Firefighters Face Added Risk of Fatal Heart Attack 22. March 2007 William Davis (1) Firefighters are twice as likely to die from a heart attack in the line of duty than are policemen, and three times more likely than EMTs. That's among the headlines run today because of a report in the New England Journal of Medicine documenting a dramatically higher risk for heart attack for fire fighters putting out fires. The above headline is from an excellent report run on NPR radio. You can listen to the webcast at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9047656.The story sparked comments from experts insisting that all fire fighters should have physicals, should be in better physical condition, should be covered by health insurance (the NPR report said that 1 out of 4 fire fighters lack health insurance). Judging from the indisputable risk firefighters encounter, these are all good ideas. But if you've been following my blog or the Track Your Plaque program, you know that physicals alone are hopeless exercises for identifying hidden heart disease. Among the solutions: identify whether or not heart disease is present in the first place--do a CT heart scan. In fact, several local fire companies in my area have done just that: insisting that all firefighters undergo a heart scan. When groups of people like firefighters arrange for heart scans, they gain the advantage of doing so en masse, thereby allowing many scan centers to offer a dramatically reduced price to the city, town, or village that is paying for them. I've even seen many firefighters scanned at no cost. It would also help to have health insurance, be physically fit, and have a stress test (an exception to my view that stress tests are also useless to screen asymptomatic people for heart disease). But a CT heart scan would settle the question quickly, easily, undeniably, and inexpensively.
Prophylactic bypass surgery? 20. March 2007 William Davis (0) This question comes up around once a week:My CT heart scan score is ____. Wouldn't I be better off just getting a bypass (or stent, etc.) and getting it over with? If I know that heart attack is in my future, why not just get it over with?The most recent source of this question was the wife of a patient. Jack had a heart scan score of 92 in 2005. He made very little effort to correct his causes, permitting pre-diabetic patterns to persist, failed to correct vitamin D, etc. and a repeat heart scan score showed a dramatic rise to 264. Jack's wife asked whether he should just have a bypass. There are several problems with this line of reasoning:1) Bypass surgery does not reduce the long term risk for heart attack. 2) The risk of bypass surgery often outweighs the risk of an asymptomatic heart scan score. 3) Bypass surgery is a temporary "fix," a fancy Band Aid for a disease that progresses after the procedure. One bypass typically prompts another, and another...4) Bypassing arteries that have vigorous blood flow often causes the bypass graft to not "take" and close within the first few days. Thankfully, nobody in his right mind has proposed that we perform prophylactic bypass operations. Of course, hospitals and surgeons would jump at the chance to perform procedures in anybody with some threshhold heart scan score. It would double or triple their business overnight. At $70,000 or more per procedure, they would dance in glee. Of course, you and I would pay for their new burst of wealth by a sharp increase in our health insurance premiums. Not only that, the people who underwent the procedure would not benefit.
Lipitor 80 mg 20. March 2007 William Davis (4) I'm seeing more and more people taking 80 mg of Lipitor per day. For the most part, these are people who come in for another opinion after a stent or heart attack and are prescribed the drug during their hospitalization. This practice is based on the results of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 (PRavastatin Or atorVastatin Evaluation and Infection Therapy-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) trial, and the Reversal of Atherosclerosis with Aggressive Lipid Lowering (REVERSAL) trial, both reported in 2005. In the PROVE IT Trial, 4,000 people experiencing heart attacks were treated with Lipitor (atorvastatin), 80 mg, or Pravachol (pravastatin), 40 mg. There was a reduction in events like recurrent heart attack from 13.1% in the Pravachol group to 9.6% in the Lipitor group. In the REVERSAL Trial, the Lipitor group also showed no plaque growth compared to the Pravachol group, which did progress, with disease tracked by intracoronary ultrasound.I believe that many of my colleagues took the bait. In a half-hearted effort to reduce events and trend towards better coronary plaque control, writing a prescription for 80 mg rather than a lower dose has become increasingly popular. Some problems: Despite the favorable tolerance to high dose Lipitor in these trials, I don't know anybody who can tolerate 80 mg per day for more than a few months in real life. In my experience, people inevitably end up with intolerable muscle aches. Also, I believe it is folly to believe that we can regress coronary plaque on a broad scale by just using one drug that addresses only a single cause (i.e., LDL cholesterol). Yes, drug companies would argue that the statin drugs are so wonderful because of their so-called "pleiotropic", or non-lipid, effects like reducing inflammation. I have seen regression of plaque once using Lipitor alone. We struggle to reduce coronary plaque using a multi-faceted approach. It is highly unlikely that Lipitor alone at a 80 mg dose will be sufficient in most people to regress plaque. How about lipoprotein(a)? Or vitamin D deficiency? Lipitor has no effect on these patterns and people do not regress just by taking statin agents.
