Statin alternative

[Green306]

Has anyone had success with meds other than statins? I am unable to take them.

[orangecity41 NKF Ambassador]

I have had success with Ezetimibe (Zetia). Be sure to check with your Doctor as may not work for you.

[chicablue]

I also tried Zetia. It had the same side effects as the Lipitor. So stopped that also.

[Skeptix]

I gather plant stanols is a way to knock 10% off your cholesterol reading (says my RD anyway). Comparatively easy to get on board via spreads and the like - and probably a darn sight cheaper than a statin.

I'm a little bit in two minds over cholesterol and the push for statins (I've declined the offer from my nephr a couple of times now. There is this notion that cholesterol lowering is a no brainer for cardio health. But it's also the case that the cholesterol hypothesis appears to be the most spannered on hypothesis in all human history. And the reason for that being pharma $$$

It would seem that slightly raised cholesterol is beneficial for overall mortality anyway. Somewhere around 5.5 seems to be the sweet spot, but you wouldn't be worrying at 6.0 either. Its overall mortality I'm interested in (as in living longer) rather than how precisely I die. Those statins seem to be generally considered a "dirty drug"

[Starcatty in reply to Skeptix]

...and what kind of "spreads" do you mean? Are there plant-based foods that lower cholesterol?

[Skeptix in reply to Starcatty]

Dunno about your part of the world but Benecol is a brand here. They do yogurt drinks as a plant sterol/stenol delivery device. That'd be dairy no doubt. But they also do plant sterol spreads which are probably more Frankenfats than dairy. You can, of course, just get a pill but would need to be sure that they contained what they say on the tin.

A 10% reduction without pharma sounds good (if reduction is something you figure good for you)

[Green306 in reply to Skeptix]

I’m not sure what’s good. I’m just skeptical about statins.

[Skeptix in reply to Green306]

To clarify. When I said "pill" I meant plant stenol in pill form. I'm skeptical of raised cholesterol as an issue. And even if desiring to lower cholesterol, statins wouldn't be the way I'd go about it.

[horsie63 in reply to Skeptix]

OMG the statins are nothing but evil. My doc suggested them so I tried...daily excruitating migraines. They added another drug thought to help but it turned me into a zombie and did nothing for the migraines. They thought I had a tumor or blood clot and I had to have an MRI of my head. I just stopped taking all of the meds and my migraines cleared up. Never again. My heart is in good shape so even with high cholesterol I'd rather die of a heart attack than take another statin.

[Skeptix in reply to horsie63]

I'm a mechanical engineer in the field of manufacturing. I can't think of a machine or process that works better for having a workaround patch repair patch applied to resolve a problem. It's recognised that even spannering on equipment, by way of maintenance aimed at keeping the machine in good condition, itself introduces flaws into the system.

Drugs are a necessary evil. They are patchwork fixes which bring all kinds of stresses to bear that the original design never intended be applied. The robust studies, the shiney happy people pharma ads and spaceage sounding drug names don't alter that one jot.

Look after the body machine, treat it well, and keep it as near to original as the Maker intended or Evolution selected for or both. The only thing we can do is take the least amount of meds we can get away with and steer as clear as we can from whatever appears to be generally considered a "dirty med".

[August59]

Lovaza worked okay for me. Worked good on triglycerides. It's just glorified fish oil. It's about 50/50 whether or not insurance will cover it. Teva makes a generic version now which may help.

[Bet117 NKF Ambassador]

Hi Green306,

I understand your dilemma as despite a plant based diet, for slightly elevated cholesterol, I was prescribed with the lowest doses of Rouvastatin ( Crestor) and then Atrouvastatin ( Lipitor) and was found to be statin allergic.

My GP, nephrologist and I put together an alternative regimen of 3000mg of Carlyle Plant Sterols am and pm, which is soy free , Omega 3 fish oil 2400mg am, Flaxeed Oil tablets 2400 am and 1000mg flush free niacin pm; the latter was as a result of research that my nephrologist did during his residency and fellowships at a teaching hospital.

It took us about 6 months to see a change, but my cholesterol has been normal since this was discovered.

Bear in mind that every person is different with different medical issues and biochemistry.

I would advise having a chat with your doctors if you are considering this type of alternative.

I was lucky!

Hope this helps!

