J Gumprecht1, M Gosho, D Budinski, N Hounslow. 1. Department of Internal Diseases, Diabetology and Nephrology, Medical University of Silesia, Zabrze, Poland. jgumprecht@sum.edu.pl
Abstract
AIM: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of pitavastatin with atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes and combined (mixed) dyslipidaemia. METHODS: Randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, multinational non-inferiority study. Patients were randomised 2 : 1 to pitavastatin 4 mg (n = 279) or atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 139) daily for 12 weeks. Patients completing the core study could continue on pitavastatin 4 mg (n = 141) or atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 64) [40 mg (n = 7) if lipid targets not reached by week 8] for a further 44 weeks (extension study). The primary efficacy variable was the change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). RESULTS: Reductions in LDL-C were not significantly different at week 12 between the pitavastatin (-41%) and atorvastatin (-43%) groups. Attainment of National Cholesterol Education Program and European Atherosclerosis Society targets for LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) was similarly high for both treatment groups. Changes in secondary lipid variables (e.g. HDL-C, apolipoprotein B and triglycerides) were similar between treatments. Post hoc analysis showed that adjusted mean treatment differences for pitavastatin vs. atorvastatin were within the non-inferiority margin at weeks 16 (+0.11%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.23 to 5.44) and 44 (-0.02%; 95% CI, -5.46 to 5.41) of the extension study. Both treatments were well tolerated; atorvastatin increased fasting blood glucose from baseline (+7.2%; p < 0.05), whereas pitavastatin had no significant effect (+2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in LDL-C and changes in other lipids were not significantly different in patients treated with pitavastatin 4 mg or atorvastatin 20 or 40 mg. Pitavastatin may, however, have a more favourable effect on the glycaemic status.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare the long-term efficacy and safety of pitavastatin with atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes and combined (mixed) dyslipidaemia. METHODS: Randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, multinational non-inferiority study. Patients were randomised 2 : 1 to pitavastatin 4 mg (n = 279) or atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 139) daily for 12 weeks. Patients completing the core study could continue on pitavastatin 4 mg (n = 141) or atorvastatin 20 mg (n = 64) [40 mg (n = 7) if lipid targets not reached by week 8] for a further 44 weeks (extension study). The primary efficacy variable was the change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). RESULTS: Reductions in LDL-C were not significantly different at week 12 between the pitavastatin (-41%) and atorvastatin (-43%) groups. Attainment of National Cholesterol Education Program and European Atherosclerosis Society targets for LDL-C and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) was similarly high for both treatment groups. Changes in secondary lipid variables (e.g. HDL-C, apolipoprotein B and triglycerides) were similar between treatments. Post hoc analysis showed that adjusted mean treatment differences for pitavastatin vs. atorvastatin were within the non-inferiority margin at weeks 16 (+0.11%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -5.23 to 5.44) and 44 (-0.02%; 95% CI, -5.46 to 5.41) of the extension study. Both treatments were well tolerated; atorvastatin increased fasting blood glucose from baseline (+7.2%; p < 0.05), whereas pitavastatin had no significant effect (+2.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Reductions in LDL-C and changes in other lipids were not significantly different in patients treated with pitavastatin 4 mg or atorvastatin 20 or 40 mg. Pitavastatin may, however, have a more favourable effect on the glycaemic status.