SWITCHING FROM STATIN MONOTHERAPY TO EZETIMIBE/SIMVASTATIN OR ROSUVASTATIN MODIFIES THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN APOLIPOPROTEIN B, LDL CHOLESTEROL, ANC NON-HDL CHOLETEROL IN PATIENTS AT HIGH RISK OF CORONARY DISEASE

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate relationships between apolipoprotein B (Apo B), LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), and non-HDL-C in high-risk patients treated with lipid-lowering therapy. DESIGN AND METHODS: This post-hoc analysis calculated LDL-C and non-HDL-C levels corresponding to an Apo B of 0.9 g/L following treatment with 1) statin monotherapy (baseline) and 2) ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20mg or rosuvastatin 10mg (study end). The percentages of patients reaching LDL-C, non-HDL-C, and Apo B targets were calculated at study end. RESULTS: After switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin or rosuvastatin, the LDL-C and non-HDL-C corresponding to Apo B=0.9 g/L were closer to the more aggressive LDL-C and non-HDL-C goals (1.81 and 2.59 mmol/L, respectively). Only slightly >50% of the patients who reached minimum recommended LDL-C or non-HDL-C at study end also had an Apo B level <0.9 g/L with both treatments. CONCLUSION: The use of Apo B for monitoring the efficacy of lipid-altering therapy would likely lead to more stringent criteria for lipid lowering

Randomized multicenter comparison of conventional anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy in unplanned and elective coronary stenting. The full anticoagulation versus aspirin and ticlopidine (fantastic) study.

BACKGROUND: Dual therapy with ticlopidine and aspirin has been shown to be as effective as or more effective than conventional anticoagulation in patients with an optimal result after implantation of intracoronary metallic stents. However, the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy alone in an unselected population has not been evaluated. METHODS: Patients were randomized to conventional anticoagulation or to treatment with antiplatelet therapy alone. Indications for stenting were classified as elective (decided before the procedure) or unplanned (to salvage failed angioplasty or to optimize the results of balloon angioplasty). After stenting, patients received aspirin and either ticlopidine or conventional anticoagulation (heparin or oral anticoagulant). The primary end point was the occurrence of bleeding or peripheral vascular complications; secondary end points were cardiac events (death, infarction, or stent occlusion) and duration of hospitalization. RESULTS: In 13 centers, 236 patients were randomized to anticoagulation and 249 to antiplatelet therapy. Stenting was elective in 58% of patients and unplanned in 42%. Stent implantation was successfully achieved in 99% of patients. A primary end point occurred in 33 patients (13.5%) in the antiplatelet group and 48 patients (21%) in the anticoagulation group (odds ratio=0.6 [95% CI 0.36 to 0.98], P=0.03). Major cardiac-related events in electively stented patients were less common (odds ratio=0.23 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.91], P=0.01) in the antiplatelet group (3 of 123, 2.4%) than the anticoagulation group (11 of 111, 9.9%). Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the antiplatelet group (4.3+/-3.6 versus 6. 4+/-3.7 days, P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting significantly reduced rates of bleeding and subacute stent occlusion compared with conventional anticoagulation

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

Lipid-altering efficacy of ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg compared with rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients inadequately controlled with prior statin monotherapy - The IN-CROSS study.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy of switching from a previous statin monotherapy to ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/20 mg vs. rosuvastatin (ROSUVA) 10 mg. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind study, 618 patients with documented hypercholesterolaemia [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) > or = 2.59 and or = 6 weeks prior to the study randomisation visit entered a 6-week open-label stabilisation/screening period during which they continued to receive their prestudy statin dose. Following stratification by study site and statin dose/potency, patients were randomised to EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg (n = 314) or ROSUVA 10 mg (n = 304) for 6 weeks. RESULTS: EZE/SIMVA produced greater reductions in LDL-C (-27.7% vs. -16.9%; p < or = 0.001), total cholesterol (-17.5% vs. -10.3%; p < or = 0.001), non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) (-23.4% vs. -14.0%; p < or = 0.001) and apolipoprotein B (-17.9% vs. -9.8%; p < or = 0.001) compared with ROSUVA, while both treatments were equally effective at increasing HDL-C (2.1% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.433). More patients achieved LDL-C levels < 2.59 mmol/l (73% vs. 56%), < 2.00 mmol/l (38% vs. 19%) and < 1.81 mmol/l (25% vs. 11%) with EZE/SIMVA than ROSUVA (p < or = 0.001). A borderline significantly greater reduction in triglycerides (p = 0.056) was observed for EZE/SIMVA (-11.0%) vs. ROSUVA (-5.3%). There were no between-group differences in the incidences of adverse events or liver transaminase and creatine kinase elevations. CONCLUSION: EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg produced greater improvements in LDL-C, total cholesterol, non-HDL-C and apoB with a similar safety profile as for ROSUVA 10 mg

Lipid-altering efficacy of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg versus rosuvastatin 10 mg in high-risk patients with and without metabolic syndrome

Metabolic syndrome (MetS) is a clustering of atherosclerotic coronary heart disease risk factors. This post-hoc analysis compared the effects of switching to ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg in a cohort of 618 high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients with (n=368) and without (n=217) MetS who had previously been on statin monotherapy. Patients were randomised 1:1 to double-blind ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/20 mg or rosuvastatin 10 mg for 6 weeks. Least squares mean percent change from baseline and 95% confidence intervals in lipid efficacy parameters were calculated for the population and within subgroups. Treatment with ezetimibe/simvastatin was significantly more effective than rosuvastatin at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, non- high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B (all p<0.001). No significant differences in treatment effects were seen between the presence and absence of MetS. In this post-hoc analysis of high-risk hypercholesterolaemic patients the lipid-reducing effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin or rosuvastatin were not altered significantly by the presence of MetS