51 research outputs found
Are post-treatment low-density lipoprotein subclass pattern analyses potentially misleading?
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Some patients administered cholesterol-lowering therapies may experience an increase in the proportion of small LDL particles, which may be misinterpreted as a worsening of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk. This study assessed the lipid effects of adding ezetimibe to atorvastatin or doubling the atorvastatin dose on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels (and the cholesterol content of LDL subclasses), LDL particle number (approximated by apolipoprotein B), and LDL particle size. This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group study of hypercholesterolemic, high atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk patients. After stabilization of atorvastatin 40 mg, 579 patients with LDL-C >70 mg/dL were randomized to 6 weeks of ezetimibe + atorvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg. Efficacy parameters included changes from baseline in LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), and lipoprotein subclasses (Vertical Auto Profile II) and pattern for the overall population, as well as patient subgroups with baseline triglyceride levels <150 mg/dL or â„150 mg/dL.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both treatments significantly reduced LDL-C (and the cholesterol content of most LDL subfractions [LDL<sub>1-4</sub>]) apolipoprotein B, non-HDL-C levels, but did not reduce the proportion of smaller, more dense LDL particles; in fact, the proportion of Pattern B was numerically increased. Results were generally similar in patients with triglyceride levels <150 or â„150 mg/dL.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>When assessing the effects of escalating cholesterol-lowering therapy, effects upon Pattern B alone to assess coronary heart disease risk may be misleading when interpreted without considerations of other lipid effects, such as reductions in LDL-C, atherogenic lipoprotein particle concentration, and non-HDL-C levels.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>(Registered at clinicaltrials.gov: Clinical trial # NCT00276484)</p
The effect of gefapixant, a P2X3 antagonist, on cough reflex sensitivity: A randomised placebo-controlled study
We evaluated the effect of gefapixant on cough reflex sensitivity to evoked tussive challenge.In this phase 2, double-blind, two-period study, patients with chronic cough (CC) and healthy volunteers (HV) were randomised to single-dose gefapixant 100â
mg or placebo in a crossover fashion. Sequential inhalational challenges with ATP, citric acid, capsaicin and distilled water were performed 1, 3 and 5â
h after dosing. Mean concentrations evoking â„2 coughs (C2) and â„5 coughs (C5) post dose versus baseline were co-primary endpoints. Objective cough frequency (coughs·hâ1) over 24â
h and a cough severity visual analogue scale (VAS) were assessed in CC patients. Adverse events were monitored.24 CC patients and 12 HV were randomised (mean age 61 and 38â
years, respectively). The cough challenge threshold increased for ATP by 4.7-fold (C2, pâ€0.001) and 3.7-fold (C5, p=0.007) for gefapixant versus placebo in CC patients; in HV, C2 and C5 increased 2.4-fold (C2, p=0.113; C5, p=0.003). The distilled water C2 and C5 thresholds increased significantly (
Relationships Between Metabolic Syndrome and Other Baseline Factors and the Efficacy of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin and Atorvastatin in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Hypercholesterolemia
Effect on Fasting Serum Glucose Levels of Adding Ezetimibe to Statins in Patients With Nondiabetic Hypercholesterolemia
n/
Influence of metabolic syndrome factors and insulin resistance on the efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin and atorvastatin in patients with metabolic syndrome and atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk
Reduction in Total Cardiovascular Events With Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome The IMPROVE-IT Trial
AbstractBackgroundIntensive low-density lipoprotein cholesterol therapy with ezetimibe/simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) significantly reduced the first primary endpoint (PEP) in patients post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to placebo/simvastatin.ObjectivesThis analysis tested the hypothesis that total events, including those beyond the first event, would also be reduced with ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy.MethodsAll PEP events (cardiovascular [CV] death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, unstable angina [UA] leading to hospitalization, coronary revascularization â„30 days post-randomization) during a median 6-year follow-up were analyzed in patients randomized to receive ezetimibe/simvastatin or placebo/simvastatin in IMPROVE-IT. Negative binomial regression was used for the primary analysis.ResultsAmong 18,144 patients, there were 9,545 total PEP events (56% were first events and 44% subsequent events). Total PEP events were significantly reduced by 9% with ezetimibe/simvastatin vs placebo/simvastatin (incidence-rate ratio [RR]: 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 0.97; p = 0.007), as were the 3 pre-specified secondary composite endpoints and the exploratory composite endpoint of CV death, MI, or stroke (RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81 to 0.96; p = 0.002). The reduction in total events was driven by decreases in total nonfatal MI (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.96; p = 0.004) and total NF stroke (RR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.93; p = 0.005).ConclusionsLipid-lowering therapy with ezetimibe plus simvastatin improved clinical outcomes. Reductions in total PEP events, driven by reductions in MI and stroke, more than doubled the number of events prevented compared with examining only the first event. These data support continuation of intensive combination lipid-lowering therapy after an initial CV event. (IMProved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial [IMPROVE-IT]; NCT00202878
Recommended from our members
Competing Risks of Cardiovascular Versus Noncardiovascular Death During LongâTerm FollowâUp After Acute Coronary Syndromes
Background: Understanding the relative risk of cardiovascular versus noncardiovascular death is important for designing clinical trials. These risks may differ depending on patient age, sex, and type of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Methods and Results: IMPROVEâIT (Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial) was a randomized controlled trial of simvastatin plus either ezetimibe or placebo following stabilized ACS. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent committee. We compared the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death for patients with unstable angina/nonâSTâsegment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) and STâsegment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), in those <65 and â„65 years old, and males and females, over 7 years of followâup. Of 18 131 patients, the presenting event was STEMI for 5190 (29%) and UA/NSTEMI for 12 941 (71%); 10 173 (56%) patients were <65 years old and 7971 (44%) were â„65 years old at presentation. UA/NSTEMI patients were older than STEMI patients, with more cardiovascular and noncardiovascular risk factors. In STEMI patients, the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death was higher for âŒ4 years following the index event, after which noncardiovascular death predominated. In UA/NSTEMI patients, the cumulative incidence of cardiovascular death remained higher than noncardiovascular death over the full followâup period. Patients â„65 years old and <65 years old had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death than noncardiovascular death over the entirety of followâup. Female patients had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death than noncardiovascular death for âŒ6 years following the index event; male patients had a higher incidence of cardiovascular death than noncardiovascular death over the entirety of followâup. Conclusions: Among postâACS patients enrolled in a longâterm clinical trial, the relative incidence of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death differed based on type of ACS presentation and sex, but not age. These findings further delineate longâterm prognosis after ACS and should inform the design of future cardiovascular outcomes trials
Atorvastatin 10Â mg plus ezetimibe versus titration to atorvastatin 40Â mg: attainment of European and Canadian guideline lipid targets in high-risk subjects â„65Â years
Time-related trends in variability of cIMT changes in statin trials
This brief article provides complementary data supporting the results reported in âChanging Characteristics of Statin-related cIMT Trials from 1988 to 2006â [1]. That article described time-related trends in baseline factors and study characteristics that may have influenced the variability of carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) endpoints (mean of mean and maximum common carotid artery [CCA]/cIMT) in published statin trials. In this brief report, additional details for the studies included in the analysis, and further supporting data, including mean of the maximum CCA/cIMT changes and subgroup data (mean and maximum CCA/cIMT) are provided. For the analysis, study-level data was extracted from 17 statin cIMT trials conducted during 1988â2006, selected on the basis of having at least one statin monotherapy arm in the absence of mixed therapy, and baseline- and study-end values for mean mean and mean maximum CCA/cIMT endpoints. The baseline mean CCA/cIMT, maximum mean CCA/cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized cIMT changes were estimated for the overall studies, those conducted before/after 2000, and in risk-based subgroups. Interestingly, all 8 studies conducted before 2000 were significant for cIMT change in which patients did not receive prior LLT; whereas after 2000, the results were more variable and in 4 of 6 trials that did not show a significant cIMT change, patients had received prior treatment. Baseline mean maximum cIMT and LDL-C levels, and annualized changes in studies conducted before 2000 were higher than those conducted after 2000, similar to the results reported in the original article for the mean mean cIMT endpoint. These findings were consistent across study populations of patients with CHD risk versus those without, and in studies with greater LDL-C reductions and with thickened baseline cIMT at study entry for both mean and maximum cIMT changes. Taken together, these results are consistent with trends in recent years toward greater use of lipid-lowering therapy and control of LDL-C that may have impacted the variability in the results of cIMT studies
- âŠ