Table 2.
Effects of Niaspan® on lipoprotein (a) (Lp(a)) in controlled clinical trials
| Study | Duration (weeks) | Target dose of Niaspan® (mg) | Mean change in Lp(a) (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Niaspan® | Comparator | |||
| Morgan et al 1996 | 12 | 2000 | −27† | 0 (placebo) |
| Knopp et al 1998 | 16 | 1500 | −24.7* | 2.2 (placebo) |
| Grundy et al 2002 | 16 | 1500 | −12 | 3 (placebo) |
| Bays et al 2003 | 16 | 2000 | −21a,* | 0 (atorvastatin) |
| −2 (simvastatin) | ||||
| Grundy et al 2004 | 20 | 1500 | −21* | −6 (fenofibrate) |
| McKenney et al 2006 | 12 | 1000 | −7b,* | 8 (simvastatin + ezetimibe) |
| −5c,* | 11 (rosuvastatin) | |||
Notes:Studies evaluating Niaspan® at target doses within its therapeutic dose range (2000 mg/day) are shown. Where more than one dose was evaluated, the largest effect on Lp(a) is shown. Significant (p < 0.05 or better) vs *comparator or †baseline. Some trials involved combination of Niaspan® with asimvastatin, batorvastatin, or crosuvastatin. Significance in the study of McKenney et al (2006) refers to an ANOVA across all four treatments (Niaspan® + atorvastatin, Niaspan® + rosuvastatin, simvastatin + ezetimibe, and rosuvastatin monotherapy).