Efficacy and Safety of Alirocumab as Add-on Therapy in High–Cardiovascular-Risk Patients With Hypercholesterolemia Not Adequately Controlled With Atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg) or Rosuvastatin (10 or 20 mg)::Design and Rationale of the ODYSSEY OPTIONS Studies

The phase 3 ODYSSEY OPTIONS studies (OPTIONS I, NCT01730040; OPTIONS II, NCT01730053) are multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, 24-week studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of alirocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, as add-on therapy in ∼ 650 high-cardiovascular (CV)-risk patients whose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are ≥100 mg/dL or ≥70 mg/dL according to the CV-risk category, high and very high CV risk, respectively, with atorvastatin (20–40 mg/d) or rosuvastatin (10–20 mg/d). Patients are randomized to receive alirocumab 75 mg via a single, subcutaneous, 1-mL injection by prefilled pen every 2 weeks (Q2W) as add-on therapy to atorvastatin (20–40 mg) or rosuvastatin (10–20 mg); or to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/d as add-on therapy to statin; or to receive statin up-titration; or to switch from atorvastatin to rosuvastatin (OPTIONS I only). At week 12, based on week 8 LDL-C levels, the alirocumab dose may be increased from 75 mg to 150 mg Q2W if LDL-C levels remain ≥100 mg/dL or ≥70 mg/dL in patients with high or very high CV risk, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint in both studies is difference in percent change in calculated LDL-C from baseline to week 24 in the alirocumab vs control arms. The studies may provide guidance to inform clinical decision-making when patients with CV risk require additional lipid-lowering therapy to further reduce LDL-C levels. The flexibility of the alirocumab dosing regimen allows for individualized therapy based on the degree of LDL-C reduction required to achieve the desired LDL-C level

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 ≥150 mg/dL.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both treatments significantly reduced LDL-C (and the cholesterol content of most LDL subfractions [LDL_1-4]) 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 ≥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

Safety and Efficacy of Long-Term Co-Administration of Fenofibrate and Ezetimibe in Patients With Mixed Hyperlipidemia

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of co-administered fenofibrate (FENO) and ezetimibe (EZE) in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.BackgroundBoth EZE and FENO offer complementary benefits to the lipid profile of patients with mixed hyperlipidemia.MethodsAfter completing the 12-week randomized, double-blind base study that compared EZE 10 mg, FENO 160 mg, FENO 160 mg plus EZE 10 mg, and placebo in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia, patients continued into a double-blind, 48-week extension phase. Those patients in the FENO plus EZE and FENO groups continued on their respective base study treatment, and patients in the EZE and placebo groups were switched to FENO plus EZE and FENO, respectively.ResultsOf the 587 patients who completed the base study, 576 continued into the extension study (n = 340 in FENO plus EZE and n = 236 in FENO). The FENO plus EZE produced significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol compared with FENO (−22% vs. −9%, respectively; p < 0.001). There were also significantly greater improvements in triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol, non–HDL-C, and apolipoprotein B with FENO plus EZE compared with FENO. Changes in apolipoprotein A-I and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were similar between groups. Overall, FENO plus EZE was well tolerated during the extension study. The proportion of patients with consecutive elevations of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase ≥3 times upper limit of normal were similar between the FENO plus EZE (1.2%) and FENO (1.7%) groups. No cases of creatine phosphokinase elevations ≥10 times upper limit of normal or myopathy were observed in either group.ConclusionsLong-term, 48-week co-administration of FENO plus EZE was well tolerated and more efficacious than FENO in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia

Continued Treatment With Tirzepatide for Maintenance of Weight Reduction in Adults With Obesity: The SURMOUNT-4 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effect of continued treatment with tirzepatide on maintaining initial weight reduction is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of tirzepatide, with diet and physical activity, on the maintenance of weight reduction. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This phase 3, randomized withdrawal clinical trial conducted at 70 sites in 4 countries with a 36-week, open-label tirzepatide lead-in period followed by a 52-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled period included adults with a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 or greater than or equal to 27 and a weight-related complication, excluding diabetes. INTERVENTIONS: Participants (n = 783) enrolled in an open-label lead-in period received once-weekly subcutaneous maximum tolerated dose (10 or 15 mg) of tirzepatide for 36 weeks. At week 36, a total of 670 participants were randomized (1:1) to continue receiving tirzepatide (n = 335) or switch to placebo (n = 335) for 52 weeks. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the mean percent change in weight from week 36 (randomization) to week 88. Key secondary end points included the proportion of participants at week 88 who maintained at least 80% of the weight loss during the lead-in period. RESULTS: Participants (n = 670; mean age, 48 years; 473 [71%] women; mean weight, 107.3 kg) who completed the 36-week lead-in period experienced a mean weight reduction of 20.9%. The mean percent weight change from week 36 to week 88 was -5.5% with tirzepatide vs 14.0% with placebo (difference, -19.4% [95% CI, -21.2% to -17.7%]; P \u3c .001). Overall, 300 participants (89.5%) receiving tirzepatide at 88 weeks maintained at least 80% of the weight loss during the lead-in period compared with 16.6% receiving placebo (P \u3c .001). The overall mean weight reduction from week 0 to 88 was 25.3% for tirzepatide and 9.9% for placebo. The most common adverse events were mostly mild to moderate gastrointestinal events, which occurred more commonly with tirzepatide vs placebo. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In participants with obesity or overweight, withdrawing tirzepatide led to substantial regain of lost weight, whereas continued treatment maintained and augmented initial weight reduction

