Clinical cardiology
ENHANCE results yield disappointment for ezetimibe
January 14, 2008 | Sue Hughes

Whitehouse Station/Kenilworth NJ - The results of the long-awaited and controversial ENHANCE trial, finally announced today, have shown no benefit of the combination of ezetimibe (Zetia, Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals) and simvastatin (sold together as Vytorin, Merck/Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals) over simvastatin alone.

The trial, which has been dogged with controversy in recent months, was conducted in 720 patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and showed no significant difference in the primary end point—mean change in the intima media thickness (IMT) measured at three sites in the carotid arteries—between patients treated with ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/80 mg vs patients treated with simvastatin 80 mg alone over a two-year period.

ENHANCE: Primary end point

End point
Ezetimibe plus simvastatin
Simvastatin alone
p
Change in mean carotid IMT after 2-y treatment (mm)
0.0111
0.0058
0.29

At baseline, the mean carotid IMT measurement for the ezetimibe/simvastatin group was 0.68 mm and for the simvastatin-80-mg group was 0.69 mm. There was also no statistically significant difference between the treatment groups for each of the components of the primary end point, including the common carotid artery. Key secondary imaging end points showed no statistical difference between treatment groups.


Huge disappointment

These results will be a huge disappointment to Merck and Schering-Plough. Ezetimibe, which has a complementary action to the statins, preventing the intestinal absorption of cholesterol and generally adding an extra 20% LDL reduction to that seen with statins alone, is a relative newcomer to the cholesterol market but is already generating blockbuster sales, said to be in the region of $5 billion. That is despite the fact there have been no outcome data available on the drug.

The ENHANCE trial is the first major study to be conducted with ezetimibe, which is why the results were so eagerly anticipated. Although it is not a clinical-outcome study, carotid ultrasound studies monitoring the effects of drug therapy on atherosclerotic plaque are seen as reliable surrogates and normally predict whether a drug will be effective in lowering cardiac events. The results were originally expected to be reported about a year ago, and this had led to much speculation in recent months that they were being delayed as they were negative, although this was denied by the companies and the lead investigator.


More details

Further results from the ENHANCE trial show that the overall incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events, serious adverse events, or adverse events leading to discontinuation were generally similar between treatment groups. There were no cases of rhabdomyolysis. Both medicines were generally well tolerated.

ENHANCE: Adverse events

Adverse events
Ezetimibe plus simvastatin, n (%)
Simvastatin alone, n (%)
Consecutive elevations of serum transaminases (>3 times the upper limit of normal)
10/356 (2.8)
8/360 (2.2)
Elevated creatine phosphokinase (>10 times the upper limit of normal)
4/356 (1.1)
8/360 (2.2)
Creatine phosphokinase >10 times the upper limit of normal associated with muscle symptoms
2/356 (0.6)
1/360 (0.3)

As expected, ezetimibe was associated with a larger reduction in LDL cholesterol.

ENHANCE: LDL values at baseline and % reduction after treatment

Ezetimibe plus simvastatin
Simvastatin alone
p
Baseline LDL (mg/dL)
319
318
NS
Reduction after 2-y treatment (%)
58
41
<0.01


Cardiovascular events similar

And there were no differences in cardiovascular events between the two groups in the trial, which was not powered to assess cardiovascular clinical-event outcomes.

ENHANCE: CV events

Event
Ezetimibe plus simvastatin, n
Simvastatin alone, n
CV death
2/357
1/363
Nonfatal MI
3/357
2/263
Nonfatal stroke
1/357
1/363
Revascularization
6/357
5/363

To download tables as slides, click on slide logo below

There were no noncardiovascular deaths or incidents of resuscitated cardiac arrests in the ENHANCE trial.


Larger outcome trials under way

Merck/Schering-Plough are stressing that this was a surrogate-end-point trial, and they are currently conducting three large outcomes trials with ezetimibe/simvastatin that involve more than 20 000 high-risk patients, including the more-than-10 000-patient IMPROVE-IT trial. No incremental benefit of ezetimibe/simvastatin on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality over and above that demonstrated for simvastatin has been established, they note.

The ENHANCE trial used digitized single-frame ultrasound technology for imaging purposes. There were 357 patients randomized to ezetimibe/simvastatin and 363 to simvastatin. The study collected more than 30 000 carotid artery and 10 000 femoral artery images from these patients. Single-frame ultrasound images were analyzed from the right and left carotid arteries at three sites (the common carotid, the internal carotid, and the carotid bulb) and at numerous time points (baseline and six, 12, 18, and 24 months). Images from the right and left common femoral arteries were analyzed at these same time points as well.


