I take Crestor 10 mg with no side effects. (10 mg Lipitor and 40 mg Pravachol gave me occasional thigh aches, though nothing too bad).

My recent 2-month results on Crestor were generally excellent, but one thing has me a little puzzled and a little concerned. Namely, a decrease in HDL, the "good" cholesterol. Studies by Crestor's manufacturer claim that, on average, it *raises* HDL to a significant amount (I believe it was about 10%, but don't quote me on that figure).

But...my new HDL results were my lowest in years.

I used to have an HDL of about 45 until I lost (and have kept off) 40 pounds five years ago, and since then the HDL has ranged from 56-66 both on and off of meds (I believe the 66 was when I was on Lipitor).

My doctor isn't too concerned since 50 is still pretty good, but I liked consistently seeing the higher readings. Doc thinks that for most people Crestor is a safe, effective, low-side-effect drug -- though with less of a track record than Lipitor. But he also says that contrary to the studies, he has seen other patients' HDL's go down on it, too.

Now, I *have* had some changes in diet in the months preceding the test (probably not good ones despite maintaining my weight), as well as supplement changes (temporarily eliminated calcium and magnesium for reasons I won't go into here). And sometimes one can have a temporary atypical lab result or a temporary atypical med reaction, so the HDL might go right back up.

So I'm going to monitor the trend, but in the meantine I would be very interested in hearing others' HDL trends with Crestor. Thanks in advance.

I've been taking Crestor for about 3 months..MY HDL remained the same (around 60)...LDL went from around 170 to 93 and Total from 250 to 170. I did notice a drop in TRIGS from 100 to 78.

Just Lipitor here but I got a modest 20% HDL increase with it: From 28 to 35.

Rick-Rick,
Have you added Omega-3's at the same time? Rahod posted an interesting study showing an HDL decrease with n-3's! Take a peek.

Just Lipitor here but I got a modest 20% HDL increase with it: From 28 to 35.

Rick-Rick,
Have you added Omega-3's at the same time? Rahod posted an interesting study showing an HDL decrease with n-3's! Take a peek.

That post has been removed do to copyright issues. Anyway, I don't think fish oil resulted in an absolute DECREASE in HDL....it was lower RELATIVE to the increase of HDL with the olive oil.

I don't think there's any question that fish oil can help prevent heart disease. The evidence and countless studies clearly indicate that it does. In fact, in a Consumer Reports article written just last year, it stated that the omega-3 fatty acids "appear to offer as much protection against dying from coronary heart disease as do cholesterol-lowering drugs." Mind you, fish oil generally has very little, if any effect on LDL levels. In fact, in some instances it may increase it slightly. Nevertheless, risk is still lowered regardless of LDL. Oh yeah, I'm growing more and more skeptical every day about all this LDL propaganda. All of this wild-eyed hysteria about "the lower the better" is just a lot of window-dressing to get more people on statins. I think the public is being hoodwinked.

Mind you, fish oil generally has very little, if any effect on LDL levels. In fact, in some instances it may increase it slightly. Nevertheless, risk is still lowered regardless of LDL. Oh yeah, I'm growing more and more skeptical every day about all this LDL propaganda. All of this wild-eyed hysteria about "the lower the better" is just a lot of window-dressing to get more people on statins. I think the public is being hoodwinked.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say "hoodwinked", but it really can be hard to sort out how much medical advice is ultimately driven by profit motivation vs. good science. Fortunately, the former can often produce the latter, but unfortunately it doesn't always work that way.

Actually, your argument that fish oils lower risk independently of impact on LDL isn't all that different than a "side road" that statin makers themselves are headed down, namely that statins may prevent and ameliorate illness and risk largely via mechanisms other than their cholesterol reduction. That's why there are so many studies these days of potential statin benefits on things like harmful inflammation (that one has strong evidence), arterial function, and even cancer and Alzheimers' prevention. But then we come full circle back to economics: more indications = more sales. The drug companies aren't doing this research because they're altruistic. It sure didn't hurt Ace Inhibitor sales when they were demonstrated to have benefits unrelated to their blood-pressure lowering ability; in fact, they're now being taken by many non-hypertensive people.

I have another possible driver for the "lower is better" stuff. This driver isn't as negative as a pure sales motivation would be, but in some ways I don't like it. Namely (and of course this would never be explicitly stated by the guidelines makers): "If we've been trying to get people down to LDL of 100 and haven't been having enough success, say they should be at 75 instead, so that treatment will be more aggressive and they *will* get down to 100." I think the same may apply with blood pressure guidelines, which were again lowered recently ("normal" is now 115/75 instead of 120/80).

Where I believe this tactic is most heavily used -- in my opinion to an insulting degree -- is by the American Diabetes Association and its affiliates. This all started about seven years ago when the cutoff for diabetes diagnosis was lowered from a fasting glucose of 140 mg/dl to 126, so that millions of people who went to bed as nondiabetic individuals woke up the next morning with an "incurable disease".

Then, late last year, the cutoff point for impaired fasting glucose (which in keeping with the "scare you into action" concept was renamed "pre-diabetes" and now "pre-diabetes disease") was lowered from 111 mg/dl to 100 mg/dl. And here there's no drug company motivation involved (or at least it's pretty well hidden), because the ADA specifically recommends *against* use of drugs for pre-diabetes (a dubious reccomendation IMHO, but that's another story).

