Want to start taking a very low-dose of rosuvastatin to get my ApoB into the optimal range. I like the data around low dosage yielding 80% of the benefit.
But, does anyone have any info on dosing once per week 5mg vs once daily 1mg? Does spacing out the doses have any impact on the effect size?
love to get some objective thoughts ideally backed up with data
I shared a study on this a while ago, and the data was quite strong for once-weekly statin use. This would be my first approach if I decide to try statins in the future.
edit: found my post with some studies attached.
There is data on once or twice per week dosing of 10mg rosuvastatin for people who are intolerant to daily dosing. I have the study saved and will link it when I stop for lunch. Short answer is you still get a significant long lasting reduction in cholesterol even dosing once per week and side effects are very low.
When I link it you can compare the reductions to daily dosing in other studies but I imagine they would be comparable. If you are going to dose that low it would be more convenient to just do weekly or bi weekly.
edit. found them full paper linked on dbree
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1933287411005976
Did you mean 1 mg per day? Or 1 g per day?
26% reduction in LDL is bad.
5 mg everyday lowers LDL by about 50%.
It is a lower dose so the effect size will be lower, doesn’t mean it is bad. Some people only need a small reduction in LDL to get them into the ideal range.
The decrease in apoB is even lower. I mean what is the side effect profile at 5 mg every day vs that. People really want to make things complicated, just try, in my opinion, 5 mg and switch drug if you can’t tolerate it or your lab results show impairment (liver, homa-ir, glucose, etc). If you don’t want the small diabetes risk increase you can use a PCSK9 inhibitor with ezetimibe, bempedoic acid.
Also it has been argued optimal LDL is around 30, so you’d have to be at already a very low LDL or apoB.
I already have a great non-HDL but want to get closer to those levels where plaque buildup becomes basically impossible. I suspect I only need a small dose to get there. Since I’m 31 y/o, I want to minimise my lifetime exposure to potential long-term side effects (although granted a small chance of so are effects occurring)
I’m thinking 2.5 mg rosuvastatin a day and 5 mg ezetimibe might be a good option, I’m thinking about lowering my own dosage this way if it’s already so effective. It’s easy to split as well, but it depends what my lipid numbers are.
please point me to the source of your information that optimal LDL is 30, and, is this true for everyone?
I don’t know if it’s true for everyone but that’s around what I am targeting. It would take too long to explain, I’ve said it elsewhere.
Okay, this is my take on the never-ending battle of which LDL level is best. Particle size may play an important role in longevity. It also appears to be the case that lower LDL-C is better for younger people.
I believe in the U-shaped curve biased towards the lower end. My current LDL-C level is 41.
I am quite happy with this level.
This is Quest’s opinion “Desirable range <100 mg/dL for primary prevention;
<70 mg/dL for patients with CHD or diabetic patients
with > or = 2 CHD risk factors.”
" Evidence has shown that statins could reduce total cardiovascular events, which can improve the prognosis of the elderly patients. What’s more, lowering LDL-C level by intensified statin therapy provides incremental additional reduction in cardiovascular risk (2). While studies have shown that (3, 4) the relationship between dyslipidemia and the risk of death will gradually weaken with age, some studies (5–8) have found no association between LDL-C level and the risk of all-cause mortality; lower LDL-C level is not always associated with greater benefit. An excessive low level of LDL-C might be negatively correlated with all-cause mortality (9, 10)."
Several studies have reported that centenarians tend to have lower levels of LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) compared to younger elderly populations and randomly selected elderly individuals. This in no way suggests that an LDL-C of 30 is optimal.
Some studies have found that LDL-C levels in centenarians are similar to those observed in young adults, but significantly lower than in the general elderly population.
One study suggested that higher LDL-C levels (within a certain range) may be protective against all-cause mortality in centenarians. Specifically, the study found that LDL-C levels between 100 and 160 mg/dL were associated with a lower risk of death compared to lower levels.
Some research indicates a U-shaped relationship between LDL-C levels and mortality, where both very low and very high levels are associated with increased mortality risk. However, the mortality difference between those with the highest LDL-C and those with normal levels was relatively small (0.04%) in a large study of individuals below 40 years of age.
Lower LDL-C levels in centenarians may be a consequence of aging and decreased liver function, rather than a predictor of exceptional longevity.
“https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9136240/”
“https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/us/living-longer-and-larger-it-s-in-the-size-of-cholesterol-carrying-molecules.html#:~:text=carrying-molecules.html-,Living%20Longer%20and%20Larger:%20It’s%20in%20the%20Size%20of%20Cholesterol,diabetes%20and%2C%20consequently%2C%20longevity.”