The Heart Scan Blog

Where do you find fructose?

2009-07-14T11:35:00.007-05:00

Apple, 1 medium: Fructose 10.74 g

Honey: Fructose 17.19 grams per 2 tablespoons

Barbecue Sauce: HFCS number 1 ingredient
Ingredients: High Fructose Corn Syrup, Vinegar, Concentrated Tomato Juice (Water, Tomato Paste), Water, Modified Food Starch, Salt, Honey, Contains Less Than 2% of Molasses, Natural Flavor, Paprika, Spice, Mustard Flour, Guar Gum, Red 40.

A1 Steak Sauce: HFCS number 2 ingredient
Ingredients: Tomato puree (water, tomato paste), high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, salt, water dried onions, contains less than 2% of black pepper, modified food starch, citric acid, dried parsley, dried garlic, xanthan gum, caramel color, potassium sorbate and calcium disodium EDTA as preservatives, molasses, corn syrup, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor

Do heart scans cause cancer?

2009-07-13T20:07:00.002-05:00

Another in a series of data extrapolations that attempt to predict long-term cancer risk from medical radiation exposure was published in the July 13, 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine, viewable here.

Over the years, I've fussed about the radiation dose used by some centers for CT heart scans. (Note: I'm talking about CT heart scans, not CT coronary angiograms, an entirely different test with different radiation exposure.) In the "old" days, when electron-beam devices (EBT) were the best on the block, the old single-slice CT scanners (the predecessor of the current 64-slice MDCT scanners) exposed patients to ungodly quantities of radiation, while the EBT devices required very small quantities (0.5 mSv or about the equivalent of 4 standard chest x-rays or one mammogram).

But CT technology has advanced considerably. While EBT has been phased out (although it was an exceptional technology, GE acquired the small California manufacturer, then promptly scrapped the operation; you can guess why), multi-detector CT (MDCT) technology has improved in speed, image quality, and radiation exposure.

While it has improved, radiation exposure still remains an issue. The authors of the study applied the scanning protocols used at three hospitals and those in several CT heart scan studies, then calculated radiation exposure. They found a more than ten-fold range of exposure, from 0.8 mSv to 10.5 mSv. (All scanners were MDCT, none EBT.)

That's precisely what I've been worrying about: In the rapid rush to develop new devices, radiation exposure has often been a neglected issue. While some scan centers do an excellent job and take steps to minimize exposure, others barely lift a finger and consequently expose their patients to unnecessary radiation.

However, it's not as bad as it sounds. For one, the study included 16-slice MDCT scanners, a scanner type that I warned people to not use because of radiation. On the current most popular 64-slice devices, much lower radiation exposure is possible, on the order of 0.8-1.2 mSv routinely--if the center takes the effort.

This study, while eye-opening, will achieve some good: CT heart scans are here to stay. But the day-to-day practice of heart scanning should be:

1) standardized
2) conducted with radiation exposure as low as possible, preferably <0.8 mSv

To read more about this issue, below I've reprinted a 2007 full Track Your Plaque Special Report, CT Heart Scans and Radiation: The Real Story.

CT heart scans and radiation: The real story

“My personal opinion is that many patients today who are receiving multiple CT scans may well be getting at least comparable doses to subjects that have now developed malignancies from x-ray radiation received in the 1930s and '40s. And, similar to those days when the doses were unknown, the dose that patients receive today over a course of years of multiple CT scans is also completely unknown . . .

“I recommend that all healthcare providers become familiar with the concept that 1 in 1000 CT studies of the chest, abdomen, or pelvis may result in cancer.”

Richard C. Semelka, MD

Professor and Vice Chairman, Department of Radiology

University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill

Is this just hype to generate headlines? Or is the truth buried in the enormous marketing clout of the medical device industry, among which the imaging device manufacturers reign supreme?

It’s been over 110 years since radiation was first used for medical imaging. Over those years, it has had its share of misadventures.

In the 1930s and 1940s, before the dangers of radiation were recognized, shoe shoppers had shoes fitted using an x-ray device of the foot to assess fit. High doses of radiation were used to shrink enlarged tonsils and extinguish overactive thyroid glands. Attitudes towards radiation were so lax that doctors commonly permitted themselves to be exposed without protection day after day, year after year, until an unexpected rise in blood cancers like leukemia was observed. As recently as the 1970s and 1980s, cancers like Hodgkins’ disease were treated with high doses of radiation, also leading to radiation-induced diseases decades later.

Not all radiation is bad. Radiation can also be used as a therapeutic tool and even today remains a useful and reasonably effective method to reduce the size, sometimes eliminate, certain types of cancer. Forty percent of people with cancer now receive some form of radiation as part of their treatment (Ron E 2003).

Just how much does medical radiation add to our exposure?

Estimates vary, but most experts estimate that medical imaging provides approximately 15% of total lifetime exposure. In other words, radiation exposure from medical imaging is simply a small portion of total exposure that develops over the years of life. Exposure can be much higher, however, in a specific individual who undergoes repeated radiation imaging or treatment of one sort or another.

For all of us, exposure to medical radiation is part of lifetime exposure from multiple sources, added to the radiation we receive from the world around us. Just by living on earth, we are exposed to radiation from space and naturally-occurring radioactive compounds, and receive somewhere around 3.0 mSv per year (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). (Doses for radiation exposure are commonly expressed in milliSieverts, mSv, a measure that reflects whole-body radiation exposure.) People living in high-altitude locales like Colorado get exposed to an additional 30–50% ambient radiation (1.0–1.5 mSv more per year).

Much of the information on radiation exposure comes from studies like the Life Span Study that, since 1961, has tracked 120,000 Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic bombs dropped in 1945 (Preston DL et al 2003). Although regarded as a high-dose exposure study for obvious reasons, there are actually thousands of people in this study who were exposed to lesser quantities of radiation (because of distance from the bomb sites) who still display a “dose-response” increased risk for cancer many years later in life. Radiation exposures of as little as 5–20 mSv showed a slight increase in lifetime risk.

Occupational and excessive medical exposure to radiation also provides a “laboratory” to examine radiation risk. Miners exposed to radon gas; patients exposed to the imaging agent, Thorotrast, containing radioactive isotope thorium dioxide and used as an x-ray contrast agent in the 1930s and 1940s and possesses the curious property of lingering in the body for over 30 years after administration; radium injections administered between 1945 and 1955 to treat diseases like ankylosing spondylitis and tuberculosis, all provide researchers an opportunity to study the long-term effects of various types of radiation exposure over many years (Harrison JD et al 2003).

The excess exposure of workers and several hundred thousand nearby residents to the Mayak nuclear plant in Russia has also revealed a “dose-response” relationship, with increasing exposure leading to more cancers, including leukemia and solid cancers of the bone, liver, and lung (Shilnikova NS et al 2003). Nuclear waste released into the Techa river between 1948 and 1956 contaminated drinking water used by over 100,000 Russians. A plant explosion in 1957 also released an excess of radiation into the atmosphere, yielding exposure via inhalation. Some sources estimate that at least 272,000 people have been affected by radiation from the Mayak plant. This unfortunate situation has, however, yielded plenty of data on radiation exposure and its long-term effects.

It’s also been known for several decades that people who receive therapeutic radiation for treatment of cancer, even with the reduced doses now employed, are subject to increased risk of a second cancer consequent to the radiation treatment.

From experiences like this, radiation experts estimate that an exposure of 10 mSv increases a population’s risk for cancer by 1 in 1000 (Semelka RC et al 2007).

This question was recently thrust into the spotlight with publication of a study from Columbia University in New York suggesting that a 20-year old woman would be exposed to a lifetime risk of cancer as high as 1 in 143 consequent to the radiation received during a CT coronary angiogram. (Important note: This was estimated risk from a CT coronary angiogram, not a simple heart scan that we advocate for the Track Your Plaque program.) The risk at the low end of the spectrum would be in an 80-year old man (because of the shorter period of time to develop cancer), with a risk of 1 in 5017. If “gating” to the EKG is added (which many scan centers do indeed perform nowadays), risk for a 60-year old woman is estimated at 1 in 715; risk for a 60-year old male, 1 in 1911 (Einstein AJ et al 2007). This study generated some criticism, since it did not directly involve human subjects, but used “phantoms” or x-ray dummies to simulate x-ray exposure. Nonetheless, the point was made: CT coronary angiograms in current practice do indeed expose the patient to substantial quantities of radiation, sufficient to pose a lifetime risk of cancer.

The media frenzy

The NY Times ran an article called With Rise in Radiation Exposure, Experts Urge Caution on Tests in which they stated:

"According to a new study, the per-capita dose of ionizing radiation from clinical imaging exams in the United States increased almost 600 percent from 1980 to 2006. In the past, natural background radiation was the leading source of human exposure; that has been displaced by diagnostic imaging procedures, the authors said."

“This is an absolutely sentinel event, a wake-up call,” said Dr. Fred A. Mettler Jr., principal investigator for the study, by the National Council on Radiation Protection. “Medical exposure now dwarfs that of all other sources.”

Radiation is a widely used imaging tool in medicine. Although CT scans of the brain, bones, chest, abdomen, and pelvis account for only 5% of all medical radiation procedures, they are responsible for nearly 50% of medical radiation used. It’s been known for years that increasing radiation exposure increases cancer risk over many years, but the boom of newer, faster devices that provide more detailed images has opened the floodgates to expanded use of CT scanners.

