Niacin Revisited - Helpful or Harmful in Cardiac Health?

A terminal metabolite of niacin promotes vascular inflammation and contributes to cardiovascular disease riskDespite intensive preventive cardiovascular disease (CVD) efforts, substantial residual CVD risk remains even for individuals receiving all guideline-recommended interventions. Niacin is an essential micronutrient fortified in food staples, but its role in CVD is not well understood. In this study, untargeted metabolomics analysis of fasting plasma from stable cardiac patients in a prospective discovery cohort (n = 1,162 total, n = 422 females) suggested that niacin metabolism was associated with incident major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Serum levels of the terminal metabolites of excess niacin, N1-methyl-2-pyridone-5-carboxamide (2PY) and N1-methyl-4-pyridone-3-carboxamide (4PY), were associated with increased 3-year MACE risk in two validation cohorts (US n = 2,331 total, n = 774 females; European n = 832 total, n = 249 females) (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval) for 2PY: 1.64 (1.10–2.42) and 2.02 (1.29–3.18), respectively; for 4PY: 1.89 (1.26–2.84) and 1.99 (1.26–3.14), respectively). Phenome-wide association analysis of the genetic variant rs10496731, which was significantly associated with both 2PY and 4PY levels, revealed an association of this variant with levels of soluble vascular adhesion molecule 1 (sVCAM-1). Further meta-analysis confirmed association of rs10496731 with sVCAM-1 (n = 106,000 total, n = 53,075 females, P = 3.6 × 10−18). Moreover, sVCAM-1 levels were significantly correlated with both 2PY and 4PY in a validation cohort (n = 974 total, n = 333 females) (2PY: rho = 0.13, P = 7.7 × 10−5; 4PY: rho = 0.18, P = 1.1 × 10−8). Lastly, treatment with physiological levels of 4PY, but not its structural isomer 2PY, induced expression of VCAM-1 and leukocyte adherence to vascular endothelium in mice. Collectively, these results indicate that the terminal breakdown products of excess niacin, 2PY and 4PY, are both associated with residual CVD risk. They also suggest an inflammation-dependent mechanism underlying the clinical association between 4PY and MACE.

Blockquote

WOW this is pretty damning. Yes it’s correlation study in humans but the proof of concept study on mice is convincing. This paper should give everybody a pause on just randomly experimenting with any supplements. Niacin was actually used by physicians for decades to lower LDL.

I am definitely putting away my B-complex supplement, I get plenty of Vit B6, B9 and B12 in food and sounds like I don’t need much B3. Not worth the risk.

This is not the first time in medicine we where thought something was a good idea turn out be a bad idea. HRT in postmenopausal women, Vitamin E, aspirin, overuse of antibiotics, etc etc etc.

This is why I am still on fence with rapamycin. Sure, the animals studies are great. Few human studies… but it may take decades of studies until we find out what the long term effects really are in humans.

5 Likes

OP, talk to your doctor. I lowered my LDL 80 with diet (low glycemic, low saturated fat (long chains), high fiber and MUFA/PUFA inclusion) and exercise (cardio and weights) alone. My initial LDL was 110 but I was already exercising and eating fairly well. All you can do is lower risk of CAD by any means available.

2 Likes

This 2011 Research published in ‘Circulation’ journal claims niacin is vascular anti-inflammatory:

Niacin Inhibits Vascular Inflammation via the Induction of Heme Oxygenase-1

2 Likes

Walter. This is very interesting. How do you reconcile the contrasting outcomes of these two studies?

1 Like

I follow a low saturate fat diet, high fiber, low carb and exercise frequently (marathoner) and my LPa before Niacin was 130.

2 Likes

They aren’t contradictory. The one says a terminal metabolite is inflammatory. The other says another effect in anti-inflammatory. The issue is to what extent the balance is maintained or one exerts a greater influence. I suspect personal features, environmental and behavioural will make either the pro or anti inflammatory effects more pronounced

4 Likes

It’s not unusual for compounds to have multi-effects, look at the effects of corticosteroids - they can turn on transcription of anti-inflammatory and pro-inflammatory mediators simultaneously, although they are generally regarded as anti-inflammatory.

