The Approaching Medical Maelstrom

The AHA 2014 Scientific Sessions are over and I have already written twice about IMPROVE IT but I feel compelled to write again. Although the media has been oddly silent about the trial (why is that I wonder???), I predict its fallout will greatly impact the disciplines of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Clinical Lipidology, and even the essence of clinical practice. The reasons are manifold. First, the trial proved two critical theories: a lower LDL cholesterol level is better, and statins are not the only way to achieve a clinically relevant LDL reduction. Additional key considerations from IMPROVE IT include:

  •  Lower LDL in properly chosen patients (and probably almost everyone) yields lower rates of stroke and heart attack, the two most formidable foes of modern man. For example, in the trial, an LDL of 53 was significantly better than an LDL of 70. Should we doctors then aim for 40, or perhaps even 25?
  • In our high-risk patients should we consistently and continuously add medications to statins in order to drive cholesterol levels lower and lower? For example, in a patient with a prior heart attack is it now fair to accept 70 for an LDL when we know that 53 would decrease our patient’s chance of having a recurrent and potentially life-threatening event?
  • What do we do with the hotly debated 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol Guidelines? They eliminated LDL goals and allowed for the use of Zetia only with individualized – and typically time-prohibitive – clinician/patient discourse, but they did NOT encourage driving LDL lower than 70. The Guidelines advocated for an LDL response to therapy of > 50%. So where does that leave our heart patients who start with LDLs of 180, for example. If they achieve the intended LDL reduction of 50% and thereby remain with an LDL of 90 mg/dL the guidelines surely say all is well – job well done. They state there is no indication to go further. Well now there is an indication. Now we can say with certainty that an LDL of 53 is a far better goal than 90. Having an LDL of 90 leaves significant and now manageable residual risk. So then how can a health care provider in good conscience advocate keeping such a patient at an LDL that clearly conveys greater risk?
  • The Guidelines also strongly advocate our utilization of maximum statin doses prior to adding an agent like Zetia. Knowing that higher dose statins produce more side effects while yielding a diminishing return on cholesterol lowering, wouldn’t it now be more prudent for doctors to prescribe low dose statins in combination with Zetia? This would limit side effects while yielding lower LDL levels than would the Guideline recommended approach. More food for thought.
  • How will insurance providers respond to Improve-It’s results? After the ACC/AHA Guidelines’ release, with lightening speed they downgraded access to add-on therapies such as Zetia. Of course that saved them money. So what now? Will they respond in kind, follow the science, and quickly allow patients access to these medications? We shall see but I have my doubts. Profits it seems oftentimes take precedence over science and health.
  • One more crack at the Guidelines for now: It is true that we do not know what represents the optimal LDL cholesterol level in human beings. Based upon our ever-expanding understanding of lipids including our body’s limited need for extraneous cholesterol however, it is safe to say that that level is probably quite low, perhaps even as low as 25 or 30 mg/dL. And, given the fact that many of us are goal-oriented, wouldn’t it now make sense to join our friends across the pond as well as our very learned friends here at home in the National Lipid Association and simply reinstate LDL goals?
  • As I sit at my desk tapping these keys I am clearly frustrated by the politics and economics woven inextricably into the fabric of medical practice. But I am also comforted and encouraged by the knowledge that many of us have already spent the last decade and beyond practicing the way we felt the science dictated. And by so doing, in the matter of LDL-lowering with Zetia, for every 120 patients we’ve treated in an Improve-It style, we’ve saved 3 from enduring a stroke or heart attack. This fact renders all our struggles worthwhile.

On a final note let us not forget that doctors have NO financial incentive to prescribe these medications. Our only “dog in the fight” is protecting our patients from harm. Insurance providers often do have a financial incentive to preclude doctors from prescribing some medicines (typically those that cost them more money). So whom do you, the patients, want to be in control of your medication regimen – the more highly educated and clearly non-conflicted physicians, or the less knowledgeable and often-conflicted insurance carriers? The answer to me seems pretty clear.

