Olivier Descamps1, Joanne E Tomassini2, Jianxin Lin3, Adam B Polis4, Arvind Shah5, Philippe Brudi6, Mary E Hanson7, Andrew M Tershakovec8. 1. Centre de Recherche Médicale de Jolimont, 159, Rue Ferrer, 7100 Haine Saint-Paul, Belgium. Electronic address: olivierdescamps@hotmail.com. 2. Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: joanne_tomassini@merck.com. 3. Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: jianxin.lin@merck.com. 4. Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: adam.polis@merck.com. 5. Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: arvind.shah@merck.com. 6. Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: philippe.brudi@merck.com. 7. Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: mary.hanson@merck.com. 8. Merck & Co., Inc., 2000 Galloping Hill Rd, Kenilworth, NJ 07033, USA. Electronic address: andrew.tershakovec@merck.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We compared the variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to treatment with ezetimibe + statins versus statins in hypercholesterolemic patients. METHODS: An analysis of patient-level data pooled from 27 double-blind, placebo and/or active-controlled studies in 21,671 patients treated withezetimibe + statins versus statins on first-line (statin-naïve/wash-out) or second-line (on statin, randomized to ezetimibe versus placebo [add-on] or ezetimibe versus uptitrated statin [uptitrate]) for 6-24 wks. Variances (standard deviation [SD], coefficient of variation [CV], and root mean squared error [RMSE] adjusted for various factors) for % change from baseline in LDL-C were compared. RESULTS: In first-line and second-line add-on studies, the variability (SD, RMSE) of % change from baseline in LDL-C was lower in ezetimibe + statin-treated patients versus statin-treated patients, ±covariates. Differences were small but statistically significant due to the large sample size. In second-line uptitrate studies, ezetimibe + statin treatment resulted in greater unadjusted variability (SD) versus statin therapy, while the adjusted variability (RMSE) was significantly lower. Relative variability (CV=SD/mean) was lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statin therapy for all study types, being more pronounced in second-line add-on and uptitrate studies, attributed to larger mean LDL-C reductions for ezetimibe + statins versus statin groups. When assessed by individual study/type, statin brand, potency or dose, the CVs remained lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statins in second-line studies. The SDs showed no consistent trend for either therapy. CONCLUSION: In hypercholesterolemic patients, the absolute variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to ezetimibe + statins was not greater versus statins alone and appeared lower when adjusted for other factors. Relative variability was lower in patients treated with statins + ezetimibe. A better understanding of the variability of the LDL-C lowering response may help guide clinicians in making therapeutic decisions.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We compared the variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to treatment with ezetimibe + statins versus statins in hypercholesterolemicpatients. METHODS: An analysis of patient-level data pooled from 27 double-blind, placebo and/or active-controlled studies in 21,671 patients treated with ezetimibe + statins versus statins on first-line (statin-naïve/wash-out) or second-line (on statin, randomized to ezetimibe versus placebo [add-on] or ezetimibe versus uptitrated statin [uptitrate]) for 6-24 wks. Variances (standard deviation [SD], coefficient of variation [CV], and root mean squared error [RMSE] adjusted for various factors) for % change from baseline in LDL-C were compared. RESULTS: In first-line and second-line add-on studies, the variability (SD, RMSE) of % change from baseline in LDL-C was lower in ezetimibe + statin-treated patients versus statin-treated patients, ±covariates. Differences were small but statistically significant due to the large sample size. In second-line uptitrate studies, ezetimibe + statin treatment resulted in greater unadjusted variability (SD) versus statin therapy, while the adjusted variability (RMSE) was significantly lower. Relative variability (CV=SD/mean) was lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statin therapy for all study types, being more pronounced in second-line add-on and uptitrate studies, attributed to larger mean LDL-C reductions for ezetimibe + statins versus statin groups. When assessed by individual study/type, statin brand, potency or dose, the CVs remained lower for ezetimibe + statins versus statins in second-line studies. The SDs showed no consistent trend for either therapy. CONCLUSION: In hypercholesterolemicpatients, the absolute variability of LDL-C-lowering responses to ezetimibe + statins was not greater versus statins alone and appeared lower when adjusted for other factors. Relative variability was lower in patients treated with statins + ezetimibe. A better understanding of the variability of the LDL-C lowering response may help guide clinicians in making therapeutic decisions.
Authors: Arman Qamar; Robert P Giugliano; Anthony C Keech; Julia F Kuder; Sabina A Murphy; Christopher E Kurtz; Scott M Wasserman; Peter S Sever; Terje R Pedersen; Marc S Sabatine Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Fadia Tohme Shaya; Krystal Sing; Robert Milam; Fasahath Husain; Michael A Del Aguila; Miraj Y Patel Journal: Am J Cardiovasc Drugs Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.571
Authors: Ali Allahyari; Tomas Jernberg; Emil Hagström; Margrét Leosdottir; Pia Lundman; Peter Ueda Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Christie M Ballantyne; Harold E Bays; Michael J Louie; Jeremy Smart; Yang Zhang; Kausik K Ray Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Yu-Jeong Choi; Sol Ji Lee; Hyo In Kim; Hee Jung Lee; So Jung Kang; Tai Young Kim; Chunhoo Cheon; Seong-Gyu Ko Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-16 Impact factor: 4.379