Lipid/Metabolic
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)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
natl lipid assn statement on enhance
NLA Statement on ENHANCE Study Findings: Premature Judgment Unwarranted
The limitations of the ENHANCE study, in terms of its design and the patients studied, are such that physicians should not alter their prescribing policies at this time. Current discussion regarding the ENHANCE Study is not based upon published work subject to peer review and thus cannot yet be evaluated by the medical community.

The ENHANCE trial was not powered to examine differences in clinical outcomes. The limitations in question include the patient population studied, which were patients who had familial hypercholesterolemia with an average baseline LDL-C of 319 mg/dL. The statin-ezetimibe combination reduced LDL-C more than did the statin alone. However, there were no statistically significant differences in the primary endpoint, which was carotid intimal-media thickness, as measured by ultrasound. The combination therapy (Vytorin) resulted in a greater reduction of LDL-C (17 percent) compared to simvastatin alone. Further, the therapy examined does not present safety concerns as there were no differences in adverse events between the two treatment groups.

Given that other studies are currently in progress to examine cardiovascular endpoints, generalization and extrapolation of ENHANCE results to different populations with regard to clinical outcomes is premature.

The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines suggest patient goals but do not specify which drugs should be used to attain them. That matter is left to the judgment of the physician, whose primary objective is to help patients reach their treatment targets.

The NLA re-emphasizes the importance of following NCEP guidelines and ezetimibe and its combination form remain reasonable options that can be safely prescribed when appropriate. Until the ENHANCE Study is formally published and presented to the medical community, there is no basis on which physicians can make an informed decision and to do so now would be an unwarranted rush to judgment.

# 32 of 70
January 17, 2008 04:41 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
acc statement
ACC Statement on ENHANCE Trial

January 15, 2008

The ENHANCE (Effect of Combination Ezetimibe and High-Dose Simvastatin vs.. Simvastatin Alone on the Atherosclerotic Process in Patients with Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia) trial results were released by Merck and Schering-Plough Pharmaceuticals on January 14, 2008. The results of the trial show no benefit from the combination of ezetimibe (Zetia) and simvastatin (sold together as Vytorin) over simvastatin alone in terms of affecting the rate of atherosclerosis progression.

The study involved 720 patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and showed no significant difference in the primary endpoint between patients treated with ezetimibe and simvastatin versus patients treated with simvastatin alone over a two-year period. The study was designed to prove that Vytorin could slow the growth of plaque in carotid arteries supplying the brain more than simvastatin alone. Media reports indicate that the results of the trial show no benefit from the combination of ezetimibe (Zetia) and simvastatin (sold together as Vytorin) over simvastatin alone.

The American College of Cardiology recommends that major clinical decisions not be made on the basis of the ENHANCE study alone.

According to the American College of Cardiology (ACC), this study deserves serious thought and follow-up. The overall incidence rates of cardiac events were nearly identical between both treatment groups, and both medicines were generally well tolerated. There should no be reason for patients to panic. The difference in IMT changes between the simvastatin group and the Vytorin group was 0.006 mm vs. 0.011 mm.

Health care professionals should speak to their concerned patients using this drug. The ACC is also releasing a public statement explaining that this is not an urgent situation and patients should never stop taking any prescribed medications without first discussing the issue with their health care professional. Further research will be needed in this area to provide conclusive evidence about which lipid lowering strategy is preferred (statin alone vs. statin plus ezetimibe).

Furthermore, the ACC notes that this trial is an imaging study and not a clinical-outcome study. Conclusions should not be made until the three large clinical-outcome trials are presented within the next two to three years. The ACC recommends that Zetia remain a reasonable option for patients who are currently on a high dose statin but have not reached their goal. The ACC also notes that Zetia is a reasonable option for patients who cannot tolerate statins or can only tolerate a low dose statin.

Reports also indicate that the ENHANCE trial has been submitted as an abstract to be presented at the upcoming American College of Cardiology Scientific Session in March, 2008. The late-breaking clinical trial selections by the meeting co-chairs are scheduled to occur in late January.

For more information on the ENHANCE trial, please visit Cardiosource at http://www.cardiosource.com/clinicaltrials/trial.asp?trialID=1640.


# 33 of 70
January 17, 2008 09:37 (EST)
Anit Dua
Agree with stopping Zetia/Vytorin
I agree with Nissen and many others in this forum including James King that use of Zetia and Vytorin should be stopped and used only when other options(like Niacin) are exhausted or as a last resort Event then I do not think it should be used as we have NO data that it is beneficial or possibly even detrimental. Lowering LDL alone SHOULD NOT be the criteria for continued prescribing this medication. Hard outcomes are needed.

Clofibrate decreased lipoproteins but increased death. Calcium supplementation has been shown to increase the ratio of high density lipoprotein cholesterol to low density lipoprotein cholesterol by almost 20% in healthy postmenopausal women, but are now liked to increased risk of vascular disease (1). The cholesterol concept has taken quite a beating with failure of torcetrapib and now quite possibly Zetia . Not to mention that estrogen improves cholesterol profile too but worsen CV risk. High time to discard the cholesterol vascular disease hypothesis and that lowering LDL or improving lipid profile will necessarily translate into CV event reduction. That is too simplistic way of thinking and only for the simple minded when the body is far more complex. Just because statins lower CV risk and improve lipid profile at the same time does not in any way mean that lowering LDL is what caused the risk reduction. Statins impact many other molecules and inflammatory markers like CRP, many of which we know and many we don’t and it is quite possible that their beneficial impact in CV reduction may well be as a result of their effect on the non-cholesterol markers/compounds and we are fooled into thinking that because we observe the changes in cholesterol the most, that is what the most important when that is too simplistic way of thinking. As Nissen said while Zetia may be lowering cholesterol, it may be adversely affecting some other important compound/s responsible for vascular health making it pro-atherogenic

1. Bolland MJ, Barber AP, Doughty RN, et al. Vascular events in healthy older women receiving calcium supplementation: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2008; DOI:10.1136/bmj.39440.525752.BE. Available at:

2 Reid IR, Mason B, Mason B, Horne A, Ames R, Clearwater J, Bava U, et al. Effects of calcium supplementation on serum lipid concentrations in normal older women: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Med 2002;112:343-7.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

# 34 of 70
January 17, 2008 10:04 (EST)
Wiliam Blanchet
Soft study, strong conclusions
The only reason that we are even paying attention to this study is because Merck seems to have tried to mess with the results. Had they reported the non-superiority of zetia in reducing progression of CIMT over max dose simvastatin alone, we would have paid almost no attention. Indeed there are surrogate endpoint studies showing no benefit from statins yet we still prescribe statins without question.

