FB-TW

Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Dangers of Statin Drugs - Seneff

Drug Side Effect Discovery from Online Patient-Submitted Reviews: Dangers of Statin Drugs



by Jingjing Liu, Alice Li and Stephanie Seneff MIT Computer Science & Artificial Intelligence Laboratory

Abstract—In recent years, consumers have become empowered to share personal experiences regarding prescription drugs via Web page discussion groups. This paper describes our recent research involving automatically identifying adverse reactions from patient-provided drug reviews on health-related web sites. We focus on the statin class of cholesterol-lowering drugs. We extract a complete set of side effect expressions from patient-submitted drug reviews, and construct a hierarchical ontology of side effects. We use log-likely ratio estimation to detect biases in word distributions when comparing reviews of statin drugs with age-matched reviews of a broad spectrum of other drugs. We find a highly significant correlation between statins and a wide range of disorders and conditions, including diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), rhabdomyolysis, neuropathy, Parkinson’s disease, arthritis, memory loss, and heart failure. A review of the research literature on statin side effects corroborates many of our findings.

I. INTRODUCTION

The last few decades have witnessed a steady increase in drug prescriptions for the treatment of biometric markers rather than overt physiological symptoms. Today, people regularly take multiple drugs in order to normalize serum levels of biomarkers such as cholesterol or glucose, or to reduce blood pressure. All drugs have side effects, which are sometimes debilitating or even life-threatening. When a person taking multiple drugs experiences a new symptom, it is not always clear which, if any, of the drugs or drug combinations are responsible.
 
Increasingly, consumers are turning to the Web to seek information, and, increasingly, this information comes in the form of consumer-provided comments in discussion groups or chat rooms. User reviews of products and services have empowered consumers to obtain valuable data to guide their decision process. Recently, statistical and linguistic methods have been applied to large datasets of reviews to extract summary and/or rating information in various domains ([9] [22]).
 
Health care and prescription drugs are a growing topic of discussion online, not surprising given that almost half of all Americans take prescription drugs each month, costing over $200 billion in 2008 alone ([5]). Though drugs are subject to clinical trials before reaching market, these trials are often too short, and may involve too few people to give conclusive results. A large study recently conducted on the heart failure drug, nesiritude, invalidated the findings of the smaller study that had led to the drug’s approval [11]. While regulatory agencies do attempt to monitor the safety of approved medical treatments, surveillance programs such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) and Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) are often difficult for patients to use.
 
In addition, the large language gap between medical documents and patient vocabulary can cause confusion and misunderstanding ([23]). We hope to take advantage of the vast amount of information available in patient anecdotes posted online to address the dual problems of insufficient clinical studies and mismatched terminology.
 
We envision a system that increases patient awareness of drug-related side effects by enabling consumers of prescription drugs to easily browse a large consolidated database of posts from health-related web sites. Beyond aggregating data from drug review and health discussion sites, we plan to support spoken queries, which would be answered via a set of succinctly summarized hits that best match the query, based on sophisticated statistical and linguistic techniques. The user could then click on any one of these displayed summaries to read the associated post.
 
This paper describes our preliminary efforts to detect associations between a drug class and its side effects. We use statistics and heuristic methods to build up a hierarchical ontology of side effects by aggregating patient-submitted drug reviews. We use log-likelihood ratios to extract summary information derived from biases in word and phrase distributions, and to quantify associations between drugs and symptoms. For the scope of this paper, we focus on statin drugs, which are among the most costly and commonly prescribed drugs in the United States. The methods described are applicable to all drug classes.
 
In the remainder of this paper, we will first review the research literature reflecting known or suspected side effects associated with statin drugs. After explaining our data collection and side-effect ontology construction, we describe our methodology and verify that many of our extracted associations align with observations from the literature.

II. BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Side Effects of Statin drugs

Statins (Hydroxy methyl glutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) have become increasingly popular as very effective agents to normalize serum cholesterol levels. The most popular of these, atorvastatin, marketed under the trade name, Lipitor, has been the highest revenue branded pharmaceutical for the past 6 years. The official Lipitor web site lists as potential side effects mainly muscle pain and weakness and digestive problems. However, several practitioners and researchers have identified suspected side effects in other more alarming areas, such as heart failure, cognition and memory problems, and even severe

neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s disease and ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). [21] provides compelling arguments for the diverse side effects of statins, attributing them mainly to cholesterol depletion in cell membranes.
 
