About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
Not Voodoo

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
Realizations in Biostatistics
ChemSpider Blog
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa

Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net

Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine

Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem

Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus

Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« One Darn Miracle After Another | Main | What Sort of Training? »

November 15, 2005

Statin Showdown

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

The American Heart Association meeting has been going on this week, and it's one of the high-profile venues for cardiovascular research results. Today, among other things, came the details of a head-to-head trial (called, in standard cute-acronym style, IDEAL) of Pfizer's Lipitor (atorvastatin) against Merck's soon-to-be-generic Zocor (simvastatin). Pfizer's worried about that change in status, since this will be the first of their major statin competition to go off patent - the fear is that HMOs will insist on a switch to the cheaper medicine as quickly as possible.

So an 8,800-patient trial was run, using patients who had already had one heart attack (although not necessarily a recent one). One group got high-dose Lipitor, and the other got the standard dose of Zocor, and they were followed for an average of nearly five years. This was one expensive trial. The hope was the the Lipitor regimen, which lowers LDL more, would show a beneficial effect. Which it did - and which it didn't.

Pfizer's problem is that they missed their biggest target, a reduction in "major coronary events". The Lipitor and Zocor groups were indistinguishable. In some secondary categories, though, Lipitor came out ahead, such as when you look only at the frequency of nonfatal heart attacks. But overall cardiovascular mortality was the same for both groups. So Pfizer can claim some benefit from Lipitor, but not in the categories that would immediately convince cardiologists. I'm sure they'll be giving it the good ol' Groton try, though

All this is quite interesting, since Lipitor had already vanquished another statin, Pravachol, in a study in recent heart-attack survivors. Merck, meanwhile, had also tested Zocor in angioplasty patients, with disappointing results as compared to Lipitor's effects in a similar patient population. You can bet that Pfizer expected more from this study, and I'm still a bit puzzled that they didn't get it.

Analysts have already cut their sales estimates for Lipitor next year, figuring - surely correctly - that these results will cause some shift toward generic simvastatin. That doesn't do Merck much direct good, but it leaves them with an opening for their combination therapy Vytorin, which is Zocor plus Schering-Plough's cholestrol absorption inhibitor Zetia. And as fate would have it, they're running a big comparison of Vytorin to Zocor right now, since the darn stuff is going off patent, anyway.

The earlier comparison trials had already poked a hole in the "lower LDL is always better" hypothesis, which has been one of Pfizer's arguments for Lipitor. (It's also the first place that Merck and Schering-Plough chose to attack them). Still, they always had good clinical data to point at, too, but now that advantage has been eroded. So in the last fifteen months, we've had the spectacle of Merck trying to shoot down Lipitor and winging its own drug, and then Pfizer aiming at Zocor and blowing a hole in Lipitor instead. What a business. Can anyone name me another where things like this are a way of life?

Comments (5) + TrackBacks (0) | Category:


1. The Novice Chemist on November 16, 2005 9:39 AM writes...

What is really funny about this is that it's almost like college football. First off, consumers always want a playoff -- sometimes the teams are willing, sometimes they're not.

Sometimes they win and move up the polls, sometimes they win and go nowhere in the polls or even help out an archrival.

Permalink to Comment

2. statin skeptic on November 16, 2005 10:06 AM writes...

All of the statins are poison. Changes in diet, increased exercise, and a positive mental outlook are all far more effective than these drugs in fighting heart disease and don't have any nasty side effects!

Permalink to Comment

3. Cryptic Ned on November 16, 2005 1:06 PM writes...

So, they've shown that Lipitor is better at reducing the various surrogate markers for heart disease, but not at actually reducing cardiovascular events?

More evidence that demonstrating efficacy in time-limited trials is often a crapshoot.

Permalink to Comment

4. jeet on November 16, 2005 3:46 PM writes...

cancer - have you tried to follow all the taxane trials, let alone the growth factor receptor products?

the big question is how many more of these trials will companies be willing to fund?

Permalink to Comment

5. Derek Lowe on November 16, 2005 8:35 PM writes...

Jeet, you're right about that, but I was thinking in terms of other industries. Since when does Honda test their cars against Toyota, for example, publishing the results even if they fail?

Permalink to Comment


Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):

The Last Post
The GSK Layoffs Continue, By Proxy
The Move is Nigh
Another Alzheimer's IPO
Cutbacks at C&E News
Sanofi Pays to Get Back Into Oncology
An Irresponsible Statement About Curing Cancer
Oliver Sacks on Turning Back to Chemistry