Dr. Jarvik, is niacin as bad as it sounds?

A popular health newsletter, Everyday Health, carried this headline:

A Cholesterol-Busting Vitamin?

Did you know that niacin, one of the B vitamins, is also a potent cholesterol fighter?
Find out how niacin can help reduce choleseterol.


At doses way above the Recommended Dietary Allowance — say 1,000–2,500 mg a day (1–2.5 grams) — crystalline nicotinic acid acts as a drug instead of a vitamin. It can reduce total cholesterol levels by up to 25%, lowering LDL and raising HDL levels, and can rapidly lower the blood level of triglycerides. It does so by reducing the liver’s production of VLDL, which is ordinarily converted into LDL.


I'd agree with that, except that it is rare to require doses higher than 1000-1500 mg per day unless you are treating lipoprotein(a) and using niacin as a tool for dramatic drops in LDL. But for just raising HDL, shifting HDL into the healthy large class, reducing small LDL, and for reduction of heart attack risk, 1000-1500 mg is usually sufficient; taking more yields little or no further effect.

But after that positive comment comes this:

Niacin is safe — except in people with chronic liver disease or certain other conditions, including diabetes and peptic ulcer. . . However, it has numerous side effects. It can cause rashes and aggravate gout, diabetes, or peptic ulcers. Early in therapy, it can cause facial flushing for several minutes soon after a dose, although this response often stops after about two weeks of therapy and can be reduced by taking aspirin or ibuprofen half an hour before taking the niacin. A sustained-release preparation of niacin (Niaspan) appears to have fewer side effects, but may cause more liver function abnormalities, especially when combined with a statin.


Strange. After a headline clearly designed to pull readers in, clearly stating niacin's benefits, the article then proceeds to scare the pants off you with side-effects.

But look to the side and above the text: Ah . . . two prominent advertisements for Lipitor, complete with Dr. Robert Jarvik's photo. "I've studied the human heart for a lifetime. I trust Lipitor to keep my heart healthy."

Niacin bad. Lipitor good. Even celebrity doc says so. Sounds like bait and switch to me. "You could try niacin--if you dare. But you could also try Lipitor."

Who is Dr. Jarvik, anyway, that he serves as spokesman (or at least figurehead) for this $13 billion dollar a year drug? Of course, he is the 1982 inventor of the Jarvik artificial heart, surely an admirable accomplishment. But does that qualify him to speak about heart disease prevention and cholesterol drugs?

Jarvik has never--never--actually prescribed Lipitor, since he never completed any formal medical training beyond obtaining his Medical Doctor degree, nor has he ever had a license to practice medicine. He does, however, continue in his effort to provide artificial heart devices, principally for implantation as a "bridge" to transplantation, i.e., to sustain a patient temporarily who is dying of end-stage heart failure.

So where does his expertise in heart disease prevention come from? It's beyond me. Perhaps it was the thousands of dollars likely paid to him. That will make an "expert" out of just about anybody.

Robert Bazell, science reporter, for CNBC, made this report on the Jarvik-Lipitor connection in his March, 2007 report, Is this celebrity doctor's TV ad right for you?

Mr. Bazell writes:

On May 16, 1988, an editorial in the New York Times dubbed the artificial heart experiments, “The Dracula of Medical Technology.”

“The crude machines,” it continued, “with their noisy pumps, simply wore out the human body and spirit.”

Since then, in a series of start-up companies, Jarvik has continued his quest to make an artificial heart — as have several other firms. One competitor recently won FDA approval to sell its device for implantation in extreme emergencies.

Perhaps Jarvik’s chances of success with another artificial heart account for his willingness to serve as pitchman for Pfizer. I inquired, without success, to find the going rate for a semi- celebrity like Jarvik to appear in such ads. Thomaselli of Advertising Age said whatever it is, it is “infinitesimal” compared to Pfizer’s expenditures of $11 billion a year on advertising, much of it for Lipitor.

Why spend so much marketing Lipitor?

Because Lipitor is only one of six drugs in the class called statins that lower cholesterol. Many cardiologists say that for the vast majority of people any one of these drugs works just as well as the other. Two of them, Mevacor and Zocor, have already lost their patent protection so they cost pennies a day compared to $3 or more a day for Lipitor.

In 2010, when Lipitor loses its patent protection, it, too, will cost pennies a day, and Pfizer will no longer need Dr. Robert Jarvik.



So, is niacin so bad after all? Or is this Everyday Health report just another clever piece of advertising for Pfizer?

