Table 2: Some Results from Studies of Statin Use in
Cancer
Melanoma: Current initial
clinical data promising but preliminary.
Prostate: The most advanced of
all cancer indications – see main text.
Liver: A small preliminary
clinical trial in 2001 showed improved survival and supported
potential use of statins as adjuvant therapy in advanced liver
cancer.
Rectal: A small
retrospective study showed an apparent improved pathologic impact
when preoperative chemoradiation was used in patients concurrently
receiving therapy with statins.
Source for Tables 1 &
2: John Ansell Consultancy based on data from Moyad (Urol
Oncol, 2004 and 2005).
With the recent exception of
prostate cancer, none of these investigations has yet reached the
prospective trial stage. Moreover, in some cases, several years
have passed since the preliminary studies or epidemiologic
observations were published and any news concerning these
investigations. This development suggests that either the
study results were not sufficiently promising or they were
outright negative.
Research on statin use in
prostate cancer is advancing though. Just this year, cancer
epidemiologist Elizabeth Platz reported on a long-term prospective
study in which the number of advanced prostate cancer cases were
halved among men using statins (see Platz, AACR,
2005; and Platz, ASCO,
2005). Although Platz characterized her group's results
as promising, she considered it too early to recommend that men at
high risk of prostate cancer start taking statins. Further large
studies, she cautioned, would first be needed to confirm these
results.
Not surprisingly, some people
think this positive finding requires immediate follow-up.
Mark Moyad, a urologist from Michigan University, has argued
strenuously in several papers published during the past couple of
years that a statin should be included in the next major cancer
chemoprevention trial and has advanced numerous arguments in
support of this assertion (see Moyad, Urol
Oncol, 2004 and 2005).
Pharmaceutical companies must
also consider this proposition from the commercial viewpoint,
which means weighing the following factors:
-
Prostate cancer is the second most common
cause of cancer deaths in the United States: 30,350 deaths
are projected for 2005. The American Cancer Society
estimates that the incidence of this cancer in the United
States will be 232,000 in 2005, and prevalence will be more
than three times this number.
-
However, tumors of the prostate are slow
growing, and patients currently have a five-year survival
rate in the United States of 92%. Because of this high
survival rate, many patients are not actively treated, but
are managed using "watchful waiting."
-
Cardiovascular disease is much more common
than prostate cancer. It accounted for 1.4 million deaths in
the United States in 2002, representing 38% of mortality
from all causes. In men, death from cardiovascular disease
is about 50 times more common than death from prostate
cancer.
Even Moyad admits that less
than half of all patients with prostate cancer actually die from
it: One of the leading causes of death among these patients is
cardiovascular disease. Because so many patients are
routinely screened for high blood pressure and cholesterol levels,
a lot of men end up receiving a statin even before they are tested
for prostate cancer. In light of this fact, statin developers are
likely to see the prostate cancer opportunity as quite modest
relative to the existing cardiovascular market. That view could be
one reason they have not yet rushed to take advantage of
apparently promising results in prostate cancer.
Conclusions: Which Way
to Go?
From a purely commercial
standpoint, the choices for statin developers seem clear.
The cardiovascular area is much bigger than any other, it is not
yet fully exploited, and it will require considerable resources to
fully address that area alone, without venturing into bold new
therapeutic territories.
For example, it is
increasingly accepted that simply lowering "bad"
cholesterol (or LDL) levels is insufficient, and doctors should be
trying to raise "good" cholesterol (high-density
lipoprotein [HDL]) as well. With that goal in mind, Pfizer
is devoting enormous resources to late-stage trials of Lipitor in
combination with a novel cardiovascular agent – torcetrapib –
a cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibitor. If the new
combination works better than Lipitor alone, the older drug will
get a new lease on life in an indication where it has
already been very successful.
Earlier disappointments around
exploratory applications for statins are another deterrent:
Promising leads in fields such as osteoporosis and dementia did
not stand up to rigorous statistical analysis. As a result,
companies are probably more skeptical now when considering such
theories.
One final, major consideration
these companies must heed is: Don't toy with the crown jewels.
