Skriv ut
Kategori: Nyheter

BOSTON, MA — The IMPROVE-IT study, the large cardiovascular-outcomes trial that showed a clinical benefit to adding ezetimibe (Zetia, Merck/Schering Plough) to statin therapy in post–acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, is now published[1].

First presented during the late-breaking clinical-trials session at the American Heart Association 2014 Scientific Sessions in Chicago, IL, the IMPROVE-IT investigators, led by Drs Christopher Cannon and Robert Giugliano(Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA), showed that adding ezetimibe 10 mg to simvastatin 40 mg resulted in an absolute 2.0% reduction in the primary end point over 7 years when compared with ACS patients who received simvastatin 40 mg alone.

As reported by heartwire from Medscape when the results were presented in November, the primary end point, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization, or stroke, occurred in 32.7% of patients who received ezetimibe/simvastatin and in 34.7% of patients treated with simvastatin alone. This translated into a statistically significant 6.4% relative reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events with the combination therapy over 7 years.

The study is published June 3, 2015 in the New England Journal of Medicine, and the results are in line with the 2014 AHA presentation.

Nothing Unique About Ezetimibe

In an editorial[2], Drs John Jarcho and John Keaney (University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worchester, MA) say the study provides support for the LDL hypothesis that reducing LDL-cholesterol levels will reduce cardiovascular events and that IMPROVE-IT should not be interpreted to mean there is "anything uniquely beneficial" about ezetimibe.

"Indeed, the real implication of IMPROVE-IT is to suggest that all reductions in LDL levels, regardless of mechanism, are of equivalent benefit," they write. "Thus, a patient who is currently being treated with 40 mg of simvastatin would be expected to benefit just as much from a higher-intensity statin regimen (eg, 40 to 80 mg of atorvastatin or 20 to 40 mg of rosuvastatin [Crestor, AstraZeneca]) as from the addition of ezetimibe, assuming equivalent reductions in LDL-cholesterol levels."

In IMPROVE-IT, individuals randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin achieved significantly lower LDL-cholesterol levels, down from 93.8 mg/dL at the index event to 53.7 mg/dL (time-weighted average). For the simvastatin-treated patients, LDL cholesterol was reduced to 69.5 mg/dL from 93.8 mg/dL. The event reduction in the trial is "precisely the same as that predicted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' analysis of statin trials," say the editorialists, meaning the differential reduction in LDL-cholesterol levels likely explains the reduction in coronary heart disease events.

To heart wire , Giugliano said he agreed with the conclusions of the editorialists, adding the study "represents a major blow to the statin hypothesis." While statins have been credited with a number of beneficial effects not attributable to LDL lowering (the so-called pleiotropic effects), Giugliano said the value of the drug class is based on their ability to reduce LDL cholesterol.

Giugliano said he starts ACS patients with atorvastatin 80 mg, which he said is routine at their hospital and has been for a decade. If the patient fails to achieve an LDL-cholesterol target of <70 mg="" dl="" giugliano="" said="" he="" will="" then="" add="" ezetimibe="" i="" think="" many="" of="" us="" still="" use="" targets="" and="" the="" improve-it="" trial="" may="" give="" another="" breath="" air="" to="" those="" who="" support="" their="" p="">

In their editorial, Jarcho and Keaney say IMPROVE-IT remains a landmark trial in that it was the first to show the safety and effectiveness of lowering LDL cholesterol with a nonstatin lipid-lowering agent added to a statin.

The results also provide some hope to patients who have side effects from statins and those who are unable to lower their LDL cholesterol enough with a statin (the guidelines recommend a 50% reduction in LDL cholesterol in high-risk patients).