I use EBT calcium imaging to document adequacy of medical interventions. Stability of plaque by serial EBT imaging is a much stronger surrogate endpoint than is CIMT. In my patients with advanced coronary artery disease, the combination of low dose statin, zetia, niaspan, and omega-3 fatty acids have done a great job of stabilizing plaque, relieving angina and preventing coronary events.

I feel that to discard zetia based upon ENHANCE is a mistake.
# 35 of 70
January 17, 2008 10:21 (EST)
joshua socolow
Bravo Anit
I couldn't agree more with Anit.
The LDL "lower is better" model -while it has served us well in general- isn't holding up to trials with new agents.
All of the arguments made that we shouldn't base our clinical decision on surrogate models seem to ignore the basic fact that LDL is a surrogate endpoint as well. So, it seems to me the real question isn't whether we should stop using ezetimbie, but instead why on earth we started using this drug in the first place.
# 36 of 70
January 18, 2008 08:01 (EST)
Andrew Davie
Will you now be less likely to prescribe ezetimibe?
My answer to this question is no !

I never prescribed it before & I never will prescribe it until the evidence that it reduces mortality or morbidity is presented.

(Just like I never prescribed Atorvastatin until the results of PROVE-IT & I have never prescribed Rosuvastatin.)
# 37 of 70
January 18, 2008 10:11 (EST)
Eric Roehm
Evidenced Based Medicine and ezetimibe
There are positive clinical outcome trials with reduction of clinical events for statins, niacin, cholestyramine, and gemfibrizol.

In contrast, the drug torcetrapib resulted in increased death rates and MI despite improving LDL-C and HDL-C.

There is no outcome trial data available for ezetimibe, the first in a unique class of drugs.

The ENHANCE trial did not prove that ezetimibe use was safe compared to non-ezetimibe use in regards to clinical events. The trial was not powered to compare clinical events (4 events cv death/nonfatal stroke/nonfatal MI with simvastatin vs. 6 events with ezetimibe/simvastatin). These low numbers do not preclude ezetimibe from being beneficial, but they by no means constitute proof that ezetimibe will not ultimately be shown to result in a worse clinical outcome than placebo.

Using medications associated with positive clinical outcome studies to lower cholesterol and get to optimal cholesterol goals appears most consistent with evidence based medication.
# 38 of 70
January 18, 2008 02:28 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
my heavens
Not the terrible "T" word. torcetrapib ctep inhib with major chol transport mechanisitic probs SHOWED a doubling of death in under 500 days.

ENHANCE showed that vytorin/zocor were no better, no worse for cimt or events or safety. showed vytorin better for ldl reduction. (duh,, that is the primary goal of therapy)

ASAP is not similar except the fh pop and should not be referenced. please read both studies.

niacin, bile resin binders were the first 2 agents to show event/risk reduction. if we were practicing ebm all of our high risk pts would be on these agents (assuming no ci)

i agree merck/schering have created much of this by delaying results. it's too bad that excellent clinicians are making medication changes when their is no evidence to support this. i am not affiliated nor do i lecture for merck/schering.

also, rosuva has an fda indication to stop the progression of athero. atorva was on the market 7 years prior to ever showing event risk reduction and was number one statin rx way before that.

# 39 of 70
January 18, 2008 02:52 (EST)
D Hackam
speaking of rosiglitazone, interesting correspondence in Archives..
Cardiovascular Safety of Low-Dose Rosiglitazone

In the trial by Hollander et al,1 the excess rates of cardiovascular (CV) events with rosiglitazone use (2.4% in the 2-mg/d group and 1.4% in the 4-mg/d group vs 0.9% in the placebo group) are of concern because of several reasons. First, these events occurred with rosiglitazone doses as low as 2 mg/d and after short-time exposure to the drug (within 24 weeks). Second, they were in agreement with the overall results of a meta-analysis2 of 42 trials showing that rosiglitazone use was associated with a significant risk of myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.98 [P = .03]). The meta-analysis2 included the trial by Hollander et al1 before its publication and peer review, when it was reported in a summary fashion on the Web site of the drug manufacturer. Although the interim data of the randomized RECORD (Rosiglitazone Evaluated for Cardiac Outcomes and Regulation of Glycemia in Diabetes) trial did not suggest a significant increase in the incidence of myocardial infarction or deaths from CV causes with rosiglitazone use, the frequency of congestive heart failure more than doubled in the rosiglitazone group compared with the control group (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-3.97 [P = .006]).3 Third, the authors' description that the excess rates of CV events are only "slight" and may be attributed to the high frequency of CV risk factors at baseline among patients randomized to rosiglitazone is by no means reassuring. Indeed, the impact of this "slight" increase in CV events can be substantial because millions of patients are using rosiglitazone worldwide. Moreover, the early occurrence of CV events argues against the unfavorable CV risk profile in the rosiglitazone groups at the study entry being a major contributing factor. Fourth, it is well known that rosiglitazone in maximum doses (8 mg/d) adversely affects plasma lipids by increasing levels of low-density lipoproteins and triglycerides by up to 23% and 15%, respectively.4 It would be interesting to know the changes in plasma lipids in the study by Hollander et al1 with low rosiglitazone doses.

Taken together, it is reasonable to avoid the use of rosiglitazone until its safety becomes established. With respect to the approach tested by Hollander et al1 of adding an oral agent to ongoing insulin therapy, metformin may be a better alternative than rosiglitazone in this setting. Thus, the effectiveness of metformin was similar to rosiglitazone in lowering glycated hemoglobin concentrations.5 However, contrary to rosiglitazone, the use of metformin was associated with mild weight loss and improvement in lipid profile.5


AUTHOR INFORMATION

Correspondence: Dr Mikhail, Department of Endocrinology, OliveView–UCLA Medical Center, 14445 Olive View Dr, Sylmar, CA 91342 (nmikhail@ladhs.org).

Nasser Mikhail, MD, MSc



REFERENCES

1. Hollander P, Yu D, Chou HS. Low-dose rosiglitazone in patients with insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(12):1284-1290. FREE FULL TEXT
2. Nissen SE, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(24):2457-2471. FREE FULL TEXT
3. Home PD, Pocock SJ, Beck-Nielsen H; et al, RECORD Study Group. Rosiglitazone evaluated for cardiovascular outcomes—an interim analysis. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(1):28-38. FREE FULL TEXT
4. Goldberg RB, Kendall DM, Deeg MA; et al, GLAI Study Investigators. A comparison of lipid and glycemic effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(7):1547-1554. FREE FULL TEXT
5. Wulffelé MG, Kooy A, Lehert P; et al. Combination of insulin and metformin in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2002;25(12):2133-2140. FREE FULL TEXT
# 40 of 70
January 18, 2008 04:12 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
rosi - more rehash of ? science
I thought we were talking about statins.

simva
atorva
rosuva

etc.

I'm glad i'm not one of those numbers being on 2 mg of rosi, maybe I should increase my dose. Glad my Dad is on 4 mg.

no event for either of us in 24 weeks or 5 years for either and none in our pop for pio or rosi.

speaking of which had a gentleman this am stopped his zetia, crestor and niaspan. ran out of coreg, still on actos for a1c over 6% and altace.

left chest discomfort off and on 5 months, had an lad stent 99% occlusion 2 years ago age 53 nonsmoker hdl 63, ldl 190, nhdl 220. stopped all lipid mgmt this week because of news.

I wonder how many cad/cvd events will happen dut to this media. He is going to the cath lab for another intervention and started on all lipid agents today. Also restarted plavix which 'someone' told him to stop.



# 41 of 70
January 18, 2008 04:41 (EST)
D Hackam
rosuvastatin benefit
nonfatal and fatal MI or stroke:

At 36 months, 227 events in rosuv. arm, and 264 events in placebo arm

Hazard ratio = 0.84
95% CI 0.70 to 1.00
p = 0.05

Reductions in hospital admissions (all-cause): p=.007

Reduction in hospital admissions (CV cause): p<0.0012

Reductions in hospital admissions (CHF): p=.01
# 42 of 70
January 18, 2008 05:30 (EST)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
YET......
We treated with statins for years before we had ANY evidence based medicine. We had enough small studies to suggest it was worth while and we have a "marker" which seems to indicate the statin is working or not. For now, I'll stick with zetia whenever a patient can't achieve adequate LDL lowering with a statin alone, OR when they can't tolerate the addition of niacin, OR if they can't take niacin OR a statin. If there is any impact on LDL, I'll use it.
there is no randomized controlled trial with sublingual nitro as a rescue for angina or not, and there likely never will be, so we must be patient until the approriate trials are performed.
On the other hand, If there is a signal of harm, like carcinogenesis (I always thought if there was any harm,.it would be small bowel issues), so far, nothing. Just lower LDL's abound.
I would have also been a little more convinced of no need to continue on with Ezetimibe if the population studied would have been a more run of the mill dyslipidemia.
So, as I told my friend/patient/physician.........keep on keeping on with your Vytorin. Don't change a thing.............YET.
Melissa
# 43 of 70
January 18, 2008 06:14 (EST)
D Hackam
surrogate markers and cardiovascular events
Melissa,
I agree. I suspect it will take a combination of a lipidologist and an imaging expert to figure this one out .. it's beyond believe.

Yet have a look at this study from Stroke. Patients with microalbuminuria (a curiously overlooked risk factor), randomized to fosinopril (ACEi) or pravastatin vs matching placebos. No effect on IMT, yet we know these drugs prevent hard events (eg pravastatin proven in multiple, multiple studies)

Stroke. 2005 Mar;36(3):649-53. Epub 2005 Feb 3. Links
Effects of fosinopril and pravastatin on carotid intima-media thickness in subjects with increased albuminuria.Asselbergs FW, van Roon AM, Hillege HL, de Jong PE, Gans RO, Smit AJ, van Gilst WH; PREVEND IT Investigators.
Department of Clinical Pharmacology, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV, Groningen, The Netherlands. f.w.asselbergs@thorax.azg.nl

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Elevated urinary albumin excretion (UAE) is associated with an increased carotid intima-media thickness (IMT). Because angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors as well as statins have been shown to lower UAE and the progression of IMT, we assessed the effects of fosinopril and pravastatin on carotid IMT in subjects with an increased UAE (15 to 300 mg/24 h). METHODS: IMT was measured at the posterior wall of the left common carotid artery using radio-frequency signal analysis obtained by M-mode ultrasonography. 642 subjects were double-blind randomized to fosinopril 20 mg or matching placebo and to pravastatin 40 mg or matching placebo and were available for intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Mean age was 51+/-11 years, 65% were male, the median UAE was 22.5 (15.5 to 40.8) mg/24 h, and the mean IMT at baseline was 0.77+/-0.18 mm. The overall progression rate of IMT in 4 years was 0.037+/-0.006 mm. No significant difference in IMT progression was found between fosinopril, pravastatin, or matching placebo. IMT after 4 years was predicted by IMT at baseline, age, gender, pulse pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. Furthermore, a higher incidence of clinical events was observed in subjects with an IMT >1 mm after a mean follow-up of 46+/-7 months (hazard ratio, 3.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.59 to 6.16; P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In subjects with an increased UAE, treatment with fosinopril and pravastatin showed no significant effect on carotid IMT. Furthermore, an IMT <1 mm at baseline is an important indicator for event-free survival.
# 44 of 70
January 18, 2008 07:52 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
expert and stroke
Dan, "I agree. I suspect it will take a combination of a lipidologist and an imaging expert to figure this one out."

Okay then I'll take a shot as a board certified clinical lipidologist (NLA) and a certified htn specialist (ASH) and an imaging expert doing vascular imaging for over 5 years now.

Stroke ref paper you mention: mean CIMT 0.77 mm = ~ 65 yo arteries. these pts were 51 chrono age.

in general CIMT > 0.79-.81 not good, > .91 bad, >1.00 terrible, very good < 0.60
a normal artery will age 0.01/year an unhappy artery will age 0.02-0.03/year

Ramipril is the most studied outcome agent and showed in HOPE to delay progression of athero in SECURE substudy. Also has been best ACEI in mitra-plus study, pilote canadian study etc... other acei's have shown mixed results. NNT in HOPE to prevent death 52 people. MICROHOPE T2D group NT 31.

I think for fosinopril to show endothelial benefits it would need dosing at 40-80 mg and perhaps not even at this dose.

Rosuva 40 showed remarkable benefits in METEOR low risk people (age 57 with arts ~ 65 yo) wirh mean CIMT similar to this and in ASTEROID IVUS regression in high risk people. Other mod/high dose statins have shown benefit.

