The Real Problem With Those Vytorin Ads
4 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // April 14th, 2008 // 8:08 am
On January 22, Schering-Plough and Merck announced they would briefly suspend Vytorin ads after the uproar over the disclosure the previous week of the Enhance trial. A spokesman blamed “mischaracterization and misinterpretation” of the study results, which found Vytorin failed to show any benefit over the much cheaper Zocor in reducing plaque in the carotid artery, and even showed a statistically insignificant buildup, although it did a better job of lowering LDL in a small group of patients with inherited high cholesterol.
However, FDA officials had already begun signaling that consumer ads and promotional materials distributed to docs had to be changed. Although the agency had noted certain issues in 2005, they committed an oversight that now had to be corrected - in a prior study, Zocor reduced the risk of heart attack, stroke and heart procedures, but Zetia has not been shown to prevent such outcomes. Vytorin, by the way, combines Zocor and Zetia. And so in a January 23 letter to the drugmakers, the FDA noted that “Vytorin has not shown any additional cardiovascular benefit compared to using (Zocor) alone.”
The FDA tells the drugmakers that its advertising is “misleading because the pieces do not include contextual information disclosing a limitation to the efficacy of Vytorin regarding clinical outcomes benefits.” And the agency wants the advertising to note, in “consumer-friendly language,” that it should be clear Vytorin had “not been shown to provide any additional cardiovascular benefits” when compared with Zocor alone.
This is rather interesting: the FDA required the drugmakers to advertise that Vytorin was no better than the less expensive Zocor. The previous ad campaign was widely criticized for fueling prescriptions despite a lack of data showing the drugs actually reduce the risk of heart attacks and strokes. We’re curious to see what the next ad campaign will look like and how Schering-Plough, Merck and its ad agencies will finesse this point.
To see the rest of the letter, please keep reading…
Dan
Equally interesting is that DDMAC is not requiring a response from the drugmakers, or a specific time for the drugmakers to respond.
Ed Silverman
Hi Dan,
Please click on page three of the letter, which you can see by first clicking on ‘read more.’ You’ll see that the FDA indicates the drugmakers had to reply by Feb. 6 and had 90 days to revise the ads.
Cheers
ed
Dan
While vaque, I mis-typed and missed the 90 day statement by DDMAC. My apologies.
David
Have any mainstream news reporters figured out that the most logical explanation for ENHANCE results is that the cardio-protective effects of statins are due to their anti-inflammatory effect that reduces the biomarker C-reactive protein (CRP), which was reduced more by Vytorin than by Zocor alone in the study that so many did not understand?
Are cardiologists more stupid than other medical specialists? Stupidity and “group-think” herd mentality in support of the unsubstantiated “cholesterol is bad” theory is responsible for this tempest in a teapot, which MRK has not managed very well from a PR perspective, admittedly, likely because of the Vioxx aftermath.
Why don’t cardiologists pay more attention to CRP than to the uncorrelated-with-outcomes cholesterol levels which they routinely focus on?
When i had a checku with a board certified internal medicine PCP, she wanted me on 80 mg of simvastatin based solely on my Total Cholesterol being slightly over 200.
She was clueless about CRP.