Cholesterol-Lowering Research Causes 16 Deaths

Post by **tex** » Sat May 28, 2011 8:28 am

Hi All,

You've probably heard about the failure of this cholesterol-lowering research project. I saw a story about it on one of the early morning tv shows this morning. The media, (and the medical community), don't generally portray such events in quite the same light as I see them. For example, they're reporting that treatments designed to raise HDL cholesterol, have been shown by this research to be ineffective in reducing heart attacks and/or strokes. Ineffective? INEFFECTIVE? Hell, apparently at least 16 people died unnecessarily, as a result of the treatment that was being studied in this project. IMO, "ineffective" is not quite the correct choice of words to describe the outcome.

The DSMB also noted a small and unexplained increase in ischemic stroke rates in the high dose, extended-release niacin group. This contributed to the NHLBI acting director's decision to stop the trial before its planned conclusion. During the 32-month follow-up period, there were 28 strokes (1.6 percent) reported during the trial among participants taking high dose, extended-release niacin versus 12 strokes (0.7 percent) reported in the control group.

"A small and unexplained increase in ischemic stroke rate"?

A 133% increase in actual stroke rate is not small, by any stretch of the imagination, and how can they call it "unexplained". It was obviously due to the high-dose niacin treatment, since that was presumably the only difference between the test subjects and the controls. I don't see anything there that could be interpreted as "unexplained". The worst part is that 9 of the 28 strokes that occurred in the niacin group, happened at least 2 months, (and in some cases, up to 4 years), after they discontinued the use of niacin, suggesting that whatever type of damage might be caused by high-dose niacin, may be persistent, or even irreversible.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/226743.php

This really illuminates the fact that researchers working in this area of study truly don't know what they're doing. The NIH really thought that this was going to be a viable treatment. In view of that, my feeling is that eventually, they're going to get around to proving that the statins also cause more adverse events than benefits. There's already a lot of evidence of that, but so far, doctors are unswayed, and continue to promote statins as the greatest thing since sliced bread. It usually takes some mighty powerful evidence to change their minds, in situations such as this.

Anyway, if you happen to be taking high-dose niacin, as a cholesterol enhancing treatment, you might want to study the details of these research results.

Tex

MBombardier · Post by **MBombardier** » Sat May 28, 2011 1:43 pm

My husband takes niacin occasionally when he has chest pain, but he's not consistent with anything he does that would prospectively make him healthier. That is frustrating, but I am not his boss.

I was quite interested in my annual lab work that was done a couple of weeks ago. My lipid panel looked good, especially the HDL. This is the first time I can remember ever having HDL in the recommended range, even when I was much thinner and/or was exercising consistently. I attribute this to using coconut oil for pretty much everything.

Here is an article on coconut oil and heart disease:

http://www.coconutresearchcenter.org/article10132.htm

I don't know how valid or "scientific" all this is, but I have read about it in other places, too. With all the heart disease in my family, I want to do whatever may prevent me from having the same trouble, and so far, it seems that coconut oil is beneficial, at least for me.

sarkin · Post by **sarkin** » Sat May 28, 2011 2:35 pm

I have a slip for the bloodwork I was about to do in Feb., right before I got so sick with MC that nothing else mattered... and I will be interested to see whether my slightly elevated cholesterol has changed in either direction (and how my doctor feels about such things these days).

So many of my peers are taking statins now - I remain persuaded this is a dreadful idea for most. I recently said to a dear friend, "Remind me why you need to be on a statin." And he said a lot of very confused things, for someone as brilliant and science-aware as he is. Gonna ask him again, from time to time - next time a better question: "what persuades you that a statin drug is right for you?"

(Gonna stop now before the longer rant that's coming...)

Fascinating that this other means of forcing cholesterol down is also a Bad Idea.

Marliss, I have been using a little coconut oil, but not a lot. I've been meaning to work it in a little more - despite great HDL/ratio, it seems like a useful kitchen helper. (Wonderful for greasing the waffle iron, btw, and a great flavor.)

Love,
Sara

MBombardier · Post by **MBombardier** » Sat May 28, 2011 4:22 pm

Sara, you may be interested in the statin conversation on the forum some weeks ago. My husband had an episode while taking a statin drug where he was chairing a meeting and suddenly nothing anyone said was making sense to him. This was after a few days of feeling like something was touching the top of his head on one side. Needless to say, he stopped using it. There seem to be some neurological side effects of statin use. Perhaps your friend is affected and does not know it.

