3 ms·
> "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 mortali
by virtuallynathan 7y ago
> "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.
- carbocation 7y ago> "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 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1801174
- virtuallynathan 7y ago> 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.