From www.medscape.com

 

-------------------------

The use of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) reduces both low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with and those without cardiovascular disease.1-4 Intensive statin therapy, as compared with moderate-dose statin therapy, incrementally lowers LDL cholesterol levels and rates of nonfatal cardiovascular events.5-9 Because of the residual risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and safety concerns associated with high-dose statin therapy,10 additional lipid-modifying therapies have been sought.11-14

 

Ezetimibe targets the Niemann–Pick C1–like 1 (NPC1L1) protein, thereby reducing absorption of cholesterol from the intestine.15,16 When added to statins, ezetimibe reduces LDL cholesterol levels by an additional 23 to 24%, on average.17,18Polymorphisms affecting NPC1L1 are associated with both lower levels of LDL cholesterol and a lower risk of cardiovascular events.19 Whether further lowering of LDL cholesterol levels achieved with the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy leads to a benefit in clinical outcomes is unknown. The Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) evaluated the effect of ezetimibe combined with simvastatin, as compared with that of simvastatin alone, in stable patients who had had an acute coronary syndrome and whose LDL cholesterol values were within guideline recommendations.20-24

 

METHODS

Study Oversight

The trial was designed and led by an executive committee that included representatives from the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group, the Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), and the study sponsor (Merck), in collaboration with an international steering committee (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org).22-24 The ethics committee at each participating center approved the protocol and amendments. A data and safety monitoring board oversaw the study. DCRI managed the database and performed the primary analyses independently using raw data; TIMI and the sponsor verified the analyses. All the authors vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and all analyses, as well as for the fidelity of this report to the trial protocol, which is available at NEJM.org.

 

 

Patient Population

Men and women who were at least 50 years of age were eligible for inclusion if they had been hospitalized within the preceding 10 days for an acute coronary syndrome (an acute myocardial infarction, with or without ST-segment elevation on electrocardiography, or high-risk unstable angina22-24; detailed definitions are provided in the Supplementary Appendix). Patients were required to have an LDL cholesterol level of 50 mg per deciliter (1.3 mmol per liter) or higher. For participants who were not receiving long-term lipid-lowering therapy, the maximum LDL cholesterol level for enrollment was 125 mg per deciliter (3.2 mmol per liter); for participants who were receiving lipid-lowering therapy, the maximum level was 100 mg per deciliter (2.6 mmol per liter). The LDL cholesterol level for eligibility was measured locally within the first 24 hours after onset of the acute coronary syndrome. Key exclusion criteria were planned coronary-artery bypass grafting for the acute coronary syndrome event, creatinine clearance of less than 30 ml per minute, active liver disease, or use of statin therapy that had LDL cholesterol–lowering potency greater than 40 mg of simvastatin (see the Supplementary Appendix). Each patient provided written informed consent.

 

Study Protocol

Patients received standard medical and interventional treatment for acute coronary syndrome22 and were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio and in a double-blind fashion, to receive, once daily, either simvastatin (at a dose of 40 mg) plus ezetimibe (at a dose of 10 mg) (simvastatin–ezetimibe group) or simvastatin (at a dose of 40 mg) plus placebo (simvastatin-monotherapy group). Randomization was stratified according to prior use of lipid-lowering therapy, type of acute coronary syndrome, and status with respect to enrollment in the concurrent Early Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibition in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (EARLY ACS) trial.25

Patients had follow-up visits at 30 days, at 4 months, and every 4 months thereafter. Patients who discontinued the study drug during the trial were generally followed by means of telephone calls. Blood samples were obtained at randomization, at 1, 4, 8, and 12 months, and yearly thereafter for those attending clinic visits.

For patients in either study group who had LDL cholesterol levels higher than 79 mg per deciliter (2.0 mmol per liter) on two consecutive measurements, the simvastatin dose was increased to 80 mg in a double-blind manner. In June 2011, in accordance with Food and Drug Administration guidance for limiting new prescriptions of 80 mg of simvastatin, patients were no longer eligible for an increased dose of simvastatin to 80 mg, and any patient who had been receiving the 80-mg dose for less than 1 year had the dose reduced to 40 mg.23 If an LDL cholesterol measurement on the new regimen was confirmed to be higher than 100 mg per deciliter, the study drug could be discontinued and more potent therapy initiated. The study continued until each patient had been followed for a minimum of 2.5 years and until the target number of events (5250) was reached. Five amendments to the protocol were implemented during the course of the study, including an increase in the sample size.23

 

End Points

The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular disease, a major coronary event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, documented unstable angina requiring hospital admission, or coronary revascularization occurring at least 30 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke, assessed from the time of randomization until the first occurrence of one of the events. The three secondary efficacy end points were a composite of death from any cause, major coronary event, or nonfatal stroke; a composite of death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization 30 days or more after randomization; and a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, all revascularization 30 days or more after randomization, or nonfatal stroke. All end-point definitions are described in the Supplementary Appendix.22-24 Prespecified safety variables included liver enzyme levels and creatine kinase levels, episodes of myopathy or rhabdomyolysis, gallbladder-related adverse events, and cancer. Independent clinical-events committees, whose members were unaware of the study-group assignments, adjudicated primary end-point events (excluding revascularization), cancer, and muscle-related events (details are provided in the Supplementary Appendix).