It is widely acknowledged that statin drugs cause muscle pain, weakness and damage ([7] [12]), likely due in part to their interference with the synthesis of the potent antioxidant Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) ([10]). CoQ10 plays an essential role in mitochondrial function to produce energy. Congestive heart failure is a condition in which the heart can no longer pump enough blood to the rest of the body, essentially because it is too weak. Because the heart is a muscle, it is
plausible that heart muscle weakness could arise from longterm statin usage. Indeed, atorvastatin has been shown to impair ventricular diastolic heart performance ([14]). Furthermore, CoQ10 supplementation has been shown to improve cardiac function ([13] [20]).
 
The research literature provides plausible biological explanations for a possible association between statin drugs and neuropathy ([15] [24]). A recent evidence-based article ([1]) found that statin drug users had a high incidence of neurological disorders, especially neuropathy, parasthesia and neuralgia, and appeared to be at higher risk to the debilitating neurological diseases, ALS and Parkinson’s disease. The evidence was based on careful manual labeling of a set of self-reported accounts from 351 patients. A mechanism for such damage could involve interference with the ability of oligodendrocytes, specialized glial cells in the nervous system, to supply sufficient cholesterol to the myelin sheath surrounding nerve axons. Genetically-engineered mice with defective oligodendrocytes exhibit visible pathologies in the myelin sheath which manifest as muscle twitches and tremors ([16]).
 
Cholesterol depletion in the brain would be expected to lead to pathologies in neuron signal transport, due not only to defective myelin sheath but also to interference with signal transport across synapses ([17]). Cognitive impairment, memory loss, mental confusion, and depression were significantly present in Cable’s patient population ([1]). Wagstaff et al. ([19]) conducted a survey of cognitive dysfunction from AERS data, and found evidence of both short-term memory loss and amnesia associated with statin usage. Golomb et al. ([6]) conducted a study to evaluate evidence of statin-induced cognitive, mood or behavioral

changes in patients. She concluded with a plea for studies that “more clearly establish the impact of hydrophilic and lipophilic statins on cognition, aggression, and serotonin.”

B. Relationship between Cholesterol and Health

ALS and heart failure are both conditions for which published literature suggests an increased risk associated with statin therapy ([1] [10]). Indeed, for both of these conditions, a survival benefit is associated with elevated cholesterol levels. A statistically significant inverse correlation was found in a study on mortality in heart failure. For 181 patients with heart disease and heart failure, half of those whose serum cholesterol was below 200 mg/dl were dead three years after diagnosis, whereas only 28% of the patients whose serum cholesterol was above 200 mg/dl had died. In another study on a group of 488 patients diagnosed with ALS, serum levels of triglycerides and fasting cholesterol were measured at the time of diagnosis ([2]). High values for both lipids were associated with improved survival, with a p-value <0 .05.=".05." p="p">
 
A very recent study on the relationship between various measures of cholesterol status and health in the elderly came up with some surprising results, strongly suggesting that elevated cholesterol is beneficial for this segment of the population [18]. A study population initially over 75 years old was followed over a 17 year period beginning in 1990. In addition to serum cholesterol, a biometric associated with the ability to synthesize cholesterol (lathosterol) and a biometric associated with the ability to absorb cholesterol through the gut (sitosterol) were measured. For all three measures of cholesterol, low values were associated with a poorer prognosis for frailty, mental decline and early death. A reduced ability to synthesize cholesterol showed the strongest correlation with poor outcome. Individuals with high measures of all three biometrics enjoyed a 4.3 year extension in life span, compared to those for whom all measures were low.

III. SIDE-EFFECT DISCOVERY

A. Data Collection

To learn the underlying associations between side effects and drug usage from patient-provided reviews, we collected drug reviews from three drug discussion forums (“AskPatient.com,” “Medications.com” and “WebDB.com”) which allow users to post reviews on specific drugs and share their experiences. Table 1 gives the statistics on the review data collection. A total of 8,515 statin reviews were collected from the three data sources. We also collected 105K drug reviews from the AskPatient.com, on drugs to treat a broad range of problems such as depression, acid reflux disease, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. This set includes reviews for non-statin cholesterol lowering drugs.
 
Continue Reading the Research Study Here: http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/IMMM.pdf


Friday, December 28, 2012

More Misinformation from the British Press - Smith


More Misinformation from the British Press



Yesterday, an article was published on the front page of a national newspaper in the UK, claiming “proof that statins save millions” and “wonder pill halves heart attack deaths”.

