+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found

      Efficacy of Ezetimibe/Simvastatin 10/40 mg Compared to Doubling the Dose of Low-, Medium- and High-Potency Statin Monotherapy in Patients with a Recent Coronary Event

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy/safety of doubling the dose of low-, medium- and high-potency statins on lipids/lipoproteins versus ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) 10/40 mg in patients with a recent coronary event. Methods: In this open-label study, patients were stratified by baseline statin therapy (low, medium and high potency) and randomized equally to statin dose doubling or EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg for 12 weeks. Primary analysis concerned change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol for the whole population. Treatment-by-stratum interaction evaluated the consistency of treatment effect across statin potency strata. Post hoc analysis of between-group efficacy within strata was performed using ANCOVA. Results: Within each stratum, EZE/SIMVA produced significantly greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol, apolipoprotein B and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) compared to statin doubling. Numerical trends toward smaller between-group reductions were observed with higher-potency statins and reached statistical significance for apolipoprotein B and non-HDL-C. No significant between-group differences in HDL-C and C-reactive protein were observed within each stratum. EZE/SIMVA produced larger reductions in triglycerides versus low-potency statin, whereas it was similarly effective compared with intermediate-/high-potency statins. The safety/tolerability profiles of the treatments were similar across the strata. Conclusions: EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg produced greater improvements in lipids with a similar safety profile compared to doubling the dose of low-, medium- and high-potency statins.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary: Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (Constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts).

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial.

            Evidence suggests that more intensive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) than is commonly applied clinically will provide further benefit in stable coronary artery disease. To compare the effects of 2 strategies of lipid lowering on the risk of cardiovascular disease among patients with a previous myocardial infarction (MI). The IDEAL study, a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded end-point evaluation trial conducted at 190 ambulatory cardiology care and specialist practices in northern Europe between March 1999 and March 2005 with a median follow-up of 4.8 years, which enrolled 8888 patients aged 80 years or younger with a history of acute MI. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a high dose of atorvastatin (80 mg/d; n = 4439), or usual-dose simvastatin (20 mg/d; n = 4449). Occurrence of a major coronary event, defined as coronary death, confirmed nonfatal acute MI, or cardiac arrest with resuscitation. During treatment, mean LDL-C levels were 104 (SE, 0.3) mg/dL in the simvastatin group and 81 (SE, 0.3) mg/dL in the atorvastatin group. A major coronary event occurred in 463 simvastatin patients (10.4%) and in 411 atorvastatin patients (9.3%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78-1.01; P = .07). Nonfatal acute MI occurred in 321 (7.2%) and 267 (6.0%) in the 2 groups (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; P = .02), but no differences were seen in the 2 other components of the primary end point. Major cardiovascular events occurred in 608 and 533 in the 2 groups, respectively (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.98; P = .02). Occurrence of any coronary event was reported in 1059 simvastatin and 898 atorvastatin patients (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P<.001). Noncardiovascular death occurred in 156 (3.5%) and 143 (3.2%) in the 2 groups (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.73-1.15; P = .47). Death from any cause occurred in 374 (8.4%) in the simvastatin group and 366 (8.2%) in the atorvastatin group (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.13; P = .81). Patients in the atorvastatin group had higher rates of drug discontinuation due to nonserious adverse events; transaminase elevation resulted in 43 (1.0%) vs 5 (0.1%) withdrawals (P<.001). Serious myopathy and rhabdomyolysis were rare in both groups. In this study of patients with previous MI, intensive lowering of LDL-C did not result in a significant reduction in the primary outcome of major coronary events, but did reduce the risk of other composite secondary end points and nonfatal acute MI. There were no differences in cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Patients with MI may benefit from intensive lowering of LDL-C without an increase in noncardiovascular mortality or other serious adverse reactions.Trial Registration Identifier: NCT00159835.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Results of the National Cholesterol Education (NCEP) Program Evaluation ProjecT Utilizing Novel E-Technology (NEPTUNE) II survey and implications for treatment under the recent NCEP Writing Group recommendations.

              The most recent national survey of compliance with the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Adult Treatment Panel (ATP) guidelines was completed before ATP III and showed significant underachievement of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goals. The NCEP Evaluation ProjecT Utilizing Novel E-Technology (NEPTUNE) II was a national survey conducted in 2003. Of the 4,885 patients, 67% achieved their LDL cholesterol treatment goal, including 89%, 76%, and 57%, respectively, in the 0 or 1 risk factor, > or = 2 risk factors or coronary heart disease (CHD), and CHD risk equivalent categories. The percentage with triglyceride concentrations > or = 200 mg/dl (2.25 mmol/L) in each risk category who achieved their LDL cholesterol and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol goals was 64%, 52%, and 27%, respectively. Patients with diabetes (55%) and other CHD risk equivalents (40%) were less likely to have achieved their LDL cholesterol targets than those with CHD (62%). Of the 1,447 patients with cardiovascular disease, 75% could be classified as very high risk according to the new July 2004 NCEP Writing Group recommendations, and 17.8% of those at very high risk had an LDL cholesterol level of <70 mg/dl (<1.81 mmol/L). In conclusion, these results suggest improved lipid management compared with previous surveys. The largest treatment gaps were found for features new to ATP III as of July 2004, including goal achievement for patients with CHD risk equivalents and for non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol targets. Most of those (75%) with cardiovascular disease in NEPTUNE II would be considered very high risk and candidates for aggressive therapy to reach the new optional treatment goals.

                Author and article information

                S. Karger AG
                April 2009
                15 November 2008
                : 113
                : 2
                : 89-97
                aRoyal United Hospital, Bath, UK; bHospital Lariboisière, Paris, France; cStädtisches Klinikum Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany; dNational Heart Center, Singapore, Singapore; eMerck Sharp and Dohme, Brussels, Belgium; fMerck Research Laboratories and gMerck Schering-Plough, New Jersey, N.J., USA
                172795 Cardiology 2009;113:89–97
                © 2008 S. Karger AG, Basel

                Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

                Page count
                Tables: 3, References: 31, Pages: 9
                Original Research


                Comment on this article