Orlistat for weight loss 19. March 2007 William Davis (3) In early February, the FDA approved orlistat, formerly known as prescription Xenical, for over-the-counter sale. Orlistat is a blocker of fat absorption. The new OTC version will be called "Alli" (pronounced like "ally") and will come at a dose of 60 mg to be taken three times a day with meals. Prescription Xenical came as a 120 mg tablet. However, the company claims that the reduced dose sacrifices only 5% in reduced fat absorption, dropping from 30% with Xenical to 25% with Alli. It will cost in the neighborhood of $1 to $2 per day, or $30-60 per month, far less expensive than the $110-150 for the prescription form. Does it work? Is it worth the money? Clinical trials document around 5-10 lbs lost over a 3 to 6 month period, 50% greater than using diet and exercise alone. Our experience is that it works, though inconsistently. Results depend heavily on how reliant you are on fat calories. If you were to follow a low-fat diet while on the drug, you likely will lose little or no weight, since there's little fat absorption to block. However, I have witnessed more substantial weight loss of 10-20 lbs. in people who follow a higher fat intake in their diet, e.g., a traditional American diet. However, these people gain the weight back immediately because they've made no effort to modify food choices. It is messy. Even though the clinical trials claims modest inconvenient effects like gas and greasy stools, I have found that it is, without fail, a very annoying product that results in crampiness and frequent messy stools in nearly everybody.The company has created a glitzy website that you can view at www.myalli.com and promises to provide a personalized program and support for registrants when it is up and running by summer 2007. I think that's a good idea, since the drug itself is no more than a temporary fix unless it's combined with long-term diet changes. However, the website, I believe, oversells the value of the drug with a drug company's usual over-the-top hints and innuendoes without actually coming out with straight pitches of the truth. Beware of the vitamin D-blocking effect of Orlistat. The period of time you take it may be a time to resort to some modest sun exposure (10-15 minutes; be careful not to burn), rather than than oil-based vitamin D capsules, in order to avoid the inevitable vitamin D plunge in blood level. I am not a fan of orlistat, having seen it tried many times with minimal success. However, it is another option for those who are really struggling. Personally, I would try fasting or some of the other strategies we've detailed on the www.cureality.com website before I resorted to orlistat.
Low HDL makes Dr. Friedewald a liar 17. March 2007 William Davis (5) There's a $22 billion industry based on treating LDL cholesterol, a fictitious number. LDL cholesterol is calculated from the following equation:LDL cholesterol = Total cholesterol - HDL cholesterol - triglycerides/5So when your doctor tells you that your LDL cholesterol is X, 99% of the time it has been calculated. This is based on the empiric calculation developed by Dr. Friedwald in the 1960s. Back then, it was a reasonable solution, just like bacon and eggs was a reasonable breakfast and a '62 Rambler was a reasonable automobile.One of the problems with Dr. Friedewald's calculation is that the lower HDL cholesterol, the less accurate LDL cholesterol becomes. If it were just a few points, so what? But what if it were commonly 50 to 100 mg/dl inaccurate? In other words, your doctor tells you that your LDL is 120 mg/dl, but the real number is somewhere between 170 and 220 mg/dl. Does this happen?You bet it does. In my experience, it is an everyday event. In fact, I'm actually surprised when the Friedewald calculated LDL closely approximates true LDL--it's the exception. Dr. Friedewald would likely have explained that, when applied to a large population of, say, 10,000 people, calculated LDL is a good representation of true LDL. However, just like saying that the average weight for an American woman is 176 lbs (that's true, by the way), does that mean if you weigh 125 lbs that you are "off" by 41 lbs? No, but it shows how you cannot apply the statistical observations made in large populations to a single individual. The lower HDL goes, the more inaccurate LDL becomes. This would be acceptable if most HDLs still permitted reasonable estimation of LDL--but it does not. LDL begins to become significantly inaccurate with HDL below 60 mg/dl. How to get around this antiquated formula? In order of most accurate to least accurate:--LDL particle number (NMR)--the most accurate by far.--Apoprotein B--available in most laboratories.--"Direct" LDL--Non-HDL--i.e., the calculation of total cholesterol minus HDL. But it's still a calculated with built-in flaws. --LDL by Friedewald calculation. My personal view: you need to get an NMR if you want to know what your LDL truly is. A month of Lipitor costs around $80-120. A basic NMR costs less than $90. It's a relative bargain.
