Kenilworth and Whitehouse Station, NJ - Merck and Schering-Plough presented interim results of the Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study today, a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled study evaluating the effects of combination ezetimibe/simvastatin (Vytorin) on clinical outcomes in roughly 1800 patients with aortic stenosis, and the results showed that the controversial cholesterol-lowering medication was no better than placebo in reducing the primary composite end point of aortic-valve and cardiovascular events.
The combination was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing the risk of ischemic events, a secondary composite end point of nonfatal MI, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, PCI, hospitalization for unstable angina, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death. Vytorin failed to meet a secondary goal of improving aortic-valve disease events, which included valve-replacement surgery, hospitalization because of heart failure, and cardiovascular mortality.
"The SEAS study has given a clear-cut answer to the question of whether intensive lipid lowering will influence the course of aortic-stenosis disease. I think we can conclude that it does not," announced Dr Terje Pedersen (Ulleval University Hospital, Oslo, Norway), chair of the steering committee, during a conference call today with the media. "We have also shown there is benefit in treating such patients with the study drug combination, as we saw a reduction in the risk of coronary artery disease."
Cancer findings
The results, however, raised anxiety among the SEAS researchers after a safety signal grabbed everybody's attention. Despite the 20% reduction in ischemic events, concerns were raised by the significant increase in the risk of cancer, a finding that triggered a quickly performed analysis of ongoing studies with ezetimibe and simvastatin. Overall, Pedersen said there was a significantly higher incidence of cancer102 patients taking ezetimibe/simvastatin compared with 67 taking placeboand more patients died of cancer with the combination, a finding of borderline significance.
The cancer findings were concerning enough that an independent analysis of the two large ongoing studies, the IMPROVE-IT and SHARP trials, was performed to determine whether the cancer risk was real or chance. Sir Richard Peto (Clinical Trials Service Unit, Oxford, UK), an expert in clinical-trial meta-analyses and cancer epidemiology, said the data warranted further attention and have been reported to all the proper regulatory agencies.
In an analysis of IMPROVE-IT and SHARP, two studies that allowed for the testing of the hypothesis generated in SEAS, four times the number of cancers were observed than in the SEAS trial, but there was no overall risk of developing cancer with ezetimibe/simvastatin, said Peto. The cancer pattern observed in SEAS, occurring so quickly and without any one dominant type of cancer, as well as not increasing over time, is likely due to chance and should not divert anybody from taking the drug.
"The studies do not confirm the hypothesis that treatment with this combination increases the overall risk of developing cancer," said Peto.
Pedersen said he feels reassured by the Oxford analysis that the combination is well tolerated and safe. Dr Rory Collins (Clinical Trials Service Unit, Oxford, UK), chair of the SHARP steering committee, who was present during the conference call, said the data safety monitoring board (DSMB) endorsed Peto's conclusions, while the IMPROVE-IT DSMB is scheduled to meet in September. Dr Eugene Braunwald (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA), cochair of the IMPROVE-IT steering committee, who phoned into the media event, said the group had been informed of the SEAS findings, but no changes to the study are planned, a recommendation that was made without Peto's analysis. The DSMB will be given the full results of Peto's investigation as soon as possible, said Braunwald.
What do the SEAS results mean?
There was speculation that the trial could help rehabilitate Vytorin after the Effect of Combination Ezetimibe and High-Dose Simvastatin vs Simvastatin Alone on the Atherosclerotic Process in Patients with Heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia (ENHANCE) trial was published in March, but the placebo-controlled trial design, as well as the patient population, were likely to limit the clinical impact.
The presentation of the SEAS results today came as a surprise to investors, financial analysts, and the media, as the full data were not expected until later this year at the American Heart Association 2008 Scientific Sessions, in New Orleans, LA. Pedersen said he would have preferred to present the findings at an upcoming meeting and then publish them in a major medical journal, but interest in the study and difficulties maintaining secrecy about the findings made that problematic.
