No abstract available.
Drug Eruptions* ; Rosuvastatin Calcium

No abstract available.
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 ; Ezetimibe ; Humans ; Rosuvastatin Calcium

No abstract available.
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 ; Ezetimibe ; Humans ; Rosuvastatin Calcium

It was recently reported that the C(max) and AUC of rosuvastatin increases when it is coadministered with telmisartan and cyclosporine. Rosuvastatin is known to be a substrate of OATP1B1, OATP1B3, NTCP, and BCRP transporters. The aim of this study was to explore the mechanism of the interactions between rosuvastatin and two perpetrators, telmisartan and cyclosporine. Published (cyclosporine) or newly developed (telmisartan) PBPK models were used to this end. The rosuvastatin model in Simcyp (version 15)'s drug library was modified to reflect racial differences in rosuvastatin exposure. In the telmisartan–rosuvastatin case, simulated rosuvastatin C(maxI)/C(max) and AUC(I)/AUC (with/without telmisartan) ratios were 1.92 and 1.14, respectively, and the T(max) changed from 3.35 h to 1.40 h with coadministration of telmisartan, which were consistent with the aforementioned report (C(maxI)/C(max): 2.01, AUCI/AUC:1.18, T(max): 5 h → 0.75 h). In the next case of cyclosporine–rosuvastatin, the simulated rosuvastatin C(maxI)/C(max) and AUC(I)/AUC (with/without cyclosporine) ratios were 3.29 and 1.30, respectively. The decrease in the CL(int,BCRP,intestine) of rosuvastatin by telmisartan and cyclosporine in the PBPK model was pivotal to reproducing this finding in Simcyp. Our PBPK model demonstrated that the major causes of increase in rosuvastatin exposure are mediated by intestinal BCRP (rosuvastatin–telmisartan interaction) or by both of BCRP and OATP1B1/3 (rosuvastatin–cyclosporine interaction).
Area Under Curve ; Cyclosporine ; Drug Interactions* ; Rosuvastatin Calcium*

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to analyze cost-effectiveness of two most-commonly used statins from the perspective of the Korean national health system. METHODS: The scope of the analysis included rosuvastatin (5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg) and atorvastatin (10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg). Effectiveness was defined as percentage (%) and absolute (mg/dL) reductions of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) from the baseline. They were derived from published randomized controlled studies for rosuvastatin and atorvastatin. Effectiveness was defined as reductions in LDL-C levels per mg dose of the drugs. The annual direct medical costs including drug acquisition costs and monitoring costs over the one-year time horizon were calculated for each alternative. The average cost-effectiveness ratios (ACERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for each statin dose were calculated. RESULTS: The ACERs for all doses of rosuvastatin (5 mg, 10 mg, and 20 mg) were lower than those for all doses of atorvastatin (10 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg). Rosuvastatin 10 mg was the most cost-effective statin for LDL-C reduction. In cost-effectiveness analyses for corresponding doses of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, rosuvastatin was the superior strategy which suggests both higher effectiveness and lower costs than atorvastatin. However, we have to consider this analysis is highly influenced by current price of statins in each market. CONCLUSIONS: For reduction of LDL-C levels in Korean patients with dyslipidemia, rosuvastatin 10mg is the most cost-effective statin in the current Korean market.
Acer ; Atorvastatin Calcium* ; Cholesterol ; Cost-Benefit Analysis* ; Dyslipidemias* ; Humans ; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ; Lipoproteins ; Rosuvastatin Calcium*

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The clinical significance of statin-induced high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) changes is not well known. We investigated whether rosuvastatin-induced HDL-C changes can influence the anti-oxidative action of high-density lipoprotein particle. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A total of 240 patients with stable ischemic heart disease were studied. Anti-oxidative property was assessed by paraoxonase 1 (PON1) activity. We compared the lipid profile and PON1 activity at baseline and at 8 weeks after rosuvastatin 10 mg treatment. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin treatment increased the mean HDL-C concentration by 1.9±9.2 mg/dL (6.4±21.4%). HDL-C increased in 138 patients (57.5%), but decreased in 102 patients (42.5%) after statin treatment. PON1 activity increased to 19.1% in all patients. In both, the patients with increased HDL-C and with decreased HDL-C, PON1 activity significantly increased after rosuvastatin treatment (+19.3% in increased HDL-C responder; p=0.018, +18.8% in decreased HDL-C responder; p=0.045 by paired t-test). Baseline PON1 activity modestly correlated with HDL-C levels (r=0.248, p=0.009); however, the PON1 activity evaluated during the course of the treatment did not correlate with HDL-C levels (r=0.153, p=0.075). CONCLUSION: Rosuvastatin treatment improved the anti-oxidative properties as assessed by PON1 activity, regardless of on-treatment HDL-C levels, in patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
Aryldialkylphosphatase ; Cholesterol ; Cholesterol, HDL* ; Humans ; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ; Lipoproteins ; Lipoproteins, HDL ; Myocardial Ischemia* ; Rosuvastatin Calcium*

