Steven C Lin1, Brandon Ang2, Carolyn Hernandez2, Ricki Bettencourt2, Rashmi Jain2, Joanie Salotti1, Lisa Richards1, Yuko Kono3, Archana Bhatt2, Hamed Aryafar4, Grace Y Lin5, Mark A Valasek5, Claude B Sirlin6, Sharon Brouha4, Rohit Loomba7. 1. NAFLD Translational Research Unit, Division of Gastroenterology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 2. NAFLD Translational Research Unit, Division of Epidemiology, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 6. Department of Pathology and Liver Imaging Group, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA. 7. Professor of Medicine and Associate Director of Clinical Research, Division of Gastroenterology, Adjunct Professor, Division of Epidemiology, University of California at San Diego, Biomedical Research Facility II, 4A18, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and mortality. No US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapies for NASH are available; clinical trials to date have not yet systematically assessed for changes in cardiovascular risk. This study examines the prospective utility of cardiovascular risk assessments, the Framingham risk score (FRS) and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, as endpoints in a NASH randomized clinical trial, and assesses whether histologic improvements lead to lower cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (MOZART) in which 50 biopsy-proven NASH patients receivedoral ezetimibe 10 mg daily (n = 25) versus placebo (n = 25). Biochemical profiling, FRS, CAC scores, liver biopsies were obtained at baseline and endpoint. RESULTS:Ezetimibe improved FRS whereas placebo did not (4.4 ± 6.2 to 2.9 ± 4.8, p = 0.038; 3.0 ± 4.4 to 2.9 ± 4.2, p = 0.794). CAC scores did not change with ezetimibe or placebo (180.4 ± 577.2 to 194.1 ± 623.9, p = 0.293; 151.4 ± 448.9 to 183.3 ± 555.7, p = 0.256). Ezetimibe improved FRS and CAC scores in more patients than placebo (48% versus 23%, p = 0.079, and 21% versus 0%, p = 0.090, respectively), though not significantly. No differences were noted in cardiovascular risk scores among histologic responders versus nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS:Ezetimibe improved FRS whereas placebo did not. FRS and CAC scores improved in a greater proportion of patients with ezetimibe; this trend did not reach significance. These findings indicate the utility and feasibility of monitoring cardiovascular risk in a NASH trial. The utility of CAC scores may be higher in trials of longer duration (⩾52 weeks) and with older patients (age ⩾45). ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01766713.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and mortality. No US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved therapies for NASH are available; clinical trials to date have not yet systematically assessed for changes in cardiovascular risk. This study examines the prospective utility of cardiovascular risk assessments, the Framingham risk score (FRS) and coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, as endpoints in a NASH randomized clinical trial, and assesses whether histologic improvements lead to lower cardiovascular risk. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a 24-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (MOZART) in which 50 biopsy-proven NASH patients received oral ezetimibe 10 mg daily (n = 25) versus placebo (n = 25). Biochemical profiling, FRS, CAC scores, liver biopsies were obtained at baseline and endpoint. RESULTS:Ezetimibe improved FRS whereas placebo did not (4.4 ± 6.2 to 2.9 ± 4.8, p = 0.038; 3.0 ± 4.4 to 2.9 ± 4.2, p = 0.794). CAC scores did not change with ezetimibe or placebo (180.4 ± 577.2 to 194.1 ± 623.9, p = 0.293; 151.4 ± 448.9 to 183.3 ± 555.7, p = 0.256). Ezetimibe improved FRS and CAC scores in more patients than placebo (48% versus 23%, p = 0.079, and 21% versus 0%, p = 0.090, respectively), though not significantly. No differences were noted in cardiovascular risk scores among histologic responders versus nonresponders. CONCLUSIONS:Ezetimibe improved FRS whereas placebo did not. FRS and CAC scores improved in a greater proportion of patients with ezetimibe; this trend did not reach significance. These findings indicate the utility and feasibility of monitoring cardiovascular risk in a NASH trial. The utility of CAC scores may be higher in trials of longer duration (⩾52 weeks) and with older patients (age ⩾45). ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT01766713.
Authors: Rohit Loomba; Nicholas Schork; Chi-Hua Chen; Ricki Bettencourt; Ana Bhatt; Brandon Ang; Phirum Nguyen; Carolyn Hernandez; Lisa Richards; Joanie Salotti; Steven Lin; Ekihiro Seki; Karen E Nelson; Claude B Sirlin; David Brenner Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-08-20 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: John W McEvoy; Michael J Blaha; Andrew P Defilippis; Matthew J Budoff; Khurram Nasir; Roger S Blumenthal; Steven R Jones Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Robert Detrano; Alan D Guerci; J Jeffrey Carr; Diane E Bild; Gregory Burke; Aaron R Folsom; Kiang Liu; Steven Shea; Moyses Szklo; David A Bluemke; Daniel H O'Leary; Russell Tracy; Karol Watson; Nathan D Wong; Richard A Kronmal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S C Lin; E Heba; R Bettencourt; G Y Lin; M A Valasek; O Lunde; G Hamilton; C B Sirlin; R Loomba Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Tracey G Simon; Kathleen E Corey; Christopher P Cannon; Michael Blazing; Jeong-Gun Park; Michelle L O'Donoghue; Raymond T Chung; Robert P Giugliano Journal: Int J Cardiol Date: 2018-05-26 Impact factor: 4.164