Well this is interesting. I can’t seem to post the link so I have copy and pasted. Maybe a bit of positive outcome for all the various drugs we take!
Common cardiovascular drugs are linked to a lower risk of dementia in older age, according to a new study from Karolinska Institutet published in Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association.
Cardiovascular disease and dementia are major public health challenges that cause a significant burden on both healthcare and society. A new study from Karolinska Institutet in Sweden shows that long-term use of common cardiovascular drugs is associated with lower risk of dementia later in life.
We can see a clear link between long-term use - five years or more - of these drugs and reduced risk of dementia in older age."
Mozhu Ding, assistant professor at the Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, and one of the lead authors of the paper
The researchers used Swedish national registers. Around 88,000 people over the age of 70 who were diagnosed with dementia between 2011 and 2016 were included in the study, as well as 880,000 controls. Information on cardiovascular medicines was obtained from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register.
The results show that long-term use of antihypertensive drugs, cholesterol-lowering drugs, diuretics and blood-thinning drugs is associated with between 4 and 25 percent lower risk of dementia. Combinations of the drugs had stronger protective effects than if they were used alone.
"Previous studies have focused on individual drugs and specific patient groups but in this study, we take a broader approach," says Alexandra Wennberg, affiliated researcher at the Institute of Environmental Medicine and the other lead author of the paper.
The researchers also found that, on the contrary, the use of antiplatelet drugs may be linked to a higher risk of dementia. Antiplatelet drugs are medicines used to prevent strokes and stop platelets from clumping together. One possible explanation is that these drugs increase the risk of microbleeds in the brain, which are associated with cognitive decline.
The study is an important piece of the puzzle for finding new treatments for dementia, according to the researchers.
"We currently have no cure for dementia, so it's important to find preventive measures," says Alexandra Wennberg.
The researchers stress the importance of further studies, especially randomised controlled clinical trials, to better understand the mechanisms behind the findings. Among other things, they will continue to study how diet and lifestyle, in addition to drug treatment for cardiovascular disease, affect the risk of developing dementia.
The research was carried out by Karolinska Institutet and Lund University with research funding from Karolinska Institutet. Alexandra Wennberg has received funding from Janssen Phamaceutica NV for an unrelated project.
Written by
JezzaJezza
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Aspirin is an antiplatelet and it states that these have a higher risk of causaing dementia due to increased small brain bleed risk. We have always said that aspirin has no place in stroke prevention for those with AF and has potential to cause harm. This is another example.
More studies required but I thought it was interesting to see that there maybe some good preventative options for dementia rather than just treatment and slowing the progression of the disease.
I see they have also seen an unexpected reduction in the risk of developing dementia for those who have had both shots of the Shingles Shingrix vaccine.
Maybe go and read the study and the declaration of interests and ethics before screaming ‘big pharma’ All reputable studies and trials are peer reviewed and then also by the publisher before being included in print . Government won’t pay for studies and trials and so yes funding is required. Receiving funding does not mean that professional scientists decide to commit fraud and deception and deliberate misrepresentation of data and outcomes.
Think about it - the study wasn’t even about the efficacy of Shingrix. It was to investigate an unexpected possible benefit with regards to the onset of dementia.
I have no comment on the study you reference but ‘conspiracy theory’?? John Ioannidis wrote a widely-cited paper in medical literature ‘Why most published research findings are false’. He concludes “Most scientific studies are wrong and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than the truth”. Richard Smith, the ex-editor of the BMJ cited this paper as well as a BMJ editorial entitled ‘The Scandal of Poor Medical Research’ by statistician Doug Altman in a blog he wrote for the BMJ site in 2014. RS wrote “it wouldn’t be unfair to repeat Altman’s statement of 20 years ago that: “The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem & make no apparent efforts to find a solution”.
I am reminded of those articles that used to appear in the health section of the Daily Mail…’Study finds eating (insert fruit) daily reduces risk of heart disease/cancer by 25%’…..
Go back and read it again. Funding for this study was not provided by Jansen. The lead author of the research received funding from Jansen for an unrelated study.
It still raises suspicions, but beyond that (and I will repeat) the link between antiplatelet drugs and dementia likely reflects underlying cardiovascular disease, not the drugs themselves. Patients taking these medications often have conditions like hypertension or stroke, which increase dementia risk. Without randomized trials, it’s unclear if the drugs cause dementia or if the disease itself is the driver.
I was diagnosed with CAD and the first drugs I was put on were antiplatelet drugs to help prevent a heart attack.
There is absolutely a place for anti platelet drugs.
