More

Lower Cholesterol: New Drug Could Be Next Big Thing For Cholesterol Medication

MARILYNN MARCHIONE   11/17/10 08:15 PM ET   AP

Lower Cholesterol

CHICAGO — An experimental drug boosted good cholesterol so high and dropped bad cholesterol so low in a study that doctors were stunned and voiced renewed hopes for an entirely new way of preventing heart attacks and strokes.

"We are the most excited we have been in decades," said Dr. Christopher Cannon of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, who led the study of the novel drug for Merck & Co. "This could really be the next big thing."

The drug, anacetrapib (an-uh-SEHT'-ruh-pihb), will not be on the market anytime soon. It needs more testing to see if its dramatic effects on cholesterol will translate into fewer heart attacks, strokes and deaths. Merck announced a 30,000-patient study to answer that question, and it will take several years.

But the sheer magnitude of the new medicine's effects so far excited lots of doctors at an American Heart Association conference in Chicago, where results were presented on Wednesday.

"The data look spectacular, beyond what anybody would have expected," said Dr. Robert Eckel, a University of Colorado cardiologist and past president of the heart association. "It's like a rocket to Jupiter versus one to the moon. I can think of many of my patients who could use the drug right now."

Merck's Dr. Luciano Rossetti agreed.

"We are trying not to be too giddy. The potential benefit is enormous," said Rossetti, senior vice president of global scientific strategy at the company, based in Whitehouse Station, N.J.

It was one of two studies that caused unusual optimism and buzz at the heart meeting. The other tested a new procedure to lower blood pressure in patients whose pills failed them.

The new method uses a tube through a blood vessel to zap nerves near the kidneys, which fuel high blood pressure. Its success offers hope for a possible permanent fix for people with very high blood pressure despite taking fistfuls of pills each day. Only about a third of the millions of people worldwide with high blood pressure are able to control it well with pills.

The treatment, using a device made by California-based Ardian Inc., is just now becoming available in Europe and will be tested in the United States next year.

The cholesterol study took an equally novel approach.

For years, doctors have focused on lowering LDL, or bad cholesterol, to cut heart risks. Statin medicines, sold as Lipitor and Zocor do this, and generic versions cost less than a dollar a day. But many statin users still suffer heart attacks, so doctors have been trying to get LDL to very low levels and to boost HDL, or good cholesterol.

Anacetrapib would be the first drug of its kind. It helps keep fat particles attached to HDL, which carries them in the bloodstream to the liver to be disposed of.

Merck says it is way too soon to estimate how much the drug would cost, but analysts say such a medication could mean billions for its maker, though it would have to prove cost-effective by preventing enough heart attacks, strokes and deaths.

The Merck-sponsored study tested anacetrapib in 1,623 people already taking statins because they are at higher-than-usual risk of a heart attack – half had already had one, and many others had conditions like diabetes.

An LDL of 100 to 129 is considered good for healthy people, but patients like these should aim for under 100 or even under 70, guidelines say. For HDL, 40 to 59 is OK, but higher is better.

After six months in the study:

_ LDL scores fell from 81 to 45 in those on anacetrapib, and from 82 to 77 in those given dummy pills.

_ HDL rose from 41 to a whopping 101 in the drug group, and from 40 to 46 in those on dummy pills.

Such large changes have never been seen before, doctors say, and these improvements persisted for at least another year that the study went on.

Over the years, other drugs have generated excitement in early research, then turned out to be risky or not so effective when tried on many more patients.

The Merck study was too small to tell whether anacetrapib lowered deaths, heart attacks or other heart problems. But the trend was in the right direction, with fewer of those cases among patients on the drug. The anacetrapib group also needed significantly fewer procedures to fix clogged arteries.

Importantly, there were no signs of the blood pressure problems that led Pfizer Inc. to walk away from an $800 million investment in torcetrapib, a similar drug it was developing four years ago.

"This one looks far more potent, without the serious side effects that led to failure," Dr. W. Douglas Weaver, a cardiologist at Henry Ford Health System in Detroit and past president of the American College of Cardiology, said of the new Merck drug. "If proven effective, this will really change practice in the same way aspirin and statins have."

Results of the study also were published online by the New England Journal of Medicine. Some study leaders have consulted for Merck and makers of other heart drugs.

Dr. Allen Taylor, a cardiologist at Washington Hospital Center, noted that study participants' bad cholesterol was twice as high as their good cholesterol before treatment, and that anacetrapib caused this to reverse: The good became double the bad. That's never been achieved before and is "a profound swing" that should lead to reversal of heart disease, not just slowing its progression, he said.

Taylor led major studies of the only other drug that has had major effects on bad and good cholesterol – albeit much smaller than those from anacetrapib.

Niacin, a type of B vitamin, is sold by Abbott Laboratories in an extended-release version called Niaspan. It has been on the market since the late 1990s, but some people are bothered by a prickly hot sensation called flushing. Doctors say this side effect can be minimized by taking the drug at night with a low-fat snack.

___

Online:

Cholesterol: http://tinyurl.com/2dtc5vy

(This version replaces the last paragraph to correct that Niaspan is now sold by Abbott Laboratories, not Kos Pharmaceuticals.)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTH

CHICAGO — An experimental drug boosted good cholesterol so high and dropped bad cholesterol so low in a study that doctors were stunned and voiced renewed hopes for an entirely new way of preven...
CHICAGO — An experimental drug boosted good cholesterol so high and dropped bad cholesterol so low in a study that doctors were stunned and voiced renewed hopes for an entirely new way of preven...
Filed by Rachel Martin  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 159
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:39 PM on 01/09/2011
"We are trying not to be too giddy. The potential benefit is enormous." ~ Merck

TRANSLATION:

We are trying not to be too GREEDY. The potential PROFIT is enormous.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
FGDinVA
E pluribus unum
01:31 AM on 11/22/2010
"Taylor led major studies of the only other drug that has had major effects on bad and good cholesterol – albeit much smaller than those from anacetrapib."

The next paragraph goes on to mention Niaspan. Is that the other drug?
03:21 PM on 11/21/2010
The forerunner to this was pulled because of 'problems' . Before the hype gets overwhelming lets actually see a study showing this therapy reduces heart attacks and deaths.
05:17 PM on 11/18/2010
There is an article on pg 76 of the magazine Atlantic's Nov 2010 edition showing that the medical research that causes us to take pills and get operations is usually misleading ,exaggerated and outright wrong..The article talks about the work of medical research critic Dr John Ioannidis.
04:09 PM on 11/18/2010
Lowering your cholesterol won't increase your life by one day and there is evidence that cholerterol lowering drugs will shorten your life.
If you have any free time you might read :
The Great Cholesterol Con by Anthony Colpo
The Hidden Truth About Cholesterol Lowering Drugs by Shane Ellison
Statin Drugs ... by Duane Graveline
photo
farmilyman
everything is illusion
10:59 AM on 11/18/2010
If only high cholesterol caused heart attacks they'd have something there. Too bad it doesn't.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spitfiredd
My micro-bio has got it going on.
09:25 AM on 11/18/2010
How are we different that cattle? Think about it, we eat foods that cause enormous health problems and then we medicate ourselves so we can continue to eat them...

I guess we really are what we eat....
08:54 AM on 11/22/2010
actually, you are what you dont poop
06:34 AM on 11/18/2010
But what are the side effects?
03:33 AM on 11/18/2010
We don't need a drug against cholesterol. We need to limit our intake of carbohydrates and we'll be fine. You need further explanation? Watch this: http://bit.ly/9HtLK9
06:35 AM on 11/18/2010
I have a feeling your comment is spam; however, I totally agree.

