Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / March 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Better Than a Statin Alone

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Bill - 21 Mar 2006 02:32 GMT
I think this suggests the combination drug will lead to less events but does
not prove it.

Bill

_____________________

Ezetimibe/Simvastatin Better Than a Statin Alone

Charlene Laino
Medscape Medical News 2006. © 2006 Medscape

March 20, 2006 (Atlanta) - A combination of the cholesterol-lowering drugs
ezetimibe and simvastatin is more effective at lowering C-reactive protein
(CRP) levels than simvastatin alone, a post-hoc analysis of 3 randomized,
placebo-controlled, double-blind studies suggests.

A second study showed that ezetimibe/simvastatin was better than atorvastatin
in lowering CRP, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and apolipoprotein
(ApoB) levels.

"Ezetimibe/simvastatin provided enhanced lipid regulation and
anti-inflammatory effects compared to simvastatin or atorvastatin alone," said
Christie M. Ballantyne, MD, associate chief and professor of medicine in the
section of atherosclerosis and lipoprotein research at Baylor College of
Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Dr. Ballantyne presented both studies here at the 55th annual scientific
session of the American College of Cardiology (ACC).

The first pooled analysis used data from 3 randomized, placebo-controlled
trials that enrolled 3083 patients with hypercholesterolemia. In each of the
studies, patients discontinued therapy for 4 to 6 weeks and then were
randomized to placebo, ezetimibe (10 mg), ezetimibe/simvastatin (10/10, 20,
40, 80 mg), or simvastatin (10, 20, 40, 80 mg) for 12 weeks.
Ezetimibe/simvastatin is sold as Vytorin.

Overall results, which were pooled across the dose range, showed that CRP
levels decreased 31% from baseline for patients receiving
ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with 14.3% in patients receiving simvastatin (P
< .001). Ezetimibe by itself did not significantly reduce levels of CRP, Dr.
Ballantyne said.

The pooled data also showed that the combination treatment reduced LDL
cholesterol levels by 52.5% while simvastatin lowered LDL cholesterol levels
by 38% (P < .001).

The second study, a post-hoc analysis of the Vytorin Versus Atorvastatin
(VYVA) study of 1902 patients with high cholesterol levels, showed that 32.5%
of patients receiving ezetimibe/simvastatin achieved LDL cholesterol levels of
less than 70 mg/dL and ApoB levels of less than 90 mg/dL compared with 16% of
patients receiving atorvastatin alone (P < .001).

Also, 20.7% of patients receiving ezetimibe/simvastatin achieved an LDL
cholesterol level of less than 70 mg/dL and a CRP level of less than 2 mg/L
compared with 9.8% of patients receiving atorvastatin (P < .001).

All of the drugs were well tolerated.

James H. Stein, MD, cochair of the scientific program committee for the ACC
meeting and an associate professor of medicine at the University of Wisconsin
Medical School in Madison, told Medscape that while interesting, the results
will need to be confirmed in additional, prospective studies before changing
clinical practice.

ACC 55th Annual Scientific Session: Abstracts 808-5 and 981-194. Presented
March 13, 2006.
David Rind - 21 Mar 2006 03:43 GMT
> I think this suggests the combination drug will lead to less events but does
> not prove it.
>
> Bill

If you buy that lower LDL and CRP means fewer events, that would be a
reasonable  hypothesis. If you think there is something unique about
lowering cholesterol with statins (and there's a fair amount of evidence
to suggest this is the case) then the lower LDL/CRP doesn't really tell
us anything at all that is clinically important.

Signature

David Rind
drind@caregroup.harvard.edu

David R. Throop - 21 Mar 2006 06:41 GMT
>If you buy that lower LDL and CRP means fewer events, that would be a
>reasonable  hypothesis. If you think there is something unique about
>lowering cholesterol with statins (and there's a fair amount of evidence
>to suggest this is the case) then the lower LDL/CRP doesn't really tell
>us anything at all that is clinically important.

Please tell me more!  I've seen a lot of studies that suggested that
LDL reduction is only loosely related to preventing CHD.  But I've
figured that inflammation (fairly well measured by CRP) was the
missing piece of the puzzle.  I've seen articles suggesting that the
statins do most of their good by releiving inflammation.

You seem to be saying that it isn't the LDL and it isn't the
inflammation (or at least not as indicated by CRP.)  I'd like to read
more about this - where do I go?

David Throop
David Rind - 22 Mar 2006 04:22 GMT
>>If you buy that lower LDL and CRP means fewer events, that would be a
>>reasonable  hypothesis. If you think there is something unique about
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> David Throop

There are lots of hints that statins may have important effects
independent of LDL lowering. These may include decreasing inflammation
(which may or may not be appropriately measured by CRP) and stabilizing
arterial plaques.

