Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

Somebody once said “Jews know two things—suffering and where to find good Chinese food”. Since I am Jewish, it is not surprising that I have experienced a fair amount of suffering throughout my life and, wherever I go, I seem to know where to find “good” Chinese food.  That said, my interest was piqued when I found a post in Yahoo Science News entitled “Study finds Chinese food good for your heart”. Given my lifelong fondness and penchant for Chinese cuisine, I thought that all of that eating that I had done had finally paid off. Unfortunately, after reading the subtitle of the article; “Chinese red yeast rice reduces repeat heart attacks/mortality rates” I realized that my joy and optimism were somewhat premature.

According to the report, researchers at Jefferson Medical College found that a partially purified extract of Chinese red yeast rice, Xuezhikang (XZK), reduced the risk of repeat heart attacks by 45%, revascularization (bypass surgery/angioplasty), cardiovascular mortality and total mortality by one-third and cancer mortality by two-thirds. The multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical study was conducted on about 5,000 heart attack patients, ranging in age from 18-70 during a five-year period at over 60 hospitals in the People's Republic of China. Study participants were given 300-milligram XZK capsules or a placebo and tracked over a five-year period. The XZK extract used in the study contained a combination of lovastatin, lovastatin hydroxyl acid, ergosterol and several uncharacterized components.

Based on study results, the study’s authors believe that XZK may offer therapeutic benefits to people at risk of heart attack and cardiovascular disease. However, they cautioned that the active pharmacologic ingredient (API) of the red yeast rice is unknown and it isn’t clear how XZK works to fight cardiovascular disease.

Chinese medicine practitioners have long touted the benefits of red yeast rice for heart patients. Nevertheless, this is the first controlled clinical study of red yeast rice that tends to substantiate these claims. According to the study authors it is important to note that “the commercially available over-the-counter supplement found in your average health food store is not what was studied here. Those over-the-counter supplements are not regulated (by the US Food and Drug Administration), so exact amounts of active ingredient are unknown and their efficacy has not been studied yet.”

It is unfortunate that I didn’t know about the benefits of red yeast rice during my recent trip to China. I certainly would have gone out of my way to try some. That said, given the plethora of exotic foods that I tasted in China, maybe I ate some XZK without knowing it!

Until next time

Good Luck and Good Eating (Chinese of course)……

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

I am old enough to remember when the artificial heart was invented and used to extend the life of Barney Clark, a dentist in Seattle, WA. It was a phenomenal accomplishment back in the day. So, it seemed appropriate to me that Robert Jarvik, the guy who invented the artificial heart, appeared in Pfizer’s Lipitor ads as a spokesperson to promote heart health. However, a Congressional committee examining consumer drug advertising has questioned whether the Lipitor ads may have misrepresented Dr. Jarvik and his credentials to promote the drug.

Although Dr. Jarvik has a medical degree, he is not a cardiologist nor is he licensed to practice medicine! Further, one television ads depicts Dr. Jarvik as an accomplished rower but the ad used a body double for him and, as it turns out, he does not even row! To make matters worse, a former colleague of Jarvik contends that he is not the actual inventor of the artificial heart. He suggested that the distinction belongs to Jarvik’s mentor Willem J. Kolff and his associate Tetsuzo Akutsu at the University of Utah. Go figure! Despite the firestorm, Pfizer continues to air the television ad ( I saw it just a few days ago).

Pfizer has spent more than $258 million advertising Lipitor (a cholesterol-lowering statin) since January 2006, most of it on the Jarvik campaign in an attempt to protect Lipitor from generic competition. Lipitor is the world’s best selling drug and generated $12.7 billion in revenues in 2007. While Lipitor has patent protection until 2010, some patients have already switched to a generic version of a competing cholesterol drug Zocor. According to published reports Pfizer agreed to pay Jarvik about $1.35 million under a two-year contract that expires next month. I think it is safe to assume that Jarvik will not appear in any future Lipitor ads.

As many of you may know, drug companies FDA is not required to review direct-to-consumer ads before they are aired to the American public. While some companies request FDA review of their promotional materials before they are used in advertising campaigns, the vast majority of companies do not. Unfortunately, because of this regulatory loophole, direct-to-consumer advertising has turned into something of a cat and mouse game–there are only consequences and penalties if you get caught misrepresenting or not fully disclosing information about your products.

In my opinion, Pfizer’s misrepresentation of Jarvik’s credentials (and Jarvik’s complicity) is unethical and unconscionable. More importantly, it demonstrates how easily and willing companies are to “bend the truth” to preserve blockbuster drug franchises that generate billions of dollars in annual revenues. I think that what Pfizer did was wrong and shameful. The company should be fined and sanctioned for the Lipitor campaign. That said, it is likely that the size of the fine levied by FDA will pale in comparison to Lipitor revenues generated by the Jarvik campaign. I believe that it is time for Congress and FDA close the loopholes in current direct-to-consumer advertising regulations–the safety and health of the American public depends on it!

