4.7 Article

Efficacy and safety of torcetrapib, a novel cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor, in individuals with below-average high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 9, Pages 1774-1781

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2006.06.067

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of torcetrapib, a cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor, in subjects with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HI)L-C) levels. BACKGROUND Evidence suggests HDL-C is atheroprotective. A proven mechanism for increasing the level of HDL-C is the inhibition of CETP. METHODS A total of 162 subjects with below-average HDL-C (men < 44 mg/dl; women < 54 mg/dl) who were not taking lipid-modifying therapy were randomized to double-blind treatment with torcetrapib 10, 30, 60, or 90 mg/day or placebo (similar to 30 subjects per group). RESULTS The percent change from baseline to Week 8 with torcetrapib (least-squares mean difference from placebo) was dose-dependent and ranged from 9.0% to 54.5% for HDL-C (p <= 0.0001 for 30 mg and higher doses) and from 3.0% to - 16.5% for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (p < 0.01 for 90-mg dose). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering was less in subjects with higher (> 150 mg/dl) versus lower levels of baseline triglycerides; at 60 mg, the change in LDL-C was 0.1% versus -22.2% (p < 0.0001), respectively. Particle size for both HDL and LDL increased with torcetrapib. There were no dose-related increases in the frequency of adverse events. Significant blood pressure increases were noted in 2 of 140 subjects. CONCLUSIONS Torcetrapib resulted in substantial dose-dependent elevations in HDL-C, accompanied by moderate decreases in LDL-C at the higher doses. Torcetrapib was generally well tolerated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available