1. Use of the Thyroid Hormone Analogue Eprotirome in Statin-Treated Dyslipidemia N Engl J Med Mar 11;362(10):
Paul W. Ladenson, M.D., Jens D. Kristensen, M.D., Ph.D., E. Chester Ridgway, M.D., Anders G. Olsson, M.D., Ph.D., Bo Carlsson, M.Sc., Irwin Klein, M.D., John D. Baxter, M.D., and Bo Angelin, M.D., Ph.D.

2. Lipoproteins Central core hydrophobic lipid
Hydrophilic coat of polar phospholipid, free cholesterol and apolipoprotein
HDL
LDL
VLDL
Chylomicrons

3. VLDL and LDL transport cholesterol and triglycerides to the tissues
HDL absorbs cholesterol and returns it to LDL or VLDL
Atherosclerosis is strongly associated with a specific type of LDL - Lipoprotein (a)
Statins reduce circulating LDL by inhibiting endogenous cholesterol synthesis
Thyroid hormones increase excretion of LDL in bile acids and activity of HDL

4. Treatment of dyslipidaemia
Statins - primary prevention - significant reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality, fatal and non-fatal MI, stable angina, and a composite endpoint of coronary heart disease (CHD) death plus non-fatal MI
Statins - secondary prevention - reduction in all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality, fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and coronary revascularization
Limited evidence for other lipid modifying drugs - bile acid sequestrants, ezetimibe, fibrates, nicotinic acid

5. Study design Randomised, placebo controlled
Double blind, double dummy (?)
4 week dietary lead in
12 weeks treatment Placebo or Eprotirome
Monitored 4 weeks after discontinuation
Primary efficacy (outcome) variable – change in serum LDL
Secondary efficacy (outcome) variables – levels/ratios of other lipids

7. Double Dummy
A technique for retaining the blind when administering supplies in a clinical trial, when the two treatments cannot be made identical.
Comparing surgery with medical treatment
Group 1: Surgery then placebo
Group 2: Sham surgery then medication

9. Study patients 18-65 ≤ Simvastatin 40mg ≤ Atorvastatin 20mg
LDL cholesterol ≥ 3.0 mmol/L
Long list of exclusions
329 screened, 189 included, 5 no data, 184 included in efficacy analysis, 168 completed the trial.

10. Statistics
Sample size aimed to detect mean decrease of LDL of 0.5 mmol/L
Two sided type I error rate (α) of < 0.05 [p<0.05]
172 patients for statistical power of 80% [Type II error rate β = 0.2. Power = 1- β = 0.8]
Analysis based on absolute change in LDL cholesterol levels between baseline and week 12

11. Statistics
F test compares the variance (spread) of two groups, giving the F statistic
The Jonckheere-Terpstra test used to measure dose related response. It tests for ordered differences among groups assumed to be arranged ordinally, and tests for differences among several independent samples
Last-observation-carried-forward method allows inclusion of dropouts. It assumes that the patients improve gradually from the start of the study until the end, so that carrying forward an intermediate value is a conservative estimate of how well the person would have done had he or she remained in the study.

12. Results

13. Results

14. Discussion
Addition of eprotirome to statin therapy resulted in substantial further reductions in levels of LDL, non HDL and Apolipoprotein B
“Larger reductions that would be expected by doubling statin dose”
Better reductions in triglycerides and Lp(a) than statin alone
Small reduction in HDL adversely affect CV risk?
No evidence that reduction in Lp(a) reduces CV risk despite being associated with atherosclerosis
Unknown thyromimetic effects or effect of suppressing TSH
12 weeks insufficient time to assess possible adverse effects
Mildly deranged LFTs

15. Possible problems
Drug company sponsored, all authors heavily sponsored. New drug, so likely to be pressure to find positive results
Reasons for drop outs not given in main article
No statistical comparison of placebo to study groups
Long list of exclusions would imply largely patients on primary prevention, who are treated differently to secondary prevention
Eprotirome added to moderate statin dose, not to patients on maximum treatment. To be valuable, should be compared to current best treatment.
Graphs plot main data points at top of CI for no obvious reason – is this to graphically exaggerate the results?
No confidence intervals given for main results - standard deviations given instead
Proof of reduction in LDL does not prove clinical benefit