The article was published in the Daily Express newspaper on 27 December 2012, written by Giles Sheldrick. I have formally complained to the editor about the gross inaccuracies the article contains.
The article is based on data published in a recent report from the British Heart Foundation (BHF). The title of this report is Coronary Heart Disease Statistics 2012.

The article in the Daily Express claims that the reduction in heart disease deaths / heart attacks is mostly due to cholesterol lowering statins.

The recent BHF publication (available here) does clearly show that deaths from heart disease have continued to fall, however, nowhere in this publication is there any data to support the claim that statins have played a significant part.

The BHF publication references only one study; a 2004 study referenced on pages 14 and 15 of the publication. This referenced study is freely available here:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/9/1101.long

It is absolutely clear from this study that the vast majority of the reduction in heart disease deaths was from the reduction in the number of people smoking and improvements in emergency treatments. It had very little to do with statin medications. In fact, if you look at Table 1 of this study, we can see that statins, at best, contributed less than one percent to the reduction in deaths.

The first line of the Daily Express article reads “THE use of statins has halved the number of deaths from heart attacks”. There is no data to support this statement anywhere in the BHF publication or the 2004 study referenced by the BHF.

There are a number of additional points to consider.

The graph below is from another publication from the British Heart Foundation (Coronary Heart Disease Statistics 2008, available here) . If we look at figure 1.4 from page 25, we can see that heart disease deaths have been reducing since the 1970s, but there is no significant change in the graph around 1995. This is important because statin medications first started to be widely prescribed in 1995. If statins were having a significant impact, we would of course expect to see a more dramatic reduction around 1995, but we do not. In fact, some age groups have seen a slowing down of the reduction since the widespread introduction of statins in 1995.

It is important to note that even if statins do very slightly reduce the risk of suffering a heart attack (typically less than one percent reduction in risk), at the same time, these medications increase the risk of dying from other serious diseases. This is particularly the case when statins are used for 'prevention'. All of the clinical trials, where statins have been used for 'prevention' have failed to show any increase in life expectancy. The potential very slight reduction in heart attack risk has always been off-set by an increase in deaths from other causes due to the statin.

Not to mention the fact that around 20 percent of people who take statins experience considerable adverse effects, which in many cases have ruined peoples' lives.
=====================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Track Your Plaque - Davis

Track Your Plaque

In addition to writing, speaking, and practicing preventive cardiology in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Dr. Davis is the Medical Director and founder of the Track Your Plaque program for heart disease prevention and reversal. This program was described in the book, Track Your Plaque: The only heart disease prevention program that shows how to use the new heart scans to detect, track, and control coronary plaque, as well as the online program. Wheat elimination, along with the nutritional principles articulated in Wheat Belly, serve as the cornerstone of the heart disease prevention efforts used in the Track Your Plaque program, as well.

Friday, December 21, 2012

Real Life vs. Pharma Company Studies - Kendrick

Real Life vs. Pharma Company Studies

December 21, 2012

At what point, exactly, does credibility snap? When does the difference between what we are told, and what we observe, reach such a state of dissonance that it is no longer possible to believe both. Sometimes it seems the answer is ….never.

Here is one example. The clinical trials on statins found that they have virtually no adverse effects. Or, to be a little more accurate, that adverse events were virtually identical to placebo. Here, for example, is part of the press release from the Heart Protection Study (HPS). This was the last major placebo controlled statin study done in people with already diagnosed cardiovascular disease.

As the benefits of statins are now thought so wonderful it would be considered unethical to do a placebo controlled study anymore. You would be withholding statins from people who need them. Which means that you are not going to get any more evidence in this area – ever again. The HPS results were published around ten years ago, and the press release contained the following

‘Although muscle pain was reported by the participants, this happened about as commonly among those allocated the active simvastatin as among those allocated the placebo tablets. Despite 20,536 randomised patients having been followed for an average of five years, blood tests among people reporting muscle symptoms found only 11 simvastatin-allocated patients and 6 placebo-allocated patients with a rise in the muscle enzyme creatine kinase (CK) to more than 10 times the upper limit of normal Of these, 14 met the definition for “myopathy” (i.e. muscle symptoms associated with such CK elevations) of whom 10 were in the simvastatin group and 4 in the placebo group.’

http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/~hps/June02QandA.shtml

Teasing these figures out a little more it seems that an extra six people taking simvastatin suffered muscle ‘problems’ than those taking the placebo. This is six people, out of more than ten thousand taking simvastatin. This represents in one thousand seven hundred and eight 1/1708 (over five years).
If this were true, then muscle problems should be exceedingly rare. The average GP with about two hundred of their fifteen hundred patients taking a statin should see a patient with muscle pains/problems about once every twenty five years. At this rate, you would not even know you had a problem.