All of this is difficult to separate out. Statins lower LDL and lower
cardiac risk, and higher doses lower LDL more and lower cardiac risk
more. That does not mean that it's the LDL lowering that reduces the
cardiac risk, but it certainly could be.

In any case, there are no published trials showing that ezetimibe has
any beneficial effects on clinical endpoints (like lowering cardiac
events), just that it lowers cholesterol. In the absence of such trials,
I'm more comfortable with statins, the only class of lipid lowering
drugs that has consistently shown clinical benefits.

Signature

David Rind
drind@caregroup.harvard.edu

Jim Chinnis - 22 Mar 2006 04:40 GMT
David Rind <drind@caregroup.harvard.edu> wrote in part:

>All of this is difficult to separate out. Statins lower LDL and lower
>cardiac risk, and higher doses lower LDL more and lower cardiac risk
>more. That does not mean that it's the LDL lowering that reduces the
>cardiac risk, but it certainly could be.

Well, all we need to do then, is to run a study that compares a statin with
another drug that lowers LDL by 50% or so. Oh ... right. ;-)
--
Jim Chinnis   Warrenton, Virginia, USA
David Rind - 24 Mar 2006 01:49 GMT
> David Rind <drind@caregroup.harvard.edu> wrote in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Well, all we need to do then, is to run a study that compares a statin with
> another drug that lowers LDL by 50% or so. Oh ... right. ;-)

Actually, I've heard that there is a trial out there looking at clinical
outcomes comparing atorvastatin alone with simvastatin/ezetimibe with
the LDL goal the same in both arms. This should give us some additional
information about whether it's the statin or the achieved LDL that matters.

Signature

David Rind
drind@caregroup.harvard.edu

Jim Chinnis - 24 Mar 2006 04:10 GMT
David Rind <drind@caregroup.harvard.edu> wrote in part:

>> David Rind <drind@caregroup.harvard.edu> wrote in part:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>the LDL goal the same in both arms. This should give us some additional
>information about whether it's the statin or the achieved LDL that matters.

I also have read a report on a study that compared CAD outcome rates in
people with different gene sequences known to affect their LDL level. I'd
post a reference, but I don't remember it! It may have been released today.
Just one more way to get a little more triangulation.
--
Jim Chinnis   Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Jim Chinnis - 29 Mar 2006 03:35 GMT
Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in part:

>David Rind <drind@caregroup.harvard.edu> wrote in part:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>post a reference, but I don't remember it! It may have been released today.
>Just one more way to get a little more triangulation.

Here's the study:

N Engl J Med. 2006 Mar 23;354(12):1264-72.

Sequence variations in PCSK9, low LDL, and protection against coronary heart
disease.

Cohen JC, Boerwinkle E, Mosley TH Jr, Hobbs HH.

Donald W. Reynolds Cardiovascular Clinical Research Center, University of
Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX 75390-9046, USA.

BACKGROUND: A low plasma level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol
is associated with reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), but the
effect of lifelong reductions in plasma LDL cholesterol is not known. We
examined the effect of DNA-sequence variations that reduce plasma levels of
LDL cholesterol on the incidence of coronary events in a large population.
METHODS: We compared the incidence of CHD (myocardial infarction, fatal CHD,
or coronary revascularization) over a 15-year interval in the
Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study according to the presence or
absence of sequence variants in the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin
type 9 serine protease gene (PCSK9) that are associated with reduced plasma
levels of LDL cholesterol. RESULTS: Of the 3363 black subjects examined, 2.6
percent had nonsense mutations in PCSK9; these mutations were associated
with a 28 percent reduction in mean LDL cholesterol and an 88 percent
reduction in the risk of CHD (P=0.008 for the reduction; hazard ratio, 0.11;
95 percent confidence interval, 0.02 to 0.81; P=0.03). Of the 9524 white
subjects examined, 3.2 percent had a sequence variation in PCSK9 that was
associated with a 15 percent reduction in LDL cholesterol and a 47 percent
reduction in the risk of CHD (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95 percent confidence
interval, 0.32 to 0.79; P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that
moderate lifelong reduction in the plasma level of LDL cholesterol is
associated with a substantial reduction in the incidence of coronary events,
even in populations with a high prevalence of non-lipid-related
cardiovascular risk factors. Copyright 2006 Massachusetts Medical Society.

PMID: 16554528 [PubMed - in process]
--
Jim Chinnis   Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Tony - 29 Mar 2006 05:06 GMT
Did this study account for CRP markers as well or only LDL levels? It
is still hard to tell whether the increased protective effect is due to
the LDL decrease or the CRP decrease. There are new drugs in the works
trying to target CRP only, when they come out we may have an answer in
10 to 30 years as to which one is the better choice for therapy.
Although I would venture we will just prescribe both unless one or the
other is contraindicated in certain populations.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.