Cholesterol combo not superior to solo drug
Vytorin no better than high dose of generic form of Zocor, study says
The Associated Press
updated 3:11 p.m. PT, Mon., Jan. 14, 2008
NEWARK, N.J. - Drug developers Merck & Co. and Schering-Plough Corp.
on Monday said patients with a predisposition to high cholesterol
fared no better when taking their combination cholesterol drug Vytorin
than with a high dose of the generic form of Zocor.
Vytorin is a combination of Zetia and Merck's Zocor, which lost patent
protection in 2006. The study measured the amount of artery-clogging
plaque in three areas.
It focused on a group of 720 patients with a rare condition
predisposing them to high cholesterol. The patients were given either
Vytorin or a high dose of generic Zocor, known as simvastatin.
In December, a congressional committee requested more information on
the study. The results were delayed, the companies maintained, because
of the complexity of the data.
The patients in the two-year study had rare condition called
heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, which the companies said
affected about less than 1 percent of the population.
Earlier this month, Merck CEO Richard T. Clark said he expected
Vytorin to keep a secure position in the cholesterol drug market and
cited several other ongoing studies in addition to this one.
Merck and Schering-Plough are conducting three additional studies,
involving more than 20,000 high-risk patients.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22654205/
vernon O - 15 Jan 2008 16:30 GMT
> Cholesterol combo not superior to solo drug
The study stated clearly that neither had ANY positive effect whatever,
compared to ANYTHING.
Myrl - 15 Jan 2008 20:08 GMT
> The study stated clearly that neither had ANY positive effect whatever,
> compared to ANYTHING.
After watching news accountings this morning, I came away wondering
about the "real" benefits of the drug vs. side effects, vs benefits
that could possibly be found in diet and exercise!
It's always a balancing act, but guess if I had dangerously high
cholesterol readings I'd delve deeper.
vernon O - 16 Jan 2008 00:06 GMT
I went to their own site and they make no positive claims whatever.
On Jan 15, 8:30 am, "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> wrote:
> The study stated clearly that neither had ANY positive effect whatever,
> compared to ANYTHING.
After watching news accountings this morning, I came away wondering
about the "real" benefits of the drug vs. side effects, vs benefits
that could possibly be found in diet and exercise!
It's always a balancing act, but guess if I had dangerously high
cholesterol readings I'd delve deeper.
Myrl - 16 Jan 2008 00:12 GMT
> I went to their own site and they make no positive claims whatever.
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> It's always a balancing act, but guess if I had dangerously high
> cholesterol readings I'd delve deeper.
I've always tried to reap the most health benefits through diet and
exercise. I could do an infomercial on Jack LaLayne's juicer;-)
I think an over abundance of pharmaseudicals often cause more problems
than they cure.
vernon O - 17 Jan 2008 00:01 GMT
On Jan 15, 4:06 pm, "vernon O" <vernono@hereandthere> wrote:
> I went to their own site and they make no positive claims whatever.
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> It's always a balancing act, but guess if I had dangerously high
> cholesterol readings I'd delve deeper.
Absolutely, but I don't think Jack has musch infuece. :>)
I've always tried to reap the most health benefits through diet and
exercise. I could do an infomercial on Jack LaLayne's juicer;-)
I think an over abundance of pharmaseudicals often cause more problems
than they cure.