Increasingly people are accessing healthcare information in order to make decisions for their own health. A 2010 Pew poll found that 80% of internet users will do so for health care information. This presents a huge potential benefit, but also a significant risk.
Daniel Levitin talks about the need for public information literacy, something we also discuss frequently here on SBM. If you are accessing the internet to inform your health care decisions, then you need to know how to determine the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the websites you are visiting. There is a big difference between NaturalNews (a crank site full of misinformation and conspiracy theories) and Nature News (an outlet for one of the most prestigious science journals in the world).
Even when you can discriminate between good and bad health information websites, the challenge remains to properly interpret the scientific information to which you now have access.
The statin hypothesis is that statins reduce cardiac risk more than can be explained by the reduction in LDL cholesterol. That hypothesis has been overturned by a new study.
The consensus of mainstream medicine is that a high blood level of LDL cholesterol is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease and that lowering high levels can help with prevention and treatment. Statins have been proven effective for lowering cholesterol levels and for decreasing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. I recently wrote about the new guidelines for statin therapy.
Currently half of American men between the ages of 65 and 74 are taking statins, and 71 percent of adults with heart disease and 54 percent of adults with high cholesterol take a cholesterol-lowering drug.
There is still a fringe group of a few maverick “cholesterol skeptics” who think lowering cholesterol is useless or counterproductive, but the evidence shows they are wrong.
We (the authors and editors) at SBM get accused of many nefarious things. Because we deliberately engage with the public over controversial medical questions, we expect nothing less. It goes with the territory. In fact, if there were a lack of critical pushback we would worry that we were not doing our job.
Still, it is disconcerting to see the frequently-repeated ideological accusations in response to simply evaluating and reporting the evidence. That is what we do here – follow the science and evidence. When that trail leads to a conclusion that some people do not like (usually for ideological reasons) a common response is to accuse us of ideology, malfeasance, being part of a conspiracy, or having conflicts of interest or ulterior motives. That is easier, I suppose, than engaging with us on the science.
One common accusation is that we are shills for the pharmaceutical industry, and downplay or ignore the benefits of diet and “natural” treatments. A search through the SBM archives demonstrates that this accusation is false – we criticize bad science and poor-quality control, regardless of who is committing it. Sometimes pseudoscience is used to promote a drug, sometimes a nutritional supplement, and sometimes pure magic. (more…)
On November 15, the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released an updated guideline for the use of statins to prevent and treat atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). The full report is available online. It has already generated a lot of controversy. The news media have characterized it as a “huge departure” from previous practice and have trumpeted that it will lead doctors to prescribe statins to millions more people. As usual, the truth is much more nuanced. There are some problems with the guidelines, but on the whole they represent an improved, more rational approach to prescribing statins.
Statins have always been a source of controversy: people seem to either love them or hate them, and discussions about them generate a lot of emotion. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics denies that cholesterol has anything to do with cardiovascular disease. An article on HuffPo calls statins “an unsafe, unnecessary product that will now be recommended to healthy people to make them sicker.” Mercola says they can actually make heart disease worse and cause premature aging, and no one should take them unless they have the genetic defect of familial hypercholesterolemia. A website collects patient self-reports of adverse effects; but like the vaccine reports on VAERS, these are only anecdotal reports of correlation, not evidence for causation.
At one time the evidence only supported using statins for secondary prevention and for men. We now have better evidence showing that they are effective for both primary and secondary prevention in patients of both sexes and all ages, and that they are more effective for those with higher risk factors. (more…)
While much of CAM is ridiculous or implausible, herbal remedies are an exception. Plants produce pharmacologically active substances; in fact, the science of pharmacology grew out of herbalism. Some herbal remedies have not been scientifically tested, but others have been tested and are clearly effective. Nevertheless, these are seldom if ever the best choice for treatment.
One natural remedy stands out. Red yeast rice has been tested and has been shown to lower cholesterol as well as a statin drug. That’s hardly surprising when you realize that it contains the exact same ingredient as the pharmaceutical drug lovastatin.
Only it doesn’t any more.
In writing about science-based medicine, we give a lot of attention to medicine that is not based on good science. We use bad examples to show why science is important and how it is frequently misapplied, misinterpreted, misreported, or even wholly rejected. It’s a pleasure, for a change, to write about a straightforward example of the best of science-based medicine in action. The book Heart 411 is such an example.
The medical literature is a jungle of conflicting and complicated studies. It’s difficult for novices and even for sophisticated non-specialists to navigate. It’s useful to have experts as guides who can apply their knowledge, experience, and judgment to analyze the data and put everything into perspective. I can’t imagine anyone more qualified as guides to “matters of the heart” than the authors of this book. Heart surgeon Marc Gillinov and cardiologist Steven Nissen practice at the Cleveland Clinic, which has been ranked as the number one heart hospital by U.S. News & World Report for the last 15 years and is currently ranked 4th best hospital overall. They have treated more than 10,000 heart patients over 30 years of clinical practice and have also done extensive research and published hundreds of articles in peer reviewed journals. Their book contains everything they would like their patients to know about the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of heart disease. It amounts to an owner’s manual for the heart. (more…)
A recent Cochrane review of the use of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs in primary prevention has sparked some controversy. The controversy is not so much over what the data says, but in what conclusions to draw from the data.
Statin drugs have been surrounded by controversy for a number of reasons. On the one hand they demonstrably lower cholesterol, and the evidence has shown that they also reduce the incidence of heart attacks and strokes. The data on whether or not they reduce mortality has been less clear, although this latest data actually supports that claim. However, statins have also been blockbuster drugs for pharmaceutical companies and this has spawned concerns (some might say paranoia) that drug companies are pushing billions of dollars worth of marginally effective drugs onto the public.
So are statins a savior or a scam? Life does not always provide nice clean answers to such simple dichotomies. The evidence clearly shows that statins work and are safe. However, pharmaceutical companies do like to present their data in the best light possible, and they need to be watched closely for this. The recent review does call them on some practices that might tend to exaggerate the utility of statins. Finally, the real question comes down to – where should we draw the line in terms of cost-benefit of a preventive measure like statins.
Let’s look as this recent review of the data to see what it actually shows.
Happy April Fool’s Day everyone. Here’s a cartoon that I made a few years back… Enjoy!
The Medical Letter, a highly respected source of reliable independent evaluations of drugs and therapeutics, has just published an evaluation of red yeast rice (Vol 51, Issue 1320, P 71-2, Sept 7, 2009). It has been widely promoted as a “natural” alternative to prescription medications for lowering blood LDL cholesterol levels. Studies have indeed shown that red yeast rice reduces LDL cholesterol levels and reduces the rate of major coronary events. The Medical Letter consultants concluded that it works, but they don’t recommend it. Why?
It’s Just Another Statin
When rice is fermented with the yeast Monascus purpureus, the resulting product contains numerous monacolins, which are naturally occurring HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. One of these is identical to the prescription drug Mevacor (lovastatin). So it isn’t an alternative to prescription drugs, it’s just an alternative way of providing the same thing. (more…)
Triumph of the Heart, as its name does not suggest, is about science. The book’s author, Jie Jack Li, is a medicinal chemist who meticulously reviews the history relevant to the discovery of lipid-lowering drugs. He spares no details, even recounting the amusing quarrels and quirks of the scientists engaged in the “apocryphal showdowns” leading to the manufacture of cholesterol in a laboratory.
The personalities of the various scientists and Nobel laureates described in the book are highly entertaining. From beating one another with umbrellas, to insisting on wearing blue clothing only, to egos so large and unappealing as to empty an entire academic center of all its promising young recruits, one has the distinct impression that brilliance does not go hand-in-hand with grace.
That being said, each of these scientists did seem to share a common approach to research: carefully testing hypotheses, repeating peer study results to confirm them, and patiently exploring complex biochemical pathways over periods of decades. The physicians, physicists, and chemists showed an incredible ability to doggedly pursue answers to specific questions – understanding that the results might influence human health. But even more importantly, they were each willing to invest their careers in analysis that may never lead to anything more than a dead end. In fact, the book is full of examples of great ideas, developed over decades, that did not lead to a marketable drug. In some cases the research was halted due to lack of efficacy, in others political forces or personal whims influenced the course.