But before we join in the hysteria, let's first take a look at exposure measured for different sorts of tests:

Typical effective radiation dose values for common tests

Computed Tomography

Head CT 1 – 2 mSv
Pelvis CT 3 – 4 mSv
Chest CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen CT 5 – 7 mSv
Abdomen/pelvis CT 8 – 11 mSv
Coronary CT angiography 5 – 12 mSv

Non-CT

Hand radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Chest radiograph Less than 0.1 mSv
Mammogram 0.3 – 0.6 mSv
Barium enema exam 3 – 6 mSv
Coronary angiogram 5 – 10 mSv
Sestamibi myocardial perfusion (per injection) 6 – 9 mSv
Thallium myocardial perfusion (per injection) 26 – 35 mSv

Source: Cynthia H. McCullough, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN

A plain, everyday chest x-ray, providing less than 0.1 mSv exposure, provides about the same quantity of radiation exposure as flying in an airplane for four hours, or the same amount of radiation from exposure to our surroundings for 11–12 days. Similar exposure arises from dental x-rays.

If you have a heart scan on an EBT device, then your exposure is 0.5-0.6 mSv, roughly the same as a mammogram or several standard chest x-rays.

With a heart scan on a 16- or 64-slice multidetector device, exposure is ideally around 1.0-2.0 mSv, about the same as 2-3 mammograms, though dose can vary with this technology depending on how it is performed (gated to the EKG, device settings, etc.)

CT coronary angiography presents a different story. This is where radiation really escalates and puts the radiation exposure issue in the spotlight. As Dr. Cynthia McCullough's chart shows above, the radiation exposure with CT coronary angiograms is 5-12 mSv, the equivalent of 100 or more chest x-rays or 20 mammograms. Now, that's a problem.

The exposure is about the same for a pelvic or abdominal CT. The problem is that some centers are using CT coronary angiograms as screening procedures and even advocating their use annually. This is where the alarm needs to be sounded. These tests, as wonderful as the information and image quality can be, are not screening tests. Just like a pelvic CT, they are diagnostic tests done for legitimate medical questions. They are not screening tests to be applied broadly and used year after year.

It’s also worth giving second thought to any full body scan you might be considering. These screening studies include scans of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis. These scans, performed for screening, expose the recipient to approximately 10 mSv of radiation (Radiological Society of North American, 2007). Debate continues on whether the radiation exposure is justified, given the generally asymptomatic people who generally undergo these tests.

Always be mindful of your radiation exposure, as the NY Times article rightly advises. However, don't be so frightened that you are kept from obtaining truly useful information from, for instance, a CT heart scan (not angiography) at a modest radiation cost.

Heart scans, CT coronary angiograms and the future

Unfortunately, practicing physicians and those involved in providing CT scans are generally unconcerned with radiation exposure. The majority, in fact, are entirely unaware of the dose of radiation required for most CT scan studies and unaware of the cancer risk involved. It is therefore up to the individual to insist on a discussion of the type of scanner being used, the radiation dose delivered (at least in general terms), the necessity of the test, alternative methods to obtain the same diagnostic information, all in the context of lifetime radiation exposure.

Our concerns about radiation exposure all boil down to concern over lifetime risk for cancer, a disease that strikes approximately 20% of all Americans. Many factors contribute to cancer risk, including obesity, excessive saturated fat intake, low fiber intake, lack of vitamin D, repeated sunburns, excessive alcohol use, smoking, exposure to pesticides and other organochemicals, asbestos and other industrial exposures, electromagnetic wave exposure, and genetics. Radiation is just one source of risk, though to some degree a controllable one.

Some people, on hearing this somewhat disturbing discussion, refuse to ever have another medical test requiring radiation. That’s the wrong attitude. It makes no more sense than wearing lead shielding on your body 24 hours a day to reduce exposure from the atmosphere. Taken in the larger context of life, radiation exposure is just one item on a list of potentially harmful factors.

It is, however, worth some effort to minimize radiation exposure over your lifetime, particularly before age 60, and by submitting to high-dose testing only when truly necessary, or when the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Thus, with heart scans and CT coronary angiography, some thought to the potential benefits of knowing your score or the information gained from the CT angiogram need to be considered before undergoing the test. Often the practical difficulty, of course, is that your risk for heart disease simply cannot be known until after the test.

In our view, in the vast majority of instances a simple CT heart scan can serve the simple but crucial role of quantifying risk for heart attack and atherosclerotic plaque. CT heart scans yield this information with less than a tenth of the radiation exposure of a CT coronary angiogram. In people without symptoms and a normal stress test, there is rarely a need for CT coronary angiography with present day levels of radiation exposure. Perhaps as technology advances and the radiation required to generate images is reduced, then we should reconsider.

Early experiences are suggesting that the newest 256-slice scanners, now being developed but not yet available, will cut the dose exposure of 64-slice CT angiograms in half (from 27.8 mSv to 14.1 mSv in a recent Japanese study). The 256-slice scanners will allow scanning that is faster over a larger area in a given period of time.

Thankfully, the scanner manufacturers are increasingly sensitive to the radiation issue and have been working on methods to reduce radiation exposure. However, it still remains substantial.

References:
Einstein AJ, Henzlova MJ, Rajagopalan S. Estimating risk of cancer associated with radiation exposure from 64-slice computed tomography coronary angiography. JAMA 2007 Jul 18;298(3):317–323.

Harrison JD, Muirhead CR. Quantitative comparisons of cancer induction in humans by internally deposited radionuclides and external radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 2003 Jan;79(1):1–13.

Hausleiter J, Meyer T, Hadamitzyky M et al. Radiation Dose Estimates From Cardiac Multislice Computed Tomography in Daily Practice: Impact of Different Scanning Protocols on Effective Dose Estimates. Circulation 2006;113:1305–1310.

Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard J, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology 2004;230:619–628.

Mayo JR, Aldrich J, Müller NL. Radiation exposure at chest CT: A statement of the Fleischner Society. Radiology 2003; 228:15–21.

Mori S, Nishizawa K, Kondo C, Ohno M, Akahane K, Endo M. Effective doses in subjects undergoing computed tomography cardiac imaging with the 256-multislice CT scanner. Eur J Radiol 2007 Jul 10; [Epub ahead of print].

Preston DL, Pierce DA, Shimizu Y, Ron E, Mabuchi K. Dose response and temporal patterns of radiation-associated solid cancer risks. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):43–46.

Ron E. Cancer risks from medical radiation. Health Phys 2003 Jul;85(1):47–59.

Shilnikova NS, Preston DL, Ron E et al. Cancer mortality risk among workers at the Mayak nuclear complex. Radiation Res 2003 Jun;159(6):787–798.

Semelka RC, Armao DM, Elias J Jr, Huda W. Imaging strategies to reduce the risk of radiation in CT studies, including selective substitution with MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007 May;25(5):900–9090.

Copyright 2007, Track Your Plaque.

Goodbye, fructose

2009-07-12T08:21:00.002-05:00

A carefully-conducted study by a collaborative research group at University of California-Berkeley has finally closed the lid on the fuss over fructose vs. glucose and its purported adverse effects.

The study is published in its entirety here.

Compared to glucose, fructose induced:

1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)

2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but doubled Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).

3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose.

4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.

The authors propose that fructose specifically increases liver VLDL production, the lipoprotein particle that yields abnormal after-eating particles, increased LDL, and provides building blocks to manufacture small LDL particles. The authors also persuasively propose that fructose metabolism, unlike glucose, is not inhibited (via feedback loop) by energy intake, i.e., it's as if you are always starving.

Add to this the data that show that fructose increases uric acid (that causes gout and may act as a coronary risk factor), induces leptin resistance, causes metabolic syndrome (pre-diabetes), and increases appetite, and it is clear that fructose is yet another common food additive that, along with wheat, is likely a big part of the reason Americans are fat and diabetic.

Fructose is concentrated, of course, in high-fructose corn syrup, comprising anywhere from 42-90% of total weight. Fructose also composes 50% of sucrose (table sugar). Fructose also figures prominently in many fruits; among the worst culprits are raisins (30% fructose) and honey (41% fructose).

Also, beware of low-fat or non-fat salad dressings (rich with high-fructose corn syrup), ketchup, beer, fruit drinks, fruit juices, all of which are rich sources of this exceptionally fattening, metabolism-bypassing, LDL cholesterol/small LDL/ApoB increasing compound. Ironically, this means that many low-fat foods meant to reduce cholesterol actually increase it when they contain fructose in any form.

When you hear or say "fructose," run the other way, regardless of what the Corn Refiners Association says.

The statin-free life

2009-07-08T10:13:00.002-05:00

Matt came to me because his doctor couldn't reduce his LDL cholesterol.

His doctor had prescribed Zocor (simvastatin), Lipitor, Crestor, even pravastatin, all of which resulted in incapacitating muscle aches and weakness within a week of starting. No surprise, Matt had a jaundiced view of statin drugs.

We started out by characterizing his lipoprotein patterns:

--LDL 155 mg/dl

--72% of LDL was small LDL, a moderately severe pattern. (This means that small LDL comprised 112 mg/dl of the total 155 mg/dl LDL; large LDL comprised 43 mg/dl--small LDL was the problem.)

--HDL 42 mg/dl --Triglycerides 133 mg/dl

--No lipoprotein(a)

Beyond lipoproteins, Matt proved severely deficient in vitamin D with a starting level of 18 ng/ml.