Comments (5) -

  • jpatti

    10/20/2007 8:43:00 PM |

    When you're diabetic, so many drug choices wind up being about that.  For instance, I was switched to carvedilol (at my request) as it's the only beta-blocker that doesn't raise bg and actually seems to improve insulin resistance.

    I think it is true that niacin at doses therapeutic enough to effect lipid panels is a drug, not a vitamin.  This isn't to say it's bad, but that it has to be evaluated as a drug.  And the best I've been able to find wrt to niacin use in diabetics is that 1-1.5 g of extended release only raises bg slightly.  

    However, the increased A1c, even if slight, bothers me.  Even in non-diabetics, A1c is highly correlated with heart disease; very slight changes seem to be significant.  So it is difficult to decide if the increased glycolyation of blood proteins outweighs the benefits of niacin.  

    Have you seen improvements in heart scan scores in diabetics treated with niacin?

  • Dr. Davis

    10/21/2007 12:59:00 AM |

    Yes, dramatic reductions in heart scan scores, in fact.

    I think that the glucose/niacin interaction needs to be evaluated individually, since it can vary enormously from one person to another, though usually small to minimal.

  • over&out

    10/21/2007 11:16:00 PM |

    1500 niacin has lowered my LP(a)from 90 to 28. Also alternate between 10mg and 5mg daily of Lipitor to keep LDL & Trigs about 35. Cardiologist says "less trains = less passengers". HDL at 60-70. Found Immediate release worked best for me. Reading good things about that combo on PUBMED.com. Doing it for 5 yrs now. Thanx for your helpful posts, a must read for me every day. Over&Out

  • Ruth

    11/18/2007 9:11:00 PM |

    I just want to thank you for you site.  I was actually doing some research for a criminal justice class and found more info than I was looking for, I will be back to your site, I have parents in their 80's and my mom is diabetic, I found info on here that will help her, my stepdad and my mother in law.  Have a wonderful day!

  • buy jeans

    11/4/2010 6:35:01 PM |

    Niacin bad. Lipitor good. Even celebrity doc says so. Sounds like bait and switch to me. "You could try niacin--if you dare. But you could also try Lipitor."

Loading
Magnesium and you-Part I

Magnesium and you-Part I

If this were 10,000 B.C., you'd get your drinking water from streams, rivers, and lakes, all rich in mineral content. Humans became reliant on obtaining a considerable proportion of daily mineral needs from natural water sources.

21st century: We obtain drinking water from a spigot or plastic bottle. Pesticides and other chemicals seep into the water supply. Municipal water purification facilities have intensified water purification in most communities to remove contaminants like lead, pesticide residues, and nitrates. (For a really neat listing of the water quality of various cities, the University of Cincinnati makes this data available.)

But intensive water treatment also removes minerals like calcium and magnesium.

Many people have added water filters or purifiers to their homes,, like reverse osmosis and distillation, that are efficient at extracting any remaining minerals, converting “hard” into “soft” water. In fact, manufacturers of such devices boast of their power to yield pure water free of any “contaminant,” minerals like magnesium included. The magnesium content of water after passing through most commercial filters is zero.

Modern enthusiasm for bottled water has compounded the problem. Americans consumed a lot of bottled water, nearly 8 billion gallons last year. In the U.S., nearly all bottled water has little or no magnesium.

The result is that we can no longer rely on drinking water to provide magnesium. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA)—the amount required to prevent severe deficiency—for magnesium is 420 mg per day for men, 320 mg/day for women. In cities with the highest magnesium water content, only 30% of the RDA can be obtained by drinking two liters of tap water per day. In most cities, only a meager 10–20% of the daily requirement can be obtained. That leaves between 70–90% that needs to come from other sources. As a result, the average American ingests substantially less than the RDA.

Comments (11) -

  • Anonymous

    5/15/2009 4:24:00 PM |

    I would just love to drink my tap water for necessary minerals but my city has deemed it necessary to forcefully medicate it's inhabitants by adding fluoride to it so I go to my local water store and get my drinking water.

    I have hashi's so I must avoid flouride (except for having to bathe in the citywater)as much as possible.  Sometimes I get distilled and sometimes I get the reverse osmosis for my drinking water.  I add Himalayan 'sea' salt to the water to add back in the minerals but I really have no clue if that is adequatly providing the minerals my body needs so I also take vit/min supplement and additional magnesium(sometimes before going to bed - it seems to allow a more restful sleep and makes me calmer overall).

