Key result
Anacetrapib cuts major vascular events by ~9% but offers insufficient clinical benefit for routine use.
Why the study?
Does CETP inhibition prevent cardiovascular events in patients at risk?
Does CETP inhibition prevent cardiovascular events in patients at risk?
CETP inhibitors do not provide sufficient cardiovascular benefit for routine clinical use due to a combination of futility and adverse safety profiles.
Cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) facilitates exchange of triglycerides and cholesteryl ester between high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and apolipoprotein B100-containing lipoproteins. Evidence from genetic studies that variants in the CETP gene were associated with higher blood HDL cholesterol, lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and lower risk of coronary heart disease suggested that pharmacological inhibition of CETP may be beneficial. To date, 4 CETP inhibitors have entered phase 3 cardiovascular outcome trials. Torcetrapib was withdrawn due to unanticipated off-target effects that increased risk of death, and major trials of dalcetrapib and evacetrapib were terminated early for futility. In the 30,000-patient REVEAL (Randomized Evaluation of the Effects of Anacetrapib through Lipid Modification) trial, anacetrapib doubled HDL cholesterol, reduced non-HDL cholesterol by 17 mg/dl (0.44 mmol/l), and reduced major vascular events by 9% over 4 years, but anaceptrapib was found to accumulate in adipose tissue, and regulatory approval is not being sought. Therefore, despite considerable initial promise, CETP inhibition provides insufficient cardiovascular benefit for routine use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Armitage et al. (2019) conducted a review in Cardiovascular events (n=30,000). CETP inhibitors (anacetrapib) was evaluated on Major vascular events (9% reduction). CETP inhibition with anacetrapib reduced major vascular events by 9% over 4 years but accumulated in adipose tissue, providing insufficient cardiovascular benefit for routine use.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: