Role of ezetimibe in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: absence of evidence

Clinical efficacy and safety of Ezetimibe on major cardiovascular endpoints: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) about Ezetimibe's efficacy on patient-oriented outcomes have given discordant results. The aim of this study was to determine the net effect of Ezetimibe and of the widely marketed combination, Ezetimibe+simvastatin, on mortality and morbidity outcomes.

Methods and Findings

We searched for RCT on Ezetimibe using MEDLINE, CCTR, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov databases up to December 2013, Merck and Novartis online registers, and personal communications. Two authors independently selected trials fulfilling these criteria: RCTs comparing Ezetimibe±statin or another lipid-lowering drug against placebo, or against the same lipid-lowering drug at the same dosage, with a follow-up at least 24 weeks and one or more of these outcomes: all-cause mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), cancer, serious adverse events (SAEs); we assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane checklist. We extracted the data for major clinical events as a dichotomous measure, with the patient the unit of analysis. Pooled analysis was done with random and fixed effect based models. Trials comparing Ezetimibe plus a lipid-lowering drug against the same lipidlowering drug representing the net effect of Ezetimibe, showed a nonsignificant tendency toward damage for cancer, MI, stroke and SAEs. Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs. simvastatin alone showed a stronger tendency towards a higher risk for all-cause death (2.52; 0.65-9.74), CV death (3.04; 0.48-19.21), non-CV death (3.03; 0.12-73.50), MI (1.91; 0.42-8.70), stroke (2.38; 0.46-12.35), cancer (RR 11.11; 0.62-198.29), and SAEs (1.45; 0.95-2.23). Limitations include small numbers of events and inadequate power of the pooling. Trials comparing Ezetimibe+simvastatin vs placebo showed non-significant effects: MI (0.81; 0.66-1.00 p = 0.051), all-cause death (1.02; 0.95-1.09), CV death (0.91; 0.80-1.04), non-CV death (108; 0.99-1.18), stroke (0.86; 0.72-1.04), cancer (1.18; 0.80-1.74), SAEs (1.01; 0.96-1.06).

Conclusions

Ezetimibe±simvastatin had inconsistent effects on important outcomes. No firm conclusions are possible, but findings indicative of damage suggest much more selective use of Ezetimibe±simvastatin.

Clinical relevance of target identity and biology: implications for drug discovery and development

Many of the most commonly used drugs precede techniques for target identification and drug specificity and were developed on the basis of efficacy and safety, an approach referred to as classical pharmacology and, more recently, phenotypic drug discovery. Although substantial gains have been made during the period of focus on target-based approaches, particularly in oncology, these approaches have suffered a high overall failure rate and lower productivity in terms of new drugs when compared with phenotypic approaches. This review considers the importance of target identity and biology in clinical practice from the prescriber's viewpoint. In evaluating influences on prescribing behavior, studies suggest that target identity and mechanism of action are not significant factors in drug choice. Rather, patients and providers consistently value efficacy, safety, and tolerability. Similarly, the Food and Drug Administration requires evidence of safety and efficacy for new drugs but does not require knowledge of drug target identity or target biology. Prescribers do favor drugs with novel mechanisms, but this preference is limited to diseases for which treatments are either not available or suboptimal. Thus, while understanding of drug target and target biology is important from a scientific perspective, it is not particularly important to prescribers, who prioritize efficacy and safety.

Might the beneficial effects of statin drugs be related to their action on iron metabolism?

Although the cholesterol-heart hypothesis is often regarded as a dogmatic belief, controversy continues to surround the aetiology and pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. In fact, lowering cholesterol with statin drugs has been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk. However, statins have pleiotropic effects independent of their capacity to lower cholesterol. We highlight that statin drugs exert an important action on iron metabolism, which in turn may prevent progression and destabilization of atherosclerotic plaque. If it is found that the effect of statins on iron metabolism is a mechanism of their beneficial action, this consequence of statin use can be clinically replicated by other methods, such as controlled reduction of body iron stores. This might allow the use of lower doses or even obviate the use of statins in primary cardiovascular prevention, and therefore avoid the side effects and expense of these drugs.