Small Study Suggests Statins May Blunt Benefits Of Exercise 1

A small study is raising big questions about whether statins may blunt the beneficial effects of exercise. The study has been published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology and was the subject of a New York Times blog today.

The authors concluded: “Given the strong independent cardio-protective effects of increasing cardiorespiratory fitness or lowering LDL, the benefits and risks of each should be carefully considered when choosing treatment modalities.”

Click here to read the full story on Forbes.

 

John Thyfault

 

About these ads

FDA Approves Combination Of Ezetimibe And Atorvastatin Reply

The FDA has approved a new combination drug from Merck for lowering cholesterol. The drug, which will carry the brand name of Liptruzet, is a combination of two previously approved cholesterol-lowering drugs, ezetimibe and atorvastatin.

Merck said the new drug (pronounced “LIP-true-zett”) would be commercially available starting next week. Liptruzet will be available as a once-daily tablet combining 10 mg of ezetimibe with either 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg of atorvastatin. In clinical trials Liptruzet lowered LDL cholesterol from 53% to 61%, depending on dosage.

Click here to read the full post on Forbes.

 

Unconventional Analysis Finds Threshold For LDL Reduction With Statins Reply

Using an unconventional mathematical approach, a group of Japanese researchers say there may be no good reason to reduce LDL cholesterol more than 40 mg/dl. Their research letter has been published online in JAMA Internal Medicine.

According to the authors, members of the ALICE (All-Literature Investigation of Cardiovascular Evidence) Group, most meta-analyses use linear models that assume “a constantly increasing or decreasing risk as the exposure increases or decreases.” Linear models, however, can be “misleading,” they write, because they assume a specific dose-response relationship. By contrast, their new analysis utilizes “flexible” models that can more readily uncover “threshold effects.”

Click here to read the full post on Forbes.

 

HPS2-THRIVE: A ‘Disappointing But Clear’ Result Reply

The results of HPS2-THRIVE were “disappointing but clear,”  said Jane Armitage, who presented the results this morning at the ACC in San Francisco.

HPS2-THRIVE randomized 25,673 high-risk patients who could tolerate niacin to either placebo or extended-release niacin plus laropiprant (Tredaptive, Merck), an anti-flushing agent, in addition to background therapy. The primary endpoint was the time to first major vascular event, defined as the composite of non-fatal MI or coronary death, any stroke or any arterial revascularization.

Major vascular events occurred in 13.2% of the niacin arm and 13.7% of the placebo arm (p=0.29), despite causing average reductions in LDL of 10 mg.dL and triglycerides of 33 mg/dL, in addition to a 6 mg/dL increase in HDL. Armitrage reported that based on data from previous trials and observational studies, “it was anticipated such lipid differences might translate into a 10-15% reduction in vascular events.”

HPS2-THRIVE study chairman, Rory Collins, responded to a question in the press conference: “To the question is niacin dead? Well, it’s not healthy!”

Click here to read the full story on Forbes.

 

Study Casts Doubt On Value Of Genetic Testing For Familial Hypercholesterolemia Reply

new study published online in the Lancet suggests that one of the main screening plans that relies on genetic tests will fail to identify a substantial portion of people with familial hypercholesterolemia.

Investigators from the UK and Belgium analyzed DNA from several cohorts of FH and non-FH patients. Their chief finding was that a large percentage of FH patients did not have one of the single genetic mutations known to cause FH. Instead, these patients, termed “polygenic,” were found to have variants in multiple genes, each of which had a small LDL-raising effect, but when combined resulted in LDL levels similar to those in people with known FH mutations.

According to one cholesterol expert: 

The take home is that genetic screening is not a panacea and that screening based on fasting ipids makes most sense. Indeed, I never understood genetic screening for this disease anyway, since the phenotype (hypercholesterolemia) is what kills people, not the genotype, the phenotype is readily available with a blood test, the disease is not immediately fatal (It takes years to develop), and treatment is based on the numbers. It is like asking for a gene test fro sickle cell anemia. You can look at blood and make the diagnosis.

Click here to read the complete story on Forbes.