AstraZeneca: De la A a la Z, lo que es bueno para el público es malo para AZ.

Here’s an example of comparative effectiveness that could save the public lots of money — and it was funded by the company whose drug lost.

SATURN, sponsored by AstraZeneca, pitted the company’s Crestor (rosuvastatin) against the soon to be generic Lipitor (atorvastatin). The study seemed like a mismatch. Crestor is better at reducing the bad cholesterol than Lipitor. Some observers may have wondered if the study was even worth doing.

As in sports, research often produces surprises. The results were a dead heat, which makes it pretty tough to make a case for the more expensive drug. Here are some lessons — and cautions — for the future.

We need these head-to-head comparisons. Drugs within a class may have important differences. Among the statins we have seen differences in safety profiles that led Baycol to be recalled. We have also seen some differences in benefit, with the more potent statins like atorvastatin reducing risk more than less potent statins. Such comparisons are too rarely performed, leaving patients and their doctors uncertain about choosing between alternatives.

.../...

This study, however imperfect because of its focus on a surrogate endpoint, demonstrates why we need to generate more information about how drugs compare. Our assumptions about relative risks and benefits must be tested if we are to be informed in important health care decisions. We are continually being humbled when we do conduct the studies, because commonly they reveal results that are unexpected and consequential.(Ver)

Ver también:

Crestor no puede con Lipitor.../ Crónica de un fracaso anunciado.