Learn more about preventive cardiology at

For more information more about essential vitamins and supplements visit

Comments { 3 }

Response to “A New Gender Issue: Statins” an Article by Roni Caryn Rabin

There appears to be an endless supply of medically related stories in the lay press that serve nothing more than to create mass misunderstanding of science and medicine. Surely their provocative messages sell papers and airtime. But they have an often-ignored downside as well. Tuesday we saw another such article. In the New York Times’ Rabin piece, a prevalent fear of medications is fueled, and the integrity of a prominent physician is impugned. (Full disclosure – I too unabashedly receive compensation from pharmaceutical companies for consulting and educational purposes.) Statistics are cited; the quintessential anti-statin doctor is quoted; and fabricated conclusions are rendered. The science of statin therapy is much too complex for a single cursory article to do it justice. In fact, entire conferences are devoted to the subject matter. And yet a sweeping conclusion – with potentially devastating ramifications – has again been made. Women reading this article will do what one would expect, either discontinue their statins on their own, or hopefully discuss such an action with their doctors prior to doing so. The article is meant to be terrifying, citing exceedingly rare muscle complications and referring to an unproved complication of statins, memory loss. So much is left unconsidered. For starters, the ACC/AHA risk scoring system cited by Ms. Rabin likely underestimates, not overestimates, CVD risk in women. And, as the leading cause of death in US women is cardiovascular disease, we do not want to make the mistake of under-evaluating and under-treating this segment of the population.

Today in the office I saw a young woman who suffers from premature heart disease that would not have been detected or appropriately treated had the guidelines been followed to a tee. Yet her coronaries have been non-invasively imaged; significant disease was detected; and yes, statins are being utilized. As a result, her life may very well have been saved. Doctors must be able to think and act with fluidity, moving both within and beyond the guidelines, in order to render the best care we can. Articles such as Ms. Rabin’s serve solely to diminish our ability to do so.

To demonstrate more clearly why we need to drastically broaden – not shrink – our efforts to identify and treat cardiovascular disease in women here are a few chilling and sobering statistics:

  • Women are 15 times more likely than men to die within the year following a heart attack.
  • Women with angina have twice the morbidity and mortality as men with angina, even in the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease.
  • 64% of women dying suddenly from heart disease had no prior symptoms.
  • Women under 50 are three times as likely as men under 50 to die after a bypass operation.
  • Marriage decreases cardiovascular risk in men, yet increases it in women (a frightening statistic, yet one that provides fodder for some excellent jokes).

Other similar statistics abound. The point is that we unambiguously understand that women are at great risk for heart disease. Sadly though, we currently have inadequate clinical trials assessing their risk. The appropriate answer is to fight even harder to identify and treat women at risk. It is not to dismiss our vast and growing understanding of the salient role cholesterol plays in the genesis of cardiovascular disease. It is not, as this article implies, to withhold a medication that has done more to thwart heart disease than any other therapy in the last century. I entreat all in the press to be more circumspect and responsible in your reporting. You have a great influence on your readers. Please wield it with caution.

Learn more about preventive cardiology at

For more information more about essential vitamins and supplements visit

Comments { 1 }

From the Ivory Tower to the Trenches: A Practical Approach to the 2013 ACC/AHA Cholesterol and Risk Assessment Guidelines

The distillation of well over one hundred pages of two guidelines into a pragmatic and accessible tool for the practicing clinician is of course a monumental task. It is essential to do so though. Clinicians require clear guidance in helping them manage patients in harmony with scientific developments. To think though that science is simply and solely a regurgitation of large randomized double blind placebo-controlled trials would be foolhardy to say the least. Science – especially medical science – is so much more. The fast-paced evolution of science keeps us all on our toes. And there are so many levels to consider: clinical trials of all forms, basic science of multiple disciplines, clinical acumen borne of clinical experience, and of course good old-fashioned common sense. So the Guidelines’ authors’ use of just a single facet of science, the Randomized Clinical Trial (RCT), a priori limits the utility of the recent guidelines. Still, they must be addressed and reckoned with. Indeed like most other things in life, they are not “all bad.” Before distilling the Guideline’s into a practical approach that I personally intend to follow, let’s first put the premise of the RCT as “King” in a real-world context by examining a typical doctor’s approach to patients.

