Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Comparative safety and efficacy of low- or moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

  • Young-Mi Ah,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation College of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea

    ⨯
  • Minseob Jeong,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation College of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea

    ⨯
  • Hye Duck Choi

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    chd80@hotmail.com

    Affiliation College of Pharmacy, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, Gyeongbuk, Republic of Korea

    ⨯

Abstract

Statin is highly recommended for dyslipidemia to prevent atherosclerosis-related cardiovascular diseases and death. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacies and safeties of low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy. Meta-analysis was conducted on data included in published studies performed to compare the effects of the two treatments on lipid parameters and hs-CRP. Safety-related parameters were also evaluated. Eighteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of efficacy, low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe reduced LDL-C (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153–0.463), TC (SE = 0.217; 95% CI 0.098–0.337), triglyceride (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153–0.463), and hs-CRP (SE = 0.190; 95% CI 0.018–0.362) significantly more than high-intensity statin therapy. In terms of safety, the two treatments were not significantly different in terms of ALT elevation, but high-intensity statin increased AST and CK significantly more than combination therapy. This analysis indicates that low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combined therapy is more effective and safer than high-intensity statin monotherapy, which suggests the addition of ezetimibe to statin should be preferred over increasing statin dose and that high-intensity statin should be used more carefully, especially in patients with related risks.

Citation: Ah Y-M, Jeong M, Choi HD (2022) Comparative safety and efficacy of low- or moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy and high-intensity statin monotherapy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. PLoS ONE 17(3): e0264437. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437

Editor: Tariq Jamal Siddiqi, The University of Mississippi Medical Center, UNITED STATES

Received: September 27, 2021; Accepted: February 10, 2022; Published: March 4, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Ah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: This research was supported by the 2021 Yeungnam University Research Grant. The funding institutions had no role in the study design, methods, data collections, analysis, and manuscript preparation in relation to this work.

Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Introduction

Statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events and are considered first-line therapies for managing dyslipidemia or atherosclerosis cardiovascular diseases (ASCVDs) [1, 2]. Several statins are currently available and are selected based on individual ASCVD risk and indicated statin intensity [3]. For instance, high-intensity statins that lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) on average by 50% or more as daily dose are strongly recommended for patients at high risk, such as those with a history of at least one major ASCVD event (e.g., recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease).

Statins are generally well-tolerated, but statin-associated muscle symptoms are frequently reported and are a common cause of statin discontinuation [4]. Liver enzyme abnormalities are other notable adverse events during statin therapy [5]. Moreover, the increased risk of adverse effects on increasing dosage is a major concern. Thus, low dose statin therapy or a different treatment strategy should be considered for patients with risk factors for muscle or liver-related toxicities.

Given the increased risk posed by high-intensity statin therapy, ezetimibe is a highly recommended adjunct therapy in combination with statins [6]. When used alone ezetimibe reduces LDL-C modestly by about 18%, but greater effects can be expected for ezetimibe-statin combination therapies [6, 7]. Many prospective clinical trials have been performed to compare the efficacy and safety of high-intensity statin therapy with ezetimibe-statin (low- or moderate intensity) combination therapy. A randomized study reported that LDL-C levels were significantly lower in a group treated with atorvastatin 20 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg daily than in a group treated with atorvastatin 40 mg daily at 12 weeks after treatment commencement [8]. Liu et al. also suggested that statin combined with ezetimibe is more effective at reducing LDL-C than high-intensity statin monotherapy [9]. However, Oh et al. reported that lipid level changes achieved by rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 5 mg plus ezetimibe were not significantly different in patients with ACS [10].

Despite the lack of consistency of previous reports, no study systematic review or meta-analysis has been conducted on studies that compared the lipid-lowering effects of high-intensity statins versus low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe or on the safeties or adverse events of the two regimens.

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate efficacies, by determining changes in plasma lipid levels, in studies that compared low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe vs. high-intensity statin monotherapy. In addition, changes in safety-related parameters were evaluated and compared.