The headline from the study is not that anti platelet drugs raise the risk of (not cause) dementia, but that other cardiovascular drugs such as for blood pressure, cholesterol, diuretics and blood thinners can individually and in combination appear to statistically reduce the risk of developing dementia.
The researchers also found that, on the contrary, the use of antiplatelet drugs may be linked to a higher risk of dementia.
All I'm saying is that this is not surprising because people are taking their drugs also have other conditions. And no a cause-and-effect has been shown, so no nail a coffin as another poster suggested.
Interesting. My husband had his stents in 2005. He has only now run into problems. ( that is without baby aspirin, which was stopped in 2012 when he started warfarin for perm AF) He has been on all the drugs suggested for many years and has still developed cognitive impairment.How can it be ascertained if they put off the evil hour or had no effect.
One thing is certain, medicine is an art as well as a science and our individual responses have to be taken into account
I read research like this with a very wide brimned hat tbh. Stats can be made to mean all sorts of things ask any statiscian. What context are these drugs being used? I was reading just the other day the theory of blood that is over anti coagulated maybe causing tiny bleeds in the brain.....leading to dementia like symptoms. So which is it then? I wait with interest the research, when it comes out, on varying the dose of anti coags rather than a set dose for all. Be a while yet. We are ALL different. I've become very skeptical of research especially as a lot is funded directly or indirectly by pharma. Don't forget the nhs has just committed to getting most of us onto cholesterol lowering drugs once 60trs old at huge expense. The brain needs cholesterol! Too little causes problems too. Read Kendricks books on this.
One of the most daft pieces of research in endocrinology is the allegement that over 52% of people with Hypothyroidism have D Personsality. It made me chuckle tbh.....as the researcher describe the symptoms of hypothyroidism as features of D Personality.
Dr Kendricks books which mainly relate to statins and cholesterol both predate new research data and so some of the theories within them , especially , 'The Cholesterol Con', ( 2008) are outdated.And , after reading them, I feel the titles are misleading , in order to create the impression that they are anti Statin pieces, presumably in order to raise sales from readers with a personal bias against statin or medication use.
The central tenet of each book isn't that Statins and other cholesterol lowering medications are not effective for those with higher cardiovascular risk or those with real need for cholesterol lowering. It's that high cholesterol is a bystander in cardiovascular problems , and that Statin use alone in those without a medical condition which makes statins beneficial may not reduce potential risks as much as people may believe.
However , like most doctors writing books under Anti Statin type titles they still encourage patients to take these medications if they are part of their recommended treatment and usually note in the introduction that most of their suggestions are for consideration by people whom have high cholesterol but are generally healthy otherwise.
It's good to have both sides of a debate though and if Kendricks nooks (even his latest?) are outdated Id be interested in the research that counters hos arguements. .
Although my cholesterol is well within range and statins were recommended by GP who could not offer me an explanation (not recommended by my cardiologist or EP I note) the blanket approach to treatment is worrying. Its an approach that is uncreasingly being used. For example in my case the risk of muscular damage is high because I have Hypothyroidism. This is not included in the computer calculation programme that GPs use. I also no longer have Afib or need to take any heart drugs or have any family history of cardiovascular disease. Again not included in my generic assessment. There are risks in taking any drug - even paracetamol- I think the wider picture is often not looked at. Research targets one element and there can be knock on effects elsewhere. An example of this is the estrogen inhibitors given with estrogen positive breast cancer (70% of bc) and these are recommended for 10yrs to reduce bc reoccurrance (proven) BUT after as little as 4yrs it affects the brain function, affects high brain functionality and is linked to Altzeimers; 25% increase in bowl and urine incontinence etc..... Bone density is often affected requiring further treatment with bisophates like Alendronic which slso has knock on effects. And in my case the difference between 5-10yrs of treatment is 3% reduction in reoccurance. I'm high risk. By 7yrs I couldn't think straight, on bone density drugs. I stopped. I accept the risk.
I feel the same about statins .....am certain they have their place. Not denying that at all.......but it should be done on a case by case basis as statins have tbeir downside too. A recent MRI scan of my heart came back as unremarkable. Wonderful. I'm lucky.
Interesting! I remember letting a guy who visited to try to sell us something, have a go with my Kardia. It showed AF and he said he knew and his doctor had told him to take an Asprin daily to deal with it! We did not go for the new shower but I occasionally wonder what became of him!
