Clinical cardiology
Pfizer to drop development of drugs for hyperlipidemia, atherosclerosis, and heart failure
October 2, 2008 | Shelley Wood

New York, NY - Pfizer is getting out of the cholesterol-lowering game to focus on what it perceives to be more lucrative diseases, according to an internal memo obtained by Forbes [1]. And for the most part, the chosen "disease areas" don't include the heart.

In the memo, Martin Mackay, president of Pfizer Global Research & Development (R&D), informed his staff that the company plans to "exit" the fields of atherosclerosis/hyperlipidemia, heart failure, obesity, and peripheral arterial disease.

Instead, the company, whose cholesterol-lowering drug atorvastatin (Lipitor) is the world's top-selling drug, says it is turning its attention and R&D dollars to cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, pain remedies, and mental health as its "higher-priority areas."

The news comes in the wake of the flop of Pfizer's hoped-for new flagship, torcetrapib, a CETP inhibitor that was widely predicted to be the company's next blockbuster drug. While CV drugs have been the major moneymakers for Pfizer in recent years, those days are drawing to a close. In addition to Lipitor, which will lose patent protection in 2011, Pfizer's other major player in the CV drug arena is Norvasc (amlodipine), which came off patent in 2007.

Among the lower-priority "disease areas" where the company says it will continue working are thrombosis and transplant, the memo notes.

Contacted by heartwire, a handful of leaders for some of the major Pfizer-sponsored trials in cardiovascular disease over the past decade declined to comment on the company's announcement or speculate on what it might mean to the field of CV drug development—with one exception. Dr John Kastelein (Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), who was an investigator in the Pfizer-sponsored ASAP, TNT, and IDEAL trials, called Pfizer "a real powerhouse" in the CV drug arena.

"I kind of knew this was coming, but when you see it in print, it still hits hard," he told heartwire. "I think this is very, very significant both for the company itself and for the whole field of CV drug development. Pfizer had truly excellent people in the development arm of their company for CV and metabolic drugs, and they've contributed to this whole notion that you need more robust LDL lowering and that that's better than mild LDL lowering, which has become one of the axioms of CV prevention. And if they're stepping out now, that not only signifies their own problems, but it also signifies the problems in CV drug development, and how incredibly difficult and costly it has become to bring new drugs forward. And that's not good for patients."

Kastelein predicts that drug companies, having "lost faith" somewhat in HDL-raising therapies, will need to look more closely at anti-inflammatory drugs in the setting of coronary artery disease. "But there, the problem is, if you have no biomarkers whatsoever to do even dose-finding studies, you need to move from relatively small phase 2 trials to incredibly large, hard-outcome studies, which is taking quite a risk," he said. And that, at least for Pfizer, is too much risk.

"Everyone, not just Pfizer, is realizing that the days of the really big blockbuster drugs are over. And what is going to replace that are drugs in a class that are 10 times or 100 times more difficult to develop, so the risks are much higher. And these days, after Avandia and ezetimibe, everything is about safety. This means the FDA is forced, by public and colleague pressure, to demand even larger databases before drugs are going to market, which is of course making it more expensive. It's a cycle that's very hard to break."

Calls to Pfizer were not returned before this story was published.

Source
  1. Herper M. The Pfizer memo. Forbes, September 30, 2008. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/09/30/pfizer-drug-agenda-biz-bizhealth-cx_mh_0930pfizermemo.html.


Your comments
Pfizer to drop development of drugs for hyperlipidemia, atherosclerosis, and heart failure
# 1 of 15
September 30, 2008 09:29 (EDT)
steven tatar
CVD without Pfizer?
Shifting pharmaceutical economic winds, driven by generic economics, are changing the landscape and focus of future CVD research.

Looks like the billion dollar torcetrapib fiasco and the failure of the 2 billion HDL-Milano/Espirion venture will blunt future lipid research. RIP Lipitor (1997-2011).

The pharmaceutical industry may end with a lower public profile, as it diversifies into new areas of potential theapy. I am sure it will be a challenge for these companies to survive as new socio-economic policies evolve.
# 2 of 15
October 1, 2008 08:27 (EDT)
D Hackam
Alas
Amlodipine and atorvastatin - two of our best friends in the clinic; and in clinical trials. We won't abandon them just because the company is diversifying beyond CVD.

