I am more than perplexed with the statement in the last paragraph of the article "Our study along with others shows promising results..." how does one spin non continuous use of a drug resulting in greater benefit than continuous use into a "promising result"?
Predictably, initial use of statins should be of benefit in any disease that includes an inflammatory process--as most of all the neurodegenerative diseases are theorized to include. Statins are powerful anti-inflammatory agents, and initially should decrease this aspect of any disease. With continued use, the other "pleiotrophic" effects become evident: these pleiotrophic effects are mainly the result of depression in isoprenoid biosynthesis leading to impairment of the production of a variety of metabolic substrates such as dolichols, crucial for N-linked glycosylation; geranylgeranyl pyrophosphate, necessary for coenzyme Q10; farnesyl-pyrophosphate, necessary for the maturation of prelamin A and B-type lamins and G-proteins ;and isopentenylpyrophosphate, involved in direct modification of selenocysteinyl-tRNA and thus indirectly related to the synthesis of all selenoproteins (last estimated at 35). (glutathione reductase is depleted by statins--this substance is responsible for recycling glutathione in the brain)
Important to remember: brain cholesterol has a half-life of ~5yrs. Fat soluble statins, Lipitor, zocor, crestor, all cross the blood brain barrier and thus are able to affect the level of brain cholesterol. If a critical level of cholesterol exists for the brain, more time than a 2 to 3 yr period normally used in clinical trials would be necessary to appreciate the effects of lowering cholesterol levels in the brain.