Materials and methods

Search strategy and study selection

We searched for published articles that compared the lipid-lowering effects and safeties of high-intensity statin (daily dose lowers LDL cholesterol on average by ≥ 50%) and low/moderate-intensity statin (daily dose lowers LDL cholesterol on average by < 50%) plus ezetimibe. Initially, we searched online databases, including MEDLINE (OVID and PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The search terms used were combinations of the following PubMed MeSH terms and related text terms, that is, statins, hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors, and ezetimibe. The bibliographies of retrieved articles and relevant reviews were also searched to identify additional eligible studies. We did not impose any publication limitations and the search was completed on 30 March 2021.

The two authors (Ah and Choi) independently reviewed and selected studies for inclusion in the systematic review. The inclusion criteria applied were as follows: (1) a randomized clinical trial; (2) the administration of high-intensity statin vs. low- or moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe; (3) inclusion of lipid concentrations; and (4) inclusion of safety data. Any disagreement regarding article inclusion was resolved by discussion. If a trial was described in more than one report, we extracted data from the most complete account and used other publications to clarify data.

The study protocol for this meta-analysis was registered in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42021247742 on May 18, 2021.

Data extraction and quality assessment

Detailed reviews of full-text articles were performed independently by the two authors. The following data were extracted from each study: first author’s surname; year of publication; country in which the work was performed; number of participants; patient characteristics; treatments given; treatment-induced changes in serum lipid concentrations and high sensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP); and adverse events. The methodological quality of each trial was evaluated by two authors using the Jadad scale [11]. This scale evaluates randomized controlled trials using the following five indicators: an adequate description of how randomization was achieved; appropriateness of the randomization method; an adequate account of how the investigators were double-blinded; appropriateness of the double-blinding method chosen; and details on patient withdrawal and dropout. A score of greater than three was considered to reflect high-quality work. Any disagreement between the two authors was resolved by discussion.

Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety

The efficacy endpoints used were changes in lipid concentrations, including changes in LDL-C, HDL-C, total cholesterol (TC), triglycerides, apolipoprotein (Apo) A1, and Apo B. Changes in hs-CRP were also analyzed. Standard difference in means (SE) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) wererespectivley calculated to assess the effects of high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe.

To evlauate treatment safeties, we measured differences between treatment-induced elevations of alanine aminotransferase (ALT), aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and creatine phosphokinase (CK). Likewise, mean changes, using CI of 95% CI, were calculated to assess the influences of the two treatments.

Statistical analysis

Study heterogeneity was assessed using the χ2 test (employing Q statistics) and quantified by calculating I2 values [12]. A fixed-effects model (the Mantel-Haenszel method) or a random-effects model (the DerSimonian-Laird method) was applied based on the results of heterogeneity testing [13, 14].

Sensitivity analyses were performed by excluding the contributions of each study to the meta-analysis data in turn. Potential publication bias was examined using Begg’s and Egger’s tests [15, 16].

The analysis was performed using Comprehensive Meta-analysis Software version 2 (CMA 26526; Biostat, Englewood, NJ). All statistical tests were two-sided and statistical significance was accepted for P values <0.05.

Results

Study qualities and characteristics

In total, 1,911 articles were identified during the literature search. After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 963 articles were screened. Of these, 656 articles were excluded, and the full texts of the remaining 307 articles were assessed in terms of eligibility. A further 289 articles were then excluded, and data from the remaining 18 articles were included in the meta-analysis. Fig 1 shows the study selection flow chart according to PRISMA 2020 flow diagram [17]. Using the Jadad system, 9 studies were classified as low quality (scores of ≤ 2) and the other nine studies as high quality (scores of ≥ 3) (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. PRISMA diagram of the process for selection of relevant studies.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. General characteristics of the included studies for meta-analysis.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.t001

Meta-analysis of lipid parameters and hs-CRP

Seventeen studies measured changes in LDL-C in 787 participants treated with high-intensity statin and 752 participants treated with low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe. Combination treatment afforded a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C than high-intensity statin treatment (SE = 0.307; 95% CI 0.153–0.462) (Fig 2). Additionally, 9 studies with high-quality were included for subgroup analysis to consider the result of quality assessment, but the same result was obtained as the main analysis (data available upon request).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 2. Forest plot of efficacy evaluation results.