 

Statistical Analysis

In the final protocol, we estimated that 5250 events would be required to give the study 90% power to detect a 9.375% lower relative risk for the primary end point with simvastatin–ezetimibe than with simvastatin monotherapy. All efficacy and safety analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population. Rules for stopping the study early at interim analyses were prespecified.22-24 The data and safety monitoring board conducted 10 safety reviews. In addition, three interim efficacy analyses were performed, after 45.7%, 76.1%, and 86.9% of the required events had occurred; adjustment of the level of significance to account for the three interim analyses was determined by the Lan–DeMets approximation of the O'Brien–Fleming boundaries for group sequential testing, with a final two-sided P value for significance of 0.0394 or less. The false positive error rate for the three secondary end points was controlled with the use of the Hochberg method.26 A nominal P value of 0.05 or less without adjustment for multiple testing was used for other end points. Estimates of the hazard ratios and associated 95% confidence intervals for the comparison of simvastatin–ezetimibe with simvastatin monotherapy were obtained with the use of a Cox proportional-hazards model, with study group and stratification factors as covariates. Event rates are Kaplan–Meier failure rates at 7 years. Data for the analyses in this report were based on the database that was locked on October 21, 2014. Additional updating of data on serious adverse events and hospitalizations was carried out after this database lock (see the Supplementary Appendix).

 

RESULTS

Patients

Between October 26, 2005, and July 8, 2010, a total of 18,144 patients underwent randomization at 1147 sites in 39 countries. The disposition of the patients is shown in Figure S1 in theSupplementary Appendix; 9077 were assigned to the simvastatin-monotherapy group, and 9067 to the simvastatin–ezetimibe group. The baseline characteristics of the patients in the two study groups were well matched (Table 1TABLE 1Baseline Characteristics.). The average age of the patients was 64 years, 24% were women, 27% had diabetes mellitus, 88% had undergone coronary angiography and 70% had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention during the index hospitalization, 34% were taking statin drugs at the time of the index event, and 77% received statin therapy during hospitalization.

TABLE 1
Baseline Characteristics.

 

The simvastatin dose was increased to 80 mg for elevated LDL cholesterol levels in 27% of the patients in the simvastatin-monotherapy group and in 6% of the patients in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group. The numbers of patients who discontinued the study drug, withdrew consent, or were lost to follow-up were similar in the two groups (Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). After a median of 6 years, 42% of the patients in each group had discontinued the study medication without having died or without having had a primary end-point event. The percentage of potential follow-up that was achieved — calculated as (number of patient-years of follow-up ÷ potential patient-years of follow-up) × 100 — was 91% for the primary end point and 97% for all-cause mortality.

 

 

Lipid Data

At the time of hospitalization for the index event, the mean LDL cholesterol level was 93.8 mg per deciliter (2.4 mmol per liter) in each group (Table 1). Among patients who had blood samples obtained at 1 year, the mean LDL cholesterol level was 69.9 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group and 53.2 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group (P<0.001) (Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix). This difference of 16.7 mg per deciliter (0.43 mmol per liter) (P<0.001) represented a 24% further lowering of LDL cholesterol level when ezetimibe was combined with simvastatin than when simvastatin was administered alone. Over the course of the entire trial, the median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level was 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group and 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group. To account for patients in the two groups who discontinued treatment and did not have blood samples obtained, LDL cholesterol levels were imputed with the use of the LDL cholesterol levels measured at randomization (the approach used by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists [CTT] collaborators).3,4The between-group difference in LDL cholesterol level at 1 year with imputation was 12.8 mg per deciliter (0.33 mmol per liter).