My late sister was admitted to hospital for a gall bladder operation - she was diagnosed with AF, which is not surprising as it is familial, all 5 sisters and our father were affected. Anyhow, they could not get her heart rate down , so they sent her home with a box of aspirins. A couple of months later she had a stroke, albeit mild. She was never called back for her op. She began to get nauseus and one day turned yellow. She was readmitted, but it was too late, one of the gall stones had entered the bile duct and become cancerous. She was a fit 78 year old, but only deemed worthy by the NHS of a bag of Aspirins.
That’s dreadful. Apparently, something with a long name beginning with “a” has happened to my gallbladder but as it isn’t cancerous they are leaving it alone.
Not surprisingly, the funding for this report was from from a manufacturer of anticoagulation drugs (Janssen Pharmaceuticals )which fared much better than the antiplatelet drugs. Go figure
The link between antiplatelet drugs and dementia likely reflects underlying cardiovascular disease, not the drugs themselves.
Patients taking these medications often have conditions like hypertension or stroke, which increase dementia risk. Without randomized trials, it’s unclear if the drugs cause dementia or if the disease itself is the driver. this was not a randomized trial, but rather an observational study.
Go back and read it again. Funding for this study was not provided by Jansen. The lead author of the research received funding from Jansen for an unrelated study.
The results of the study was NOT that the drugs increase the risk of dementia but that the individual drugs and especially in combination appear to contribute to a statistically significant reduction in the risk of dementia.
I thought everyone understood that 99.9999% of folks in all professions do a professional job and don’t deliberately commit fraud by altering or misrepresenting data. Also you realise that all studies are peer reviewed before publication? That reputable bodies such as the Alzheimer’s Society take time to consider what they publish? They of all bodies know the risk of raising hope unnecessarily.
Why don’t we accept that it was a very interesting and promising large scale study and that (as the authors have themselves said) further blind and randomised studies are required to build upon this.
Exactly right - further blind and randomised studies are required.And would be welcomed, I expect we would all like the risk of dementia reliably shown to be reduced in this way.
l think we all have enough to contend with in keeping our hearts healthy than worry about the possibility of dementia or not. Lots of us have reached old age and still have our brain power.
Not absolutely, it’s just a study with no trials. I think there needs to be more research and evidence yet before we can say this is kosher don’t you? As previously said, l think this topic is relatively unimportant in comparison with our struggle with AF., together with other comorbidities that we may have.
As I take all of them, at 80 I hope the trials continue to. be funded and my brain continues to stay as is so I am looking at this in a positive light ........
The national Belgian MD’s association issued a warning against lowering cholesterol. (LDL) to the new extremely low advisory standards (50) by taking high doses of statins: they suspect it could cause … dementia.
What do they consider a high dose, did they state that ,more facts are needed other than a suggestion that it might cause dementia. I am sure that you don’t mean to cause all of us taking statins more anxiety, but without facts backing this up that is what happens unnecessary doubts are created.
They warned for the use of the PCSK9-inhibitor Evolocumab and all high doses of statins that are needed to bring down LDL to the new protocol standard, being 50 mg/dl. The association worries about this low value because cholesterol is a building stone of the cell, especially in brain tissue. It all boils down to: do I choose to loose my memory or do I prefer a heart attack, to put it bluntly.
My choice would be neither, but only time will tell and I will deal with it then. In the meantime with each new study that comes out all of which are above my pay grade to understand, I am now joining the ignorance is bliss club to at least preserve my present mental health.
Even though I have never been overweight and was active until the chronic fatigue and PAF arrived following a virus, and have a healthy diet, it seems I have familial above desirable cholesterol. I have agreed to take statins now that the doctors have agreed to a lower dose. I read the info that came in the packet that said 20mg daily was too much for those over 70 (I’m 80- not far off 81 now) which they don’t seem to have done! I rang the company to check. So I now take 10mg daily and hope it isn’t messing anything up!
I was taking 10mg, and when my doctor got my fasting blood results, she was horrified to see my cholesterol was down to 2.4 - she immediately halved the dose to 5mg per day, and I am at 4.2 and she is happy. I'm 81 and have been taking 5mg for 10 years now - but the 10mg are a nuisance to cut in half !
How different we all are! I’m going to take my 10mg now. I’m amazed you can cut the little pills in half! I used to take organic red yeast rice capsules whenever a blood test suggested my cholesterol was highish but only til the next blood test was satisfactory. It seems unobtainable now which is why I agreed to take the 10mg and don’t think it has come with the nasty side effects I remember people complaining about. Going to take it now! And I see there is a line across the middle - guess that’s for cutting! Oh dear! I took the Flecainide by mistake but still won’t exceed the maximum daily amount! Perhaps my brain is going a bit!! Have taken the statin now and as I knew it was pink, I can’t think why I didn’t check earlier! You really need a good sense of humour to cope with old age and what comes with it!
