Cargando…

A Comparison of Ezetimibe and Evolocumab for Atherogenic Lipid Reduction in Four Patient Populations: A Pooled Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Three Phase 3 Studies

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians, payers, guideline committees, and policymakers support the use of high-intensity statins in patients at high risk for complications of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Guidelines and recommendations provide guidance on next steps for patients with inadequate low-density lipopr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Koren, Michael J., Jones, Peter H., Robinson, Jennifer G., Sullivan, David, Cho, Leslie, Hucko, Thomas, Lopez, J. Antonio G., Fleishman, Alex N., Somaratne, Ransi, Stroes, Erik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Healthcare 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7584715/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32564340
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40119-020-00181-8
Descripción
Sumario:INTRODUCTION: Clinicians, payers, guideline committees, and policymakers support the use of high-intensity statins in patients at high risk for complications of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Guidelines and recommendations provide guidance on next steps for patients with inadequate low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control on maximally tolerated statin or for those who are statin-intolerant. Ezetimibe and evolocumab improve CV outcomes when added to statins in high-CV-risk populations. The aim of the study was to compare evolocumab and ezetimibe for lipid-lowering efficacy and safety. METHODS: We summarized data from 1427 patients from three phase 3 evolocumab studies comparing double-blinded evolocumab vs. ezetimibe. These studies evaluated four distinct populations: those free of CVD receiving each agent as monotherapy, patients with CVD receiving add-on therapy to low- or high-intensity statin, and statin-intolerant patients. Lipid efficacy and safety were reported at week 12. RESULTS: Across the studies, evolocumab reduced LDL-C by a mean 55–61% from baseline to week 12; ezetimibe lowered LDL-C by 18–20% from baseline (mean difference = 38–43% favoring evolocumab; p < 0.0001). This corresponded to absolute reductions in LDL-C of 60–104 mg/dL with evolocumab vs. 17–35 mg/dL with ezetimibe. Evolocumab also significantly improved other lipids and led to a higher percentage of patients achieving LDL-C goals vs. ezetimibe. Adverse events and discontinuation rates (oral and parenteral therapy) were balanced across groups, suggesting good tolerance and acceptance of both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Evolocumab outperformed ezetimibe in efficacy and lipid goal attainment. Both products demonstrated good safety/tolerability. These data may help guide access decisions for high-risk patients with inadequate treatment response or intolerance to statin therapy.