This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Rosuvastatin: A Highly EffectiveNew HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitor
Anders G. Olsson, *Fergus McTaggart, and *Ali Raza
University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden, and
*AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Cheshire, United Kingdom
and non–HDL-C goals in the numerous patients with combined dyslipidemias or meta-
bolic syndrome who require lipid-lowering therapy. Rosuvastatin is well tolerated alone,
and in combination with fenofibrate, extended-release niacin, and cholestyramine, and has
a safety profile similar to that of currently marketed statins. A large, long-term clinical
trials program is under way to investigate the effects of rosuvastatin on atherosclerosis and
cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.
INTRODUCTION
Low-density lipoprotein (LDL) is the primary atherogenic lipoprotein. A wealth of ex-
perimental, epidemiological, and clinical data indicate that elevated LDL cholesterol
(LDL-C) or total cholesterol, as a surrogate for LDL-C, is associated with increased risk
of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease (CHD) and that reduction of LDL-C is asso-
ciated with reduced CHD morbidity and mortality (21). Statin drugs reduce cholesterol
biosynthesis by inhibiting the activity of the HMG-CoA reductase enzyme in converting
HMG-CoA to mevalonate, an early and rate-limiting step in cholesterol synthesis. Statins
are the major pharmacological treatment for a number of dyslipidemias, primarily on the
basis of their ability to effectively reduce LDL-C. A number of large clinical trials have
unequivocally demonstrated the ability of statin therapy to reduce CHD events in indi-
viduals with or without established CHD across a wide range of initial LDL-C levels
(17,33,43,52,53,56).
The observation that the relationship between LDL-C level and CHD risk is continuous
from low to high LDL-C values and the relative failure to achieve guideline-recom-
mended LDL-C levels in clinical practice (20,51,63) have prompted attempts to develop
statins with improved pharmacology profiles, with the objective of greater efficacy in re-
ducing LDL-C. Rosuvastatin (AstraZeneca, Alderley Park, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK;
licensed from Shionogi & Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan) is a new statin with pharmacological
and clinical features that distinguish it from other currently available statins. This agent
has been shown to be highly effective in lowering LDL-C and improving other elements
of the atherogenic lipid profile in patients with a variety of dyslipidemias.
CHEMISTRY
Rosuvastatin (rosuvastatin calcium) is a synthetic compound that consists of a single
enantiomer formulated and administered as the calcium salt of the active hydroxy acid; its
chemical name is bis{(E)-7-[4-(4-fluorophenyl)-6-isopropyl-2-[methyl(methylsulfonyl)ami-
no]pyrimidin-5-yl](3R,5S )-3,5-dihydroxyhept-6-enoic acid} calcium salt. The empirical
formula for rosuvastatin calcium is (C22H27FN3O6S)2Ca. Its molecular weight is 1001.14.
The structural formula is shown in Fig. 1. Rosuvastatin calcium is a white amorphous
powder that is sparingly soluble in water and methanol and slightly soluble in ethanol.
HMG-CoA REDUCTASE BINDING AND INHIBITION
In chemical structure rosuvastatin shows similarity to other compounds of the statin
class but also important differences. Rosuvastatin and other statins contain a dihydroxy
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
304 A. G. OLSSON ET AL.
heptenoic (heptanoic in some cases) acid chain that mimics the HMG portion of the
HMG-CoA substrate. However, the additional ring structures and substituents of rosuva-
statin differ from those of other statins. Of particular note is the polar methane sulfon-
amide group that confers to the molecule a relatively low lipophilicity.
The additional components of the molecule are also important in enzyme binding, and
subtle differences in the way different statins interact with the enzyme have been revealed
by x-ray crystallography of the statin-enzyme complexes (28). In addition to a number of
interactions with the active site that are common among the statins, rosuvastatin exhibits
a hydrogen bond between a sulfone oxygen atom and the enzyme Ser565, a binding trait
otherwise observed only with atorvastatin (involving its carbonyl oxygen atom), and a
unique polar interaction between the rosuvastatin electronegative sulfone group and the
enzyme Arg568 side chain.
Consistent with these findings, rosuvastatin was found to be a relatively potent in-
hibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, as measured in experiments using a cloned catalytic
fragment of human HMG-CoA reductase. As with other statins, inhibition was compet-
itive for HMG-CoA reductase and noncompetitive with NADPH. The inhibition constant
(Ki) was approximately 0.1 nM. In the presence of a fixed concentration of HMG-CoA
reductase, 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) values were 5.4 nM for rosuvastatin, com-
pared with 8.2 nM for atorvastatin, 10.0 nM for cerivastatin, 11.2 nM for simvastatin,
27.6 nM for fluvastatin, and 44.1 nM for pravastatin (24,41). Thus, rosuvastatin is a rela-
tively potent inhibitor of HMG-CoA reductase, consistent with some differences in the
way the molecule binds the active site of the enzyme in comparison with other statins.
CELL AND TISSUE SELECTIVITY
Assessment of relative lipophilicity of statins showed that the statin octanol-water coef-
ficients were –0.84 log D at pH 7.4 for pravastatin and –0.33 log D for rosuvastatin, com-
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
ROSUVASTATIN 305
2
N
N
N
OO
S
OH OH O
O
F
Ca2+
FIG. 1. Chemical structure of rosuvastatin.
pared with values of >1.0 to <2.0 for atorvastatin, fluvastatin, simvastatin (sodium salt),
and cerivastatin, indicating greater lipophilicity on the part of these latter drugs (11,41).
Consistent with its hydrophilic properties, rosuvastatin was found to be highly selective
for effect in hepatocytes, compared with a range of non-hepatic cells. Thus, when incu-
bated with freshly prepared rat hepatocytes, rosuvastatin inhibited cholesterol synthesis in
these cells with an IC50 of 0.2 nM (95% confidence limits, 0.1–0.3 nM), and was found to
be significantly (P < 0.001) more potent than the other statins (IC50 range, 1.2–6.9 nM)
(8). Studies assessing inhibitory effects in hepatic and non-hepatic cells showed that rosu-
vastatin had an approximately 1,000-fold reduced potency in rat fibroblasts, compared
with primary hepatocytes. The log10 ratio for IC50 values in hepatocytes:fibroblasts was
3.3 for rosuvastatin and pravastatin, the other relatively hydrophilic compound, compared
with 2.2 for atorvastatin, 0.54 for simvastatin, –0.04 for fluvastatin, and –0.14 for ceriva-
statin (8,11). Thus, the marked hepatic cell selectivity of both rosuvastatin and pravastatin
is in contrast with that of the more lipophilic compounds.
Studies with 14C-labeled rosuvastatin in rat hepatocytes showed uptake by both non-
specific diffusion and active transport, with a specific uptake Km of 9.2 ìM; comparison
with pravastatin showed that the rate of active uptake clearance (Vmax�Km) for rosuvastatin
was greater and that rosuvastatin competitively inhibited pravastatin uptake with a Ki
value close to the Km for uptake (11,44).
Additional studies indicate high affinity of rosuvastatin for liver-specific organic anion
transport proteins (OATPs), which may mediate efficient uptake into hepatocytes (4).
Measurement of uptake of 3H-labeled rosuvastatin in oocytes expressing OATP-A, which
is expressed in the basolateral membrane of hepatocytes and widely expressed in other
tissues, and in those expressing the predominantly liver-specific OATP-C showed that
uptake was 20-fold greater in oocytes expressing OATP-C than in those expressing
OATP-A or in H2O-injected control oocytes. The apparent Km for interaction between ro-
suvastatin and OATP-C was 7.3 ìM; cis-inhibition studies of 3H-labeled rosuvastatin
uptake indicated that the affinity of rosuvastatin for OATP-C was greater than that for pra-
vastatin (30.3 ìM) and simvastatin (43.1 ìM), but not significantly different from that for
the lipophilic statin atorvastatin (2.5 ìM).
After intravenous administration of 14C-labeled rosuvastatin, 5 mg�kg, to rats, uptake
clearance rates as determined from plasma and tissue radioactivity levels were approxi-
mately 0.9 mL�min�g into the liver, approximately 0.2 mL�min�g into the kidney, and
<0.02 mL�min�g into other tissues (Fig. 2). Pravastatin also exhibited liver uptake selec-
tivity, whereas simvastatin exhibited high uptake into liver and such other tissues as the
adrenals and spleen (11). In summary, effective and selective delivery of rosuvastatin to
the liver is suggested by the combination of the compound’s relative hydrophilicity and its
selectivity for hepatic cells.
INHIBITION OF HEPATIC CHOLESTEROL SYNTHESIS
IN ANIMAL MODELS
Rosuvastatin was found to be a potent inhibitor of hepatic cholesterol synthesis after
oral administration to the rat with a maximal effect at 1 h after administration. The 50%
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
306 A. G. OLSSON ET AL.
effective dose (ED50) measured 2 to 3 h after administration was 0.8 (95% CI, 0.4–1.5)
mg�kg. Compared with other statins, rosuvastatin had a longer duration of action on rat
hepatic cholesterol synthesis. In the dog, plasma mevalonate levels were significantly re-
duced at 1 to 6 h after single oral administration of the drug at 0.1 mg�kg and higher
doses; the ED50 of rosuvastatin at 4 h after administration was approximately 0.2 mg�kg
(41). Thus, in animal models, rosuvastatin was found to be a potent inhibitor of hepatic
cholesterol synthesis.
LIPID-LOWERING, ANTIATHEROSCLEROTIC,
AND OTHER EFFECTS IN ANIMAL MODELS
Consistent with inhibition of hepatic cholesterol synthesis and lowering of plasma me-
valonate levels, administration of rosuvastatin to dogs once daily in capsules for 14 days
at a dose level of 3 mg�kg reduced plasma cholesterol by 26%, and during administration
for periods of up to 3 months, doses as low as 0.03 mg�kg were significantly effective
(data on file, AstraZeneca). Rosuvastatin also lowered plasma cholesterol and atherogenic
lipoproteins in cynomolgus monkeys and in Watanabe heritable hyperlipidemic (WHHL)
rabbits. In the latter animals, rosuvastatin at doses of 3 to 10 mg�kg administered for 6
months lowered cholesterol levels by 29 and 32%, respectively, and this was accompanied
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
ROSUVASTATIN 307
Cerebellum
Prostate
Testis
Adrenal
Thyroid
Cerebrum
Eye
Spleen
Ileum
Liver
Kidney
Lung
Heart
0.80.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0
CL (mL/min/g tissue)uptake
FIG. 2. Rates of uptake clearance into various tissues after administration of intravenous 14C-labeled rosuvasta-
tin 5 mg�kg in rats. Reprinted with permission from ref. 11.
by reductions in the surface coverage of the aortic arch by atherosclerotic lesions of 29
and 24%, respectively (data on file, AstraZeneca).
In addition to its lipid-lowering and antiatherosclerotic properties, rosuvastatin has
been found to exert a number of potentially beneficial effects in animal models that are not
obviously the result of lipid lowering. Administration of rosuvastatin has been shown to
result in anti-inflammatory action in the microvascular endothelium (59), upregulate en-
dothelial nitric oxide synthase, and protect against tissue damage in models of cerebral
and cardiac ischemia (30,32), and increase the numbers of circulating endothelial progeni-
tor cells and accelerate vascular reendothelialization (65). The clinical relevance of these
interesting observations in animal models has yet to be evaluated.
