The researchers said there were no safety concerns and chose to stop the study, called Arbiter 6 Halts, after a “prespecified, blinded interim analysis,” according to a posting in the National Institutes of Health’s clinical trials database. Abbott doesn’t know why the study was ended early and wasn’t involved in the decision, said Elizabeth Hoff, a spokeswoman for the company, based in Abbott Park, Illinois.
The study may have shown Niaspan was more effective at unclogging arteries than Zetia, according to analysts from Natixis Bleichroeder Inc. and Wells Fargo Securities LLC. A finding favoring Niaspan may further erode sales of Zetia, which fell 22 percent in the U.S. last year after studies, said Jon Paul LeCroy, an analyst with Natixis, who downgraded Merck today.
1 comment:
If there were not safety concerns, I don't see why the trial was discontinued...
...unless of course Merck was just doing this as a marketing activity, rather than real scientific research to develop better treatments.
But in that case, wouldn't there be ethical problems with stopping a therapy that was potentially beneficial? Or was Merck so willing to cede the case that the Vytorin study was obviously stopped because those badly-blinded results stacked against them?
Post a Comment