Help with Cholesterol and BP Meds

Do you understand the mechanism behind this?

From the JAMA article:Association of Bempedoic Acid Administration With Atherogenic Lipid Levels in Hypercholesterolemia

Hypercholesterolemia itself is associated with tendon pathology and increased risk of tendon rupture, particularly among patients with HeFH. A causal relationship between bempedoic acid and tendon rupture has not been established.

My best guess is that the people on aggressive lipid management tend to be old and in poor physical condition. As a result, slightly elevated incidence of tendon rupture is observed.

There is definitely something there with regard to statins and adverse side effects related to myalgia, but that remains a controversial topic with no consensus as to what is happening. Statins at elevated doses inhibit collagen synthesis to some degree and also lower CoQ10 levels, but i suspect that's not an issue in an otherwise healthy population.
 
I was reassured statins are fine by this. for about ten seconds until I read the comments of clinicians all mentioning personal experience with muscle pain, brain fog, and ruptured tendons.


It may be worth the trade off vs a heart attack, but I think there are new injectable cholesterol treatments like once every 6 months Leqvio that don't cause these problems.

Seems like another early GLP situation. "Yes this is a superior treatment but extremely expensive and most insurance won't cover it, so let's not talk about it too loudly unless the patient is rich.".
 
One of the things i tend to see not mentioned is that the brain produces it's own cholesterol as it needs it. And cholesterol is to large of molecule to pass through the blood brain barrier. Yet stating are small enough they can pass through. Which would lower the amount of cholesterol in the brain it would seem. and with brain shrinkage, dementia ect. on the rise i wounder how much of that is due to stains? When ever i ask cardiologists about that or the life expectancy of people on statins. They tell me that is something to consider. But they have seen no data about it. If statins actually helped people live longer i would think that would be a selling point for big pharma. And they have decades of data available but they never talk of people actually living longer only how there is less heart attacks.
 
One of the things i tend to see not mentioned is that the brain produces it's own cholesterol as it needs it. And cholesterol is to large of molecule to pass through the blood brain barrier. Yet stating are small enough they can pass through. Which would lower the amount of cholesterol in the brain it would seem. and with brain shrinkage, dementia ect. on the rise i wounder how much of that is due to stains? When ever i ask cardiologists about that or the life expectancy of people on statins. They tell me that is something to consider. But they have seen no data about it. If statins actually helped people live longer i would think that would be a selling point for big pharma. And they have decades of data available but they never talk of people actually living longer only how there is less heart attacks.

That's a brilliant point. It seems like the general medicine complex is hyper focused on cardiac outcome stats, and not the "I'll be retired by then" long term effects like neurodegeneration.

As usual, most doctors can provide more life, but only a few (or more likely, only yourself), consider maximizing. quality of life.

Also, another benefit of the new treatments. Their mechanism of action is less brute force and more of a modification of existing cholesterol regulating systems, and I don't believe have the same potential to deprive the brain of cholesterol.
 
It may be worth the trade off vs a heart attack, but I think there are new injectable cholesterol treatments like once every 6 months Leqvio that don't cause these problems.

Yet stating are small enough they can pass through.

There are tendon ruptures observed in PCSK9i users at a similar rate to statins.

Rosuvastatin and other hydrophilic statins have a lower potential to cross the blood brain barrier and in any case, work directly on the liver to reduce cholesterol production by inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase.
 
There are tendon ruptures observed in PCSK9i users at a similar rate to statins.

Rosuvastatin and other hydrophilic statins have a lower potential to cross the blood brain barrier and in any case, work directly on the liver to reduce cholesterol production by inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase.

Well then let's just hope it's the result of "I'm taking care of my cholesterol, I should start exercising too.".

Similar to men starting on TRT having a higher incidence of broken bones in the first year, lol. "Wow, I can do ANYTHING!"
 
There are tendon ruptures observed in PCSK9i users at a similar rate to statins.

Rosuvastatin and other hydrophilic statins have a lower potential to cross the blood brain barrier and in any case, work directly on the liver to reduce cholesterol production by inhibiting HMG-CoA reductase.
On the first run of the ski season last year a friend had his Achilles rupture and he has been on statins for years and was in the gym regularly till then. which supports what i have read over the yeas.
As usual, most doctors can provide more life, but only a few (or more likely, only yourself), consider maximizing. quality of life.