Prava 40 mg is pissing in the wind long term for regression, must be high dose over long term as arbiter 1 and other prava comparator studies have shown.

Of course if ACS pt must use high dose immediate as in lcas and other studies. low dose doesn't cut it for statins.

hope this helps. Have a gr8 weekend. mc
# 45 of 70
January 19, 2008 10:40 (EST)
hisham baalbaki
Looking for answers
We do know that FH subjects have higher IMT than both age-matched and sex-matched normolipidemic and hypercholesterolemic controls.
We also know that in FH, carotid IMT has been found to be associated with presence of CHD.

Do we know:

1- whether regression or lack of progression in CIMT in FH individuals is associated with less atherothrombotic CV events?
2- whether there is a threshold of % LDL lowering beyond which there may not be further benefit on CIMT in patients with FH?

Anybody! Thanks
# 46 of 70
January 19, 2008 11:33 (EST)
D Hackam
michael
My intent was not clear. What I am saying is that PRAVASTATIN 40 MG/D definitively prevents cardiovascular events*, yet shows no effect on IMT.

Perhaps we need to start looking at plaque VULNERABILITY rather than simply atheroma deposition.

In the angiographic trials, statins provided very little effect in terms of regression, but MI was robustly decreased.

(*CARE, LIPID, PROSPER, WESCOPS, heart transplantation RCTs, etc)
# 47 of 70
January 19, 2008 12:08 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
Dan,
Thanks - arbiter 1 showed prava 40 positive for imt regression in 6 months but then was no longer beneficial. (there are probably numerous other small studies) I think if prava 160-320 mg were used or LDL was dropped below 75 mg/dl the benefit would still be seen.

Much like the commentary about high dose acei which have evidence support. Now that ramipril is generic - i don't see why any clinician would write another acei.

Plaque vulnerability is interesting and a marker with lppla2 stratifies risk, but again no outcomes studies. All of the lipid agents and asa lower this marker. Higher statin dose or more potent statin is better on this marker. gsk is working on an inhib of this marker also. again whether evidence supports the drug will be the 5-7 year question.

We know that combination lipid mgmt is best for risk reduction, angio regression, imt regression.

adding raas, sns, ccb products beyond bp control (eg. chlorthal) has benefit in certain pops supported by evidence. and all of the other things we do to lower risk.

in PROCAM the best risk reduction was combo statin/acei although each individually were good.

So how about the cbs news articles this week, has that made your cv practice more exciting - telling pts we overprescribe statins? Friday one of my 53 yo 99% occ LAD stent pts 2 yrs ago stopped his statin and was concerned about his 'chest discomfort off and on.' "those statins and zetia aren't safe" Had already stopped his plavix - now back to cath lab.

Patient adherance is so tough, it's almost like people don't want to take the meds at times because we prescirbe them. (we are in cahoots with drug companies, etc) I'm going to start prescribing tobacco - so pts will stop smoking. mv
# 48 of 70
January 20, 2008 07:42 (EST)
hisham baalbaki
More questions
In followup to Dan's raising the vulnerability issue, I pose to you another question,

Is it possible the "disappointig" results seen in ENHANCE are related to the lower basline CIMT than those in ASAP (0.93 mm) or METEOR (maximum IMT of at least 1.2 mm at a single site and less than 3.5 mm at all sites)? Conceivably, the thicker the CIMT, the more lipid-laden and inflammed it is, and therfore more aggressive lipid therapy is more likely to produce "positive" results.

I think there is a lot we don't know.
I am not rushing to any conclusions and will not change my practice based on what I've read so far.
# 49 of 70
January 20, 2008 10:00 (EST)
Descamps Olivier
ENHANCE patients are less atherogenic that ASAP patients
In my mind, IMT at 0.6 mm as it is in the patients of ENHANCE is “normal” (no deposit of cholesterol in the arterial wall) or at least far lower than previously trials on other populations like the ASAP and METEOR for instance. Even if it is average value (which means that 50% of the measurement was higher than normal and 50% was in the normal range (0,4 to O,7 mm) and thus without any presence of cholesterol in the wall), as we should not expect very much change of IMT with normal arterial wall under a LDL lowering treatment, the effect of LDL lowering has probably been simply "decapitated".
To compare ENHANCE with the ASAP study in the same group of patients:
The ASAP group of patients were obviously more atherogenic at the view of the baseline carotid IMT measurement compared to the patients in the ENHANCE study.
In ASAP: at baseline, 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 in the atorvastatin (ATORVA) groups (SD 0.22) and 0.92 mm (0.21) in the simvastatin (SIMVA) groups.
In ENHANCE, at baseline, the mean carotid IMT measurement for the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/80 mg (EZE/SIMVA ) group was 0.68 mm and for the simvastatin-80-mg group was 0.69 mm.
So this may explain why in the ASAP study, with a “low” additional lowering of LDL (9% with atorvastatin compared to simvastatin), difference of evolution of IMT was much stronger (decreased by -0.031 mm with atorvastatin, increased by 0.036 mm with simvastatin) whereas in the ENHANCE study with a greater additional lowering of LDL (17% with EZE/SIMVA (58 %) compared to SIMVA(41 %)), difference of evolution of IMT was not very significant increase of 0.0111 mm with EZE/SIMVA and of 0.0058 mm with SIMVA. Note that the progression under simvastatin was obviously three times slower in ENHANCE compared to ASAP.

Most likely subgroup analysis in ENHANCE patients in the upper tertile of IMT at baseline will be most interesting to perform. That is why I think , it is better to wait the comments of John Kastelein at the ACC in April before taking any decision about our patients.
# 50 of 70
January 20, 2008 10:35 (EST)
Descamps Olivier
ENHANCE patients are less atherogenic that ASAP patients
In my mind, IMT at 0.6 mm as it is in the patients of ENHANCE is “normal” (no deposit of cholesterol in the arterial wall) or at least far lower than previously trials on other populations like the ASAP and METEOR for instance. Even if it is average value (which means that 50% of the measurement was higher than normal and 50% was in the normal range (0,4 to O,7 mm) and thus without any presence of cholesterol in the wall), as we should not expect very much change of IMT with normal arterial wall under a LDL lowering treatment, the effect of LDL lowering has probably been simply "decapitated".
To compare ENHANCE with the ASAP study in the same group of patients:
The ASAP group of patients were obviously more atherogenic at the view of the baseline carotid IMT measurement compared to the patients in the ENHANCE study.
In ASAP: at baseline, 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 in the atorvastatin (ATORVA) groups (SD 0.22) and 0.92 mm (0.21) in the simvastatin (SIMVA) groups.
In ENHANCE, at baseline, the mean carotid IMT measurement for the ezetimibe/simvastatin 10/80 mg (EZE/SIMVA ) group was 0.68 mm and for the simvastatin-80-mg group was 0.69 mm.
So this may explain why in the ASAP study, with a “low” additional lowering of LDL (9% with atorvastatin compared to simvastatin), difference of evolution of IMT was much stronger (decreased by -0.031 mm with atorvastatin, increased by 0.036 mm with simvastatin) whereas in the ENHANCE study with a greater additional lowering of LDL (17% with EZE/SIMVA (58 %) compared to SIMVA(41 %)), difference of evolution of IMT was not very significant increase of 0.0111 mm with EZE/SIMVA and of 0.0058 mm with SIMVA. Note that the progression under simvastatin was obviously three times slower in ENHANCE compared to ASAP.

