Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).


Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.


The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv


Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN


A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.


Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms

The Track Your Plaque “Rule of 60”

6. November 2006 William Davis (0)

The Track Your Plaque recommended targets for conventional lipids (i.e., LDL, HDL, triglycerides) are LDL 60 mg/dl, HDL 60 mg/dl, and triglycerides 60 mg/dl: 60-60-60.

Not only is this set of values easy to remember—60-60-60—but is grounded in science and the results of clinical trials.

LDL 60 mg/dl
The LDL target is based on experiences such as that of the Reversal Trial, the PROVE-IT Trial, and the Asteroid Trial, all of which showed that LDL cholesterol values in the range of 60 mg/dl dramatically enhance the likelihood of stopping plaque growth or achieving regression, reducing risk of heart attack more than more lenient LDL targets.


HDL 60 mg/dl
Achieving HDL cholesterol of 60 mg/dl is not as well grounded as LDL targets, mostly because increasing HDL is more difficult. There’s also no tremendously profitable way to raise HDL, as there is for reducing LDL (statin drugs). But epidemiologic observations strongly suggest that HDL of 60 mg/dl provides maximum control over both coronary plaque growth, as well as slashing rates of heart attack. Numerous smaller trials have borne this phenomenon out.


Triglycerides 60 mg/dl
Triglycerides of 60 mg/dl is based principally on studies that have shown a virtual elimination of abnormal lipoproteins, especially small LDL, when this value is achieved. Reduction of triglycerides is an effective means to reduce hidden lipoproteins like small LDL and VLDL. Triglycerides in the conventionally acceptable range of 100-150 mg/dl can be associated with dramatic abnormalities of lipoproteins.


Thus, the Track Your Plaque “Rule of 60”. In our day to day experience of trying to stamp out plaque growth from its terrifyingly rapid 30% per year, or reversing it—-dropping your heart scan score—-the Rule of 60 has held up time and again. Getting your lipids to 60 mg/dl does not guarantee that plaque growth stops, but it appears to be a necessary requirement that tips the scales heavily in your favor.

Those of you who’ve discussed lipid targets with your doctor will quickly recognize that the Track Your Plaque targets appear laughably ambitious, perhaps unnecessary. Recall that your doctor likely has no idea of what coronary plaque regression means. He/she likely conforms to the lax targets set by the National Cholesterol Education Panel (NCEP). (These targets depend on a number of factors such as whether you’re diabetic, sex, risk factors, etc.) Based on trial experiences like the few mentioned above, as well as my experience with purposeful coronary plaque reversal, the lipid guidelines as advocated by NCEP guarantee heart disease. Let me emphasize that again: Follow the guidelines set by the NCEP for your doctor to follow, and progression of heart disease is a virtual certainty. At best, it may slow growth of plaque and delay your heart attack or bypass surgery, but it will not stop it.

Now, that point made, let me make another: Just knowing about the targets and even becoming a member of the Track Your Plaque program does not mean that your lipids with automatically go to 60-60-60. We’ve actually had an occasional person tell us that they were disappointed that, by becoming Members, why hadn’t their lipids gone to 60-60-60?

Knowing that the 60-60-60 targets provide real advantage is not the same as actually achieving them.

A little bit of fish oil

5. November 2006 William Davis (12)

The British National Health Service (NHS) has announced that, in light of the substantial data documenting that omega-3 fatty acid intake from fish reduces likelihood of cardiovascular events by around 40%, that Brits discharged from hospital following a heart attack should be "prescribed" 1000 mg of prescription fish oil per day.

Hardly a revolutionary concept. Part of the timidity of the British NHS seems to relate to the potential cost to the government, since apparently much of the cost will be borne by the government-subsidized health system.

But prescription fish oil? Why prescription fish oil? Prescription Omacor, one capsule per day, costs around $70 (U.S.) per month. If I go to Sam's Club the same quantity of omega-3 fatty acids (in three capsules) will cost around $2.50. That's less than 5% of the cost of the prescription form.

Omacor is clearly more concentrated. But is the prescription form better--more effective, more purified, less contaminated, etc.? I have seen no independent verification of this. Of course, manufacturers make all sorts of claims. The only independent, unbiased testing I'm aware of comes from organizations like Consumer Reports and www.consumerlabs.com. Omacor has not been compared to non-prescription fish oil in any of their analyses. Head-to-head comparison of Omacor to nutritional supplement fish oil is unlikely to come from Solvay, the manufacturer of Omacor. Drug companies powerfully resist head-to-head comparisons, fearing it will not play out in their favor. Let the public remain ignorant and hope marketing conquers all.

Why would the NHS only recommend eating fish and prescription fish oil? I don't know, but it smells awfully fishy to me. As soon as an opportunity for profit is built into a treatment, all of a sudden it gains endorsement. Perhaps lobbying by those parties with potential for profit drove the process.

Nonetheless, despite the filthy politics and under-the-table dealings, some good comes out of the NHS's action: broader recognition of the power of fish oil. Perhaps when a British patient or an American patient gets discharged with a prescription for Omacor, the patient will take the initiative and go to the health food store instead and save him (or his insurer) $67.50 per month.

For your coronary plaque control program and control and/or reversal of your heart scan score, we start at 4000 mg per day of standard fish oil, providing 1200 mg per day of omega-3 oils. This amount as a nutritional supplement costs only a few dollars a month. And you have the satisfaction of not only taking a powerful step for your health, but also not enriching the overflowing pockets of drug companies.

