Big "Bru-Ha-Ha " about Zetia Last Nite
 

Last nite on Nat'l news on TV, a blurb about Zetia being of 'no value'
in plaque control of the neck arteries.
Whattheheck is that all about?

Big Deal regarding Zetia in combination with another drug (I've forgotten the name-
but its the one advertised on TV)) was expected to show signs of reduced plaque,
and didn't. It didn't live up to 'expectations'
I've been taking Zetia alone (before the TV comm'ls)
for about 3 1/2 yrs for cholesterol reduction.

Works fine for me.
I asn't expecting any plaque reduction as my doc has never tested for it
and don't think we haveta test for it.
Big scare about this one drug that's a combo of a statin & Zetia,
not being of expected 'value' and other mentions of lawsuits and drugs taken off the market... as well as studies being squelched, or at least delayed..... in publishing results to the public.
Seems to me like a 'scare tactic' and over-blown knee jerk reaction on a minor point. Don't think that the drug in question claimed to reduce plaque, altho it may have touted being 'better' for the heart..

I guess Sunday nite is a slow news nite. Sheesh !!

I just saw the video for this today. Here is what I think:
The video says that Vytorin being used -- is a waste .. that it prevents more effective treatments. Well, this tells me that our friend Pfizer is at the root of this study. Vytorin has Zocor in it. Zocor is a statin and lowers cholesterol effectively. But the heart of this critique is that Pfizer paid big bucks to run a study showing Lipitor actually reduces heart attacks. (Zocor "used" to advertise this too, in the past"). The recent Lipitor commercials says ONLY
Lipitor is approved by FDA to lower heart attack. This is just a manipulative ploy to sell more Lipitor before it goes off patent.
No statin reduces plaque already there in place.

Read this about Dr. Jarvik:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/01/...e-lipitor-man/
It is all smoke and mirrors.
It is all word salad to me!
And the artificial heart was a failure...do you see anyone with one? In fact the patients who decided to try it
suffered greatly before they died.

Good morning Bob,

I didn't see the program you mentioned about Zetia, however, I am sure I have seen the commercials.
I tend to block these commercials out of my mind as in my way of thinking they are scare tactics. I also feel that these commercials are terrible for today's youth & the elderly.

I have been on Zetia for 3+ years. It has been a god-send for my high Chol. It has worked like a charm.
My kidney Docs did add 10mg of Lipitor last year as they wanted my chol. lower due to my kidney disease.

*Barb

ABC news...video
 

it is on the Yahoo page right now.

What this implies is that all the statins, except for Lipitor, are not FDA approved for reducing heart attack. If you read Cholesterol Myths...you will discover that the numbers on these studies are all massaged, and actual benefit is minute for all of them. Pfizer was locked in a head to head battle with Merck over Zocor.
They used a study two years ago to convince insurance companies to pay for Lipitor brand (with no increase of copay) instead of Vytorin (which has Zocor in it.) This is just a mathematical competition.

And BTW does Dr. Jarvik tell people on the commercial that low levels of CoQ-10 (which result from statin use) result in heart damage?

Nope. Low CoQ-10 is implicated in congestive heart failure/cardiomyopathy. In fact many heart transplants are done because of
weak muscle in the heart from viral infections or metabolic failures. Heart attacks don't always result in a heart transplant.
There are OTHER causes as well. And congestive heart failure is rising rapidly in this country among younger patients.

I agree with MRSD.

From what I could glean from the TV report, I believe the subjects of the study, were people who had 'famialial hypercholesteremia'. I also gathered that for these people there was no other effective treatment.

Vytorin does do what ALL the other statins drugs do: lowers cholesterol.

Zetia is a good alternative for statin intolerant people.

From what I gathered none of the other drugs promised any better results for people with 'familial hypercholesteremia'.

As MRSD says, with studies, it is really important to look at WHO does them, at WHICH population they use for the study, and HOW that study was conducted, and did they draw reasonable conclusions from it.

There are a lot 'bad' studies and therefore 'bad' stats out there.

For people who can not tolerate the statin action, Zetia is likely going to remain the alternative. This study really did not imply any conclusion for people on Vytorin that do not have 'familial hypercholesteremia'.

Familial Hypercholesteremia can strike as early as childhood and young adulthood.

For those of us, who simply have slightly high cholesterol, it makes me think, we need to do our best with diet and exercise and hope we can keep the cholesterol under control that way.....that said, I have never been happy with my HDL..even when I was doing 'huge' exercise...I never got over 47....go figure!! However, back then my total cholesterol ran about 160...so they looked at ratio. Now, I am carrying 15 extra pounds of Christmas faire right now....(yes, thanks to all who sent me cookies:p)....That is my load of cholesterol and I have no one to blame but myself and my big mouth, and I do not expect the drug companies to fix that. I have to fix it...and that is a real challenge, given the body doesn't want to work well enough to get a good heart rate going for any substantial amount of time.

I am not going to be exercising to the extent I used to, ever again, and I have neurogenic myopathy already...like I need more myopathy....so now what???

Statins for me were really never an option. Zetia is perhaps a possibility. Moving my body and eating only nutrient dense food, and not that much of it, is likely my only option to keep cholesterol low.

My husband is on lovastatin and complains about being sore all the time...docs do tolerate some rhabdomyolosis on this drug as part of the acceptable risk. He too, needs to stop eating THAT much and move more.

I know, easier said than done....

I say if the drug is working for you...and you have no huge side effects, and you have no other option...Your decision is evident....

studies:
 

http://www.thestalwart.com/the_stalw..._showdown.html

And here is an interesting thing from the Wall Street Journal...reporting that the study quoted in this video is from Apr 2006 and never released until now.
hmmmm? Got to get that data massaged really well, eh?

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/12/...-be-right-out/

I think the bottom line is this: Lowering cholesterol does not always (or even often) translate into changing plaque.

Plaque is thought to develop from a trauma or bacterial assault or inflammatory reaction (elevated C-reactive protein). The cholesterol is only a patch. So that is why cause/effects are hard to prove. If statins were so great the data would be overwhelming and it is NOT.

MRSD, you must be stuck indoors too....I tried to go for a walk yesterday an darn near flashfroze myself.....lasted a half mile...so darn windy and cold....I should know better....when the triple glazed windows with plastic on them to boot turn opaque white on top..don't go for a walk...:eek: And it isn't near as cold as it used to be...I am just far more wimpy, I guess. As a kid I used to walk miles up hill both ways to school in this.

I agree that many pathological processes get simplified. These processes are complex, intertwined.

Pharmaceuticals can be life saving, but there is always a cost.

I suppose it beats leeches....but even those STILL come in handy.

I just back from Costco...
 

But I do not like going out in this mess (slip and fall risk)...so I begged hubby to drive me on
his lunch hour... so I could zip in and out quickly. It was a good walk anyway.

My point is this:
If statins were so wonderful we'd see CLEAR benefits. And we don't. There are still problems with the studies, they are very close, filled with %'s of %'s, to confound. After 20 yrs we still have no clear proof...and these drugs are
not innocuous. They cause cancer in animals. There are huge downsides to them. So the benefit vs risk is not there for most people. Remember Mevacor first came out as a treatment ONLY for familial hypercholesteremia. I know a gal with this, her cholesterol was 800! That is the group these drugs were supposed to be for. Not for lowering 20-50pts for 250.

Cholesterol serves a purpose as we age. It is in the skin to convert sunlight to Vit D. It improves memory, and immune function.
This website is very interesting reading:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/index.html

Well, I don't think Viagra like drugs were meant to be hitting the market that they are either. What.....guys can't have a misfire now and then and be considered normal?

This was not a drug meant to make all men high octane...it was meant for people with problems.

Same as the cholesterol drugs.

