Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Observational study shows that Rovazet significantly reduces LDL cholesterol in dyslipidemic patients, suggesting good tolerability.
Background: Fixed-dose combinations of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe are increasingly used in clinical practice, but real-world data on their effectiveness and safety in large populations remain limited. Methods: This prospective, single-group, open-label, non-interventional observational study was conducted in the Republic of Korea to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Rovazet® (a fixed-dose combination of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe). Patients were prospectively enrolled from 235 institutions (50 general hospitals and 185 private clinics) as part of routine clinical practice over a five-year period. Lipid profiles and medication compliance questionnaire results were collected at baseline, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks of treatment. Results: A total of 5527 patients with dyslipidemia, the majority were men (53.0%), and the mean age was 60.4 years. Rovazet® significantly reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) by 23.5% at 12 weeks (from 117.47 ± 50.65 mg/dL to 81.14 ± 38.20 mg/dL; p < 0.0001) and by 27.4% at 24 weeks (from 117.47 ± 50.65 mg/dL to 74.52 ± 33.36 mg/dL; p < 0.0001). Total cholesterol was significantly reduced by 17.7% at 12 weeks and by 19.8% at 24 weeks. Rovazet® treatment reduced triglycerides by 4.1% at 12 weeks and by 7.2% at 24 weeks. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol increased by 4.5% at 12 weeks and by 7.9% at 24 weeks following Rovazet® treatment. These changes in lipid profiles were consistent, regardless of cardiovascular risk profiles. By 24 weeks of treatment with Rovazet®, 91.8% of patients had reached their target LDL-C goals. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 2.81% of patients, most of which were minor, indicating that Rovazet® was well tolerated. Conclusions: Rovazet® was effective in improving lipid profiles and well tolerated in Korean adults with dyslipidemia.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: