I intend spending some time reading up on LDL and HDL at some stage. My understanding is that LDL provides C to tissues whilst HDL returns excess C to the liver. I would assume, therefore, that there is some messaging system (possibly a peptide) which passes around information as to the need for C. Hence I would like to look at the research to see what this might be and how it may be influenced.

I have experimented with monacolin K (aka lovastatin), but I think it causes me memory issues so I stopped.

My underlying view is that CVD is caused by a failure in endothelial cells which is exacerbated by LDL-C (and all the other factors being relevant ApoB Lp(a) etc). However, it is the failure (which I assume to be a failure of differentiation and a move to senescence) that underlies it.

My own personal LDL-C floats around for various reasons and tends to be either just under or just over the UK 3mmol/L threshold for intervention/concern. Hence I don’t see a need for urgent action if I can sort out the endothelial failure issue which as it stands I have no good way to measure. (which is an issue).

I do, however, think that if the body provides C to tissues from the liver there is a good reason for this.

1 Like

I saw that new paper yesterday and wanted to post it, but then I thought it would be irrelevant and potentially seen as trolling, as it’s not a high-quality paper. However, as you now mention endothelial cells… Beneficial influence of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on the endothelium in relation to endothelial repair 2025

Results: Among individuals with low levels of circulating CD34-positive cells, LDL-c levels were significantly inversely correlated with CAVI and positively correlated with circulating CD34-positive cells. No significant correlations were observed among the participants with high levels of circulating CD34-positive cells. Among low levels of CD34-positive cells, the adjusted standardized parameter (β) and p value were −0.24 (p = 0.021) for CAVI and 0.41 (p < 0.001) for CD34-positive cells, whereas among high levels of CD34-positive cells, the corresponding values were 0.03 (p = 0.738) and −0.09 (p = 0.355).
Conclusion: LDLc has a beneficial influence on endothelial health among individuals with low endothelial repair activity, possibly by stimulating the proliferation of hematopoietic stem cells.

1 Like

The hard part is that LDL-C is providing C which is used to tissues. C is otherwise produced via the SLC25A1 - Acetyl-CoA pathway. Hence inefficient mitochondria will result in less intracellular C.

Hence although it is harmful, it is also helpful.

3 Likes

There needs to be a Netflix documentary like this to give it a larger audience. Right now, there are far too many normal people thinking high LDL is healthy, including friends of mine who are health conscious. There needs to be a strong message conveyed about the dangers of high LDL/ApoB with compelling data (which we know there is plenty). It seems the bad info has become so mainstream.

7 Likes

It’s sort of unclear to me how serum LDL levels impact brain LDL (and thus endothelial function and ICH). AIUI, LDL particles do not readily cross the BBB and the brain produces its own cholesterol.

1 Like

That’s an interesting point. Hence a statin that can pass the BBB will affect brain cholesterol.

This strikes me as short and not too AI sloppy

Here is a list of common statins, categorized by their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier (BBB), primarily based on lipophilicity and experimental evidence (including animal and human studies):


:green_circle: Lipophilic Statins – Likely or known to cross the BBB

These statins are more lipophilic (fat-soluble), enabling them to penetrate the BBB more readily.

Statin BBB Penetration Notes
Simvastatin :white_check_mark: Yes (high) Crosses BBB; studied for CNS effects, including Alzheimer’s disease
Lovastatin :white_check_mark: Yes (moderate-high) Crosses BBB; evidence in animals and humans
Atorvastatin :white_check_mark: Partial/Yes Crosses to some extent; detected in brain tissue
Cerivastatin :white_check_mark: Yes (withdrawn) Withdrawn due to rhabdomyolysis risk; was lipophilic and crossed BBB

:red_circle: Hydrophilic Statins – Do not significantly cross the BBB

These are more water-soluble and have very limited brain penetration.

Statin BBB Penetration Notes
Pravastatin :x: No (very low) Poor CNS penetration; minimal CNS side effects
Rosuvastatin :x: No (very low) Highly hydrophilic; negligible BBB crossing
Fluvastatin :x:/Partial (low) Low lipophilicity; minimal CNS exposure
Pitavastatin :x:/Unclear Intermediate properties; evidence is limited

:brain: Mechanistic Note

  • Lipophilicity is the main factor influencing BBB crossing.
  • However, active transporters (e.g., P-glycoprotein) can limit CNS accumulation even for lipophilic statins.
  • Simvastatin (especially in lactone form) has the highest CNS penetration.

Clinical Relevance

  • Cognitive effects (e.g., memory issues, confusion) have occasionally been reported, especially with lipophilic statins, but large trials (e.g., PROSPER, STAREE) generally find no strong adverse CNS effect.
  • Neuroprotective studies are ongoing for simvastatin and atorvastatin in Alzheimer’s, MS, and other CNS disorders.

Let me know if you’d like references or want to compare statins by half-life, potency, or metabolism.

2 Likes

Thinking “why would this be”. I think the answer is that by reducing neural cholesterol production more acetyl-CoA is available to fix the splicing problems that cause Alzheimers and the others linked to splicing (I think myelin creation may be in with this, but myellin uses cholesterol so I would be surprised if MS is improved by a statin).

2 Likes

Statins and Bempedoic Acid: Different Actions of Cholesterol Inhibitors on Macrophage Activation

Caveat: Chinese study.

Efficacy and safety of bempedoic acid alone or combining with other lipid-lowering therapies in hypercholesterolemic patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Pharmacodynamic effect of bempedoic acid and statin combinations: predictions from a dose–response model

2 Likes

True, but mice also don’t get ASCVD or die from MI. Those other purported benefits are still related to ASCVD, like stabilising plaque, lowering arterial inflammation etc.

Except those with familiar hypercholesterolemia. I was at a conference learning about this recently. And guess what - those kids start to have heart attacks in their teens and early adulthood, unless treated with aggressive LDL-C lowering therapies. That is extremely compelling evidence of the LDL-C hypothesis IMO.

In addition, for the larger topic and the last 30 posts, I would say we need to remind ourselves that all these things are just playing probability games. Some people with high LDL-C go on and lead long lives with no CVD. Others with “normal” LDL-C die of early MI. But, you certainly decrease your chance of early death by lowering LDL-C/ApoB. (Similar story with Rapamycin, which reliably increases median lifespan but in every study, some of the mice on Rapamycin still died before other mice on placebo.)

So yes, maybe a super low LDL-C does increase risk of viral infection, or bleeding. However, in the larger context, CVD kills 1/4 of all humans, and for most people it’s a far larger risk than that of bleeding or viral infections.

But, as others have also said, the targets should be different depending on your history, other risk factors etc. If you have high Lp(a), evidence of plaque, or other risk factors, then you’d likely want ApoB as low as possible. If you’re older, have clean arteries (by CTCA), and low risk factors, then higher ApoB is probably fine. If you have stage 4 cancer, then you have bigger risks to deal with and the importance of ApoB is relatively less.

7 Likes

The inverse relationship between endogenous testosterone (natural levels) and heart disease is reported in the following study of elderly men. Given that lipid lowering drugs also reduce testosterone levels, I thought the study has merits for discussion under this topic heading. From the abstract: “Men in the highest quartile of testosterone (≥550 ng/dl) had a lower risk of CV events.”

Ohlsson, C., Barrett-Connor, E., Bhasin, S., Orwoll, E., Labrie, F., Karlsson, M. K., … & Tivesten, Å. (2011). High serum testosterone is associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular events in elderly men: the MrOS (Osteoporotic Fractures in Men) study in Sweden. Journal of the American College of Cardiology , 58 (16), 1674-1681.

Abstract

Objectives:

We tested the hypothesis that serum total testosterone and sex hormone–binding globulin (SHBG) levels predict cardiovascular (CV) events in community-dwelling elderly men.

Background:

Low serum testosterone is associated with increased adiposity, an adverse metabolic risk profile, and atherosclerosis. However, few prospective studies have demonstrated a protective link between endogenous testosterone and CV events. Polymorphisms in the SHBG gene are associated with risk of type 2 diabetes, but few studies have addressed SHBG as a predictor of CV events.