It is a curious change of direction given that CVD is now (and will remain) the biggest killer worldwide; and with the rapid growth of India and China and their economic enrichment, plus the epidemiological transition to first world diseases there, could be very lucrative to the company to continue to develop new drugs (then again, those markets have always been captured by cheap generics and counterfeit knockoffs).
# 3 of 15
October 1, 2008 08:59 (EDT)
Barbara Gilbert
New Direction
Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline and Baxter are all funding stem cells studies to develop a biotech approach rather than a pharmaceutical one for treating CVD. The handwriting is on the wall; regenerative medicine is at the starting gate for the newest therapies and pharmaceuticals are lagging behind in cures.
# 4 of 15
October 1, 2008 09:46 (EDT)
Deepak Natarajan
Cancer Research would be Highly Laudable
It is a moot point whether turning one's attention to research in cancer medicine can or should be termed a 'lucrative' venture because despite cardiovascular ailments being the biggest killer in the world , malignancies are certainly not very far behind.

Moreover only someone who has a dear friend or relative suffering from a mitotic lesion can appreciate the sense of helplessness that rapidly gets to strangulate all concerned. A point is reached when you realize that unlike cardiology ( especially coronary obstructive artery disease) there is really not very much that one can offer to countless cancer patients..... besides chopping the wretched serpent off and stuffing the body next with equally wretched toxic chemicals or radiation. An angioplasty with stenting, for example is a relatively simple and straightforward procedure when compared to managing a snaky disease like 'synovial sarcoma' that keeps reappearing till it wrecks you completely. Nothing seems to work. Nothing. And worse there is scandalously scant data about the etiology, pathogenesis and treatment of this treacherous monster.And by treatment one refers to at least containment if not cure.

The simple fact that a 40 year old person discovered today with synovial sarcoma has less than 40% chances of surviving 5 years is both pathetic and tragic. Our knowledge of the disease is infantile and sketchy.Its actually laughable. A scorching testament to how little we have actually achieved in the management of cancers such as synovial sarcomas.

It is therefore imperative that more research towards cancer cure are launched. If Pfizer is serious, then I wish them all the luck regardless of the lucre they obtain in the process. By any angle and by any yardstick their efforts will be highly laudable.

The major thrust should be on monoclonal antibodies, because preliminary research and success stories in certain cancers have been documented with them. Stem cells research for cancer ( The Economist had an excellent article on stem cells causing cancer for the lay public a couple of weeks ago) may unfortunately be both onerous and difficult with the present legislation on stem cells in place in the US.
# 5 of 15
October 1, 2008 11:46 (EDT)
becky christianson
Stem cells
Sir, is sounds as if a loved one of yours is suffering greatly right now, and I empathisize. My mother and a close cousin both died of cancer and it was NOT a pleasant thing to go through (to be as kind as I can be).

I believe that ADULT stem cells are the only stem cells needed for research. Indeed, there have been quite a few successes in that area of late. Cord blood carries stem cells also. There is NO need for embryonic stem cells or cloning. I realize that there are many of you that would forcefully oppose this view. However, why kill a "potential" life to MAYBE save others when there are PLENTY of other alternatives to use for research?
Pfizer (as are all of us) is suffering from the "crunch" of economics. I also believe that if you have already a plethora of proven good and safe drugs in the pharmacy it is a waste of time and money to develop others. New and improved is not necessarily so.
Cancer R&D seems to have come to a halt, yet the disease continues to maim and kill and mutate. I applaud the decision to move to another field. Just PLEASE be responsible and sensitive to all. Don't jack up prices because you can. Don't head down just one path--explore them all RESPONSIBLY.
# 6 of 15
October 1, 2008 09:13 (EDT)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
Good luck
Deepak,
I sense that you are engaged in a battle with someone you care deeply for. We will keep you in our thoughts and prayer. A friend of mine is currently involved with his daughter's illness, a synovial cell tumor. It's has been very tough for them as well. I learned a lot about monoclonal antibodies when my husband was thought to have a low Grade b cell lymphoma vs. histoplamosis. We still cannot differentiate and clinically he's doing well now for several years but with an uncertain long term prognosis.I am completely sympathetic with your plight.
good luck. Hope lots of researchers will direct their focus toward finding cancer cures. We certainly never need to give up on finding a cure for anything.
Melissa
# 7 of 15
October 2, 2008 12:10 (EDT)
stuart willson
inflammation
I'm surprised that Pfizer doesn't see a bright future in targeting plaque stability and also targeting HDL functionality PON1 etc.
# 8 of 15
October 2, 2008 03:50 (EDT)
Deepak Natarajan
Monoclonal Antibody 92-13 against FZD10 of Synovial sarcoma
Mellisa,

Thank you so much.

