Clinical Efficacy of Ezetimibe Combined with Rosuvastatin in the Treatment of Patients with Primary Hypercholesterolemia Inadequately Controlled by Statin Therapy.

Wei Z ，Wang F ，Zhang L ，Dai W ... -  《BRITISH JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE》

Efficacy and safety of moderate-intensity rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe versus high-intensity rosuvastatin monotherapy in the treatment of composite cardiovascular events with hypercholesterolemia: A meta-analysis.

Statins are the gold standard in the treatment of dyslipidemia, significantly reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. To systematically review the efficacy and safety of Moderate-intensity Rosuvastatin Plus Ezetimibe compared with High-intensity Rosuvastatin in treating Composite Cardiovascular Events. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, China Knowledge Network, China Biological Literature Database, Wan Fang Database, and Weipu Database were searched to retrieve randomized controlled trials assessing the safety and efficacy of the two therapies from the time of construction to December 2023. The Jadad scale assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and Review Manager 5.4 software was used for meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of outcomes was estimated by the I2 test, where we applied risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) and 95% CI to present continuous outcomes. We used funnel plots to assess study publication bias and sensitivity analysis was used to address significant clinical heterogeneity. The meta-analysis described 21 RCTs involving 24592 participants. The findings indicated that moderate-intensity statin combination therapy improved low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (MD -8.06, 95% CI [-9.48, -6.64] p < 0.05), total cholesterol (TG) (MD -5.66, 95% CI [-8.51, -2.82] p < 0.05), and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) (MD -17.04, 95% CI [-29.55, -4.54] p < 0.05) to a greater extent and superior in achieving LDL-C <70 (RR1.26, 95% CI [1.22, 1.29] p < 0.05) and LDL-C <55 (RR1.66, 95% CI [1.56, 1.77] p < 0.05) ratios and in the incidence of adverse events than the high-intensity Rosuvastatin monotherapy group. However, there was no statistical difference between the two in improving HDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), and preventing long-term composite adverse cardiovascular events (ACE). Funnel plots indicated publication bias. Sensitivity analysis suggested instability in long-term composite cardiovascular events, HDL-C, and TC results. Moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe with combination therapy had better efficacy and safety than high-intensity statins. Future validation is needed with more long-term high-quality large samples.

Liu L ，Deng Y ，Li L ，Yang X ，Yin Z ，Lai Y ... -  《PLoS One》

Recaticimab as Add-On Therapy to Statins for Nonfamilial Hypercholesterolemia: The Randomized, Phase 3 REMAIN-2 Trial.

Currently available antiproprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 monoclonal antibodies can effectively decrease low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels, but require frequent dosing. Recaticimab is a novel humanized monoclonal antibody against proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9. In a phase 1b/2 trial, recaticimab as add-on to stable statins showed robust LDL-C reduction with a dosing interval up to every 12 weeks (Q12W) in patients with hypercholesterolemia. REMAIN-2 (REcaticiMab Add-on therapy In patients with Nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia) aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of 48-week treatment with recaticimab as add-on therapy to statins in nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia. REMAIN-2 was a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. During the run-in period, patients received stable moderate or high-intensity statin, with or without cholesterol absorption inhibitors (ezetimibe) or fenofibrate, for ≥4 weeks. Patients with an LDL-C of ≥1.8 mmol/L (if with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD]) or ≥2.6 mmol/L (if without ASCVD) were then randomized (2:2:2:1:1:1) to receive recaticimab 150 mg every 4 weeks (Q4W), 300 mg every 8 weeks (Q8W), or 450 mg Q12W, or matching placebo injections (Q4W, Q8W, or Q12W) for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was percentage change from baseline to week 24 in LDL-C level. A total of 689 randomly assigned patients received treatment (mean age, 55.8 years; male, 64.4%; ASCVD history, 69.5%; concomitant ezetimibe, 11.2%; mean baseline LDL-C, 2.8 mmol/L). Percentage change in LDL-C from baseline to week 24 was significantly more pronounced with recaticimab vs placebo (P < 0.0001), with least-squares mean differences of -62.2% (95% CI: -67.0% to -57.4%), -59.7% (95% CI: -65.0% to -54.4%), and -53.4% (95% CI: -58.7% to -48.2%) for the 150 mg Q4W, 300 mg Q8W, and 450 mg Q12W regimens, respectively. The decreases in LDL-C with recaticimab were maintained through week 48. Secondary lipid variables, including non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, and lipoprotein(a) also favored the recaticimab groups. During the treatment period, the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (28.5% vs 26.6%) and serious treatment-related adverse events (0.4% vs 0.4%) was similarly low in both the recaticimab and placebo groups. Recaticimab as add-on to stable statin therapy significantly decreased LDL-C levels at week 24 and sustained the decreases through week 48, providing a novel therapeutic alternative with a dosing interval of up to every 12 weeks in patients with nonfamilial hypercholesterolemia.