The ones I get here are elongated with the score line in the centre and to get them in my pill splitter is a pain, but needs must !!!!(I'm in South Africa)
Gosh! I was at Sussex University with a lovely guy who became the president of your country some time later, Tabu Mbeki (might have the spelling wrong)! He arrived late in the year as he had trouble getting out of the country.
I'm British, I married a South African resident. Mbeki was deputy president under Mandela and then President. He was 20 when he left the country, he travelled to England via Mozambique.- he must have been one of the older students in your year as he was born in 1942.He did not return to SA until 1990.
I was born in 1944 so he was only 2 years older. He was in the year above me but there were not that many of us altogether then and I remember hearing that he had arrived later than the other first students because of problems getting out of the country.
I think we are on the wrong forum discussing SA politics😆 But Susssex Uni, one of the girls in my yearintended going there, her name was Lindy - did she ?😆
I did a post- graduate teaching certificate and taught young children and older students and after marrying and having my own two, I taught a few children who had been excluded from school in their own homes, while mine were at their schools. Yes, it was very rewarding but some time ago now!
And if your friend went to Sussex the previous year to me she would have been the same year as Tabu - the very first students before the new Basil Spence building! Our son went there (and got a first!)
I lost contact when we left school and I did a year at Reading Uni ( I could commute by train daily), but I changed course, to a more commercial education at East Berks college. It has always surprise me when everyone said when Thabo was in office, how anti- White he was, given he had his tertiary education at Sussex.
Gosh, that must have come later as I remember he was good friends with a white guy whose name I forget now who I think became an art critic and they were both nice to me.
Exactly! We do need some cholesterol for the brain. Research looks at very specific criteria... and not the whole body effects. Also research has the option to decide what they eill disclose re their results. This has led to negative results being with held. An example of this is Doxetaxol. Now known to cause permenant hair loss in 30% of patients. (The percentage keeps increasing!) The side effect of permenant hair loss was not originally disclosed. It's been around for years but it's only in recent years that permenant hair loss has been revealed. Patients are still not all warned about this.
Yet another study giving large cohort proof that statins actually reduced the risks of Dementia and Vascular Dementia.I'm looking forward to the day when the people whom regularly cause others health anxiety about using statins finally get around to reading these more up to date pieces of research and the findings published by the Alzheimer's Society and stop spreading fear.
Since you ask for a ‘more up to date piece of research’, here is a recent study (2021) from the Los Angeles university of California:
“Some Statins Appear to Increase Dementia in Patients With Mild Cognitive Issues”.
Does the use of some of the most commonly prescribed statins significantly increase the risk of developing dementia in patients with mild cognitive impairment?
Research presented at the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 2021 Annual Meeting advises that positron emission tomography (PET) scans of lipophilic statin users revealed a highly significant decline in metabolism in the area of the brain that is first impacted by Alzheimer's disease when those cholesterol-lowering drugs were used in certain circumstances.
In other words, according to the University of California at Los Angeles authors, taking lipophilic statins—which include atorvastatin, simvastatin, lovastatin, fluvastatin, cerivastatin, and pitavastatin—appears to more than double those patients’ risk of developing dementia compared with those who do not take statins. While hydrophilic statins focus on the liver, lipophilic statins are distributed to tissues throughout the body.
“There have been many conflicting studies on the effects of statin drugs on cognition,” said Prasanna Padmanabham, project head of the statins and cognition in the molecular and medical pharmacology student research program at UCLA. “While some claim that statins protect users against dementia, others assert that they accelerate the development of dementia. Our study aimed to clarify the relationship between statin use and subject’s long-term cognitive trajectory.”
The study team looked at several factors:
• Neuropsychological status at baseline,
• Relatively high versus low serum cholesterol levels at baseline
• Statin use versus nonuse
• Among users, type of statin used.
“The present analysis focuses upon outcomes of subjects with early mild cognitive impairment (eMCI), comparing users of statins with known moderate (atorvastatin) or high (simvastatin) lipophilicity and blood-brain barrier penetrance (LS), to non-users (nonS), or users of other statins (OS),” the authors explain.
Participants were enrolled in the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative at over 50 North American sites. The patients were then grouped into those above (n = 103) or below (n = 200) the median cholesterol level of the nonuser subjects (206 mg/dl).
Researchers report that, while serum cholesterol levels at baseline ranged widely (101-358 mg/dl), among all eMCI subjects, the average baseline cholesterol levels did not significantly differ between those who converted to dementia within 96 months as opposed to those who did not.
