No Lower Limit? Strikingly Low LDL-C Levels Boost Cardiovascular Protection With No Added Safety Risk

Who knew chatGPT could be so political? Great summary even if chat seems to be purposely shooting straight down the middle.

Cronos posted a study in another thread that had a .46 RR for neurodegenerative diseases with statin exposure. Congruent with other studies but with a significantly lower RR. ChatGPT doesn’t mention this part of the argument.

Imaging for significant stenosis in cardiac vessels is good but imaging to predict neurodegenerative diseases has a much lower predictive value.

I err on the side that personalized medicine is not really data driven. Or at least not study driven. It is saying that I am different. My risk is different because of X. Now X may seem very reasonable and logical. But it isn’t reproduced by a study. Some of it is of course, I don’t smoke so my risk is lower than a cohort that smokes. Personalized medicine goes further than that of course and makes inferences and educated guesses not supported by literature.

Nothing wrong with people doing their own thing. But every individual does their own thing and most are wrong. Each argument may get better than the last and people with medical or biologic background spend their lives working on it probably have a better chance of getting it right. But the vast majority will probably make incorrect decisions.

I made a mistake. I had high LDL and had some trouble with simvastatin in my early 40s. So I stopped it. I exercise and eat well. My father was in exceptional shape with the same LDL profile. And didn’t take a statin. I figured my cardiac risk was low - my BP was 100/60, HR upper 30s (still is just with the help of telmisartan). I “personalized” my way to accepting a higher than ideal LDL. I suspect I have clean vessles. But the dementia data doesn’t care that your imaging is fine. My LDL has been below 70 for awhile now. I actually don’t see the need for cardiac imaging because I would take a statin either way.

Now my mistake is not the same as others - and many other decisions are not mistakes. But I am have seen the same mistake over and over again in various people. Todd doesn’t see it as a mistake. He makes a decent argument on the cardiac imaging side but has neglected the neuro side. And the microscopic vascular disease side.

Is there a respected health influencer or MD that allows their LDL to ride high because their imaging is ok? And I get that the word respected is going to be open to interpretation. What I see among experts in practice is go as low as you can.

You know of course that the negative predictive value is not 99%. First that is one end of the range. Second, that is using a cath as comparison which is not 100% but is treated as it is. Gold standards have to be considered perfect but they aren’t. There just isn’t anything better.

Cath’s don’t show small vessel disease well and don’t show vascular wall microscopic changes. They show plaque very well in large and medium vessels. They can see small ok.

It is estimated that negative cath angina patients have small vessel disease 1/3 of the time. That would imply that the sensitivity for small vessel disease is 67%. For the gold standard. Now small vessel disease is unlikely to kill you and that is important but it is still disease.

I don’t know of a study comparing negative cath patients to autopsy but that would be interesting. I am sure there are patients that died within a month of a cath and got an autopsy. AI mentioned a study but was behind a paywall. It included small vessel disease as a cause of death. I guess it is true that even a small infarct can cause an arrythmia.

You may say this is splitting hairs. And I’ll acknowledge that to some extent. But the reality is that vascular disease doesn’t always show even on cath’s. The gold standard. Negative predictive values only matter if they follow out populations to events which those 2 studies did. And the data was quite compelling - I admit that completely. The duration of the Brigham one was quite long also. But that doesn’t mean that a negative CTCA means you don’t have vascular disease. And it certainly doesn’t mean you will never have it.

See I kind of admitted I was wrong - the negative predictive value for events is actually quite good. Doesn’t change all the other arguments.

I thought I’d share my results adding repatha to my bempadoic acid / ezetimibe stack. No statin due to intolerance. I was trending with apoB of 60-70. With repatha for 1.5 months I’m now at 24. It’s a bit shocking but I feel no side effects so I’m good to go. Hba1c has also dropped to 5.3 (down from 5.8 a year ago). Edit: LDL 56 —> <10 (“calculated using the Martin-Hopkins
calculation”)

11 Likes