 

 

At 1 year, levels of total cholesterol, triglycerides, non–high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein were all significantly lower in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group than in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (Table S1 in theSupplementary Appendix). A greater proportion of patients in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group than in the simvastatin-monotherapy group achieved the dual goal of an LDL cholesterol level of less than 70 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) and a high-sensitivity C-reactive protein level of less than 2.0 at 1 month (50.6% vs. 30.5%) (Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix).

 

Efficacy End Points

Kaplan–Meier event rates for the primary end point at 7 years were 32.7% in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group and 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk reduction, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P=0.016) (Figure 1FIGURE 1Kaplan–Meier Curves for the Primary Efficacy End Point.). The benefit appeared to emerge after 1 year. The rate of each of the three secondary end points was significantly lower in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group than in the simvastatin-monotherapy group

 

 Figure 1
bikld 2
Kaplan–Meier Curves for the Primary Efficacy End Point. 
 
TABLE 2
 
Primary, Secondary, and Individual End Points. 

 

 The rates of death from cardiovascular causes and from any cause were similar in the two groups. The risk of any myocardial infarction was significantly lower with simvastatin–ezetimibe than with simvastatin monotherapy (difference, 1.7 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.87; P=0.002), as was the risk of ischemic stroke (difference, 0.7 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.79; P=0.008) (Table 2). There was a nonsignificantly higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke with simvastatin–ezetimibe than with simvastatin monotherapy (difference, 0.2 percentage points; hazard ratio, 1.38; P=0.11), although the number of hemorrhagic strokes was low.

 

The rate of the composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower, by 1.8 percentage points, in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group than in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.90; P=0.003) (Table 2). The rate of major vascular events as defined by the CTT collaborators3,4 (a composite of death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, stroke, or coronary revascularization 30 days or more after randomization) was also significantly lower in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group (difference, 2.2 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.928; P=0.007).

 

The benefit of simvastatin–ezetimibe was consistent across nearly all prespecified subgroups (Fig. S2 in Supplementary Appendix). The benefit appeared to be particularly pronounced in patients with diabetes mellitus and in patients 75 years of age or older.

 

Safety

No significant between-group differences were seen in the percentage of patients who had elevations in alanine aminotransferase levels that exceeded three times the upper limit of the normal range or in the rates of gallbladder-related adverse events, cholecystectomy, muscle-related adverse events, or new, relapsing, or worsening cancer (Table 3TABLE 3Prespecified Safety End Points.). Discontinuation of study medication owing to an adverse event occurred in 10.1% of the patients in the simvastatin-monotherapy group and in 10.6% of those in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group.

 TABLE 3
bild
Prespecified Safety End Points. 

DISCUSSION

In IMPROVE-IT, the addition to statin therapy of a nonstatin agent, ezetimibe, which reduces the absorption of cholesterol from the gastrointestinal tract, lowered LDL cholesterol by approximately 24%. The combination of simvastatin and ezetimibe also resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than that with statin monotherapy, with a 2.0-percentage-point lower rate of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, major coronary events, or nonfatal stroke (hazard ratio, 0.936). No between-group differences in cardiovascular mortality or in the rate of death from any cause were anticipated or observed in IMPROVE-IT, findings that are consistent with those in trials of intensive-dose versus standard-dose statin therapy.5-9 However, significant reductions were observed in the rates of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke.

 

FIGURE 2
bild
Plot of the IMPROVE-IT Trial Data and Statin Trials for Change in Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Cholesterol versus Clinical Benefit. 


