CETP inhibitor increases HDL-C significantly but does not reduce CV outcomes

In the ACCELERATE study, treatment with evacetrapib compared with placebo was associated with an increase in the HDL-C and a reduction in LDL-C, but not with a reduction of cardiovascular outcomes.

Background

There is an inverse association between HDL-C and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes, but raising HDL-C with cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitors through modulating the transfer of esterified cholesterol from HDL particles to apoB-containing lipoproteins, has not translated into reduced CV risk so far [1-3]. Torcetrapib, one of the CETP inhibitors, in combination with atorvastatin was associated with higher rates of death and CV events compared with atorvastatin alone, although it increased HDL-C by approximately 70% [4]. Similarly, dalcetrapib did not result in a lower rate of CV events compared with placebo in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome, although it increased HDL-C by 30% [5].

In this analysis of the ACCELERATE study, the impact on the risk of CV complications or death of adding evacetrapib, another CETP inhibitor, to standard-of-care was evaluated and compared with placebo, in 12,092 patients with high-risk vascular disease.

Main results

• After 3 months of therapy with evacetrapib, there was a mean percent increase from baseline in HDL-C of 133.2%, as compared with a mean percent increase of 1.6% in the placebo group (between-group difference 131.6%, 95% CI 130.0-133.1, P<0.001).
• The mean LDL-C decreased by 31.1% in the evacetrapib group and increased by 6.0% in the placebo group (between-group difference −37.1%, 95% CI −38.1 to −36.1, P<0.001).
• The primary efficacy endpoint of the composite CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, coronary revascularization or hospitalization for unstable angina occurred in 12.9% of patients in the evacetrapib group and in 12.8% of patients in the placebo group (HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91-1.11, P=0.91).
• The secondary endpoint event of the composite CV death, MI or stroke occurred in 7.2% of patients in the evacetrapib group and in 7.5% of patients in the placebo group (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.85-1.10, P=0.59).
• The unadjusted incidence of death from any cause was significantly lower with evacetrapib compared with placebo (P=0.04).
• Hypertension was reported as adverse event in a significantly higher percentage of patients in the evacetrapib group compared with the placebo group (11.4% vs. 10.1%; P=0.02).
• The median percent increase from baseline in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP) was greater in the evacetrapib group compared with the placebo group: 8.6% (IQR: −27.0 to 63.3) vs. 0% (IQR: −32.1 to 52.4); P<0.001.
• A lower percentage of patients in the evacetrapib group had a creatine kinase increase of 3 or more times the upper limit of the normal range compared with the placebo group (2.4% vs. 3.1%).

Conclusion

References

Find this article online at NEJM