statins

People with obstructive sleep apnea are at significantly increased risk for cardiovascular disease. The relationship between the two conditions is complex, and the mechanisms by which they may trigger or exacerbate one another are not yet well understood.
Medical Discovery News is hosted by professors Norbert Herzog at Quinnipiac University, and David Niesel of the University
Conventional wisdom tells us LDL cholesterol is bad and HDL cholesterol is good. A huge improvement from the days of "all cholesterol is bad," but still a far cry from adequate.
If you are taking a statin and experiencing symptoms of cramping, aching, fatigue or weakness, it's not in your head.
These promising new treatments are for individuals whose LDL cholesterol levels or cardiovascular risk profiles are not adequately addressed with statins, as well as those who are statin-intolerant.
"Will it help me live longer?" When patients ponder the lifetime commitment to a statin drug, this is the question they ask. But a very public controversy in the scientific community has recently diverted attention from this central question -- and that just might be on purpose.
The recent retraction of an academic claim in a leading journal about the incidence of side effects from cholesterol-lowering drugs has sparked anger in the medical community and potentially undermined public and patient trust.
Still the most feared of all diseases, cancer now has some good news. But the responsibility is yours to make sure you are one of the good statistics, not one of the bad ones.
These questions are important to answer, but the irresponsible reporting and the biased presentation prevented these important
I believe, in the next 10 years, we're going to see a backlash against statins. In fact, we're starting to see it already. We're seeing now that they may not benefit everybody we thought they would. And we're seeing that there are some serious risks involved.
The American Heart Association (AHA) and the American College of Cardiology (ACC) recently released new cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. They are an egregious example of much that is wrong with medicine today.
If it were truly clear exactly what criteria for statin use were best, there would be no controversy in the first place. There appear to be strengths and weaknesses to both sets of criteria, the old and the new.
Climate denial has rightly lead many to unilaterally embrace science as the last bastion of rational thought in an increasingly contentious world. But the question is: Whose science?
Whether we're talking about broad public health prescriptions or individual prescriptions, it's all a matter of benefit versus risk, and that requires a careful look at the evidence. Doctors and patients alike may find themselves understandably confused by changing guidelines and the uncertainty inherent in predicting the future.
The new cholesterol guidelines represent a sea change in that they no longer recommend patients shoot for a target cholesterol level. Instead, they recommend options based on an individual's risk of a heart attack or stroke.
If there's one number the health-conscious know, it's their cholesterol level.
While it is certainly true that we can run afoul of our own heredity, results from the burgeoning field of epigenetics show
All told, we have here an unsafe, unnecessary product that will now be recommended to healthy people to make them sicker, all when simple, health-fortifying lifestyle changes have been proven to be effective and globally transformative in ways no pill could ever hope to be.
We could blame it all on the food companies that make the junk food, and the technology companies that keep inventing more ways for us to be sedentary. But as noted, the enemy is both them and us.
We currently have a statin epidemic, with 25 percent of adults over the age of 45 taking the pills, a large majority of whom do not have heart disease and have not seen the numbers.