In medical schools, residencies, and fellowships all physicians are trained how to diagnose and manage patients. Take a hypothetical case. A new patient awaits your expertise as you enter the exam room. The patient has dutifully completed a multi-page questionnaire, the modern-day equivalent of a Review of Systems (ROS), Past Surgical History (PSH), Past Medical History (PMH), List of Allergies and Current Medications, and History of Present Illness (HPI). You’ve read the document prior to entering the room but you spend time clarifying the issues and creating this patient’s cohesive medical story. Then you examine him; from his right, just as you were taught in medical school. Your exam has morphed of course, emphasizing those aspects relevant to your particular specialty but still incorporating features from other areas of interest. After all, it is a whole person you are seeing, and ailments oftentimes breach systems’ boundaries as they are not constrained by artificial barriers. You examine his blood work as well as any other pertinent tests that have been performed prior to the visit. Then you think. You place the pieces of his particular puzzle in an orderly fashion; you make diagnoses; and then you create a plan. Reflecting on every single aspect of this fundamental, age-old doctor-patient interaction, consider how much of it is truly based upon solid RCT evidence. I will spare you the agony of this exercise as I’ve already done it countless times. The answer is essentially none. Where are the RCTs validating our ROS, HPI, examination from the right…? They simply do not exist. Yet, this is how we all practice medicine. And, it has worked out rather well for our patients. None of us should be handcuffed by RCTs when we evaluate and treat patients; we are all free to use any and all of the countless tools at our disposal. And frankly, the more tools in our chest, the better off are our patients. So, rule number one in addressing the guidelines is, “Remember that they are not rules.” Guidelines are not a part of the Ten Commandments. Even the authors of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guidelines acknowledge this when they state, “Guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs in most circumstances and are not a replacement for clinical judgment. The ultimate decision about care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider and patient in light of the circumstances presented by that patient.” Translation: You the doctor should treat each and every individual patient in the manner you deem most appropriate. You must not feel shackled by these or any other “Guidelines.” With this in mind, I will now review the Cholesterol and Risk Assessment Guidelines to present an approach I will utilize in my practice. The views that follow emanate from experience garnered through practicing Clinical Lipidology and Preventive Cardiology, in addition to my personal interpretation of the literature as a whole.

Four groups qualify for statin therapy in the new guidelines, and I agree; they should all be treated. They are:

  1.  Patients with clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), defined as acute coronary syndromes (ACS), myocardial infarction (MI), stable or unstable angina pectoris, coronary or other arterial revascularization, stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or peripheral arterial disease (PAD) presumed to be of atherosclerotic origin. These patients are to receive high-intensity statins.
  2. Primary elevations of LDL-C > 190 mg/dL (consistent with Familial Hypercholesterolemia, or FH). These patients are to receive high-intensity statins.
  3. Diabetic patients between the ages of 40 and 75 with LDL-C 70 to 189 mg/dL and no history of ASCVD. Patients with 10 year risk > 7.5% receive high-intensity statins while others receive moderate-intensity statins.
  4. Patients without clinical ASCVD or Diabetes Mellitus between the ages of 40 and 75, having an LDL-C 70 to 189 mg/dL and 10 year ASCVD risk of > 7.5%. These patients are to receive moderate-to-high intensity statins.

A few problems with this construct are:

  1. The Risk calculator is still shrouded in uncertainty. Many issues remain to be resolved, not the least of which is the fact that a strong Family History of premature ASCVD fails to impact risk in this system. Also, only 24,000 patients were evaluated to construct this tool which sits at the center of these guidelines and is meant to be used to determine therapy for hundreds of millions of people. Therefore, for now, when I opt to do a 10 year risk assessment I will still use Framingham Risk Scoring. I do so with the understanding of the limitations of this scoring system and the concomitant need for methods to further risk reclassify patients.
  2. The intention is to treat patients with high-intensity statins and assume an LDL-C reduction of > 50%, and moderate intensity statins to achieve a reduction of 30 to 50%. LDL-C goals are now passé in this paradigm. However, we all know that each patient is unique. Some respond very well to statin therapy; others do not. I will therefore continue to measure LDL-C (as well as LDL-P) on drug and I will continue to get my patients to goals at least as stringent as those in ATP3. There are ample data supporting the “lower is better” hypothesis. For example, the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) study showed in both phases one and two that lower is better. The fact that we do not have RCTs that have used titration of statins to LDL goals as a primary endpoint in no way negates the overwhelming body of literature showing better outcomes at lower LDL-C , apo B, and LDL-P levels across a range of different statins. I will continue treat to targets.
  3. The high-dose-statin-absent-adjunctive-therapy (or-even lipid/lipoprotein-follow-up) concept is to me “pie in the sky.” We all know that from an LDL-C – but even more so LDL-P or apo B – standpoint by prescribing statins alone we will fall woefully short of what we have been accustomed to achieve. We also know that lower is better. Thus, by adhering to the guidelines’ advice we will very possibly see worse future outcomes. Additionally, we know from several trials that statin-related Diabetes Mellitus is dose related. JUPITER found that 20 mg of Rosuvastatin reduced 2.5 ASCVD events or deaths for every one excess in DM. Thus there is a trade-off for uptitration of statins. For me, I will use statins as a base and other therapies such as cholesterol absorption inhibition and bile acid sequestration as adjunctive therapy.
  4. ASCVD includes the presence of PAD but it does not include the presence of subclinical disease in the coronary or carotid arterial trees. This is counterintuitive. There is ample evidence that the presence of a high Coronary Artery Calcium score (CAC) or age-and sex-inappropriate Carotid Intimal Media Thickness (CIMT) predicts higher risk of ASCVD events. Even absent the copious data we have accumulated, doesn’t it make physiologic sense to ascribe as much value to disease in the vascular beds that are direct culprits for the very events we are attempting to thwart as we do to distant arteries in the legs? I will continue to use CIMT and CAC (and coronary CT angiography) in intermediate risk patients as tools to risk reclassify patients.
  5. The age limits of 40 to 75 are problematic. What do we do with a 35 year old woman with no other ASCVD risks except an LDL-C of 180 mg/dL and a powerful family history of premature ASCVD? Her 10 year risk is only 1.6% but she is too young to be treated by the new guidelines regardless of her risk score. I would unequivocally treat this woman.
  6. The absence of a significant lipoprotein and triglyceride discussion relegates the guidelines to be strictly statin/LDL-C documents. They do not attempt to be comprehensive and the authors acknowledge this fact. Thus, we should not be misled to believe that lipoproteins and triglycerides are suddenly unimportant. They are not. I will continue to assess them and manage them in a patient-centric, individualized manner. Again, every patient is different. Each one deserves his or her unique assessment and management. “One size fits all” has no place in modern medicine.
  7. Biological markers like Lipoprotein Associated Phospholipase A2 (LpPLA2), myeloperoxidase (MPO), oxidized LDL, Lp(a), and urine microalbumin have numerous studies either validating their position as ASCVD risk factors or at least implicating them in ASCVD. Though de-emphasized in these guidelines, biological markers are helpful tools in understanding our patients’ risks as well as motivating our patients to adjust their lifestyles and take their medications. I will continue to utilize them in my practice of “Interventional Prevention.”

In summation let us remember that these guidelines are not law. They are based entirely upon a mere 25 “highest level” clinical trials, ignoring thousands of “lower level” trials, human biology and physiology, and clinical acumen. To some extent I would say they are so limited in scope by inappropriately-stringent data-entry criteria that they have become Ivory Tower, clinically-blind advice. Their very construct diminishes their real world relevance.  Ironically the system suggested in the guidelines has itself never been validated by the very type of RCT evidence demanded by the guideline authors. Something is surely wrong with that. Yet on a positive note the new guidelines are simpler than ATP3. Reliance more upon Global (Total) Risk rather than individual risk factors makes it easier for clinicians to make recommendations. Still, simple is not always good. As outlined above, I intend to use the guidelines as a foundation upon which to build a more dynamic and plastic way to approach the patients in my clinical practice. I refuse to await trials that may never appear. Instead, I will continue to avidly follow the literature, eagerly learn from my colleagues, and diligently incorporate a wide gamut of data to render the well-considered recommendations I ultimately share with my patients.