No spamming on HP.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spitfiredd
My micro-bio has got it going on.
09:23 AM on 11/18/2010
I don't agree at all, high carb intake is common in most every country except the US where we consume 30-50% of calories from fat (which is really high) and we suffer a lot of degenerative diseases. It's not the high carb foods like whole grains, veggies and fruit; that's what most people outside of the US eat for a majority of their calories. It's the high fat, high processed food diet and GM frakenfood diet that 99.99% of American's eat.
04:11 PM on 11/18/2010
In many countries in Asia where people eat a high carbohydrate low fat, low protein, diet , the life expectancy is greater than in the U.S.
02:36 AM on 11/18/2010
Or become a vegetarian. save the world, save yourself: before a vegetarian.
01:53 AM on 11/18/2010
Good for Merck. If this works and has very few side effects (I can only imagine what something this powerful is going to do to the liver....) I'm glad it will help those people who really can't manage their cholesterol any other way and I don't begrudge Merck the opportunity to make a profit. Remember, for every drug they bring to market it not only cost hundreds of millions in R&D but there is also the hundreds of millions spent on R&D for drugs that didnt' make it.

That being said, the market for this shouldn't be anywhere NEAR as big as it is in the US. Diet and exercise you lazy sloths! Slash your meat intake, eat whole grain foods and make veggies and some fruit the MAJORITY of your diet and the need for these drugs would be cut by 80%. But noooo.....Americans need their triple Whopper with cheese, mayo, a bucket of fries the size of your head and then demand a side of angioplasty!
08:58 AM on 11/22/2010
dont forget the hundreds of millions spent on marketing. say, isnt it time for lipitor to lose its free ride and become generic?
11:42 PM on 11/17/2010
Really? A new drug that raises HDL and lowers LDL. Then, soon after a sizeable number of the population starts taking it, MERK will report > Oops, raising HDL and lowering LDL makes your head explode...

And then MERK will begin marketing their "leafy green vegetables..."
12:25 AM on 11/18/2010
And then MERK will begin marketing their "leafy green vegetables..."

Someone already manufactures leafy green vegetables in a pill. We can expect that MERK will soon sue for the copyright.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
FGDinVA
E pluribus unum
01:41 AM on 11/22/2010
Make that "Altered Just Enough To Secure A Patent Leafy Green Vegetables™". Fine print: Possible side effects from scientifically altered leafy green vegetables may include dry mouth, sore throat, seizures, coma or de.ath.
11:31 PM on 11/17/2010
This is disgusting. The shrinking middle class helped fund the research for this bs while junk food companies that create the need and big pharma that provides the anecdote get richer. A massive tax on junk food is the only way the government should be funding research for these garbage disposals in a pill.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
07:10 AM on 11/18/2010
How do you figure that the middle class funded this research? Do you have some evidence that Merck recieved huge government subsidies for this research?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
10:43 AM on 11/18/2010
It can be argued that the middleclass pays for the research and development in a plethora of ways. Here are a few reasons the cost of these drugs are the burden of the middleclass:

1. The middleclass taxpayers by funding the FDA and SEC provide an anti-competitive regulatory environment for these pharmaceutical companies. And the middleclass taxpayers pay for the enforcement of the very lucrative patents that emerge from these regulatory protections.
2. When their drugs which more often than not cause severe side effects the financial burden of not being able to work or worse the victim dies and their medical bills become the responsibility of the government or health and disability insurance companies to take the financial hit to care for the victims. Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. It is very difficult to prevail in a lawsuit when you are injured by pharmaceuticals. See Supreme Court of the United States William Daubert, ET UX, ETC, ET AL., Petitioners v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
3. The opportunity cost of another more natural product is foregone due to the aggressive marketing of pharmaceuticals in this country. Many believe the marketing of pharmaceuticals should be banned and I agree. These marketing costs, which bring the pharmaceutical companies billions in profits and are written off prior to their taxable income so in essence the taxpayers subsidize these marketing costs.

