CONTEXT: The level and duration of exposure to circulating low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) are major contributors to coronary atherosclerosis. Therefore, optimal prevention will require long-term LDL-C reduction, making it important to select the most effective agent for each individual. OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that individuals with high fractional absorption of cholesterol respond better to the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe than to simvastatin, whereas low absorbers, who have elevated rates of cholesterol synthesis, respond better to simvastatin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was performed in 215 African- and European-American men. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to placebo, ezetimibe (10 mg/d), simvastatin (10 mg/d), and both drugs for 6 wk each. MAIN OUTCOME: Plasma levels of LDL-C, surrogate markers for cholesterol absorption (campesterol) and synthesis (lathosterol), and proprotein convertase subtilisin-like kexin type 9 were measured at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS:LDL-C levels were reduced by 19% (ezetimibe), 25% (simvastatin), and 41% (ezetimibe+simvastatin) from a baseline of 146 +/- 20 mg/dl; results were similar between ethnic groups. Reduction in LDL-C correlated poorly with baseline levels of noncholesterol sterols and proprotein convertase subtilisin-like kexin type 9. Although individual responses varied widely, change in LDL-C on ezetimibe correlated with response to simvastatin (r = 0.46, P < 0.001). Combination therapy lowered LDL-C by 15% or greater in more than 95% of participants. CONCLUSIONS:Baseline cholesterol absorption and synthesis did not predict responsiveness to LDL-lowering drugs. Responsiveness to simvastatin and ezetimibe were highly correlated, suggesting that factors downstream of the primary sites of action of these drugs are a major determinant of response.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: The level and duration of exposure to circulating low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) are major contributors to coronary atherosclerosis. Therefore, optimal prevention will require long-term LDL-C reduction, making it important to select the most effective agent for each individual. OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that individuals with high fractional absorption of cholesterol respond better to the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe than to simvastatin, whereas low absorbers, who have elevated rates of cholesterol synthesis, respond better to simvastatin. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial was performed in 215 African- and European-American men. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomized to placebo, ezetimibe (10 mg/d), simvastatin (10 mg/d), and both drugs for 6 wk each. MAIN OUTCOME: Plasma levels of LDL-C, surrogate markers for cholesterol absorption (campesterol) and synthesis (lathosterol), and proprotein convertase subtilisin-like kexin type 9 were measured at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS:LDL-C levels were reduced by 19% (ezetimibe), 25% (simvastatin), and 41% (ezetimibe+simvastatin) from a baseline of 146 +/- 20 mg/dl; results were similar between ethnic groups. Reduction in LDL-C correlated poorly with baseline levels of noncholesterol sterols and proprotein convertase subtilisin-like kexin type 9. Although individual responses varied widely, change in LDL-C on ezetimibe correlated with response to simvastatin (r = 0.46, P < 0.001). Combination therapy lowered LDL-C by 15% or greater in more than 95% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline cholesterol absorption and synthesis did not predict responsiveness to LDL-lowering drugs. Responsiveness to simvastatin and ezetimibe were highly correlated, suggesting that factors downstream of the primary sites of action of these drugs are a major determinant of response.
Authors: Carlos A Dujovne; Mark P Ettinger; J Frederick McNeer; Leslie J Lipka; Alexandre P LeBeaut; Ramachandran Suresh; Bo Yang; Enrico P Veltri Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2002-11-15 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Tatu A Miettinen; Helena Gylling; Nina Lindbohm; Tatu E Miettinen; Radhakrishnan A Rajaratnam; Heikki Relas Journal: J Lab Clin Med Date: 2003-02
Authors: Harry R Davis; Li-Ji Zhu; Lizbeth M Hoos; Glen Tetzloff; Maureen Maguire; Jianjun Liu; Xiaorui Yao; Sai Prasad N Iyer; My-Hanh Lam; Erik G Lund; Patricia A Detmers; Michael P Graziano; Scott W Altmann Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2004-06-01 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Peter J H Jones; Maryam Shamloo; Dylan S MacKay; Todd C Rideout; Semone B Myrie; Jogchum Plat; Jean-Baptiste Roullet; David J Baer; Kara L Calkins; Harry R Davis; P Barton Duell; Henry Ginsberg; Helena Gylling; David Jenkins; Dieter Lütjohann; Mohammad Moghadasian; Robert A Moreau; David Mymin; Richard E Ostlund; Rouyanne T Ras; Javier Ochoa Reparaz; Elke A Trautwein; Stephen Turley; Tim Vanmierlo; Oliver Weingärtner Journal: Nutr Rev Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 7.110
Authors: Ivana Semova; Amy E Levenson; Joanna Krawczyk; Kevin Bullock; Kathryn A Williams; R Paul Wadwa; Amy S Shah; Philip R Khoury; Thomas R Kimball; Elaine M Urbina; Sarah D de Ferranti; Franziska K Bishop; David M Maahs; Lawrence M Dolan; Clary B Clish; Sudha B Biddinger Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Matthew Peach; Ren Xu; Dan Fitzpatrick; Lisa Hamilton; Ransi Somaratne; Robert Scott; Scott M Wasserman; C Stephen Djedjos Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2016-10-05 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: Nuntakorn Thongtang; Jianxin Lin; Ernst J Schaefer; Robert S Lowe; Joanne E Tomassini; Arvind K Shah; Andrew M Tershakovec Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2012-09-13 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Anas M Khanshour; Yared H Kidane; Julia Kozlitina; Reuel Cornelia; Alexandra Rafipay; Vanessa De Mello; Mitchell Weston; Nandina Paria; Aysha Khalid; Jacqueline T Hecht; Matthew B Dobbs; B Stephens Richards; Neil Vargesson; F Kent Hamra; Megan Wilson; Carol Wise; Christina A Gurnett; Jonathan J Rios Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 6.150