Most likely subgroup analysis in ENHANCE patients in the upper tertile of IMT at baseline will be most interesting to perform. That is why I think , it is better to wait the comments of John Kastelein at the ACC in April before taking any decision about our patients.
# 51 of 70
January 20, 2008 10:58 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
Hisham
I agree we need wait at this time for the ENHANCE published data. what we know is that both zocor 80 and vytorin 10/80 are equivalent for safety, tolerability, cv events and cimt changes in 2 yrs for people with FH.

THE REST IS SPECULATION

also when looking at cimt measures can be max cimt or mean cimt and one must keep this in mind.

asap mean cimt 0.92
enhance mean cimt 0.69
meteor mean cimt 0.76

good is under 0.6
concern over 0.7ish
bad over 0.8-0.9
terrible over 1

both max and mean cimt indicate risk, however mean cimt is a more accurate measure of true endo wall. we stick with mean cimt in our practice and also measure each independent plaque for size, soft or calcified areas or any variation
# 52 of 70
January 20, 2008 11:24 (EST)
D Hackam
is simva 80 mg/d safe?
9-fold increased rate of myopathy compared with simva 20 mg/d arm.

Early Intensive vs a Delayed Conservative Simvastatin Strategy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes
Phase Z of the A to Z Trial

James A. de Lemos, MD; Michael A. Blazing, MD; Stephen D. Wiviott, MD; Eldrin F. Lewis, MD; Keith A. A. Fox, MB, ChB; Harvey D. White, DSc; Jean-Lucien Rouleau, MD; Terje R. Pedersen, MD; Laura H. Gardner, BSPH; Robin Mukherjee, PhD; Karen E. Ramsey, BS, RPh; Joanne Palmisano, MD; David W. Bilheimer, MD; Marc A. Pfeffer, MD, PhD; Robert M. Califf, MD; Eugene Braunwald, MD; for the A to Z Investigators


JAMA. 2004;292:1307-1316. Published online August 30, 2004 (doi:10.1001/jama.292.11.1307).

Context Limited data are available evaluating how the timing and intensity of statin therapy following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event affect clinical outcome.

Objective To compare early initiation of an intensive statin regimen with delayed initiation of a less intensive regimen in patients with ACS.

Design, Setting, and Participants International, randomized, double-blind trial of patients with ACS receiving 40 mg/d of simvastatin for 1 month followed by 80 mg/d thereafter (n = 2265) compared with ACS patients receiving placebo for 4 months followed by 20 mg/d of simvastatin (n = 2232), who were enrolled in phase Z of the A to Z trial between December 29, 1999, and January 6, 2003.

Main Outcome Measure The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, readmission for ACS, and stroke. Follow-up was for at least 6 months and up to 24 months.

Results Among the patients in the placebo plus simvastatin group, the median low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level achieved while taking placebo was 122 mg/dL (3.16 mmol/L) at 1 month and was 77 mg/dL (1.99 mmol/L) at 8 months while taking 20 mg/d of simvastatin. Among the patients in the simvastatin only group, the median LDL cholesterol level achieved at 1 month while taking 40 mg/d of simvastatin was 68 mg/dL (1.76 mmol/L) and was 63 mg/dL (1.63 mmol/L) at 8 months while taking 80 mg/d of simvastatin. A total of 343 patients (16.7%) in the placebo plus simvastatin group experienced the primary end point compared with 309 (14.4%) in the simvastatin only group (40 mg/80 mg) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.04; P = .14). Cardiovascular death occurred in 109 (5.4%) and 83 (4.1%) patients in the 2 groups (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-1.00; P = .05) but no differences were observed in other individual components of the primary end point. No difference was evident during the first 4 months between the groups for the primary end point (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.83-1.25; P = .89), but from 4 months through the end of the study the primary end point was significantly reduced in the simvastatin only group (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60-0.95; P = .02). Myopathy (creatine kinase >10 times the upper limit of normal associated with muscle symptoms) occurred in 9 patients (0.4%) receiving simvastatin 80 mg/d, in no patients receiving lower doses of simvastatin, and in 1 patient receiving placebo (P = .02).

Conclusions The trial did not achieve the prespecified end point. However, among patients with ACS, the early initiation of an aggressive simvastatin regimen resulted in a favorable trend toward reduction of major cardiovascular events.
# 53 of 70
January 20, 2008 02:03 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
simva safe
ur kidding right?
4500 pts, 1 myopathy vs. 9 myopathy and you want to call that 9 fold increase rate?

Lipophililc agents and higher dose higher risk. lipitor NNH was same in TNT study for aes at higher dose.

comments like the 9 fold thing are misrepresentative.

if you rx 80 mg zocor to over 2000 pts you will see 9 cases. is that how much you write in ur practice?
# 54 of 70
January 20, 2008 03:52 (EST)
D Hackam
0.4% rate of rhabdo
Hi Michael,

A 0.4% rate of rhabdomyolysis is extremely impressive to me, even more so given that this was a highly selected clinical trial population in which patients on CYP-interacting drugs would have been excluded. As would patients with more than mild renal insufficiency, a risk factor for rhabdo. Clinical trials nearly always underrepresent the types of sick patients who get serious drug reactions.

But for perspective, this rate of rhabdomyolysis is 1000 times greater than that reported in the Heart Protection Study and still significantly higher than the 1 in 20 to 50,000 rate in clinical practice for all statins reported by Avorn et al in JAMA a few years back (in a large managed care population).

Fortunately, we do not have vytorin here, so I do not get the chance to write much scripts for it. In addition, I have shied away from high dose simvastatin ever since Merck pulled high dose out of development because of very high rates of myopathy (the 160 mg dose).
# 55 of 70
January 20, 2008 07:55 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
dan u r wrong
myopathy 0.4% is not rhabdo. rhabdo is a completely different issue which you know. (if not look up the definition)

why r u even bringing this up?

was rhabdo reported in enhance?

don't mean to be firm, but there should be fair balance in all forums.
# 56 of 70
January 20, 2008 08:17 (EST)
steven tatar
Cimt <0.7 ?
After periodically imaging my patients common carotid, bulb and internal carotid the past decade (if at risk), I find it hard to comprehend that the mean ENHANCE meassure was 0.685, given their LDL level>300.

In ASAP all men withCVD had plaque as did 95% of women with CVD. 51% of the patients had a history of CVD and their average age was 48.5yrs. Plaque was defined as at least 1.3mm. Entry criteria for the study required CC imt >0.7 or bulb>0.9 and no more than 1 year of statin therapy.

My understanding is that risk correlates better with soft plaque which is also more likely to progress untreated or regress particularly in the highest risk statin naive patients. Interestingly G. Brown found plaque regression despite progression of calcification score.

Unfortunately plaque echogenicity was not characterized in these studies and measurements continue to look at 0.5 cm segments of less disease where the intima and media are parallel and less involved in the atherosclerotic process. Many screening CIMT studies continue to focus on the more easily measured common carotid, which is probably less predictive of risk.

We need to enhance lipid ;owering, but with the better resolution in the newer instruments we can and need to improve CIMT measurement science and focus on areas of greatest disease or highest plaque vulnerabilty.
# 57 of 70
January 20, 2008 08:46 (EST)
steven tatar
correction, in ASAP 29% had prior CVD hx
and 51% of patients with plaque by imt had a history of CVD (23% CAD + 6%PAD)
# 58 of 70
January 21, 2008 09:30 (EST)
D Hackam
myopathy vs rhabdo
Michael,

You are quite right. However, a third of the patients with myopathy actually met the trial definition of rhabdo (CK>10,000).

Regarding comment, prescribing 80 mg of simva to 250 ACS patients for the duration of this trial (8 months) would result in 1 case of serious myopathy (CK>10x ULN with muscle symptoms). That's pretty high.
# 59 of 70
January 21, 2008 10:12 (EST)
Daniel Tarditi
Advanced lipid testing
Does anyone think we should be using advanced lipid testing with VAP, NMR, or Berkeley labs to look at particle number and makeup of lipids for adjustment of targets, medications and even further evaluation of unsuccessful lipid lowering trials?

Not recommended by NCEP, but in patients with MI and "normal lipids" I am doing it with an hsCRP.

The CRP is based mostly on the data by Ridker from PROVE-IT TIMI 22. What is everyone else doing?

Daniel
# 60 of 70
January 21, 2008 11:42 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
expanded lipid testing, a-z and tnt
we find advanced lipid testing very helpful in stratifying risk. i think all tests are good. tend to use more vap.

a-z 1999-2002: important to understand the study: statin tx in acs setting. 6-24 months of fu.

2 groups (n=4500) with ldl 111mg/dl: placebo 4 months then 20 mg simva. 1 mos on placebo ldl 122 and 8 mos was 77 mg on 20 simva. other group 40 mg simva 1 month then 80 mg ldl dropped to 68 then 63 mg/dl. 61 yo pts 75% men, 24% with dm and 41% smokers.

VERY HIGH RATE OF SMOKERS AND DM IN ACS OVER 6-24 MONTHS.

primary outcome: cvdeath, mi, reacs, stroke was 16.7% vs. 14.4% (0.89 0.76-1.04) all mort 6.7% vs. 5.5% 0.08, cv death 5.4% vs. 4.1% 0.05, chf 5% vs. 3.7% 0.04 again remember 6-24 month follow up.

NOTE THE HIGH RATE OF EVENTS HOWEVER ARR WAS 2.3%, CVDEATH WAS STATISTICAL AND ALL MORT WAS PRETTY CLOSE

dc due to muscle ae 1.5% vs. 1.8%. 3/9 with myoathy met def of rhabo (one was contrast induced, one was verapamil induced) one myopathy in high dose was abusing etoh. after 6 monthd 20 people stopped simva 20 and 15 stopped simva 80. ck > 10 was 0 vs. 2.

Now lets look at tnt (n=10000):
people with hx of chd (not acute) followed for 4.9 years on atorva 10 vs. 80 mg 1998-2005. age 61, 81% male, 13% current tobacco, diabetes 15% washout of other lipid meds 1-8 weeks mean ldl 152 mg/dl and during open label period dropped to 98 mg/dl. final 77 mg/dl on atorva 80 vs. 101 mg/dl on atorva 10.

primary: chd death, nonfatal mi, rescus after cardiac arrest 10.9% vs. 8.7% 0.001
death chd 2.5 vs. 2.0% 0.09
nonfatal mi 6.2% vs. 4.9% o.004
stroke 3.1% vs. 2.3% 0.02
chf hosp 3.3% vs. 2.4% 0.01
any death 5.6% vs. 5.7% 0.76

ARR 2.2%, CHDDEATH DID NOT REACH SIGNIFICANCE IN 4.9 YEARS, ANY DEATH NOT EVEN CLOSE.

safety: dc rates due to ae 5.3% and 7.2%, myalgia reports 4.7% and 4.8%
5 cases rhabdo 3 and 2.

THIS DIALOGUE IS NOT INTENDED TO ENDORSE EITHER PRODUCT. JUST INTERESTING LOOKING AT THE DEMGRAPHICS AND RESULTS. NEJM TNT 2005 352;14, JAMA A-Z 2004;292(11)

mike
# 61 of 70
January 21, 2008 01:29 (EST)
D Hackam
Michael
The reason I don't prescribe simvastatin 80 mg is that this dose has not been approved here. The 1/250 rate of myositis at 80 mg/d in A-to-Z is unheralded in any other statin trial, including as you pointed out, TNT. Yes these were a sicker population (ACS patients), but lots of the sickest would have been excluded (see the lengthy list of trial criteria). Therefore, if anything, the true rate of muscle toxicity in clinical practice will be higher.

Verapamil does not cause myositis on its own but interacts with simvastatin to do so; contrast nephrotoxicity has nothing to do with myositis but could make the renal insufficiency from an emerging rhabdo picture worse. Lots of patients lie to use about their alcohol abuse and still get statins with normal LFTs. Therefore, none of these situations are unusual.