Bet

[Blackknight1989]

As an FYI the new approved SGLT2 inhibitors approved for CKD treatment in NON-T2D patients have some cholesterol-lowering benefits and help with weight loss. Not to mention the top two benefits of stopping or nearly stopping the progression of CKD (maintaining egfr and creatinine at current levels),the nearly 30% reduction of all-cause mortality, reduction of all-cause heart failure and a 50% reduction of suffering a significant CVD incident over the next 5 years. Additional studies since the Credance and the Empa studies, both stopped early due to the positive results from the initial stages by the FDA, have further verified the great benefits from these meds as well as further downplaying the side-effects that are mild to begin with. They are especially beneficial to those of us with stage 3B and below with comorbid conditions of HBP, hyperlipidemia and others.

I finally received a copy of my medical records from the VA a couple of months ago. From those I confirmed what I have been unable to proven to my doctors since 1998, that I have had hyperlipidemia since 1986. I don't know if it is a lifetime genetic condition or something else because I am adopted. However, I do know that in 1986 when I was a cadet at West Point, our diets were controlled by a nutritionist who ensured that we complied with government guidelines as those were in the mid-1980s. Also, I was in training to run the Marine Corps marathon in DC so I was running over 50 miles a week, weight was mid-170s and my heart rate on the day of the test was 44. In short, I was in really good shape. Therefore, I should have had a normal cholesterol level. Since then as it has been a much more common test, has expanded in-depth and had the addition of triglycerides every time I am tested I run about 240 total cholesterol, 110 LDL-C and 300-400 on my triglycerides. Every doctor who discussed the test with me has ALWAYS recommended AGAINST statins, citing the extremely harmful side effects, especially to me specifically as a CKD stage IV patient. Yet when I read the recently updated KIDGO guidelines (down by the NKF with significant input from the ASN and ACA) they recommend high-intensity statin treatment for non-dialysis patients over 50, without an initial CVD incident who are stage IV. The NKF split with the ACA’s recommendation to lower LDL-C to the target of 70 instead recommending only to monitor levels for about 6 months and as long as total cholesterol and LDl-C had decreased there is no need to monitor further except as a change in cardiovascular health occurs.

I have recently seen both my VA doc and my nephrologist and had the discussion with them about not SGLT2 inhibitors and statins. I am really lucky to have such level headed and practical doctors who really do their research at least for me (probably because they know I read an average of 5/10 published studies a day and if they aren't up to date or haven't seen the latest recommendations on new treatments or other issues relevant to my issues, I give them the info). Both confirmed what I have read in studies from Brazil, Europe, and Isreal that statins may not be the great LDL-C and triglyceride-lowering miracle drugs as touted by big pharma and the ACA. Additionally, and perhaps more importantly the link between hyperlipidemia and direct cause of CVD incidents is not as “direct” as the ACA, the NIH and big-pharma represent. So both were an emphatic”no” to statins FOR ME AND MY SPECIFIC HEALTH ISSUES (caps to emphasize both that this was medical advice for me as a patient and should not be considered medical advice FROM me for the OP or anyone else). Both the AMA and big pharma have huge lobbies that work to heavily influence congress in the US. That results in many beneficial outcomes but leads to drawbacks as well. Specifically, extremely little medical information exists in studies or as opposing views to the guidelines issued by the ACA to use “either statins or high-intensity statins at the highest level tolerated by the patient,” and to lower LDL-C to the recommend target of 70 in all patients. However, with the long period of use of statins, many doctors don't comply with these strict and seemingly all-encompassing guidelines realizing that while there is a concern with hyperlipidemia and it's toll on the cardiovascular system, recommendations should be tailored for specific patients health situations. For those of you not in the USA, our COVID vaccine situation is similar to the “statins for all” issue. We still have only three vaccines approved in the US and really only two are touted by the NIH and the FDA. Those include both mRNA vaccines and the vector JNJ vaccine. Despite a couple of research sites showing better long-term protection by JNJ than the others it rarely is mentioned by our government agencies. Oh and those same agencies while the emphasize the safety of the mRNA vaccines they still won't release the studies by Pizer or Moderna done to ensure their vaccines are safe. Novavax has submitted its request for approval with the FDA (done in January), is approved in nearly 190 countries currently and is based on the 50-year-old protein vaccine technology of our childhood vaccines and hasn't been approved yet (yesterday the FDA said it would discuss this exact issue but not until the June 7th regular meeting...lol!). My point, as much as our politicians love to tell us to listen to the science and the health decisions made by government agencies for us peons are always based only on the science, many times the biggest lobbing interest win out in these decisions and it is not “based on the science.”

