The Truth About the Recent Cholesterol Drug Study
Last week, the results of a new study on a cholesterol-lowering drug were released generating a ton of press attention. The study (the JUPITER study) made the front page of the NY Times, was featured on just about every television news show, and generally created a lot of buzz. Even if you weren't paying too much attention- and it was hard not to- you might have heard that the study showed that a cholesterol-lowering medication (Crestor) lowered the risk for heart disease by over 40% in people who did not have high cholesterol in the first place!
The Wall Street Journal was practically salivating in its predictions. "The findings could substantially broaden the market for statins, the world's best-selling class of medicines", they panted. "Morgan Stanley analysts predicted Crestor revenue could rise to as much as 8 billion and 18% of the global statin market in 2014".
OK let's take a look at what actually happened before we start putting statins in the water supply.
Approximately 17,000 participants were enrolled in the study, all at "prime heart attack age" (over 50 for men, over 60 for women). But none had either high cholesterol levels nor evidence of serious heart disease. By all traditional measures, they were a healthy men and women.
What they did have was elevated inflammation.
We know this because the researchers measured their blood levels for CRP (C-Reactive Protein) an excellent marker for inflammation in the body. For years and years I- and many other nutritionists and doctors- have been warning that inflammation is the real danger for heart disease and that cholesterol is a red herring. Inflammation is the silent killer. Inflammation is what we should be paying attention to. C-Reactive Protein is an important measure to know, even though most docs have scoffed at it and told us it's not that important. (Besides, they were too busy focusing on cholesterol.)
For years I've also been saying that any benefit that might be had by taking statin drugs has nothing to do with lowering cholesterol. But statin drugs have an interesting little "side effect": they happen to lower inflammation.
So here's this study when people with completely normal cholesterol (but elevated inflammation) benefit from a statin drug. Think they'd figure out that maybe cholesterol wasn't the issue in the first place?
Oh no. What you'll probably see is a movement to lower the "normal" cholesterol levels even further down so that even more people can be put on these drugs.
Which, by the way, are far from perfectly safe. Though the mainstream establishment downplays their side effects, most knowledgeable clinicians will tell you that side effects like muscle pain and fatigue are far more common than widely believed and that they see these side effects in about 15% of patients. And the drug costs $3.50 a day, if you care.
So what we have here is a study that showed a very very modest reduction in risk for heart disease, using a drug that accomplished that not by lowering cholesterol but by lowering inflammation. The benefit of the drug-- such as it was (and it was modest to say the least)--- clearly had nothing to do whatsoever with lowering cholesterol.
By the way, how can I say that the benefit was modest when it was reported as a whopping 44% reduction in risk?
Simple. Because the percentages don't tell the whole story.
The real numbers were as follows: In the non-treated group, about 14 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (in other words 1.4 percent of the group). In the treated group, only 8 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (.8 percent). Tiny numbers- but reducing 14 to 8 does produce a "44% reduction" (just as reducing 3-in-a-million to 2-in-a-million produces a 33% reduction!)
Inflammation truly is an important health issue, and anything that reduces inflammation should be paid attention to. The sad part of all this is that there are so many ways to reduce inflammation naturally without drugs. Fish oil is one of the most anti-inflammatory substances on the plant. So are the myriad of natural anti-inflammatories (like the quercetin found in apples and onions, and the hundreds of other flavonoids in the plant kingdom).
But of course none of those are 20 billion dollar-a-year businesses.
The Wall Street Journal was practically salivating in its predictions. "The findings could substantially broaden the market for statins, the world's best-selling class of medicines", they panted. "Morgan Stanley analysts predicted Crestor revenue could rise to as much as 8 billion and 18% of the global statin market in 2014".
OK let's take a look at what actually happened before we start putting statins in the water supply.
Approximately 17,000 participants were enrolled in the study, all at "prime heart attack age" (over 50 for men, over 60 for women). But none had either high cholesterol levels nor evidence of serious heart disease. By all traditional measures, they were a healthy men and women.
What they did have was elevated inflammation.
We know this because the researchers measured their blood levels for CRP (C-Reactive Protein) an excellent marker for inflammation in the body. For years and years I- and many other nutritionists and doctors- have been warning that inflammation is the real danger for heart disease and that cholesterol is a red herring. Inflammation is the silent killer. Inflammation is what we should be paying attention to. C-Reactive Protein is an important measure to know, even though most docs have scoffed at it and told us it's not that important. (Besides, they were too busy focusing on cholesterol.)
For years I've also been saying that any benefit that might be had by taking statin drugs has nothing to do with lowering cholesterol. But statin drugs have an interesting little "side effect": they happen to lower inflammation.