PHARMACOKINETICS�PHARMACODYNAMICS
Rosuvastatin is administered orally, once daily. No clinically relevant differences in
pharmacokinetics are observed between older and younger patients, between male and
female patients, or between morning and evening dosing. The drug undergoes minimal
metabolism in vivo. No clinically significant interactions with known inhibitors of cyto-
chrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 or other isoenzymes have been observed in drug interaction
studies.
Rosuvastatin is administered orally in the active form. Peak plasma concentrations of
the parent compound are reached at 3 to 5 h after oral dosing. Both peak plasma concen-
tration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) increase in pro-
portion to dose (61). In this study, after 7 days of administration of 40 mg rosuvastatin
once daily for 7 days, the geometric mean Cmax and AUC values were 37.0 (38.1) ng�mL
and 255.9 (24.6) (ng � h)�mL, respectively (% coefficient of variation in parentheses). The
absolute bioavailability of rosuvastatin is approximately 20%. The mean volume of distri-
bution at steady state is approximately 134 L. Rosuvastatin is 88% bound to plasma pro-
teins, primarily albumin; binding is reversible and independent of plasma concentrations.
The elimination half-life (t1�2) is approximately 19 h. The relatively long t1�2 compared
with some other statins may possibly reflect a degree of enterohepatic recirculation, a phe-
nomenon that has been documented for rosuvastatin in the rat (data on file, AstraZeneca).
Pharmacokinetic studies in subjects receiving rosuvastatin, 40 mg, showed no clini-
cally relevant differences between its effects in younger (18 to 35 years) and older (>65
years) subjects. Cmax was increased by 12% in younger subjects and AUC was increased
by 6% in younger subjects. There were also no significant differences in the effect of the
drug in males and females on these parameters (Cmax reduced by 18% and AUC by 9% in
males) (36). Study of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rosuvastatin,
10 mg, administered at 7:00 a.m. or at 6:00 p.m. showed no differences in Cmax (4.6 and
4.5 ng�mL) or AUC [40.1 and 42.7 (ng � h)�mL]. There was also no difference in urinary
excretion of mevalonic acid or AUC for plasma mevalonic acid and no difference in
LDL-C reduction (41 and 44%) after morning, as compared with evening dosing (39).
These findings suggest that, unlike the case with several members of the statin class, the
pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rosuvastatin do not appear to be affected by
time of administration.
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
308 A. G. OLSSON ET AL.
Rosuvastatin is not extensively metabolized, with approximately 10% of an oral dose
being recovered as metabolite. In studies with 14C-labeled rosuvastatin, 90% of an oral
dose was recovered in feces and 10% in urine (37). In feces, 92% of radioactivity was the
parent compound, with N-desmethyl and 5S-lactone metabolites accounting for 6 and 2%,
respectively. In urine, the parent compound accounted for approximately 50% of radioac-
tivity, with N-desmethyl and 5S-lactone metabolites accounting for 20 and 10%, respec-
tively. Overall, 85–95% of active plasma HMG-CoA reductase inhibitory activity is ac-
counted for by the parent compound.
Unlike most marketed statins, rosuvastatin exhibits minimal interaction with CYP iso-
enzymes and undergoes minimal hepatic metabolism. Study of the effect of rosuvastatin
50 ìM on CYP isoenzyme 1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, 2E1, and 3A4 activity in human hepatic
microsomes showed no significant inhibitory effect on any enzymes; the most potent inhi-
bition was for CYP 2C9, for which a 10% decrease in activity was observed (40). Investi-
gation of the metabolism of 14C-labeled rosuvastatin 1 to 4 ìM showed no metabolism in
human hepatic microsomes (3-h incubation) or heterologously expressed human CYP en-
zymes (1-h incubation), with very slow metabolism (5–50% over 3 d) being observed in
cultured human hepatocytes. In the latter case, a single N-desmethyl metabolite was
formed; inhibition of this metabolism by sulfaphenazole indicated that CYP 2C9 was the
primary enzyme involved, with less inhibition by omeprazole indicating a lesser role of
the 2C19 enzyme. The N-desmethyl metabolite exhibits one sixth to one half the HMG-
CoA reductase inhibition of the parent compound. Overall, these findings suggest that
rosuvastatin is unlikely to cause clinically significant metabolically mediated drug
interactions.
The absence of clinically significant interactions of rosuvastatin with inhibitors of CYP
enzymes has been confirmed by drug interaction studies. Coadministration of rosuva-
statin, 80 mg, and ketoconazole (CYP 3A4 inhibitor), 200 mg, resulted in virtually no
effect on rosuvastatin Cmax (4.6% decrease) or AUC (1.6% increase) (13). Itraconazole
(CYP 3A4 inhibitor), 200 mg, increased Cmax of rosuvastatin by 36 and 15%, and AUC by
39 and 28%, at 10- and 80-mg doses, respectively (35). These changes are thought to be
due not to interaction with CYP enzymes but rather to the effect of an as-yet undefined
transporter. Coadministration of rosuvastatin 80 mg with 500 mg of erythromycin (CYP
3A4 inhibitor) reduced rosuvastatin Cmax by 31% and AUC by 20% (14); this effect is
likely due to increased gastrointestinal motility induced by erythromycin. Coadministra-
tion of rosuvastatin 80 mg with 200 mg of fluconazole (a potent CYP 2C9 inhibitor) in-
creased rosuvastatin Cmax by 9% and AUC by 14% (12); this small effect supports limited
metabolism of rosuvastatin via the 2C9 enzyme.