Menopause unleashes lipoprotein(a) 16. March 2007 William Davis (0) Faye was clearly frustrated. At age 52, she was having chest pains every day. A CT heart scan showed a score of zero. A CT coronary angiogram showed no plaque whatsoever. "Everything went downhill when my menopause started. I gained weight, I started to have chest pains, my blood pressure went up, my cholesterol shot up."She saw three physicians, none of whom shed much light on the situation. They ran through the predictable sequence of (horse, not human) estrogens, anti-depressants, suggestions for psychological counseling. But we checked Faye for lipoprotein(a), which she proved to have at a high level of 182 nmol/l. This explained a lot.A curious and predictable set of phenomenon occur to females with Lp(a) proceeding through the menopause. As estrogen recedes:--Lp(a) levels rise dramatically.--Blood pressure goes up, sometimes creating severe hypertension by mid- to late-50s. --Chest pain can develop, presumably due to "endothelial dysfunction" or "microvascular angina", both representing abnormal coronary artery constriction facilitated by worsening expression of Lp(a). All too often, these phenomena get dismissed as simply part of the menopausal package, when they are, in fact, important facets of this very important genetic pattern that confers high risk for heart disease. If any of this rings familiar for you or a loved one, think Lp(a). Though Faye hadn't yet developed any measurable coronary plaque by her CT heart scan score, it was likely on its way, given the surge in Lp(a) expression as menopause unfolded--unless its recognized and appropriate preventive action taken.
Vitamin D must be oil-based 15. March 2007 William Davis (0) I've talked about this before, but I need to periodically remind everybody:Vitamin D must be an oil-based capsule, a gel-cap, not a tablet. Lisa is one of early success stories: a heart scan score of 447 in her early 40's, modest reduction of CT heart scan score three years ago. However, Lisa had a difficult time locating oil-based vitamin D. There has, in fact, been a national run on vitamin D and I'm told that even manufacturers are scrambling to keep up with the booming demand. So, she bought tablets instead and was taking 3000 units per day. She came in for a routine check. Lisa's 25-OH-vitamin D3: 17 ng/ml, signifying severe deficiency, the same as if she were taking nothing at all. (Recall that we aim for 50 ng/ml.) In other words, vitamin D tablets do not work. It is shameful. I see numerous women taking calcium tablets with D--the vitamin D does not work. I've actually seen blood levels of zero on these preparations. You may have to look, but if you want to enjoy the extraordinary benefits of vitamin D replacement, it must be an oil-based capsule. Carlson's and Vitamin Shoppe have excellent prepartions. They raise blood levels substantially and consistently, and they're inexpensive. We pay $5.99 for a bottle of 120 capsules.
Vitamin D for $200? 13. March 2007 William Davis (2) What if vitamin D cost $200 rather than $2? In other words, what if cholecalciferol, or vitamin D3, was a patent-protectable agent that would sell for an extravagant price, just like a drug? Vitamin D would be the hot topic. There would be TV ads run during Oprah, slick magazine two-page spreads with experts touting its outsized benefits, insurance companies would battle over how much your copay should be. The manufacturer would host large fancy symposia to educate physicians on how wonderful vitamin D is for treatment of numerous conditions, complete with dinner, a show, and gifts. They would hire expert speakers to speak, scientists to have articles ghost-written, give out knick knacks with the brand label inscribed--just like Lipitor, Actos, Vytorin, ReoPro, Plavix . . .After all, what other "drug" substantially increases bone density (up to 20% in adult females), enhances insulin responses 30% (equivalent to the TZD drugs, Actos and Avandia), and slashes colon cancer risk?But it's not a drug. That is both vitamin D's strength and its weakness. It's a strong point because it's natural, phenomenally helpful across a variety of conditions, and inexpensive. It is also a weakness because, at $2 a month, no one is raking in the $12 billion annually that Pfizer makes for Lipitor that allows it to fund an enormous marketing campaign. Vitamin D is a "discovery" of huge importance for health, including making reductions of CT heart scan scores far more likely for more people. And it comes without a prescription.
What's up with garlic? 13. March 2007 William Davis (0) Fanatic Cook has posted an excellent summary on the recent negative attention cast on garlic preparations, at least for LDL cholesterol reduction. Go to http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com to view. I think Fanatic Cook is right--despite the lack of LDL reducing effects, it doesn't necessarily mean no benefit whatsoever. Anti-coagulation and anti-inflammatory effects, in particular, are well proven. I do think, however, that it argues more in favor of sticking to whole cloves, rather than supplements. The benefits are also likely small. I would view garlic as a soft advantage for your plaque control program. You can do fine without it. You might do slightly better with it.
Drop the pretense 12. March 2007 William Davis (1) Most hospitals maintain the "Saint _____" in their names, despite many having little or nothing to do with the church. Out of 15 hospitals in my area, 13 are named after saints. In my view, a more honest name would be something like "ABC Medical Enterprises, Inc." The profit motive, aggressive marketing tactics, and high CEO salaries would make better sense then. The trend to convert practicing physicians from professionals acting on behalf of patient welfare into paid employees would also be clearer.Imagine Walmart were to change its name to "St. Mary's Emporium" Would it modify your perception of their business? I think it would. It would cause many people to believe that maybe their work was, at least in part, charitable and being done for the public welfare. But Walmart makes such pretense--they are in business for profit, just like all businesses. It's time for the pretense to be dropped. Hospitals are cut-throat profit-seeking operations, operating under the guise of charitable, tax-free institutions. It's the farthest thing from the truth.