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficacy and safety of valsartan and rosuvastatin combination therapy with each treatment alone in hypercholesterolemic hypertensive patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Patients who met inclusion criteria were randomized to receive 1 of the following 2-month drug regimens: valsartan 160 mg plus rosuvastatin 20 mg, valsartan 160 mg plus placebo, or rosuvastatin 20 mg plus placebo. The primary efficacy variables were change in sitting diastolic blood pressure (sitDBP) and sitting systolic blood pressure (sitSBP), and percentage change in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) in the combination, valsartan, and rosuvastatin groups. Adverse events (AEs) during the study were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were screened and 123 of them were finally randomized. Changes of sitDBP by least squares mean (LSM) were -11.1, -7.2, and -3.6 mm Hg, respectively, and was greater in the combination, as compared to both valsartan (p=0.02) and rosuvastatin (p<0.001). Changes of sitSBP by LSM were -13.2, -10.8, and -4.9 mm Hg, and was greater in the combination, as compared to rosuvastatin (p=0.006) and not valsartan (p=0.42). Percentage changes of LDL-C by LSM were -52, -4, and -47% in each group, and was greater in the combination, as compared to valsartan (p<0.001), similar to rosuvastatin (p=0.16). Most AEs were mild and resolved by the end of the study. CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with valsartan and rosuvastatin exhibited an additive blood pressure-lowering effect with acceptable tolerability, as compared to valsartan monotherapy. Its lipid lowering effect was similar to rosuvatatin monotherapy.
Blood Pressure ; Drug Therapy, Combination ; Humans ; Least-Squares Analysis ; Rosuvastatin Calcium ; Valsartan

Aged ; Dyslipidemias ; drug therapy ; Humans ; Liver ; drug effects ; metabolism ; Male ; Rosuvastatin Calcium ; adverse effects ; therapeutic use

This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetics of fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet of rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg with that of concurrent administration of individual rosuvastatin 20 mg tablet and ezetimibe 10 mg tablet in healthy subjects. A randomized, open label, single-dose, two-way crossover study was conducted. Subjects randomly received test formulation (FDC tablet of rosuvastatin 20 mg/ezetimibe 10 mg) or reference formulation (co-administration of rosuvastatin 20 mg tablet and ezetimibe 10 mg tablet). After 2 weeks of washout, subjects received the other treatment. Blood samples were collected up to 72 hours post-dose in each period. Plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin, ezetimibe and total ezetimibe (ezetimibe + ezetimibe glucuronide) were analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS). The geometric mean ratio (GMR) of Cmax and AUClast (90% confidence interval, CI) for rosuvastatin was 1.036 (0.979–1.096) and 1.024 (0.981–1.070), respectively. The corresponding values for ezetimibe were 0.963 (0.888–1.043) and 1.021 (0.969–1.074), respectively. The corresponding values for total ezetimibe were 0.886 (0.835–0.940) and 0.983 (0.946–1.022), respectively. FDC tablet containing rosuvastatin 20 mg and ezetimibe 10 mg is bioequivalent to the co-administration of commercially available individual tablets of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe as GMR with 90% CI of Cmax and AUClast of rosuvastatin, ezetimibe and total ezetimibe were contained within conventionally accepted bioequivalence criteria.
Cross-Over Studies ; Ezetimibe ; Healthy Volunteers ; Mass Spectrometry ; Pharmacokinetics ; Plasma ; Rosuvastatin Calcium ; Tablets ; Therapeutic Equivalency

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although the rate of prescribing hydroxylmethyglutaryl-CoA reductase inhibitors (statin) has recently increased, there is a large treatment gap between the guidelines and actual clinical practice. We studied the effect of high potency statin on the percentage of patients who achieve the target low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level, and we determined the changes of lipid profiles with using 10 mg of rosuvastatin and 20 mg of atorvastatin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 222 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome or acute ischemic stroke were randomly assigned to either the group treated with rosuvastatin 10 mg (Group I) or atorvastatin 20 mg (Group II). We compared the percentage of patients who achieved the target LDL cholesterol level, and the percent change of the serum lipid profile from baseline to the 40th week between the two groups. RESULTS: 117 (52.7%) patients completed this study. When the target LDL cholesterol level was <100 mg/dL, there was no significant difference in the target attainment rate between the two groups (86.7% vs. 77.2%; respectively, p=0.182). When the target LDL cholesterol level was <70 mg/dL, 48.3% of Group I and 29.8% of Group II reached the goal (p=0.040). The LDL cholesterol level was reduced by 46.8% in Group I (p<0.001), and by 40.1% in Group II (p<0.001). However, the final level showed a trend to be lower in the rosuvastatin group (p=0.077). There were no serious side effects in both groups. The study drug was discontinued due to adverse events in 2 patients (2.6%) of Group I, and in 3 patients (3.8%) of Group II (p=0.523). CONCLUSION: This study showed that the reduction of LDL cholesterol was not statistically different between rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg. However, fewer than half of the patients achieved the goal in both groups despite of high potency statin therapy. This suggests that more aggressive statin therapy is preferred for high risk patients.
Acute Coronary Syndrome ; Cholesterol ; Cholesterol, LDL ; Humans ; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors* ; Lipoproteins ; Oxidoreductases ; Stroke ; Atorvastatin Calcium ; Rosuvastatin Calcium