What now for ezetimibe?

Following this announcement today, two physicians interested in this field have taken very different views of the results.

Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) commented to heartwire that the ENHANCE results were a big surprise and a big disappointment. "The data show no benefit for ezetimibe on top of simvastatin. In fact, the data on both the rate of progression of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular events are trending in the wrong direction. This is a pretty clear failure. Physicians should now stop using ezetimibe or Vytorin except as a last resort."

But Dr Robert Harrington (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC), who is involved in one of the large clinical-outcome trials under way with the drug, does not believe the ENHANCE study should provoke such a strong reaction. "Dr Nissen's suggestion about a moratorium on ezetimibe is rather alarmist, given that this was just an imaging study, and an imaging study should not change clinical practice. So for me, whatever way it went, I would not have been blown away by results from this trial," he told heartwire.


Nissen: "The drug doesn't work"

But Nissen was adamant about the importance of the ENHANCE results. "We need to see some evidence of benefit before we use this drug. And this study shows clearly that the drug doesn't work. This is despite a large LDL reduction in a population who should have shown a large benefit, as FH is driven by LDL. This result is surprising, because until now lowering LDL has been a very reliable indicator of benefit in both slowing atherosclerosis progression and reducing cardiovascular events. But this mechanism for lowering LDL has never been tested before. It may be that ezetimibe is doing something else that is counteracting the benefit of the LDL lowering. We will not know for sure until we see the outcome studies. They should definitely continue. But doctors should stop using ezetimibe until these results are in."

Nissen, who conducts imaging studies using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), says that carotid IMT trials such as ENHANCE are normally very reliable at predicting cardiovascular outcomes. "The FDA gives label claims for CIMT studies. In fact, they recently awarded a claim to rosuvastatin based upon an IMT study," he said. He added that John Kastelein, the lead investigator of ENHANCE, is one of the world's experts in this type of study.

Kastelein himself told heartwire he "could not discuss ENHANCE until it is published in a peer-reviewed journal," and, rather than referring journalists to Kastelein for additional comment, which would be the normal procedure, Schering-Plough has been directing the media to physicians conducting the large clinical-outcome trials with the drug.

Harrington is involved in the IMPROVE-IT study, which is comparing simvastatin 40 mg plus ezetimibe 10 mg with simvastatin 40 mg alone in patients with a recent ACS event. The trial has recruited about 10 000 patients so far and will continue for at least two more years before results are available.

Harrington: "Not much has changed"

Harrington does not believe that major clinical decisions should be made on the basis of ENHANCE, as it is not a clinical-outcome study. "ENHANCE is just a biomarker study. Whatever the results were—even if they had been positive—I would still have said we have to wait for the clinical-outcome trials before making our minds up about this drug. The imaging guys all say these imaging studies are predictive of clinical events, but they would say that, wouldn't they? To prove that a biomarker is a true surrogate is actually very difficult, and I do not believe that IMT or IVUS meet the criteria for surrogate markers in this setting," he said.

The imaging guys all say these imaging studies are predictive of clinical events, but they would say that, wouldn't they?

Harrington added: "So I would say not much has changed. If you liked ezetimibe before ENHANCE because it lowers LDL, I would think you would carry on using it. But if you were of the opinion that you would rather wait for clinical-outcome results before prescribing it, then there is nothing in this trial to change your mind about that."

Harrington also pointed out that the ENHANCE trial included a very different patient population from those who would typically take the drug. "ENHANCE included a group of 700 FH patients at risk of atherosclerosis because of high lipid levels and a focus on one particular segment of their vasculature. This is biologically interesting but not definitive in terms of what will happen to clinical events in a patient population more representative of clinical practice. To me, these results just raise my interest even more in the clinical-outcome studies. They are now going to be even more important."


Study racked with controversy right up to the end

ENHANCE has been dogged with controversy for several months now over delayed reporting of results and discussions on possibly changing the primary end point. At one point, an outside "expert committee" was brought in to advise on possible changes to the trial, which were in the end never made. And the trial attracted the attention of a US government House committee, which wrote to Merck and Schering-Plough about "withholding of clinical trial data that may significantly affect the medical management of hypercholesterolemia."