After excluding statin users with less than 96 months of use, the below-median cholesterol group consisted of 157 patients—67 nonusers, 72 on lipophilic statins, and 18 on other statins; within that group, according to researchers, average serum levels also did not differ between those who did (166 mg/dl) and did not (171 mg/dl) convert to dementia.
“There was, however, a significant difference observed in conversion rates within this group according to statin use: among LS, 24% converted to dementia, vs. only 10% of nonS (P = .04) in the ensuing 96 months, while conversion rate of OS did not significantly differ from nonS subjects (11%, P = .94),” the authors point out. “Moreover, posterior cingulate metabolic decline was identified among LS users, (P <.0005, highly significant after statistical correction for multiple comparisons), while no significant decline occurred among OS and nonS subjects. Finally, in the above-median cholesterol stratum, the difference in conversion rates of statin users and nonusers was not significant (P = .72).”
That led to the conclusion that, among patients with early mild cognitive impairment and low-to-moderate serum cholesterol levels at baseline, patients prescribed lipophilic statins had more than twice the risk of developing dementia over 8 years of follow-up versus no statin use. Researchers emphasize that the patients also demonstrated a consequential decline in metabolism of the posterior cingulate cortex—the region of the brain most affected in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease—even though no such decline was seen in users of other statins or those with higher baseline serum cholesterol levels.
“By characterizing the metabolic effects associated with statin use, we are providing a new application of PET to further our understanding of the relationship between one of the most commonly used classes of drugs and one of the most common afflictions of the aging brain,” Padmanabham said. “Findings from these scans could be used to inform patients’ decisions regarding which statin would be most optimal to use with respect to preservation of their cognition and ability to function independently.”
Although I realise that a study from 2021 on a small cohort of patients seems up to date to use, it actually out of date in terms of medical research , and the research and larger cohort studies that results like the LA study inspired have proven that Statins do not increase the risk of Dementia and Alzheimer's and have actually proved that Statins decline the risks( like the Swedish study in this post).Obviously, those early findings were of concern and since Alzheimer's and Dementia Societies and Medical Research have done a lot of research to rule out the risks in order to give the best protection and advice to their patients.
Since 2021 , there have been several studies, of both small and large cohorts. And large population based studies like the Swedish study published (2024) that included over 88,000 participants with a population control group of over 880,000 producing what is considered to be the best evidence so far of the added benefits of taking certain medications, including statins , in reducing the risks of Dementia, Alzheimer's and other forms of Memory and Cognitive Function loss.
The LA studies findings were included in meta-analysis studies and in 2022 the Oxford study also showed that overall studies proved that Statins reduced the risks of Dementia and that they were not responsible for the short term memory loss and cognitive function that had been reported.
Most large cohort studies, including those published in the Hong Kong ( 2023) and Swedish (2024) research have proven that Dementia and Vascular Dementia risks decrease whilst taking long term statins by between 8-22%. Figures for reducing the risks of Alzheimer's are even more significant with risk reduction on statins between 28-30%.
Alzheimer's and Dementia Societies worldwide have been reporting this for the last few years and recommending the potential of using Statins to help in reducing the risks of these conditions and reporting that Statins do not increase mental decline or memory loss , but rather that it is the symptoms of lower oxygen levels associated with cardiovascular conditions and potentially high cholesterol itself that is more likely to be the cause of mental health symptoms in long term patients.
Even within small scale studies of patients without diagnosed Dementia, but those whom had suffered Concussion and other Brain Injuries research proved that those whom took Statins had a 13% lower risk of Dementia and scored better on Cognitive Testing.
So the Medical Community have unanimously begun to recommend Statins in those with Dementia risks and report them as safe based on extensive studies since the small study in LA. It's just that the online health community still hasn't caught up with this and still continue to cause Anxiety about Statin use and Dementia by continuing to quote the results of old data and maintaining the health myth fears that were reported in the media.
For newly diagnosed people whom have Cardiovascular conditions that don't just require statins for cholesterol lowering but also to stabilise arterial plaques and help prevent cardiac events this type of misinformation often puts them off taking a medication which is vital to their Preventative Care which is something I find of great concern.
The concerns raised by the medical and pharmaceutical associations focus on the new global standard adopted for the recommended LDL limits in patients with high cardiovascular risk — a group we all belong to.
Since 2023, the upper limit has been set at 50 mg/dL, an extremely low level. Previously, it was 75, and a few years before that, it was still 100.
This extreme reduction is causing alarm within the associations, as there is no long-term experience with such exceptionally low levels of cholesterol in human subjects.
Patients with LDL levels of 50 mg/dL have not been followed long enough to understand the consequences of such cholesterol depletion. There is legitimate concern about insufficient or impaired production of new brain cells, given that cholesterol is one of the most essential building blocks of cells.
The impact of such an extremely low LDL threshold on cognition, dementia, and Alzheimer’s will only become apparent in 5 to 10 years.
So, prescribing the huge doses of statins -or the novel jab Evolocumab- necessary to get the LDL-count THAT low is unprecedented. There is no experience with this new threshold as far as side effects are concerned, let alone precise data of the influence on brain health, since the new protocol of 50 mg/dl only had existed for 1,5 years.
I fully understand and share the concern of the association, as I do not like to be the guinea pig to test this novel approach, and would like to see some recent research with reassuring results first. In the meantime, I guess I’ll stick to the second previous protocol, being 100 mg/dl.
Which medical and pharmaceutical associations are you quoting,?I'd like to read the publications myself , as I like to have read both the fors and againsts to increase my knowledge.
As far as my reading so far on the lowering of cholesterol markers and the potential impact , the comments have actually been positive about the reduction.
Pretty sure I'd seen some research about the positive outcomes from lower thresholds , but I'll have to look back through my own saved research papers to quote the exact ones.
The approach is novel, except for in the use of biologic injections which are not statins, it's just not widespread and is still increasing after favourable outcomes as far as I'm aware.
Cholesterol is important in human processes but the levels of cholesterol that remain even after Statin administration is more than enough for the bodies cholesterol needs in basic cell formation and other areas of health and metabolism, even at these lower benchmarks.
The Belgian Central Forum for Pharmacological Information is actually a small platform which gets some some funding from the Belgian Agency for Foods and Medicines most specifically to produce an easy to read catalogue of medications for patients and professionals. The BCFi , is a small pharmaceutical information access group rather than the professional arm of pharmacologists in Belgium , which is the APB.
They do produce reports and their opinions on research and medicines are respected during debate , but there stories and articles are editorials and often speculative opinions from various groups or doctors about what " may" or " may not" occur.
Sometimes these commentaries are positive , sometimes negative , sometimes a balance of both, but although interesting they are still hypothetical rather than being based on statistics or facts. Obviously, the importance put on these articles depends on which point of view you have in many cases.
I'm sure , as a group , the BCFi , would never want people to make current decisions about which recommended medications to take based on what they admit themselves is a discussion of possibilities.
The statin research that has happened in the last few years has included meta-analysis of patients prescriptions and history going back over many years , which would have produced very different results and provoked warnings about low cholesterol levels causing memory loss and neurological issues rather than that statins were improving or having no effect on memory and neurological function if it was evident. Especially, as part of the reason these research studies were done was to spot that so as to give better treatment protection to those at risk of , or already dealing with Alzheimer's, Dementia s or other Neurological Health problems.
Are there any other associations or medical reports I could look at though, I'd like to if they are available?
The text sounds a little like ChatGPT, (except for the mistake in ‘there’) but is correct in general 😉.
The important thing here is that the BCFi is used by practically every MD and pharmacist, which makes it a very valuable channel to keep the finger on the pulse of the people in the first-line practice.
In fact it was a friend MD who sent me the article.
She, like the majority of her colleagues. also worries about the extreme guidelines on LDL minima that are pushed since 2023. I share her concern, and so does one of my best friends, a very experienced cardiologist.
I just wanted to share their concern, which I think is warranted. They -and we- know nothing about the long term effects of such extreme LDL-depletion and the massive doses of statins (or Evolocumab) that are needed to reach this extremely low threshold of 50 mg/dl.
There are people, including myself, who have naturally low LDL cholesterol throughout their lives. As a consequence of all this “low cholesterol scarey scarey” stories circulating online, I have learned about the Mendelian randomisation studies of people from the UK Biobank population who have the genetic mutations for lifelong low cholesterol. For this group of people, there is a considerably lower risk of CVD. For the people with genetically determined extremely low LDL cholesterol, the risk of CVD is minimal. There’s a very strong linear correlation between low lifetime exposure to LDL and CVD risk.
I understand that this is not the same as having lower LDL due to pharmaceutical interventions. It’s the lifetime exposure that matters. Someone who has had a high lifetime LDL and starts a statin at 60 is not going to get to the same level of risk as someone with a low lifetime LDL level no matter how low they can get it through using medication. I’m neither pro nor anti statin and I don’t care what people do or don’t do. I have no feelings either way. It makes no difference to me what anyone else does.