Please read more about preventive cardiology at

Comments { 1 }

Cholesterol and Vascular Disease Part 4: The Great Statin Debate

September is National Cholesterol Education Month. In support of this important educational initiative we are republishing our six part series on cholesterol and the role it plays in cardiovascular disease.

Note: Seventy-one million American adults have high cholesterol, but it is estimated that only one-third of them have the condition under control.

It has been unequivocally established that high levels of LDL can lead to heart attacks and strokes. Parts 1- 3 of this blog described the history of cholesterol, the superiority of LDL particles over LDL cholesterol, and the pathophysiology associated with an overabundance of LDL particles. In addition to our understanding of the biological process whereby LDL particles cause vascular disease, we also have a plethora of clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of lowering LDL.

Everyone–lay people, physicians, and scientists–is plagued by the overabundance of clinical trials involving all aspects of health and medicine, many of which clearly contradict one another. In order to practice medicine in a fashion that appropriately considers the outcomes of these clinical trials, one must find a way to make sense of them. My approach has been to evaluate the clinical trials not just individually, but as a whole. I look for trends. When studies repeatedly reach the same conclusions (especially when they pathophysiologically “make sense”) I feel much more comfortable concluding that they are correct. In the case of LDL we find a commonality that is indisputable. The studies repeatedly demonstrate that statins–a class of cholesterol lowering medications I will momentarily describe–uniformly decrease the risk of cardiovascular events by about 30%. This event reduction is consistent among patients in the setting of both primary and secondary prevention. And so we must listen to the studies and lower our patients’ LDLs accordingly.

Statins are the class of medication for cholesterol management that unequivocally possess the greatest amount of science supporting their use. These medications work by blocking a critical enzyme in our body’s production of cholesterol. In response to lower levels of cholesterol within our cells, the cells increase surface receptors to bring in more LDL particles. The result is a diminution in the number of LDL particles – as well as the LDL cholesterol – in our bloodstream. Read More…

Comments { 1 }

Familial Hypercholesterolemia – a Common Yet Life-Threatening Genetic Disorder

This article was originally published on

You or someone you love might be harboring an undetected threat called Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH). As genetic disorders go, FH is quite common. In fact, the condition occurs five times as frequently as Cystic Fibrosis. FH victims typically have severely elevated cholesterol; their disorder frequently remains undetected; and most patients develop vascular disease very early in life. These people often die from heart attacks in their forties and fifties. One consequence of the explosion in our understanding of genetics has been the discovery of more than 1600 genetic mishaps that can lead to FH. In the general population this disorder occurs in one out of every 500 people. Specific populations called founder groups (groups of people who are descendants of a genetically similar small population) such as French Canadians, Christian Lebanese, and South African Ashkenazi Jews have a prevalence of this malady that can be as high as one in sixty-seven people.

So what is FH and how does it harm so many?
cholesterol meterIn order to understand this ailment we must first review a few basic elements regarding cholesterol and its main transporter, LDL (Low Density Lipoprotein). Cholesterol is the building block for many key components in our body. LDL is a spherical lipoprotein particle that carries cholesterol. Think of it as a floating bubble that carries its freight— cholesterol and triglycerides—from one part of our body to another. This LDL “bubble” serves as a barrier “protecting” us from what would otherwise be the consequence of cholesterol floating freely in the blood. The result of that scenario would be instant death; free cholesterol would form razor-sharp crystals shredding anything in its path. LDL particles obviously provide a valuable function as our body’s dominant cholesterol transporters, but they have been dubbed the “bad cholesterol” because overly-abundant levels of these lipoproteins clearly lead to heart attacks and strokes. Thousands of studies have proved this; it is one of the few “facts” we have in modern medicine. As a result of our understanding of the detrimental consequences of high LDL, medications such as the statins have been created to lower LDL levels and in turn diminish our chances of experiencing a heart attack or stroke.

Lowering LDL with statins
Most of us know that the fundamental medication in cholesterol management is the statin. Statins work by blocking a critical enzyme in the multi-stepped process of cholesterol synthesis. This enzyme is present in every cell in the body. In response to the statin-induced cholesterol decline within our cells, affected cells deliver a greater number of LDL receptors to their surface. Think of receptors as adhesive-coated indentations in the cell membrane. These receptors capture the LDL “bubbles” as they float by in the blood. The receptor with its bonded LDL particle is then brought inside the cell. Within the cell, the cholesterol contained within the LDL particle can be utilized in any way the cell deems fit. For instance, it can be a building block for Vitamin D in the skin, bile acids in the liver, or testosterone in the testes. Once a cell has acquired enough cholesterol to serve its manufacturing needs, it stops overproducing LDL receptors. All cells engage in this process, but our liver is the organ that manufactures the majority of LDL receptors, thereby most meaningfully diminishing the content of LDL within our blood. To maintain a healthy balance of LDL within our bodies it is essential for our cells – particularly within our liver – to be able to produce LDL receptors, position them on their surface, and capture their prey—LDL particles.

The Malady of FH
Patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia possess a genetic defect that disrupts their LDL receptors. In some cases the patient manufactures too few receptors; in others, the receptors themselves are defective. Even though they capture LDL, faulty receptors are unable to successfully bring their cargo into the cell. This defect results in a situation wherein the cell “effectively” lacks LDL receptors. There are two types of FH patients, those who have inherited one faulty gene from one parent (the common variety – 1 in 500) and those who have inherited one faulty gene from both parents (the extraordinarily rare form – 1 in 1,000,000). When an individual receives an abnormal gene from only one parent, he or she is known as heterozygous for the particular genetic flaw involved. An individual is homozygous for a disorder when both parents contribute abnormal genes. Because of the nature of the FH genetic defect, heterozygous individuals–those possessing only one genetic error from one parent–will experience the disorder, albeit in a less aggressive form than their homozygous counterparts. As this defect causes suboptimal LDL receptors, patients develop extraordinarily high LDL cholesterol levels. A typical heterozygous patient will have LDL cholesterol in the 200s. Homozygotes have LDL cholesterols over 500! So here is the problem. From conception on, FH patients’ bodies are bombarded with excess LDL cholesterol. Their arteries, tendons, eyes… everything is soaked in cholesterol. In contrast to patients who do not have this disorder, afflicted individuals have a markedly prolonged burden of high LDL. They bathe in cholesterol their entire life. That is why these individuals develop premature cardiovascular disease. In fact, patients with FH have a 12-fold higher risk of coronary artery disease compared with their own unaffected relatives. FH patients have a fifty percent mortality by the age of sixty if they are inadequately treated. And even more frightening, FH patients typically live their lives in the dark, undiagnosed and untreated. With- out being properly recognized, appropriate and life-saving care cannot possibly be rendered. Thus, our charge is crystal clear: Doctors must improve our ability to identify these patients early on in life and by so doing treat them appropriately and diminish their risk of dying young.

The FH patient
Let’s truly “look at” the patient with FH. In order to be able to recognize and appropriately treat these individuals, doctors and patients must be familiar with what this disorder looks like. First it’s critical to know that LDL cholesterol levels fluctuate throughout our lifetimes. We are born with our lowest levels, and after puberty LDL steadily rises throughout the rest of our lives. So pediatricians must appreciate that an LDL cholesterol of 160 might indicate the presence of FH, whereas in an adult this same LDL cholesterol level would be considered only moderately elevated. It is also important to understand that men and women have very different cholesterol levels. Until menopause, women have lower total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels; and higher HDL cholesterol levels than men. Unfortunately, after menopause each of their lipid parameters deteriorates. Thus, physicians need to have a solid grasp of the influence that gender and age have on all lipid values (my lecture on this can be found at ( highlights.php). You can see that there is often great complexity in interpreting lipid and lipoprotein values; it is therefore important at times for patients to see lipid specialists in order to receive more refined therapy (To find a lipid specialist near you, visit We know what FH patients’ lipids look like, and we know that their vascular tree is severely diseased by an overabundance of LDL, but what other manifestations result from such high lifetime LDL levels? In addition to vascular disease, there are also disfiguring non-arterial consequences of FH. A life-time of markedly elevated LDL cholesterol can lead to an accumulation of fat in unusual parts of our bodies. Our tendons are often affected where fatty deposition can lead to palpable lumps called xanthomas. The Achilles tendon is a frequent target of this aberrant fat accumulation. Tendon xanthomas can easily be seen by the naked eye. Our palms can also be affected, with an abnormal yellowish discoloration in their creases called palmar xanthomas. Another area for physicians to focus their attention is our eyes. In the corner of the eye, adjacent to the nose, we can at times see yellowish deposits called xanthelasmas. In the eye itself, we sometimes see light-toned fatty deposits called corneal arcus. These tend to occur on the bottom and top of the cornea at the edge of the iris (the-colored part of the eye) because that is where the density of blood vessels is greatest. Seeing tendon and palmar xanthomas, or corneal arcus in patients under the age of forty-five, essentially confirms the diagnosis of FH.

Treatment Options
In 2011, initiating an FH call to action, the National Lipid Association released guide- lines to improve the identification and treatment of these patients. The NLA guidelines emphasize early detection; we now know that under appropriate circumstances very young children (even two years old in some cases!) should be screened. Once a patient has been diagnosed with FH, it is important not to stop there, but to perform “cascade” testing. This is a rigorous search of the patient’s relatives to determine who among them might also have the disease. Through proper cascade testing, doctors can discover many additional patients who would otherwise have been left untreated. Along with the National Lipid Association, other organizations such as the American Society for Preventive Cardiology and The FH Foundation are doing their part to raise FH awareness. Pharmaceuti- cal companies such as Genzyme and Aegerion are also help- ing out. Pharmaceutical companies frequently sponsor scientific educational conferences, enabling doctors to remain current with the ever-changing landscape of medical knowledge. They build websites devoted strictly to educating the lay public, allowing all people to more effectively become their own advocates. And of course they also create the medications, such as statins, that lower our risk of heart attack and stroke. In the case of FH, Gen- zyme has fashioned a novel medication, Mipomerson, in order to more effectively manage patients with extraordinarily high LDL levels. Aegerion has created Lomitapide another unique LDL-lowering agent. Other innovative agents are in the works. Those of us who specialize in the management of severe lipid disorders are thrilled to have access to ground-breaking medications that will hopefully make an even greater dent in the damage inflicted by FH. Finally, let’s examine the state-of-the-art management of FH individuals.

First and foremost, diet and exercise are always paramount in maintaining optimal cardiovascular health. For FH patients though, more aggressive treatment is always needed. To “get them to goal”, combination therapy is uniformly required, which means using a statin as the foundation and then adding two, three, or even four other medications. Novel agents such as Lomitapide (Aegerion) and Mipomerson (Genzyme) were recently FDA-approved for the treatment of severely afflicted FH patients. These medications represent a new and welcome addition to Lipidologists’ medical armamentarium. Even still, many of these patients require more aggressive interventions. One of the best modalities available is LDL-Apheresis. In a manner similar to dialysis (minus the fatigue and potential side-effects), patients are connected to a filtering machine through two IV lines. Blood is withdrawn from one IV, circulated through a series of filters, and returned to the body through the other IV. Typically the two-hour procedure is performed in an outpatient- setting once every other week. Each treatment results in a 60 percent to 80 percent reduction in LDL (other pro-atherogenic substances are also removed). Over the ensuing two weeks, the LDL rises steadily until it can be lowered once again with another treatment. Despite the fact that LDL gradually increases between treatments, studies have demonstrated a nearly 75 percent reduction in cardiovascular events when patients are treated with LDL-Apheresis. Thus, LDL-Apheresis is a viable option for difficult-to-treat heterozygotes and mandatory for all homozygotes. (To find a center near you, visit www.lipid. org) Familial Hypercholesterolemia is a frequently undiagnosed genetic disorder adversely affecting patients’ lipids and leading to premature heart attack, stroke, and death. A solid understanding of age and gender associated lipid fluctuations, physical signs of FH, and the nuances of cholesterol management is essential for doctors to diagnose and treat this disease. Somewhere between 600,000 and one million Americans suffer from FH. Consequently we must do our best to understand, manage, and perhaps most important of all, “spread the word” about this insidious but conquerable threat. It is a mission that can be accomplished only through the coordinated efforts of doctors, scientists, medical associations, industry, and patients themselves. Fortunately, this is what we find taking place today.