And the way in which the results are being reported is also raising eyebrows. Harrington commented: "More interesting from my point of view is that all the data from this study seem to have been reported in a press release. The press seems to have pushed the sponsor to really yank the whole scientific process away from the investigators and put all the data out there. That seems to have violated the normal scientific process, whereby the detailed results are usually held back to be reported at a scientific meeting."

The ENHANCE study has been submitted as an abstract to be presented at the upcoming American College of Cardiology (ACC) meeting in March. But Harrington said he did not think the ACC would be pleased that so many of the results had already been reported. "One could imagine that there could be quite a lively discussion about this whole process at the ACC," he said. He also said it was "strange" that Kastelein was not commenting on the study.

Asked by heartwire about these issues, Schering-Plough said: "Prof Kastelein is looking forward to presenting the results of ENHANCE at the ACC meeting in March," and "given the growing level of scientific interest in the ENHANCE trial, we determined it was best to move forward and communicate these results at this time in order to end speculation about the results of the study."



Your comments
ENHANCE results yield disappointment for ezetimibe
# 1 of 70
January 14, 2008 03:35 (EST)
michael j wilson
The disappointment from ENHANCE
It is that the study had a small number, and used a surogate of atherosclerosis, IMT. However, the usual cardiovascular endpoints being essentially equal IS a huge disappointment.
# 2 of 70
January 14, 2008 04:11 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
het fh and ldl
Keep in mind this is a population with LDL levels of 320 mg/dl. It will be interesting to see the age of the group.

CIMT progression of 0.01 in 2 years in both groups is minimal. (good)

event rates were very low over 2 years only 2-6 events in each group. < 1% over 2 years. Very low risk when you look at all other outcome studies.

It would be interesting to see this group over 10 years.

Remember even atorv 10 mg showed no benefit in DM2 over 4 years ASPEN study. This is first study looking at avg ldl over 190.

mc

LDL is still primary target of tx. Dr. N has no business making the comments he is currently making. esp when he is in support of prasugrel which does increase death in it's study. no credibility
# 3 of 70
January 14, 2008 05:00 (EST)
Anit Dua
Disagree with Dr Robert Harrington
Dr Robert Harrington says we should keep prescribing it till we get more data. I think it is a ridiculous statement, but then what else can be expected when he has vested interest in the drug/trial. Firstly the drug should not have been prescribed solely on surrogate markers of lowering LDL as it is being prescribed for past more than 6 years. Now that we have data form ENHANCE that it does little good and even perhaps a trend for worse outcomes, should a reasonable physician prescribe it only if we have positive data or as Nissen said not to use it and to use it only as the last option ?

It does not take a rocket sciemtist to figure out that what Nissen says is correct .
# 4 of 70
January 14, 2008 06:19 (EST)
Daniel Tarditi
Comment and caution
First, I think we all know how surrogate markers are just that, surrogate. Need confirmatory data that outcomes ARE worse, not just trend.

If we are going to use evidence based medicine then let's do just that.
People always twist the stats to make their argument, if it does not reach statistical significance and you like it, then there WAS a TREND toward benefit. If you don't like it, "there wasn't a statistically significant benefit".

I await the results of IMPROVE-IT. No data has supported significantly worse outcomes. perhaps a meta-analysis of small studies with different end points would demonstrate a statistically significant outcome (tongue in cheek).

I say wait for the larger study and if there was a worse outcome with hard endpoints wouldn't they have closed the trial down? There is a reason you don't yell fire everytime you THINK you smell smoke.

Daniel
# 5 of 70
January 14, 2008 08:54 (EST)
D Hackam
trend vs non-significance
I agree. Crunching the numbers, 6/357 on ezetimibe/simvastatin suffered a CV death/non-fatal MI/non-fatal stroke and 4/363 in the simvastatin group. The Fisher's exact test for the comparison, not reported in the article, yields a p value of 0.543.

This, coupled with the fact that the trial was vastly underpowered for even looking at CV endpoints, means we should not even be talking about "trend".

I also agree with the caution expressed over surrogate markers (LDL, c-IMT). Clofibrate decreased lipoproteins but increased death. Scary stuff.
# 6 of 70
January 14, 2008 09:36 (EST)
Wiliam Blanchet
How unfortunate!
Keep in mind that this study was not performed on the "usual" CAD patient. They were patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia. Average pre-treatment LDLs were > 310. Incidences of hard events in both arms were low considering the risk of the study population.

The surrogate endpoint is not strong enough to reach any conclusion in a study this size. The difference was not statistically significant.

Don't forget that rosiglitazone does a good job of stabilizing IMT.