Methods:

We used gas chromatography/mass spectrometry to analyze baseline levels of testosterone in the prospective population-based MrOS (Osteoporotic Fractures in Men) Sweden study (2,416 men, age 69 to 81 years). SHBG was measured by immunoradiometric assay. CV clinical outcomes were obtained from central Swedish registers.

Results:

During a median 5-year follow-up, 485 CV events occurred. Both total testosterone and SHBG levels were inversely associated with the risk of CV events (trend over quartiles: p = 0.009 and p = 0.012, respectively). Men in the highest quartile of testosterone (≥550 ng/dl) had a lower risk of CV events compared with men in the 3 lower quartiles (hazard ratio: 0.70, 95% confidence interval: 0.56 to 0.88). This association remained after adjustment for traditional CV risk factors and was not materially changed in analyses excluding men with known CV disease at baseline (hazard ratio: 0.71, 95% confidence interval: 0.53 to 0.95). In models that included both testosterone and SHBG, testosterone but not SHBG predicted CV risk.

Conclusions:

High serum testosterone predicted a reduced 5-year risk of CV events in elderly men.

3 Likes
4 Likes

Study: AI predicts patient odds of dying from sudden cardiac arrest

Researchers at Johns Hopkins found that the AI outperformed current clinical guidelines with 89% accuracy across all patients and a 93% accuracy rate for individuals ages 40 to 60.

In 2021, the European Union approved an AI technology that can identify people at risk of a fatal heart attack years before it strikes.

The CaRi-Heart technology, developed by British Heart Foundation (BHF) spinout company Caristo Diagnostics, utilizes coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) scans already performed in clinical practice.

It uses AI and deep learning technology to produce a fat attenuation index score (FAI-Score), which accurately measures inflammation of blood vessels in and around the heart.

A BHF-funded study involving around 4,000 patients found those with an abnormal FAI were up to nine times more likely to die of a heart attack in the next nine years than those with normal FAI readings.

It also found that around one-third of patients initially considered low risk after a routine CCTA had a much higher risk after CaRi-Heart was applied to their scan.

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/study-ai-predicts-patient-odds-dying-sudden-cardiac-arrest

4 Likes

Amazing. I hope this makes it stateside, as Cleerly is clearly inadequate especially that they don’t deign to release the full results of the test to the patient - highly condescending to people who purchase their test for a lot of $. In general there needs to be more competition and more development in the CT angio space. A lot more can be mined from the data in this test.

2 Likes

How about using CCTA + Heartflow instead of CCTA + Cleerly ?
CCTA Heartscan vs Cleerly

The linked facility in San Diego charges $950 just for the 256 slide CCTA (256 slice CT scan has 80% reduced radiation exposure and 50% reduced contrast agent vs older 64 slide CT scan), and an additional $700 for the Heartscan software ($1650 total) OR additional $1000 for the Cleerly software ($1950 total). Note that older 64 slice CCTA scans are typically $400 cheaper, but have higher radiation and contrast agent exposure. Both software add-ons are claimed to provide similar detail of soft plaque, Heartscan adds calculation of flow rate based on plaque, Cleerly claims to do a better job tracking changes compared to a previous Cleerly CCTA. In studies of accuracy in detecting plaque vs the Gold Standard catheterized imaging Cleerly has a very slight edge vs Heartscan.

2 Likes

Forget scans, just nuke your apoB and keep your BP and kidneys in order (and of course body fat percentage and insulin resistance/diabetes)

3 Likes

We are all well aware of statin skeptics. But did you know there are PCSK9i skeptics? One example:

NADIR ALI 4’ | Study 28k people: PCSK9 inhibitor… No mortality benefit (DoctorsToTrust)

2 Likes

If people want an O3 summary please like this message. I am myself not interested enough in the topic of the video to do one unprompted.

1 Like

Yes, based on a 4 year study there was an non-significant mortality increase for Repatha in the Fourier trial. It is hard to see mortality benefits from cholesterol lowering over 4 years.

However, the ODYSSEY 4 year study of Praluent DID show significant mortality decrease (HR=0.85, pvalue=0.026) but essentially the entire mortality benefit was due to the subgroup with initial LDL cholesterol over 100.