Matt's doctor had advised that he avoid salt, as his blood pressure had been borderline high. His thyroid assessment disclosed a TSH of 3.89 mIU/ml with thyroid hormones free T3 and free T4 in the lower half of the normal range.

I therefore asked Matt to:

--Eliminate wheat, cornstarch, and sugars to reduce small LDL
--Add iodine
--Supplement 6000 units of an oil-based vitamin D preparation
--Take fish oil to provide at least 1800 mg EPA + DHA per day
--Take Armour Thyroid 1 grain per day

Several months later on this program, Matt had a repeat basic lipid panel:

--LDL 82 mg/dl--a 47% reduction

--HDL 52 mg/dl a 24% increase

--Triglycerides 60 mg/dl--a 55% decrease

In addition, vitamin D was 66 ng/ml, TSH was <1.0 mIU/ml with free T3 and free T4 in the upper half of the "reference range." Matt also felt great.

While the numbers could be slightly better, Matt had made tremendous progress towards achieving perfect values.

There you have it: Marked correction of cholesterol values, no statin drugs involved.

Creatine: Not just for muscle heads

2009-07-05T10:50:00.001-05:00

Even if you’re not interested in building big muscles like a bodybuilder, there are health benefits to increasing muscle mass: increased bone density, better balance, and fewer injuries. Greater muscle mass means higher metabolic rate, improved insulin responsiveness, lower blood sugar. The inevitable loss of muscle mass of aging can lead to frailty, an increasingly common situation for the elderly. Muscle loss be reversed, health improved as a result.

Since its introduction in 1994, creatine has exploded in popularity, particularly among bodybuilders and athletes interested in gaining muscle mass and strength. But creatine is not just for young weight lifters. If you are just interested in increasing muscle mass for its health benefits, then creatine is something to consider.

A study of creatine supplementation in men, average age 70 years, demonstrated that, when creatine was combined with strength training, it increased muscle mass 250% better than placebo (7.26 lb muscle vs 2.86 lb muscle), along with improved leg strength and endurance. The same group also demonstrated 3.2% increased bone density (measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry) after 12 weeks in participants taking creatine with strength training, while the control (no strength training, no creatine) group decreased by 1.0%.

Benefits are not confined to men. Similar results were observed in another study that included women (age 65 and older), with outcomes in females comparable to males. This is especially important for females, given the common development of osteopenia and osteoporosis in postmenopausal females.

Other studies have shown that benefits are maintained after stopping creatine supplementation.

The most popular form of creatine is the monohydrate, generally taken as a “loading” phase of 15-20 grams per day (generally split into 3-4 doses of 5 grams) for 5-7 days, followed by weeks to months of 2-5 grams per day.

An alternative form, polyethylene glycosylated creatine (PEG-creatine) provides similar effects at one-fourth to one-half the dose of creatine, i.e., 1.25-2.5 grams per day.

Despite previous concerns about kidney toxicity with prolonged use, another study showed that athletes taking creatine for up to 21 months have shown no adverse effects on kidney function, lipid (cholesterol) values, or other basic health measures.

Having healthy muscle mass doesn't make you bulge like a bodybuilder. With modest efforts at strength training, augmented with creatine supplementation, you have a wonderful tool to feel better, reduce injury, increase bone density, and combat abnormal insulin resistance, not to mention accelerate weight loss, since lean muscle mass consumes energy.

The ultimate “bioidentical” hormone

2009-07-02T06:37:00.000-05:00

There has been a lot of debate over whether or not “bio-identical” hormones, i.e., hormones identical to the human form, are superior to non-human forms dispensed by the drug industry.

The FDA is currently taking steps to clamp down on availability of bioidentical hormones and their claims of superiority, despite a groundswell of grassroot support for them. The argument has pitted anti-aging practitioners and the public, as well as the likes of Oprah and Suzanne Somers, against Big Pharma and the FDA, the two forces trying to squash the bioidentical hormone movement.

Regardless of what heavy-handed approach the FDA takes, we already have access to hormones identical to the original human form. It requires no prescription and yields downstream hormones that the human body recognizes as human.

That "bioidentical" hormone is pregnenolone.

Pregnenolone is the first biochemical step in the conversion of dietary cholesterol (yes-cholesterol!) to numerous other hormones. Pregnenolone is the source of the hormones that lie at the center of the bioidentical hormone controversy: estrogens, progesterone, and testosterone. We therefore already have our own over-the-counter, non-prescription form of bioidentical hormones.

Supplemental pregnenolone increases estrogens (mildly), progesterone, and testosterone. Prenenonlone supplementation simply provide more of the basic substrate for hormone production. The increase in hormones is usually modest, not as vigorous as direct hormone replacement like, say, testosterone or progesterone topical creams. But pregnenolone can be useful when small to moderate increases are desired, such as for reduction of Lp(a). A theoretical downside is that pregnenonlone can also convert to cortisol, the adrenal gland hormone that regulates fluid and blood pressure. However, I've not seen any measurable increase in cortisol with low doses of pregnenonlone and limited data suggest that it does not. Pregnenolone also converts to the other adrenal gland hormone, DHEA; I call DHEA "the hormone of assertiveness," since some people who take too much pregnenolone (or direct DHEA) acquire excessive assertiveness.

The key to pregnenolone supplementation is to proceed gradually and begin with a small dose, e.g., 5 mg every morning. Hormonal assessment is best conducted periodically to assess the effects and to determine whether a dose adjustment is in order.

Roger's near-miss CT angiogram experience

2009-06-27T06:19:00.000-05:00

Heart Scan Blog reader, Roger, described his near-miss experience with CT coronary angiograms.

Hoping to obtain just a simple CT heart scan, he was bullied to get a CT coronary angiogram instead. Roger held strong and just asked for the test that we all should be having, a CT heart scan.

I posted yesterday that I was about to have my first CT heart scan...well, it was an interesting experience for reasons I coudn't possibly have anticipated. Dr. Davis has commented in the past on the confusion in the media about the difference between a CT calcium score scan, and a CT angiography, the latter requiring a far higher dose of radiation. I assumed this was a source of confusion only among patients and lay folks, but, lo and behold, I discovered today that doctors--or at least their helpers--can be just as confused.

Here's my story:

After checking in, I asked the receptionist to see if she had any information on whether my medical insurance was covering the scan. She called someone, and I heard her say over the phone, "He's here for a CT angiogram." At that point my ears perked up. I explained I wasn't here for a CT angiogram, only a regular CT scan. "Well, do you want to call your doctor and talk about this?" she asked. No, I said, I would like to ask one of their folks to verify exactly what test my doctor had ordered. As luck would have it, the technician was walking by at that point. "Is this a CT angiogram?" the receptionist asked. "No, it's just a CT calcium score scan" was the reply. But apparently the technician had been unclear herself, and had called my doctor just to verify. In other words, the "default" procedure they were accustomed to doing at this august Houston vascular clinic was a CT angiogram.

In fact, my appointment was even listed on their calendar as a "CT angiogram." For all I know, my insurance will be billed for the same. Later, during the procedure, the technician acted surprised I wasn't doing the "full test." I explained I had minimal risk factors (actually only one, an HDL of 34 a couple of years ago, which has since been raised to 50 partly as a result of taking advice from this site), but that my doctor was progressive (he is an MD for the Houston Astros) and thought it was a good idea since there is heart disease in my immediate family. My doctor did indeed prescribe only a CT calcium score scan, but it seems to have been an order that this clinic, at least, wasn't all that used to seeing.

So, I guess the message is: we have a lot of educating to do. Had I not been a faithful reader of these pages, I certainly wouldn't have known what kind of test I was about to get, or what questions to ask!

As for the heart scan itself, a piece of cake. If you can hold your breath, you can take this test. Just be sure it is the right one!

Why the "push" towards CT coronary angiograms and not "just" a CT heart scan? Well, I know it's shocking but it's . . . money!

CT coronary angiograms yield around $1800-$4000 per test. CT heart scans yield somewhere around $200. Though the scan center support staff might not care too much about the money themselves, their administrators likely make the cost distinctions clear to them.

Another reason: Most scan center staff, ironically, don't understand what a heart scan means, nor do they understand how it might serve to launch a program of prevention. They do understand that severe blockage by CT angiogram "needs" to be stented or bypassed. So they push patients towards things they understand.

Nobody makes money from CT heart scans, just as nobody makes money from a mammogram. Heart scans also don't lead to heroic, "lifesaving" procedures. They just lead to this sleepy, unexciting, inexpensive thing called prevention.

The Myth of Prevention: Letter to the Wall Street Journal

2009-06-25T05:23:00.001-05:00

The June 20-21, 2009 Wall Street Journal Weekend Journal featured a provocative front page article written by physician, Dr. Abraham Verghese:

The Myth of Prevention

While eloquently written, I took issue with a few crucial points. Here is the letter I sent to the Editor at Wall Street Journal:

Dear Wall Street Journal Editor,

Re: Dr. Abraham Verghese’s article, The Myth of Prevention in the June 20-21, 2009 Weekend Journal.

I believe a more suitable title for Dr. Verghese’s article would be: “The Myth of What Passes as Prevention.”

As a practicing cardiologist, I, too, have witnessed firsthand the systemic “corruption” described by Dr. Verghese, the doing things “to” people rather than “for” them. Heart care, in particular, is rife with this form of profit-driven health delivery.

