#122

Sorry.
I take 1gm with my late afternoon meal.

1 Like
#123

What are the downsides to ezetimibe?

1 Like
#124

It works best if you are cholesterol hyper absorber, there are reports that it can increase blood glucose levels, seems that it might increase chance of some cancers, has an array of side effects, like every medicine…

Serious side effects

Serious side effects are not common and happen in less than 1 in 10,000 people.

Tell a doctor or call 111 straight away if you get:

  • muscle pain, tenderness, weakness or cramps
  • yellowing of the whites of your eyes or your skin (this may be less obvious on brown or black skin), pale poo and dark pee – this can be a sign of liver problems
  • severe stomach pain (just under your ribs) – this can be a sign of pancreas problems
1 Like
#125

From the paper you cite:
"Conclusions
Ezetimibe results in little to no difference in adverse events or other undesirable effects compared with placebo, usual care or other lipid-lowering agents.’

3 Likes
#126

People taking medication like sheep have no brains, as they are not capable of basic critical thinking skills.

Edward Bernays methodology work well for the masses.

1 Like
#127

“Wake up, sheeple!”
Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s bad. That’s just you being a contrarian for no apparent reason.

6 Likes
#128

But is it as good as popular?

#129

It is the best known medication for primary prevention of ASCVD other than possibly pcsk9i.

2 Likes
#130

But still it prevents only 1,6 MI in 100 high risk individuals - years.

#131

Where did you pull that figure from again?
Here’s a video explaining the full benefit of statins, including relative and absolute risk reduction over time.
Do Statins even work?! | Relative vs Absolute risk - YouTube

2 Likes
#132

I am on holidays and don’t have my computer to post the analysis I saved a while ago, but this is Peter Attia statement on low dose colchicine, which states similar number.

so the absolute risk reduction was 1.1 events per 100 person-years, slightly less than the effect size of statins

1 Like
#133

Publishing their results in 2020, the investigators reported an impressive 31% reduction in risk of MACE among those on colchicine relative to placebo (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.83; P <0.001), with an incidence rate of 2.5 events per 100 person-years in the colchicine group and 3.6 events per 100 person-years in the placebo group (so the absolute risk reduction was 1.1 events per 100 person-years, slightly less than the effect size of statins)

It is important to note that nearly all of the participants (>99%) were taking other CV-prevention medication (e.g., lipid-lowering drugs), in addition to their assigned study medication, so the lower rate of MACE in the colchicine group reflected a further reduction in risk beyond that afforded by existing treatments.

First anti-inflammatory medication approved for treatment of ASCVD (peterattiamd.com)

So your 1.1 figure is about colchicine and the study design compared people taking colchicine along with other, conventional cholesterol-lowering medications such as statins against people just taking conventional medications.
The absolute risk in people who already had coronary disease was already low in the conventional-only treated group (3.6 events per 100 people per year) and got further lowered by colchicine (2.5 events per 100 people per year). Over time this reduction in absolute risk would become greater as explained in the video I posted above.

1 Like
#134

I wont go deeper into this debate as I made a mistake of doing it once. But the benefit in low risk individuals is at best marginal. For medium/hight risk individuals statins are as good as it goes (besides probably PCSK9I). And I am not against statins per se. Just questioning rationale behind taking them as a prevention strategy in low risk individuals.

2 Likes
#135

“Low” depends on your goals. If your goal is not to die at 60, you can probably ignore that topic altogether. If your goal is to live over the age of 100 and your LDL is above 60, you definitely need to get on a statin.

4 Likes
#136

What arguments do you have that are not purely speculative at best?

1 Like
#137

The fact that by age 99, the overwhelming majority of people will have ASCVD.
The fact that statins increasingly reduce risk of a cardiac event with time and dosage. Absolute risk reduction appears small in studies because the absolute risk in 3 years is small to begin with, but over a lifetime the absolute risk reduction will be very significant.

3 Likes
#138

it’s not a statin but mk677 oral at 20mg/day keeps my cholesterol(considerably compared to without it) down which is not mk677’s claim to fame but a side effect at least for me though seems not for everyone and i am pretty sure i could keep it down with even less than 20mg/day like maybe every other day. have noticed no side effects from it at all.

1 Like
#139

You would know, if you are a follower.

You cannot BS yourself, as you know when it is BS.

As I have posted many times before

Reality in science is;

You state, claiming you know.

But do you understand?

#140

Not what I was referring to. There was a time when some manufacturers added Lovastatin to RYR.
But basic RYR contains Monacolins which are essentially statins.

1 Like
#141

I would recommend taking your glucose readings before starting ezetimibe. My fasting glucose was 91 the day I started. (Those bounce around a lot last time I had it tested it was 79 and based on my CGM it could range from that to over 100 depending on how much sleep I had or stress). I have taken it for three weeks. If I had it tested today, I would be lucky to have it be below 120. Those levels aren’t sustainable, but I’m hoping it will stabilize.

1 Like