How unfortunate! Zetia is most likely a great drug tainted by a poor study. Shame on the drug companies involved for not sponsoring a real outcome study.
# 7 of 70
January 14, 2008 09:53 (EST)
D Hackam
an alternate explanation for these findings
The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists meta-analysis in the Lancet suggests that you need to achieve a 1.5 mmol/L (~60 mg/dL) reduction in LDL to get about a third reduction in coronary risk. I am not sure that is achievable with ezetimibe, which in LDL-lowering potency is inferior to lovastatin or fluvastatin at their normal dosing range.
# 8 of 70
January 14, 2008 10:29 (EST)
william rollefson
ok now what
My Dad takes Vytorin and what would you tell him when he calls? BTW, he had 3 V CABG last year.....
# 9 of 70
January 14, 2008 11:44 (EST)
steven tatar
Aim High, William
If your Dad has an HDL below 45, Gregg Brown would add and titrate Niaspan to 2 grams. Keep the statin at 40 simva. I am not sure we have a lot of safety data with 80 simva/2gm niaspan.

Michael C., I agree, the vytorin/simva still performed well in this high risk het fh group, (5% 10year risk). The extrapolation of Imt would be 9 to 16 years for 0.1mm progression (which is still at the limits of resolution of an individual study). These patients look or act like a younger lower risk group.If you are treating your patients well, Cimt should not be done every 6 months.

Another misalignment of financial incentives; Coventry on 1/1/08 converted Vytorin to tier 2 while changing lipitor to tier 3. Guess what I am doing this month?
# 10 of 70
January 15, 2008 08:36 (EST)
juarez braga
pharmaceutical companies...
It' s kind of funny to see a pharmaceutical company "stressing" that ENHANCE was a surrogate endpoint trial.

If the results were positive they wouldn't be saying that.

And by the way, if we haven't had pressure from politics and the media we wouldn't be here discussing the results of the trial.
# 11 of 70
January 15, 2008 09:46 (EST)
William Dixon
It's official...
There was a new press release on FoxNews.com this morning about ENHANCE.

Below is an excerpt:

Goldman Sachs analyst James Kelly reaffirmed a "buy" rating on Schering-Plough, calling the results a "non-event" that don't represent Vytorin's commercial prospects. He said the results reaffirmed the drug's safety.

However, Banc of America Securities analyst Chris Schott reaffirmed a "neutral" rating on Schering-Plough. He said the results raise several questions about Vytorin's effectiveness, which will likely go unanswered until the company presents the data at the annual American College of Cardiology meeting in March.

Where are we headed when financial analysts are commenting on the results of clinical trials?
# 12 of 70
January 15, 2008 10:43 (EST)
Allen Taylor
ENHANCE in perspective
One imaging trial (alone) shouldn't be a reason for a moratorium on the use of ezetimibe- however, neither is one ongoing outcomes trial necessarily going to be definitive and a reason to put blinders on as the only data worth considering. I view that ENHANCE is a well-powered, CIMT trial that contributes to the ongoing evolution of our understanding of ezetimibe and should open minds to full consideration of on target and off-target mechanisms of action of this very unique, first in class compound. (i.e., the appropriate argument is not about LDL reduction per se'- it is uniquely about this chemical compound which happens to lower LDL as ONE of its properties.)

Ezetimibe has a novel mechanism of action that lowers LDL by blocking transcription of the NPC1L1 receptor- and in so doing blocks gut cholesterol transport. However, it has off-target effects not measured by serum LDL levels. Following licensure of the drug, it has been discovered that, in addition to inhibiting transcription of NPC1L1 receptors, it simultaneously blocks transcription of SRB1 and ABCA1- actions that putatively would be pro-atherosclerotic. These are shown (necessarily) in cell culture, but consider this data as contributing to the compendium of information on the agent and possibly active within the determination of the drugs net health effects. It is biologically plausible that in spite of lowering LDL-C, the drug could have other effects that completely offset any potential benefit of lower serum LDL-C.

So, the question is about the net health benefit. ENHANCE supports strongly that the net atherosclerotic benefit is not positive. CIMT has been a good bellweather of cardiovascular event studies, particularly of lipid lowering agents, but cardiovascular event trials are obviously an important piece of our overall understanding of the drug.


Are there LDL lowering trials with statins that parallel the ENHANCE trial design and could be useful in framing the results? Yes- ENHANCE is very disappointing considering results of the ASAP Trial.