There is a fundamental flaw in Dr. Verghese’s otherwise admirable analysis: He assumes that what is called “prevention” in mainstream medicine is truly preventive.

Dr. Verghese makes issue of the apparent minor differences between preventing a condition and just allowing a condition to run its course. Prostate cancer screening is one example: Men subjected to repeated screenings have little length-of-life advantage over men who just allow their prostate to suffer the expected course of disease.

What if, instead, “prevention” as practiced today is nothing more than a solution that has been adopted in mainstream practice to suit yet another doing “to” strategy than doing “for”? In the prostate cancer example, PSA and prostate exam screenings often serve as little more than a means of harvesting procedures for the local urologist.

That’s not prevention. It is a prototypical example of “prevention” being subverted into the cause of revenue-generating procedures.

I submit that Dr. Verghese has fallen victim to the very same system he criticizes. His views have unwittingly been corrupted by the corrupt profit-driven system he describes.

What if, instead, prevention were just that: prevention or elimination of the condition. What if “prevention” of prostate cancer eliminated prostate cancer? What if heart disease “prevention” prevented all heart disease? What if this all proceeded without regard for profit or revenue-generating procedures, but just on results?

Dr. Verghese specifically targets heart scans or coronary calcium scoring, a test he likens to “miracle glow-in-the-dark minnow lures,” calling them “moneymakers.” Yes, when subverted into a corrupt algorithm of stress test, heart catheterization, stent, or bypass, heart scans are indeed a test used wrongly to “prevent” heart disease.

But what if the risk insights provided by heart scans prompt the start of a benign yet effective “prevention” program that inexpensively, safely, and assuredly prevents--in the true sense of the word--or eliminates heart disease? Then I believe the differences in mortality, quality of life, and costs would be substantial. Such strategies exist, yet do not necessarily include prescription drugs and certainly do not include the aftermath of heart catheterization and bypass surgery. Yet such programs fail to seize the limelight of media attention with no new high-tech lifesaving headline nor a big marketing budget to broadcast its message.

The problem in medicine is not prevention and its failure to yield cost- and life-saving results. It is the pervasively profit-driven mindset that keeps true preventive strategies from entering mainstream conversation. It is a repeat of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis’ late 19th-century pleads for physicians to wash their hands before delivering babies to reduce puerperal sepsis, ignominious advice that earned him life and death in an asylum. We are essentially continuing to deliver children with unwashed hands because there is no revenue-generating procedure to clean them.

No, Dr. Verghese, the economic and medical failings of preventive strategies are not at fault. The failure of the medical system, in which everyone is bent on seizing a piece of the financial action for himself, has resulted in the failure to support the propagation of true preventive strategies that could genuinely save money and lives.

President Obama’s goal of cultivating preventive practices in medicine can work, but only if the profit-motive for “prevention” does not serve as the primary determinant of practice. Results-driven practices that are applied without regard to profit have the potential to yield the sorts of cost-saving and life-saving results that can reduce healthcare costs.

William Davis, MD
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Medical Director, The Track Your Plaque Program (www.trackyourplaque.com)
Blog: http://heartscanblog.blogspot.com

A victory for SHAPE, CT heart scans, and doing what is RIGHT

2009-06-24T06:45:00.001-05:00

The efforts of Texas House of Representatives Rep. Rene Oliveira and the SHAPE Guidelines committee have paid off: The Texas legislature passed a bill that requires health insurers to cover CT heart scans.

(NOTE: Don't make the same mistake that the media often makes and confuse CT heart scans with CT coronary angiography: two different tests, two different results, two different levels of radiation exposure. The difference is discussed here.)

Track Your Plaque previously reported the release of the SHAPE Guidelines, an ambitious effort to open CT heart scanning to people who would benefit from a simple screening test for coronary disease. Rep. Rene Oliveira initially introduced the bill in 2006, after having a heart scan uncovered extensive coronary plaque that resulted in coronary bypass surgery.

The bill requires that health-benefit providers cover the cost of CT heart scans (and carotid ultrasound) in men between the ages of 45-76, women 55-76, as well as anyone with diabetes or at "intermediate-risk" or higher for coronary disease by Framingham risk score.

The usual panel of cardiology knuckleheads stepped to the media podium, expressing their incredulity that something as "unvalidated" as heart scans could gain the backing of legislative mandate. Heartwire carried this comment:

"Contacted by heartwire, Dr Amit Khera (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas) confirmed there are still no comprehensive, adequately powered studies showing that these screening tests lead to better outcomes. In a phone interview, Khera said he has major concerns about how physicians will use these tests, particularly primary-care physicians. "I gave a talk last week to primary-care doctors, and there were probably 250 people in the room, and when I asked how many people had ordered a calcium scan, just one person raised a hand. . . . Most people don't even know what to do with the Framingham risk score, so they're going to follow an algorithm that they don't know how to follow to order a test result that they don't know what to do with."

It's the same criticisms hurled at heart scans over the years despite literally thousands of studies validating their application.

Studies have conclusively shown that:

--Coronary calcium scores generated by a CT heart scan outperform any other risk measure for coronary disease, including LDL cholesterol, c-reactive protein, total cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, blood pressure.
--Coronary calcium scores yield a graded, trackable index of coronary risk. Scores that increase correlate with increased risk of cardiovascular events; scores that remain unchanged correlate with much reduced risk.
--A coronary calcium score of zero--no detectable calcium--correlates with extremely low 5-year risk for cardiovascular events.
--Coronary calcium scores correlate with other measures of coronary disease. Heart scans correlate with coronary angiography, quantitative coronary angiography, carotid ultrasound (intimal-medial thickness and plaque severity), ankle-brachial index, and stress tests, including radionuclide (nuclear) perfusion imaging.

The reluctance of my colleagues to embrace heart scans stems from two issues, for the most part:

1) No study has yet been performed showing that knowing what the score is vs. not knowing what the score is changes prognosis. That's true. But it is also true of the great majority of practices in medicine. While many wrongs don't make a right, the miserable and widespread failure of other coronary risk measures, like LDL cholesterol or c-reactive protein, to readily and reliably detect hidden coronary disease creates a gaping void for improved efforts at early detection. If your LDL cholesterol is 140 mg/dl, do you or don't you have coronary disease? If your doctor's response is "Just take a statin drug anyway" you've been done a great disservice. (If and when this sort of study gets done, its huge cost--outcome studies have to be large and last many years--it will likely be a statin study. It is unlikely it will include such Track Your Plaque strategies that help reduce heart scan scores, like vitamin D and correction of small LDL particles.)

2) Fears over overuse of hospital procedures triggered by heart scans. This is a legitimate concern--if the information provided by a heart scan is misused. Heart scans should never--NEVER--lead directly to heart catheterization, stents, bypass surgery. Heart scans do not change the indications for performing revascularization (angioplasty, stents, bypass). Just because 20% of my cardiology colleagues are more concerned with profit rather than patient welfare does not invalidate the value of the test. Just because the mechanic at the local garage gouged you by replacing a carburetor for $800 when all you need was a new spark plug does not mean that we should outlaw all auto mechanics. Abuse is the fault of the abuser, not of the tool used to exercise the abuse.

All in all, while I am not a fan of legislating behavior in healthcare, the blatant and extreme ignorance of this simple tool for uncovering hidden heart disease makes the Texas action a huge success for heart disease prevention. I hope that this success will raise awareness, not just in Texas, but in other states and cities in which similar systemic neglect is the rule.

Remember: CT heart scans are tools for prevention, not to uncover "need" for procedures. They serve as a starting point to decide whether or not an intensive program of prevention is in order, and I don't mean statin vs. no statin.

Though not a multi-million dollar statin drug study, I have NEVER seen a heart attack or "need" for procedure in any person who has stopped progression or reduced their heart scan score. A small cohort from my practice was reported:

Effect of a Combined Therapeutic Approach of Intensive Lipid Management, Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation, and Increased Serum 25 (OH) Vitamin D on Coronary Calcium Scores in Asymptomatic Adults.

Davis W, Rockway S, Kwasny M.

The impact of intensive lipid management, omega-3 fatty acid, and vitamin D3 supplementation on atherosclerotic plaque was assessed through serial computed tomography coronary calcium scoring (CCS). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction with statin therapy has not been shown to reduce or slow progression of serial CCS in several recent studies, casting doubt on the usefulness of this approach for tracking atherosclerotic progression. In an open-label study, 45 male and female subjects with CCS of >/= 50 without symptoms of heart disease were treated with statin therapy, niacin, and omega-3 fatty acid supplementation to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides /=60 mg/dL; and vitamin D3 supplementation to achieve serum levels of >/=50 ng/mL 25(OH) vitamin D, in addition to diet advice. Lipid profiles of subjects were significantly changed as follows: total cholesterol -24%, low-density lipoprotein -41%; triglycerides -42%, high-density lipoprotein +19%, and mean serum 25(OH) vitamin D levels +83%. After a mean of 18 months, 20 subjects experienced decrease in CCS with mean change of -14.5% (range 0% to -64%); 22 subjects experienced no change or slow annual rate of CCS increase of +12% (range 1%-29%). Only 3 subjects experienced annual CCS progression exceeding 29% (44%-71%). Despite wide variation in response, substantial reduction of CCS was achieved in 44% of subjects and slowed plaque growth in 49% of the subjects applying a broad treatment program.