Changes in LDL-C observed for high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy. a rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 5 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; b rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; c rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; d atorvastatin 40 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g002

Fourteen studies assessed changes in TC and triglyceride and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe produced significantly better responses than high-intensity statin alone (TC: SE = 0.217; 95% CI 0.098–0.337, triglyceride: SE = 0.203; 95% CI 0.086–0.320) (Figs 3 and 4). On the other hand, an analysis of 13 studies revealed no significant difference for the effects of treatments on HDL-C (Fig 5) or ApoA1 or ApoB (HDL-C: SE = 0.081; 95% CI -0.039–0.201, ApoA1: SE = 0.087; 95% CI -0.113–0.287, and ApoB: SE = 0.132; 95% CI -0.067–0.331).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 3. Forest plot of efficacy evaluation results.

Changes in TC observed for high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy. a rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 5 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; b rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; c rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; d atorvastatin 40 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g003

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 4. Forest plot of efficacy evaluation results.

Changes in Triglyceride observed for high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy. a rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 5 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; b rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; c rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; d atorvastatin 40 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g004

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 5. Forest plot of efficacy evaluation results.

Changes in HDL-C observed for high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy. a rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 5 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg; b rosuvastatin 20 mg vs. rosuvastatin 10 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g005

hs-CRP changes were assessed in 9 studies, and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe had a significantly greater effect than high-intensity statin therapy (SE = 0.190; 95% CI 0.018–0.362) (Fig 6).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 6. Forest plot of efficacy evaluation results.

Changes in hs-CRP observed for high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g006

Meta-analysis of adverse events

Six studies and 440 participants (220 for each treatment) were included in the adverse event assessment. As regards liver-related toxicity, no significant difference was observed between the two treatments in terms of ALT elevation. (SE = 0.-097; 95% CI -0.284–0.090) (Fig 7). However, high-intensity statin was associated with a significantly greater AST level than combination treatment (SE = -0.235; 95% CI -0.423–-0.047) (Fig 8). In terms of muscle-related toxicity, high-intensity statin resulted in a significantly greater increase in CK than low-intensity statin plus ezetimibe (SE = -1.018; 95% CI -1.771–-0.265) (Fig 9).

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 7. Forest plot of safety evaluation results.

Changes in ALT observed for high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g007

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 8. Forest plot of safety evaluation results.

Changes in AST observed for high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g008

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 9. Forest plot of safety evaluation results.

Changes in CK observed for high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.g009

Sensitivity analysis and publication bias

Sensitivity analysis was performed by recalculating all findings after omitting data from individual studies. With the exception of ApoA1, findings were not altered significantly (data available on request). We also evaluated publication bias; the results of Begg’s rank-correlation test and Egger’s regression test are shown in Table 2.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Test of heterogeneity and publication bias.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264437.t002

Discussion

We performed this meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of high-intensity statin monotherapy and low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy. We found that combination therapy better improved LDL-C, TC, and triglyceride than monotherapy. AST and CK levels were increased significantly more by high-intensity statin therapy.

Based on a meta-analysis of lipid parameters, we suggest that adding ezetimibe to statin therapy should be preferred to increasing statin dose, because LDL-C is known to be closely associated with ASCVDs or mortality and is of great clinical importance for the management of dyslipidemia [33, 34]. Furthermore, combination therapy had greater beneficial effects on TC and triglyceride than statin monotherapy, which we consider a notable outcome. However, both treatments had minimal effects on HDL-C.

