Enhanced low density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction and cost-effectiveness by low-dose colestipol plus lovastatin combination therapy
A total of 96 patients with moderate elevations of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were randomly assigned to 4 different double-blind treatment regimens: placebo; colestipol 5 g and lovastatin 20 mg/day (C5 + L20); colestipol 10 g and lovastatin 20 mg/day (C10 + L20); and lovastatin 40 mg/...
Saved in:
Published in: | The American journal of cardiology Vol. 75; no. 1; pp. 34 - 39 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
New York, NY
Elsevier Inc
1995
Elsevier Elsevier Limited |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | A total of 96 patients with moderate elevations of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol were randomly assigned to 4 different double-blind treatment regimens: placebo; colestipol 5 g and lovastatin 20 mg/day (C5 + L20); colestipol 10 g and lovastatin 20 mg/day (C10 + L20); and lovastatin 40 mg/day (L40). During 12 weeks of therapy, C10 + L20 achieved the greatest reduction in total cholesterol (−32%) and LDL cholesterol (−48%) levels from baseline. This combination also exhibited significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol levels than the C5 + L20 and L40 groups (p <0.01). The differences in total and LDL cholesterol reduction between the C5 + L20 and L40 groups were not significant. Similar changes and differences between treatments were seen in apolipoprotein B levels. Whereas mean total opolipoprotein A-I levels increased with all treatments (p <0.05), lipoprotein particles A-I were significantly increased in the C10 + L20 group (p <0.01) only. Results demonstrate that the combination of low-dose lovastatin (20 mg/day) with low-dose colestipol (5 or 10 g/day) produces LDL cholesterol reductions equal to or greater than higher doses of lovastatin (40 mg/day). In addition, low-dose combinations are >25% more cost-effective than high-dose monotherapy. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 ObjectType-News-3 content type line 23 |
ISSN: | 0002-9149 1879-1913 |
DOI: | 10.1016/S0002-9149(99)80523-2 |