IBJNews

Good cholesterol may not lower heart risk, study suggests

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Raising good cholesterol, a goal pursued by Eli Lilly and Co. and Merck & Co. as the next milestone in cardiac care, may not cut heart-attack risk, says a study that challenges the development of drugs that may someday generate billions of dollars in sales.

The report, in the United Kingdom medical journal The Lancet, found that people with a genetic condition that causes high HDL have the same heart-attack risk as the general population. The results come from a computer analysis of 20 studies.

The authors suggested the link found earlier between good cholesterol and lower heart risk may come from more subtle lifestyle factors tied to higher HDL levels. If so, it brings into question the development of medicines such as Merck’s anacetrapib, an HDL booster that Tony Butler, a Barclay’s Capital analyst in New York, said on May 7 may generate $4 billion in peak revenue once approved.

“This will have a sobering effect; it would have to,” said John LaMattina, a senior partner at PureTech Ventures and former head of research and development at Pfizer Inc. “HDL has always been a controversial area. You have a question that you have to be willing to commit over a billion dollars in order to get the answer, and that is a very daunting commitment.”

Scientists have said HDL works by sweeping the bad form of the fatty substance known as LDL, or bad cholesterol, out of arteries, reducing clogs. The Lancet study analyzed 20,913 heart attack cases and 95,047 control subjects, the report said.

Steven Nissen, the chief of cardiology at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, said The Lancet report runs counter to earlier studies that have found people with naturally high levels of HDL do have lower rates of heart disease.

“This study isn’t definitive,” Nissen said. “It doesn’t support the hypothesis, but it doesn’t rule it out either. I remain cautiously optimistic.”

Merck is in the process of a 30,000-person trial studying anacetrapib that’s slated to be completed in 2017, as part of the final phase of testing normally required for U.S. marketing approval. The company is racing Indianapolis-based Lilly to market the new family of medicines.

Pamela Eisele, a spokeswoman for Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck, wrote in an e-mail that the company is reviewing study.

“The mechanism for the possible cardiovascular benefit of raising HDL cholesterol remains under investigation,” Eisele said. “We await the results of our ongoing studies to learn more about HDL and other lipid markers as targets of therapy.”

The treatment being developed by Lilly, called evacetrapib, boosted HDL by as much as 129 percent and lowered bad cholesterol as much as 36 percent, in a trial reported in November at the American Heart Association meeting.

Lilly spokeswoman Christina D. Gaines said she couldn’t immediately comment on what implications The Lancet study would have on the company’s development efforts. She said the drugmaker is scheduled to begin final-stage testing on its HDL medicine in the second half of the year.

Nissen, the chairman for Lilly’s late-stage test of evacetrapib, said the finding in The Lancet hasn’t changed plans for studying the drug.

Both Merck and Lilly’s drugs boost HDL by blocking a molecule called CETP.

The Lancet study isn’t the first to question the effectiveness of HDL medicines. Roche Holding AG, based in Basel, Switzerland, abandoned development of its experimental HDL booster, dalcetrapib, after a late-stage study showed the drug wasn’t providing a benefit. Abbott Laboratories’ drug Niaspan also failed to show any benefit in reducing heart attack and strokes in a study released last year.

The Lancet study’s authors said their data suggests there’s no guarantee the drugs will make a difference.

“Interventions (lifestyle or pharmacological) that raise plasma HDL cholesterol cannot be assumed ipso facto to lead to a corresponding benefit” on heart risk, the authors, led by Sekar Kathiresan, a researcher at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, wrote in their report.

Steve Humphries, a researcher at University College, London, wrote in an editorial accompanying the Lancet report that research on good cholesterol’s effects on the heart needs to continue, despite the finding.

“Even if HDL cholesterol concentration is not validated as a causal factor, further investigation into the mechanisms of HDL cholesterol and its function in coronary heart disease is warranted,” Humphries wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!

ADVERTISEMENT