MedSmarts

~ Becoming CEO of the rest of your life

Docs’ Cholesterol Chaos to Rival Obamacare Website Debacle?

Docs’ Cholesterol Chaos to Rival Obamacare Website Debacle?

Cholesterol Turmoil Leaves Patients
& Their Doctors With Questions

The cholesterol cops are at it again – only this time the storm they’ve stirred up makes them look more like the Keystone Cops. The latest cholesterol guidelines and the new risk calculator being recommended for prescribing cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are starting to take on the aura of the Obamacare website fiasco.

The latest guidelines for lowering cholesterol have finally abandoned the notion of driving “bad” (LDL) cholesterol below 100 or even 70 for many patients, as there’s no evidence that attaining these ultra-low targets adds any survival benefit (and there IS some evidence, gone unmentioned, that it may cause harm).

That’s the good news. The bad news is they want to replace these aggressive cholesterol targets with a “risk calculator” that’s guaranteed to make cholesterol drug manufacturers jump with glee. If doctors use this calculator, the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs – exclusively statin drugs as the guidelines discourage other cholesterol-lowering drugs – will essentially double, mostly for those with no history of cardiac problems.

This is called “primary prevention” and using statins for this purpose has long been a source of controversy. The drug manufacturers themselves acknowledge that only 1 in 100 patients taking statins for primary prevention – or to prevent a first cardiac event – actually benefit. The other 99 get no benefit, but still incur their costs and side effects that include increased risk of type 2 diabetes, memory problems, and muscle pain that inhibits healthy lifestyle choices.

Ask yourself where else in your life you’d do something where the odds were against you 99 to 1.

And now they want to double down with those worse-than-Vegas odds by relying on an unproven risk calculator that’s coming under increasing criticism from some highly unlikely medical sources.

Relying on Old Data

According to a report in today’s Boston Globe about an article to appear in tomorrow’s The Lancet medical journal – how’s that for timely? – two Harvard researchers found “The calculator was not working among the populations it was tested on by the guideline makers”.

One reason for this discrepancy seems to be that the studies the calculator relies on were done in the 1990’s when more people smoked and had heart attacks and strokes earlier in life than they do today. So while actual risk for these cardiac events has declined since then, our doctors are being told to employ more aggressive tactics – more statin drugs – based on data when these risks were higher.

This delayed reaction will now subject millions more Americans to the risks of over-treatment with statin drugs that aren’t actually needed.

What’s surprising with this report is that one of the Harvard researchers – Dr. Paul Ridker – headed the Jupiter Study that encouraged much broader use of statins based on elevated CRP levels of inflammation rather than cholesterol levels alone. The fact that he held a patent for the CRP test caused intense criticism of this apparent potential conflict of interest.

Another Unlikely Voice of Dissent

And another report from MedPage Today adds Dr. Steven Nissen of The Cleveland Clinic to the list of naysayers. Nissen has long advocated aggressive statin therapy to reverse atherosclerosis, so his criticism is also from an unexpected source.

According to a report in today’s New York Times, Dr. Nissen is suggesting a “time out” for the new cholesterol guidelines. He’s quotes as saying:

“It’s stunning. We need a pause to further evaluate this approach before it is implemented on a widespread basis.”

The article goes on to say the controversy has thrown the ongoing annual meeting of the American Heart Association into “turmoil” as the nation’s cardiologists struggle to make sense of the current cholesterol chaos.

What’s a MedSmart Patient To Do?

For starters, if you’re not already on a statin, don’t be quick to start on one based on this latest clinical curfuffle. If you’re at high risk for cardiac disease because you’re a diabetic or obese, then you should probably already be on a statin. That’s not the end of the risk spectrum that’s in dispute.

It’s the other, low-risk end of the spectrum where the controversy rages anew. If you haven’t had a prior cardiac event and aren’t otherwise at high or even moderate risk for one, it may be wise to pass on a statin drug and rely instead on proven lifestyle behaviors that can also lower your cardiac risk without the downsides of statin drugs.

So how do you know what your risk actually is?

Well, I wouldn’t rely on the tool that’s currently in such dispute, that’s for sure. The Mayo Clinic has a more reliable set of tools at their Statin Decision Aid website that allows you to use one of three different risk calculators based on what lab test results you have available to you.

If you have your CRP score for inflammation, for example, it will suggest you use the Reynolds calculator, which I found to be the most conservative of the three calculators available there when entering my own personal data and lab test results.

These new disputed cholesterol guidelines have lowered the bar by suggesting that anyone with a ten-year cardiac risk of 71/2% or higher should be prescribed a statin, up from prior suggestions starting at a 10% risk. This is what would double the number of such low-risk people now taking statins – something that has thoughtful clinicians properly concerned.

Until the dust settles, it may be best to avoid taking a statin anew if your risk is under 10% and to use caution even above that level. Using the 71/2% threshold, for example, all men aged 70-75 would be prescribed a statin regardless of their health status or cardiac history. And half of men aged 50-60 would also be on them.

Any time 100% of any patient cohort is recommended to be prescribed a given medication, it may be time to question what’s going on.

