Recently the skeptical cardiologist was asked by Ilene, a reader with an HDL almost as high as her LDL and a history of branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) whether she should take the statin her cardiologist had prescribed.
I enjoy reading your articles and would appreciate your opinion on my situation. I recently took a lipid panel blood test: total cholesterol: 244 HDL:112 LDL:121 VLDL:11 CRP: 1.77 Triglycerides: 57. Also my Cardiac Agatston score is 21.
I had a Branch Retinol Vein Occlusion a year ago in my left eye (it’s healing beautifully) and as a precaution am now taking Amlodipine 5mg daily (my blood pressure was never too high to begin with) along with a daily baby aspirin.
I am otherwise a healthy 72 year old woman, exercise and eat healthy.
My regular doctor (Integrative MD) says my cholesterol ratio is wonderful….my cardiologist wants me to take a statin (Atorvastatin) in a low dose. The ONLY med I take is Amlodipine and I am not one to be taking a plethora of meds for the rest of my life (unless “absolutely” necessary. What is your suggestion…take a statin or not.
While I can’t provide medical advice to Ilene specifically it is worthwhile to ponder the general aspects of her case and how I would approach it as it likely applies to thousands of other patients including many of my own.
In my mind there are two questions here: 1) Should Ilene and patients like her take a statin to prevent future heart attacks and strokes and 2) Do statins effect the Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion (BRVO)?
Although I’m not a fan of integrative or functional medicine Ilene’s integrative MD is correct in saying that her ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol is wonderful. Perhaps that high HDL is protecting her from a build-up of atherosclerotic plaque.
On the other hand, Ilene tells me that “My father did have a heart attack in his 60’s”. Perhaps she inherited something from him that puts her in a higher than average risk category.
With the information from the CAC we don’t have to guess about the influence of the high HDL and the family history of CAD. Her score is at the 48th percentile, slightly below average for white women her age, thus it would appear she is not destined for her father’s fate.
In this case, the CAC score does not significantly alter our risk estimate as it is so close to the average for her age
Even if we count her as having hypertension because she is on the amlodipine her 10 year risk of heart attack and stroke is low at 3.2%.
Guidelines don’t recommend statin treatment unless risk is >7.5%.
Also, note that I answered yes to “Family history heart disease” but most studies generally only consider this a risk factor if father had heart attack prior to age 55 years. If we make that a no the risk drops to <3%.
Now that we’ve answered Ilene’s real question let’s see if the BRVO warrants statin therapy.
Branch Retinal Vein Occlusion
BRVO is the blockage of a vein from the retina and the second most
common cause of vision loss from retinal vascular disease, following diabetic retinopathy. It typically results in the painless loss of vision in one portion of one eye due to hemorrhage and edema in the retina.
A reasonable summary of BRVO provided by the American Academy of Ophthalmology can be found here.
BRVO is not clearly related to atherosclerosis or hyperlipidemia and there is no evidence that taking a statin would prevent recurrence or help the condition.
The leading theory for what causes BRVO is that the more delicate and distensible retinal veins are squished or compressed at points where the stiffer and thicker retinal arteries cross them. Up to Date notes:
Whereas branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO) appears to be related to compression of the branch vein by retinal arterioles at the arteriovenous crossing points, central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) is usually associated with primary thrombus formation.
Although BRVO is more common in patients with hypertension and atherosclerosis it is not clear that one causes the other or that treatment of hypertension or atherosclerosis diminishes the risk of BRVO. So statins are not recommended.
Every patient case for me leads to more questions, more investigations and more knowledge. Here are some questions that occurred to me from ilene’s case.
-Why would someone with no symptoms and no heart problems be seeing a cardiologist?
(“I started seeing a cardiologist just to make sure all systems were “go” and stayed that way!… we take care of our cars so why not my body. )
I kind of like this answer and I definitely see lots of patients with that philosophy but if we extrapolate the car analogy: going to a cardiologist would be like taking your car to a mechanic who only works on engines or perhaps one specific part of the engine (help me out here people who know about cars.)
-Why was Ilene unwilling to take a statin? (I pretty much know the answer to this (see here) for most patients.
‘m just afraid of the horrible muscle related side effects of statin drugs…and that’s why I’m taking Berberine 500mg twice a day.
Yep. I feel a post abut Berberine may be in the works!