The extent of benefit afforded by the simvastatin–ezetimibe combination is consistent with that seen in previous statin trials, with a similar reduction in cardiovascular events according to the degree of LDL cholesterol lowering (Figure 2FIGURE 2Plot of the IMPROVE-IT Trial Data and Statin Trials for Change in Low-Density Lipoprotein (LDL) Cholesterol versus Clinical Benefit.).1,2,27-38 Using the approach and end point that were used by the CTT collaborators,3,4 we observed a between-group difference in LDL cholesterol levels (with imputation for missing values) of 12.8 mg per deciliter and a proportional 7.2% lower rate of major vascular events, a finding consistent with the reduction produced by statins. The hazard ratio for clinical benefit per millimole of LDL cholesterol reduction with ezetimibe in IMPROVE-IT was 0.80, as compared with 0.78 observed with statins in the CTT meta-analysis.3,4 This trial cannot prove that the effect was mediated by the lowering of LDL cholesterol levels alone, since changes in other lipoproteins and high sensitivity C-reactive protein may have played a role. However, the consistency with expectations from the CTT analysis, in which a different class of drug was used, provides further evidence for a relationship between lipid lowering and improved outcomes. The observation that a nonstatin lipid-lowering agent can also reduce cardiovascular risk does indirectly support the LDL hypothesis (i.e., that lowering LDL cholesterol leads to a reduction in cardiovascular events), but most importantly it undercuts the "statin hypothesis," that somehow only statins are beneficial. This finding is notable in that several previous trials have failed to show a significant benefit of nonstatin lipid-modifying agents when added to statins.11-14

 

According to practice guidelines in place at the time of patient enrollment in IMPROVE-IT, treatment of hypercholesterolemia was based on lowering LDL cholesterol to target levels,20,21which were set on the basis of a patient's risk of cardiovascular events. Over the past two decades, statin trials have shown clinical benefit when LDL cholesterol was lowered to progressively lower levels.1-9 On the basis of these trials, a target LDL cholesterol of less than 70 mg per deciliter has been recommended for patients after an acute coronary syndrome.20,21Whether additional clinical benefit would be observed with further reductions of LDL cholesterol to levels below 70 mg per deciliter has not been clear. The benefit of ezetimibe in IMPROVE-IT suggests that there is additional clinical benefit, and it appeared to be similar in patients with lower LDL cholesterol levels as well as in those with higher LDL cholesterol levels at baseline.

 

There were no significant differences between the two study groups in any of the prespecified safety end points or in the rate of discontinuation of study medication owing to adverse events, albeit with a higher use of the 80-mg simvastatin dose in the simvastatin-monotherapy group than in the simvastatin–ezetimibe group. The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was higher, although not significantly so, with simvastatin–ezetimibe than with simvastatin monotherapy, a finding similar to that seen with statin therapy as compared with placebo.3,4 Although cautions had been raised about the safety of ezetimibe,39,40 we observed no significant between-group difference in the incidence of cancer or cancer deaths during up to 7 years of follow-up and no significant difference in the incidence of rhabdomyolysis or myopathy.

 

Several limitations of our study should be considered. First, we evaluated patients who had had an acute coronary syndrome, and our results are most relevant to that population. However, the treatment period extended for an average of 6 years, and the differences between the two treatment groups emerged after about 1 year, by which time most of the data were from patients in the chronic phase of their disease. Second, we used 40 mg and 80 mg of simvastatin as background statin therapy (categorized as "moderate" and "intensive" statin therapy, respectively) with an upper limit for LDL cholesterol level at study entry to ensure that this statin regimen would be likely to reduce LDL cholesterol levels to less than 70 mg per deciliter (on average), as recommended at the time of patient enrollment in the trial.20,21 Although we studied only this regimen, current data indicate that the same relationship between reduction in LDL cholesterol levels and clinical benefit is seen across different statins and statin doses.4 It is possible, as others have suggested,41 that greater benefits from ezetimibe might have been seen if baseline LDL cholesterol levels had been higher. Finally, 42% of the patients discontinued the study medication for any reason prematurely, with an equal proportion in the two groups. This rate of approximately 7% per year is similar to or better than that achieved in some prior studies,5-7 but this trial had a particularly long duration of follow-up. We nonetheless found a significant benefit; if adherence had been higher, one might anticipate that a greater clinical benefit might have been seen.

 

In conclusion, the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy in stable patients who had had an acute coronary syndrome and who had LDL cholesterol levels within guideline recommendations further lowered the risk of cardiovascular events. The event reduction was consistent with the predicted effects seen with statins, even in the range of low LDL cholesterol levels in this trial, and no offsetting adverse events or toxic effects were observed.

 

Supported by Merck.

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.

This article was published on June 3, 2015, at NEJM.org.