So here's this study when people with completely normal cholesterol (but elevated inflammation) benefit from a statin drug. Think they'd figure out that maybe cholesterol wasn't the issue in the first place?
Oh no. What you'll probably see is a movement to lower the "normal" cholesterol levels even further down so that even more people can be put on these drugs.
Which, by the way, are far from perfectly safe. Though the mainstream establishment downplays their side effects, most knowledgeable clinicians will tell you that side effects like muscle pain and fatigue are far more common than widely believed and that they see these side effects in about 15% of patients. And the drug costs $3.50 a day, if you care.
So what we have here is a study that showed a very very modest reduction in risk for heart disease, using a drug that accomplished that not by lowering cholesterol but by lowering inflammation. The benefit of the drug-- such as it was (and it was modest to say the least)--- clearly had nothing to do whatsoever with lowering cholesterol.
By the way, how can I say that the benefit was modest when it was reported as a whopping 44% reduction in risk?
Simple. Because the percentages don't tell the whole story.
The real numbers were as follows: In the non-treated group, about 14 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (in other words 1.4 percent of the group). In the treated group, only 8 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (.8 percent). Tiny numbers- but reducing 14 to 8 does produce a "44% reduction" (just as reducing 3-in-a-million to 2-in-a-million produces a 33% reduction!)
Inflammation truly is an important health issue, and anything that reduces inflammation should be paid attention to. The sad part of all this is that there are so many ways to reduce inflammation naturally without drugs. Fish oil is one of the most anti-inflammatory substances on the plant. So are the myriad of natural anti-inflammatories (like the quercetin found in apples and onions, and the hundreds of other flavonoids in the plant kingdom).
But of course none of those are 20 billion dollar-a-year businesses.
Labels: cholesterol, inflammation, statin, study



Hmmm...you didn't mention that ALSO there was an increase in Type II diabetes among the test subjects, if I recall correctly. Small increase, but who needs it?
All so right.
There are other issues as well.There's a post at Emotions for Engineers that gathers some links and comments from around the web.
http://www.emotionsforengineers.com/2008/11/more-statin-misreporting.html
Cheers,
Tony
Jonny Bowden, you're one of the smartest nutritionist I know (I keep a collection of all your books BTW)
The good thing about you is that you know all your stuff inside out about nutrition, you know how to criticize the drug companies and other food industries without sounding too accusatory, and best of all, you're not like those hardcore NHP sellers like Kevin Trudeau who claims millions of questionable cures and conspiracy theories. Heck, I've seen you debunk overhyped claims about Noni juice once.
We need more unbiased nutritionists like you in the world.
thank you you're very kind. I'm not sure I'm completely unbiased at this point- i have some pretty strong opinions- but i try to tell you what they are. And I like to think i'm open to hearing all sides!
Thanks for the wonderful comment and support
warmly
jb
Jonny, This is an extremely important health issue that others such as Drs. Andrew Weil and Barry Sears have been talking (and warnng) about for many years - with little regard from our medical community. It is difficult to over state the importance of INFLAMMATION, as measured by the hs C-RP (highly sensitive C-RP), and the role it plays in promoting or deterring chronic diseases. Take Alzheimer's disease - a disease where inflammation plays a crucial role - as one example. India has the lowest incidence of A.D. Indians use turmeric as a primary spice in their food preparation. Turmeric is a highly effective anti-inflammatory spice. Indians also use far less omega-6 (vegetable oils) in their dietary schedules simply because India has not as yet emerged as a culture of fast-food "restaurants" on every corner of their society. Excessive intake of omega-6 fats, as we have in the U.S., cause a greatly exaggerated unbalanced omega-3:omega-6 dietary intake ratio. This in turn increases internal inflammation which becomes a significant risk factor toward the development of chronic diseases, A.D. notwithstanding. Not only do we need to do more hs C-RP testing, but we need to improve our intake of inflammatory fats to anti-inflammatory fats, all while moving our keisters more often and more regularly, nick tompanis
In some well designed studies cholesterol has been "clearly" linked with heart disease (no searched correlations with inflammatory markers); the problem is that we were not seeing this as a symptom, a red flag, but as disease by itself, there lies our confussion, but now that we know the real reason is up to us to stop them from abusing people´s ingnorance. How? Spreading the word about it; including the abuse from the food industry misleading us to buy "cholesterol free" and all the merchandise labeled as "may help to reduce your cholesterol level"
Why it doesn´t surprise me that something cheap (compared to statins) as fatty acids really help to fight Metabolic Syndrome (another term that right now is been debated as if it really exist as an entity by itself).
HEY JOHNNY!!! WHAT ABOUT RUNNING A SERIES OF ARTICLES ABOUT CHOLESTEROL AND DEBUNKING IT´S MYTHS?