The role of non-HDL-C in lipid management to prevent ASCVD has been reported and become clearer in recent years. It can be a better indicator than LDL-C if patients have hypertriglyceridemia, diabetes, metabolic syndrome, or chronic kidney disease [35, 36]. The value of Non-HDL-C is simply calculated as TC minus HDL-C, so the reduction in TC leads to lower non-HDL-C. Triglycerides are also assocated with the risk of ASCVD, but thier dierct role in the development of ASCVD remains controversial [37]. Our meta-analysis has clinical significance in that we found the differences in these lipid levels between the two therapies.

hs-CRP is a predictor of cardiovascular risk, as evidenced consistently by reports on the topic [38–40]. When we evaluated the effects of the two treatments on hs-CRP, combination treatment was found to have the greater effect, and in a previous meta-analysis, a significant positive relationship was found between changes in CRP, a marker of inflammation in atherosclerosis, and changes in LDL-C and [41], which is in-line with our observations.

Regarding the safety analysis, elevations in AST and CK were significantly higher in patients treated with high-intensity statin monotherapy. Treatment-related ALT elevations were not significantly different for the two treatments and reported adverse events were usually tolerable. Ezetimibe is known to be safe and well-tolerated, though mild gastrointestinal adverse events have been reported [42]. ALT elevations and myalgia have also been reported for ezetimibe/statin combinations, but reported adverse events were putatively attributed to the use of statins at high dosages [43]. Thus, our safety analysis cautions that high-intensity statin therapy requires careful consideration in patients with related risk factors, and that low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe combination therapy is a more rational choice based on considerations of efficacy and safety.

A similiar meta-analysis comparing the effects of high-dose statins or low-dose statins in combination with ezetimibe on endothelial function has been previously reported [44]. Detection of endothelial dysfunction before a clinically important plaque burden manifests is a meaningful approach as it may help to identify some patients at higher risk of future cardiovascular events [45]. However, the effects on endothelial function was not significantly different between the two treatments and there was no difference in LDL-C changes, which is inconsistent with our meta-analysis. Consequently, the findings from previous meta-analysis have been updated through our meta-analysis that include a larger number of recent studies.

In the results of heteroginiety test, the I2 vlaues of LDL-C and Apo1 were 51.26 and 42.16, respectively, indicating that there was an intermediate level of heteroginiety (Table 2). Therefore, reanalysis was performed using a random-effects model and the results for statistical significance were the same. That is, it suggests that some heteroginiety exists, but the influence on meta-analysis is insignificant.

There were limitations to our study as below. The present meta-analysis was performed using data abstracted from previous reports, which were not necessarily complete or accurate. In addition, the results could be partially different from the evaluations of safety or efficacy when applied to individual patients. Despite limitations, we believe our meta-analysis is meaningful because it provides clinical evidence suggesting low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe provides a better pharmacotherapeutic option than high-intensity statin monotherapy in patients with dyslipidemia.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis shows that low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe improved lipid levels more than high-intensity statin monotherapy, and that statin monotherapy increased ALT and CK more than statin/ezetimibe combination therapy. Therefore, we recommend low/moderate-intensity statin plus ezetimibe therapy be adopted rather than increasing statin dose, and that increasing statin dose should be applied judiciously, especially in patients with related risks.