Sleep: A to Zzzzzzzzzz

2009-06-23T09:30:00.000-05:00

Take a look at the results from the Heart Scan Blog's most recent reader poll (399 respondents):

How many hours do you sleep per night (on average)?

9 or more hours per night
15 (3.7%)

8-9 hours per night
72 (18%)

7-8 hours per night
152 (38.1%)

6-7 hours per night
111 (27.8%)

5-6 hours per night
38 (9.5%)

Less than 5 hours per night
11 (2.8%)

Like many issues in health, too much or too little of a good thing can present undesirable consequences.

Too much sleep: While psychologists and sleep researchers advise us that at least 9 hours are required to fully eliminate sleep "debt" and achieve optimal vigilance and mental performance, epidemiologic studies have shown increased mortality with this quantity of sleep.

Too little sleep: Getting less than 7 hours habituallly increases blood sugar, appetite, inflammatory measures, and encourages weight gain. Mortality is also increased, just as with sleeping too much. It is also associated with increased likelihood of a positive heart scan score.

7-8 hours per night from a health viewpoint is that Goldlilocks "just right" value: just enough to not erode mental performance substantially, but not so little that inflammatory, insulin-disrupting, and appetite-increasing effects develop.

Of our 399 respondents in the poll, 56.1% (38% + 18%) slept what appears to be an optimal amount for health. While only 3.7% slept too much (9 hours or more), the remaining 40.1% slept too little.

Our informal poll confirms what most of us observe in everyday life: The majority of people shortchange sleep in order to meet the demands of their high-pressure, squeeze-as-much-as-possible-into-every-day lives. But not paying off your sleep "debt" is like not paying the mortgage for a couple of months. You wouldn't expect your friendly neighborhood bank to say, "Oh, you forgot to pay your mortgage? Forget about it. Just pay next month's." Sure, fat chance. But if you don't pay off your sleep "debt," you will pay it back with health.

Beating the Heart Association diet is child's play

2009-06-21T09:24:00.000-05:00

In response to the Heart Scan Blog post, Post-Traumatic Grain Disorder, Anne commented:

While on the American Heart Association diet my lipids peaked in 2003. I even tried the Ornish diet for a short time, but found it impossible.

Total Cholesterol: 201
Triglycerides: 263
HDL: 62
LDL: 86

After I stopped eating gluten (I am very sensitive), my lipid panel improved slightly. This past year I started eating to keep my blood sugar under control by eliminating sugars and other grains. Now this is my most recent lab:

Total Cholesterol: 162
Triglycerides: 80
HDL: 71
LDL: 75

Isn't that great? This is precisely what I see in practice: Elimination of wheat and sugars yields dramatic effects on basic lipids, especially reductions in triglycerides of up to several hundred milligrams, increased HDL, reduced LDL.

Beneath the surface, the effects are even more dramatic: reductions or elimination of small LDL particles, reduction or elimination of triglyceride-containing lipoproteins, elimination of the marker for abnormal post-prandial (after-eating) lipoproteins, IDL, reduced c-reactive protein. Add weight loss from abdominal fat stores and reduced blood pressure.

In fact, I would go so far as to speculate that, if the entire nation were to follow Anne's lead and eliminate wheat and sugars, "need" for 30% of all prescription medications would disappear. The incidence of diabetes would be slashed, the U.S. would no longer lead the world in obesity.

Anne and I are not the first to make this observation. It has also been made in several studies, such as:

The Duke University study of low-carbohydrate diets in type II diabetics. In this study, 50% of low-carb participants became non-diabetic: They were cured.

One of the many studies conducted by University of Connecticut's Dr. Jeff Volek, demonstrating dramatic improvement in glucose, insulin (reduced 50%) and insulin responses, and lipids.

Dr. Ron Krauss' early studies that hinted at this effect, even though the "high-fat" diet wasn't really low-carbohydrate.

If wheat and sugar elimination has been shown to achieve all these fabulous benefits, why hasn't the American Heart Association spoken in favor of this dietary approach and other- low-carbohydrate diets ? Why does the American Heart Association maintain its "Check-Mark" stamp of approval on Cocoa Puffs and Count Chocula cereals?

Victim of Post-Traumatic Grain Disorder

2009-06-20T06:04:00.000-05:00

Heart Scan Blog reader, Mike, shared his story with me. He was kind enough to allow me to reprint it here (edited slightly for brevity).

Dr. Davis,

I was much intrigued to stumble onto your blog. Heart disease, nutrition, and wellness are critically important to me, because I’m a type 2 diabetic. I’m 53 and was diagnosed as diabetic about 5 years ago, though I suspect I was either diabetic or pre-diabetic 5 years before that. Even in a metropolitan area it's next-to-impossible to find doctors sympathetic to any approach beyond the standard get-the-A1c-below 6.5, get LDL <100, get your weight and blood pressure normal, and take metformin and statins.

I’m about 5’10-and-a-half and when I was young I had to stuff myself to keep weight on; it was an effort to get to 150 pounds, and as a young man, 165 was the holy grail for me. I always felt I’d look better with an extra 10-15 pounds.
I ate whatever I wanted, mostly junk, I guess, in my younger years.

When I hit about age 35, I put on 30 pounds seemingly overnight. As I moved toward middle age I became concerned with the issue of heart health, and around that time Dr. Ornish came out with his stuff. I was impressed that he’d done a
study that supposedly showed measurable decrease in atherosclerotic plaque, and had published the results of his research in peer-reviewed journals. It looked to me as though he had the evidence; who could argue with that? I tried his plan on and off, but as so many people note, an almost-vegan diet is really tough. It was for me, and I could never do it for any length of time. But given that the “evidence” said that I should, I kept trying, and kept beating up on myself when I failed. And I kept gaining weight. I got to almost 200 pounds by the time I was 40 and have a strong suspicion that that’s what caused my blood sugar to go awry, but my doctor at the time never checked my blood sugar, and as a relatively young and healthy man, I never went in very often.

I’ve had bouts of PSVT [paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia, a rapid heart rhythm] every now and again since I was 12 or so. I used to convert the rhythm with Valsalva, but as I moved into my forties, occasionally my blood pressure would be elevated and it made me nervous to do the procedure because it was my understanding that it spikes your blood pressure when you do it. So I began going to the ER to have the rhythm converted, which they do quite easily with adenosine. On one of my infrequent runs to the ER to get a bout of PSVT converted, they discovered my blood glucose was 500 mg/dL, and I’d never experienced any symptoms! They put me in the hospital and gave me a shot of insulin, got it town to 80 mg/dL easily,
diagnosed me as diabetic, and put me on 500 mg. metformin a day.

I was able to get my A1c down to 7, then down to 6.6, and about that time I read a number of Dr. Agatston’s books, and began following the diet, and pretty quickly got my A1c down to 6.2, and my weight down, easily, to 158. That was fine with my doctor; he acted as though I was in good shape with those numbers. Soon I ran into Dr. Bernstein’s material, and came face to face with a body of research that suggested I needed to get the A1c down to below 5! That was both discouraging and inspiring, and frankly it’s been difficult for me to eat as lo-carb as I appear to need to, so I swing back and forth between 6.2 and 6.6. I know I need to work harder, be more diligent in my carb control, and I see with my meter that if I eat low-carb I have great postprandial and fasting blood sugars, but since I don’t particularly get any support or encouragement from
either my doctor or my wife for being so “radical,” it’s hard to pass the carbs by.

One thing that always confused me was that though I saw on my meter that BG [blood glucose] readings were better with a lo-carb diet, and though I saw the preliminary research suggesting that lo-carb could be beneficial in controlling CVD, I didn’t understand why Ornish had peer-reviewed research demonstrating reversal of atherosclerosis on a very-lowfat diet. How could two opposing approaches both help? I wondered if it were possible that one diet is good for diabetes, and the
other good for heart health. That would mean diabetics are screwed, because they always seem to end up with heart disease.

From time to time I’d look for material that explained this seeming contradiction. I was determined to try to stay lo-carb, simply because I saw how much better my blood sugars are when I eat lo-carb; but it’s hard in the face of this or that website that tells you about all the dangers of a lo-carb diet and that touts the lo-fat approach. That tends to be the conventional wisdom anyway.

Finally in one of those searches I came across your material, and saw you offer what was at last an explanation of what Ornish had discovered--it wasn’t a reversal of atherosclerotic plaques he was seeing; it was that his diet was improving endothelial dysfunction in people who had had high fat intakes.

Odd as it may seem to you, that little factlet has been enough to allow me to discard entirely the lingering ghost of a suspicion that I ought to be eating very-lowfat. In fact, I was very excited to see your claim that your approach can reverse atherosclerotic plaque.

It would be nice to find a doctor who’d be supportive of your approach. My doctor isn’t much interested in diet or
nutrition. He just wants my weight in the acceptable range, my blood pressure good, and my LDL 100 or below (which I know isn’t low enough). He’s not particularly interested in getting a detailed lipid report. I hope I can talk him into ordering one so that it’s more likely I can get it covered by my insurance.

I very much appreciated the links you gave to Jenny’s diabetes websites, and I’ve resolved to get even better control of my BG by being more diligent with my diet. I’m planning on joining your site, reading your book, and following your advice. I just have this sort of deflating feeling that it would have been better if I’d stumbled upon this before I had diabetes. Still, it’s nice to have a site that offers to laypeople the best knowledge available concerning how to take care of their heart.