Yet, wrapped around my copy of the BMJ last week was an advert for rosuvastatin [Crestor]. The strap line shouted out ‘Myalgia on his initial statin?’ [Myalgia is the medical word for muscle pain]. The main message the advert was… ‘If your patient was suffering muscle pains on their initial statin, they should switch to Crestor 5mg.’

Their ‘initial statin’ will almost certainly be Simvastatin 40mg. The drug, and the dose, used in the HPS study. The same drug, and the same dose recommended by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Now, you do not run an expensive advertising campaign without doing a lot of market research first. What the market research must have told AstraZeneca – who make Crestor – is that a lot of people are suffering muscle pains on 40mg simvastatin.

Which means that simvastatin, which caused no discernible increase in muscle pains in the clinical study…… actually creates such a massive burden of muscle problems that a pharmaceutical campaign is running a major advertising campaign highlighting this, exact, adverse event.

What does this tell us, gentle reader? It tells us many things. Some of which would be considerable slanderous if I said them out loud. The most outstanding thing it tells me is that, although we have all been repeatedly informed that statins have no more side-effects than placebo, I now find that AstraZeneca encouraging doctors to switch statins due to the burden of side-effects.

F Scott Fitzgerald opined that …“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.’

I would suggest that there comes a point where you have to decide between which idea is right, and which is wrong. With regard to statins, I did this many years ago when I recognised that they cause a gigantic burden of adverse effects, with muscle pain the single most outstanding. I knew that the clinical trials had somehow or another managed to bury this fact.

Yet, when I speak to most doctors they continue to tell me that statins have very few side-effects, as do most opinion leaders. This belief, whilst AstraZeneca starts up an advertising campaign based on side-effects reported by doctors. F Scott Fitzgerland would be impressed by all these first class intellects. I just despair of them.
============================================================
Read the complete article here.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Current State of Niacin in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention - JACC

The Current State of Niacin in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: Title and subTitle BreakA Systematic Review and Meta-Regression

Paul M. Lavigne, MD; Richard H. Karas, MD, PhD

Abstract

Objectives This study sought to assess the efficacy of niacin for reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, as indicated by the aggregate body of clinical trial evidence including data from the recently published AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health Outcomes) trial.
.
.
.
Conclusions The consensus perspective derived from available clinical data supports that niacin reduces CVD events and, further, that this may occur through a mechanism not reflected by changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration.
.
.
.

Conclusions

Although potentially indicative of limited efficacy in select patients, the recently published findings of AIM-HIGH are insufficient to alter the aggregate available data supporting the clinical efficacy of niacin therapy as a means to reduce CVD risk. The present analysis demonstrates the summary effect of niacin across a broad clinical population to confer atheroprotection and cautions against the extension of recent isolated findings to substantially alter overall clinical practice. These results thus underscore the need for further analysis, including that offered by the ongoing HPS2-THRIVE (Heart Protection Study 2 Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events) trial, to more clearly define the role of niacin in current practice.

