Total cholesterol and all-cause mortality – a study among 13M adults

Re:Total cholesterol and all-cause mortality – a study among... by virtuallynathan on Sunday June 09, 2019 @11:39AM (#20139884)

> "PCSK9 inhibitors reduce all-cause mortality, and the long-term follow-up of the PCSK9 trials may or may not show the same for cardiovascular specific mortality."

Check the evalocumab trial I posted, ACM was actually slightly worse in the PCSK9 side of the trial.

> "LDL-c is bad. LDL-p (the particle number), LDL size, and ApoB (which is the protein part of LDL) are all very well correlated with LDL-c. So, while some people prefer one measurement or another, they're all proxies for one another."

Yes, this tends to be true, however discordance between them is possible - and generally not a good thing.

> "Cholesterol isn't the only risk factor for cardiovascular disease"

Sure, but I think the whole of the field has rabbit-holed on lipids for too long, ignoring actual causal factors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Total cholesterol and all-cause mortality – a study among... by carbocation on Sunday June 09, 2019 @12:42PM (#20140222)

> "Sure, but I think the whole of the field has rabbit-holed on lipids for too long, ignoring actual causal factors."

LDL cholesterol is by far the best established causal risk factor for coronary artery disease.

> "Check the evalocumab trial I posted, ACM was actually slightly worse in the PCSK9 side of the trial."

All cause mortality was significantly lower in Odyssey: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1801174

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Total cholesterol and all-cause mortality – a study among... by virtuallynathan on Sunday June 09, 2019 @05:10PM (#20141922)

> LDL cholesterol is by far the best established causal risk factor for coronary artery disease.

Is it causal, or is it a risk factor? I'd say at best it is "necessary but not sufficient". CVD risk calculators don't even take LDL-C into account, that's how good of a marker it is.

[ Parent | on HN ]