The Japanese have reported a new monoclonal antibody ( MAb) '92-13' against a marker called Frizzled homolog (FZD10) present in synovial sarcoma. This particular MAb was pretty effective in mice( Cancer Science.2008;99: 432-440) and it would be interesting to learn the experience of others, and whether any Phase 1 trials are being conducted right now.

That a treatment (in fact-life saving) modality for a lethal cancer is permitted to be discussed on probably the best cardiology website is something to be wondered at with awe .....and definitely with abundance of gratitude.
# 9 of 15
October 2, 2008 06:09 (EDT)
Melissa Walton-Shirley
thanks
Deepak,
You are most welcome. Thanks for sharing the Mab information and thanks for the complement. Our journalists appreciate being appreciated!
Melissa
# 10 of 15
October 2, 2008 04:17 (EDT)
Sergio Stagnaro
I advice three ways of research
Here they are:
A) I advice to investigate on CAD Inherited Real Risk, upon which all 300 environmental risk factor act, bringing about coronary artery disease. If it would be possible with the aid of laboratory examination to recognize such as risk, milions f dollars will be sure!
B) I advice indentical reserach aiming to discover a labratory test, reliable in detecting Oncological Terrain-dependent Inherited Real Risk of Cancer in a biological system.

Good luck
# 11 of 15
October 2, 2008 04:20 (EDT)
Sergio Stagnaro
I advice three ways of research
Due to my age...I forgave the third way, i.e., a stethoscope,an ossolete tool (out-moded view of the world) unavoidable in bedside performing Quantum-Biophysical Semeiotics
# 12 of 15
October 6, 2008 06:52 (EDT)
juarez braga
Others will follow...
Now we can wait that others companies will follow the way Pfizer have choosen.

It show us again that Pharmaceutical companies only interest is profit, and it has became hard to get it with so much pressure from Cardiologists.

Maybe you should use this fact to start thinking about new ways of financing drug development.
# 13 of 15
October 7, 2008 02:53 (EDT)
Glyn Wainwright
Mevalonate Inhibition
Trying to fight heart disease by inhibiting a vital metabolic pathway (Mevalonate) was never going to end happily. The sooner doctors wakes up to the downside of 'HMG CoA reductase inhibition' the happier patients will be.
Pfizer probably know this from their trial data.
# 14 of 15
October 10, 2008 11:37 (EDT)
Barbara LePetri
The curse of really good generic CV drugs
In a world where amlodipine, ACE inhibitors, qd betablockers are generic - how can a new agent compete. What payor is ever going to think that a $3 a day drug is better than a 4 cent a day drug. And with the focus on safety and much larger trials - $3 a day for a pill sounds cheap!
# 15 of 15
November 5, 2008 02:53 (EST)
Glyn Wainwright
Side Effects
Would you as a Pfizer executive abandon one of your most lucrative drug families
simply because a patent was running out?
First,
you would need to believe that it is impossible to create a new patentable version
and prove it was a winner.
The burden of proof reduces dramatically in proportion to the evident effectiveness of a drug.
It is impossible to prove mevalonate inhibition is evidently beneficial regardless of the formulation of a new statin formulation.
Any good biochemist knows why!

Second,
we also know that as we go forward the evidence of stain damage through mevalonate blockade will build and build.
When the full story breaks you do not want to be a major current player in statin game.
Pfizer know the mevalonate blockade story is going to break soon (statin side-effects).
They probably made a rational commercial decision to back off based on that evidence.

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
Latest 5 articles from Clinical cardiology
Previews
Featured CME
Inside: Clinical cardiology
Clinical cardiology
4 COMMENTS - Sep 29, 2008 10:21 EDT
An estimated nearly five million Americans experience heart failure. Studies have shown improved quality of life and life expectancy with early diagnosis and treatment. Join Drs Peterson, Hernandez, Fonarow and Piņa presenting new data on improving the quality of care for patients with heart failure.