The SEAS results are the first clinical results for Vytorin since ENHANCE was published. In that study, investigators tested the effectiveness of combined ezetimibe/simvastatin therapy in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia and found that the combination did no better than simvastatin monotherapy on several surrogate end points. The combination did not result in a significant difference in changes in intima-media thickness compared with simvastatin alone, despite significantly greater reductions in LDL cholesterol and C-reactive protein.
Many experts used the ENHANCE findings to criticize the explosion in prescriptions for Vytorin since its approval, an explosion that occurred without hard clinical end-point results. With the benefit of Vytorin unproven and full results of IMPROVE-IT, the clinical outcomes study, not expected until 2012, nearly a decade after the US Food and Drug Administration approval of ezetimibe as an adjunct to statins for cholesterol lowering, it had been thought the SEAS study could help persuade doctors to use Vytorin and ezetimibe alone (Zetia, Merck/Schering-Plough) again. Since ENHANCE, prescriptions of both drugs are down as much as 40%.
Pedersen said that the results of SEAS are unlikely to change clinical practice, and it was pointed out repeatedly that the trial was designed only to test whether aggressive LDL-cholesterol lowering with Vytorin was effective in treating patients with aortic stenosis. In this study, treatment with ezetimibe and simvastatin reduced LDL-cholesterol levels from 140 mg/dL to 52 mg/dL. Investigators stressed the trial was not designed to test whether the addition of ezetimibe to statin therapy provides additional benefit in reducing clinical events, something that will have to wait to be answered by the IMPROVE-IT trial.
"I'm very pleased with the fact that intense cholesterol lowering reduces coronary events in patients with aortic stenosis, a group of patients in whom I've had a longstanding interest," said Braunwald. "We have a green light to continue the [IMPROVE-IT] trial. We think that's a really important trial, sort of the center of a bull's-eye of coronary disease."
Also speaking on the conference call, IMPROVE-IT cochair Dr Robert Califf (Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC) said it is important not to overreact, either positively or negatively, to the SEAS findings. He called it an important contribution to the literature, but that a single, isolated study is unable to tell a complete story.
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
July 22, 2008 11:57 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
honest questions I have three honest questions, and would like some input from other voices. Thanks in advance.
First, increased cancer risk was dismissed as "of borderline significance." But the article did go on to say that there was a "significantly higher incidence of cancer."
Is the risk borderline or significant? I understand P-values, but the words used are seemingly contradictory. Is this corporate spin? I don't think I have to explain to anyone that cancer is a bad player, and such a "signal," in my opinion, should be taken quite seriously. I don't think that any patient on Vytorin would disagree about the urgent need to address this question.
As I have asked before on other postings, why are negative findings dismissed while the positive findings are played up? In all other scientific disciplines (and I'd like to think that medicine is a scientific discipline), it is often the negative or the "hmm, that's strange" findings that turn out to be of the greatest significance. Can we dismiss the negative, and play up the positive? Can we pick and choose? Is this marketing or science? I have many friends in the manufacturing business -- if they played by these rules, they would be accused of cherry picking. . .and then fired.
Finally, why is it that a secondary composite endpoint (which, by definition is essentially suspect) gets reported at all? There is debate as to whether a secondary composite endpoint is even mathematically sound. My feeling is that if a study doesn't meet the primary endpoint, one cannot go fishing around for a positive result of some type.
We all know the Benjamin Disraeli/Mark Twain quote: "(There are) lies, damn lies, and statistics."
Any thoughts?
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 22, 2008 02:53 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
concerns David,
1. the SEAS ca issue was a surprise. For this reason the Oxford CTSU looked at the SHARP and IMPROVE-IT enrolled pts and found in 20,000 pts currently enrolled and monitored - 313 cancers on active and 326 on control. They also looked at 0-1 years, 1-2, 2-3 and 3+ years and found no significance nor any particular signal for types of cancers. (you can find that data on their web page)
2. I don't think negative findings should ever be dismissed. Using this treatment for AS does not show significance for benefit.
