Effect of moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination vs. high-intensity statin therapy according to sex in patients with atherosclerosis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim B
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10656546 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use of high-intensity statin monotherapy, achieving target LDL-C levels and reducing cardiovascular events in patients with or at high risk of developing ASCVD remains challenging. Our study measured the effects of low/moderate-intensity statins and ezetimibe combination therapy compared to high-dose statin monotherapy on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and coronary atherosclerotic plaque reduction.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL register of trials for studies comparing the combination therapy to high-intensity statin monotherapy in terms of MACEs and coronary atherosclerotic plaque reduction. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or major cardiovascular events (MI, HF, Revascularization, or non-fatal stroke). Other outcomes included other MACEs, lipid-lowering efficacy, and safety outcomes. A protocol was registered to PROSPERO under registration number [CRD42024545807].Results15 studies encompassing 251,450 participants were included in our meta-analysis. In our pooled analysis of observational studies, combination therapy was associated with lower rates of the primary composite outcome (HR = 0.76, CI 95% [0.73, 0.80]), cardiovascular death (HR = 0.80, CI 95% [0.74, 0.88]), all-cause death (HR = 0.84, CI 95% [0.78, 0.91]), and non-fatal stroke (HR = 0.81, CI 95% [0.75, 0.87]). However, the pooled analysis of RCTs did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between both arms concerning clinical endpoints. Combination therapy had a higher number of patients with LDL-C < 70 mg/dL (RR = 1.27, CI 95% [1.21, 1.34]), significantly lowered LDL-C (MD = -7.95, CI 95% [-10.02, -5.89]) and TC (MD = -26.77, CI 95% [-27.64, -25.89]) in the pooled analysis of RCTs. In terms of safety, the combination therapy lowered muscle-related adverse events (RR = 0.52, CI 95% [0.32, 0.85]) and number of patients with liver enzyme elevation (RR = 0.51, CI 95% [0.29, 0.89]) in the pooled analysis of RCTs and was associated with lower rates of new-onset diabetes (HR = 0.80, CI 95% [0.74, 0.87]) in the pooled analysis of observational studies.ConclusionEvidence from RCTs indicates that low/moderate statin therapy in combination with ezetimibe has a superior lipid-lowering effect and reduces side effects compared to high-dose statins. Observational studies suggest improved clinical outcomes but need to be corroborated by large, outcomes-powered RCTs over longer follow-up periods.
| S-EPMC11577940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To date, most clinical comparisons of ezetimibe-statin combination therapy versus statin monotherapy have relied entirely on surrogate variables. In this systematic review, we study the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe-statin combination therapy in comparison to statin monotherapy in terms of the prevention of cardiovascular events in hyperlipidemic patients with atherosclerosis and/or diabetes mellitus.This review is based on a systematic literature search (1995 to July 2015) in PubMed, the Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), the Cochrane Library, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry.Nine randomized, controlled trials with data from a total of 19 461 patients were included. Ezetimibe-statin combination therapy was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events than statin monotherapy: 33% of the patients treated with ezetimibe and a statin, and 35% of those treated with a statin alone, had a cardiovascular event within seven years (number needed to treat [NNT]: 50 over 7 years). Combination therapy was also significantly more effective in preventing a composite endpoint consisting of death due to cardiovascular disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina pectoris, coronary revascularization, and nonfatal stroke (hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [0,89; 0,99]; p = 0.016). Diabetic patients benefited from combination therapy rather than monotherapy with respect to cardiovascular morbidity (HR 0.87 [0.78; 0.94]). On the other hand, the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy did not lessen either cardiovascular or overall mortality. Serious undesired events occurred in 38% of the patients taking ezetimibe and a statin nd in 39% of the patients taking a statin alone (relative risk 1.09 [0.77; 1.55]).In high-risk patients with an acute coronary syndrome, combination therapy with ezetimibe and a statin lowered the risk of cardiovascular events in comparison to statin monotherapy. The risk of dying or suffering an adverse drug effect was similar in the two treatment groups.
