RE:RE:RE:INTERESTING ARTICLE RE cholesterol EFFLUX AS MEASURE OF HDL JK, that is one of the best independant paper supporting RVX's program in a long time. Management at RVX should be all over this given that it directly mentions RVX favourably and additionally, at the end of the third paragraph, clearly expresses an opinion as to why CETP inhibitors have thus far been unable to reduce heart attacks at the very least. Further this to me strongly supports Dr. Wong's blog post way back in 2011 as to why RVX was on the right track and CETP inhibitors were not.
There is another summary on thebmj.com which also supports the idea that CETP inhibitors are not headed in the right direction "Effect on cardiovascular risk of high density lipoprotein targeted drug treatments niacin, fibrates and CETP inhibitors: meta analysis of randomised controlled trials including 117,411 patients" There is alot of excellent reading which to me is supportive of the idea that CETP inhibitors are not the way to go. That being said we obviously do not have any results from the Lily and Merck trials. Following is the conclusion summary, however the whole article is worth the read as well. Under the response tab on the website the first paragraph is quite interesting also.
Neither niacin, fibrates, nor CETP inhibitors, three highly effective agents for increasing high density lipoprotein levels, reduced all cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke in patients treated with statins. Although observational studies might suggest a simplistic hypothesis for high density lipoprotein cholesterol, that increasing the levels pharmacologically would generally reduce cardiovascular events, in the current era of widespread use of statins in dyslipidaemia, substantial trials of these three agents do not support this concept.