2 Likes

If you are doing a true ketogenic diet, these are associated with higher LDL levels. I used to low carb (true ketogenic) and IF, but way too many studies point to DASH/medit. diet as superior for heart health. I chose to include selected whole grain (oats) and legumes while keeping it low glycemic specifically to lower the LDL. I also used to do mostly cardio but added weightlifting to lower LDL. Maybe if you adjusted your diet and exercise properly you wouldn’t need the Niacin. If I needed a drug to lower LDL I would probably go with Rosuvastatin over Niacin.

2 Likes

Hello @Dr.Bart, Are you talking about LDL or Lp(a)?

1 Like

My LDL is in good range. It is the LPa that diet has not impacted and thus the reason I take Niacin to lower.

Lpa test is not covered and not easily amenable, personally I have quite unremarkable family history of CAD. I rather concentrate on LDL which I can easily obtain and affect with my lifestyle. I live my life adhering to Stephen Covey’s circle of influence rule.

@Dr.Bart - crucial, crucial

They are fundamentally different independent risk factors and one cannot be used for a proxy of the other.

Quite a lot of people with non optimal Lp(a) levels have low LDL

And versa versa

And crucially, while diet, exercise can have a somewhat material effect on LDL, those things have virtually always hardly any impact on Lp(a) which is extremely determined by genetics.

Can I suggest that you edit your comments above so people are not led astray that you were able to lower your Lp(a) via lifestyle in such a way (even if it is impressive that you succeeded in having such an impact on your LDL)

1 Like

Btw, because Lp(a) is genetically determined - you only have to test it once or twice in your life. So in that sense the cost is not that high (like 25 USD with Ulta Labs I think).

Only if you then use prescribed medicine (or niacin) to try and lower your Lp(a) would you need to re-test

3 Likes

My current feeling is that it may or may not be something to worry about. Especially in the context of the opening post about what to do with high Lp(a).

For someone with not optimal Lp(a) those risks may strongly outweigh the unclear risks from this paper of associations to higher niacin (that correlated to more processed food intake for instance and could be one driver of the human association) - that seems to go against the net (weak) signals for other papers.
(Until next gen Lp(a) lowering meds hopefully start becoming approved the next 3-5 years or other stronger data comes out on Niacin being worse than high Lp(a)).

For someone with low Lp(a), but who wants to lower LDL, there are other more optimal medicines than niacin so not need to try and evaluate how bad niacin could be, when rather just use some other Apo B lowering medicine(s).

For someone taking NMN, NR or Niacin to increase NAD+, I’d strongly consider testing NAD+ levels so that one at least is not increasing NAD+ more than needed via those supplements and risks the potentially negative VCAM effects from the figure you included and that others have discussed above.

2 Likes

That is the quandary I’m facing. Which is the path will the most rewards given I have high LPa without Niacin. The path that involves taking Niacin to lower LPa or the path to not take Niacin and live with high LPa given this recent negative research on Niacin. I guess there is not a clear cut answer.

2 Likes

Done anyone know the answer to this:

The effects in this study were with very high niacin doses (1.5-2.0g). I recall Lustgarten was using 50-100mg in his tests to boost NAD. Maybe I won’t throw out the baby with the bath water.

3 Likes

A high Lp(a) is very bad so work on getting that down. IIRC Lp(a)-apoB is 6 times more atherogenic than LDL-apoB.

Lipoprotein(a) Is Markedly More Atherogenic Than LDL: An Apolipoprotein B-Based Genetic Analysis, 2024

It just doesn’t seem reasonable to me that niacin would somehow be worse than the Lp(a) it reduces if you get no side effects. But I have not done that analysis or looked at this in detail.

3 Likes

For someone with not optimal Lp(a) those risks may strongly outweigh the unclear risks from this paper of associations to higher niacin

I would be careful making this statement, because you making it seem like the Niacin is CLEARLY mitigating the the risks of Lp(a), which is not the case.
In fact I believe that even though Niacin can lower Lp(a), it has no effect on ischemic events and death.

So you are dealing with dubious benefit vs potential risk of using high dose Niacin.

Do no harm.

1 Like

As you quoted me:

For someone with not optimal Lp(a) those risks may strongly outweigh the unclear risks from this paper of associations to higher niacin

I’m sorry if it came across as it clearly does, I was truly trying to convey that it may.

Can you explain how may in my sentence does not mean may but comes across as clearly so I can be more careful in my posts in the future?