-Finally, should a 72 year old with a CAC score of 21 and BRVO be taking a baby aspirin?
Since 1/3 of Americans die from atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD, mostly heart attacks and strokes) and dropping dead is often the first symptom of ASCVD it’s incredibly important to identify early, “subclinical” ASCVD and begin measures to reduce risk.
How early to begin that process is open to debate. The recent sudden death of the 41-year old son of a patient of mine, however, has reinforced to me how crucial it is to begin risk assessment and potential treatments as early as possible, especially in individuals with a strong family history of premature ASCVD.
We use standard risk factors like lipids, smoking, age, gender and diabetes to stratify individuals according to their 10 year risk of ASCVD (using this online risk calculator) but many apparent low risk individuals (often due to inherited familial risk) drop dead from ASCVD and many apparent high risk individuals have no subclinical ASCVD and don’t need preventive therapy.
Recent studies provide compelling support for the early utilization of cardiac imaging in to identify high risk individuals.
Heart attacks and most sudden cases of sudden death are due to rupture of atherosclerotic plaques. Thus, it makes sense to seek out such plaques, a process I call searching for subclinical atherosclerosis. There are a number of ways to search for sublinical plaques but the two most widely studied are carotid ultrasound screening and coronary artery calcification (CAC) measurement.
I’ve been utilizing CAC (also termed heart scan, coronary calcium score, or cardioscan) to help assess my patient’s risk of ASCVD for years although the procedure is not covered by insurance and until recently was not strongly endorsed by major guidelines. (For a complete description of the test and the risks/benefits see here). As I pointed out here, in November the new ACC/AHA guidelines finally embraced CAC for
adults 40 to 75 years of age without diabetes mellitus and with LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL- 189 mg/dL (≥1.8-4.9 mmol/L), at a 10-year ASCVD risk of ≥7.5% to 19.9%, if a decision about statin therapy is uncertain
Typically, if we have calculated (using the ASCVD risk estimator) a 10 year risk >7.5% we have a discussion with the patient about beginning drug treatment to reduce risk.
To inform the decision and help us “get off the fence” I usually recommend a CAC. To see how this works in a typical sixty something see my posts here and here.
Significant Of CAC Score
As the new ACC/AHA guidelines state:
If CAC is zero, treatment with statin therapy may be withheld or delayed, except in cigarette smokers, those with diabetes mellitus, and those with a strong family history of premature ASCVD.
A duo of studies from Walter Reed Army Hospital have provided more support for the value of the zero CAC for risk prediction and identifying who should get treatment for prevention of both heart attacks and strokes.
Over 10,00 subjects underwent CAC and were assessed for the primary outcomes of all-cause mortality, incident MI, stroke, and the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as stroke, MI, or cardiovascular death over an average 11.4 years
Patients were classified on the basis of the presence or absence of calcium and further subdivided into CAC score groups of 0, 1 to 100, 101 to 400, and >400
Patients without a zero CAC had a very low number of events , with a 1.0% rate of mortality and 2.7% rate of MACE over a 10-year period.
On the other hand subjects without any traditional risk factors (n = 6,208; mean age 43.8 years), the presence of any CAC (>0) was associated with a 1.7 fold increased risk of MACE after adjustment for traditional risk factors.
The red line of the >400 score individuals has a much higher risk of death, stroke and heart attack (myocardial infarction) than the blue (CAC 1-100) or the gray line of the zero CAC scorers.
Furthermore, when these investigators looked at outcomes in those individuals who received statins versus those who didn’t, the zeros didn’t benefit from statin therapy over the 10 year follow-up.
But there was a tremendous reduction in bad CV events in those with scores >100 who received statin (red line) versus those who did not (blue line).
Here’s the figure which encapsulates both the risk prediction power of the CAC (and the benefits of statin treatment restricted to those with >0 (blue lines)
Benefits of CAC Testing In The Young
So these new studies provide powerful data supporting the use of CAC in younger individuals to help us refine risk estimates and target the individual at high risk of MI and sudden death. It seems highly appropriate to consider CAC testing beginning at age 40 years as the AHA/ACC guidelines suggest.
But what about the individual who has a strong family history of premature CAD and is age say 35 or 39 years of age. Do we ignore advanced risk assessment? Very few individuals die in their 30s from ASCVD but I have a number of patients who suffered heart attacks in their forties. In addition, the earlier we can start risk modification the better as the process begins very early in life and accumulates over time.
The Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA) Study published in 2017 has demonstrated the early development of nonzero CAC score in the youngish and the predictive value of the high CAC score for mid life ASCVD events. It was a prospective community-based study that recruited 5115 black and white participants aged 18 to 30 years from March 25, 1985, to June 7, 1986. The cohort has been under surveillance for 30 years, with CAC measured 15 (n = 3043), 20 (n = 3141), and 25 (n = 3189) years after recruitment. The mean follow-up period for incident events was 12.5 years, from the year 15 computed tomographic scan through August 31, 2014.
Any CAC in early adult life, even in those with very low scores, indicates significant risk of having and possibly dying of a myocardial infarction during the next decade beyond standard risk factors and identifies an individual at particularly elevated risk for coronary heart disease for whom aggressive prevention is likely warranted.
I read CAC scans every day and it is not uncommon to see a non-zero scores in individuals in their late 30s or early 40s.
The two sons of another one of my patients both in their late 50s with unremarkable risk factor profiles and both developing anginal type symptoms limiting their activities each underwent multi vessel stent procedures in the last month. If I had seen them 10 to 20 years ago we would have identified the subclinical atherosclerosis building up in their coronaries, started treatment and avoided the need for invasive, expensive procedures.
Other Risk-Enhancing Factors To Consider In The Young
The ACC/AHA guidelines list some “risk-enhancing factors” some of which I find useful.
Clearly family history of premature ASCVD is important but the devil is in the details. What relatives count? What was the event in the family member? If it was sudden death was an autopsy done?
What about nontraditional lipid/biomarkers? I consider an assessment of Lp(a) and some more sophisticated measurement of atherogenic dyslipidemia (apoB, LDL-P) and inflammation (CRP) essential.
Interestingly the guidelines include ABI (which I do not find helpful) but not carotid vascular screening which has frequently guided me to earlier therapy in youngish individuals with abnormal biomarkers or strong family history.
Vascular screening in young subjects may detect subclinical atherosclerosis as measured by thickening of the carotid wall (IMT) or early carotid plaque prior to the formation of calcium in the coronary arteries. Advanced IMT precedes the formation of soft plaque in arteries and only later is calcium deposited in the plaque.
It’s never too early to start thinking about your risk of cardiovascular disease. If heart disease runs in your family or you have any of the “risk-enhancing” factors listed above, consider a CAC, nontraditional lipid/biomarkers, or vascular screening to better determine were you stand and what you can do about it.
Included in my discussions with my patients with premature ASCVD is a strong recommendation to encourage their brothers, sisters and children to undergo a thoughtful assessment for ASCVD risk. With these new studies and the new ACC/AHA guideline recommendations if they are age 40-75 years there is ample support for making CAC a part of such assessment.
Hopefully very soon, CMS and the health insurance companies will begin reimbursement for CAC. As it currently stands, however, the 125$ you will spend for the test at my hospital is money well spent.
This approach utilizes a low dose of rosuvastatin taken intermittently with the goal of minimizing any statin side effects, but obtaining some of the benefits of statin drugs on cardiovascular risk reduction.
It worked well for Geo; taking 5 mg rosuvastatin three times weekly lowered his LDL-C (bad cholesterol) by 50%, and he had absolutely no side effects when I reported on him 6 months after starting the drug.
However, when I stayed with Geo and his lovely wife, Wendy, over Thanksgiving in their Annapolis, Maryland house, Geo revealed that he had stopped taking his statin.
Like many patients, he was swayed by a news report suggesting an important “new study” that suggested there was no relationship between cholesterol and heart disease, and that statin drugs were dangerous and should be stopped.
At first I thought the story that he had read was the one I reported here which (appropriately) questions the benefit of statins for primary prevention in patients over the age of 75.
However, after a bit of searching, Geo told me the article that caused him to stop taking his statin was a UK Daily Mail one entitled:
‘No evidence’ having high levels of bad cholesterol causes heart disease, claim 17 physicians as they call on doctors to ‘abandon’ statins
But the new study, based on data of around 1.3 million patients, suggests doling out statins as a main form of treatment for heart disease is of ‘doubtful benefit’.
Is this really a “new study” that contradicts the great body of evidence showing that statin treatment is safe and effective in preventing heart attacks and stroke in those at high risk for cardiovascular events?
Larry Husten, who writes highly informed cardiac journalism at Cardiobrief, gives a good summary of their methods in this description of the authors of an editorial attacking the results of the JUPITER trial:
Nevertheless, the association of the authors with a group like THINCS raises some troublesome questions because, in fact, THINCS members don’t just object to one trial (JUPITER), or just one drug (rosuvastatin), or just the use of statins for primary prevention. They raise objections about ALL cholesterol-lowering trials, ALL cholesterol-lowering drugs, and the use of statins in ALL populations. They constantly harp on the dangerous side effects of statins, and exploit any bit of evidence they can find to launch their attacks, always ignoring the considerable evidence that doesn’t support their views. So the Archives paper on JUPITER is not really part of the scientific process, since the authors have no interest in the give and take of medicine and science. Their only interest is to attack, at any point, and on any basis, anything related to mainstream science about cholesterol.
The lead and corresponding author, Uffe Ravnskov is the founder of THINCS and author of The Cholesterol Myths – Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease (2000), which is considered the bible of cholesterol contrarianism.
Ravnskov’s book has been severely criticized in Bob Carroll’s The Skeptic’s Dictionary, which outlines the distortions and deceptive techniques found in the cholesterol skeptics’ arguments.
“to reject the cholesterol connection and statins entirely is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In my opinion, THINCS is spreading misinformation that could lead patients to refuse treatment that might prolong their life or at least prevent heart attacks and strokes.”
Indeed, if they were able to convince a highly intelligent patient like Geo, with a science background who also had easy access to the advice of a forward thinking cardiologist to stop taking his statins, who knows how many thousands have been convinced to stop their medications.
So my best advice for Geo and all of you taking statins is the following:
Make sure you really need to be on the drug after engaging in shared-decision making with your physician and learning all you can about your personal risk of cardiovascular disease, the benefits of statins for you, and the potential side effects.
Once you’ve made a decision based on good information and physician recommendation, try to ignore the latest headlines or internet stories that imply some new and striking information that impacts your health-most of these are unimportant.
The evidence for the benefit of statins is based on a deep body of scientific work, which will not be changed by any one new study. There is a very strong consensus amongst scientists who are actively working in the field of atherosclerosis, and amongst physicians who are actively caring for patients, that statins are very beneficial and safe. This consensus is similar to the consensus about the value of vaccines.
Science moves incrementally, and new studies inform those with open minds. The studies in this area that have been most significant in the last few years have actually strengthened the concept that drugs which lower LDL-C without causing other issues lower cardiovascular risk (see here on PCSK9 inhibitors and here on ezetimibe.)
N.B. *The Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology”is an open access journal, many of which are predatory. Article are solicited and the authors pay to have their work published. For the article in question, the Western Vascular Institute payed the fee. It’s not clear that there is any peer-review process involved.
Some authors have suggested predatory journals are “the biggest threat to science since the inquisition”and I am very worried about the explosive growth in these very weak journals which exist solely to make money.
I realize that writing this piece will engender the wrath of many so before you leave comments impugning my integrity let me reiterate that I receive absolutely nothing from BIG PHARMA. In fact, by writing appropriate prescriptions for statin drugs I reduce my income as my compliant patients avoid hospital and office visits and all kinds of procedures for heart attacks and strokes!
The NY Times published an article earlier this month with the provocative title “You’re Over 75, and You’re Healthy. Why Are You Taking a Statin?”
It’s actually a balanced presentation of this difficult question (although it includes the seemingly obligatory anecdote of a patient getting severe muscle aches and weakness on Lipitor) and I agree with the concept that patients should demand a good thoughtful explanation from their PCP if they are on a statin. Shared physician and patient decision-making should occur irrespective of age when a statin is prescribed.
Unfortunately, the NY Times piece was triggered by and contains references to a weak observational study that was recently published in the Journal of the American Geriatric Society..
A much better article on this same topic was published earlier in January in what is arguably the most respected cardiology journal in the world (Journal of the American College of Cardiology).
It contains what I think is a very reasonable discussion of the problem: the elderly at are a substantially higher risk of adverse “statin-associated symptoms” but also at much higher risk of stroke, heart attack and cardiovascular-related death than the young.