References

  1. 1. Grundy SM, Cleeman JI, Merz CN, Brewer HB Jr, Clark LT, Hunninghake DB, et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines. Circulation. 2004;110:227–39. pmid:15249516
  2. 2. Baigent C, Keech A, Kearney PM, Blackwell L, Buck G, Pollicino C, et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins. Lancet. 2005;366(9493):1267–78. pmid:16214597
  3. 3. Goff DC Jr, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’Agostino RB Sr, Gibbons R, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Pt B):2935–2959. pmid:24239921
  4. 4. Thompson PD, Panza G, Zaleski A, Taylor B. Statin-Associated Side Effects. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(20):2395–2410. pmid:27199064
  5. 5. Hu M, Cheung BM, Tomlinson B. Safety of statins: an update. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2012 Jun;3(3):133–44. pmid:25083232
  6. 6. Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP, et al. Ezetimibe Added to Statin Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 18;372(25):2387–97. pmid:26039521
  7. 7. Darkes MJ, Poole RM, Goa KL. Ezetimibe. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2003;3:67–76; discussion 77–8. pmid:14727947
  8. 8. Wu NQ, Guo YL, Zhu CG, et al. Comparison of statin plus ezetimibe with double-dose statin on lipid profiles and inflammation markers. Lipids Health Dis. 2018;17(1):265. pmid:30470229
  9. 9. Liu C, Liu Q, Xiao X. Effectiveness and safety of combinational therapy compared with intensified statin monotherapy in patients with coronary heart disease. Exp Ther Med. 2018;15(6):4683–4688. pmid:29805487
  10. 10. Oh M, Kim H, Shin EW, et al. Comparison of high-dose rosuvastatin versus low-dose rosuvastatin plus ezetimibe on carotid atherosclerotic plaque inflammation in patients with acute coronary syndrome. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 2020;13(6):900–907. pmid:32367340
  11. 11. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12. pmid:8721797
  12. 12. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics. 1954;10:101–29.
  13. 13. Mantel N, Haenszel W. Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective sties of diseases. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1959;22:719–48. pmid:13655060
  14. 14. DerSimonian R, Larid N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88. pmid:3802833
  15. 15. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometircs. 1994;50:1088–101.
  16. 16. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629–34. pmid:9310563
  17. 17. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. pmid:33782057
  18. 18. Ran D, Nie HJ, Gao YL, et al. A randomized, controlled comparison of different intensive lipid-lowering therapies in chinese patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS): Ezetimibe and rosuvastatin versus high-dose rosuvastatin. Int J Cardiol. 2017;235:49–55. pmid:28291622
  19. 19. Yang YJ, Lee SH, Kim BS, et al. Combination therapy of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe in patients with high cardiovascular risk. Clin Ther. 2017;39(1):107–117. pmid:28007331
  20. 20. Japaridze L, Sadunishvili M, Megreladze I. Combination therapy effectiveness of ezetimibe and atorvastatin in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Georgian Med News. 2016;(252):15–22. pmid:27119829
  21. 21. Pytel E, Bukowska B, Koter-Michalak M, et al. Effect of intensive lipid-lowering therapies on cholinesterase activity in patients with coronary artery disease. Pharmacol Rep 2017;69(1):150–155. pmid:27923158
  22. 22. Pytel E, Jackowska P, Chwatko G, et al. Intensive statin therapy, used alone or in combination with ezetimibe, improves homocysteine level and lipid peroxidation to a similar degree in patients with coronary artery diseases. Pharmacol Rep. 2016;68(2):344–348. pmid:26922537
  23. 23. Villegas-Rivera G, Román-Pintos LM, Cardona-Muñoz EG, et al. Effects of ezetimibe/simvastatin and rosuvastatin on oxidative stress in diabetic neuropathy: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2015;2015:756294. pmid:26290682
  24. 24. Deharo P, Pankert M, Quilici J, et al. Safety and effectiveness of the association ezetimibe-statin (E-S) versus high dose rosuvastatin after acute coronary syndrome: The SAFE-ES study. Ann Cardiol Angeiol (Paris). 2014;63(4):222–227.
  25. 25. Moreira FT, Ramos SC, Monteiro AM, et al. Effects of two lipid lowering therapies on immune responses in hyperlipidemic subjects. Life Sci. 2014;98(2):83–87. pmid:24447629
  26. 26. Westerink J, Deanfield JE, Imholz BP, et al. High-dose statin monotherapy versus low-dose statin/ezetimibe combination on fasting and postprandial lipids and endothelial function in obese patients with the metabolic syndrome: The PANACEA study. Atherosclerosis. 2013;227(1):118–124. pmid:23261174