I could go on but you get the drift. You are in the biosciences field right?
01:56 AM on 11/19/2010
All one has to do is follow the lobbying of efforts of Pharma, a trade organization that Merk is a member of, to understand this. Billions every year are spent on research from both the private and public sector and Pharma helps secure public dollars to benefit it's member companies. Public dollars being entwined with pharmaceutical research has been going on for years and is ingrained in the system.
08:36 PM on 11/17/2010
in case anyone cares beyond their current paycheck : go green i.e. feature some blogs about alternative

it is scientifically established beyond a shadow of a doubt that transcendental meditation (TM)is as good as a drug for normalizing BP and reducing cholesterol and normalizing metabolic syndrome

and also TM does what a drug does not: it improves IQ , time competence, field independence, Kohlbergian cosmic perspectives, Maslow's self-actualization ; it improves every aspect of mind body brain behaviour and environment

http://www.tm.org/health-benefits-stress
http://www.doctorsontm.org/
12:29 AM on 11/18/2010
Running 5-10 miles a week and taking niacin has bumped my HDL way up but even a strict low fat, low carb diet didn't lower my LDL which was around 150. I'm not nuts about taking statin drugs but I haven't noticed any side effects and it's the only thing that's brought my LDL down.

I think TM is great and offers a lot of health benefits, but the doctors at tm.org do not recommend using TM in place of statins for hypercholesterolemia.
12:51 PM on 11/28/2010
I take it back. Now I'm starting to notice some side effects, I exercise a lot and I'm not recovering from working out as fast as I used to. Also my appetite increased incredibly and I cut way back on exercising dues to muscle soreness and mild lethargy. We'll have to find another way to lower my LDL.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
07:11 AM on 11/18/2010
"go green i.e. feature some blogs about alternative"

Ummm....Huff Po has numerous blogs about alternative medicine. In fact, they just had a blog on homeopathy several days ago. Do you actually read through the health section?
08:28 PM on 11/17/2010
I am often baffled by the people HP chooses to give free publicity:-

1/ HP has often been critical of ruthless money grubbing pharmaceutical companies yet -

2/ HP has given free publicity to Dr Mercola whose spurious attacks on statins are designed to

boost sales of his own quack medicine company.

3/ In this case you give a disingenuous account of Merck's clinical trial of a new drug quoting

Merck's Dr. Luciano Rossetti as saying "The potential benefit is enormous". For "potential"

insert "profit" for that is what Dr. Rossetti really means. Be sure,that if the drug passes the trials

Merck will milk it for billions (they'll be recovering R&D costs, they'll say) at the expense of the

sick public.

As a doctor I have been at the receiving end of lavish freebies from pharmaceutical companies to

promote their products. Their sales reps appear to have bottomless expense accounts. They

can afford them, with their profit margins.

The pharmaceutical companies' insistence on profiteering from their AIDS drugs was one of the

more disgusting examples of their venality.

By all means, HP, publicise new drugs but please omit the self-serving quotes from

pharmaceutical company employees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sharon Hanson
Skeptical of the *pseudo-skeptics*
08:58 PM on 11/17/2010
I take issue with your portrayal of Dr. Mercola. I have been following him for quite some time. I do a lot of medical research. I haven't once run into a situation where he has steered me wrong. He is the real deal where the others are all quacks. And by the way be careful how you use the word quack you might get yourself sued. Stephen Barrett owner and grand master of the medical propaganda websites quackwatch is being sued and has been sued numerous times. He loses all the time.
10:12 PM on 11/17/2010
While I always reference Dr. Mercola, he definitely has an anti-medical establishment bias. Every modality has a time and place. Collect the information from all sides, digest it, turn it into wisdom, and go with what resonates with you.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
07:30 AM on 11/18/2010
"Stephen Barrett owner and grand master of the medical propaganda websites quackwatch is being sued and has been sued numerous times."

That certainly doesn't mean that he's wrong.

"And by the way be careful how you use the word quack you might get yourself sued."

Why, Mercola's going to start suing anonymous commenters on websites now? I guess you have to do whatever you can to protect your income stream, especially when it derives directly from manipulating information.