Key Points To Consider For Use of Statins In Elderly
Some key points from that article to ponder for those over 75 years
Major European and North Americans national guidelines differ markedly in this area as this graphic illustrates
“At one end of the spectrum, the 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines miss great opportunities for safe, cheap, and evidence-based prevention in elderly individuals 66 to 75 years of age. At the other end of the spectrum, the 2014 NICE guideline provides near-universal treatment recommendations well into the very elderly >75 years of age where RCT evidence is sparse and more uncertain.”
2. Data on from 2 large primary prevention trial (JUPITER and HOPE-3) show that rosuvastatin (Ridker, et al)
reduced the risk of a composite endpoint (nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or cardiovascular death) substantially by 49% (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.69), and the risk was reduced by 26% (RR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.91) in those ≥70 years of age. The efficacy was similar in individuals ≥70 and <65 years of age, indicating little heterogeneity in treatment effect by age. Today, nearly all apparently healthy elderly individuals have RCT evidence supporting statin efficacy.
3. The elderly compared to the younger are much more likely to have a nonfatal event which does not reduce their longevity but impacts their quality of life.
Thus, patient preferences are critical important for well-informed shared decision-making. If a patient only values longevity, there are little data to support primary prevention with statins in people >65 years of age. On the other hand, if preventing nonfatal and potentially disabling MI or stroke is of value to the patient, it might be reasonable to initiate statin therapy. From this perspective, it is noteworthy that the relative importance that people assign to avoiding death compared with avoiding nonfatal events appears to be highly age dependent. Although younger individuals <65 years of age weigh avoiding death highest, elderly individuals ≥65 years put a much higher weight on avoiding MI or stroke than death, These differences are compatible with elderly individuals having a greater focus on quality of life and avoiding disability than on extending life.
The Value of Derisking and Deprescribing
In my practice, I do a fair amount of deprescribing statins in the elderly. I have a very low threshold for initiating a trial of temporary statin cessation if there is any question that a patient’s symptoms could be statin-related (see here.)
The older the patient, the higher the bar for initiating statins and I think in all patients a search for subclinical atherosclerosis (coronary calcium scan or vascular ultrasound) helps inform the decision.
Previously, I had no term for this higher bar but I like the term the JACC paper introduces, derisking:
A promising approach to personalize treatment in elderly people is “derisking” by use of negative risk markers (i.e., absence of coronary artery calcification) to identify those at so low risk that statin therapy may safely be withheld . In the BioImage study of elderly individuals, for example, absence of coronary artery calcification was prevalent (≈1 of 3) and associated with exceptionally low ASCVD event rates
If you are >75 ponder all these factors and have an intense discussion with your doctor about taking a statin.
If you are still on the fence after this discussion consider a compromise approach that I have outlined here.
One of the amazing perquisites of being a doctor is the opportunity to talk to a wide diversity of individuals with fascinating backgrounds and interests. I’ve always had some appreciation of this during my office interactions, but with age and ripening, I have come to relish and savor these conversations.
The skeptical cardiologist learns something from virtually every patient visit. On a recent office day, I received patient pearls on topics ranging from Viking River cruises in Germany, to the method by which Express Scripts squeezes money from Walgreens and drug manufacturers, to certain novels of T. Coraghessan Boyle not centered on the maniacal vegetarian John Harvey Kellogg.
Not uncommonly, I’ll learn something about medicine or cardiology if I listen closely to my patients and keep an open mind.
I saw a 69 year old woman (we’ll call her Donna) the other day who had advanced plaque in her coronary arteries and with whom I had initiated a discussion on the pros and cons of taking a statin drug to lower her risk of heart attack and stroke. This was not the first time we had talked about this topic; in previous visits she had shared with me her great fear of statin side effects and her desire to modify risk by dietary modification. On this visit, she came prepared with more research she had done on statins, and told me she was concerned about an increased risk of diabetes with statin drugs.
I gave her my standard spiel: statins, especially more potent ones like rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, appear to increase the risk of diabetes by 10-20%, however, this is offset by the benefits of statins, especially in someone with significant atherosclerosis, in reducing heart attack and stroke.