In other drug-interaction studies, coadministration of rosuvastatin 10 mg and feno-
fibrate 67 mg three times daily increased rosuvastatin Cmax by 7% and AUC by 21% and
decreased fenofibric acid Cmax by 9% and AUC by 4%. No clinically significant change in
digoxin Cmax (4% increase) or AUC (4% increase) was observed with digoxin 0.5 mg and
rosuvastatin 40 mg (38).
In studies in patients with hepatic insufficiency, rosuvastatin Cmax and AUC were mod-
estly increased in patients with mild to moderate hepatic impairment, compared with con-
trols (63.7 vs. 60.7 for AUC, 9.3 vs. 6.0 for Cmax). Patients with the highest scores (8 and
9) in the Child-Pugh B category, however, had the highest Cmax and AUC values (73.3 for
AUC, 12.8 for Cmax), indicating that rosuvastatin exposure increased with greater hepatic
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
ROSUVASTATIN 309
impairment. A trend toward reduced LDL-C–lowering effectiveness was observed with
greater hepatic impairment (58).
CLINICAL TRIALS IN DYSLIPIDEMIC PATIENTS
Rosuvastatin has been extensively evaluated in clinical trials in adult patients with mild
to moderate hypercholesterolemia and mixed hyperlipidemia (Fredrickson’s type IIa �IIb),
severe hypercholesterolemia (heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia or homozygous
familial hypercholesterolemia), or hypertriglyceridemia (Fredrickson’s type IIb or IV),
and in combination with other lipid-modifying agents in dyslipidemic patients. A con-
sistent feature of the randomized, controlled trials is that patients underwent a 6-w dietary
lead-in phase with discontinuation of all cholesterol-lowering drugs or supplements; pa-
tients were instructed in the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) step I diet,
and compliance with diet (Eating Pattern Assessment Tool score <28) was a requirement
for entry into the study treatment phase.
Mild to Moderate Hypercholesterolemia
Rosuvastatin has been assessed in dose-ranging studies and comparative trials with
other statins in patients with mild to moderate hypercholesterolemia (type IIa�IIb).
Dose-ranging studies
Dose-ranging studies with rosuvastatin have demonstrated marked dose-related reduc-
tions in LDL-C of up to 63% at 40 mg (46). A comparative dose-ranging study with ator-
vastatin, which has been considered the most effective LDL-C–lowering statin (1,29),
showed that rosuvastatin produces a significantly greater reduction in LDL-C across the
dose range.
In a randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging program, 206 patients with LDL-C
>160 and <220 mg�dL (>4.14 and <5.69 mmol�L) and triglycerides <300 mg�dL (<3.39
mmol�L) received double-blind placebo or rosuvastatin 1, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, or 40 mg or
open-label atorvastatin (used as a benchmark, with no statistical comparisons performed)
for 6 w (46). An intent-to-treat analysis of those patients receiving placebo or rosuvastatin,
10, 20, or 40 mg, showed that rosuvastatin produced marked, dose-related reductions in
LDL-C, total cholesterol, and apolipoprotein (apo) B from baseline, compared with place-
bo (Table 1) (data on file, AstraZeneca). Increases in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol
(HDL-C), reductions in triglycerides, and reductions in lipid ratios were also observed for
all three doses.
In a randomized, double-blind trial (31), 374 patients with LDL-C �160 and <250
mg�dL (�4.14 and <6.46 mmol�L) and triglycerides <400 mg�dL (<4.52 mmol�L) re-
ceived rosuvastatin 5, 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg or atorvastatin 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg for 6 w.
The primary analysis was change in LDL-C across the dose range of the two study drugs
assessed by linear regression analysis. The LDL-C–lowering response with rosuvastatin
was significantly greater (P < 0.001) than that with atorvastatin by 8.4% across the dose
range (Table 2). At doses of 10–80 mg, reductions in LDL-C were 47 to 62% with
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
310 A. G. OLSSON ET AL.
rosuvastatin and 38 to 53.5% with atorvastatin. Rosuvastatin also produced significantly
greater reductions than atorvastatin across the dose range (P < 0.001) in total cholesterol
(4.9%), non–HDL-C (7.0%), apo B (6.3%), and LDL-C:HDL-C (9.5%), total choleste-
rol:HDL-C (6.9%), non–HDL-C:HDL-C (8.4%), and apo B:apo A-I (7.8%).
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
ROSUVASTATIN 311
TABLE 1. Changes in lipid measures at 6 w in intent-to-treat analysis
from rosuvastatin dose-ranging program (data on file, AstraZeneca)
% change from baselinea
Placebo(n = 13)
Rosuvastatin5 mg
(n = 17)
Rosuvastatin10 mg
(n = 17)
Rosuvastatin20 mg
(n = 17)
Rosuvastatin40 mg
(n = 18)
LDL-Cb,c –7 –45 –52 –55 –63
TCc –5 –33 –36 –40 –46
HDL-C +3 +13d +14d +8e +10e
TG –3 –35d –10e –23e –28e
Apo Bc –3 –38 –42 –46 –54
Apo A-I 0 +4e +4e +5e 0e
Non–HDL-Cc –7 –44 –48 –51 –60
Apo B:apo A-Ic –2 –40 –43 –48 –54
LDL-C:HDL-Cc –9 –51 –57 –58 –66
TC:HDL-Cc –7 –41 –43 –44 –51
Non–HDL-C:HDL-Cc –9 –50 –53 –54 –64
a Least-squares mean % change from ANOVA.b Abbreviations: LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C, high-
density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; Apo, apolipoprotein.c P < 0.001 in favor of rosuvastatin for all doses.d P < 0.05 in favor of rosuvastatin.e P = NS.
TABLE 2. Mean percent differences across dose range
(rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin)a
Difference across dose rangeb %
LDL-Cc 8.4
TC 4.9
Non–HDL-C 7.0
Apo B 6.3
LDL-C:HDL-C 9.5
TC:HDL-C 6.9
Non–HDL-C:HDL-C 8.4
Apo B:apo A-I 7.8
a Mean % changes from baseline were assessed by linear regression analysis using analysis of co-
variance (ANCOVA).b All P < 0.001 in favor of rosuvastatin.c Abbreviations: LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C,
Rosuvastatin was compared with atorvastatin or with simvastatin and pravastatin in tri-
als assessing initial doses and dose titration in patients with LDL-C �160 and <250 mg�dL
(�4.14 and <6.46 mmol�L) and triglycerides �400 mg�dL (�4.52 mmol�L) (data on file,
AstraZeneca). These trials were prospectively designed to allow pooling of data from
12-w fixed-dose treatment phases (see pooled data analyses below). Together with results
from the comparative dose-ranging study, the comparative trials vs. atorvastatin demon-
strate that rosuvastatin significantly reduces LDL-C and significantly increases HDL-C,
compared with atorvastatin at the usual starting dose, and enables more patients to achieve
guideline LDL-C goals with reduced need for dose titration. Similarly, comparative trials
with simvastatin and pravastatin show that rosuvastatin markedly improves lipid mea-
sures, compared with starting doses of these agents, and enables more patients to reach
LDL-C goals.
In a placebo-controlled trial (16), 516 patients received placebo, rosuvastatin 5 mg or
10 mg, or atorvastatin 10 mg for 12 weeks. LDL-C reduction was significantly greater
with both rosuvastatin 5 mg and 10 mg vs. atorvastatin 10 mg (40 and 43% vs. 35%,
P < 0.01 and <0.001), and the increase in HDL cholesterol was significantly greater with
both rosuvastatin doses (13 and 12% vs. 8%, P < 0.01 and <0.05) (Table 3; placebo group
results are not shown). Reductions in total cholesterol, apo B, and lipid ratios and in-
creases in apo A-I were also significantly greater with both rosuvastatin doses, compared
with atorvastatin, and reductions in triglycerides were similar in all active treatment
groups.
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
312 A. G. OLSSON ET AL.
TABLE 3. Changes in lipid measures at 12 w in comparative study
of rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients (type IIa�IIb)
% change from baselinea
Rosuvastatin 5 mg(n = 128)
Rosuvastatin 10 mg(n = 129)
Atorvastatin 10 mg(n = 127)
LDL-Cb –40c –43d –35
TC –28e –30d –25
HDL-C +13c +12e +8
TG –17 –19 –19
Apo B –31c –33d –26
Apo A-I +7e +7e +3
LDL-C:HDL-C –46d –48d –39
TC:HDL-C –35c –37d –30
Non–HDL-C:HDL-C –43c –45d –37
Apo B:apo A-I –35d –37d –28
a Least-squares mean % change from ANOVA.b Abbreviations: LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C,
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; Apo, apolipoprotein.c P < 0.01 vs. atorvastatin.d P < 0.001 vs. atorvastatin.e P < 0.05 vs. atorvastatin.
Adapted with permission from ref. 16.
In a 52-w dose-titration trial (45,47,48), 412 patients received rosuvastatin 5 or 10 mg
or atorvastatin 10 mg for 12 w, after which doses were sequentially doubled at 8-w in-
tervals to a maximum of 80 mg if patients failed to reach NCEP Adult Treatment Panel II
(ATP-II) LDL-C goal levels (22). After 12 w at starting doses, both rosuvastatin 5 mg and
10 mg lowered LDL-C by a significantly higher percentage than atorvastatin 10 mg (46
and 50% vs. 39%, both P < 0.001); both rosuvastatin doses also significantly lowered total
cholesterol, apo B, and non–HDL-C, compared with atorvastatin at 12 w (Table 4). At
52 w, mean doses in the initial rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg groups were 9.3 and 13.4 mg, re-
spectively, and the mean dose in the atorvastatin group was 20.8 mg. ATP-II LDL-C goals
were reached in 98% of the rosuvastatin 10 mg group, 88% of the rosuvastatin 5 mg
group, and 87% of the atorvastatin group, including 97, 65, and 61%, respectively, of pa-
tients with the aggressive goal of �100 mg�dL (�2.59 mmol�L). Overall, dose titration
was performed in 18% of the rosuvastatin 10 mg group, 31% of the rosuvastatin 5 mg
group, and 41% of the atorvastatin group; only 2.5, 2, and 5% of the respective treatment
groups required titration to 80 mg to achieve goal (67). At 52 w, reductions in LDL-C
were significantly greater in both the rosuvastatin 5 mg and 10 mg groups than in the
atorvastatin group (47 and 53% vs. 44%, P < 0.05 and <0.001), and a significantly greater
reduction in total cholesterol and increase in HDL-C were observed in the rosuvastatin
10 mg group, compared with the atorvastatin group.
