Ronald M Krauss1, Cathy Anne Pinto2, Yang Liu3, Amy O Johnson-Levonas4, Hayes M Dansky5. 1. Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute, Oakland, CA, USA. Electronic address: rkrauss@chori.org. 2. Epidemiology, Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. 3. BARDS, Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. 4. Scientific Affairs, Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. 5. Clinical Research, Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the effects of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor anacetrapib and atorvastatin, both as monotherapy and in combination, on particle concentrations of low-density lipoproteins (LDL), very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL), and intermediate-density lipoproteins in dyslipidemic patients. BACKGROUND: Although increases in high-density lipoproteins with CETP inhibition are well-documented, effects on atherogenic lipoprotein particle subclasses in dyslipidemic patients have not been extensively characterized. METHODS: Ion mobility was performed on stored plasma samples collected from patients before and after treatment with anacetrapib alone (150 and 300 mg/d) or in combination with atorvastatin (20 mg/d) in a previously conducted 8-week phase IIb study. RESULTS:Anacetrapib produced significant placebo-adjusted reductions of total LDL particles and all subfractions except for increases in very small LDL 4a and 4b. Atorvastatin reduced all LDL subfractions except LDL 4b. Results were generally additive for anacetrapib + atorvastatin. For patients treated with anacetrapib, the placebo-adjusted reduction in LDL 3a was attenuated and there was an increase in LDL 3b and 4a for those with low vs high triglyceride (TG) levels. For the atorvastatin alone vs placebo treatment comparison, there were small reductions in LDL 3a, 3b, and 4a for those with low vs high TG levels. CONCLUSIONS:Anacetrapib and atorvastatin produced similar reductions from baseline in total LDL particles, but did not have comparable effects on all LDL particle subfractions, and neither drug reduced the smallest LDL 4b particles. The clinical significance of these changes and the differential effects on very small LDL 4a in patients with higher vs lower TG remain to be determined (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00325455).
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the effects of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor anacetrapib and atorvastatin, both as monotherapy and in combination, on particle concentrations of low-density lipoproteins (LDL), very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL), and intermediate-density lipoproteins in dyslipidemic patients. BACKGROUND: Although increases in high-density lipoproteins with CETP inhibition are well-documented, effects on atherogenic lipoprotein particle subclasses in dyslipidemic patients have not been extensively characterized. METHODS: Ion mobility was performed on stored plasma samples collected from patients before and after treatment with anacetrapib alone (150 and 300 mg/d) or in combination with atorvastatin (20 mg/d) in a previously conducted 8-week phase IIb study. RESULTS:Anacetrapib produced significant placebo-adjusted reductions of total LDL particles and all subfractions except for increases in very small LDL 4a and 4b. Atorvastatin reduced all LDL subfractions except LDL 4b. Results were generally additive for anacetrapib + atorvastatin. For patients treated with anacetrapib, the placebo-adjusted reduction in LDL 3a was attenuated and there was an increase in LDL 3b and 4a for those with low vs high triglyceride (TG) levels. For the atorvastatin alone vs placebo treatment comparison, there were small reductions in LDL 3a, 3b, and 4a for those with low vs high TG levels. CONCLUSIONS:Anacetrapib and atorvastatin produced similar reductions from baseline in total LDL particles, but did not have comparable effects on all LDL particle subfractions, and neither drug reduced the smallest LDL 4b particles. The clinical significance of these changes and the differential effects on very small LDL 4a in patients with higher vs lower TG remain to be determined (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00325455).
Authors: Ronald M Krauss; Kathleen Wojnooski; Joseph Orr; J Casey Geaney; Cathy Anne Pinto; Yang Liu; John A Wagner; Julie Mabalot Luk; Amy O Johnson-Levonas; Matt S Anderson; Hayes M Dansky Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2011-12-17 Impact factor: 5.922
Authors: D E Gutstein; R Krishna; D Johns; H K Surks; H M Dansky; S Shah; Y B Mitchel; J Arena; J A Wagner Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: John S Millar; Margaret E Brousseau; Margaret R Diffenderfer; P Hugh R Barrett; Francine K Welty; Aisha Faruqi; Megan L Wolfe; Chorthip Nartsupha; Andres G Digenio; James P Mancuso; Gregory G Dolnikowski; Ernst J Schaefer; Daniel J Rader Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2006-03-30 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Daniel Bloomfield; Gary L Carlson; Aditi Sapre; Diane Tribble; James M McKenney; Thomas W Littlejohn; Christine McCrary Sisk; Yale Mitchel; Richard C Pasternak Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-12-20 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Safi U Khan; Muhammad U Khan; Shahul Valavoor; Muhammad Shahzeb Khan; Victor Okunrintemi; Mamas A Mamas; Thorsten M Leucker; Michael J Blaha; Erin D Michos Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2019-09-02 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Samia Mora; Michael P Caulfield; Jay Wohlgemuth; Zhihong Chen; H Robert Superko; Charles M Rowland; Robert J Glynn; Paul M Ridker; Ronald M Krauss Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: John S Millar; Michael E Lassman; Tiffany Thomas; Rajasekhar Ramakrishnan; Patricia Jumes; Richard L Dunbar; Emil M deGoma; Amanda L Baer; Wahida Karmally; Daniel S Donovan; Hashmi Rafeek; John A Wagner; Stephen Holleran; Joseph Obunike; Yang Liu; Soumia Aoujil; Taylor Standiford; David E Gutstein; Henry N Ginsberg; Daniel J Rader; Gissette Reyes-Soffer Journal: J Lipid Res Date: 2017-03-17 Impact factor: 5.922