Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen and Annetine C. Gelijns, Ph.D., comment:
Finding out that statins did not help in these two trials may be
disappointing, but not knowing that – if the studies had not been done –
would have been worse, Dr. Drazen and Dr. Gelijns wrote in an
accompanying editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine.
"The cynic would say that the public’s money had been wasted – we had struck out swinging," they wrote (N. Engl. J. Med. 2014 May 18 [doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1405032]).
Treatment
with statins seemed reasonable and, on the face of it, valid for both
moderate to severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and
sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), conditions
in which inflammatory events are thought to drive disease pathobiology.
The known pleomorphic anti-inflammatory properties of statins made them
candidates, and previous observational data suggested that they helped
patients with these conditions. Because of meager therapeutic options
for these diseases, the studies of statins had to be done, Dr. Drazen
and Dr. Gelijns argued.
"It would have been a big mistake" to
accept the observational findings without a test, they wrote. "Had we
accepted the observational data at face value, we might have spent the
cost of the trials many times over in useless treatments before
recognizing our errors."
Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen is editor in
chief of the Journal. He reported having no disclosures. Dr. Gelijns is a
professor and chair of Health Evidence and Policy at Mount Sinai School
of Medicine, New York. She reported a financial association with MERS
International, which developed a medical event reporting system.