#1562

Obviously, I can’t recommend you take any drug, I can only give my one rat n-1 report. I have had lifelong high cholesterol (TC 240-270, LDL 140-180, HDL 70-100) that is completely resistant to any and all lifestyle diet, exercise, supplements interventions. After turning 60, I went on atorvastatin 10mg/day. Initially the statin worked miraculously, got my LDL to 75, TC 155. I was jumping for joy. That was the first year. Every subsequent year it seemed to get less and less effective and I’m back to trash lipids - this past October, TC 239 LDL 146. Oh, and my Lp(a) is a lovely 111. My ApoB is 120. Absolute garbage.

I decided to get s CAC scan at the end of 2023 at age 65 after 5 years of 10mg/day atorvastatin.

The result was a score of ZERO. I could hardly believe it. After a lifetime of toxic levels of lipids with garbage Lp(a), after 5 years of a statin, I have a CAC score of zero. Unbelievable. I don’t fully trust this, so next month I’m getting a CIMT for another data point. Eventually I’d like to get an angio to see if there’s any soft plaque. FWIW, I’ve been supplementing with vitamin K2 for close to 20 years. It was usually just MK-7, but in the last few years I’ve also taken a combo with high MK-4. I have also been taking vit. D3, for some 25 years. Whether that has had any impact on my arteries I don’t have the faintest clue, though yes, I’ve been supplementing with K2 and D3 exactly with the hope that it may help my arteries (and bone health, prostate cancer prevention etc.).

In any case I can’t get my insurance to pay for a PCSK9i, and my PCP has no further ideas to control my lipids, so I’ve taken matters into my own hands. I’ve dropped the atorvastatin back in November of last year and gotten on 4mg/day of Pitavastatin (Indian Pharmacy). I will get a full lipid panel in April to evaluate. I don’t expect miracles from the pita, so I’ve already purchased a modest amount of bempedoic acid and separately a goodly amount of bempedoic acid 180mg + ezetemibe 10mg combo. I will first add the BA for 3 months just to see the effect on my lipids, and then the BA+EZ. I want to crush my LDL to below 60 at a minimum, preferably to 40. We’ll see.

However my point here is that there exist statins that purportedly don’t increase your risk of diabetes, or raise your blood sugar, or cause muscle problems. Pitavastatin allegedly is one like that, plus it is outstanding in MACE prevention. It also has much less interaction with other drugs. And another point is that regardless of your statin use, you are not doomed to have calcified plaque in your arteries. It’s not a certainty as I have found out. Of course, YMMV, and we are all unique individuals with a variety of physiological parameters and reactions to pharmaceuticals.

4 Likes
#1563

In which unit? mg/dl or nmol/L

#1564

Unfortunately, it’s mg/dL, that’s all the lab UCLA uses does.

1 Like
#1565

Thank you for your earlier response. Did you ever measure how statins affected your Lp(a) levels? Generally, they tend to increase.

#1566

Alas, I did not. I hadn’t ever measured Lp(a) until a couple of years ago, when I convinced my PCP to do a detailed lipid panel that looks at ApoB etc. At that point I was already on a statin, so I have nothing to compare it to.

1 Like
#1567

See this:

1 Like
#1568

I taken Atorvastatin since 2008 at various doses (10-80mg). Have a strong family history of ASCVD and Lp(a) finally measured in 2022 was 195, 190 in 2023. I get no side effects.

Recent remeasure of Lp(a) was 185 on Ator of 40mg. Still high but on a level.
If only Id been able to test in in 2008 pre-statin :thinking:

2 Likes
#1569

Lp(a) in which unit? mg/dl or nmol/L ?

#1570

nmol/l which seems the standard units in the UK. Im in the ‘moderate’ risk category but our NHS doesn’t do primary prevention yet.

Im hoping that the ACCLAIM trial of Lepodisiran reports soon so Lilly can make it available

1 Like
#1571

Have you tried b cyclodextrin it’s supposed to be more effective than the alpha one.

#1572

Yes, I’ve gone through just over 4 boxes of those. Works best to use it just before bed. Still an unfortunate method of application.

Also unfortunate is the possibility of going deaf. I’m really looking forward to the much better cyclarity which is in trials now in australia and could soon be available. I can wait a couple years yet. Should be no emergency here.

#1573

I’m thinking of making liposomal b cyclodextrin.
What dose will be safer in your opinion.

#1574

Isnt there a risk of hearing loss reported in mouse models with CD?

#1575

The Cavidex I’m using is 8ml/day. I doubt very much that you will absorb it all liposomal. I’m sure these guys thought of it. It’s probably safe, but I’d be surprised if it works as well as Cavidex.

#1576

Question for the hive mind:

If one already has a history of heart disease, is there any reason to continue testing additional markers beyond just ApoB during routine lab work? (triglycerides, LDL, etc)

TY!

#1577

I am concerned about the hearing loss too with high dose was thinking of trying a lower 500 mg dose first. Are you getting Cavidex online. Maybe that is the safer route I’ll try that too if they ship to Canada.

#1578

Comes from Australia

#1579

Thanks I’ll try this first.

#1580

Less aggressive than Dayspring and others, but still lower than current standards in many areas:

Open access paper:

Optimal low-density lipoprotein is 50 to 70 mg/dl: Lower is better and physiologically normal

The normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol range is 50 to 70 mg/dl for native hunter-gatherers, healthy human neonates, free-living primates, and other wild mammals (all of whom do not develop atherosclerosis). Randomized trial data suggest atherosclerosis progression and coronary heart disease events are minimized when LDLis lowered to <70 mg/dl. No major safety concerns have surfaced in studies that lowered LDL to this range of 50 to 70 mg/dl. The current guidelines setting the target LDL at 100 to 115 mg/dl may lead to substantial undertreatment in high-risk individuals.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109704007168

7 Likes
#1581

That’s a really old paper (2004), so surprising to see it here now, I read it about 9 or 10 years ago when I started to learn about this. Old but good.

2 Likes