 

SOURCE INFORMATION

From the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) Study Group, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston (C.P.C., R.P.G., A.M., K.I., E.A.B., S.D.W., E.B.); Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Durham, NC (M.A.B., J.A.W., C.R., R.M.C.); Montreal Heart Institute, Montreal (P.T.); Vivantes Neukölln Medical Center, Berlin (H.D.); Lady Davis Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel (B.S.L.); Canisius-Wilhelmina Ziekenhuis, Nijmegen (T.O.O.), and the Netherlands Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden (J.W.J.) — both in the Netherlands; Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy (G.M.D.F.); National Institute of Cardiology, Warsaw, Poland (W.R.); and Merck, Kenilworth, NJ (P.D.L., A.M.T., T.A.M.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Cannon at the Cardiovascular Division, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 350 Longwood Ave., 1st Fl., Boston, MA 02115, or at Den här e-postadressen skyddas mot spambots. Du måste tillåta JavaScript för att se den..

A complete list of investigators in the Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT) is provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.

 

------------------------------

 

The so-called LDL hypothesis is the concept that excess low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol is a causal factor in the development of atherosclerotic vascular disease. By extension, this hypothesis also assumes that reducing LDL cholesterol levels, regardless of the means, should produce a corresponding reduction in cardiovascular events. Considerable evidence supports the LDL hypothesis, including animal studies and epidemiologic studies involving humans, as well as clinical trials of both statins and nonstatin lipid-modifying agents. In a meta-analysis that included more than 90,000 participants in 14 randomized trials of statins, the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists' (CTT) collaborators found that, on average, a reduction of 1 mmol per liter (38.7 mg per deciliter) in LDL cholesterol levels yields a consistent 23% reduction in the risk of major coronary events over 5 years.1
Despite this body of evidence, there has been a long-standing argument that the beneficial effects of statins are not adequately explained by their effects on LDL cholesterol. Statins have a complex array of biologic effects — including amelioration of endothelial dysfunction, increased nitric oxide bioavailability, antioxidant properties, and inhibition of inflammation — that are unrelated to their lipid-lowering effect and that are sometimes called "pleiotropic effects."2 It has been argued that such effects may account for at least some of the benefit of statin therapy in preventing cardiovascular events. This alternative theory is sometimes referred to as the "statin hypothesis" — the idea that statins have a unique efficacy in atherosclerotic vascular disease that is not shared by other lipid-modifying agents and that reduction in LDL cholesterol levels is not the only basis for the beneficial effect of statins

 

 FIGURE 1
 
Schematic Depiction of the Statin Hypothesis. 