Bempedoic acid safety analysis: Pooled data from four phase 3 clinical trials

Background An ongoing need exists for safe and effective lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) for patients unable to achieve desired lipid levels with current treatment options. Objective The objective of this study was to describe the safety profile of bempedoic acid, an oral, first-in-class, adenosine triphosphate (ATP)–citrate lyase inhibitor that significantly reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels by 17.4%–28.5% vs placebo. Methods This was a pooled analysis of four phase 3, randomized (2:1), double-blind, placebo-controlled studies in patients with hypercholesterolemia who required additional LDL-C lowering, despite stable maximally-tolerated LLT. Patients received 180 mg of bempedoic acid (n = 2424) or placebo (n = 1197) once daily for 12 to 52 weeks. Assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and clinical laboratory tests. Results Of 3621 patients (the median drug exposure: 363 days), exposure-adjusted TEAE rates were 87.1/100 and 82.9/100 person-years (PY) for bempedoic acid and placebo, respectively. No single TEAE influenced the difference in rates. TEAEs leading to discontinuation occurred at rates of 13.4/100 and 8.9/100 PY for bempedoic acid vs placebo, with the most common cause being myalgia, which occurred less frequently with bempedoic acid vs placebo (1.5/100 vs 2.0/100 PY). Rates of myalgia and muscle weakness were comparable vs placebo. Bempedoic acid was associated with mild increases in blood urea nitrogen, creatinine, and uric acid and decreases in hemoglobin. These laboratory abnormalities were apparent by week 4, stable over time, and reversible after treatment cessation. Gout incidence was 1.6/100 vs 0.5/100 PY in the bempedoic acid vs placebo groups. New-onset diabetes/hyperglycemia occurred less frequently with bempedoic acid vs placebo (4.7/100 vs 6.4/100 PY). The safety profile was consistent across subgroups. Conclusions Bempedoic acid is generally safe and well tolerated among patients with hypercholesterolemia who require additional LLT

Icosapent ethyl, a pure EPA omega-3 fatty acid: Effects on lipoprotein particle concentration and size in patients with very high triglyceride levels (the MARINE

BACKGROUND: Icosapent ethyl (IPE; formerly AMR101) is a high-purity prescription form of eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester. In the MARINE study we evaluated the efficacy and safety of IPE in patients with very high triglycerides (TG; $500 mg/dL) and previously demonstrated significant reductions in TG levels with no significant increases in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. OBJECTIVES: In this follow-up, exploratory analysis, we report the effects of IPE on lipoprotein particle concentration and size. METHODS: MARINE was a phase 3, multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, 12-week study. Hypertriglyceridemic patients (N 5 229) were randomized to three treatment groups: IPE 4 g/day, IPE 2 g/day, or placebo. Lipoprotein particle concentrations and sizes were measured by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, IPE 4 g/day significantly reduced median concentrations of large very-low-density lipoprotein (VLDL; 227.9$500 mg/dL, IPE did not significantly change the overall sizes of LDL or HDL particles. CONCLUSION: IPE 4 g/day significantly reduced large VLDL, total LDL, small LDL, and total HDL particle concentrations and VLDL particle size in patients with TG $500 mg/dL. Changes in VLDL particle concentration and size reflect the TG-lowering effects of eicosapentaenoic acid. The reduction in LDL particle concentration with IPE is novel among u-3 therapies and is consistent with the previously reported reduction in apolipoprotein B and lack of LDL-C increase with IPE in patients with very high TG levels. Clinical trial registration number: NCT01047683

Original Articles National Lipid Association recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia: Part 1 -executive summary E M B A R G O E D

Abstract: Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. Although many commonalities exist among them, material differences are present as well. The leadership of the National Lipid Association (NLA) convened an Expert Panel to develop a consensus set of recommendations for patient-centered management of dyslipidemia in clinical medicine. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel and includes: (1) background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; (2) screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; (3) targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; (4) atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; (5) atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol-as the primary targets of therapy; and (6) lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia. Ó 2014 National Lipid Association. All rights reserved. Various organizations and agencies have issued recommendations for the management of dyslipidemia. The current Executive Summary highlights the major conclusions in Part 1 of the recommendations report of the NLA Expert Panel. The Executive Summary does not include a comprehensive reference list, but citations have been included for several key publications. The full report will include additional details on the rationale for the recommendations and citations to published research considered in the panel&apos;s deliberations. A presentation containing the main elements of these recommendations was made available to the public and other organizations involved with the prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) to solicit input during an open comment period. Comments and suggestions were received from many members of the NLA as well as other individuals and organizations and were collated for consideration and adjudication by the panel in formulating the final set of recommendations contained herein. Part 1 of the NLA Expert Panel Recommendations for Patient-Centered Management of Dyslipidemia, will cover: Background and conceptual framework for formulation of the NLA Expert Panel recommendations; Screening and classification of lipoprotein lipid levels in adults; Targets for intervention in dyslipidemia management; ASCVD risk assessment and treatment goals based on risk category; Atherogenic cholesterol-non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-as the primary targets of therapy; and Lifestyle and drug therapies intended to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with dyslipidemia