Also, another benefit of the new treatments. Their mechanism of action is less brute force and more of a modification of existing cholesterol regulating systems, and I don't believe have the same potential to deprive the brain of cholesterol.
It may not even be more life as the Dr.s appear to have no data showing statins on the average lead to any longer of a life span then if they are not taken.

Are you saying that the new medication is a large enough molecule that it can not pass the blood brain barrier?
 
On the first run of the ski season last year a friend had his Achilles rupture and he has been on statins for years and was in the gym regularly till then. which supports what i have read over the yeas.

It may not even be more life as the Dr.s appear to have no data showing statins on the average lead to any longer of a life span then if they are not taken.

Are you saying that the new medication is a large enough molecule that it can not pass the blood brain barrier?

Let me preface this is a theory based on a very superficial look at the relevant info.

The brain produces lipids, mostly fatty acids, essential for proper function. Statins interfere with the liver's ability to produce cholesterol. including triglycerides built on fatty acids. Statins crossing the bbb may be interfering with the brains endogenous lipid producing function.

PCSK9 inhibitors block molecules that would occupy LDL receptors, so LDL can activate them instead, resulting in a downregulation of LDL production via the natural feedback systems intended to keep LDL in check. I suspect this natural cholesterol feedback loop does not interfere with the brain's own capacity to make critical fatty acids.

A lot of assumptions here, I'll read more, but that seems like it might explain the much lower incidence of brain fog on PCSK9 inhibitors.
 
Well then let's just hope it's the result of "I'm taking care of my cholesterol, I should start exercising too.".

One of the problems with this whole field is that the medical community tends to want to treat or prevent MACE rather than prevent ASCVD where one is simply the symptom of the progression of the other.

One of the reasons that prescribing guidelines for statins are so ridiculous is because the clinical trials were in populations that were otherwise very certain to die. This increased the likelihood of the trials being successful and also it would have been unethical to use anything but the maximal dose in that population. So, here we are where lots of younger, otherwise healthy people are accumulating plaque burden and nobody knows how to prevent it even though the interventions to do so are right in front of us.

On the first run of the ski season last year a friend had his Achilles rupture and he has been on statins for years and was in the gym regularly till then. which supports what i have read over the yeas.

The plural of anecdote is not "data". It would be foolish of me to assert that there is no issue, but this is a topic that has been studied ad nauseum that has yielded no definitive answers.

It may not even be more life as the Dr.s appear to have no data showing statins on the average lead to any longer of a life span then if they are not taken.

This is patently false. For one, most medical doctors have no fucking clue about this stuff, but the folks doing the actual research have shown substantial benefit. It appears that you are parroting a statement that's commonplace in the keto/carnivore community which is the product of an inability to interpret statistics.

Are you saying that the new medication is a large enough molecule that it can not pass the blood brain barrier?

Hydrophilic statins, rosuvastatin and pravastatin are not new. They have very little ability to cross the blood brain barrier. Much of the literature on the effects of statins on the brain fails to make that distinction. It is typically based on atorvastatin, which is lipophilic and happily crosses the blood brain barrier.


PCSK9 inhibitors block molecules that would occupy LDL receptors, so LDL can activate them instead, resulting in a downregulation of LDL production via the natural feedback systems intended to keep LDL in check. I suspect this natural cholesterol feedback loop does not interfere with the brain's own capacity to make critical fatty acids.

Not exactly. The PCSK9 protein degrades the LDL receptors in the liver. By inhibiting PSCK9, there are more LDL receptors which increases the clearance of LDL. It is an excellent choice for patients that are statin-intolerant.

Since we're on mechanisms of action:

Bempedoic acid inhibits ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme used for cholesterol synthesis in the liver. It has two mechanisms of action, inhibiting LDL production in the liver and upregulating LDL receptors. As such, pairs well with a PCSK9i and is another excellent choice for statin intolerant. It is not activated in muscle tissue which presumably reduces the likelihood of any muscle related side effects.

Ezetimibe blocks cholesterol absorption in the small intestine which limits the supply of cholesterol to the liver which reduces the production of LDL. Most folks (in the medical community) presume that the cholesterol lowering effect exists primarily in the small intestine, but in actuality by limiting the supply of cholesterol to the liver, the liver increases the expression of LDL receptors further increasing uptake of LDL from the bloodstream. If this sounds complementary to the two other molecules described, it is. If it also sounds like a great option for statin-intolerant, then you'd be correct.

