When a Promising Heart Drug Meets an Inconvenient Result
Cardiology's inflammation theory of heart disease just failed its biggest test yet. Novo Nordisk's ziltivekimab, a drug designed to block the inflammatory chemical IL-6, was tested in more than 6,300 patients with heart disease or advanced kidney disease. It succeeded at its biological job — inflammation markers dropped sharply — but patients on the drug had no fewer heart attacks, strokes, or cardiovascular deaths than those on placebo.
The theory being tested traces back roughly 25 years, to work suggesting that inflammation isn't just a byproduct of clogged arteries but an actual driver of the disease. That idea gained momentum through the 2000s and shaped a wave of drug development. But this isn't the first disappointment: a similarly large 2018 trial of colchicine, an old gout medication, produced nearly the same pattern — inflammation went down, but outcomes stayed flat.
Reaction among cardiologists has been mixed. Some argue the trial or drug choice was flawed, not the underlying science, pointing to years of supporting evidence from lab and population studies. Others are more openly reconsidering whether inflammation is a cause of heart disease at all, or simply a marker of it — comparable to gray hair signaling age rather than causing it. Two more ziltivekimab trials, testing the drug in heart failure and post-heart-attack patients, are due to report results in 2027, and many in the field are waiting to see whether they support or further undercut the theory.
References
No DOI is available yet, since full peer-reviewed results have not been published. The trial registry link above is the most stable reference until then.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.