The thing is, docs say eat less, eat better and exercise.....people do not do that. A lot of them have a very difficult time with it. I think our system should support holistic endeavors, it doesn't...it supports pharmaceuticals.

When I was in the field so to speak, I had clients who with exercise and diet brought their cholesterol levels down to normal range. No insurance paid for it...I had referrals from docs like crazy....and I should have charged more...but folks, they couldn't pay...insurers should have paid....instead they paid hundreds per month for prescriptions.

Now if you are depressed...first you go on a drug....used to be, you saw a counselor, at least first.

I doubt that any surgery, drug or other medical product that does what it is 'supposed' to do will be innocuous. That is a misconception that people have: that if they take a drug for one problem, and that the same drug will not do harm elsewhere.

Heck, even aspirin, which is related to willow bark, will cause you to bleed.....it isn't good to gnaw too far up the rhubarb plant either, not to mention those dreaded mushrooms folks get into every year.

I am not convinced our milk supply is prion free....(so that would make whey and other dairy products suspect), yet I eat dairy. I use whey. I do not eat venison anymore. I don't need much more proof there....that said, the same butcher is cutting other meat on that same equipment that he processed deer on.

Until we get truthful labeling, we are all in the dark on a lot of things....

I am not a molecular biologist, so I can't even begin to comprehend the wonders of the human body let alone the cell.

I just use my common sense. I have had a lot of people try to sell me a lot of bad or useless stuff for no good reason but to make a profit for themselves. I don't buy it.

you know...
 

I started with my doctor many many years ago. Almost 40 yrs.

Back then my cholesterol was 220. She said then normal is 220+your age in years. That was the current standard. So for a long time it was LESS than normal.

My cholesterol is about 220 now (sometimes 250-- it vacillates).. but the drug companies have convinced doctors now that this is "abnormal" and requires a heavy duty drug. I look at it this way: I am still here at 61, still relatively healthy except for my arthritis issues and a little PN. My thyroid is semi retired, my ovaries ARE retired, I have great immune status, and don't get sick much, and still am mentally sharp. I love my quality of life, now, and don't want a boatload of side effects, etc.

You're right.

I don't fret over that cholesterol reading either....nor do I expect my ovaries to work any more....(heaven help me if they did)....I assume my thyroid is stuttering too....LOL, thing is....I am definitely NOT as sharp as I used to be.:eek:

I am 55, look better than some one this sick should....and I am not chewing my fingernails over the future...will do my best, but that is all any of us can do.

I am one of the healthiest 'sick' people I know....I am not one of the sickest healthy people I know.

It is actually not to bad outside right now...must be sitting around 20 but the wind stopped....yesterday, it was colder, and I just about blew to Buffalo. Would have been quite the trip.

This whole discussion--
 

--and the dust-up over Zetia and statins combined with Zetia of the last few days, points up the pitfalls not only of changing medical "standards", but how the standards get that way.

Mrs. D's description of how "normal" cholesterol levels have changed is a case in point--and quite often, these numerical standards change after assaults by pharmaceutical companies--not necessarily medical researchers with no ax to grind--that convince doctors and lab analysts of the "necessity" of some different range/level.

I too remember when a total cholesterol level below 200 was considered okay--it wasn't that long ago. Now, at most labs, the normal range for total cholesterol tops out around 160. And, for people who've already had adverse myocaridal events, many docs want to get it down to below 100. I have a heart surgeon friend (did two bypassses on my dad--I also tutored his son for SAT's, LOL) who believes this, and thinks everyone should be on a statin--he and I have some really interesting (though good-natured) arguments when I start claiming levels that low would interfere with vitamin d manufacture and absoption and would not provide a proper environment for the myelin sheathing of nerves to repair. (And I think vitamin D deficiency may well be a bigger problem than cholesterol levels at this point--I've yet to see convincing evidence that high cholesterol alone raises the risk of heart attack without concommitant high triglyceride levels and inflammation, represented by c-reactive protein levels--in fact, I believe, though I can't find the studies right now, that the latter has the highest correlation with myocardial events.)

For those who are worried about high cholesterol levels due to diet choice--not the ridiculous numbers some people have due to hereditary conditions (and this is not THAT common), I always suggest trying fish oil, fiber, and niacin first--all of those have long histories of reducing cholesterol levels. But the benefit won't be much if individuals can't reduce inflammatory levels and keep their triglycerides down (though the latter is helped greatly by proper essential fatty acid intake).

To me, this situation represents the whole rabbit hole modern pharmaceutical marketing takes us down--find, or redefine, a condition that is amenable to phramacological manipulation, whether it's a major health condition or not, tailor a new drug, or older existing one, to the condition, even if studies don't necessarily and unequivocally show the drug to benefit that condition, express surprise when taking said drug produces other conditons, tailor a drug to THAT condition . . .and so on etc., ad infinitum.

We become overmedicated, and deleterious interactive effects from these drugs . . .well, they can't be traced to/blamed on any one source, so the pharma companies, and physicians, are off the hook . . .

I'm not saying all drugs are bad--there are many, many that are life-saving, designed to fight obvious illnesses. But something's wrong when we start using such powerful substances without clear direct evidence not only that they are effective, but that there was a problem to begin with.

Thanks Glenn...
 

I will put this up again.... everyone should look at this YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SSCNaaDcE

NO correlation of cholesterol levels with heart disease!
Studies show this fact. International studies.

More on MONICA:

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/cardio.htm

http://blog.wellnesstips.ca/blog/index.php/?p=134

http://www.westonaprice.org/askdocto...olesterol.html

low cholesterol and increased risk of death from cancer:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/71/2/569
and this was understood as far back as 1981?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...52C0A967948260

AND drum roll... Cholesterol for DUMMIES!
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/Dumm...l.id-1520.html

AOL had this as a featured article on the welcome page, today:
http://news.aol.com/health/story/_a/...00010000000001

The new AARP Bulletin has an interesting article....any one in AARP should be getting this issue soon, if not, perhaps you can find one at the library...the article is too difficult to scan on...however, here are some excerpts that are rather shocking:

"In fact, one drug industry study, for instance, showed that when a drug rep got one minute with a doctor, the doctor's prescriptions for that drug increased 16%. With three minutes 52%.....each day more than 101,000 drug company reps, one for every five officed-based physician-call on the nation's doctors. Primary care physicians have on the average 28 interactions a week with drug reps, according to a 2005 report by the Health Strategies Group, a consulting firm for manufactures of health care products."

"Even so, Congress is considering a bill that would require big drug companies to report gifts to doctors worth 25$ or more, or face substantial fines. The legislation would set up a national website so patients could learn which doctors were taking gifts and fees from drug companies."

"Right now the public has no way to know whether a doctor's been given money that might affect prescribing habits," said Sen. Chuck Grassley R-Iowa who with Sen. Herb Kohl, D-WI, introduced the measure last year."

"I think all the trend lines are pointing in one direction showing us we have real problems," says Harvey V. Fineberg MD., president of the Institute of Medicine.

AARP Bulletin January-February 2008, vol. 49 No. 1 www.aarp.org/bulletinI have seen first hand what these drugs reps bring in...and had the pizza for lunch....and I am not a prescriber. They bring in lunch for the whole office, vitamins for the crew, naughty pens that have springs in them to illustrate what the male performance enhancement drugs do......yes it is quite the party at some places.

When I went back to work after years of being out of the loop, the workplace was unrecognizable, and disgusting. I am not in health care any more. I do not miss it. This was not what I spent 4 years in college learning to do. This is not helping patients, it is making money and having a laugh at their expense.

