Ivor answered my BOOM comment from my best article on the subject of his Cholesterol 101 podcast.
Revisiting Ivor's Position on LDC and ratios link where I hit Ivor with first boom.
Ivor's answer was
After going over Ivor's response with my son I realized I did not read the 0 squared in green.
This was my mistake and I apologize.
My Alzheimers played a part, I suspect.
It is on me and I thank everyone for their patience with me.
The confusing part was Ivor's reference above was not the original review article he first sent.
Bittencourt review of Sandesara trial link Excerpts:
ONE:
TWO:
THREE:
FOUR:
This is a very confusing sentence in the review. Suddenly they try to extrapolate Sandesara's article on LDLc greater than 190 to Bittencourt, Miname FH study on smaller cohort.
FIVE:
SIX:
SEVEN:
EIGHT:
My big problem with this approach is no regard for the soft plaque that occurs early without CAC positivity.
After 30 years this plaque becomes complex making it resistant to treatment (residual risk) with statin or even PCSK9 in patients with extremely high LDLc to prevent build up of soft plaque. Also there are deaths and events even in those patients with CAC 0.
Ivor's data was obtained from Reference 9 (Miname cohort with 206 patients link)
from Bittencourt review
The Miname reference is not about people with LDLc> 190
It is about 206 patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Miname writes
"Subjects with FH underwent CAC measurement and were followed prospectively."
The original article by Sandesara link:
So the original article does not say it studied FH patients as Ivor's ref 9 says it did.
Different group of patients?
This is the "bait and switch" that really confused me.
My easy to read post of the original Sandesara article link
Excerpts of Sandesara article below:
ONE:
TWO:
THREE:
FOUR:
FIVE:
Revisiting Ivor's Position on LDC and ratios link where I hit Ivor with first boom.
Ivor's answer was
After going over Ivor's response with my son I realized I did not read the 0 squared in green.
This was my mistake and I apologize.
My Alzheimers played a part, I suspect.
It is on me and I thank everyone for their patience with me.
The confusing part was Ivor's reference above was not the original review article he first sent.
Bittencourt review of Sandesara trial link Excerpts:
ONE:
TWO:
THREE:
FOUR:
This is a very confusing sentence in the review. Suddenly they try to extrapolate Sandesara's article on LDLc greater than 190 to Bittencourt, Miname FH study on smaller cohort.
FIVE:
SIX:
SEVEN:
EIGHT:
My big problem with this approach is no regard for the soft plaque that occurs early without CAC positivity.
After 30 years this plaque becomes complex making it resistant to treatment (residual risk) with statin or even PCSK9 in patients with extremely high LDLc to prevent build up of soft plaque. Also there are deaths and events even in those patients with CAC 0.
Ivor's data was obtained from Reference 9 (Miname cohort with 206 patients link)
from Bittencourt review
The Miname reference is not about people with LDLc> 190
It is about 206 patients with Familial Hypercholesterolemia
Miname writes
"Subjects with FH underwent CAC measurement and were followed prospectively."
The original article by Sandesara link:
So the original article does not say it studied FH patients as Ivor's ref 9 says it did.
Different group of patients?
This is the "bait and switch" that really confused me.
My easy to read post of the original Sandesara article link
Excerpts of Sandesara article below:
ONE:
TWO:
THREE:
FOUR:
FIVE:
No comments:
Post a Comment