Mike is yet another "victim" of the "eat healthy whole grains" national insanity, the Post-Traumatic Grain Disorder, or PTGD. The low-fat dietary mistake has left many victims in its wake, having to deal with the aftermath of corrupt high-carbohydrate diets: diabetes, heart disease, and obesity.

We should all hope and pray that "low-fat, eat healthy whole grains" goes the way of Detroit gas guzzlers and sub-prime mortgages.

Drug industry "Deep Throat"

2009-06-18T06:13:00.002-05:00

A Heart Scan Blog reader brought the following letter from a former pharmaceutical sales representative to congress to my attention.

Interesting excerpts:

As a former drug representative for Eli Lilly, I spent 20 months increasing the market share of my company’s drugs. I was recruited fresh from college with an eager desire to employ my degree in molecular biology and biochemistry. Shortly after my hiring, it became clearly apparent that a drug sale had much more to do with establishing personal relationships than it did with understanding the latest science. However, any doubts I held regarding the effectiveness of such methods were dispelled by the results of my persuasiveness and the financial rewards I received for my efforts. The latter also helped me rationalize the many ethically dubious situations I routinely encountered in my work. Upon my departure from the industry, I began working for the public’s health. Seven years later, as a result of my experiences and education I am more convinced than ever that the goals of the pharmaceutical industry often stand in direct conflict with the practice of ethical and responsible medicine. Nothing in my recent research causes me to believe that my experiences were anything but typical of the training and practice of the majority of drug reps plying their trade today.

“There’s a big bucket of money sitting in every [doctor’s] office.” – Michael Zubillaga, Astra Zeneca Regional Sales Director, Oncology

The majority of drug reps entering the work force today are young and attractive. The ranks of reps are replete with sexual icons: former cheerleaders, ex-military, models, athletes. Of course, as a sales job, the reps must be eloquent and convincing. Depending on the population, certain ethnicities are preferred either to make the rep distinct among other reps or to provide them with a cultural advantage in connecting with their clients. Noticeably lacking among most new reps is any significant scientific understanding. My personal case illustrates this point rather vividly: In my training class for Eli Lilly's elite neuroscience division, selling two products that constituted over 50% of the company's profits at the time, none of my 21 classmates nor our two trainers had any college level scientific education. In fact, that first day of training, I taught my class and my instructors the very basic but crucial process by which two nerve cells communicate with one another. It is very likely that the majority of my class couldn't explain the difference between a neuron and a neutron prior to sales school. While it's certainly a bonus to have a scientifically educated representative, it is far from a primary recruitment criterion. Youth is a much higher criterion for the sales position.

Sales representative trainers are almost always veteran sales representatives and consequently, much of the training they offer is implicit in the anecdotes they give. This informal training parallels the standard training offered by the industry and in many ways compliments it. It is tacitly accepted by management and perceived as the "real" training by many veteran sale representatives. Among the more dubious "unofficial" lessons a new rep learns are: how to manipulate an expense report to exceed the spending limit for important clients, how to use free samples to leverage sales, how to use friendship to foster an implied "quid pro quo" relationship, the importance of sexual tension, and how to maneuver yourself to becoming a necessity to an office or clinic.

The most troubling aspect of pharmaceutical sales is systematic befriending of our clients. In addition to the psychological profiling mentioned above, drug reps are taught to constantly be on the lookout for personal effects that will help us connect to our doctors. When entering an office for the first time, we nonchalantly survey it for clues to ingratiate ourselves with our client. Similarly, conversations are intentionally steered into the realm of personal details such as religion, family, or hobbies to acquire similar information. As a matter of training, we collect this data subtly. In the course of a conversation with clients, we may glean facts about their prescribing preferences, the dates of their children’s birthdays, where they were born, or what music they enjoy. Training encourages us to commit these details to memory just long enough to return to our cars and instantly type up a “call report” listing the details of our conversation. On a daily basis, we connect our computers to a central database that uploads the information we’ve acquired, allowing us to share it with our partner drug reps and company marketers. Subsequently, drug reps interweave pieces of conversation specifically tailored to appeal to their client drawn from personal information that wasn’t necessarily shared with them. For example, Dr. Jones will be nothing but grateful when I supply him with a cake celebrating his children’s birthday when, in fact, he told my partner (and not me) the birthdates several months prior in a personal conversation.

The writer's comments ring true: The relentless attention-grab of sales representatives, using clever tactics that include access to detailed records of physician prescribing habits, big smiles and eye-winking, are detailed perfectly.

There's nothing wrong with a business doing its job by marketing its products and services. What is so wrong about this picture is that one side is so well-equipped, heavily funded, with access to extraordinary resources that the other side (physicians) don't have. And the physicians aren't the victims--YOU are.

A middle-aged, receding hairline physician, faced with a 28-year old attractive woman asking all manner of ingratiating questions but knowing full well what she is doing, having strategized for weeks on how to manipulate the behavior of her "mark," is helpless.

Like the mortgage-backed security crisis, we've reached another phenomenon of crisis proportions. Direct-to-consumer drug advertising, drugs for non-conditions and well people, pinpoint marketing of drugs to physicians--it's all gone too far.

Personally, drug representatives are not welcome in my office. This generally prompts puzzled, followed by angry, looks from the representatives, often traveling with a district supervisor hoping to help polish their pitch. If patients didn't request free samples, the reps would not step foot in the office.

Triglyceride Buster-Update

2009-06-16T20:20:00.002-05:00

In the last Heart Scan Blog post, I described Daniel's experience reducing his triglycerides from 3100 mg/dl to around 1100 mg/dl with use of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil, along with modifications in his diet. This was accomplished in the space of around two weeks.

An update: Daniel has continued another 10 days on his fish oil, along with elimination of wheat, cornstarch, and sugars.

Repeat triglyceride: 202 mg/dl. That's 93.5% reduction in the space of three weeks--no drugs involved.

Daniel really did nothing extraordinary. He simply followed the simple advice I provided to take a moderate dose of EPA+DHA from over-the-counter fish oil supplements, along with elimination of the foods that are extravagant triggers of triglycerides.

He's got just a little further to go to achieve the biologically ideal level of less than 60 mg/dl. You can see that it is not really that difficult--provided someone didn't load you down with nonsense about "cutting your fat," or statin or fibrate drugs.

Triglyceride buster

2009-06-16T06:59:00.003-05:00

Two weeks ago, Daniel started with a triglyceride level of 3100 mg/dl, a dangerous level that had potential to damage his pancreas. The inflammatory injury incurred could leave him with type I diabetes and inability to digest foods, since the insulin-producing capacity and the enzyme producing capacity of the pancreas are lost.

Daniel added 3600 mg of omega-3s per day. Within 10 days, his triglycerides dropped nearly 2000 mg to just over 1100 mg/dl--still too high, but an incredible start.

The power of omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil to reduce triglycerides is illustrated most graphically by people with a condition called "familial hypertriglyceridemia" that is responsible for triglyceride levels of 500, 1000, even several thousand milligrams. That's what Daniel has. Given appropriate doses of omega-3s, triglycerides drop hundreds, even thousands, of milligrams.

No question: Omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil are the best tool available for reduction of triglycerides. The effect is dose-dependent, i.e., the more you take, the greater the triglyceride reduction.

How omega-3s exerts this effect is unclear, though there is evidence to suggest that omega-3s suppress several nuclear receptors involved in triglyceride (VLDL) production and increase the expression or activity of the enzyme lipoprotein lipase, an enzyme that clears triglycerides from the blood.

I am continually surprised at the number of people with high triglycerides who are still treated with a fibrate drug, like Tricor, or a statin drug, when fish oil--widely available, essentially free of side-effects, with a proven cardiovascular risk-reducing track record--should clearly be the first choice by a long stretch.

Among its many benefits, omega-3 fatty acids from fish oil also:

Reduce matrix metalloproteinases (MMP)--Two fractions of MMPs, MMP-2 and MMP-9, are inflammatory enzymes present in atherosclerotic plaque that are suspected to trigger plaque "rupture." Omega-3s have been shown to reduce both forms of MMP.

Block uptake of lipids in the artery wall--Suggested by a study in mice.

Modify postprandial responses--In the first few hours after eating (the "postprandial" period), a flood of digestive byproducts of a meal are present in the bloodstream. While research exploring postprandial effects is still in its infancy, it is clear that omega-3 fatty acids have the capacity to favorably modify postprandial patterns. One common surrogate measure for postprandial abnormalities is intermediate-density lipoprotein, or IDL, that we obtain in fasting blood through lipoprotein panels like NMR and VAP. With sufficient omega-3s alone, IDL is completely eliminated.

Unfortunately, most of my colleagues, if they even think to use omega-3s, choose to use the prescription form, Lovaza. Indeed, several representatives from AstraZeneca, the pharmaceutical outfit now distributing this miserably overpriced product, frequently barge their way into my office poking fun at our use of nutritional supplements instead of the prescription Lovaza. "But insurance covers it in most cases!" they plead. "And your patients will know that they're getting the real product, not some fake. And they'll have to take fewer capsules!"

I never use Lovaza to reduce triglycerides, even in familial hypertriglyceridemia--the FDA-approved indication for Lovaza--and have not yet seen any failures, only successes.

Jogging does NOT cause heart disease

2009-06-13T19:34:00.000-05:00

Periodically, I'll come across a knuckleheaded report like this one from Minneapolis:

Marathon Man’s Heart Damaged by Running?