PCSK9 trials

2 Likes

Meanwhile, cardiologists claim that patients are being regularly underdosed with statins. Instead of immediately prescribing a high intensity/dose statin, patients are prescribed a low and inadequate dose and then kept there long term.

FWIW, that has been my experience. I was prescribed 10mg/day atorvastatin, and even though my LDL kept creeping up through the years (last October LDL 146, TC 239 and sky high Lp(a)), my PCP keeps me on the same 10mg dose. But in his notes on my labs, he does urge me to cut back on saturated fat in my diet, although I’ve told him repeatedly that I’ve cut out my SFA as far as I possibly can without going vegan, my only real source of SFA is the 1-2 times a week salmon and/or sardines. And I’ve been prediabetic for years despite my best diet and exercise efforts - he’ll spring into action once I’m officially diabetic, until then, he urges cutting back on excess sugar (even though I repeatedly told him I have done that already for decades).

In other words, he’s a classic medicine 2.0 practitioner who will only act once I become diabetic or have a heart attack. Is it any wonder, that I have felt compelled to take matters into my own hands and don’t bother informing him about the meds I buy from India, as he absolutely refuses to prescribe anything outside of the SOC insurance guidelines. Telling him about the meds I take on my own would only have the effect of sabotaging my insurance and his likely dropping me as a patient. And I need the insurance in case of emergency, accident, or serious diagnosis like cancer. So I take full responsibility for my health and move in silence - gives a different meaning to “defensive medicine”; I call it “self defense medicine”:sweat_smile:.

I know there are some brilliant doctors out there, but sadly it’s a matter of luck for most people, and great numbers of doctors are effectively useless if you want preventative medicine.

Matt Kaeberlein in one of his recent presentations claimed that in the very near future, we will have available personal digital assistants that can guide us on our health with a few wearable sensors/trackers and combine available data from labs utilizing AI to vastly enhance our health journey. I don’t know if that is indeed our near future, or how far away it is, but surely better can be done than the plodding “care” one receives from the average medicine 2.0 doctor out there. If you rely on the latter, you better count on a lot of lucky genes.

Larger statin dosages urged for many with cholesterol, heart risks

“Co-author Dr. Charles Hennekens, the Sir Richard Doll Professor of Medicine and Preventive Medicine at Florida Atlantic University’s Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine in Boca Raton, says his analysis of several major clinical studies of the new generation of highly potent statins, such as rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, shows that maximal doses are safe and sorely needed, but aren’t being prescribed.”

““The data indicate that over half of people who were put on a statin remain on the initial dose they’re given, so even though the intent may be to titrate it up, it’s not done in the majority of instances,” he said. “So, you get on a low dose of statin and you stay on it.””

Max-dose statins save lives—here’s why doctors are starting strong

The researchers offer cautious views of adjunctive therapies such as ezetimibe and evolocumab, which tend to be used more widely than optimal. For example, in the IMPROVE-IT trial, the addition of ezetimibe to simvastatin showed only a minor benefit, while the FOURIER trial demonstrated evolocumab’s efficacy in secondary prevention only in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia already on maximal statin doses. While FOURIER was a completed trial of secondary prevention, ILLUMINATE is an ongoing trial in high-risk primary prevention patients with familial hypercholesterolemia.

“These findings suggest that such therapies may be more appropriately reserved for select high-risk patients who have not achieved LDL goals with statins alone,” said Hennekens.

The authors also discuss the role of omega-3 fatty acids, noting that earlier trials were positive but later tended to show no net benefit. The authors opine that this may have been due to widespread statin use. They note that in REDUCE-IT, a large-scale randomized trial, icosapent ethyl was the only omega-3 fatty acid to demonstrate significant added benefits when added to evidence-based doses of high potency statins. Patients assigned at random to icosapent ethyl, a purified form of eicosapentanoic acid, experienced a significant 25% reduction in major cardiovascular events, with a number needed to treat of just 21.”

1 Like

I do think a lot is driven by the caution of the insurance processes. Insurance will be cautious, however.