I'm going to skip providing more detail on statins. That's a contentious topic and there's lots of bullshit to debunk there. They do have issues, but are also incredibly efficacious.
 
One of the problems with this whole field is that the medical community tends to want to treat or prevent MACE rather than prevent ASCVD where one is simply the symptom of the progression of the other.

One of the reasons that prescribing guidelines for statins are so ridiculous is because the clinical trials were in populations that were otherwise very certain to die. This increased the likelihood of the trials being successful and also it would have been unethical to use anything but the maximal dose in that population. So, here we are where lots of younger, otherwise healthy people are accumulating plaque burden and nobody knows how to prevent it even though the interventions to do so are right in front of us.



The plural of anecdote is not "data". It would be foolish of me to assert that there is no issue, but this is a topic that has been studied ad nauseum that has yielded no definitive answers.



This is patently false. For one, most medical doctors have no fucking clue about this stuff, but the folks doing the actual research have shown substantial benefit. It appears that you are parroting a statement that's commonplace in the keto/carnivore community which is the product of an inability to interpret statistics.



Hydrophilic statins, rosuvastatin and pravastatin are not new. They have very little ability to cross the blood brain barrier. Much of the literature on the effects of statins on the brain fails to make that distinction. It is typically based on atorvastatin, which is lipophilic and happily crosses the blood brain barrier.




Not exactly. The PCSK9 protein degrades the LDL receptors in the liver. By inhibiting PSCK9, there are more LDL receptors which increases the clearance of LDL. It is an excellent choice for patients that are statin-intolerant.

Since we're on mechanisms of action:

Bempedoic acid inhibits ATP-citrate lyase, an enzyme used for cholesterol synthesis in the liver. It has two mechanisms of action, inhibiting LDL production in the liver and upregulating LDL receptors. As such, pairs well with a PCSK9i and is another excellent choice for statin intolerant. It is not activated in muscle tissue which presumably reduces the likelihood of any muscle related side effects.

Ezetimibe blocks cholesterol absorption in the small intestine which limits the supply of cholesterol to the liver which reduces the production of LDL. Most folks (in the medical community) presume that the cholesterol lowering effect exists primarily in the small intestine, but in actuality by limiting the supply of cholesterol to the liver, the liver increases the expression of LDL receptors further increasing uptake of LDL from the bloodstream. If this sounds complementary to the two other molecules described, it is. If it also sounds like a great option for statin-intolerant, then you'd be correct.

I'm going to skip providing more detail on statins. That's a contentious topic and there's lots of bullshit to debunk there. They do have issues, but are also incredibly efficacious.

Wow glad for my disclaimer, lol.

Nonetheless, the mechanism of action, increasing receptors that pull LDL into the cell for use or disposal, increasing the rate of the natural LDL clearance process, doesn't, intuitively, seem like it would interfere with the fatty acid production process in the brain.

That may be shaky ground, but coupled with all the "no measurable effect on cognition" results reported since the PCSK9 clinical trials, seems like brain function isn't an issue for this class of drug.
 
The plural of anecdote is not "data". It would be foolish of me to assert that there is no issue, but this is a topic that has been studied ad nauseum that has yielded no definitive answers.

Hence the reason i added my personal experience.
We all have out own opinions. I have seen no data to show where statins actually extend peoples live on the average who take them. which is the most important data to me. As if the pros vs cons are a wash then something is likely no benefit to me. Others should do what they think is best for them. I make no statements about what others should do. Data seems to show higher cholesterol levels are less harmful then low levels.
 
Wow glad for my disclaimer, lol.

Nonetheless, the mechanism of action, increasing receptors that pull LDL into the cell for use or disposal, increasing the rate of the natural LDL clearance process, doesn't, intuitively, seem like it would interfere with the fatty acid production process in the brain.

That may be shaky ground, but coupled with all the "no measurable effect on cognition" results reported since the PCSK9 clinical trials, seems like brain function isn't an issue for this class of drug.
Did the studies take place over many years that would likely be needed for such things to surface?
 
Nonetheless, the mechanism of action, increasing receptors that pull LDL into the cell for use or disposal, increasing the rate of the natural LDL clearance process, doesn't, intuitively, seem like it would interfere with the fatty acid production process in the brain.

That seems to be the case for all three of the compounds I described.

That may be shaky ground, but coupled with all the "no measurable effect on cognition" results reported since the PCSK9 clinical trials, seems like brain function isn't an issue for this class of drug.