Thank you for this very interesting contribution. I knew that there are people with genetically high LDL, but I did not realize that the contrary could also exist. Of course my question is now: are the warnings of some medical specialists about ‘too low LDL increasing the risk for impaired cognition and dementia’ also valid for people with naturally low LDL? If not, that would probably mean that there is no causal relationship between the two.
I must admit I envy you a little, I hope you’ll forgive me!
Well, what you win on the roundabout you lose on the swings! I am genetically vulnerable to iron overload and that brings its own set of risks and potential complications! Thankfully I’m diagnosed and treated as and when necessary but I’ve witnessed what the worst case scenario looks like in a time before the genes responsible were discovered. So, we all get a random mix.
Yes there are people with the genes for low cholesterol. To my (very limited) knowledge, these variants can be either gain of function or loss of function at the same gene location, although it seems that there is more than just one gene involved that determine our cholesterol’s “set point”. That’s my very sketchy understanding. I’m no geneticist! Naturally low cholesterol might come with other risks but it’s not a group of people who are studied very much at all. It may well come with risks that we’re not aware of yet.
Obviously we all have to look after ourselves no matter what our blood tests say, or what diagnosis we have, so it’s never a case of “oh look my blood test results look good so it’s OK for me to drink lots of alcohol/eat lots of junk food/drink lots of sugary drinks” because that’s guaranteed to make those tests come back a lot worse in the future. I’ve known people (still do) who reckon if their GP says their liver function looks OK based on blood tests then it’s OK to carry on drinking to excess. That’s not very sensible! I prefer to pay attention to these things and not be too complacent. I’m totally all in favour of people trying to get their cholesterol to a good place with diet strategies, and even if they don’t reach a particular goal, they’re still looking after other aspects of their health.
The only two men I know of who got Altzheimers were both treated for the beginning of diabetes before it developed and they had both been intelligent, well qualified people. One has died but the other is in a care home. So very sad.
I wish people would get the memo. The cholesterol circulating around our blood vessels does not cross the blood/brain barrier. The brain makes its own cholesterol. Statins appear to protect against dementia, but dementia and AD are multi factorial and there’s also a genetic component to its development. As you say, people cling to an outdated theory that doesn’t stand up to scrutiny when viewed through the lens of more recent research. For the record I don’t take statins. I’ve never been offered statins. People who have naturally low LDL cholesterol, which is also down to genetics, don’t have any increased risk of these low cholesterol scare stories, in fact there’s no know risks for having naturally low cholesterol.
Well on my Mums side Altzeimers runs riot. And sadly she died from it. Her cholesterol wasn't high nor was it super low. I dont believe cholesterol is the link though big pharma are doing great guns on the drive to lower everyones cholesterol......bit like the butter/marg saga....Yes I'm very skeptical. My mums side lived rural lives. Ate healthily, were not over weight or drank excessively (barely at all) didnt use drugs for recreation, often grew their own veg & fruit & were active. They all lived to well into their 80s& 90s. However we the sublings live in fear of developing Altzeimers. So was pesticides the cause? Polution? Plastics poisoning our bodies? Likely maybe.... Who knows. Autoimmune conditions runs that side like a stick of rock....in me too.....is that a link....who knows? My Dad's side its Parkinsons that runs that side.....and they are rural too. No Altzeimers though. Parkinson does affect the brain in the end too. My Dad's side were big meat eaters, sweet tooth. Again no high cholesterol. Genetics at the back of this? Probably.....
And we are not designed to live forever....
I'm more concerned by the rise in cancer....now 1 in 2. Used to be pretty rare....now 50% risk. Why? I've won one round of it.....but more likely that what will get me in the end so not goibg to join in the statins race to bottom my cholesterol like its a sin!! 😂🤣
Enjoy what uve got now folk whilst you have it. We all end up as fodder for the meadows in the great cycle of life.
Drinking alcohol, smoking, sugar, anxiety and depression, vitamin defeciency, PPIs, infection, drug interactions, ageing, genetics, diabetes, family history, diazapam, antidepressants etc etc etc apparently are all known to cause dementia. Get on with your lives people as I truly believe that anxiety and depression are the main causes and it is rife amongst heart patients no matter what drugs they take. Stop reading half hearted trials and assumptions as life is short anyway.
Indeed. And I've already had two reprieves from death......so am not worrying about it. I just want to.live my life as full as I may with the minimum of pharmaceutical intervention. I've toed the line and it made me ill ( estrogen inhibitors) & increased my chances of Altzeimers plus some other side effects that are permenant......not adding to it further. I accept the limits of my body and the limits of medical interventions. If my life is shortened by a few days or weeks then so be it. QoL is what I'm interested in. That's my choice.