    Some of the proponents of distilled water drinking say that absorption of minerals from water is negligible.  I don't know if there are any studies out there to prove if this is so.  My guess is that it would depend on the gut health of the individual.

    I also give my pets the bottled water with the sea salt added to it.  they don't need no steenkin fluoridated tap water either.

    Growing up we had well water and it was delicious.  I don't know if anyone ever tested the water for it's mineral content, though.  

    Nancy

  • Ares Vista

    5/15/2009 9:41:00 PM |

    Most people would do well to take a vitamin/mineral supplement each day. It's simple to do, and relatively inexpensive. Relying on our diets to provide us with the right nutrients can leave out important ones.

  • mongander

    5/16/2009 12:53:00 AM |

    Fortunately, I live in Hot Springs, Arkansas where I have free access to 140° thermal spring water, with 4.9 ppm Mg.  Don't know if that's sufficient but that's all I drink.

  • Jeremy Fox

    5/16/2009 1:02:00 AM |

    There are many types of magnesium available in vitamin stores. Which is the best type to buy? I am curious about absorption by the body and not including a lot of potentially unhealthy ingredients?.

  • Dennis Mangan

    5/16/2009 2:53:00 PM |

    Magnesium oxide has been shown to be poorly absorbed, while magnesium aspartate releases aspartate, which *might* cause some excitotoxicity. Your best bet is probably magnesium citrate or malate.

  • Steve

    5/16/2009 4:38:00 PM |

    Jeremy Fox,

    Read the first comment from this post by Dr. Eades for what kind to buy:
    Link

  • Kismet

    5/16/2009 5:25:00 PM |

    @Ares
    Actually, no one should take a multi vitamin (= the shotgun approach) without talking to a knowledgable doctor and/or doing a lot of research.

    And NO ONE should take a cheap generic multi. That's suicidal and I'm serious.
    The evidence conclusively proves that generic multis (badly formulated, over-/underdosed, etc) are a waste of money at best and dangerous at worst. (1, 2)

    There are two *vastly* superior approaches:
    A. fix your diet (check nutrient intake using CRON-o-meter) and supplement whatever you are lacking (i.e. single nutrients).
    B. take a well-formulated *low dose* multi á la AOR orthocore (although, it's too high in folic acid in my opinion)

    (1) Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD007176.
    Antioxidant supplements for prevention of mortality in healthy participants and patients with various diseases. Bjelakovic G, Nikolova D, Gluud LL, Simonetti RG, Gluud C.
    (2) Multivitamin use and risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease in the Women's Health Initiative cohorts.
    Neuhouser ML, Wassertheil-Smoller S, Thomson C, Aragaki A, Anderson GL, Manson JE, Patterson RE, Rohan TE, van Horn L, Shikany JM, Thomas A, LaCroix A, Prentice RL.

  • Nameless

    5/17/2009 1:25:00 AM |

    I'm curious what Dr. Davis recommends regarding magnesium intake and what specific form.

    Magnesium glycinate (Albion), orotate or a taurate may be preferred. The Albion's have good absorption studies. And for orotate there is little bit of evidence is can reduce cholesterol (maybe), and some decent studies on improving heart health.

  • Anna

    5/18/2009 3:24:00 PM |

    I enjoyed two books on magnesium, The Magnesium Factor and The Magnesium Miracle.  They complement each other well, as the first one is more about magnesium's role and the second has more practical info about supplementing.

    We used to take magnesium oxide, but it is the magnesium salt with the lowest absorbability (only 4% I think), so the dose must be higher.  Consequently it also has more of a laxative effect than some other magnesium preparations.  We're taking a magnesium complex (oxide, aspartate, citrate, and taurate) or magnesium taurate now, though I do keep the magensium oxide around for the times when a mild laxative is useful (esp with travel).

    The Magnesium Miracle frequently mentions magnesium oil (magnesium chloride?) which isn't really an oil, but feels like one when applied topically.  I haven't found it in local stores (no one has heard of it), but it is available online.  Has anyone used magnesium oil?

  • billye

    11/17/2009 4:10:15 AM |

    I have bought on line and used used Swanson's magnesium oil topically-5 short sprays on each arm prior to bedtime on a daily basis.  I have used about 40% of 8fluid ounces and I just got my blood test results.  normal range 1.5 to 2.5.  My result was slightly high at 2.7.  By applying it topically, you get full absorption.  Dr. T from "nephropal.blogspot.com put me on this system.

Loading