References

Adult Treatment Panel III, Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) Final Report, Circulation 2002 106 () 3143-3421
PubMed
Grundy S.M., Cleeman J.I., Merz C.N.B.. et al. Implications of recent clinical trials for the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines, J Am Coll Cardiol 2004 44 () 720-732
PubMed | CrossRef
Smith S.C., Benjamin E.J., Bonow R.O.. et al. AHA/ACCF secondary prevention and risk reduction therapy for patients with coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease: 2011 update: a guideline from the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation endorsed by the World Heart Federation and the Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, J Am Coll Cardiol 2011 58 () 2432-2446
PubMed | CrossRef
Baigent C., Keech A., Kearney P.M.. et al. Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective meta-analysis of data from 90,056 participants in 14 randomised trials of statins, Lancet 2005 366 () 1267-1278
PubMed | CrossRef
Baigent C., Blackwell L., Emberson J.. et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials, Lancet 2010 376 () 1670-1681
PubMed | CrossRef
Cannon C.P., Steinberg B.A., Murphy S.A., Mega J.L., Braunwald E.. Meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes trials comparing intensive versus moderate statin therapy, J Am Coll Cardiol 2006 48 () 438-445
PubMed | CrossRef
Cannon C., Braunwald E., McCabe C.. et al. Intensive versus moderate lipid lowering with statins after acute coronary syndromes, N Engl J Med 2004 350 () 1495-1504
PubMed | CrossRef
LaRosa J.C., Grundy S.M., Waters D.D.. et al. Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease, N Engl J Med 2005 352 () 1425-1435
PubMed | CrossRef
de Lemos J., Blazing M., Wiviott S.. et al. Early intensive vs a delayed conservative simvastatin strategy in patients with acute coronary syndromes: phase Z of the A to Z trial, JAMA 2004 292 () 1307-1316
PubMed | CrossRef
Pedersen T., Faergeman O., Kastelein J.. et al. High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction, JAMA 2005 294 () 2437-2445
PubMed | CrossRef
Armitage J., Bowman L., Wallendszus K.. et al. Intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol with 80 mg versus 20 mg simvastatin daily in 12,064 survivors of myocardial infarction: a double-blind randomised trial, Lancet 2010 376 () 1658-1669
PubMed | CrossRef
Kamanna V.S., Kashyap M.L.. Mechanism of action of niacin on lipoprotein metabolism, Curr Atheroscler Rep 2000 2 () 36-46
PubMed | CrossRef
Kamanna V.S., Kashyap M.L.. Nicotinic acid (niacin) receptor agonists: will they be useful therapeutic agents?, Am J Cardiol 2007 100 () S53-S61
PubMed | CrossRef
Kamanna V.S., Kashyap M.L.. Mechanism of action of niacin, Am J Cardiol 2008 101 () 20B-26B
PubMed | CrossRef
Coronary Drug Project Research Group, Clofibrate and niacin in coronary heart disease, JAMA 1975 231 () 360-381
PubMed | CrossRef
Brown B., Zhao X., Chait A.. et al. Simvastatin and niacin, antioxidant vitamins, or the combination for the prevention of coronary disease, N Engl J Med 2001 345 () 1583-1592
PubMed | CrossRef
Taylor A.J., Sullenberger L.E., Lee H.J., Lee J.K., Grace K.A.. Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol (ARBITER) 2: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of extended-release niacin on atherosclerosis progression in secondary prevention patients treated with statins, Circulation 2004 110 () 3512-3517
PubMed | CrossRef
Taylor A.J., Lee H.J., Sullenberger L.E.. The effect of 24 months of combination statin and extended-release niacin on carotid intima-media thickness: ARBITER 3, Curr Med Res Opin 2006 22 () 2243-2250
PubMed | CrossRef
Taylor A., Villines T., Stanek E.. et al. Extended-release niacin or ezetimibe and carotid intima-media thickness, N Engl J Med 2009 361 () 2113-2122
PubMed | CrossRef
Villines T.C., Stanek E.J., Devine P.J.. et al. The ARBITER 6-HALTS Trial (Arterial Biology for the Investigation of the Treatment Effects of Reducing Cholesterol 6-HDL and LDL Treatment Strategies in Atherosclerosis): final results and the impact of medication adherence, dose, and treatment duration, J Am Coll Cardiol 2010 55 () 2721-2726
PubMed | CrossRef
Lee J.M.S., Robson M.D., Yu L.-M.. et al. Effects of high-dose modified-release nicotinic acid on atherosclerosis and vascular function: a randomized, placebo-controlled, magnetic resonance imaging study, J Am Coll Cardiol 2009 54 () 1787-1794
PubMed | CrossRef
Boden W.E., Probstfield J.L., Anderson T.. et al. Niacin in patients with low HDL cholesterol levels receiving intensive statin therapy, N Engl J Med 2011 365 () 2255-2267
PubMed | CrossRef
Bruckert E., Labreuche J., Amarenco P.. Meta-analysis of the effect of nicotinic acid alone or in combination on cardiovascular events and atherosclerosis, Atherosclerosis 2010 210 () 353-361
PubMed | CrossRef
Duggal J.K., Singh M., Attri N.. et al. Effect of niacin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease, J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2010 15 () 158-166
PubMed | CrossRef
Brown G., Albers J., Fisher L.. et al. Regression of coronary artery disease as a result of intensive lipid-lowering therapy in men with high levels of apolipoprotein B, N Engl J Med 1990 323 () 1289-1298
PubMed | CrossRef
Guyton J.R., Brown B.G., Fazio S., Polis A., Tomassini J.E., Tershakovec A.M.. Lipid-altering efficacy and safety of ezetimibe/simvastatin coadministered with extended-release niacin in patients with type IIa or type IIb hyperlipidemia, J Am Coll Cardiol 2008 51 () 1564-1572
