Another Cholesterol Drug Fails
bobby75703 posted:
"Heart drug Tredaptive ineffective."

The story in full:
iride6606 responded:
To be fair, this is not really a new drug. It is just extended time release Niacin combined with a new drug to help control flushing which is common with Niacin. The drug was intended to increase HDL. There were many studies that came out over the past couple of years showing that the HDL particles created by Niacin were not effective in binding to LDL particles. Naturally occurring HDL particles were more effective.

It was common knowledge over a year ago this drug was not going to reach the goals set for it's study. It's not a cholesterol lowering drug, just Niacin.

What many people don't know is that 92% of drugs that test successfully in lab animals fail in humans, it's the exception that a drug succeeds, the vast majority fail.
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Right, I understand there is nothing new about using niacin for cholesterol issues, but it represents another failure in the wake of the failed Aim High study. Plus other HDL raising drugs failed recently
The concept of artificially raising HDL with niacin to prevent heart attacks is officially dead- and buried. The entire HDL theory is falling apart. Its over.

The lesson to be learned here is no matter how much we believe in something, it can prove to be false decades later.

I'm willing to bet the LDL "bad" cholesterol theory days are also numbered.
farsidexyz replied to bobby75703's response:
An interesting fact from the "AIM High Trial" is that there were a 233% increase in ischemic strokes for those taking Niacin vs those not taking Niacin.

From the CBSnews article (link posted by Bobby) -- "More than 25,000 patients at high risk for heart problems took part in the study. Besides being ineffective at preventing heart attacks, Tredaptive caused significant side effects Merck, the maker of Tredaptive, would not specify what those side effects were."

I wonder what those side effects were?
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
The lesson to be learned here is no matter how much we believe in something, it can prove to be false decades later.

I think all this shows is that the same drug we knew to ineffective 3 years ago still is. The HDL theory confuses me though. There is no change in our understanding of how HDL works, just a new knowledge that artificially created HDL is not as effective as naturally occurring HDL.

We'll see about the LDL I suppose.
billh99 replied to iride6606's response:
One important thing to remember is that in both of these trails they where already treated with statins to a low LDL level (70 in Aim-High).

What these trails show is that added Niaspan does not add anything ABOVE statin treatment to goals.

From earlier trails there are still some indications that crystal niacin has a benefit in those can't tolerate statins.
billh99 replied to billh99's response:
I just saw this tweet.

Michael Davidson MD "00F@mdavidsonmd HPS2 THRIVE is another example of a trial in which the patient population do not benefit. The Baseline LDL 63, TG 120 and HDL 44. Why treat?