Experimenting with any drug runs the risk of uncovering effects
that could put the entire franchise at risk. Newly
discovered side effects may be due to the different patient
population's clinical profile. Side effects can also appear
just because a drug is being used in a new way, such as at higher
doses. Sometimes, however, such studies uncover major
effects, and bring important new information to the clinic:
For example, the cardiovascular events related to the
anti-arthritic Vioxx (rofecoxib, Merck & Co.) became clear
after the drug was used in a colorectal cancer prevention trial
(see Bresalier
N Engl J Med, 2005). But if newly detected side
effects are patient group-specific, or no more than a statistical
quirk, it can still take a long time to establish that. In the
meantime, the original franchise is losing money.
So, while it would be
interesting to at least pursue the more promising indications
(e.g., prostate cancer, colon cancer, and infectious diseases),
potential disincentives do exist to discourage statin companies
from pursuing this research. For now, it may well make more
sense to continue development of cardiovascular indications -- a
field that still has abundant unmet needs. This focus on the
cardiovascular arena does not mean that statin companies are
likely to totally ignore noncardiovascular indications. They are
likely to select some such projects, favoring indications that not
only look most attractive commercially but also appear to carry
low risk of revealing new types of adverse reactions.
Perhaps the most adventurous companies could be those with the
least to lose – including start-up companies yet to benefit
commercially in the statin market.
References and
Available Links
Almog, Y, et al. "Prior
statin therapy is associated with a decreased rate of severe
sepsis." Circulation. 2004 Aug 17;110(7):880-5.
Bresalier, RS, et al. "Cardiovascular
Events Associated with Rofecoxib in a Colorectal Adenoma
Chemoprevention Trial," N Engl J Med. 2005;
352(11):1092-1102.
Holdass, H, and Jardine, A.
"Acute renal allograft rejections, a role for statins?"
Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2003 Jun; 55(2):111-9.
Liappis, AP, et al. "The
effect of statins on mortality in patients with bacteremia."
Clin Infect Dis. 2001 Oct 15; 33(8):1352-7.
McGirt, MJ, et al.
"3-Hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors
reduce the risk of perioperative stroke and mortality after
carotid endarterectomy." J of Vascular Surgery.
2005; 42(5):829-36.
Mortensen, EM, et al. "The
effect of prior statin use on 30-day mortality for patients
hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia." Respir
Res. 2005 Jul 25; 6:82.
Moyad, MA, and Merrick, GS. "Statins
and cholesterol lowering after a cancer diagnosis: why not?"
Urol Oncol. 2005 Jan-Feb; 23(1):49-55.
Moyad, MA. "Why
a statin and/or another proven heart healthy agent should be
utilized in the next major cancer chemoprevention trial: part
I." Urol Oncol. 2004 Nov-Dec;
22(6):466-71.
Moyad, MA. "Why
a statin and/or another proven heart healthy agent should be
utilized in the next major cancer chemoprevention trial: part
II." Urol Oncol. 2004 Nov-Dec; 22(6):472-7.
Peck, P. "Lipitor
approved for stroke prevention." MedPage Today,
Sept. 28, 2005.
Platz, AACR
press release:
Platz, ASCO
virtual presentation:
Poynter, JN, et al. "Statins
and the risk of colorectal cancer." N Engl J Med.
2005; 352(21):2184-92.
Rea, TD, et al. "Statin
use and the risk of incident dementia: the Cardiovascular Health
Study." Arch Neurol. 2005 Jul;62(7):1047-51.
Sparks, DL, et al. "Is
cholesterol a culprit in Alzheimer's disease?"
Int Psychogeriatr. 2003; 15 Suppl 1:153-9.
Sparks, DL, et al.
"Atorvastatin for the treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer
disease: preliminary results," Arch Neurology. 2005;
62(5):753-7.
Waldman, A and Kritharides, L.
"The pleiotropic effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors:
their role in osteoporosis and dementia." Drugs.
2003; 63(2):139-152.
Zandi, PP, et al. "Do
statins reduce risk of incident dementia and Alzheimer disease?
The Cache County Study." Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005
Feb; 62(2):217-24.