Another reason I stay away from simvastatin is that it has the highest risk of drug and diet interactions of any of the statins. I admit that if you are prescribing it has Vytorin then this may have special benefits, since ezetimibe is not co-packaged with any other statin (too bad, but no surprise here, since Merck makes both of these drugs). I like high dose atorvastatin because of the preoperandence of clinical trial evidence (TNT, MIRACL, AVERT, PROVE-IT) and surrogate marker evidence (REVERSAL) support it. By contrast, the only trial favouring high dose simvastatin seems to be A-to-Z, for which the primary endpoint was negative.
# 62 of 70
January 21, 2008 01:34 (EST)
D Hackam
from Steve Nissen's editorial and remarks on theheart.org


He notes that the myopathy rate in the A to Z trial is higher than observed in most other statin trials. He points out that six studies in more than 10000 patients of the highest (80-mg) dose of atorvastatin showed no cases of myopathy or rhabdomyolysis.

However, he says the myopathy rate in A to Z with the 80-mg simvastatin dose is "not surprising," given that the 160-mg dose was abandoned because of a high rate of muscle toxicity, and the product label for the drug was changed in 2002 to include warnings about concomitant medications that inhibit cytochrome P4503A4 because of an increased risk of rhabdomyolysis. Nissen says that these events "should probably have served as a warning that the 80-mg dose of simvastatin might border on a toxic threshold." He adds: "The failure to publish the actual results of the studies using the 160-mg dose (negative publication bias) arguably prevented the medical and scientific community from fully appreciating the myopathic potential of high-dose simvastatin."

Withdrawal possible?

While Nissen does concede that "although potentially alarming, nine myopathic events in 2250 treated patients are insufficient to recommend withdrawal of the 80-mg dose of simvastatin," he adds, "If either FDA monitoring or ongoing clinical trials confirm that a regimen of 80 mg of simvastatin constitutes an unacceptable risk, this dosage level should be withdrawn."

However, he reassures that the "unfavorable risk/benefit ratio observed in the A to Z trial does not in any way diminish the value of intensive statin treatment in secondary prevention, including ACS patients." He says that while the 80-mg dose of simvastatin should be used "with caution," other effective agents are available. "The increased myopathy rate applies only to a specific dose of a single agent and should not tarnish this remarkable class of drugs," he concludes.

# 63 of 70
January 21, 2008 02:31 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
DH
I would be very circumspect about anything Dr. N says. This is not to take anythinf away from his contribution to medicine, but it is quite apparent he has agendas that are intermingled with special interest industry support and special interest politics.

I have no support for either product and agree that simva and atorva both are metabolized through 3a4. atorva is genrally used at lower dose and less lipitoxicity due to that.

It seems you discount the contributions that simva has made to risk reductions such as in 4s and hps.

prove-it was interesting group N=4000 with ACS followed 2 yrs, prava 40 vs. atorva 80 mean ldl 106 on enrollment, ldl ended 95 on prava 40 and ended 62 mg/dl on atorva 80 mg. primary endpoint reached in 26.3% ON PRAV and 22.4% ON ATORV

NOTE THE EVEN MUCH HIGHER RATE OF EVENTS THAN A-Z HAD. the real point is that across the board statin drugs have shown event reductions.

Even more impressive was 30% DC rate of statins in 2 years, 2.7% stopped prav and 3.3% stopped atorv dut to myalgias or elevated ck levels.

If you look at the fda aers 1997-2003 and these are spont all ae reports for statins. which is merely observation and should be interpreted with caution.
% rhabdo of all reports
atorva 3.7%
prava 6.2%
lova 11.6%
simva 11.8%
fluva 6%
2002-2004
Rosuva 3.8%
no comparison can be made about one worse or better than other.

DC rate due to ae's in TNT (atorva 80) was 2%, thus NNH was 50 and NNT was 45 for MACE. Higher dose atorva was somewhat of a wash and no benefit on mortality. Number who stopped due to liver toxicity was 1%, NNH 100.

Finally, Brewer. Am J Cardiol. 2003;92(suppl)23K-29K

published ck > 10x with statins and increasing dose incidence:
prava 0-1%
atorva 0.5-1%
simva 0.1-1.3%
rosuva 0.2-0.5% since that publication.

hope this helps
# 64 of 70
January 21, 2008 05:02 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
revisiting lipid studies
It has been an interesting exercise (reviewing the studiess) with cbs news disouraging pts from taking statins and the ENHANCE news and the Jarvik issue.

AscottLLA 10K pts with avg 3.7 cv risk factors 3.3 years atorva 10 mg dropped ldl from 131 to 88 mg/dl LDL dropped 35% then 29% at study end. NFMI and CHDeath were 1.9% vs. 3% on placebo very low event rate in 3 yrs. ALL Mort and CV Mort showed no benefit. but primary showed 36% reduction.

CARDS n= 2,800 people with dm2, followed 3.9 yrs age 61, 22% smokers, nearly 20% with uma, ldl 118, hdl 52
primary endpoint: acs, revasc, stroke, cvdeath. other cv events 9% in placebo vs. 5.8% atorva - great cv event reduction jsut as above. much higher risk group. cv deaths 1.8% vs. 2.6% nonstat, ALL Mort nonstatisical.

ASPEN DM group with atorva we have covered before over 2000 people no cv stastical benefit.

As a whole statins, niacin, fibrates monotherapy havs shown over multiple studies:

primary risk group if high risk:
NNT for cv event reduction 50-75 pts
NNT for death reduction ~ 250 pts
(I am in this group)

secondary risk group (have had an event):
NNT for cv event reduction 5-25 pts
NNT for death reduction 35-70
(My Dad is in this group)

That is why ncep, aha, ada, acc etc don't tell us which drugs to use but rather to lower LDL/NHDL to < 70/100, 100/130, 130/160 varying on the clinicians risk assessment and address TG, HDL as secondary targets as indicated.

As other threads have discussed, using cacs, cimt, renal function, uma, inflamm markers can help one better stratify risk for more aggressive goals.

In our practice we have found that most of our high to very high risk pts require dual to quadruple lipid reduction interventions along with the normal tlc's, platelet, bp and glucose mgmt strategies we employ based on evidence.