  27. 27. Araujo DB, Bertolami MC, Ferreira WP, et al. Pleiotropic effects with equivalent low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction: Comparative study between simvastatin and simvastatin/ezetimibe coadministration. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2010;55(1):1–5. pmid:19770669
  28. 28. Hajer GR, Dallinga-Thie GM, van Vark-van der Zee , et al. Lipid-lowering therapy does not affect the postprandial drop in high density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-c) plasma levels in obese men with metabolic syndrome: A randomized double blind crossover trial. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2008;69(6):870–877. pmid:18394022
  29. 29. Ostad MA, Eggeling S, Tschentscher P, et al. Flow-mediated dilation in patients with coronary artery disease is enhanced by high dose atorvastatin compared to combined low dose atorvastatin and ezetimibe: Results of the CEZAR study. Atherosclerosis. 2009;205(1):227–232. pmid:19150064
  30. 30. Olijhoek JK, Hajer GR, van der Graaf Y, Dallinga-Thie GM, Visseren FL. The effects of low-dose simvastatin and ezetimibe compared to high-dose simvastatin alone on post-fat load endothelial function in patients with metabolic syndrome: a randomized double-blind crossover trial. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2008 Aug;52(2):145–50. pmid:18670365
  31. 31. Settergren M, Böhm F, Rydén L, Pernow J. Cholesterol lowering is more important than pleiotropic effects of statins for endothelial function in patients with dysglycaemia and coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2008;29:1753–60. pmid:18441323
  32. 32. Piorkowski M, Fischer S, Stellbaum C, et al. Treatment with ezetimibe plus low-dose atorvastatin compared with higher-dose atorvastatin alone: Is sufficient cholesterol-lowering enough to inhibit platelets? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(10):1035–1042. pmid:17349882
  33. 33. Menotti A, Keys A, Blackburn H, et al. Comparison of multivariate predictive power of major risk factors for coronary heart diseases in different countries: results from eight nations of the Seven Countries Study, 25-year follow-up. J Cardiovasc risk. 1996;3:69–75. pmid:8783033
  34. 34. Gotto AM Jr. Low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol as a risk factor in coronary heart disease: a working group report. Circulation. 2001;103:2213–8. pmid:11331265
  35. 35. Robinson JG, Wang S, Smith BJ, Jacobson TA. Meta-analysis of the relationship between non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and coronary heart disease risk. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2009;53:316–22. pmid:19161879
  36. 36. Sniderman AD, Williams K, Contois JH, et al. A meta-analysis of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B as markers of cardiovascular risk. Circulation Cardiovascular quality and outcomes. 2011;4:337–45. pmid:21487090
  37. 37. Miller M, Stone NJ, Ballantyne C, Bittner V, Criqui MH, Ginsberg HN, et al. Triglycerides and cardiovascular disease: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123:2292–333. pmid:21502576
  38. 38. Ridker PM, Cushman M, Stampfer MJ, et al. Inflammation, aspirin, and the risk of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy men. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336: 973–9. pmid:9077376
  39. 39. Ridker PM, Hennekens CH, Buring JE, Rifai N. C-reactive protein and other markers of inflammation in the prediction of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342: 836–43. pmid:10733371
  40. 40. Kaptoge S, Di Angelantonio E, Lowe G, et al. C-reactive protein concentration and risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and mortality: an individual participant meta-analysis. Lancet. 2010; 375: 132–40. pmid:20031199
  41. 41. Kinlay S. Low-density lipoprotein-dependent and–independent effects of cholesterol-lowering therapies on C-reactive protein: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(20):2003–2009. pmid:17512355
  42. 42. Nutescu EA, Shapiro NL Ezetimibe: a selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor. Pharmacotherapy. 2003 Nov;23(11):1463–74. pmid:14620392
  43. 43. Davidson MH. Ezetimibe: a novel option for lowering cholesterol. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2003 May;1(1):11–21. pmid:15030293
  44. 44. Ye Yicong, Zhao Xiliang, Zhai Guangyao, et al. Effect of high-dose statin versus low-dose statin plus ezetimibe on endothelial function: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Dec;17(4):357–65. pmid:22710021
  45. 45. Ikeda N, Hara H, Suzuki M, et al. Impact of oxidized low density lipoprotein cholesterol under ezetimibe or rosuvastatin therapy on endothelial function. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:14(suppl 1): E1433.