| Literature DB >> 25879728 |
Lulu Li1,2, Minli Zhang3, Fuxiang Su4, Yang Li5, Yali Shen6, Jie Shen7, Daqing Zhang8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dyslipidemia management situation in Chinese patients with high risk and very high risk has been demonstrated very low, despite the wide use of statins. The effects and safety of the combined treatment of ezetimibe (EZ) and statins in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) remain unknown.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25879728 PMCID: PMC4342190 DOI: 10.1186/s12944-015-0004-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lipids Health Dis ISSN: 1476-511X Impact factor: 3.876
Baseline data of study participants
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Male/female | 24/20 | 24/16 | 0.614 |
| UA/NSTEMI/STEMI | 21/14/9 | 24/10/6 | 0.528 |
| ROS/ATOR/SIM/PRA | 25/15/2/2 | 29/8/2/1 | 0.962 |
| Age (year) | 62 ± 1.5 | 64± 1.5 | 0.514 |
| BMI | 25.1± 0.15 | 24.7± 0.19 | 0.136 |
| smoking/non-smoking | 18/26 | 16/24 | 0.932 |
| TC (mmol/L) | 4.70± 0.17 | 4.43± 0.15 | 0.252 |
| TG (mmol/L) | 1.93± 0.17 | 2.02± 0.19 | 0.459 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.00± 0.03 | 1.00± 0.04 | 0.966 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 3.07± 0.14 | 2.70± 0.13 | 0.053 |
| hs-CRP (mg/L) | 4.55± 0.70 | 4.15±0.80 | 0.711 |
| ALT (IU/L) | 28± 3.5 | 30± 2.9 | 0.726 |
| AST (IU/L) | 61± 16 | 52±11 | 0.658 |
| TBIL (Umol/L) | 10.2± 0.68 | 9.7±0.66 | 0.724 |
| Cr (μmol/L) | 77.5± 4.52 | 78.6±5.59 | 0.871 |
| FBG (mmol/L) | 7.66± 0.39 | 8.27±0.62 | 0.092 |
| HbA1C (%) | 7.4±0.32 | 7.9±0.28 | 0.187 |
| CK (U/L) | 101±29 | 117±24 | 0.433 |
| CK-MB (U/L) | 23±7 | 19±6 | 0.547 |
| TnI (μg/L) | 16.17±4.85 | 12.14±4.52 | 0.545 |
Data are presented as mean ±SE. P value less than 0.05 for significant difference between two groups at baseline.
Figure 1Plasma lipids levels in both groups during follow-up. ACS patients with T2DM divided into two groups, the combination group who received EZ 10 mg/d with standard dose of statins (n=44) and statins group who received standard dose of statins (n=40). Plasma lipids levels were tested at baseline, 7th day and 30th day after treatment. (A) LDL-C levels and control rate of LDL-C. *Indicate the percentage control rate of LDL-C level, P=0.002. (B, C, D) TC, TG, HDL-C levels. *p=0.000 versus TG level at baseline in combination group.#p=0.000 versus TG level at baseline in statins group. Data are shown as mean ± SE. Independent t test was to compare the significant difference of treatment groups. Data expressed as as mean ± SE.
Figure 2Inflammation markers of both groups during follow-up. The anti-inflammatory effects of EZ combined with statins and statins monotherapy were evaluated during follow-up. Hs-CRP level was measured at baseline, 7th day and 30th day. Paired t test was used to compare significance of pre and posttreatment. Independent t test was used to examine the difference between the treatment groups. Data are expressed as mean ± SE.
Correlation between hs-CRP and lipids levels
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hs-CRP | R | -0.242 | -0.135 | -0.291 | 0.210 |
| P | 0.133 | 0.068 | 0.140 | 0.193 |
Data are presented as mean ±SE. P value are less than 0.05 for significant correlation.
Figure 3Safety evaluation during follow-up after treatment. Liver dysfunction and MRSE marker were from lowest levels within 3 days after admission and at 30th day. (A, B, C) liver dysfunction marker ALT, TBIL and MRSE marker CK at 0th and 30th after treatment. Side effects was not observed in combination group and statins group after treatment. Data presented as mean ± SE.