A Cholesterol Guide for Beginners

To explain: My sister asked me about her cholesterol levels. In response, I spent an hour making a presentation.

As you all know, I want to be a medical/health writer. There's something so alluring about communicating health to the greater public. Even the simple, often corny health pamphlets in hospital waiting rooms are so fascinating.

My mom was on the evening news once, talking about breast cancer, and I thought it was the coolest thing ever. I aspire to do something similar someday. 

Correction: I've had a heart attack.

I have to make an important correction to last night's post entitled "Drug Surplus": Putting me on Lipitor, a drug that decreases cholesterol production by inhibiting the enzyme 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase, was the right thing for my endocrinologist to do. The literature approves of the treatment and medication I received. Because I've been reviewing my medical biochemistry notes, I can tell you that HMG-CoA reductase forms 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl from acetyl CoA which is only a few mind boggling steps away from becoming cholesterol--which is bad. Unless it's the good kind (HDL).

But more importantly, I can tell you how I misread the risk assessment flow chart. I thought diabetes was simply a serious additional risk factor for the development of cardiovascular heart disease (CHD). I wish. Our lecturer today--a "diabetologist"--informed our lecture hall that diabetes was equivalent to having a heart attack. This was surprising to me, as I regularly do not grip my chest and yell, "Elizabeth, I'm comin'."

An equally attentive student asked whether type I and type II diabetes were considered equally dangerous in terms of cardiovascular disease. The diabetologist said "yes" and continued on with his lecture. I threw my hands up. Really? I've had a heart attack? Well, in that case, I guess being on Lipitor isn't that bad, because clearly I'm going to die any day now. Imagine having your first heart attack at age 13. Fascinating.

After lecture, a girl in my same row remarked that during one of our clinical correlation anatomy lectures, the doctor had innocuously stated that women with congenital sclerosis were eight times as likely to develop breast cancer. Just rolled right over that. Didn't say much more about it after that. Just thought it would be a fun statistic for everyone to know--not to be tested on it, but to let that information sink in to some of us with the unpleasant likeness of an unwanted guest or a recurrent nightmare.

Ignorance is bliss.

It's like our professors don't realize that while we all want to be physicians, we are also human. It's not just a flaw in the schools of medicine. It's a problem with our society. Doctors need to be flawless. We expect more of them than we expect of our own family members. They need to know everything and they need to tell us everything. They are omniscient, otherwise they aren't worth going back to. In this way, we expect them to be less like traditional professionals and to be more like gods. Unfortunately, they have problems too. I can't say for sure, but I'm guessing about a third of my class went into medicine because they either had a close relationship with a friend or a relative who had a serious illness, or because they themselves had or continue to have a life altering medical condition.

But we're just people. We don't like being reminded of our imperfections. Especially when our imperfections are highly correlated with increased morbidity and mortality, death and disease.

I know we have to know all the intricate details of disease and life and how the one influences the other, but sometimes, just every once in a while, it'd be great if it was understood that we were human and, just like most of humanity, scared of our own passing. So instead of getting widely-believed, sadistic statistics crammed down our throats, perhaps those sadistic statistics could be sugar coated? Not too much, though. Or at least, not too much for me.

I'm diabetic and apparently I have to watch my cholesterol.

Drug Surplus

I am perusing the notes for tomorrow's clinical biochemistry lecture. We are going to be discussing high cholesterol and how to properly assess risk for the condition. I love cholesterol.

Let me tell you why:

High cholesterol runs in my family, on my mother's side (German). My great-grandmother, who passed away recently at the age of 101, lived most of her life with a total cholesterol level greater than 200 mg/dL. The healthy average is around 160 mg/dL. Hypertension runs on my dad's side of the family (Nigerian). His blood pressure was 200/140mm Hg (normal 120/80), before he cut salt out of his diet and it fell back to normal. My generation, a chimeric mix of German and Nigerian traits, is now at a high risk of getting both conditions, which is a well studied recipe for early death.

But so far, at age twenty-two, I'm pretty healthy. My blood pressure has always been normal. I exercise a lot. I am slightly overweight, but that's just because BMI is useless for people afflicted with big bones. My diet is pretty healthy; I eat many more servings of fruits and vegetables than the average American my age. But I am at an "increased risk" for heart disease because I have diabetes mellitus. I still do not understand why I am at an increased risk if I am a type I diabetic. I don't think I've ever been told or have ever read that type I diabetes puts people at an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. So why do I have to worry about my cholesterol?

Well, first, my cholesterol actually was a little high. The first time I can recall being conscious about my cholesterol was when my lipid panel was reviewed by my adult endocrinologist. She immediately put me on Lipitor. At the time I thought whatever would make me healthier, I'd do. As a "lay person," I trusted my physician entirely. When I did my lipid panel screening again, about a half year later, my numbers were lower--they were better--and she kept me on Lipitor. I became suspicious. So I checked my numbers. The lab results always provide a normal range, so I reviewed it. Both times, my numbers were excellent. I mean, not excellent, but they were normal and I was healthy.

So why the Lipitor?

A risk assessment is used to judge whether or not a patient should consider changing their lifestyle (eating, exercising) habits or if they need to be more pro-active and be placed on a drug-enhancing regimen (Lipitor), Diabetes--but they never say which type--is considered a high risk factor. But that's the only risk factor I have. The risk assessment formula says that if I have 0-1 risk factors, my low density lipoprotein (LDL, the bad cholesterol) goal should be: <160 mg/dL. Guess what? It was! HIPPA be damned, I'll tell you what my LDL cholesterol was: 132 mg/dL. If it had been above 160 mg/dL, according to the assessment chart, a lifestyle change would have been recommended. Only at 190 would I need a more intensive pharmaceutical intervention. So why was I put on Lipitor?

Well, it helped. My total cholesterol was 190, my HDL was 43, and my Triglyceride was 77. A year later with Lipitor, my total cholesterol was 195, my triglyceride was 56, as was my HDL. And my LDL was a greatly reduced 128 (sarcasm).

But you know what made me even healthier according to the scale and charts and assessments? First, I gave up on Lipitor after my second lipid panel screening. Why? Because the pharmacy said I didn't have any more prescriptions and I didn't feel like calling my doctor to get me more. Second, I turned twenty-one. And around six months into being twenty-one, I realized that I loved red wine. I also started cooking more often and realized that olive oil is a good substitute for butter in almost everything. At age twenty-two I had another lipid panel screening. This time, my total cholesterol was 167, HDL 64, triglyceride 55, LDL 92.

Hmmm....

I know they're just numbers, but "statistically" I was much healthier.

What am I suggesting? That diabetics be given red wine earlier than age twenty-one? No. Never. Although...

In all seriousness, drugs are great. But they aren't a cure-all. Especially when it's something that can be heavily modulated by simple lifestyle choices. Look at America. There are serious health issues we need to address. But should we prescribe drugs after a problem arises? Or should we try to tell people what they can change in their kitchen and in their lives to make them healthier by their own volition? Drugs are great, and I don't want to argue against their over prescription in America, but when I'm placed on a drug to lower cholesterol, it would be great if I was told how this problem arose and what I can do, myself, to make it better.

Boiled down, what happened to me was simply a problem with patient empowerment. If you give your patients advice that is comprehensive but also understandable, their adherence should be higher, and as a result, they should be healthier. Doctors are important. We need more of them. But perhaps what's even more vital than quantity is quality, specifically as it deals to communication. A patient should know that sometimes, they are their own best medicine.