3. Secondary endpoints - I do think certain secondary endpoints have value if statistical or not statistical - have value to report. They will not however change standards of care, nor will they be applicable for FDA indications. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 22, 2008 06:34 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
some more thoughts Negative trials as you point out have exceptional value....in this instance the "negative outcome" simply implies what we have known all along...the nature of AS continues to be a mechanical issue and not a medically managed strategy....
Secondary endpoints are valuable..take for example a study whose primary endpoint involves reduction in ischemic events and secondary endpoint targets bleeding....clearly one could see how the reporting of the secondary endpoint could impact the outcome and risk benefit of the primary endpoint...
As far as the cancer issue..I think we would all agree that that raises some eyebrows....as noted in Dr. Cobble comments this has not been seen in other Vytorin studies in much larger patient populations....when you do the numbers from SEAS an almost combined (placebo and treatment arm 167 cancers in approx 1800 patients?)cancer rate of almost 10% is fairly high for a study that size??? The time course of treatment and no prediliction for a single type of cancer do make it appear more random albeit worth a look under the microscope..
I think given the negative commentary/fall out from EHHANCE it is very worthwhile pointing out the statistically significant benefit effect over placebo that the drug demonstrated as combo therapy. Validates that the drug does work. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 23, 2008 05:59 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Cancer and other unexpected adverse events in small studies I would like to remind everyone that older small studiess have raised concern about a possible link between statins and an increase in cancer events. Larger trials, as well as the CTT meta-analysis have reassured us that statins do not cause cancer.
Those of you who were involved in the area some 15 years ago might remember that an interim analysis of the 4S trial have demonstrated an increase in violent deaths in the patients assigned to simvastatin. A theory was proposed that simvastatin, being lypophilic, crosses the blood-brain barrier and drives patients crazy. Drug reps for pravastatin claimed that their drug, being hydrophilic, is free from that effect. Again, we now no this is not the case.
This is why unexpected adverse events in small studies should be reported and investigated,but if larger trials and meta-analyses fail to demonstrate that effect, it's most likely a play of chance. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 23, 2008 11:59 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
kudos to Rafael You make an excellent point. Small studies should be distrusted until refuted or confirmed by larger studies and meta-analyses of studies. Particularly if they find some dramatic unexpected signal.
Remember that you are statistically more likely to have MI if you are a Virgo, etc. There are tonnes of rubbish statistical flukes found all the time - the more endpoints you look for, and the smaller your sample, the more likely you are to dredge rubbish up. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 23, 2008 01:45 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Mevalonate Inhibition - The defined action of a statin How is it possible for this industry not to understand the true nature of cholesterol's role in the body and more importantly the dire consequences of inhibiting it by mevalonate inhibition.
'Mevalonate Inhibition' consequences should be taught on every basic biochemistry module.
Try www.thincs.org for the full story of cholesterol reduction. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 23, 2008 03:25 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Portuguese Study vs. SALTIRE: How Severe Was SEAS Stenosis? I’m aware of two recent studies on aortic stenosis and statins: the Portuguese study suggests statins slow stenosis in patients with moderate to severe narrowing of the aortic valve, while the SALTIRE study found no benefits from statins in slowing stenosis, though these subjects had more severe stenosis than those in the Portuguese study.
My question is this: how do the subjects in the SEAS study fit into this spectrum? The above article only describes them as having aortic stenosis. The media coverage dwells on Vytorin’s failure to retard aortic stenosis. Is not the jury still very much out on whether that was a realistic expectation, and if the SEAS study is more evidence in support of SALTIRE than a knock on Vytorin, should it really change our views of Vytorin’s efficacy? Needless to say, the higher incidence of cancer is troubling and requires further examination, though Peto’s pedigree gives some confidence that it is an anomaly.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 23, 2008 07:25 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Rousuvastatin in Portuguese AS patients from (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=21617) Statins can slow the progression of aortic valve stenosis, a condition in which the heart valve that pumps blood out into the body becomes hard and narrow, in people with mild to moderate disease.