ASAP was also an IMT trial conducted by the same investigators in the same patient population (HFH pts) and was less than half the size of ENHANCE. The randomization was to simva 40 or atorva 80. The incremental LDL reduction on atorvastatin 80 mg/d was 9% (half that seen in ENHANCE- 17%), yet the trial was positive showing net regression of CIMT in the more aggressive treatment group. Although ENHANCE is a different trial, the parallels are important such that, looking at ASAP one would NOT have predicted ENHANCE to be negative based on population, measurement, sample size, investigator group, or strength of intervention measured by LDL reduction.

So, the data will evolve- but ENHANCE is an important piece of data which should draw attention to the mechanism of action of ezetimibe vs. the extent of LDL-C reduction. As a unique chemical entity, we shouldn't assume we understand everything about the drug that contributes to net health benefit solely because it lowers LDL-C. Remember that only months ago we were treated to the lesson with torcetrapib - which induced major changes in LDL-C and HDL-C, yet did not have the posulated effect on CIMT or clinical outcomes.
# 13 of 70
January 15, 2008 01:07 (EST)
Eric Roehm
Evidence based medicine and ezetimibe
A surrogate trial is not adequate evidence to appropriately change therapy when there is outcome data to support the existing standard of care. This, however, is not the case with ezetimibe.

The widespread use of ezetimibe is on the basis of surrogate data alone. (Ezetimibe lowers LDL-C and other types of medication including statins and cholestyramine have been shown to result in LDL-C reduction and an improved clinical outcome.)

Ezetimibe use has become widespread because of the assumption that this medication, the first of a unique class of medication, will have a net positive benefit on clinical outcome because it also lowers LDL-C. I have frequently prescribed ezetimibe on this basis. However, one can make the case from an evidence based clinical approach that the rationale for the widespread use eztimibe before there has been a positive clinical outcome study has not been very secure. That seems to be particularly the case given that torcetrapib improved LDL-C and HDL-C but had a significant negative effect on clinical outcome in the ILLLUMINATE trial.

Hence, to me, a surrogate trial is an adequate rationale to change therapy that has been employed solely on the basis of surrogate data. Obviously, the results of a large adequately powered outcome trial trumps considerations on the basis of surrogate trials, but outcome trial results will not be available for years. For now, there does not appear to be sufficient evidence to continue prescribing ezetimibe with a statin on a routine basis. The argument of Dr. Harrington that no change in the use of ezetimibe is justified because the ENHANCE trial is a surrogate endpoint trial does not appear convincing when the justification for ezetimibe use currently rests on surrogate endpoint considerations alone.
# 14 of 70
January 15, 2008 02:28 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
Will R and Steve T and ASAP
Lowering LDL < 70 in your Dad is goal and having a statin as foundation care. Addressing nhdl < 100, TG < 150-200, raising HDL > 40-50 all impt with fda agents. My Dad had 5 v cabg age 53 and is on 4 lipid agents to reach all goals, now 13 years out without re-event. "Getting with the goals" is what we say.

We have often debated if adding a second agent to statin - would it be zetia, niaspan, tricor, lovaza, welchol???? I do think that adding zetia limits addressing the entire lipoprot abnl in many pts. I do however think that vytorin is better at ldl mgmt and goal achievment. It would be interesting to have had lipitor 80 arm in this. I do think ASPEN is provocative as it showed lipitor 10 mg in DM2 pts for 4.3 years showed no cv event reduction. Did Dr. N tell all of us to stop lipitor in DM2? Published fall 2006 - not a lot of fanfare with NEG study.........


we know there is evidence to support nicotinic acid and bile resin binders, whether ezetimibe is good or bad is ???

I have no vested interest in this product.

ENHANCE - cimt 0.69 mm low risk, it will be interesting to find out the age and number of people with cvd/chd. progression of 0.01 in 2 years is very minimal. Most atherogenic arts untreated will progress by 0.02-0.03 mm/year, 'healthy' arteries by 0.01/year or less.

ASAP very high risk (look at cimt baselines) was 2 years with fh people LDL 315 N> 300, 100 with cvd and 200 without. age 49 Atorva 40 mg 4 weeks then 80 mg 2 year study. Simva 20 mg then 40 mg 2 year study.