Of course, the obligatory story about how a cardiologist came to the rescue and "saved his life" with a stent follows. In other words, a stent purportedly saved the life of this vigorous man with no symptoms and high capacity for exercise.

Does vigorous exercise, whether it's marathon running, long-distance biking, or triathlons, cause coronary disease? Should all vigorous athletes run to their doctor to see if they, too, need their lives to be "saved."

Let me tell you what's really going on here. People with the genetic pattern lipoprotein(a), or Lp(a), tend to be slender, intelligent and athletic. For genetic reasons, these people gravitate towards endurance sports like long-distance running. Lp(a) is a high-risk factor for coronary disease. It is the abnormality present in the majority of slender, healthy people who are shocked when they receive a high heart scan score or have a heart attack or receive a stent. (I call Lp(a) "the most aggressive known coronary risk factor that nobody's heard about.")

The association between endurance exercise and heart disease is just that: an association. It does not mean that exercise is causal. Having seen coronary plaque detected with heart scans in many runners, virtually all of whom demonstrated increased Lp(a), I believe that Lp(a) is causal.

Unfortunately, the man in the Minneapolis story, now that his life is "saved," will likely be advised to take a statin drug and follow a low-fat diet . . . you know, the diet that increases Lp(a).

Warning: Your pharmacist may be hazardous to your health

2009-06-11T15:27:00.003-05:00

Pharmacists can be very helpful resources when it comes to questions about prescription drugs.

The operant word here is drugs.

What they are most definitely not expert on are nutritional supplements. In fact, a day doesn't pass by without having to dispell one falsehood or another conveyed to a patient about a nutritional supplement by a pharmacist.

Among the more common falsehoods told to patients by pharmacists:

"You have to take Niaspan. Sloniacin doesn't work."

Patent nonsense. A few years back, I was the largest prescriber of Niaspan in Wisconsin. Although I am embarassed to admit it, I also spoke for the company, educating fellow physicians on the value of niacin for correction of lipid disorders.

Then I shifted to Sloniacin due to cost--it costs 1/20th the cost of prescription Niaspan. I examined the pharmacokinetic data (pattern of release in the body), the published literature (e.g., the famous HATS Trial), and have used Sloniacin over 1000 times in patients. In my experience, there is no difference: no difference in efficacy, no difference in safety, no difference in side-effects. There is a BIG difference in price.

Unfortunately, most pharmacists get their information on niacin from the Niaspan representative.

"You shouldn't be taking vitamin D supplements. I have prescription vitamin D here."

What the pharmacist means is that you should replace your vitamin D3, or cholecalciferol--the form recognized as vitamin D by the human body--with the plant form of vitamin D, vitamin D2 or ergocalciferol.

Since when is a plant form of a hormone (vitamin D is a potent hormone, not a vitamin; it was misnamed) better than the human form?

I've previously talked about this issue in a blog post called Vitamin D for the pharmaceutically challenged.

The notion that D2 is somehow superior to the real thing, D3, is absurd. I use D3 only in my practice and have checked blood levels thousands of times. As long as the D3 comes as a gelcap, drops, or powder in a capsule, it works great, yielding predictable and substantial increases in blood levels of 25-hydroxy vitamin D. If it comes as prescription D2 (or over-the-counter D2), I have seen many failures: no increase in blood levels of vitamin D or meager increases.

Prescription status is no guarantee of effectiveness.

"Why do you need iodine? You already get enough from food."

The NHANES data over the last 25 years argue otherwise: Iodine deficiency is growing, particularly as people are avoiding iodized salt and the iodine content of processed foods is diminishing. The explosion in goiters in my office also suggest this is no longer a settled issue.

On the positive side, it is exceptionally easy to remedy with an inexpensive iodine supplement. That is, until the pharmacist intervenes and injects his bit of nutritional mis-information.

I'm not bashing pharmacists. In fact, Track Your Plaque's own Dr. BG has a pharmacy background, and she is an absolute genius with nutritonal supplements. But she is a rare exception to the rule: Most pharmacists know virtually nothing about nutritional supplements. You might as well ask your hairdresser.

"Healthy" people are the most iodine deficient

2009-06-05T10:37:00.006-05:00

Ironically, the healthiest people are the most likely to be deficient in iodine.

Why?

Healthy people tend to:

--Avoid iodized salt because of public health advice to limit sodium
--Use sea salt to obtain minerals like magnesium--but sea salt contains little iodine
--Limit meat--Carnivores obtain more iodine than vegetarians or vegans. In one study, up to 80% of vegans were iodine-deficient (Krajcovicova-Kudlackova M et al 2003).
--Exercise--Substantial amounts of iodine are lost through sweating. In a study of high school soccer players, 38.5% were severely iodine deficient, compared to 2% of sedentary students (Mao IF et al 2001).

That is indeed what I am seeing in my office, as well: The healthiest, most attentive to healthy eating, and most physically active are the ones showing up with small goiters (enlarged thyroid glands) and increased TSH and low free T4 levels.

Why am I checking thyroid and talking about iodine? Because even the smallest degree of thyroid dysfunction can double, triple, or quadruple your risk for cardiovascular events. See the posts Is normal TSH too high? and Thyroid perspective update.

What kind of iodine do you take?

2009-06-03T15:23:00.004-05:00

The results of the latest Heart Scan Blog poll are in.

204 respondents answered the question:

Do you take an iodine supplement?

The responses:

Yes, I take Iodoral, Lugol's, or SSKI
26 (12%)

Yes, I take potassium or sodium iodide
19 (9%)

Yes, I take kelp tablets or powder
64 (31%)

No, I rely on generous use of iodized salt
23 (11%)

No, I don't supplement iodine at all
66 (32%)

Isn't iodine something you put on cuts and scratches?
6 (2%)

I am heartened by the number of respondents taking iodine in some form. After all, iodine is an essential trace mineral. Without it and health suffers, often dramatically.

However, I am concerned by the percentage of people who don't supplement iodine at all: 32%. Interestingly, this is approximately the proportion of people who come to my office who also do not supplement iodine who are now showing goiters, or enlarged thyroid glands due to iodine deficiency. Goiters lead to hypothyroidism (low thyroid hormone levels), followed by hyperactive nodules, not to mention undesirable effects like weight gain, fatigue, hair loss, constipation, intolerance to cold, higher LDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and heart disease.

11% of respondents report using lots of iodized salt. This may or may not be sufficient to provide enough iodine to prevent goiter and allow normal thyroid function. The success of this strategy depends to a great extent on how often salt is purchased. Salt that sits on the shelf for more than a month is devoid of iodine, given iodine's volatility.

I am also favorably impressed by the number of people who take "serious" iodine supplements like Lugol's solution, Iodoral, or SSKI. Of course, people who read The Heart Scan Blog tend to be an unusually informed, healthy population. The 12% of people in the poll who take these forms of iodine does clearly not mean that 12% of the general population also takes them. But 12% is more than I would have predicted.

On the Track Your Plaque website, we are awaiting an interview with iodine expert, Dr. Lyn Patrick. I'm hoping for some juicy insights.

And you thought gasoline was expensive

2009-06-02T07:02:00.000-05:00

In 1995, the Palmaz coronary stent was introduced, the brainchild of Drs. Julio Palmaz and Richard Schatz. Medical device manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson, priced the device at $2500 per stent.

Let's put this into perspective: At just 0.05 grams per 15 millimeter stent, that put the price of the common stainless steel used to manufacture the stent at $22,650,000 per pound.

Only after several competing stents finally made it to market did J&J reduce its price to its bargain price of $1200, or $10,872,000 per pound. And to think that most of us were shocked to find out that the U.S. military paid $200 for a hammer.

Since 1995, a competitive market for stents has developed, pushing prices down. Now, you can purchase a brand-new coronary stent for as little as $4,000,000 per pound.

Medical device manufacturers have been guilty of a degree of greed that would make many Wall Street bankers blush. That's why I call medical devices "the industry of infinite markups."

"Hey buddy, wanna buy some exorphins?"

2009-05-31T08:29:00.005-05:00

Dr. Christine Zioudrou and colleagues at the National Institutes of Mental Health got this conversation going back in 1979 with their paper, Opioid peptides derived from food proteins: The exorphins.

Exorphins are exogenously-derived peptides (i.e., short amino acid sequences obtained from outside the body) that exert morphine-like properties. Mimicking the digestive process that occurs in the gastrointestinal tract using the gastric enzyme, pepsin, and hydrochloric acid (stomach acid), Zioudrou et al isolated peptides from wheat gluten with morphine-like activity. They followed this research path because of the apparent association of wheat and mental illness.

In the bioassays used, wheat-derived exorphins competed successfully with the endogenous opiate, met-enkephalin. Interestingly, casein-derived (i.e., casein milk protein) exorphins were also identified that also displayed opiate-binding activity, though less powerfully. The morphine-like activity was also blocked by the drug, naloxone (the same stuff given to people exposed to morphine overdose).

Among the many devastating effects of celiac disease , the immune disease that develops from wheat gluten exposure, are mental and emotional effects, such as anxiety, fatigue, mental "fog," depression, bipolar illness, and schizophrenia, that disappear with removal of gluten. Many parents of autistic children also advocate wheat-free diets for similar reasons.

Among the many wonderful comments posted on the last Heart Scan Blog post, "I can't do it," was Anne's:

I am not the Anne in your post, but I was addicted to wheat. It was my favorite food. I lived on and for breads. Then I discovered I was gluten sensitive and I did go through a withdrawal of about 4 days. After 4 days I noticed my health problems were disappearing. Depression, brain fog and joint pain are 3 of the many symptoms that disappeared. That was 6 yrs ago.