Please read more about preventive cardiology at

Images courtesy of

Comments { 0 }

Medicine – Science or Art?

Having just read the results of the CREDO-Kyoto trial published in the American Journal of Cardiology, I am once again struck by the question, “Do we practice Medicine as an art or science?” The trial explores statin use in specific patients with severe kidney disease. The findings – statins do not help these patients. Still, I know no doctor who would withhold statins from such patients, as they are arguably the single most advantageous drug of the last decade. We doctors (and I, a cholesterol specialist and cardiologist) believe statins to be beneficial even when the data are lacking under specific circumstances such as the one cited above. The reason for our almost jingoistic attitude resides in the fact that the mechanism of statins’ action simply makes sense to us. Statins act on so many levels to thwart heart disease development and progression. They lower LDL, decrease clotting, and diminish inflammation… This in concert with our tacit understanding that trials are imperfect enables us to reach beyond black and white science into the arena of scientific reasoning. This leap might be considered by some to be more akin to art than science, but I’m not so sure. Science has been pigeonholed into a tightfitting yea or nay realm. Although we think of science as true or false, real medical science builds and tests theories derived from biologic understanding. And real medical practice cannot and should not wait for every iteration of every clinical scenario to be studied. Were we to wait for that, we would never treat a single patient. After all, no one can dispute the fact that each human being is different. Through epigenetics we understand now that even identical twins are not identical! But let’s look at a similar clinical study situation with a diametrically opposed outcome.

We know that high Homocysteine levels correlate with cardiovascular events – heart attacks and strokes. This understanding led to a series of outcome trials to evaluate the lowering of Homocysteine with three B vitamins. Some trials showed benefit while others did not. Of course, each trial had its own pitfalls; that is always the case. With Homocysteine however, doctors responded differently, claiming there is no need to treat this problem, no matter how compelling the scientific premise. Here, I believe we erred. Some studies cited as negative tested the same population as the CREDO trial, sick Kidney disease patients. We do know that this population is simply harder to treat. After all, they are generally much sicker individuals. But, no one has ever suggested withholding statins from everyone because of their failure in severe kidney disease. That of course would make no sense. Somehow though this is precisely what occurred after the negative Homocysteine trials appeared. And frankly it is even worse than that. These same trials often demonstrated a reduction in stroke rate with Homocysteine lowering. Yet, stroke reduction was ignored. For Homocysteine, the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. As a result, many physicians might be missing the opportunity to reduce a cardiovascular and cerebrovascular risk because of this jaded response to a handful of clinical trials. There are biases I suspect that went into the imbalanced condemnation of Homocysteine reduction.

The bottom line though is that we must try to be impartial when reviewing literature. And, we must try to be scientific. We need to acknowledge that medicine is a hybrid. It is a science practiced by diverse artists, the doctors. Each physician has his or her own palate and brushstroke. Although all doctors will use the same paints and canvas to create their image of medical management, the final drawings will vary greatly from one to the next. With this understanding we should all be a bit less critical of one another. To state with absolute conviction that one opinion is “right or wrong” should be reserved for the very rare event of certainty. And that is an event that is alarmingly uncommon.

Learn more about preventive cardiology at

Comments { 0 }