No reason to not add ezetimibe as an adjunct to any lipid-lowering protocol. It’s cheap, generic, and very safe. It’s basically a “free lunch”.
4 Likes
Sure but why would you do that? The threshold varies from person to person and the dose was set to 10mg so that it works for most individuals.
You can try to find your personal minimum effective dose but it’s a cheap medication.
3 Likes
Not at all like acarbose. It takes 1~2 weeks to start working and 2~4 weeks of continuous therapy for the full effect.
3 Likes
I’m currently using 10mg 3x a week. Is this of any use? I take it the day before, day of and day after rapamycin dosing.
1 Like
Point taken.
Just wondering if there may be any advantage to taking less if same benefits are gained.
Rosuvastatin (2.5 mg) + ezetimibe (10 mg) looks good!
5 Likes
The primary endpoint was an ischemic outcome, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, revascularization, and all-cause mortality.
Before matching, 1,380 patients were prescribed moderate-intensity statin–ezetimibe combination therapy, and 1,105 patients were prescribed high-intensity statin therapy. After matching, 971 patients were included in each group. Over a median follow-up of 3.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 1.7% of patients in the moderate-intensity statin with ezetimibe group and in 2.1% of patients in the high-intensity statin group. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.41–1.61, p=0.558). No statistically significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, revascularization, and all-cause mortality.
2 Likes
I don’t have access to the full paper, but I wonder if they specify which particular statins were used. The LDL levels were lower in the MIS+EZ, but I guess not much lower, hence perhaps the smaller differences in outcomes?
1 Like
I’ll get you the PDF later this week, if nobody else posts it.
But the answer is 35% on Atorvastatin, 65% on Rosuvastatin
It also says:
The choice of statin—either atorvastatin or rosuvastatin—did not affect the clinical outcomes.
LDL-C was a bit lower (68.5mg/dl vs 73.4mg/dl) with statin + EZ, but that 5mg/dl isn’t going to give any big difference in outcomes.
My observation is that these are again an unhealthy cohort of people at the start of the trial. Average 66 years old, 45% hypertensive, >20% diabetic, 45% already having had revascularisation procedures, >15% having diagnosed heart failure. Not very representative of this forums user base, I think.
There are also just very few events in general. Total number of MIs (both fatal and non-fatal) in the entire study was 17, out of the 2,500 people. Total deaths were 39. So finding any sort of statistical significance is almost impossible unless they’re literally all in one group and none in the other. So no surprise that the study shows no difference between groups.
I think LDL-C/ApoB is what matters most, and if there are special beneficial effects of using two drugs, this study just wasn’t long enough to be able to detect it.
So personally, I don’t think users of this forum have too much to learn from this study, and I wouldn’t make any decision about adding or removing Ezetimibe based on this.
3 Likes
I may have missed the info, but are you a competitive bodybuilder?
Why do you want your T levels that high?
Thanks for that writeup. I agree with you. I was hoping they might show some some differences between the statins wherein either statin might show slightly lower LDL/ApoB, which might push one to pick it instead, or show slightly more events in one vs the other (but with so few events that may not be powered enough).
2 Likes