AHA: Doctors don't have time for prevention

3. November 2006 William Davis (0)

Doctors "don't have enough time to educate their patients and to stop and think about what measures the patient really needs," says Dr. Raymond Gibbons, new head of the American Heart Association.

Dr. Gibbons highlighted how the system reimburses generously for performing procedures, but reimburses relatively little (often just a few dollars) for providing preventive counseling. He claims to have several ideas for solutions.

Good for Dr. Gibbons. There's no doubt that the lack of truly effective preventive information and counseling is a systemic, built-in flaw in the current medical environment. It is especially true in heart disease.

Another problem: "If a doctor didn't say it, it must not be true." That's the attitude of many of my colleagues. Despite their broad and systematic failure to provide preventive counseling, most physicians (my colleagues the cardiologists especially) pooh-pooh information that comes from other sources. Yet, it's my prediction that much of healthcare will go the way of optometry--direct access to care, often delivered in non-healthcare settings like a store or mall. People are hungry for truly self-empowering health information. Too many physicians can't or won't provide it. You've got to turn elsewhere for it.

That's one of the main reasons I set up the Track Your Plaque program. It's direct access to self-empowering information. A flaw: You still require the assistance of a physician to obtain lab values, lipoproteins, and to monitor certain treatments (e.g., niacin at higher doses). If I knew of a way around this, I'd tell you. But right now I don't. We remain constrained by legal and moral obligations.

Nonetheless, phenomena like CT heart scanning and the Track Your Plaque program are just a taste of things to come.

Confusion about Lp(a)

3. November 2006 William Davis (2)

Since the recent reader question about Lp(a), I've had several other instances of confusion over Lp(a).

To help you navigate through some of the often confusing issues behind this complex genetic abnormality, here are some common sense rules to follow. When you ask your doctor to draw a Lp(a), try to be certain that:

--the same laboratory is always used. Just going from lab to lab can account for huge variation in Lp(a). As standardization proceeds internationally, this will be become less important. But in 2006, it's still an issue.

--you and your doctor resist the temptation to check Lp(a) frequently. I saw a patient recently who was having Lp(a) levels nearly every month. This is pointless. Lp(a) changes very slowly. Checking it frequently will not allow any treatment to be fully reflected. All you'll observe is random variation that can be frustrating. We wait at least 6 months before re-checking after a new treatment is introduced.

If you have a choice, I would recommend you opt for the measure provided by Liposcience (NMR). The technique they use is a particle count measure, rather than a weight-based measure. This may be more accurate, particularly when Lp(a) is small.

Lp(a) remains among the more difficult patterns to understand and correct. Don't be surprised if you encounter a lot of confusion from your doctor, as well. You may end up providing much of his/her education.

Calculus of the cardiologist

2. November 2006 William Davis (1)

I call this the "calculus of the cardiologist":

Heart procedures = big money

More procedures = more big money

You do the math. If you do more procedures, you get more money.
What if your patients don't need more procedures? That's easy. You lower the bar on reasons to do procedures. You scare the pants off people and lead them to think that all heart disease or questions about heart disease are potentially life-threatening. You could even appear to be doing the patient a big favor. "My Lord! This is potentially dangerous. We need to perform a procedure without delay!"

There are incentives beyond direct cash payment. A patient of mine today showed me a memo to employees in his company that showed why certain hospitals are targeted for care. The criteria for choosing centers was based on number of procedures performed. In other words, the more procedures performed at a hospital, the more procedures will be directed there. Of course, this makes sense at some level. More procedures can also mean greater skill.

But have we lost sight of the fact that the mission is not more procedures and more money, but to get rid of a disease? If the intensity of effort devoted to heart procedures were re-directed to early detection, prevention, and reversal of disease, we'd have half the hospitals we now have. We'd also chop a huge chunk out of the national healthcare budget.

Lipoprotein(a) treatment alternatives

1. November 2006 William Davis (2)

A question from a reader:


Two years ago, my doctor recommended a comprehensive lipid screening because both of my parents had heart disease. My only blood component way out of line was LP (a) [lipoprotein(a)]. It was 130. According to the lab that conducted the screening, Berkeley Heart Lab, a level above 30 should be cause for concern. I was stunned that mine was more than quadruple the danger level.

I began taking two grams [2000 mg] of niacin a day in addition to the Lipitor I was already taking. The next reading, a few months later, was 87. Over a period of about 18 months, I had a total of four readings from Berkley Heart Lab. My LP (a) fluctuated in the 80-130 range – still way above normal. My doctor said there was little else I could do to control it.

That doctor has since retired. I now see another doctor who uses a different lab. My first LP (a) reading with him a few months ago was 17, which is normal. I am still taking the same amount of niacin and Lipitor and I can’t think of anything that would account for the huge discrepancy. I’m going to have another test again soon.

Is one of the labs giving erroneous readings? If so, how can I tell which? If Berkeley Heart Lab is correct, is there anything I can do about my increased coronary risk due to high LP (a)?
Tom D.

Tom's frustration on the variation of Lp(a) is due to the fact that laboratories run the Lp(a) test by several different techniques and will generate tremendous variation in values. The key is to stick to the same measure over and over from the same lab, else you'll be terribly confused and frustrated. Tom essentially should ignore the value obtained that was unexpectedly low.

Another issue: Lp(a) is a turtle. It responds very slowly. In fact, we rarely check it more than once or twice a year. Check it too soon after a treatment change and it won't fully reflect the effect. You've got to wait at least several months before re-checking.

How about treatment alternatives? Thy"> (7)

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.


All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.