Having been on all these drugs at some point since my myocardial infarction 13 years ago and cardioäblation 3 years ago, this caught my attention. However, instead of trying to keep as much of the foods that originally got me into my troubles in my life, I've chosen to aggressively change my diet and lifestyle. I'm attacking the root cause of my CVD instead of managing symptoms through pharmacology.
In the tumult of the evacuations I went through this summer due to the fires east of Los Angeles, I ended up falling off my meds. In my latest cardiologist visit, my doc said things sounded and looked good enough that he was willing to entertain the idea of my stayng off all my meds and Rxd a two-week Holter monitor. I mailed the monitor in a couple of weeks ago and am awaiting the results and a follow-up visit.
I made it clear to him that if the Holter test shows I need any of the meds (40 mg valsartan, 6¼ mg metoprolol, 5 mg apaxiban), I'll willingly go back on them. But, they like all drugs, have side effects. The valsartan never gave me any noticeable side effects. But I work in a commercial kitchen and due to the apaxiban, I regularly end up bruising & bleeding like a stuck pig from a myriad of minor injuries The metoprolol gave me horrid dreams from trauma I went through 20-30 yrs ago.
If I can use 'food as my medicine', I'd much prefer to go that route
Good on you. Glad to hear you're attending to the lifestyle component. As I implied, while drugs can do wonders, rarely does a drug affect only the targeted organ/system in a system as complex at the living bodies (had similar experiences with caring for my dogs over the years)
The other side of the coin is that we can be doing everything “right” to the best of our abilities and still not be immune to developing any long term condition. Of course I totally believe in maintaining the lifestyle factors as far as practically possible. On paper I had very minimal risk, bloodwork fine (still is) and no family history to speak of. In reality, I’ve changed nothing because there was nothing more I could do, realistically speaking. We all get a mix of good and bad genes and we pretty much can’t control our environment, or whether we’ve been born into poverty or wealth. Nor does everyone have equal access to healthcare. But I hear you. You’ve done tremendously well so keep going!
Of course, I strongly agree with your statement that we can be doing everything right and come down with AFib. I thought I was doing what was correct when I had my heart attack on The Southbeach Diet and had practiced a whole-food vegan, no SOS diet for nearly 10 years when I developed AFib. I got suckered by the siren call of the high "good" fat, low carb diet when I had my heart attack and still had another 30 lbs to lose when I had my AFib.
I liken it to the fact that we can look both ways before crossing a road and still get run down. That said, I take every precaution I can before I enter the road.
I would have a small quibble with our lack of control of our environment in that the largest interface our body has is with the environment around us is our gut. We choose every morsel we consume and it's outside us until it's absorbed across the lining of our intestine. I think many people (not saying you) underestimate the power they have to reduce their metabolic and cardiovascular risks by making healthier dietary choices. I think the pivotal point is what is 'practical'... to my sorrow, my wife has a much lower tolerance for what is 'practical' and thus weighs more than I do with my NFL linebacker frame. Between my being 8 yrs her junior and her being clinically obese, I fully expect to out live her... not a prospect I look forward to
There are many moving parts to this whole thing. We do our best and it’s easier, as you put it, to get suckered into an eating pattern like LFHC in the belief that we’re doing something good for ourselves when we might be doing something that doesn’t suit us as individuals. It’s what suits us personally that matters and there’s no one true way for everyone. It’s more difficult now to ascertain the good information from the faddy pseudoscience and misinformation. I follow a predominantly plant based diet which is predominantly whole foods. My BP, lipids, hbA1c, fasting blood sugar, are all good and I believe that a plant based diet is a big part of that. It might not be for everyone but it suits me. My preferences overlap considerably with the portfolio diet, so that may well explain why I’ve never been offered statins. I don’t know whether any of this has any influence on AF but it’s important to minimise any potential risk factors, I think, because you don’t want to be worse off.
These days there is healthy obesity.... depends on your fat percentage and type of fat & where it is. And you might outlive her you might not. Being slim and eating healthy and exercising is no guarantee..... my brother can testify to this.....incurable bone marrow cancer slim active moderate in all things late 60s.
Look to the environment we all have plastics etc in our bodies.... and unless you grow your own food you try avoiding the contamination and manipulation/modification of our foods....no easy task.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Long-term overtreatment with warfarin raised risk for dementia
AF and Dementia Risk
Trying to come off Bisoprolol and hearing long term side effects Inc vascular dementia 
