See All
Preferences
My Communities
My Discussions
My Email Digests

B. I am already on atorvastatin for my cholesterol.View Thread

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pros.22671/abstract
Subscription is needed for full assess, funding is shown; Funded by
- National Cancer Institute. Grant Numbers: R01-CA092579, P50-CA097186
- Dutch Cancer Society. Grant Number: UM 2009-4556
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
- Prostate Cancer Foundation

After eight years, the researchers found that the risk of death from prostate cancer among statin users was one per cent compared with five per cent for non-users
View Thread



A total of 3,277 healthy men without chronic diseases at baseline were included in the analyses. The median total cholesterol concentration at baseline was 6.5 mmol/L (251 mg/dl) (interquartile range 5.8 to 7.3 mmol/L, 224 to 282 mg/dl) and, in 2000, was 5.2 mmol/L (201 mg/dl) (interquartile range 4.6 to 5.9 mmol/L, 178 to 228 mg/dl).
During the follow-up period, 1,773 men (54%) died. A strong and graded relation was found between the cholesterol level and total mortality, with the men with a cholesterol level ≤4 mmol/L (154 mg/dl) having the lowest mortality. In all, the men with the lowest cholesterol gained the most life years. However, no association was found with the cholesterol level in 2000 (when 16% were using statins) and subsequent mortality.
The lowest (≤4 mmol/L) cholesterol value in midlife also predicted a higher score in the physical functioning scale of RAND-36 in old age. In conclusion, a low total cholesterol value in midlife predicts both better survival and better physical functioning in old age.View Thread

The study was published online August 28, 2011 in the European Heart Journal to coincide with the ESC presentation.
ASCOT-LLA and the long-term effects of atorvastatin
The results of ASCOT-LLA were first presented and simultaneously published online in the Lancet in 2003 [2 >. As reported by heartwire , lipid lowering with atorvastatin resulted in a significant 36% reduction in the primary end point of fatal coronary heart disease and nonfatal MI after a median follow-up of 3.3 years. At the time the study was stopped, there was a nonsignificant trend toward reduction in all-cause mortality. Upon completion of ASCOT-LLA, investigators continued to collect mortality data and evaluated the mortality outcomes in participants originally randomized to atorvastatin or placebo in the ASCOT-LLA arm for a median of 11 years.
At the end of the extended follow-up, all-cause mortality was significantly reduced by 14% (hazard ratio [HR> 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.98), and noncardiovascular mortality was significantly reduced by 15% (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73-0.99). There was no difference in death from cardiovascular causes.
Looking more closely at deaths from noncardiovascular causes, investigators found that deaths due to cancer were not statistically significant between those treated with atorvastatin vs placebo. There was, however, a significant 36% reduction in deaths due to infection and respiratory illness (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42-0.97), driven primarily by deaths due to infection.
During the session, Sever noted there are emerging data on the effects of statins on infection, with preclinical studies showing statins modulate neutrophil function, reduce proinflammatory cytokine release, improve vascular function, have antithrombotic properties, and improve outcomes from pneumonia and sepsis. Results of other observational studies have suggested that prior statin use also reduces mortality from sepsis. Despite these observations, Sever said that there is still the possibility of confounding bias in some of the observational studies that have shown a benefit of statins in pneumonia and sepsis and that caution should be used when interpreting such results until a randomized clinical trial is performed.View Thread

The study was published online August 28, 2011 in the European Heart Journal to coincide with the ESC presentation.
ASCOT-LLA and the long-term effects of atorvastatin
The results of ASCOT-LLA were first presented and simultaneously published online in the Lancet in 2003 [2 >. As reported by heartwire , lipid lowering with atorvastatin resulted in a significant 36% reduction in the primary end point of fatal coronary heart disease and nonfatal MI after a median follow-up of 3.3 years. At the time the study was stopped, there was a nonsignificant trend toward reduction in all-cause mortality. Upon completion of ASCOT-LLA, investigators continued to collect mortality data and evaluated the mortality outcomes in participants originally randomized to atorvastatin or placebo in the ASCOT-LLA arm for a median of 11 years.
At the end of the extended follow-up, all-cause mortality was significantly reduced by 14% (hazard ratio [HR> 0.86; 95% CI 0.76-0.98), and noncardiovascular mortality was significantly reduced by 15% (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.73-0.99). There was no difference in death from cardiovascular causes.
Looking more closely at deaths from noncardiovascular causes, investigators found that deaths due to cancer were not statistically significant between those treated with atorvastatin vs placebo. There was, however, a significant 36% reduction in deaths due to infection and respiratory illness (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42-0.97), driven primarily by deaths due to infection.
During the session, Sever noted there are emerging data on the effects of statins on infection, with preclinical studies showing statins modulate neutrophil function, reduce proinflammatory cytokine release, improve vascular function, have antithrombotic properties, and improve outcomes from pneumonia and sepsis. Results of other observational studies have suggested that prior statin use also reduces mortality from sepsis. Despite these observations, Sever said that there is still the possibility of confounding bias in some of the observational studies that have shown a benefit of statins in pneumonia and sepsis and that caution should be used when interpreting such results until a randomized clinical trial is performed.View Thread

Your basic bikes are road and mountain bikes.
The road bikes have skinny tires, 1/2 - 3/4" wide for low rolling resistance on smooth road. Hard seats and low handlebars so that the rider stays low and has less wind resistance. And high gearing for speed.
A mountain bike is made stronger (and heavier) to withstand rough terrain, including jumps, going over logs, etc. Wide knobby tires to grip in dirt and mud. Low gearing for hills. Handle bars shaped for upright riding. And suspensions (shock absorbers).
My hybrid has medium wide tires, but with the center higher and smooth so that it has lower rolling resistance on roads, but the wider park with grip on soft surfaces. Low gearing - we have lots of hills. And a softer seat than a road bike, but no suspension, other than some springs on the seat.
I mostly ride on the roads, but there are lots of places with patches and bumps and some loose gravel. And I ride a couple of bike paths with packed chat.
So I like the hybrid. As in geezerhood bending over for a road bike is not easy.View Thread

And I just got back from 19 mile bike ride, training for 65 mile ride in 4 weeks.View Thread
Women's Health Newsletter
Find out what women really need.
Other Cholesterol Management Information
More Related Communities
The opinions expressed in WebMD User-generated content areas like communities, reviews, ratings, or blogs are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. User-generated content areas are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service, or treatment.
Do not consider WebMD User-generated content as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.
Health Solutions From Our Sponsors
©2005-2013 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.
WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information.