"Mean posterior wall IMT in the left common carotid artery (CCA) was significantly greater in men (0.94±0.29mm) compared with women (0.85±0.20) [p < 0.05]. A similar difference was found for the internal carotid artery (ICA). In the carotid bifurcation, IMT was 1.20±0.50mm in men and 1.1±0.54mm in women. The IMT of the common femoral artery (CFA) was 2.03±0.88mm in men with cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 1.63±0.70mm in men without CVD (p < 0.05). Strikingly, plaques were present in all men and 95% of the women with CVD. The cholesterol-year score and HDL cholesterol levels partially explained the variation in IMT in the carotid bifurcation, whereas gender and smoking contributed to the variation in IMT in the CFA in this group of patients." medscape

"The intima-media thickness decreased in the atorvastatin group by 0.031 mm (p = 0.0017) and increased in the simvastatin group by 0.036 mm (p = 0.0005). The change in thickness differed significantly between the two groups (p = 0.0001) and WAS CORRELATED (important) to % LDL-cholesterol reduction. LDL-cholesterol reduction was also greater with atorvastatin than with simvastatin (p = 0.0001)"

(a) Clin Drug Invest 2000;20:67-79 (b) Lancet 2001;357:577-81


# 15 of 70
January 15, 2008 02:30 (EST)
Jeffrey Zaleski
Zetia last line
All this study really shows is that Zetia or Vytorin should not be be used until trial of high potency statin has not achieved the ldl reduction.

The question is that is it a magic number <100 or <70 or is it truely statin or is it % reduction.

It is not very clear. There is enough data to support high dose statin, but to useing Vytorin over atorvastatin 80mg or rosuvastatin 40mg to get to goal, may not be advisible at this time (I believe that rosuvastatin still lacks clinical data, but so did atorvastatin for a long time.)

Clearly using Niaspan should be considered even with a statin prior to Zetia is appropriate, at least there is cardiac data with Niaspan vs Zetia. While combination therapy has little data, it goes back to the number game, is it a magic ldl level or % reduction.

My practice at the VA has limited Zetia use to last line in which patients must fail all other options. Right now, that looks good with the lack of data with Zetia.
# 16 of 70
January 15, 2008 02:52 (EST)
D Hackam
point of correction
Rosuvastatin statistically reduced the composite risk of stroke and MI in a patient population characterized as having ischemic CHF .. admittedly this was a post-hoc endpoint, probably analyzed in light of the overall neutrality of the trial.

I maintain that trial was underpowered since it is still consistent with up to a 17% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint (ie, HR goes out to 0.83).

I would therefore suggest that rosuvastatin is a bit more evidence based than ezetimibe at this point, with both c-IMT, CRP and hard event data. Note that the risk of CV hospitalization was also driven down by rosuvastatin in the CORONA study.
# 17 of 70
January 15, 2008 03:20 (EST)
Dr.Lucas Kleemann
It`s not so easy to react
I`m also disappointed that ENHANCE has failed to show regression . But in austria it is not easy to discribe statins as you like. The assurance companies tell you which one is first line , otherwise they don`t pay the medication and the patient has to pay it by themselves. So to get the goal , intrhink the most potent agent is rosuvastatin 10 to 40mg in addition with a second agent if needed ( ezetimibe or niaspan or fibrats or omacor etc.). Inegy (= simva + ezetimibe) is well tolerated and very often to get the goal , but now --> wahat should we do , stop inegy and switch ?? , there are studies which have shown that the switch is common with adverse outcome ( Study in newzaeland fluva /Simva) !?!?
# 18 of 70
January 15, 2008 05:15 (EST)
D Walsh
Still has a role
Many patients who are unable to achieve LDL goal with diet and exercise alone are not able to tolerate statins. Zetia monotherapy has been a very useful substitute. Seems to me that this study does little to inform patients and practitioners on such uses making broad proclamations of the drugs lack utility a disservice. While we certainly have not proof to support Zetia in such patients now I don't think we can ignore the proven benefits of LDL lowering while awaiting outcomes studies that will never be performed.
# 19 of 70
January 16, 2008 10:44 (EST)
Ayman Magd
My 2 cents !
Sure ENHANCE is an important trial BUT , it is only looking at surrogate end points and the findings were not significant rather than going in the wrong direction with nothing negative in terms of safety . Lipitor was used for many years with absolutely no data but lowewred the numbers nicely without harm to the patients . Therefore I really fail to see what all the fuss is about ! How can we be so pssionate about not using a drug that lowers LDL and TC nicely without any undue harm in the absence of any clinical data ? Sure , if it fails in the clinical arena , you can say what you want but solely on a surrogate endpoint ? I would tend to be more cautious .
I have absolutely nothing to disclose in terms of conflict of interest!
# 20 of 70
January 16, 2008 04:32 (EST)
D Hackam
data from ASAP
Here are the data from ASAP, mentioned before.