In a 12-w trial (49), 502 patients received rosuvastatin 5 or 10 mg, simvastatin 20 mg,
or pravastatin 20 mg for 12 weeks. Reductions in LDL-C with both rosuvastatin 5 and
10 mg (42 and 49%) were significantly greater than with simvastatin (37%, P < 0.01 vs.
rosuvastatin 5 mg and <0.001 vs. 10 mg) and pravastatin (28%, P < 0.001 for both)
(Table 5). Both rosuvastatin doses also significantly lowered total cholesterol, apo B, and
lipid ratios, compared with both simvastatin and pravastatin. In a 52-w dose-titration trial
(5–7), 477 patients received rosuvastatin, simvastatin, and pravastatin at the same starting
doses as in the 12-w trial, after which doses could be sequentially doubled at 8-w intervals
(to a maximum of 80 mg for rosuvastatin and simvastatin and 40 mg for pravastatin) for
failure to achieve ATP-II LDL-C goals. At 12 w, LDL-C was reduced significantly more
with both rosuvastatin doses (39 and 47%), compared with simvastatin 20 mg (35%, both
P < 0.05) and pravastatin 20 mg (27%, both P < 0.05) (Table 6). Both rosuvastatin doses
produced significantly greater reductions in non–HDL-C and apo B, and rosuvastatin
10 mg decreased triglycerides significantly more than both simvastatin and pravastatin
and increased HDL-C significantly more than pravastatin. At 52 w, mean doses in the
initial rosuvastatin 5 and 10 mg groups were 9.5 and 13.8 mg, respectively, whereas those
in the simvastatin and pravastatin groups were 36.3 and 32.6 mg, respectively. ATP-II
LDL-C goals were achieved in 88% of the rosuvastatin 5 mg group, 88% of the rosuvasta-
tin 10 mg group, 73% of the simvastatin group, and 60% of the pravastatin group, in-
cluding 84, 71, 30, and 6%, respectively, of those with the LDL-C goal of <100 mg�dL
(<2.59 mmol�L). In total, 65% of the rosuvastatin 5 mg group, 79% of the rosuvastatin
10 mg group, 50% of the simvastatin group, and 30.5% of the pravastatin group achieved
goals at the starting dose; titration to the 80-mg dose was required to achieve goal in 2% of
the rosuvastatin 5 mg group, 0% of the rosuvastatin 10 mg group, and 9% of the simvasta-
tin group (67).
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
ROSUVASTATIN 313
Pooled data analyses
Key lipid responses and achievement of LDL-C goals according to the new ATP-III
guidelines (21) and the Joint European Societies guidelines (54) have been analyzed with
pooled 12-w (starting dose) data from these four comparative trials and an additional com-
parative trial of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin in high-risk patients. In this latter trial, de-
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
314 A. G. OLSSON ET AL.
TABLE 4. Changes in lipid parameters at 12 w (at initial dose) and at 52 w (with dose titration)
and percentage of patients meeting ATP-II guidelines in comparative study
of rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients (type IIa�IIb)
a Least-squares mean % change from ANOVA.b Abbreviations: LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C,
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; Apo, apolipoprotein.c P < 0.001 vs. atorvastatin.d P < 0.05 vs. atorvastatin.e ATP-II LDL-C goals were defined as follows (22): <160 mg�dL (<4.14 mmol�L) in patients with no
coronary heart disease (CHD) and <2 risk factors (low-risk); <130 mg�dL (<3.36 mmol�L) in those
with no CHD and 2 or more risk factors (medium-risk); and �100 mg�dL (�2.59 mmol�L) in those
with CHD or other atherosclerotic disease or diabetes (high-risk). No statistical comparisons were
performed between groups for goal achievement.
Adapted with permission from refs. 47,48.
tails of which have yet to be reported, 383 high-risk patients (with documented atheroscle-
rotic disease or diabetes) meeting lipid entry criteria identical to those of the other four
studies received rosuvastatin 5 mg or 10 mg or atorvastatin for 12 w, followed by a 12-w
dose-titration period (data on file, AstraZeneca). Pooled analysis of the three comparative
trials with atorvastatin (66) showed that both rosuvastatin 5 mg (n = 390) and rosuvastatin
10 mg (n = 389) doses produced significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, compared
with atorvastatin (n = 393) (42 and 47% vs. 36%, both P < 0.001), and that both produced
significantly greater increases in HDL-C (8 and 9% vs. 5.5%, both P < 0.01). Overall,
ATP-III LDL-C goals were achieved by 67% of rosuvastatin 5 mg patients, 76% of rosu-
vastatin 10 mg patients, and 53% of atorvastatin 10 mg patients (both P < 0.01 vs. atorva-
statin) (Table 7). Both rosuvastatin doses were also associated with a significantly greater
achievement of the aggressive LDL-C goal of <100 mg�dL (<2.59 mmol�L) in patients
with CHD or CHD risk equivalents.
In analysis of pooled data from the two trials comparing rosuvastatin with simvastatin
and pravastatin, both rosuvastatin 5 mg (n = 240) and rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 226) pro-
duced significantly greater reductions in LDL-C, compared with simvastatin 20 mg
(n = 249) (41 and 48% vs. 36%, both P < 0.001) and pravastatin 20 mg (n = 252) (41 and
48% vs. 27%, both P < 0.001) (3,23). Rosuvastatin 10 mg increased HDL-C significantly
more than simvastatin 20 mg (9 vs. 6%, P < 0.05) or pravastatin 20 mg (9 vs. 6%,
P < 0.05). Overall, ATP-III LDL-C goals were achieved in 71% of rosuvastatin 5 mg pa-
tients, 86% of rosuvastatin 10 mg patients, 64% of simvastatin 20 mg patients (P < 0.05
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
ROSUVASTATIN 315
TABLE 5. Changes in lipid measures at 12 w in comparative study of rosuvastatin vs. simvastatin
and pravastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients (type IIa�IIb)
% change from baselinea
Rosuvastatin5 mg (n = 119)
Rosuvastatin10 mg (n = 111)
Simvastatin20 mg (n = 129)
Pravastatin20 mg (n = 136)
LDL-Cb –42c –49d –37 –28
TC –30c –34d –26 –20
HDL-C +6 +7 +4 +4
TG –12 –18 –14 –13
Apo B –33e –40d –30 –21
Apo A-I +7 +5 +4 +4
LDL-C:HDL-C –45c –51d –39 –29
TC:HDL-C –33c –38d –28 –22
Non–HDL-C:HDL-C –41f –47d –35 –27
Apo B:apo A-I –37f –42d –32 –23
a Least-squares mean % change from ANOVA.b Abbreviations: LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C, high-
density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; Apo, apolipoprotein.c P < 0.001 vs. pravastatin, P < 0.005 vs. simvastatin.d P < 0.001 vs. pravastatin, P < 0.001 vs. simvastatin.eP < 0.001 vs. pravastatin, P < 0.05 vs. simvastatin.fP < 0.001 vs. pravastatin, P < 0.01 vs. simvastatin.