PubMed | CrossRef
Jadad A.R., Moore R.A., Carroll D.. et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?, Control Clin Trials 1996 17 () 1-12
PubMed | CrossRef
Whitney E.J., Krasuski R.A., Personius B.E., Michalek J.E., Maranian A.M., Kolasa M.W.. A randomized trial of a strategy for increasing high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels□: effects on progression of coronary heart disease and clinical events, Ann Intern Med 2005 142 () 95-104
PubMed
Blankenhorn D.H., Nessim S.A., Johnson R.L., Sanmarco M.E., Azen S.P., Cashin-Hemphill L.. Beneficial effects of combined colestipol-niacin therapy on coronary atherosclerosis and coronary venous bypass grafts, JAMA 1987 257 () 3233-3240
PubMed | CrossRef
Carlson L.A., Rosenhamer G.. Reduction of mortality in the Stockholm Ischaemic Heart Disease Secondary Prevention Study by combined treatment with clofibrate and nicotinic acid, Acta Med Scand 1988 223 () 405-418
PubMed | CrossRef
Kane J.P., Malloy M.J., Ports T.A., Phillips N.R., Diehl J.C., Havel R.J.. Regression of coronary atherosclerosis during treatment of familial hypercholesterolemia with combined drug regimens, JAMA 1990 264 () 3007-3012
PubMed | CrossRef
Larosa J.C., He J., Vupputuri S., Headings M.S.. Effect of statins on risk of coronary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, JAMA 1999 282 () 2340-2346
PubMed | CrossRef
Jafri H., Alsheikh-Ali A.A., Karas R.H.. Meta-analysis: statin therapy does not alter the association between low levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and increased cardiovascular risk, Ann Intern Med 2010 153 () 800-808
PubMed
Gordon T., Castelli W., Hjortland M., Kannel W., Daber T.. High density lipoprotein as a protective factor against coronary heart disease. The Framingham Study, Am J Med 1977 62 () 707-714
PubMed | CrossRef
Wilson P., Garrison R., Castelli W., Feinleib M., McNamara P., Kannel W.. Prevalence of coronary heart disease in the Framingham Offspring Study: role of lipoprotein cholesterols, Am J Cardiol 1980 46 () 649-654
PubMed | CrossRef
Castelli W., Garrison R., Wilson P., Abbott R., Kalousdian S., Kannel W.. Incidence of coronary heart disease and lipoprotein cholesterol levels. The Framingham Study, JAMA 1986 256 () 2835-2838
PubMed | CrossRef
Gordon D.J., Probstfield J.L., Garrison R.J.. et al. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease, Circulation 1989 79 () 8-15
PubMed | CrossRef
Kuvin J.T., Dave D.M., Sliney K.A.. et al. Effects of extended-release niacin on lipoprotein particle size, distribution, and inflammatory markers in patients with coronary artery disease, Am J Cardiol 2006 98 () 743-745
PubMed | CrossRef
Digby J.E., McNeill E., Dyar O.J., Lam V., Greaves D.R., Choudhury R.P.. Anti-inflammatory effects of nicotinic acid in adipocytes demonstrated by suppression of fractalkine, RANTES, and MCP-1 and upregulation of adiponectin, Atherosclerosis 2010 209 () 89-95
PubMed | CrossRef
Linke A., Sonnabend M., Fasshauer M.. et al. Effects of extended-release niacin on lipid profile and adipocyte biology in patients with impaired glucose tolerance, Atherosclerosis 2009 205 () 207-213
PubMed | CrossRef
Lee J.M.S., Robson M.D., Yu L.-M.. et al. Effects of high-dose modified-release nicotinic acid on atherosclerosis and vascular function: a randomized, placebo-controlled, magnetic resonance imaging study, J Am Coll Cardiol 2009 54 () 1787-1794
PubMed | CrossRef
Wu B.J., Yan L., Charlton F., Witting P., Barter P.J., Rye K.-A.. Evidence that niacin inhibits acute vascular inflammation and improves endothelial dysfunction independent of changes in plasma lipids, Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2010 30 () 968-975
PubMed | CrossRef
Lukasova M., Malaval C., Gille A., Kero J.. Nicotinic acid inhibits progression of atherosclerosis in mice through its receptor GPR109a expressed by immune cells, J Clin Invest 2011 121 () 1163-1173
PubMed | CrossRef
Holzhäuser E., Albrecht C., Zhou Q.. et al. Nicotinic acid has anti-atherogenic and anti-inflammatory properties on advanced atherosclerotic lesions independent of its lipid-modifying capabilities, J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2011 57 () 447-454
PubMed | CrossRef
Roche Inc, Roche Provides Update on Phase III Study of Dalcetrapib [press release]. May 2012, () -
PubMed
Stein E.A., Stroes E.S.G., Steiner G.. et al. Safety and tolerability of dalcetrapib, Am J Cardiol 2009 104 () 82-91
PubMed | CrossRef
Voight B.F., Peloso G.M., Orho-Melander M.. et al. Plasma HDL cholesterol and risk of myocardial infarction: a mendelian randomisation study, Lancet 2012 6736 () 1-9
PubMed
Alsheikh-Ali A.A., Karas R.H.. The safety of niacin in the US Food and Drug Administration adverse event reporting database, Am J Cardiol 2008 101 () 9B-13B
PubMed | CrossRef
Alsheikh-Ali A.A., Karas R.H.. Safety of lovastatin/extended release niacin compared with lovastatin alone, atorvastatin alone, pravastatin alone, and simvastatin alone (from the United States Food and Drug Administration adverse event reporting system), Am J Cardiol 2007 99 () 379-381
PubMed | CrossRef
Ballantyne C.M., Davidson M.H., McKenney J.M., Keller L.H., Bajorunas D.R., Karas R.H.. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of a combination tablet of niacin extended-release and simvastatin with simvastatin 80 mg monotherapy: the SEACOAST II (high-dose) study, J Clin Lipidol 2008 2 () 79-90
PubMed | CrossRef