Gloria · Post by **Gloria** » Sat May 28, 2011 4:50 pm

The book "The 8-Week Cholesterol Cure" by Robert E. Kowalski was based upon using niacin to reduce cholesterol. The diet was pretty popular about 20 years ago, but was pretty controversial because of the recommedation to use high dosages of niacin.

I was reading about the study in the paper today. I don't believe the study showed any problems attributible to statins in general, just to the specific statin containing high doses of niacin made by Abbott Labs, called Niaspan.

A National Institutes of Health study released Thursday said high dosages of Abbott Laboratories' Niaspan failed to prevent heart attacks and boosted the likelihood of a stroke when combined with the popular generic cholesterol pill simvastatin, also known under the brand name Zocor.

Red font emphasis is mine.

Gloria

Jan · Post by **Jan** » Sat May 28, 2011 7:38 pm

As some of you may remember, I cannot take any statins because I have that "rare muscle pain and weakness" problem with all of them. My Dr. put me on Niaspan over a year ago. She wanted me up to 3 grams a day. I have never been able to make it about 1 gram. If I go higher I break out in ugly pustuales on the outside of my knees that spread up and down my legs. The itching was insane. She keeps pushing me to go higher, and I keep pushing to go lower on the dosage (and would prefer to not take it at all). Also, since going on it my triglycerides are higher and it hasn't done anything for my cholesterol.

Jan

sarkin · Post by **sarkin** » Sat May 28, 2011 7:48 pm

I personally don't believe that statin-induced muscle pain and weakness is rare at all - and I'm certain that anyone who experiences should be off that prescription ASAP. I know I'll be in this conversation with my PCP for a while, but last time we discussed my cholesterol levels, I told her she might as well put the pen down (instead of hovering it over her Rx pad); she's got at least a decade and a lot more data before I consider a statin drug. By then, I hope they'll be off the market ;)

My father died of statin-induced rhabdomyolysis. That *alone* rules that entire class of drugs out for me, even if I were persuaded that driving me cholesterol down to the level of a teenaged girl would be of some health benefit. I also have a cousin with a rare autoimmune muscle disorder; I think I have every reason to suppose that any such side effect of these drugs is likelier to befall me than any average - rare or not.

There are also known cognitive effects from statins, as well as immune-lowering problems. I've seen both, in otherwise healthy friends.

Marliss, your husband's experience sounds frightening. Thankfully it wasn't worse, and he's off the drug.

Hot-button topic for me, as you can tell.

--Sara

Zizzle · Post by **Zizzle** » Sat May 28, 2011 9:32 pm

Sara, I too am on a quest to convince people I love to get off statins. My mother and grandma could not tolerate Lipitor because of the muscle problems, but my mom's doc is insisting she try it again. My MIL would rather eat junk and take a pill. She is finally considering she may be gluten intolerant, but after a weekend trying to help her understand what she can and can't eat, I give up. She's hopeless and could never adhere to the diet, even if she wanted too. She would absentmindedly eat a bagel with a beer!

Interesting about your dad. My hubby had rhabdo in his mid-30's after perhaps overdoing bicep curls at the gym. He was in the hospital for 3 days with acute kidney failure, but he fully recovered. Months later they did a muscle biopsy looking for a glycogen storage disease, but they found nothing. We've always wondered what this tendency to develop rhabdo may mean for him on the future. Maybe I can convince him not to down statins like his parents...

To think there are docs out there advocating adding statins to the water supply. And pediatricians putting 8-yr olds on statins!

sarkin · Post by **sarkin** » Sun May 29, 2011 7:08 am

Wow, it does sound as though your husband's a great candidate for avoiding statins. YIKES.

I hope your mother is fighting her doctor, hard. "Insisting," my foot. Hope the apple didn't fall too far from the tree, Z... clearly there's good reason for your mother *not* to take statins, and little evidence for any reason why she needs to.

My father's system had probably been softened up for years by Lipitor before the high-dose Crestor blow that killed him. And I believe by the time all the research that's been suppressed or misrepresented is really laid out, the fight to put statins in the water supply will be a non-starter (but I am a cockeyed optimist).

L,
S