To be published in the February 6 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, the trial provides the first prospective clinical evidence that aortic valves have an active biology that can be targeted with medical therapy and contradicts research published in 2005 in the New England Journal of Medicine, which concluded statins did not halt the progression of aortic stenosis.
"For decades, the medical community has accepted that aortic valve disease was part of the aging process and that replacing valves surgically was the only treatment," says senior investigator Nalini Rajamannan, MD, director of the Center for Heart Valve Disease in the Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute of Northwestern Memorial Hospital and assistant professor of medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. "Now we have clinical evidence showing a medical treatment can delay the need for surgery. I see a lot of patients in their 50s being diagnosed with early stage valve disease that don't like hearing that the next step is watchful waiting until eventually they'll require open heart surgery. For them, this is great news."
The RAAVE (Rosuvastatin Affecting Aortic Valve Endothelium to Slow the Progression of Aortic Stenosis) trial was conducted at the Hospital Pedro Hispano in Portugal and led by principal investigator Luis Moura, MD, and followed 121 patients with asymptomatic moderate to severe narrowing of the aortic valve for 18 months. Sixty-one patients with elevated cholesterol levels were given 20mg/day of the statin Crestor, an average daily dose, while the other 60 patients who did not have elevated cholesterol levels received no statin. The statin group showed significant improvement in cholesterol levels as well as a 50% improvement in the slowing of the progression of the valvular heart disease at 1.5 years.
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 23, 2008 11:25 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Severity of AS and AVR How long were patients treated? Were there any differences in AVA at the end of the study? - I believe the hypothesis of the study was that intensice lipid lowering treatment SLOWED the progression of AS and delayed the need for AVR. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 24, 2008 05:33 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
RAAVE Yes Steve, the RAAVE study was very interesting prospective (open label however). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49(5):554-561. I think with 6 retrospective studies showing benefit - the 3 studies ongoing to evaluate this issue are important. SEAS now being negative. Prior to that the Atorva study was negative as well but had much higher AS and high calcification values. Calcification of the valve was not evaluated in RAAVE. NCEP guidelines (73 yo pts) were followed and those placed on rosuva 20 mg had LDL near 160 while those on placebo had LDL near 120. All inflammatory markers and lipid values improved as well as peak velocity and of course AS.
Guess we will now have to wait for ASTRONOMER and STOP-AS to finalize.
I think one could surmize however from RAAVE that rosuva in 73 yo pts with these AS values and LDL values over 18 months one would see benefit. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 24, 2008 08:53 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Hopeful info These hypothesese regarding slowing of progression of aortic stenosis (and who knows, maybe even prevention??) are fascinating. I've long been interested in it because of my father's mild AS diagnosed several years ago. (who won't take his crestor by the way)
If efficacy is proven, think of the impact that statin use already implemented in the past two decades will have on the numbers of patients who will require valve replacement in the future. We can only hope.
Melissa |
|
 |
 |
|
|
July 24, 2008 11:09 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
2 neutral RCTs I am only aware of the 2 neutral RCTs that Mike Cobble cites, but there may be a few more that have been negative. This large experience suggests no benefit. However, patients with aortic sclerosis/mild-mod aortic stenosis are much more likely to die from a vascular event (coronary, stroke, ischemic bowel, etc) than they are from progression of AS. AS has been recognized as a coronary risk equivalent years ago. For this reason alone these patients should be on statins, inhibitors of the RAAS, antiplatelets, etc. |
|
 |
 |
|
|
August 13, 2008 05:20 (EDT)
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Effect of combination or just "statin" effect ? Don't you think the significant improvement shown in SEAS was only dued to statin effect and not to the combination ?
How can it be stated that "The SEAS study has given a clear-cut answer to the question of whether intensive lipid lowering will influence the course of aortic-stenosis disease. I think we can conclude that it does not,". Many statins trials have already shown there was a clear benefit in aggressive lipid lowering. What would have been unexpected, is a lack of effect dued to simvastatin.
Last but not least : is adding ezetimibe to a statin still useful ?... |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |