of lifestyle modification and dietary intervention, patients who were still showing a decreased HDL-C level were randomized, using a 1:1 ratio, to receive fluvastatin XL 80-mg tablets or atorvastatin 20-mg tablets, for 3 months. Lipoprotein metabolism was assessed by measuring serum levels of LDL-C, HDL-C, TG, apolipoprotein (apo) A-I (the lipoprotein that carries HDL), and apo B (the lipoprotein that binds very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, intermediate-density lipoprotein, and LDL on a molar basis). Patients were assessed every 2 weeks for treatment compliance and subjective adverse events. Serum creatine phosphokinase and liver enzymes were assessed before the run-in period, at the start of the trial, and at 1 and 3 months during the study.

Results

One hundred patients were enrolled (50 patients per treatment group; fluvastatin XL group: 33 men, 17 women; mean [SD] age, 58 [12] years; atorvastatin group: 39 men, 11 women; mean [SD] age, 59 [11] years). In the fluvastatin group after 3 months of treatment, mean (SD) LDL-C decreased from 149 (33) to 95 (25) mg/dL (36%; P < 0.01), TG decreased from 437 (287) to 261 (164) mg/dL (40%; P < 0.01), and HDL-C increased from 41 (7) to 46 (10) mg/dL (12%; P < 0.05). In addition, apo A-I increased from 118 (18) to 124 (15) mg/dL (5%; P < 0.05) and apo B decreased from 139 (27) to 97 (19) mg/dL (30%; P < 0.05). In the atorvastatin group, LDL-C decreased from 141 (25) to 84 (23) mg/dL (40%; P < 0.01) and TG decreased from 411 (271) to 221 (87) mg/dL (46%; P < 0.01). Neither HDL-C (41 [7] vs 40 [6] mg/dL; 2%) nor apo A-I (117 [19] vs 114 [19] mg/dL; 3%) changed significantly. However, apo B decreased significantly, from 131 (20) to 92 (17) mg/dL (30%; P < 0.05). Mean changes in HDL-C (+5 [8] vs −1 [2] mg/dL; P < 0.01) and apo A-I (+6 [18] mg/dL vs −3 [21] mg/dL; P < 0.01) were significantly greater in the fluvastatin group than in the atorvastatin group, respectively. However, the decreases in LDL-C (54 [31] vs 57 [32] mg/ dL), TG (177 [219] vs 190 [65] mg/dL), and apo B (42 [26] vs 39 [14] mg/dL) were not significantly different between the fluvastatin and atorvastatin groups, respectively. No severe adverse events were reported.

Conclusions

Fluvastatin XL 80 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg achieved mean serum LDL-C (≤ 100 mg/dL) and apo B target levels (≤ 100 mg/dL) in the majority of this population of patients with type 2 DM, but mean serum HDL-C level was increased significantly only with fluvastatin—16 patients (32%) in the fluvastatin group compared with none in the atorvastatin group achieved HDL-C levels ≥50 mg/dL. The increase in HDL-C in the fluvastatin-treated patients was associated with an increase in apo A-I, suggesting a potential pleiotropic and selective effect in patients with low HDL-C levels.     

Effects of simvastatin 20 mg/d on serum lipid profiles in Japanese hyperlipidemic patients: A prospective, open-label pilot study

Background:

Hyperlipidemia is a major risk factor for ischemic heart disease. Hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (“statins”) (eg, simvastatin) are considered first-line cholesterol-lowering therapy because they are effective and well tolerated, even at high doses. Based on a literature search, no studies have been published concerning the effects of simvastatin 20 mg/d in Japanese patients who had not previously received lipid-lowering treatment.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical tolerability and effectiveness of simvastatin 20 mg/d in achieving the target lipid concentrations recommended in the 2002 Japan Atherosclerosis Society (JAS) guidelines in Japanese patients with hyperlipidemia.

Methods:

This prospective, open-label pilot study was conducted at Kashiwa Hospital, Jikei University School of Medicine, Kashiwa, Japan. Male and postmenopausal female patients aged ≥18 to 70 years with hyperlipidemia (total cholesterol [TC], ≥220 mg/dL; triglycerides [TG], 150-400 mg/dL) who had not received lipid-lowering medications for at least 6 months before the study were enrolled. Patients received simvastatin 20 mg PO QD for 4 weeks. Effectiveness was assessed using serum concentrations of TC, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), TG, and lipid peroxide, measured at 0 (baseline) and 4 weeks. Target serum TC and LDL-C concentrations as outlined by the JAS were as follows: category A, TC <240 mg/dL and LDL-C <160 mg/dL; category B1 and B2, TC <220 mg/dL and LDL-C <140 mg/dL; and category C, TC <200 mg/dL and LDL-C <120 mg/dL. A subanalysis of the correlation between baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and target achievement rates was conducted by baseline HDL-C concentration (<50 or ≥50 mg/dL). Tolerability was assessed using spontaneous reporting of adverse events and laboratory analysis, including liver function tests.

Results:

Twenty-two patients participated in the study (16 women, 6 men; mean [SD] age, 56.0 [8.0] years; mean [SD] body mass index, 23.6 [3.4] kg/m²). Mean serum TC, LDL-C, TG, and lipid peroxide concentrations significantly decreased from baseline (changes, −28.6%, −40.4%, −24.0%, and −14.5%, respectively; P < 0.001, <0.001, <0.001, and <0.01, respectively). The mean HDL-C concentration significantly increased from baseline (change, 7.2%; P < 0.001); the mean increase was significantly greater in patients with baseline HDL-C <50 mg/dL compared with those with baseline HDL-C ≥50 mg/dL (changes, 11.3% vs 4.4%; P < 0.05). Target TC and LDL-C concentrations were achieved in 90.9% of patients. No serious adverse events were observed, and liver enzyme and creatine kinase concentrations did not increase to above-normal values.

Conclusions:

The results of this study suggest that simvastatin 20 mg/d might be useful in the clinical treatment of hyperlipidemia in Japanese patients. The study drug was well tolerated.     

Hemostatic effects of atorvastatin versus simvastatin

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of simvastatin and atorvastatin on hemostatic parameters. METHODS: Sixty-one patients with primary hypercholesterolemia without coronary heart disease were treated with atorvastatin 10-20 mg/d or simvastatin 10-20 mg/d. At baseline, 4, 12, and 24 weeks, lipid levels such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), total cholesterol (TC), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), triglycerides (TGs), and hemostatic parameters such as platelet counts, partial thromboplastin time (PTT) prothrombin time (PT), and fibrinogen levels were measured. RESULTS: At 12 weeks, the doses of the statins were increased to 20 mg/d in 10 of 35 (28.5%) patients treated with atorvastatin and 18 of 26 (69.2%) patients treated with simvastatin when the target level of LDL-C (130 mg/dL) was not reached. Mean doses were atorvastatin 12.8 mg/d and simvastatin 16.9 mg/d. After 24 weeks, 5 patients (14.3%) in the atorvastatin group and 4 patients (15.3%) in the simvastatin group had not reached the goal. In patients with diabetes, target level (LDL-C <100 mg/dL) was not reached in 35.7% of patients in the atorvastatin group and 44.4% of patients in the simvastatin group. Both simvastatin and atorvastatin were effective in lowering TC and LDL-C levels (p < 0.001). Atorvastatin lowered TGs significantly (p < 0.01). Neither atorvastatin nor simvastatin significantly reduced VLDL-C levels. HDL-C levels increased with atorvastatin, but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. Platelet counts decreased with both statins nonsignificantly. Moreover, fibrinogen levels decreased with simvastatin and atorvastatin, but these reductions were significant only for simvastatin (p < 0.05). We detected prolongation of the PT with both drugs (p < 0.05); however, prolongation of the PTT was significant only with simvastatin (p < 0.001). Effectiveness of both statins on lipid and hemostatic parameters was dose related. Adverse effects were seen in 5 patients (14.2%) treated with atorvastatin and 3 patients (11.5%) treated with simvastatin. Elevations in serum transaminase levels >3 times the upper limit of normal and in creatine phosphokinase >5 times the upper limit of normal were not observed in any group. CONCLUSIONS: Atorvastatin was more effective than simvastatin on lipid parameters, although statistically insignificantly, while simvastatin produced more significant changes than atorvastatin on hemostatic parameters. The mean dose of simvastatin was greater than that of atorvastatin. Both statins had increased effects on lipid and hemostatic parameters when doses were increased. Atorvastatin and simvastatin were well tolerated. Different effects of statins on lipid levels and on coagulation parameters should be considered in patients with hypercholesterolemia and tendency to coagulation, especially in preventing thrombotic events. Further studies in larger trials are needed to confirm these observations.     

STATT: a titrate-to-goal study of simvastatin in Asian patients with coronary heart disease. Simvastatin Treats Asians to Target.

BACKGROUND: Most published studies on the use of lipid-lowering agents to treat hypercholesterolemia have focused on Western populations, with few data on Asian populations. OBJECTIVE: The Simvastatin Treats Asians to Target (STATT) study used a titrate-to-goal protocol to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of simvastatin 20 to 80 mg/d in the treatment of Asian patients with coronary heart disease. METHODS: This was a multicenter, open-label, uncontrolled, 14-week study in patients with coronary heart disease and serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels of 115-180 mg/dL and triglyceride levels of < or = 400 mg/dL. The dose of simvastatin was titrated from 20 to 80 mg/d to achieve the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) LDL-C target of < or = 100 mg/dL. The primary efficacy measure was the percentage of patients achieving the NCEP target. Among secondary measures were the percentage of patients achieving European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society/European Society of Hypertension target LDL-C levels of < or = 115 mg/dL and the percentage change from baseline in lipid parameters. Tolerability was assessed in terms of the overall incidence of adverse experiences and the incidences of the most commonly reported adverse experiences. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat analysis included 133 Asian patients (93 men, 40 women; mean age, 59.5 years), of whom 125 completed 14 weeks of therapy. Their mean blood pressure was 130.2/79.4 mm Hg. Overall, 104 (78.2%) patients treated with simvastatin achieved LDL-C levels < or = 100 mg/dL at week 14, and 125 (94.0%) achieved this target at some point during the study. Similarly, 122 (91.7%) patients achieved an LDL-C level < or = 115 mg/dL at week 14, and 130 (97.7%) achieved this target at some point during the study. Treatment with simvastatin had favorable effects on the lipid profile, producing significant percentage changes from baseline in all parameters (P < 0.001). Simvastatin was well tolerated across the dose range. Overall, 40 patients (30.1%) had > or = 1 clinical adverse experience. Only 14 (10.5%) had adverse experiences that were possibly, probably, or definitely related to study drug; none of these experiences were considered serious. The most common adverse experiences (> or = 3% incidence) were abdominal pain (6%); chest pain (5%); dizziness (4%); and asthenia/fatigue, fibromyalgia, headache, insomnia, and upper respiratory tract infection (3% each). No new or unexpected adverse experiences were seen at the higher doses. CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin was effective and well tolerated at doses of 20, 40, and 80 mg/d in Asian patients with coronary heart disease. Titration enabled the majority to achieve target LDL-C levels of < or = 100 mg/dL.