The FOURIER trial for evolocumab (Repatha) specifically targeted cognitive impairment as one of its endpoints and found no evidence of impact. There is a concern that very low levels of cholesterol in the bloodstream might impair cognitive ability, but that concern is unfounded since the brain, as we have discussed, can make its own cholesterol and PCSK9 inhibitors do not impact that function.

Unfortunately, the CLEAR trial for bempedoic acid didn't include a similar endpoint, but there's no reason to believe it would be any different.
 
That seems to be the case for all three of the compounds I described.



The FOURIER trial for evolocumab (Repatha) specifically targeted cognitive impairment as one of its endpoints and found no evidence of impact. There is a concern that very low levels of cholesterol in the bloodstream might impair cognitive ability, but that concern is unfounded since the brain, as we have discussed, can make its own cholesterol and PCSK9 inhibitors do not impact that function.

Unfortunately, the CLEAR trial for bempedoic acid didn't include a similar endpoint, but there's no reason to believe it would be any different.

Thanks, so much for your clarifications and expansions regarding lipid control. I've avoided this for way too long.

Already reading the pre-auth requirements for PCSK9 inhibitors.

3 months of statin use...ugh.
 
Did the studies take place over many years that would likely be needed for such things to surface?

I see 2017 for the first human recipients of PCSK9 inhibitors. I use 10 years as my "risk mitigation" timeframe for high benefit novel drugs. But the closer I creep towards my own "endpoint" the shorter those times may have to become, lol.
 
have seen no data to show where statins actually extend peoples live on the average who take them.


Data seems to show higher cholesterol levels are less harmful then low levels.

Where is this data? Please, do not refer me to an episode of Joe Rogan's podcast.

We all have out own opinions.

Yes, and some are founded in science. Others are founded in a lack of understanding. As I mentioned, the people that you're parroting on the lifespan thing simply don't understand statistics.

I make no statements about what others should do.

And yet you feel okay spreading misinformation that's patently false and harmful.

As if the pros vs cons are a wash then something is likely no benefit to me. Others should do what they think is best for them.

Nobody asked you to take a statin. There is no grand conspiracy to get you to take a statin and if you did, I can assure you that there's little profit in it for evil big pharma. You do what's best for you.

I would think, however, that if you have ASCVD which you can confirm either way by getting a CT-CAC, that you would consider all the interventions at your disposal. Alternately, you can put your head in the sand until one day, you clutch your chest and get to flip a coin because the most common presentation of an MI is.... death which occurs about 50% of the time.
 
Already reading the pre-auth requirements for PCSK9 inhibitors.

That's not so bad. In many cases, pre-auth requires the patient to be both statin intolerant and also only in the case of secondary intervention, which boggles the fucking mind.

Secondary intervention implies that the patient has already had a MACE and is well on their way to death.

My insurance had a similarly onerous pre-auth clause for it, so I got an Rx from a telemedicine doc and pursued the copay card from Repatha based on a tip I got here. Turns out to be easy to get. I got it, but never used it because I discovered that my employer is excellent at negotiating with its insurance providers. There is the off-the-shelf pharmaceutical benefit which requires pre-auth, but I discovered that there is a custom addendum to it, which covers preventative drugs like Repatha and Nexlizet with no pre-auth.
 
That's not so bad. In many cases, pre-auth requires the patient to be both statin intolerant and also only in the case of secondary intervention, which boggles the fucking mind.

Secondary intervention implies that the patient has already had a MACE and is well on their way to death.

My insurance had a similarly onerous pre-auth clause for it, so I got an Rx from a telemedicine doc and pursued the copay card from Repatha based on a tip I got here. Turns out to be easy to get. I got it, but never used it because I discovered that my employer is excellent at negotiating with its insurance providers. There is the off-the-shelf pharmaceutical benefit which requires pre-auth, but I discovered that there is a custom addendum to it, which covers preventative drugs like Repatha and Nexlizet with no pre-auth.

My god that's a long list of requirements. I do meet them, with only angina being a SIMptom I'd have to develop. I saw the discount card, but the current one only seems to cover copays. $7k yr retail. Wow.
 



Where is this data? Please, do not refer me to an episode of Joe Rogan's podcast.
Thank you for the studies. Throwing out the high risk patients as i can see they are special and may need more aggressive treatment then most. Hence the reason i wrote amount average people on stains. The 1 other study did seem to show some promise, although it seemed those on the stating still died but only 70% as much as the control group.
Being a smart person i am sure you open mindedly looked at both sides of the issue. So excuse me if you have already seen some of these studies
The one with 12.8 million people showing cholesterol levels of around 220 had the low mortality with it increasing on either side.