Lancet. 2001 Feb 24;357(9256):577-81.
Effect of aggressive versus conventional lipid lowering on atherosclerosis progression in familial hypercholesterolaemia (ASAP): a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial.

BACKGROUND: High LDL-cholesterol is a risk factor for atherosclerosis. We aimed to determine whether aggressive cholesterol lowering with statins was more effective than conventional statin treatment in this disease. We investigated the effect of high-dose atorvastatin on carotid atherosclerosis progression. METHOD: We did a randomised, double-blind clinical trial in 325 patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia. Patients were given either atorvastatin 80 mg (n=160) or simvastatin 40 mg (n=165) daily, on an intent-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint was the change of carotid intima media thickness (IMT), as measured by quantitative B-mode ultrasound, over 2 years. FINDINGS: The overall baseline IMT, combining the measurements of the common and internal carotid artery and the carotid bifurcation on both sides, was 0.93 mm (SD 0.22) and 0.92 mm (0.21) in the atorvastatin and simvastatin groups, respectively. After treatment with atorvastatin for 2 years, IMT decreased (-0.031 mm [95% CI -0.007 to -0.055]; p=0.0017), whereas in the simvastatin group it increased (0.036 [0.014-0.058]; p=0.0005). The change in thickness differed significantly between the two groups (p=0.0001). Atorvastatin showed greater reductions in cholesterol concentrations than did simvastatin. HDL-cholesterol concentrations increased in both groups. Both drugs were equally well tolerated. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that aggressive LDL-cholesterol reduction by atorvastatin was accompanied by regression of carotid intima media thickness in patients with familial hypercholesterolaemia, whereas conventional LDL lowering was not.
# 21 of 70
January 16, 2008 07:35 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
ASAP post #14
Dan, as mentioned in post 14, these are 2 different groups. The ASAP group much more cad, much higher cimt - more advanced dz and likely had little exposure to statins prior to enrollment.

ENHANCE group much diff waiting for pub to see age and cad hx.

unfortunate to see a company study an understudied population and have all the neg publicity. of course they created a lot of this by 'sitting' on the data and postponing.

bottom line, both drugs very safe, both drugs low rate cv events, both drugs minimal progression athero. both drugs lower ldl - getting to goal most important and if simva doesn't do it - move to more potent statin or combo agent.

cheers
# 22 of 70
January 16, 2008 08:07 (EST)
D Hackam
ASPEN
Michael,

IF you look at the 95% ci for ASPEN, it is wide, which means there is a good possibility of event reduction, and underpowered trial. You talk much about ASPEN, but as far as I am concerned, this study was refuted by CARDS and the recent LANCET meta-analysis on statins in both type 1 and type 2 diabetics. Therefore, ASPEN was underpowered.

I am interested to see the 95% CI around the estimate of the mean standardized difference in the ENHANCE study.

As Nissen points out, statins have multiple effects beyond lowering just LDL. Ezetimibe acts only on LDL, to block absorption. TNT shows there is a clear dose-response gradient for atorvastatin, and similar results from atorva vs prava in REVERSAL and PROVE-IT, atorva vs simva positive for many endpoints in IDEAL. What the data are suggesting is that it is not just the LDL reduction that is driving events; there may be other properties unique to the drugs themselves (either beneficial or adverse). Unfortunately we just wont know until we have data from IMPROVE-IT and its ilk.
# 23 of 70
January 16, 2008 08:40 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
aspen
..talk a lot about it, maybe because i like to ski.

The point is that aspen was a failed study in a high risk group. and if treating over 2000 t2d people for 4.3 years didn't show benefit..... no one (special interest agenda group) called for a moratorium on atorva. i don't tx that many dm2 people in 4 years.

i think there is no doubt that atorva shows risk reduction like all statins if they are high enough risk or you use a high enough dose.

as long as we lower ldl, i don't care what it takes if a statin is on board. niacin too if needed as this was the first lipid agent to ever show risk reduction.

torcetrapib ctep inhib had an moa that was trouble from the start.

just my 2
# 24 of 70
January 17, 2008 08:26 (EST)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
ANd the Lay public's heads are spinning again
A patient's husband asked me as I was seeing his wife for the first time: So what are we supposed to do about that drug they were giving warnings about this weekend. "What drug?". I had not seen any "warnings". Then it dawned on me as he was pointing to his neck "It's supposed to give you placque build up, but it's not doing it. How are we supposed to get it to build up?"."What are we supposed to use".
I nearly fell off of my chair. After numerous pictures and attempts to explain. I finally said "I'm changing nothing about the way we try to lower LDL cholesterol in this practice".
When a large long term controlled randomized trial demonstrates harm or no benefit then I'll make a new recommendation. For now, we'll continue to try to get the LDL with whatever cocktail we have available.....EVEN dreaded exercise and diet!!!
Melissa
# 25 of 70
January 17, 2008 08:28 (EST)
D Hackam
Michael
"as long as we lower ldl, i don't care what it takes if a statin is on board.

"niacin too if needed as this was the first lipid agent to ever show risk reduction."

I think that was cholestyramine (or colestipol? don't remember...) in the Lipid Research Clinics prevention Trial. Actually I can't remember if CDP(niacin) came first or second.

Also, Michael, it's not all about LDL reduction. I think there is alot to be said for the strategy of high-dose statins first, then maximize all other avenues (blood pressure, glucose, platelet aggregation, lifestyle - smoking, exercise, diet, stress, mood)

Also, I use alot of gemfibrozil monotherapy for primary prevention in patients with isolated low HDL. It is highly tolerable and has a great track record (HHS, VA-HIT, etc).
# 26 of 70
January 17, 2008 09:53 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
choir
cut and paste comments and context.

1. primary goal of tx = LDL = statin > 40-50 LDL reducttion

2. secondary goal of tx = NHDL if tg > 200

3. special populations HDL > 40-50 and TG < 200-150 goals

4. HDL is the only lipoprotein risk factor

5. the majority of our mod to very high risk pts require combination lipid mgmt to meet all of these goals. addressing bp, glucose, thyroid, diet, exercise, tobacco, kidneys - that's the easy stuff :o)

Greg Brown's article summarized that optimal risk reduction is when one combines ldl reduction with hdl elevation.

good meta analysis with > 250K pts shows tg as an independent risk predictor for men and women and should be addressed whether with diet, n'3, fibrate (eg gem or feno), niacin

CDP was the first lipid study 1966-77.
LRC-CPPT was 1974-84

What we know is that: niacin, bile resin, statin, n-3 evidence all show ~30% rr mono and all have been used in combo studies with even better rr. combo, combo, combo.

this is not meant to detract from eze - i do think it has a place and if enough pts with the 'right' risk were enrolled there is not biochemical reason to suspect there would not be benefit. we prefer to go with evidence, that being said we use crestor, vytorin because od high ldl reductions. people forget atorva didn't have evidence for a long time and still can publish failed studies although it never gets played in the media.


gem in hhs and vahit nice option, had just as much residual risk and mace as monostatin studies - leaving a lot of events on the table - just like leaving ur $$ on the table in vegas.
# 27 of 70
January 17, 2008 10:19 (EST)
D Hackam
Michael
Thank you for pointing me correctly to which was first - LRC-CPPT or CDP - I couldn't find either in my online free access to "What's What" ...

http://www.incirculation.net/whatswhat/0_0.aspx?mid=28

...for those of us who like me were still in diapers or not even born yet!
# 28 of 70
January 17, 2008 12:12 (EST)
Andrew Davie
Why is so much (US) practice not evidence-based?
"Ezetimibe ..... is a relative newcomer to the cholesterol market but is already generating blockbuster sales, said to be in the region of $5 billion. That is despite the fact there have been no outcome data available on the drug"
# 29 of 70
January 17, 2008 02:18 (EST)
D Hackam
practice change
My practice will not change as a result of ENHANCE. I continue to confine my use of ezetimibe to highly statin-intolerant patients (after I have cut back the dose or tried low dose hydrophilic statin -- prava 10 mg/d worked wonders in MEGA for primary prevention).

If this fails, I will use ezetimibe.

To get maximal LDL reduction I will use atorvastatin 80 mg/d.
# 30 of 70
January 17, 2008 02:41 (EST)
James J. King
Practice change
My practice will change as a result of ENHANCE.

I ran my database, I currently have 219 patients on Vytorin. Not a huge number. I will probably return to adding Niacin if a statin is inadequate. Too bad, Niacin has not been as well tolerated as Vytorin. I always suspected Niacin + statin was better therapy.
# 31 of 70
January 17, 2008 04:41 (EST)