| S-EPMC4946327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceHigh-intensity statin is strongly recommended in patients at very high risk (VHR) of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). However, concerns about statin-associated adverse effects result in underuse of this strategy in practice.ObjectiveTo evaluate the outcomes of a moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination in VHR and non-VHR patients with ASCVD.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a post hoc analysis of the Randomized Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Lipid Lowering With Statin Monotherapy vs Statin/Ezetimibe Combination for High-Risk Cardiovascular Disease (RACING) open-label, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted from February 2017 to December 2018 at 26 centers in Korea. Study participants included patients with documented ASCVD. Data were analyzed from April to June 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe (rosuvastatin, 10 mg, with ezetimibe, 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin, 20 mg). Patients at VHR for ASCVD were defined according to the 2018 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the 3-year outcome of cardiovascular death, coronary or peripheral revascularization, hospitalization of cardiovascular events, or nonfatal stroke.ResultsA total of 3780 patients (mean [SD] age, 64 [10] years; 2826 male [75%]) in the RACING trial, 1511 (40.0%) were categorized as VHR, which was associated with a greater occurrence of the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 1.42; 95% CI, 1.15-1.75). There was no significant difference in the primary end point between those who received combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy among patients with VHR disease (11.2% vs 11.7%; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30) and non-VHR disease (7.7% vs 8.7%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.66-1.18). The median low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level was significantly lower in the combination therapy group than in the high-intensity statin group (VHR, 1 year: 57 [47-71] mg/dL vs 65 [53-78] mg/dL; non-VHR, 1 year: 58 mg/dL vs 68 mg/dL; P < .001). Furthermore, in both the VHR and non-VHR groups, combination therapy was associated with a significantly greater mean change in LDL-C level (VHR, 1 year: -19.1 mg/dL vs -10.1 mg/dL; 2 years: -22.3 mg/dL vs -13.0 mg/dL; 3 years: -18.8 mg/dL vs -9.7 mg/dL; non-VHR, 1 year: -23.7 mg/dL vs -12.5 mg/dL; 2 years: -25.2 mg/dL vs -15.1 mg/dL; 3 years: -23.5 mg/dL vs -12.6 mg/dL; all P < .001) and proportion of patients with LDL-C level less than 70 mg/dL (VHR, 1 year: 73% vs 58%; non-VHR, 1 year: 72% vs 53%; P < .001). Discontinuation or dose reduction of the lipid-lowering drug due to intolerance occurred less frequently in the combination therapy group (VHR, 4.6% vs 7.7%; P = .02; non-VHR, 5.0% vs 8.7%; P = .001).Conclusions and relevanceResults suggest that the outcomes of ezetimibe combination observed in the RACING trial were consistent among patients at VHR of ASCVD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03044665.
| S-EPMC10398545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Statin is highly recommended for dyslipidemia to prevent atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular diseases and death. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies and safeties of low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy. Meta-analysis was conducted on data included in published studies performed to compare the effects of the two treatments on lipid parameters and hs-CRP. Safety-related parameters were also evaluated. Eighteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy, low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe reduced LDL-C (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153-0.463), TC (SE = 0.217; 95% CI 0.098-0.337), triglyceride (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153-0.463), and hs-CRP (SE = 0.190; 95% CI 0.018-0.362) significantly more than high-intensity statin therapy. In terms of safety, the two treatments were not significantly different in terms of ALT elevation, but high-intensity statin increased AST and CK significantly more than combination therapy. This analysis indicates that low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combined therapy is more effective and safer than high-intensity statin monotherapy, which suggests the addition of ezetimibe to statin should be preferred over increasing statin dose and that high-intensity statin should be used more carefully, especially in patients with related risks.
| S-EPMC8896700 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis phase IV, multicenter, randomized controlled, open-label, and parallel clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ezetimibe and moderate intensity rosuvastatin combination therapy to that of high intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).MethodsThis study enrolled patients with ASCVD and after a four-week screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive either rosuvastatin and ezetimibe (RE 10/10 group) or high-intensity rosuvastatin (R20 group) only in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was the difference in the percent change in the mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level from baseline to 12 weeks between two groups after treatment.ResultsThe study found that after 12 and 24 weeks of treatment, the RE10/10 group had a greater reduction in LDL-C level compared to the R20 group (-22.9±2.6% vs. -15.6 ± 2.5% [p=0.041] and -24.2±2.5% vs. -12.9±2.4% [p=0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Moreover, a greater number of patients achieved the target LDL-C level of ≤70 mg/dL after the treatment period in the combination group (74.6% vs. 59.9% [p=0.012] and 76.2% vs. 50.8% [p<0.001] at 12 and 24 weeks, respectively). Importantly, there were no significant differences in the occurrence of overall adverse events and adverse drug reactions between two groups.ConclusionModerate-intensity rosuvastatin and ezetimibe combination therapy had better efficacy in lowering LDL-C levels without increasing adverse effects in patients with ASCVD than high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03494270.
| S-EPMC10548190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe compared the effects of high-intensity statin monotherapy versus moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe combination therapy on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).MethodsUsing the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, we screened 82,941 patients with AMI who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between 2013 and 2016. Among them, we identified 9,908 patients treated with atorvastatin 40 mg (A40, n=4,041), atorvastatin 20 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (A20+E10, n=233), rosuvastatin 20 mg (R20, n=5,251), or rosuvastatin 10 mg + ezetimibe 10 mg (R10+E10, n=383). The primary outcome was MACE, a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, repeat revascularization, and ischemic stroke. Multivariable analyses were performed using the inverse probability of treatment weighting method.ResultsThe incidence rate of MACE in the overall population was 42.97 cases per 1,000 person-years. There was no significant difference in the risk of composite outcomes of MACE between the groups. However, the R10+E10 group showed a higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-3.94) than the A40 group (reference group) in the weighted multivariable model.ConclusionsIn this study, there was no significant difference in the composite outcome of MACE between high-intensity statin monotherapy and moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe combination therapy.
| S-EPMC8473958 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The long-term outcome of first-line moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy for secondary prevention after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy remains elusive. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of moderate-intensity statin and ezetimibe combination therapy with high-intensity statin monotherapy. We conducted a nationwide, population-based, retrospective, cohort study of patients with ACS from 2013 to 2019. The patients using combination therapy were matched (1:1) to those using monotherapy. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke and all-cause mortality. We estimated the hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using the Cox proportional hazards regression. After propensity score matching, 10,723 pairs were selected. Men accounted for 70% of the patients and 37% aged > 70 years. The primary endpoint occurred in 1297 patients (12.1%) in the combination group and in 1426 patients (13.3%) in the monotherapy group, and decreased risk (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78-0.92, P < 0.001) in the combination group. Among the patients with ACS, moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy was associated with decreased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with high-intensity statin monotherapy in a nationwide population-based study representing routine clinical practice.
| S-EPMC10774297 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundModerate-intensity statin role with ezetimibe combination therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been thoroughly investigated, particularly compared to high-intensity statin monotherapy. We aimed to investigate the effect of ezetimibe combination with moderate-intensity statin in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease following PCI.MethodsThis was a post-hoc analysis of a subset of patients who underwent PCI in the RACING trial. At 26 centres in South Korea, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) were randomly assigned to receive either moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe combination therapy (rosuvastatin 10 mg with ezetimibe 10 mg) or high-intensity statin monotherapy (rosuvastatin 20 mg). The prespecified endpoints of the RACING trial were used. The primary endpoint was the 3-year composite of cardiovascular death, major cardiovascular events, and nonfatal stroke. Event rates between the two groups were compared using log-rank tests, and hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using Cox regression analysis. Consistent with the RACING trial, the primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were evaluated using an intention-to-treatment approach, and the safety endpoints were assessed in the safety population. The RACING trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03044665).FindingsBetween Feb 14, 2017, and Dec 18, 2018, 3780 participants were enrolled in the RACING trial. Prior history of PCI was found in 2497 patients (67%, median 64 years, 79% male), and was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.69; p = 0.014). Among patients with prior PCI, moderate-intensity statin therapy with ezetimibe combination versus high-intensity statin therapy did not increase the risk of the primary endpoint (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.24; p = 0.781). The proportion of patients with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) <70 mg/dL at 1, 2, and 3 years was 74%, 76%, and 73%, respectively, in the combination therapy group, and was significantly higher than that in the high-intensity statin monotherapy group (57%, 62%, and 59%, respectively, all p < 0.001). Discontinuation of lipid-lowering drugs occurred less frequently in the combination group (4.2% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.001).InterpretationThe effects of ezetimibe combination therapy observed in the RACING trial were consistently preserved among patients with ASCVD following PCI. Ezetimibe combination could be considered as a suitable therapeutic strategy to achieve strict control of LDL-C and reduce drug intolerance in patients who underwent PCI.FundingHanmi Pharmaceutical, Seoul, South Korea.
| S-EPMC10119495 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesLipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middle-aged patients when compared with statin monotherapy.MethodsUsing the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years.ResultsThe 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs. 10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980-1.064; p=0.309). Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460-0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups.ConclusionsCompared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC11361771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThere are few studies in the literature on the dosage of statin that equivalently reduces low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to an ezetimibe combination and whether such regimens have differences in safety. We compared the lipid-modifying efficacy and safety of 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe to those of 20 mg rosuvastatin.Materials and methodsA literature search was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Sciences, and SCOPUS databases up to December 2021. Human studies investigating the two aforementioned regimens with a randomized controlled design were selected. Outcome variables included the percentage reduction in LDL-C and other lipid parameters and rates of composite adverse events (AEs), including muscle-related symptoms. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed after heterogeneity testing between studies.ResultsSeven studies were included in this meta-analysis. The percentage LDL-C reduction did not differ between the combination and monotherapy groups [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.08; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.26; p=0.35]. The risk of composite AEs (odds ratio 0.50; 95% CI 0.15 to 1.72; p=0.27) of the combination was not different compared to the monotherapy group. The percentage of total cholesterol reduction was greater in the combination group (SMD 0.22; p=0.02), whereas that of triglyceride reduction and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol elevation did not differ between the two groups.ConclusionThis meta-analysis showed that 5 mg rosuvastatin/10 mg ezetimibe had largely comparable lipid-modifying efficacy and tolerability as 20 mg rosuvastatin.
| S-EPMC10774651 | biostudies-literature