Thanks John
Yours in knowledge
Paco
Believe me you are preaching to the choir. I've been writing and talking and screaming about this to anyone who will listen for the better part of a decade. You are absolutely right of course.
By the way, one of the main reasons a lot of the foods I wrote about in "The 150 Healthiest Foods on Earth" made it into that book because they are loaded with natural anti-inflammatories!
thanks for the excellent post!
jb
Hi John
Great idea- the only reason I don't write about it more is that it has been done SO well already- in books like "The Great Cholesterol Con" and the seminal "The Cholesterol Myths" by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD.
For more on this- if you want to dig deeper- visit the website for the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, http://www.thincs.org/
warmly
jb
The other issue with this study, that was not mentioned here, is that the study was funded by the drug company. Conflict of interest?
Hi Robin
They pretty much all are funded by drug companies... nonetheless some are better than others and the conclusion on this one- let's put everyone on statins- was certainly worthy of critique
warmly
jb
Dr. Bowden, I have bordeline high inflammation last time I was tested, so this subject is very interesting to me. I now take Omega-3's and quercetin and a ton of other supplements that I may or may not need. We're supplement junkies at our house.
I have written a post recently on my blog that reveals a big breakthrough in reducing inflammation in the body. Check it out if you are interested.
Jennifer Eloff
www.low-carb-news.blogspot.com
It appears that journalists have a short memory.
Only four year ago, Dr. David Graham, associate director in the FDA's Office of Drug Safety gave senate testimony that Crestor was one of five drugs with safety concerns. The drug causes muscle breakdown and renal failure.
Surprisingly, the Jupiter study declared there were no adverse side effects from Crestor. Or at least the adverse effects in the drug group was the same as the placebo group. This is hard to believe since the FDA has issued two advisory warnings about the adverse side effects of Crestor, and a public interest group represented by Sidney Wolfe (Public Citizen) petitioned the FDA to have Crestor banned because of side effects. In addition, Crestor is one of the strongest statins and has the worst adverse effect profile.
To read more...
Crestor, Jupitor, CRP and Heart Attack by Jeffrey Dach MD
Jeffrey Dach
Thanks Jeffrey, fantastic info
warmly
jb
Dear Jonny,
While all u say on Jupiter makes eminent good sense, could you comment on the variation in facts between your stt of 44% reduction reported, and the figs below from the Lancet summary. I dont understnd all the Lancet figs, but the%ages mentioned are different from yours. Why?
"Findings
Compared with placebo, participants allocated to rosuvastatin who achieved LDL cholesterol less than 1·8 mmol/L had a 55% reduction in vascular events (event rate 1·11 vs 0·51 per 100 person-years; hazard ratio [HR] 0·45, 95% CI 0·34—0·60, p<0·0001), and those achieving hsCRP less than 2 mg/L a 62% reduction (event rate 0·42 per 100 person-years; HR 0·38, 95% CI 0·26—0·56, p<0·0001). Although LDL cholesterol and hsCRP reductions were only weakly correlated in individual patients (r values <0·15), we recorded a 65% reduction in vascular events in participants allocated to rosuvastatin who achieved both LDL cholesterol less than 1·8 mmol/L and hsCRP less than 2 mg/L (event rate 0·38 per 100 person-years; adjusted HR 0·35, 95% CI 0·23—0·54), versus a 33% reduction in those who achieved one or neither target (event rate 0·74 per 100 person-years; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·52—0·87) (p across treatment groups <0·0001). In participants who achieved LDL cholesterol less than 1·8 mmol/L and hsCRP less than 1 mg/L, we noted a 79% reduction (event rate 0·24 per 100 person-years; HR 0·21, 95% CI 0·09—0·52). Achieved hsCRP concentrations were predictive of event rates irrespective of the lipid endpoint used, including the apolipoprotein B to apolipoprotein AI ratio."
actually the summary you quote is from the MEDPAGE's article, and the original study was in NEJM, not lancet; AND the reporting on the exact figures was all over the map- i've seen 44%, 55%, etc..
there are also likely to be re-analyses of subgroups from within the study that will show even different variations depending on the group
the POINT though is that there WAS a SUBSTANTIAL and SIGNIFICANT reduction in "vascular events" (44 percent, 55 percent, etc..) in people with normal cholesterol who had HIGH inflammation at the start of the study. That is the take-home point-- it's inflammation that we should be paying attention to!
hope that helps
warmly
jb
Good information. I've recently discovered via my doctor that I might be suffering from histamine overload - incredibly fast increase in food sensitivity over the last few weeks. One question - can magnesium cause this since I started taking magnesium about when this problem began. Is quercetin (AI Formula) good for balancing out histamine overload?
Great site....love your book.
Thanks
Flavio / Tucson, AZ
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home