Tell Anne that I had dreams about bread in the beginning - they will pass. Now the donuts, breads, cookies and cakes in the stores and at work don't even look good. In fact, I don't like the smell of bread anymore. It takes time, but the cravings do pass.

Combine wheat"s exorphin-driven addictive potential with its flagrant blood sugar-increasing properties, and you have a formula that:

1) makes you fat
2) increases likelihood of diabetes, and
3) makes you want to keep on doing it.

Reminds me of nicotine.

My personal view: I have absolutely no remaining doubt that wheat products have no place in the human diet. Not only does the research provide a plausible basis for its adverse health effects, but having asked hundreds of people to remove it from their habits has yielded consistent and remarkable health benefits. Just read the reader comments here and here.

"I can't do it"

2009-05-30T09:10:00.005-05:00

Anne sat across from me, bent over and sobbing.

"I can't do it. I just can't do it! I cut out the breads and pasta for two days, then I start dreaming about it!

"And my husband is no help. He knows I'm trying to get off the wheat. But then he brings home a bunch of Danish or something. He knows I can't help myself!"

Having asked hundreds of people to completely remove wheat from their diet, I witness 30% of them go through such emotional and physical turmoil, not uncommonly to the point of tears. For about 10-20% of people who try, it is as hard as quitting cigarettes.

Make no mistake about it: For many people, wheat is addictive. It meets all the criteria for an addictive product: People crave it, consuming it creates a desire for more, lacking it triggers a withdrawal phenomenon. If wheat were illegal, there would surely be an active underground trafficking illicit bagels and pretzels.

Withdrawal consists of fatigue and mental fogginess that usually lasts 5-7 days. Just like quitting smoking, wheat withdrawal is harmless but no less profound in severity.

People who lack an addictive relationship with wheat usually have no idea what I'm talking about. To them, wheat is simply a grain, no different than oats.

But wheat addicts immediately know who they are. They are the ones who can't resist the warm dinner rolls served at the Italian restaurant, need to include something made of wheat at every meal, and crave it every 2 hours (matching the cycle of blood sugar peaks and valleys, the "valley" triggering the craving). When they stop the flow of immediately-released glucose that comes from wheat (with blood sugar peaks that occur higher and faster than table sugar), irresistible cravings kick in. Then watch out: They'll bite your hand off if you reach for that roll before they do.

Break the cycle and the body is confused: Where's the sugar? The body is accustomed to receiving a constant flow of easily-digested sugars.

Once the constant influx of sugars ceases, it takes 5-7 days for metabolism to shift towards fat mobilization as a source of energy. But along with fat mobilization comes a shrinking tummy, reducing the characteristic wheat belly.

If you try to quit smoking, you've got "crutches" like nicotine patches and gum, Zyban, Chantix, hypnosis, and group therapy sessions. If you try and quit wheat, what have you got? Nothing, to my knowledge. Nothing but sheer will power to divorce yourself from this enormously destructive, diabetes-causing, small LDL-increasing, inflammation-provoking, and addictive substance.

Spontaneous combustion, vampires, and goitrogens

2009-05-26T09:27:00.001-05:00

What do the following have in common:

Lima beans
Flaxseed
Broccoli
Cabbage
Kale
Soy
Millet
Sorghum?

They are all classified as goitrogens, or foods that have been shown to trigger goiter, or thyroid gland enlargement. Most of them do this either by blocking iodine uptake in the thyroid gland or by blocking the enzyme, thyroid peroxidase. This effect can lead to reduction in thyroid hormone output by the thyroid gland, which then triggers increased thyroid stimulating hormone (TSH) by the pituitary; increased TSH acts as a growth factor on the thyroid, thus goiter.

Add to this list of goitrogens the flavonoid, quercertin, found in abundance in red wine, grapes, apples, capers, tomatoes, cherries, raspberries, teas, and onions. Most of us obtain around 30 mg per day from our diet. Quercetin, often touted as a healthy flavonoid alongside resveratrol (e.g., Yang JY et al 2008), has been shown to be associated with reduced risk for heart disease and cancer. Many people even take quercetin as a nutritional supplement.

Quercetin has also been identified as a goitrogen (Giuliani C et al 2008).

What to make of all this?

Most of these observations have been made in in vitro ("test tube") preparations or in mice. Rabbits who consume a cabbage-only diet can develop goiter.

How about humans? The few trials conducted in humans have shown little or no effect. In most instances, the adverse effects of goitrogens have been eliminated with supplemental iodine. In other words, goitrogens seem to exert their ill thyroid effects when iodine deficiency is present. Restore iodine . . . no more goitrogens (with rare exceptions).

Should we as humans adopt a diet that avoids apples, grapes, tomatoes, red wine, tea, onions, soy etc. on the small chance that we will develop goiter?

I believe that we should avoid these common food-sourced goitrogens with as much enthusiasm as we should be worried about spontaneous combustion of humans or the appearance of vampires on our front porches. We are as likely to suffer low thyroid activity from quercetin or other "goitrogens" as we are to experience the "mitochondrial explosions" that are purported to set innocent people afire.

Magnesium and you-Part II

2009-05-25T06:05:00.000-05:00

Blood magnesium levels are a poor barometer for true body (intracellular) magnesium.

Only 1% of the body’s magnesium is in the blood, the remaining 99% stored in various body tissues, particularly bone and muscle. If blood magnesium is low, cellular magnesium levels are indeed low—very low.

If blood magnesium is normal, cellular or tissue levels of magnesium may still be low. Unfortunately, tissue magnesium levels are not easy to obtain in living, breathing humans. In all practicality, a blood magnesium test only helps if it’s low, while normal levels don’t necessarily mean anything and may provide false reassurance.

Short of performing a biopsy to measure tissue magnesium levels, several signs provide a tip-off that magnesium may be low:

• Heart arrhythmias—Having any sort of heart rhythm disorder should cause you to question whether magnesium levels in your body are adequate, since low magnesium levels trigger abnormal heart rhythms. In fact, in the hospital we give intravenous magnesium to quiet down abnormal rhythms.
• Low potassium— Low magnesium commonly accompanies low potassium. Potassium is another electrolyte depleted by diuretic use and is commonly deficient in many conditions (e.g., excessive alcohol use, hypertension, loss from malabsorption or diarrhea). Like magnesium, potassium may not be fully replenished by modern diets.
• Muscle cramps— Magnesium regulates muscle contraction. Leg cramps, or “charlie-horses”, painful vise-like cramps in calves, fingers, or other muscles, are a common symptom of magnesium deficiency. (Leg cramps that occur with physical activity, such as walking, are usually due to atherosclerotic blockages in the leg or abdominal arteries, not low magnesium.)
• Migraine headaches—Reflective of magnesium’s role in regulating blood vessel tone, low magnesium can trigger vascular spasm in the blood vessels of the brain. In some emergency rooms, they will actually administer intravenous magnesium to break a migraine.
• Metabolic syndrome—Magnesium plays a fundamental role in regulating insulin responses. Metabolic syndrome (low HDL, high triglycerides, small LDL, high blood pressure, increased blood sugar, excessive abdominal fat, etc.) is triggered by insulin responses gone awry and is clearly linked to low magnesium levels.

The absence of any of these tell-tale signs does not necessarily mean that tissue levels of magnesium are normal.

Then how do you really know? There really is no easy, available method to gauge body magnesium. As a practical solution, we therefore have aimed for maintaining serum levels of >2.1 mg/dl or RBC magnesium (a surrogate for tissue levels) of >6.0 mg/dl. (Going too high is not good either, so occasional monitoring really helps. However, I've only seen this once in a psychotic woman who drank ungodly amounts of magnesium-containing antacids for no apparent reason; she almost ended up on a respirator due to respiratory suppression by the magnesium level of 11 mg/dl!)

In all practicality, because of magnesium’s crucial role in health, its widespread deficiency in Americans, and the growing depletion of magnesium in water, supplemental magnesium is necessary for nearly everyone to ensure healthy levels.

More on magnesium to come.

Lethal Lipids II

2009-05-22T07:04:00.000-05:00

I call the combination of low HDL, small LDL, and lipoprotein(a) "lethal lipids," since the trio is an exceptionally potent predictor for heart disease. Uncorrected, the combination is a virtual guarantee of heart disease.

Ed is a perfect example of someone who came to my office recently with this pattern. His starting values:

HDL: 34 mg/dl

Small LDL: 78% of total LDL
NMR: Small LDL 1655 nmol/L; total LDL particle number 2122 nmol/L)

Lipoprotein(a): 205 nmol/L

The atherogenicity, or plaque-causing potential, of this pattern was reflected in Ed's heart scan score of 2133.

You can readily see that, of this combination, only HDL cholesterol would be adequately identified through conventional lipid testing. Small LDL and lipoprotein(a) need to be specifically measured via lipoprotein testing.

And, contrary to the drug industry's "statin drugs for everybody" motto, this pattern, while improved with statin therapy, is not shut off.

Specific correction of each abnormality is required. For instance, niacin addresses all three: increases HDL, reduces small LDL, and (usually) reduces lipoprotein(a). A standard low-fat diet makes this pattern worse by reducing HDL, increasing small LDL, and (usually) increasing lipoprotein(a).