Just a thought.......Are there any other non-statin meds, currently on the market,
used for cholesterol reduction, other than Zetia?
What would be my options if Zetia were too controversial (or taken off the market),
and my doc wanted me to switch ...just to be on the 'safe side' ?

yes,
 

There are the fibrates... they are toxic too. Tricor, gemfibrozil
And Niacin -- RX niacin Niaspan

I found more on Dr. Kendrick... 5 videos of a recent seminar he hosted.
Nov 2007...

Part 1:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=G6vciYc9OWSxx9DgMCWr_g

Part 2:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=Ud5IomS6OH6J0Y8y3jmAiw

Part 3:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=j3RyPH38jKvx3OFfno6jXg

Part 4:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=hgY9SZFFgL2pJuzQUOt48A

Part 5:
http://www.blinkx.com/burl?v=W0HwxgQEyX7JMDAWVABmvA


And not all doctors agree with the heavy use of cholesterol drugs.
Here is a member list for THINCS:
http://www.thincs.org/members.htm

There is also Red Yeast Rice extract....however some from China are contaminated with real statin drugs=lovastatin (Mevacor)
There are some USA suppliers.. Doctor's Best is one brand that claims to be from US raw material.
Some people find this is adequate for them. But the active ingredients are similar to statins so some statin
warnings are in place for this herb. (liver function, etc).

I drink a small jar (2g equivilant) of plant sterol every day. The following website should be of some interest Bob. I believe that you have these drinks and that sterols and stanols are also found in some of your spreads as we have in the UK. I also take 1200mg of high quality fish oil each day as well.
http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40002453/

Tony

this article is
 

in our Health News Headlines today on NeuroTalk:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20080116...erstatedreport

Some day soon I hope we will see a similar review for the studies on cholesterol meds.

Antidepressant Effectiveness Probably Overstated: Report

There is more, the article is long, and it is worth reading the whole thing!

Here's a little something
 

--from today's NY Times that summarizes some of the contoversy around the cholesterol-lowering drugs, especially whether that lowering is actually linked to lower risk of myocardial events:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/bu...l?ref=business

I've found some very interesting...
 

Things this morning.

And something for Tony too!

1)http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...ors/article.do

2) http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi69.html

Every one here needs to read both of these.
from #2:

We are back to healthy lifestyle...and other things to prevent plaque buildup.

OMG Mrs D!! - after reading this thread and that final post of yours, I am now at a complete loss as to which (if any) of the recommended treatments for cholesterol (if indeed cholesterol is a problem at all) I should be taking.

I have been told, as you may remember, that I have high calcium as well as cholesterol in my arteries but my consultant has suggested that I take a statin to knock down my cholesterol. I do not intend to take any statin with so many possible side effects to them. All I can do is take my sterols and fish oil and anything else that might reduce my cholesterol. However if cholesterol does not really pose a problem then I guess I may as well forget it!!

Thanks anyway for the articles which I may consider showing my consultant. I don't think I will try the high dose vitamin D though. I would however appreciate your views on the subject of how to clear blocked arteries of cholesterol and/or calcium.

Tony

Tony,
 

It is the last post, just above yours I wanted you to see.

The new Vit D information has really moved quickly in medical circles.
The new upper safe limit has been recommended at 10,000 IU daily for D3.

You can have a blood test at the doctor's to confirm if you need it.
But as I read the posts at Chronic Pain at Braintalk, and Vitamin Forum over there, I see many patients in pain improving on Vit D.

My husband and I are both taking 2000IU a day now. (I was taking 1000IU daily during the winter only.)

Search the names in the last post of mine, and you can read more.
I think you can continue to use the Stanols, they are not harmful, like the statins. They are also not very strong. If that would make you feel better.

Thanks, Mrs D & Tony.
I've got some reading to do.

new study...
 

found just this morning...

from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...86_vitd08.html
(I've copied the whole article because sometimes links "die".)

and another paper, this time with Dr. Vieth...which goes into detail...it is the paper with the new suggested
safe upper limit:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/85/1/6

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi.../full/29/3/722