Yeah, a lot of these drug companies are pretty clever about pawning off their product as being effective against maladies other than what it was approved for by the FDA. Uh, there's something not quite right about this. Take the case of Neurontin, which has only been FDA approved for seizures. But the company which makes this stuff began to claim that it could be used for so many other conditions as well. Salesmen were ORDERED by the company to push this drug for conditions other than what it was approved for, even though it was useless. Finally, a salesman with a conscience blew the whistle about what was going on. I understand he received quite a reward for exposing such a fraud. So, my point is simple: Don't believe everything you hear from these drug companies, and all the claims they make. All they care about is getting as much money from the sale of their product as they possibly can. Beyond that, they don't care if people get hurt in the process. And why should they? All that matters to them is money and power. Unfortunately, they continue to get away with it. It's sick.

Yeah, a lot of these drug companies are pretty clever about pawning off their product as being effective against maladies other than what it was approved for by the FDA. Uh, there's something not quite right about this. Take the case of Neurontin, which has only been FDA approved for seizures. But the company which makes this stuff began to claim that it could be used for so many other conditions as well. Salesmen were ORDERED by the company to push this drug for conditions other than what it was approved for, even though it was useless. Finally, a salesman with a conscience blew the whistle about what was going on. I understand he received quite a reward for exposing such a fraud. So, my point is simple: Don't believe everything you hear from these drug companies, and all the claims they make. All they care about is getting as much money from the sale of their product as they possibly can. Beyond that, they don't care if people get hurt in the process. And why should they? All that matters to them is money and power. Unfortunately, they continue to get away with it. It's sick.

I personally agree with much of what you say, but the fact of the matter is that much "off label" (i.e., no official FDA approval) med usage is extremely effective and beneficial to patients, regardless of the motivations for "pushing" it.

I have a friend who uses Neurontin off-label for Periodic Limb Movements of Sleep and it's been an absolute godsend for him. The other drugs used for PLMS (NONE of which are FDA-approved for it, BTW) helped him, but with terrible side effects that Neurontin thankfully lacks. On the flip side, one of the things Neurontin touted itself for was Social Anxiety Disorder, for which it's actually proven pretty ineffective.

So while Pfizer was very deceptive in bending and flaunting the FDA rules regarding drug promotion and claims -- and thus its penalties were well-deserved -- doctors' off-label usage of a medication is entirely legal, VERY common for some disorders, and can be hugely beneficial when done appropriately. A drug can be highly effective for a given disease, but the drug company still won't go through the expensive process of seeking an FDA "official indication" if they don't think it will pay off profit-wise (e.g., not enough people with the disease... or too many competitors...or there is a newly-discovered use but drug will be going generic soon).

I would agree that in some instances certain drugs can be effectively used for treating conditions other than what it was FDA approved for, providing of course that the company which markets it can support such a claim with scientific data. But such was not the case with Neurontin. The envelope was pushed way too far, and many wild, baseless, off the cuff claims were being made without any evidence to support such use. And I suspect that many exaggerations are still being made today, even in the case of statins. Now we're also being told that they may prevent cancer. Really? All of the studies done with animals proved just the opposite, that it actually increased the risk of cancer. And in at least one study, it was shown that these drugs actually increased a woman's chances of developing breast cancer.

I would agree that in some instances certain drugs can be effectively used for treating conditions other than what it was FDA approved for, providing of course that the company which markets it can support such a claim with scientific data. But such was not the case with Neurontin. The envelope was pushed way too far, and many wild, baseless, off the cuff claims were being made without any evidence to support such use. And I suspect that many exaggerations are still being made today, even in the case of statins. Now we're also being told that they may prevent cancer. Really? All of the studies done with animals proved just the opposite, that it actually increased the risk of cancer. And in at least one study, it was shown that these drugs actually increased a woman's chances of developing breast cancer.

I like to search Medline once in awhile for abstracts of studies on a drug or supplement I'm taking or considering. When I was on Lipitor I found one animal study suggesting that a high dose of Lipitor helped fight cancer by inhibiting cancer-cell growth, while a low dose (which is what most people take) had the opposite effect -- it accelerated tumor growth. :confused:

I believe that an increase in breast cancer was noted in both the CARE and PROSPER trials.

Crestor rarely lowers HDL, it could be a testing anomaly, test it again in a few weeks.
Eat almonds, nuts, etc. Alittle red wine(one a night) if it doesn't return.

"Mind you, fish oil generally has very little, if any effect on LDL levels."

I saw an Aussie study that showed that at 3-8gt level doses....whatever a gt is...that LDL levels tended to increase by 8pts, and tryglycerides tended to lower about 50pts.

I've been taking fairly low doses...3grams a night. However, I now realize that I'm only getting 180 EPA per capsule...and slightly less of the DHA.

I've now located a brand...and ordered it...that has 400 EPA per capsule. They claim to have the highest density EPA DHA of any capsule, and it was the highest I could find.

I figure to take 3-5 of these and get greater benefit than I am now.
mark