================================================================
Reas the complete article here.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Friday, December 14, 2012

Drug company kills off another cholesterol-modifying drug - Briffa

Drug company kills of another cholesterol-modifying drug
I rarely meet someone who has not heard of cholesterol and does not believe it to be a largely dangerous substance. And increasing number of people seem to be aware of the conventional wisdom regarding the different forms of cholesterol, specifically low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C). Actually, these names are a bit misleading, as these particles are not cholesterol (though they do contain cholesterol). But, anyway, the conventional wisdom is that LDL-C dumps cholesterol on the inside of our arteries while HDL-C clears cholesterol. As a result, LDL-C and HDL-C are often dubbed ‘bad-’ and ‘good-’ cholesterol.

The most commonly prescribed cholesterol drugs are known as statins, and their main mechanism of action is to lower LDL-C levels. However, other types of cholesterol-modifying drugs exist, including a relatively new class known as cholesterylester transfer protein inhibitors (CEPT inhibitors), which the conversion of supposedly healthy HDL-C into supposedly unhealthy LDL-C. If you believe the conventional wisdom on cholesterol (I don’t), then this should translate into benefits for health with regard cardiovascular disease (e.g. heart disease and stroke).

All this theory is meaningless, however. The only important thing is not the effect drugs (or anything else) have on cholesterol levels, it’s the impact they have on health. Some years back the drug company Pfizer spent in the region of $800 million developing a CEPT inhibitor by the name of torcetrapib. It had ‘positive’ effects on LDL-C and HDL-C levels, but also turned out to kill people. Pfizer promptly and quite rightly ceased development of the drug.

The crashing failure of torcetrapib has not stopped other drug companies seeking to find a commercially viable CEPT inhibitor of their own. More recently, drug company Roche invested in the development of a drug known as dalcetrapib. However, in the middle of this year Roche abandoned plans for further development, and a recently-published study shows us why [1].

In this study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, almost 16,000 patients who had suffered from ‘acute coronary syndrome’ (e.g. angina or heart attack) were treated with dalcetrapib or placebo for an average of about two and a half years.

These are just the sort of patients one would expect to benefit most from an intervention because, as a group, they would generally be at high risk of future problems. Also, the number of subjects here is huge, and therefore more than big enough to detect any real benefit the drug may have.

The researchers assessed the effects of dalcetrapib using a ‘composite endpoint’ – which essentially means lumping several outcomes together. The composite outcome included death from heart disease, non-fatal heart attack, ischemic stroke (strokes due to blockage of blood vessels rather than bleeding), unstable angina (angina that can come on at rest), and cardiac arrest with resuscitation. The use of composite endpoints ups the odds that a ‘statistically significant’ benefit for a drug will be found (compared to when only one single outcome is chosen).

Biochemical analysis revealed that dalcetrapib did, as expected, have considerable HDL-boosting effect. But the study showed that this drug had no benefits for health at all.

Another interesting thing about the study was that dalcetrapib was found to increase markers of inflammation – a process which is believed to play a key part on the development of heart disease and stroke.