And try to keep your cholesterol in perspective – something that’s often lost in modern medicine that’s dominated by the “silo” thinking of whatever medical specialty in which you’re being treated. Yes, cholesterol – especially very small LDL cholesterol particles that more easily form plaque on artery walls – can prove dangerous if it’s at excessive levels in your bloodstream. But what’s excessive varies with age, gender, race, and other variables.

Cholesterol is natural and serves essential roles in preserving a healthy mind and body. These include maintaining porous cell membranes – one reason statin drugs increase type 2 diabetes risk is they lower cholesterol so much that the cells in your body are less able to absorb insulin and nutrients that keep blood sugar at healthy levels. The same applies to brain cells and explain the effects these drugs have on mood and memory.

And, finally,  I’d also stay tuned for more on this subject – because it doesn’t appear likely to be resolved anytime soon.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rate This Post

 

Tags: , , ,

Like this post? Sign up for Free to get more.

Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

7 Awesome Comments So Far

Don't be a stranger, join the discussion by leaving your own comment
  1. surender
    December 24, 2013 at 6:20 am #

    Good post!!!
    Thanks for sharing your information….A new study also found that every 7 grams increase in dietary fiber lowered the risk of heart disease by 9 percent.Eating a more fibrous diet may help cut the risk for heart disease, researchers say

  2. Alysha
    November 24, 2013 at 10:44 am #

    Hello John , Brilliant information and I think this will really help us who suffered huge problem for Obamacare. Can you provide me your Facebook page URL ? I want to share with my followers. Thanks for all your information.

  3. Bob
    November 19, 2013 at 11:49 pm #

    What an excellent post surrounding this obviously hot topic. When it comes to cholesterol though I have a question: is the Paleo focus (or diet) an opportunity for control of cholesterol? My family is really making a focus to watch our cholesterol into 2014 knowing that it’s really up to us to make sure we are 2 steps ahead of our health (since, as it’s mentioned, healthcare can be rocky).

    Thanks

    Bob

    • John Lynch
      November 20, 2013 at 11:26 am #

      Hi Bob. Thanks for the question. It’s a good one given the Paleo diet craze.

      If that sounds like I consider the Paleo diet a fad, it’s because I do. It sounds appealing at first blush – eating like our ancestors, rejecting agricultural products (grains and legumes) and dairy because they didn’t consume those things, calling it the “warrior” diet…who doesn’t want to think of themselves as a warrior?

      Here’s the thing. Unlike a Mediterranean or vegetarian diet, there’s no good scientific evidence of its benefits – just theory. It’s true that you’re likely to lose weight with it initially – as you will with any diet because you’re focused on what you’re eating. And weight loss should help lower cholesterol.

      But its heavy meat focus means you’re likely to consume a lot of saturated fats unless you shop intensively for grass-fed and low-fat meats, wild fish and other hard-to-find and expensive protein sources. If you have plenty of time and money to kill, maybe you can manage the saturated fat intake that will increase, rather than lower, your cholesterol levels.

      But there’s also the fact that the foods a Paleo diet insists you avoid are good for you. Whole grains, beans and legumes are loaded with minerals and fiber that lower bad cholesterol. Along with low-fat dairy, they have plenty of evidence of nutritional benefit – too much to be rejected based on unproven theories that don’t withstand scrutiny.

      Why go to all the bother when safer and better-proven diets like a Mediterranean diet – with the best evidence available of health benefits, including cholesterol control (and improved HDL, or “good”, cholesterol), as well as broader health benefits like reduced Alzheimer’s risk – are cheaper, easier to sustain, and tastier to the palate?

      Here are a couple links with more detail…

      http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/diet-review-the-caveman-paleo-diet

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/paleo-diet-healthy_n_1898529.html

  4. Gary Clements
    November 19, 2013 at 2:38 am #

    There is definitely no case for jumping on and of medications on a whim,but as you point out there is a considerable lag between gathering data, interpreting data, developing drugs, and getting them to the public. So many of us would be better off to get ahead of the curve and simply move to a high quality, plant based diet, in most cases the doctors will take you off most of the drugs when the results of that diet appear.

    • John Lynch
      November 19, 2013 at 10:36 am #

      Hi Gary.Thanks for commenting.

      I certainly agree, although I’d add that a Mediterranean diet – which augments its plant-based foundation with fish and other lean protein and healthful omega-9 fats like olive oil – has the best overall evidence of overall health and longevity benefit. From strictly a cholesterol perspective, adding more fiber to your diet will also help lower cholesterol and reduce one’s need for medications. Weight loss – a likely byproduct of either diet – should also lower total and LDL cholesterol, while physical activity increases healthful HDL cholesterol that neutralizes many of the adverse effects of total and LDL cholesterol.

      And a proper night’s sleep on a consistent basis will help with both weight control and energy needed for more physical activity. These three pillars of healthy living are safer and more effective than statins for most people, although there’ll always be those needing an extra assist from a statin – especially if they’ve already suffered a heart attack or stroke or have diabetes or other high-risk conditions (such as genetically-programmed very high cholesterol).

Leave a Comment

Remember to play nicely folks, nobody likes a troll.