Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab in Individuals with Diabetes Mellitus:Pooled Analyses from Five Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Studies

Introduction: Diabetes mellitus (DM) carries an elevated risk for cardiovascular disease. Here, we assessed alirocumab efficacy and safety in people with/without DM from five placebo-controlled phase 3 studies. Methods: Data from up to 78 weeks were analyzed in individuals on maximally tolerated background statin. In three studies, alirocumab 75 mg every 2 weeks (Q2W) was increased to 150 mg Q2W at week 12 if week 8 low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was ≥ 70 mg/dL; two studies used alirocumab 150 mg Q2W throughout. The primary endpoint was percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 24. Results: In the alirocumab 150 mg pool (n = 2416), baseline LDL-C levels were 117.4 mg/dL (DM) and 130.6 mg/dL (without DM), and in the 75/150 mg pool (n = 1043) 112.8 mg/dL (DM) and 133.0 mg/dL (without DM). In the 150 mg Q2W group, week 24 LDL-C reductions from baseline were observed in persons with DM (− 59.9%; placebo, − 1.4%) and without DM (− 60.6%; placebo, + 1.5%); 77.7% (DM) and 76.8% (without DM) of subjects achieved LDL-C < 70 mg/dL. In the alirocumab 75/150 mg group, 26% (DM) and 36% (without DM) of subjects received dose increase. In this group, week 24 LDL-C levels changed from baseline by − 43.8% (DM; placebo, + 0.3%) and − 49.7% (without DM; placebo, + 5.1%); LDL-C < 70 mg/dL was achieved by 68.3% and 65.8% of individuals, respectively. At week 24, alirocumab was also associated with improved levels of other lipids. Adverse event rates were generally comparable in all groups (79.8–82.0%). Conclusions: Regardless of DM status, alirocumab significantly reduced LDL-C levels; safety was generally similar. Funding Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Plain Language Summary Plain language summary available for this article. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13300-018-0439-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Adverse effects of statin therapy: perception vs. the evidence - focus on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, haemorrhagic stroke and cataract

Aims: To objectively appraise evidence for possible adverse effects of long-term statin therapy on glucose homeostasis, cognitive, renal and hepatic function, and risk for haemorrhagic stroke or cataract. Methods and results: A literature search covering 2000-2017 was performed. The Panel critically appraised the data and agreed by consensus on the categorization of reported adverse effects. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and genetic studies show that statin therapy is associated with a modest increase in the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus (about one per thousand patient-years), generally defined by laboratory findings (glycated haemoglobin ≥6.5); this risk is significantly higher in the metabolic syndrome or prediabetes. Statin treatment does not adversely affect cognitive function, even at very low levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and is not associated with clinically significant deterioration of renal function, or development of cataract. Transient increases in liver enzymes occur in 0.5-2% of patients taking statins but are not clinically relevant; idiosyncratic liver injury due to statins is very rare and causality difficult to prove. The evidence base does not support an increased risk of haemorrhagic stroke in individuals without cerebrovascular disease; a small increase in risk was suggested by the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction of Cholesterol Levels study in subjects with prior stroke but has not been confirmed in the substantive evidence base of RCTs, cohort studies and case-control studies. Conclusion: Long-term statin treatment is remarkably safe with a low risk of clinically relevant adverse effects as defined above; statin-associated muscle symptoms were discussed in a previous Consensus Statement. Importantly, the established cardiovascular benefits of statin therapy far outweigh the risk of adverse effects

Serial detection of circulating tumour cells by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction assays is a marker for poor outcome in patients with malignant melanoma

BACKGROUND: Detection of circulating malignant cells (CMCs) through a reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay seems to be a demonstration of systemic disease. We here evaluated the prognostic role of RT-PCR assays in serially-taken peripheral blood samples from patients with malignant melanoma (MM). METHODS: One hundred forty-nine melanoma patients with disease stage ranging from I to III were consecutively collected in 1997. A multi-marker RT-PCR assay was used on peripheral blood samples obtained at time of diagnosis and every 6 months during the first two years of follow-up (total: 5 samples). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed after 83 months of median follow-up. RESULTS: Detection of at least one circulating mRNA marker was considered a signal of the presence of CMC (referred to as PCR-positive assay). A significant correlation was found between the rate of recurrences and the increasing number of PCR-positive assays (P = 0.007). Presence of CMC in a high number (≥2) of analysed blood samples was significantly correlated with a poor clinical outcome (disease-free survival: P = 0.019; overall survival: P = 0.034). Multivariate analysis revealed that presence of a PCR-positive status does play a role as independent prognostic factors for overall survival in melanoma patients, adding precision to the predictive power of the disease stage. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that serial RT-PCR assay may identify a high risk subset of melanoma patients with occult cancer cells constantly detected in blood circulation. Prolonged presence of CMCs seems to act as a surrogate marker of disease progression or a sign of more aggressive disease

Triglyceride lowering with pemafibrate to reduce cardiovascular risk

BACKGROUND: High triglyceride levels are associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but whether reductions in these levels would lower the incidence of cardiovascular events is uncertain. Pemafibrate, a selective peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor α modulator, reduces triglyceride levels and improves other lipid levels. METHODS: In a multinational, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride level, 200 to 499 mg per deciliter), and high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels of 40 mg per deciliter or lower to receive pemafibrate (0.2-mg tablets twice daily) or matching placebo. Eligible patients were receiving guideline-directed lipid-lowering therapy or could not receive statin therapy without adverse effects and had low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels of 100 mg per deciliter or lower. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, coronary revascularization, or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS: Among 10,497 patients (66.9% with previous cardiovascular disease), the median baseline fasting triglyceride level was 271 mg per deciliter, HDL cholesterol level 33 mg per deciliter, and LDL cholesterol level 78 mg per deciliter. The median follow-up was 3.4 years. As compared with placebo, the effects of pemafibrate on lipid levels at 4 months were -26.2% for triglycerides, -25.8% for very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) cholesterol, -25.6% for remnant cholesterol (cholesterol transported in triglyceride-rich lipoproteins after lipolysis and lipoprotein remodeling), -27.6% for apolipoprotein C-III, and 4.8% for apolipoprotein B. A primary end-point event occurred in 572 patients in the pemafibrate group and in 560 of those in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.91 to 1.15), with no apparent effect modification in any prespecified subgroup. The overall incidence of serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups, but pemafibrate was associated with a higher incidence of adverse renal events and venous thromboembolism and a lower incidence of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes, mild-to-moderate hypertriglyceridemia, and low HDL and LDL cholesterol levels, the incidence of cardiovascular events was not lower among those who received pemafibrate than among those who received placebo, although pemafibrate lowered triglyceride, VLDL cholesterol, remnant cholesterol, and apolipoprotein C-III levels. (Funded by the Kowa Research Institute; PROMINENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03071692.)