This study was originally designed to run for longer but was terminated early once these results were in. Early termination of studies is known to generally inflate the benefits of drugs and downplay their risks. Who knows what may have happened if they’d continued.

Of course you’re unlikely to hear about the dalcetrapib study because it wasn’t announced with the blaze of publicity usually afforded to more ‘positive’ studies about cholesterol-reducing drugs. But this is often the way with cholesterol-related research in particular: positive results are spun in a way which gives medication seeming miraculous properties, while negative results and inconvenient truths are swept under the carpet.

References:
1. Schwartz GG, et al. Effects of Dalcetrapib in Patients with a Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome. N Engl J Med 29 November 2012 (epub)
===============================================================
Read the complete article here.

Monday, December 10, 2012

Scant Evidence That Salt Raises BP - Kaiser

Scant Evidence That Salt Raises BP, Review Finds

The evidence for health benefits associated with salt reduction is controversial and the "concealment of scientific uncertainty" is a mistake, researchers suggested.

Controversy about what effect too much sodium intake has on the body goes back to the early part of the 20th century, according to Ronald Bayer, PhD, and colleagues from Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health in New York City.

But in the last few years, the discourse has reached a fever pitch, they wrote online in Health Affairs.

In 2011, for example, the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study by Stolarz-Skrzypek et al. that found only a weak correlation between salt and blood pressure. An editorial in the Lancet lambasted the JAMA study as "disappointingly weak" and "likely to confuse public perceptions of the importance of salt as a risk factor for high blood pressure, heart disease, and stroke."

Also in 2011, the Cochrane Review published two studies finding little or no relationship with all-cause mortality and salt reduction. The Lancet criticized both the Cochrane Library and the authors, saying, "They have seriously misled the press and thereby the public."

One of those reviews had concluded that "after more than 150 randomized controlled trials and 13 population studies without an obvious signal in favor of sodium reduction, another position could be to accept that such a signal may not exist."

Bayer and colleagues cited several studies that could not find a link between salt intake and elevated blood pressure, including a 1967 study of the Framingham cohort, and Japanese and Scottish reports in the 1980s totalling 15,000 people that concluded the association between sodium and blood pressure is "extremely weak."

The researchers noted that most of the evidence pointed to the weakest of correlations between salt and blood pressure. Yet, the cause to reduce salt was taken up by government agencies with special speed.

They cited a 2010 Institute of Medicine report called "Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States." In the report, the IOM claimed that the "harmful relationship of salt with hypertension has been known for 40 years," which Bayer and colleagues argue is debatable -- based on the evidence.

"The [IOM] report was welcomed by the incoming president of the the American Society of Hypertension," the investigators wrote, "who warned that the 'outcomes mafia' might challenge the justification for a regulatory approach."

In 2011, the FDA also called for data and recommendations "that would help it shape regulatory policy on salt in food."

"All the while, skeptics still were asking for the evidence," Bayer and colleagues wrote.
More than 20 years prior to the IOM report, C. Everett Koop, MD, the U.S. Surgeon General, issued a report noting that government agencies were "very quick to embrace the importance of salt reduction in the 1970s and 1980s, which stood in stark contrast for the snail's pace of recommendations related to reducing blood cholesterol levels."

The authors cited many more studies finding little association between salt and blood pressure that did not eliminate the stigma attached to the mineral.

Advocates for salt reduction questioned the science behind studies that didn't conform to their opinion, and proponents partially blamed the food industry because it was in their best interest to muddy the waters and keep the debate going.

One of the interesting things about this debate, Bayer and colleagues pointed out, was that you could find respected academics on both sides.

"At the most fundamental level, we believe that it is essential to recognize the role that judgment and values must play in evidence-informed policy making," the authors concluded.

"Science must remain open, skeptical, and concerned about unmeasured confounding and selection bias in studies that accompany even the best efforts to articulate the evidence for new interventions," they added.

The investigators said that one of the reviewers of this paper had asked, "In the end, does the harm of exaggerating certainty do more harm than good? After all, it would be very hard to make any policy from a position of informed, complicated, contextualized ambivalence."

They concluded that the "concealment of scientific uncertainty is a mistake that serves neither the ends of science nor good policy. Simplistic pictures of translation from evidence to action distort our ability to understand how policy is, in fact, made and how it should be made."
==================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Another article here.

More data in the Salt Wars - Aug 14, 2014; http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Hypertension/47203

An article by Marion Nestle - http://www.foodpolitics.com/2014/08/its-salt-arguments-again-new-research-arguments-over-public-health-recommendations-and-issues-of-conflicts-of-interest/