Donna then told me that she had read that pravastatin lowers the risk of diabetes. I hadn’t heard this (or more likely this slipped out of my ever-shrinking cerebral database) previously. Ten years ago, in the era before routine use of electronic health records (EHR), I would have had to just admit my ignorance and promise to look into that claim later (something that would not consistently happen due to time constraints and forgetfulness). However, now I enter the patient exam room with my MacBook Air, primarily to access the patient’s EHR and look at old notes, cardiac tests etc.
Increasingly I also use the Mac to quickly look up information about a topic the patient has brought to my attention – either double checking what I believe to be true or researching claims I am unfamiliar with.
Often, the topic raised is the “snake oil du jour” (for example, is turmeric a cardiovascular panacea?), but in this case and many others, it is a relevant question about the nuances of disease or my proposed treatment.
A quick search (20 seconds) pulled up a 2009 meta-analysis of randomized trials of statins and the risk of diabetes. Sure enough, one of these trials (the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study) actually showed that patients treated with 40 mg of pravastatin had a 30% lower risk of developing diabetes. Four studies showed no effect of statins on risk of developing diabetes and only one, the JUPITER trial utilizing rosuvastatin (Crestor), showed a slight increase.
For some patients like Donna, a higher risk of diabetes may be a deal breaker for taking a life-saving medication. Although I can confidently tell her that the benefits outweigh the risks, if she has a specific fear of diabetes, perhaps related to a family member who had horrific complications of the disease, she could easily decline to take statins.
In Donna’s case, this new information about pravastatin, confirmed by the wonders of Google and a fast WiFi connection led to her giving statins (in the form of pravastatin) a chance.
I’ll remember this patient-triggered drop of wisdom for future discussions with patients whose grave fear of diabetes makes them balk at taking statins.
The skeptical cardiologist stopped writing new prescriptions for niacin extended release tablets in 2011. For any patient who was taking niacin, I recommended stopping it.
Because niacin had favorable effects on the cholesterol profile, physicians had been utilizing it for many years in high risk patients on statins who had low HDL (good cholesterol) and/or high triglycerides.
The rationale was that, since high HDL was associated with lower risk of heart attacks, raising the HDL would lower that risk. Similarly, lowering the triglycerides would improve cardiovascular risks.
While niacin certainly improved the cholesterol profile, there was no good evidence that starting it in a patient already on statin would improve cardiovascular outcomes. The cholesterol profile is a surrogate endpoint: the actual treatment goal is reducing cardiovascular disease.
In 2011, the AIM-HIGH study proved there was no benefit to adding niacin to good statin therapy despite increasing HDL from 35 to 42 mg/dl, lowering triglycerides and lowering LDL. This and other studies showing no benefit of niacin therapy (and worrisome adverse effects) should have resulted in the total cessation of niacin prescriptions, especially in patients on statins.
Unfortunately, old habits die hard amongst physicians, and the allure of raising HDL and lowering triglycerides with niacin persisted despite a lack of evidence of any benefit in lowering cardiovacular risk.
Yesterday, the FDA announced it was removing from the market two drugs made by Abbvie, Advicor and Simcor, which are combinations of extended release niacin plus lovastatin or simvastatin, and removed its approved indication for niacin ER plus statin for lowering CHD risk stating:
“Based on the collective evidence from several large cardiovascular outcome trials (Refs. 1-3), the Agency has concluded that the totality of the scientific evidence no longer supports the conclusion that a drug-induced reduction in triglyceride levels and/or increase in HDL-cholesterol levels in statin-treated patients results in a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular events. Consistent with this conclusion, FDA has determined that the benefits of niacin ER tablets and fenofibric acid DR capsules for coadministration with statins no longer outweigh the risks, and the approvals for this indication should be withdrawn.”
This is good news for patients whose physicians were keeping them on the unproven brand name combination drugs, Advicor and Simcor.
There are still legitimate uses of niacin to prevent vitamin deficiencies but If you are still taking some form of niacin ER for the purpose of preventing heart disease with or without a statin I recommend presenting your doctor with the link to the FDA pronouncement above and having a good discussion with him about the rationale for staying on it.
The other drug mentioned in the announcement, fenofibric acid, is far less often prescribed and is not available as a combination. It is the most effective drug we have for extremely high triglyceride levels over 500 mg/dl which can cause pancreatitis. I have a few patients on the generic fenofibric acid strictly for the purpose of lowering their dangerously high triglycerides but not for the indication of lowering their cardiovascular risk.