BACKGROUNDNo published studies have assessed the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin generics.OBJECTIVESPrimary objective to assess the safety and efficacy of a generic rosuvastatin in reducing plasma low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in Lebanese dyslipidemic patients. Changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides and adverse effects were secondary objectives.DESIGNProspective, observational, non-comparative.SETTINGMultiple outpatient clinics in Lebanon.PATIENTS AND METHODSDyslipidemic patients requiring statin therapy were followed for 2 months after prescription of a generic rosuvastatin at the physician’s discretion. Efficacy and safety measurements were collected from medical records.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)Efficacy was assessed based on the evaluation of mean and percent change in LDL-C between baseline and week 8 as well as the proportion of patients reaching target LDL-C levels. Safety was assessed based on the evaluation of the incidence of adverse events (AEs) during the study period.RESULTSTwo months after initiation of generic rosuvastatin, LDL-C levels in the 313 eligible patients who completed the study significantly decreased from 4.3 (0.8) mmol/L (168.2 [31.3] mg/dL) at baseline to 2.7 (0.7) mmol/L (105.9 [25.5] mg/dL) (P<.001). The mean percent change in LDL-C level was highest in subjects receiving generic rosuvastatin at a dose of 40 mg/day (−47.4%), followed by 20 mg/day (−36.8%), and 10 mg/day (−31.4%); 82.5% of patients reached the target LDL-C level as set by their physician at baseline. Thirteen patients (4%) reported six AEs during treatment: abdominal pain, headache, stomach ache, insomnia, musculoskeletal pain/myalgia and nausea. No clinically significant changes in serum creatinine, serum creatine kinase, or liver function tests were reported. One patient withdrew because of an adverse event.CONCLUSIONSGeneric rosuvastatin was efficacious and safe in reducing LDL-C levels and helping the majority of patients achieve LDL-C targets after a short treatment period.LIMITATIONSThe observational nature, and a control group, and the relatively short duration of follow-up limit the generalizability of results. The authors received fees for study activities at patient visits from an independent clinical research organization subcontracted by the sponsor.

No abstract