What is exciting is that evreyone on these threads is thinking about their pts, the medications, costs, and risk reduction. For this we all benefit. thank you. s
# 65 of 70
January 21, 2008 11:09 (EST)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
from all sides
And thank you. Interesting discussion.
VAP/Berkely all necessary if you really want to completely understand the mechanism of risk and the specifics of therapy necessary. (fish oil issue for instance, good for some, not so good for others). Also, glucose challenges are very very important.
So, I'm for a multipronged approach: panel testing, imaging, stress and of course: the HISTORY AND PHYSICAL first and foremost.
Melissa
# 66 of 70
January 22, 2008 09:41 (EST)
Michael Cobble, M.D.
mod statin vs. high dose statin
I thought this was a very interesting large meta-analysis of acs pts 2 yrs and stable chd pts 5 years and comparing risk reductions.

Heart. 2007 Aug;93(8):914-21. BACKGROUND: Intensive statin therapy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), but the effect on mortality is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether intensive statin therapy reduces all-cause mortality compared with moderate statin therapy in patients with recent acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable coronary heart disease (CHD). METHODS: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, the internet, and conference proceedings from 1966 to 2006 were searched to identify relevant trials. Selection criteria were randomised allocation to intensive statin therapy (atorvastatin 80 mg/day, simvastatin 80 mg/day, or rosuvastatin 20-40 mg/day) versus moderate statin therapy, recent ACS or stable CHD at the time of randomisation, and > or =6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Six trials, encompassing 110 271 patient-years, were pooled. In patients with recent ACS, intensive statin therapy reduced all-cause mortality from 4.6% to 3.5% over 2.0 years (OR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93). THAT WOULD BE A NNT OF 90 OVER 2 YEARS TO PREVENT A DEATH IN A VERY HIGH RISK POP. In patients with stable CHD, intensive statin therapy had NO effect on all-cause mortality over 4.7 years (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.11). Overall, intensive statin therapy was associated with a reduction in MACE (OR = 0.84, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.91) and admissions to hospital for heart failure (OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.83). Intensive statin therapy was also associated with an increase in hepatic transaminases >3 times normal (OR = 3.73, 95% CI 2.11 to 6.58) and a trend towards increased creatine kinase >10 times normal and/or rhabdomyolysis (OR = 1.96, 95% CI 0.50 to 7.63). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with moderate statin therapy, intensive statin therapy reduces all-cause mortality in patients with recent ACS but not in patients with stable CHD.

Arch Intern Med. 2006 Nov 27;166(21):2307-13.

PRIMARY prevention of cardiovascular diseases with statin therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: While the role of hydroxymethyl glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins) in secondary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality is established, their value for primary prevention is less clear. To clarify the role of statins for patients without CV disease, we performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Collaboration, and American College of Physicians Journal Club databases were searched for RCTs published between 1966 and June 2005. We included RCTs with follow-up of 1 year or longer, more than 100 major CV events, and 80% or more of the population without CV disease. From each trial, demographic data, lipid profile, CV outcomes, mortality, and adverse outcomes were recorded. Summary relative risk (RR) ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. RESULTS: Seven trials with 42,848 patients were included. Ninety percent had no history of CV disease. Mean follow-up was 4.3 years. Statin therapy reduced the RR of major coronary events, major cerebrovascular events, and revascularizations by 29.2% (95% CI, 16.7%-39.8%) (P<.001), 14.4% (95% CI, 2.8%-24.6%) (P = .02), and 33.8% (95% CI, 19.6%-45.5%) (P<.001), respectively. Statins produced a nonsignificant 22.6% RR reduction in coronary heart disease mortality (95% CI, 0.56-1.08) (P = .13). No significant reduction in overall mortality (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.01]) (P = .09) or increases in cancer or levels of liver enzymes or creatine kinase were observed.

ANOTHER INTERESTING ARTICLE: Lancet. 2005 Oct 8;366(9493):1267-78 Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins.
# 67 of 70
January 24, 2008 01:52 (EST)
T G
ENHANCE to miss the ACC
Related to this, it seems that the Schering Plough folks successfully dodged the presentation at the ACC because they released too much data in the press release

See more on The Healthcare Channel on thehcc.tv/
# 68 of 70
January 28, 2008 10:27 (EST)
steven tatar
ENHANCE to miss the ACC
TG, this would be unfortunate.

Patients and practitioners need to know in a timely fashion if ENHANCE represents a signal of a flawed method of LDL lowering with Zetia. I would think the ACC would be an appropriate forum for discussion. Inability to resolve the issue, even with the full data set, may temper support for ACC presentation.

Allen Taylor in post 12, is very much on target with his analysis.

ASAP extended, (AJC 2005;95(2)264-6, adds another layer of suspicion to ENHANCE, when Atorva 80 crossover regresses the prior simva progression (0.95 vs 0.92).

# 69 of 70
January 29, 2008 06:46 (EST)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
post # 12
Steven,
Good point. I went back and read Allen's post and I believe he might be on to something. None the less, I still believe in LDL lowering and without a signal of harm, I won't be pulling my patients off vytorin yet. On the other hand, I might reach for niacin combined with statin more quickly than for zetia in new pts.......back to more complaints of flushing.
Melissa
# 70 of 70
January 29, 2008 06:07 (EST)
steven tatar
Vytorin/zetia strategies
I agree with your approach, Melissa. I am getting more expert in coaching the flush.

I am thinking of reducing my patients risk/exposure to Zetia by halving the dose, which preserves 85% of the LDL lowering. The off target effects of Zetia remain speculative and obscured. Unfortunately we have to write the Rx today.

Just as MRK/SGP financial interests remain misaligned in developing this type of data in a timely fashion, I remain frustrated with Coventry/Southern Health misaligned patient incentive by making Vytorin Tier 2 while Lipitor falls to Tier 3 as of 1/1/8.

You have to be logged in to add a comment to this article
Login
Username 
Password 
  Forgot your password?
 
Remember me on this computer
 
Join theheart.org community
Five reasons to become a member of the most trusted source of cardiology news:
1Be part of the conversation in our blogs and discussion forum
2Share your thoughts on our news or educational programs
3Receive exclusive newsletters related to your field of interest
4Access unique continuous medical education content
5See and read what leaders have to say about cardiology today
It is free and it only takes five minutes to join!
 
button
Previews
Featured CME
Inside: Lipid/Metabolic
Lipid/Metabolic
5 COMMENTS - Jan 27, 2009 15:53 EST
Reducing CV Risk: What Add-On Therapies Do You Use? Click to take the survey and compare answers. The results will help us create future CME programming