Several recent negative clinical trials have seemed to offer support for the statin hypothesis. In each of these trials, the addition of a nonstatin lipid-modifying agent to statin therapy conferred no significant increment in cardiovascular benefit over that seen with a statin alone.3-6 In addition, in a clinical trial of rosuvastatin,7 the beneficial effect of this statin was found to correlate not only with its effect on LDL cholesterol levels but also independently with its ability to reduce the level of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, a marker of inflammation.8 Given these findings, the 2013 cholesterol treatment guidelines of the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association heavily emphasized statin therapy as the preferred treatment option for patients with established cardiovascular disease or hyperlipidemia.9
With this background, the report by Cannon et al. of the Improved Reduction of Outcomes: Vytorin Efficacy International Trial (IMPROVE-IT),10 now published in the Journal, offers important new evidence in favor of the LDL hypothesis. In IMPROVE-IT, 18,144 patients who had had an acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to either simvastatin (40 mg) plus ezetimibe (10 mg) or to simvastatin (40 mg) plus placebo. At 1 year, the mean LDL cholesterol level was 53.2 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-plus-ezetimibe group, and 69.9 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, major coronary event (nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or coronary revascularization), or nonfatal stroke. At 7 years, the rate of the primary end point was significantly lower, by 2.0 percentage points, in the simvastatin-plus-ezetimibe group than in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (32.7% vs. 34.7%). No significant differences in rates of adverse events were seen between the two study groups.
IMPROVE-IT is a landmark study in that it is the first clinical trial to show a benefit of adding a nonstatin lipid-modifying agent to statin therapy. Ezetimibe, the added agent in this trial, works by reducing the intestinal absorption of cholesterol, a distinct mechanism that is unrelated to that of statins. And yet, the event-rate reduction with the addition of ezetimibe was precisely the same as that predicted by the CTT analysis of statin trials described above (see Fig. 2 in the article by Cannon et al.),10 which suggests that reduction of LDL cholesterol levels per se explains the effect of statins on coronary heart disease.
These results offer important hope to patients who have unacceptable side effects from statin therapy and to those who may not achieve adequate LDL reduction with statins. The 2013 guidelines do not recommend the use of specific targets for LDL cholesterol levels, but they do acknowledge that some patients may have an "insufficient response to statin therapy" and that in such patients the addition of a nonstatin agent may be considered.9 The results of IMPROVE-IT should, at a minimum, reinforce such a recommendation and will undoubtedly rekindle arguments in favor of targets for LDL cholesterol levels.
The results of IMPROVE-IT also imply that other interventions to reduce LDL cholesterol levels may prove to be beneficial. In this regard, the recent development of PCSK9 inhibitors is of note. These agents reduce LDL-receptor degradation, thereby enhancing LDL clearance from the circulation, and they have been shown to reduce LDL cholesterol levels by as much as 60%.11,12 Definitive clinical outcomes trials with these agents are ongoing.
IMPROVE-IT should not be interpreted as showing anything uniquely beneficial about the use of ezetimibe. Indeed, the real implication of IMPROVE-IT is to suggest that all reductions in LDL levels, regardless of mechanism, are of equivalent benefit. Thus, a patient who is currently being treated with 40 mg of simvastatin would be expected to benefit just as much from a higher-intensity statin regimen (e.g., 40 to 80 mg of atorvastatin or 20 to 40 mg of rosuvastatin) as from the addition of ezetimibe, assuming equivalent reductions in LDL cholesterol levels.
A sobering observation was that 42% of the participants in IMPROVE-IT, regardless of treatment assignment, discontinued the study medication prematurely. As noted by the authors, this discontinuation rate is approximately 7% per year, which closely mirrors that seen in other trials. Since lipid-lowering is presumably intended to be a lifelong goal, this diminishment in long-term use is an important practical clinical concern, and one that suggests that treatment adherence to lipid-lowering therapy needs to be an ongoing focus of practitioner attention. It also raises questions about the practicality of long-term use of PCSK9 inhibitors, since all these agents are currently given by subcutaneous injection once every 2 to 4 weeks.
Overall, IMPROVE-IT provides us with important information on the value of lowering LDL cholesterol levels, regardless of the agent used. These data help emphasize the primacy of LDL cholesterol lowering as a strategy to prevent coronary heart disease. Perhaps the LDL hypothesis should now be considered the "LDL principle."
Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
This article was published on June 3, 2015, at NEJM.org.
SOURCE INFORMATION
From the University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA (J.F.K.).

 

REFERENCES
1Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet 2005;366:1267-1278
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
2Davignon J. Beneficial cardiovascular pleiotropic effects of statins. Circulation 2004;109:Suppl 1:III39-III43
Medline
3Ginsberg HN, Elam MB, Lovato LC, et al. Effects of combination lipid therapy in type 2 diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1563-1574
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
4Boden WE, Probstfield JL, Anderson T, et al. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2255-2267
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
5Landray MJ, Haynes R, Hopewell JC, et al. Effects of extended-release niacin with laropiprant in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 2014;371:203-212
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
6Schwartz GG, Olsson AG, Abt M, et al. Effects of dalcetrapib in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2012;367:2089-2099
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
7Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FAH, et al. Rosuvastatin to prevent vascular events in men and women with elevated C-reactive protein. N Engl J Med 2008;359:2195-2207
Free Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
8Ridker PM, Danielson E, Fonseca FA, et al. Reduction in C-reactive protein and LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular event rates after initiation of rosuvastatin: a prospective study of the JUPITER trial. Lancet 2009;373:1175-1182
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
9Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2014;129:Suppl 2:S1-S45
CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
10Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med10.1056/NEJMoa1410489
Free Full Text
11Robinson JG, Farnier M, Krempf M, et al. Efficacy and safety of alirocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1489-1499
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
12Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Wiviott SD, et al. Efficacy and safety of evolocumab in reducing lipids and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1500-1509
Full Text | Web of Science | Medline

 

Nyhetsinfo

www red DiabetologNytt

 

Träffar: 4032