Adapted with permission from ref. 49.
and <0.001), and 49% of pravastatin 20 mg patients (both P < 0.001) (Table 7). Both
rosuvastatin doses also brought significantly more patients to their LDL-C goal of
<100 mg�dL (<2.59 mmol�L).
In comparative trials with atorvastatin, the Joint European Societies (54) guidelines
LDL-C goal of <116 mg�dL (<3 mmol�L) was reached at week 12 by 82% (319�389) of
patients receiving rosuvastatin 10 mg vs. 51% (202�393) of those receiving atorvastatin
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
316 A. G. OLSSON ET AL.
TABLE 6. Changes in lipid parameters at 12 w (at initial dose) and at 52 w (with dose titration)
and percentage of patients meeting ATP-II guidelines in comparative study
of rosuvastatin vs. simvastatin and pravastatin in hypercholesterolemic patients (type IIa�IIb)
Rosuvastatin5 mg (n = 123)
Rosuvastatin10 mg (n = 116)
Simvastatin20 mg (n = 120)
Pravastatin20 mg (n = 118)
% change from baselinea
LDL-Cb
12 weeks –39c,d –47c,d –35 –27
52 weeks –42c –48c,d –38 –32
HDL-C
12 weeks +8 +12c +9 +8
52 weeks +4 +8 +6 +4
TG
12 weeks –18d –22c,d –10 –11
52 weeks –16 –18c –14 –9
Apo B
12 weeks –31c,d –37c,d –27 –20
52 weeks –35c,d –39c,d –31 –25
Non–HDL-C
12 weeks –36c,d –43c,d –31 –25
52 weeks –38c –43c,d –34 –29
% meeting ATP-II LDL-C goale
All patients
12 weeks 80 90 69 53
52 weeks 88 88 73 60
High-risk
12 weeks 48 63 30 9
52 weeks 84 71 30 6
a Least-squares mean % change from ANOVA.b Abbreviations: LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cho-
lesterol; TG, triglycerides; Apo, apolipoprotein.c P < 0.05 vs. pravastatin.d P < 0.05 vs. simvastatin.e ATP-II LDL-C goals were defined as follows (22): <160 mg�dL (<4.14 mmol�L) in patients with no
coronary heart disease (CHD) and <2 risk factors (low-risk); <130 mg�dL (<3.36 mmol�L) in those
with no CHD and 2 or more risk factors (medium-risk); and �100 mg�dL (�2.59 mmol�L) in those
with CHD or other atherosclerotic disease or diabetes (high-risk). No statistical comparisons were
performed between groups for goal achievement.
Adapted with permission from refs. 6,7.
10 mg (27). In high-risk patients (i.e., those with CHD, diabetes, family history of pre-
mature CHD or peripheral vascular disease, or 10-y CHD risk >20% based on a logistic
regression model), the LDL-C goal was achieved by 81% (255�314) of patients receiving
rosuvastatin 10 mg vs. 49% (160�327) of those receiving atorvastatin 10 mg. In compar-
ative trials with simvastatin and pravastatin, goal was achieved by 80% (181�226) of rosu-
vastatin 10 mg patients vs. 48% (119�248) of simvastatin 20 mg patients and 16%
(40�252) of pravastatin 20 mg patients (50). In high-risk patients, goal was achieved in
78% (125�161) of the rosuvastatin 10 mg group vs. 47% (90�190) of the simvastatin
group and 13% (24�186) of the pravastatin group.
Severe Hypercholesterolemia
Comparative data in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia indicate
that rosuvastatin significantly reduces LDL-C in this population, compared with atorvasta-
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
ROSUVASTATIN 317
TABLE 7. Pooled data analysis: Percentage of patients achieving ATP-III LDL-C goals at initial
doses in comparative trials of rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin and vs. simvastatin and pravastatina
Risk group target:
% meeting ATP-III LDL-C goalb
<100 mg�dL(<2.59 mmol�L)
<130 mg�dL(<3.36 mmol�L)
<160 mg�dL(<4.14 mmol�L)
All riskgroup targets
Comparative trials vs. atorvastatin
Rosuvastatin 5 mg (n = 390) 40c 86 95 67d
Rosuvastatin 10 mg (n = 389) 60c 88 96 76d
Atorvastatin 10 mg (n = 393) 19 80 91 53
Comparative trials vs. pravastatin and simvastatin
a Data for rosuvastatin vs. atorvastatin are from ref. 66. Data for rosuvastatin vs. pravastatin adapted
with permission from ref. 3. Data for rosuvastatin vs. simvastatin adapted with permission from
ref. 23.b ATP-III LDL-C goals were defined as follows (21): <160 mg�dL (<4.14 mmol�L) in patients
without CHD and with <2 risk factors (low-risk); <130 mg�dL (<3.36 mmol�L) in patients without
CHD and with �2 risk factors and 10-year CHD risk �20% (medium-risk); and <100 mg�dL (<2.59
mmol�L) in patients with CHD or CHD risk equivalent — e.g., 10-year risk >20%, diabetes (high-
risk). Analysis for differences between treatment groups in goal achievement was by logistic re-
gression.c P < 0.001 vs. atorvastatin.d P < 0.01 vs. atorvastatin.e P < 0.001 vs. pravastatin.f P < 0.05 vs. pravastatin.g P < 0.01 vs. simvastatin.h P < 0.05 vs. simvastatin.i P < 0.001 vs. simvastatin.
tin, and enables more patients to achieve LDL-C goals. Rosuvastatin treatment in patients
with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia produces clinically significant LDL-C
reductions in the majority of patients.
Heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia
In a randomized, double-blind, 18-w trial (62), 622 patients with heterozygous familial
hypercholesterolemia based on clinical and�or genetic criteria who had LDL-C �220 and
<500 mg�dL (�5.69 and <12.93 mmol�L) and triglycerides �400 mg�dL (�4.52 mmol�L)
received rosuvastatin 20 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg, with doses being titrated to 40 and
80 mg after 6 and 12 w. After 18 w, LDL-C was reduced by 58% in the rosuvastatin group
and 50% in the atorvastatin group (P < 0.001) and HDL-C was increased by 12 and 3%,
respectively (P < 0.001) (Table 8). Rosuvastatin also reduced total cholesterol, apo B, and
LDL-C:HDL-C ratio significantly more than atorvastatin. The significant differences fa-
voring rosuvastatin treatment with respect to changes in LDL-C and HDL-C were ob-
served after 6 and 12 w (i.e., during treatment with 20 and 40 mg doses) (61). ATP-II
LDL-C goals were achieved in 61% of rosuvastatin patients and 46% of atorvastatin pa-
tients, including 24 vs. 3% of those with the goal of �100 mg�dL (�2.59 mmol�L). Analy-
sis by baseline triglyceride levels showed greater increases in HDL-C at higher triglyc-
Cardiovascular Drug Reviews, Vol. 20, No. 4, 2002
318 A. G. OLSSON ET AL.
TABLE 8. Changes in lipid measures at 18 w in comparative trial of rosuvastatin
vs. atorvastatin in patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia
% change from baselinea
Rosuvastatin 20�40�80 mg(n = 435)
Atorvastatin 20�40�80 mg(n = 187)
LDL-Cb –58d –50
[changes at 6 weeksc] [–47d] [–38]
[changes at 12 weeksc] [–55d] [–47]
HDL-C +12d +3
[changes at 6 weeks] [+12d] [+5]
[changes at 12 weeks] [+11d] [+3]
TC –46d –42
[changes at 6 weeks] [–38d] [–31]
[changes at 12 weeks] [–44d] [–39]
TG –28 –32
[changes at 6 weeks] [–23] [–22]
[changes at 12 weeks] [–26] [–26]
Apo B –50d –44
Apo A-I +6d –2
LDL-C:HDL-C –62d –51
a Least-squares mean % change from ANOVA.b Abbreviations: LDL-C, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol; HDL-C,
high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; Apo, apolipoprotein.c Results at week 6 are with 20-mg doses; results at week 12 are with 40-mg doses.d P < 0.001 vs. atorvastatin.
Adapted with permission from refs. 61,62.
eride levels, with increases of 9, 15, and 22% being observed according to triglyceride
levels of <150, 150–250, and >250 mg�dL (<1.69, 1.69–2.82, and >2.82 mmol�L), re-
spectively (60).
Homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia
In an open-label, 18-w trial, 44 patients with homozygous familial hypercholester-
olemia, aged 8 to 63 y, received rosuvastatin 20 mg increased to 40 and 80 mg after 6 and
12 w after completing a 4-w dietary lead-in phase (34). Mean LDL-C level at baseline was
515 mg�dL (13.32 mmol�L). After 18 weeks, LDL-C and total cholesterol were reduced
by means of 21% and 20%, respectively, with most of the decreases occurring within the
first 6 w of treatment with rosuvastatin 20 mg. Clinically relevant decreases in LDL-C
(15% or greater) occurred in 29 (72.5%) of 40 patients, and reductions of greater than 30%
occurred in 13 (32.5%).
Hypertriglyceridemia
In studies involving hypertriglyceridemic patients, rosuvastatin significantly reduced
triglycerides, very-low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), non–HDL-C, and
LDL-C, with analysis of changes in apo B–containing lipoprotein fractions indicating
marked reductions in all measures and normalization of particle composition.
In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (25,26), 156 patients with
triglyceride levels �300 and <800 mg�dL (�3.39 and <9.03 mmol�L; type IIb or IV dys-
lipidemia) received placebo or rosuvastatin 5–80 mg for 6 w. Triglyceride levels were sig-
nificantly reduced, compared with placebo, at all rosuvastatin dose levels, with reductions
ranging from 18 to 40% (Table 9). Significant reductions in LDL-C, non–HDL-C,
VLDL-C, apo C-III, and non–HDL-C:HDL-C and apo B:apo A-I ratios occurred at each
dose level, and significant increases in HDL-C occurred at all dose levels except 5 mg
(range, 4–18%). All doses reduced the triglyceride content of LDL, VLDL, and HDL and
the apo B content of LDL and VLDL.
In a study examining the effects of rosuvastatin 40 mg on concentration and compo-
sition of apo B–containing lipoprotein subfractions (10), patients were divided into a
hypertriglyceridemic group (triglycerides >177 mg�dL [>2.00 mmol�L] and LDL-C
106–215 mg�dL [2.75–5.55 mmol�L], n = 18) and a normotriglyceridemic group (triglyc-