These are just some of many studies i have seen along this line.
In the end big pharma has decades of data from their patients yet they do no publish things about life expectancy for some reason. I would if it put my product in a good light as that would up sales. I think people should take stain if they think they will benefit them. But i do not find them as harmless as most Dr do with the way they prescribe them.
 
Throwing out the high risk patients as i can see they are special and may need more aggressive treatment then most. Hence the reason i wrote amount average people on stains. The 1 other study did seem to show some promise, although it seemed those on the stating still died but only 70% as much as the control group.

An excellent point. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that everyone get on statins. I am suggesting that it's an effective intervention for ASCVD. Total cholesterol is not causal of arterial plaque burden, nor even closely correlated. LDL-C is not causal of arterial plaque burden, but is closely correlated. ApoB is directly causal of arterial plaque burden and happens to be traffic into the arterial walls by LDL. Even those ApoB is causal, it is considered necessary but not sufficient for the progression of ASCVD. It is possible to have high ApoB and yet still not suffer the progression of ASCVD. It is possible for people to have very high calcium scores and yet never have a MACE. One of the difficulties in this area is in interpreting the probabilities.

Being a smart person i am sure you open mindedly looked at both sides of the issue.

In as much as I can. I have an obvious bias. On the topic of statins, I've challenged that bias and attempted to find real data that supports the incidence of adverse side effects that people report. I've come up short.

I can deconstruct the studies you mentioned:

Total cholesterol and all-cause mortality by sex and age:

This is a large observational study that fails to show a linear relationship between total cholesterol and increased all cause mortality. I am not surprised, given what I wrote earlier. In many of these observational studies it's difficult to tease out a benefit in all cause mortality when deaths from ASCVD would represent a fraction of those. One could speculate about the reasons the u-shaped curve of all cause mortality vs. total cholesterol. In fact, we'd have to, because the paper doesn't really offer much.

Low Cholesterol is Associated With Mortality From Stroke, Heart Disease, and Cancer:

Again, this is another observational study in which people with low LDL that were *not* receiving any kind of lipid lowering medication had increased mortality. The lower LDL is correlated, but isn't causal. There could be any number of reasons why this may be the case.

Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study:

This is yet another observational study showing a correlation, but establishing no causal relationship.

In totality it suggests that across the entire population total cholesterol is not a good marker for deaths from all cause mortality, which I would readily accept. To some degree it refutes guidance from the medical community that "cholesterol is bad" and is an unfortunate failing on the part of the medical community to educate the general public.

None of that changes the fact that there are hosts of randomized clinical trials showing statins reducing the risk of death from ASCVD among patients at risk.

I know I am at risk. My aunt had an MI in her 40s. I had a CT-CAC a few years back and got a non-zero score, 48 I believe all of it in the LAD aka the "widow maker". My lipids weren't especially bad, but I'm running a multi-year experiment with N=1. My aim was to get ApoB below 60mg/dL as there's some literature that suggests that doing so may reverse calcified plaque. In full disclosure, it is promising, but not conclusive.

I began the process with all the non-pharmaceutical interventions. Diet, exercise, psyllium husk, fish oil, whatever. The needle moved a little. I tried ezetimibe mono-therapy. The needle moved a little. I was avoiding statins because they're a bugaboo. I had lunch with a friend of mine whom I hadn't seen in years. We were talking about such things. He was the prototypical American, obese, sedentary, poor health, shitty diet. Yet his lipids were significantly better than man on 20mg rosuvastatin. So, I decided to give it a whirl.

I started with a low dose, monitored for sides, experienced none, and continued. Eventually I added bempedoic acid and Repatha for the aforementioned reason in that I hope to reverse the calcified plaque, but also to create some headroom for my lipids to get worse as I increase my gear usage. Presently, they look like this:

Screenshot 2024-10-01 124847.webp

As a result, I feel pretty good about the fact that I'm at 1.5g/wk and climbing.

In the end big pharma has decades of data from their patients yet they do no publish things about life expectancy for some reason.

You won't find simple to parse "life expectancy" data available for interventions for any other disease either. It's tremendously hard to do that math and even harder for the lay person to understand.
 
Back
Top