Until next time….

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Unraveling the Cholesterol Conundrum

By now, I am sure that everyone is sick of hearing about Zetia, Vytorin, cholesterol levels and heart disease. Whether you like it or not, results from the now infamous Enhance study have certainly caused many scientists and physicians to rethink the relationship between cholesterol levels and heart disease and stroke. Conventional wisdom (and current medical dogma) holds that low LDL cholesterol levels reduce the risk and incidence of heart disease and stroke. This belief is now so widespread and entrenched in that the medical community that FDA now approves drugs to prevent heart disease, as it did with Zetia and Vytorin, solely on the evidence that they lower LDL cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, Enhance study results indicate that lowering LDL cholesterol levels alone are not sufficient to reduce the incidence of heart disease or stroke. 

Zetia, one of the active ingredients of Vytorin, lowers blood LDL cholesterol levels by reducing absorption of cholesterol in the gut (from foods that we eat). In contrast, the other ingredient in Vytorin, Zocor, is a statin that acts to lower LDL cholesterol by interfering with its production in the body. The results of the Enhance study, which showed that Vytorin doesn’t reduce the risk of heart disease or stroke any better than Zocor itself, suggest that the only way to prevent heart disease and stroke (by lowering LDL cholesterol) is through statin use. This assertion is supported by results from clinical trials involving Lipitor and Zocor (both statins), which showed that lowering LDL cholesterol also resulted in a lower incidence of heart disease and stroke. This suggests that statins may act to reduce heart disease and stroke by mechanisms other than their LDL cholesterol-lowering properties. Indeed, statins have also been found to reduce inflammation, keep artery walls flexible and healthy and help to maintain LDL and HDL cholesterol balance in the blood.

There were hints along the way which suggested that the relationship between LDL cholesterol and heart disease and stroke were not as straightforward as it seemed. For example, torcetrapib, a Pfizer drug that lowers LDL and raises HDL cholesterol, was being evaluated in clinical studies that were subsequently halted because it increased the risks of heart attack and stroke rather than prevent them. Another example is estrogen replacement therapy which is known to lower LDL cholesterol levels but failed to reduce the incidence of heart attack and stroke in clinical studies. Nevertheless, it did not take much to convince FDA that lowering LDL cholesterol levels alone was sufficient to prevent or reduce the incidence heart disease a stroke. This notion was strongly substantiated by results from clinical studies with Lipitor and Zocor which showed a strong relationship between lowering LDL cholesterol and reducing the risk and incidence of heart disease and stroke. Unfortunately, it now appears likely that the ability of statin drugs to reduce the incidence of heart disease and stroke is related to other mechanisms besides lowering LDL cholesterol. For an excellent historical review and recap of the cholesterol story, I suggest reading an article is this Sunday’s NY Times by Gary Taubes.

So what are the lessons learned from this story? First, I think that it is unwise to make assumptions about cause and effect relationships until all of the data is carefully analyzed and vetted. Second, it is our obligation as scientists, whether we are company employees or not, to point out inconsistencies or problems with prevailing theories regardless of personal or professional consequences. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, FDA must not allow drug companies to influence or affect the type or amount of data that it requires to approve new drugs.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Merck and Schering Plough have taken out two-page ads in several major newspapers defending their cholesterol drugs Zetia and Vytorin whose efficacy has been seriously questioned following release of data from a clinical study called ENHANCE late last week. The new ad campaign takes direct aim at the fallout from ENHANCE which showed that neither Zetia nor Vytorin (Zetia plus Zocor) is more effective in preventing heart attack or stroke than a cheaper generic version of Zocor alone.

The ad offsets the most important line in boldface: "All of us at Merck and Schering-Plough proudly stand behind the established efficacy and safety profiles of ZETIA and VYTORIN." And then it's "signed" by Robert J. Spiegel MD, Chief Medical Officer of Schering and Merck’s VP of External Medical and Scientific Affairs, Richard Murray MD. However, this advertising blitz may be too little, too late. Consumer and physician confidence in Merck and Schering Plough have fallen precipitously after the ENHANCE data were released last week.

According to various sources, the companies reportedly spent more than $100 million on a highly visible, slick marketing campaign to promote Vytorin and Zetia last year. Who doesn’t recognize the ubiquitous commercials with the folksy violin music and the "colorful" relatives dressed to look like food to accentuate the point that cholesterol levels are related to family history (genetics) and the foods that one consume. They have taken a new tact with today’s ads which showcase a matter-of-fact advertising approach. We'll see if it the new, less flamboyant advertising campaign can staunch the hemorrhaging that it taking place today at both companies.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks