Similar trends were observed for changes in total cholesterol .
Implication sGiven the available data , the addition of ezetimibe to ongoing simvastatin , atorvastatin , or rosuvastatin monotherapy offers greater reduction in LDL-C among patients at high risk of CVD compared to doubling the initial statin dose
Purpose While statins are used as first-line treatments for high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia , statin monotherapy is often insufficient to achieve target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL-C ) levels .
Second-line treatment options include up-titration of statin dose , switching to a more potent statin , or combination therapy , e.g. , with ezetimibe .
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin , atorvastatin , or rosuvastatin monotherapy versus doubling the dosage or switching to a higher-potency statin in a population of patients with hypocholesterolemia at high risk of cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) and who had been previously treated with a statin .
Superior benefit of aggressive lipid-lowering therapy for high- risk patients using statins: the SUBARU study--more hypercholesterolemic patients achieve Japan Atherosclerosis Society LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin therapy than with atorvastatin therapy.
AIM There have been few comparisons between rosuvastatin and other statins in Japanese patients . This open-label , r and omized , parallel-group comparative study was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin ( 5 mg ) and atorvastatin ( 10 mg ) once daily in Japanese patients with hypercholesterolemia . METHODS Patients with hypercholesterolemia who had received atorvastatin ( 10 mg/day ) for at least 4 weeks and were in category B3 , B4 , or C according to the Japan Atherosclerosis Society Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Diseases 2002 ( JAS2002GL ) were r and omly assigned to rosuvastatin at 5 mg/day ( switched treatment ) or atorvastatin at 10 mg/day ( continued treatment ) . The primary endpoint was the achievement of JAS2002GL LDL-C goals at 8 weeks . RESULTS LDL-C goals were reached by 80.3 % of the rosuvastatin group and 67.3 % of the atorvastatin group at 8 weeks ( p<0.01 ) . The percent change of the LDL-C and LDL-C/HDL-C ratio at 8 weeks was significantly greater in the rosuvastatin group than in the atorvastatin group ( both p<0.01 ) . Furthermore , rosuvastatin improved fasting plasma glucose ( p<0.01 ) . Both drugs were well tolerated . CONCLUSION Rosuvastatin ( 5 mg/day ) is a useful treatment option for high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia
Similar trends were observed for changes in total cholesterol .
Implication sGiven the available data , the addition of ezetimibe to ongoing simvastatin , atorvastatin , or rosuvastatin monotherapy offers greater reduction in LDL-C among patients at high risk of CVD compared to doubling the initial statin dose
Purpose While statins are used as first-line treatments for high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia , statin monotherapy is often insufficient to achieve target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ( LDL-C ) levels .
Second-line treatment options include up-titration of statin dose , switching to a more potent statin , or combination therapy , e.g. , with ezetimibe .
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of adding ezetimibe to simvastatin , atorvastatin , or rosuvastatin monotherapy versus doubling the dosage or switching to a higher-potency statin in a population of patients with hypocholesterolemia at high risk of cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) and who had been previously treated with a statin .