Sun Y ，Lv Q ，Guo Y ，Wang Z ，Huang R ，Gao X ，Han Y ，Yao Z ，Zheng M ，Luo S ，Li Y ，Gu X ，Zhang Y ，Wang J ，Hong L ，Ma X ，Su G ，Sheng J ，Lai C ，Shen A ，Wang M ，Zhang W ，Wu S ，Zheng Z ，Li J ，Zhong T ，Wang Y ，He L ，Du X ，Ma CS ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

Lomitapide for the treatment of paediatric patients with homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (APH-19): results from the efficacy phase of an open-label, multicentre, phase 3 study.

Homozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia (HoFH) is a rare inherited disorder characterised by extremely high concentrations of LDL cholesterol, leading to early-onset atherosclerosis. Lomitapide is an orally administered microsomal triglyceride transfer protein (MTP) inhibitor that effectively lowers LDL cholesterol and is approved for adults with HoFH. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of lomitapide in paediatric patients with HoFH receiving standard-of-care lipid-lowering therapy. APH-19 is an open-label, single-arm, phase 3 trial performed at 12 study centres in Germany, Israel, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Spain, and Tunisia. A 6-week run-in period was followed by a 24-week efficacy phase and an 80-week safety phase. Patients aged 5-17 years, on stable lipid-lowering therapy, with HoFH diagnosed using the criteria from the 2014 European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel on HoFH were titrated to maximum tolerated doses of oral lomitapide, starting at 2 mg (patients aged 5-15 years) or 5 mg (patients aged 16-17 years). The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline to week 24 in LDL cholesterol, which was assessed in patients who had received at least one dose of lomitapide, and who had a baseline and at least one post-baseline measurement. The secondary outcomes were the percentage change from baseline at week 24 in total cholesterol, non-HDL cholesterol, VLDL cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, and lipoprotein(a). Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04681170. Between Dec 20, 2020, and Oct 16, 2022, 43 patients were included and treated (24 [56%] were female and 19 [44%] were male, and median age was 10·7 years [7·0-14·0]). Mean change from baseline in LDL cholesterol at week 24 was -53·5% (95% CI -61·6 to -45·4, p<0·0001). Mean percentage reductions were observed at week 24 for non-HDL cholesterol (-53·9%, 95% CI -61·7 to -46·1, p<0·0001), total cholesterol (-50·0%, 95% CI -57·6 to -42·4, p<0·0001), VLDL cholesterol (-50·2%, -59·1 to -41·2, p<0·0001), apolipoprotein B (-52·4%, -60·3 to -44·5, p<0·0001), triglycerides was -49·9% (-58·8 to -41·0, p<0·0001), and lipoprotein(a) (-11·3%, -32·9 to 10·3 [in 21 patients with measurements in mg/dL]; -23·6%, -38·2 to -9·0 [in 22 patients with measurements in nmol/L]; p=0·0070 combined). Adverse events were mostly mild, and gastrointestinal and hepatic in nature. Adverse events of special interest were reported for five (12%) patients (gastrointestinal in two patients and hepatic in three). One serious treatment-emergent adverse event was reported (also classed as an adverse event of special interest): an increase in hepatic enzymes, resulting in two dose interruptions, two dose reductions, and a repeated dose escalation. Lomitapide provided a significant, clinically meaningful LDL cholesterol reduction and has the potential to be an efficient, LDL receptor-independent option for paediatric patients with HoFH. Amryt Pharmaceuticals.

Masana L ，Zambon A ，Schmitt CP ，Taylan C ，Driemeyer J ，Cohen H ，Buonuomo PS ，Alashwal A ，Al-Dubayee M ，Kholaif N ，Diaz-Diaz JL ，Maatouk F ，Martinez-Hervas S ，Mangal B ，Löwe S ，Cunningham T ... -  《-》