The recommendations given by others to you as alternatives to statins are beneficial. The standard recommendations apply watch your diet, exercise regularly, and prescribed Omega 3s all help. However, with the approvals of Farxiga and others and the approval of Jardiance just around the corner as well as further studies showing the continuing benefits of these meds (developed to treat T2D) for CKD patients I wanted to be sure you were aware. I have made the decision to begin Jardiance myself as both doctors agreed it held many more benefits FOR ME than statins and significantly fewer side effects. Finally at my age and with the history of HBP, CKD and hyperlipidemia (though a x-ray and EKG show no signs of any cardiovascular issues) my care team agrees it is to address these comorbidities with pharmaceutical intention. With the recent approval of the SGLT2 inhibitor and their proven properties in helping all of my comorbidities this made the decision FOR ME much easier. Now I hope they work as advertised! Oh and both doctors agreed to support my decision of Jardiance over the others even though not “officially” approved by the FDA yet based on the research we discussed and my reasons why I wanted that specific SGLT2 inhibitor. They will monitor me closely for the next year with the addition of this specific pharmaceutical as recommended by the research and as they should. But both doctors said they would take responsibility if an issue arises with the VA. I am extremely lucky to have a care team who listens and applies common sense to their decisions about MY care! Hope this info adds to the help you have already received! Good luck!

[Marvin8 in reply to Blackknight1989]

A very informative post, Blackknight. Thanks!Btw, I've now asked two nephrologists about taking SGLT-2 inhibitors and they both told me "no" because there is no safety data for those like myself (Stage 3A) who aren't diabetic and who aren't leaking protein in urine. Out of curiosity, what is it about Jardiance that makes it better (for you) than Farxiga? As for your cynicism about the motivations of Pharma, I couldn't agree more.

[Blackknight1989 in reply to Marvin8]

The Jardiance study, or the EMPA study was conducted on CKD patients only with almost half the study participants stage 3 or below and about that number non T2D sufferers. Moreover, there have been additional meta-analysis studies on SGLT2 inhibitors since the approval of Farxiga.

Are you a US resident or UK. If you are a US patient Farxiga has been approved by the FDA for non-T2D patients to treat only the kidney function decline in CKD patients, regardless of protein in the urine. However, the Farxiga study only included patients down to an eGFR reading of 30. Most likely in mid-summer Jardiance will be approved for CKD patients without T2D down to an eGFR reading of 15. The Jardiance study showed the safety and efficacy of it in CKD 4 patients because they were included in the study. Phase 3 trials of the Jardiance study were shut down early due to the success and the FDA emergency classification for expedited approval.

In all studies I have read, it appears for someone with comorbidities of HBP, hyperlipidemia and proteinuria like myself, Jardiance not only provides the kidney protection but helps with lowering cholesterol and triglycerides and reduces the CVD risks of CKD, HBP, and hyperlipidemia. Thus, my choice of Jardiance. I am still in talks with both my primary care and nephrologist as they are reviewing the studies I have given them to be sure I haven’t overlooked any concerns.

I can provide studies if you’d like. I quit quoting and linking as much as it can lead to some confusing reading. Therefore, I will provide studies as you desire. Hope this helps!

[Hidden]

Hi Green306

As it is 10 months since your post, I hope you have found a solution to your statin problem.

If you haven't, perhaps the following may help.

I have experience in bringing down someone's cholesterol many years ago (in the 90's) using information from Dr Robert Kowalski's book, "The 8 week cholesterol cure" .

This person with a high cholesterol reading was a boarder. He had a reading of 9 (don't know what measurement was used) and I asked and he agreed for me to cater a diet for his cholesterol.

I first read a few books from my local library (days before online info was freely available) and believed Kowalski's made the most sense.

The main thing, from memory, was eating oat bran each day (I made lots of muffins), fresh food, and no dairy fats, no butter (I used a substitute butter). Non-fat dairy was okay.

When this 40 year old boarder had his next blood tests (a few months later?), his cholesterol reading had dropped from 9 to 6. He was still on his statins but had never experienced a drop before.

Oh, and he had to have regular liver checks -not sure if the liver checks were due his statin medication.

Anyway, Green306, I wish you the best with your health.