Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday October 17 2014, @03:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the suppress-creation-vs-remove-production? dept.

ScienceMag reports on a new approach to cholesterol management, and artery-clogging plaque.

A new drug candidate designed to mimic the body’s “good” cholesterol shows a striking ability in mice to lower "bad" cholesterol levels in the blood and dissolve artery-clogging plaques. What’s more, the compound works when given orally, rather than as an injection. If the results hold true in humans—a big if, given past failures at transferring promising treatments from mice—it could provide a new way to combat atherosclerosis, the biggest killer in developed countries.

Currently, statins are the go-to drug for lowering cholesterol. Some of these such as Lipitor (atorvastatin) have become the best selling drugs in history. Patent expirations have kicked in for some of these drugs. The cynical among us are probably already thinking that fact alone explains the research into new drugs to solve the same problem.

However the side effects of statins (see link above) and monitoring necessary with some of these formulas provide their own motivation.

Statins work by reducing production of low-density lipoprotein (LDL), the so called "bad" cholesterol.

The new drug, a peptide that mimics part of high-density lipoprotein (HDL or "good" cholesterol), which sops up LDL and ferry it to the liver where it is eliminated was developed by M. Reza Ghadiri, a chemist at the Scripps Research Institute.

Tested in mice, one group of animals received the peptide intravenously. For another group, the researchers simply added the compound to the animals’ water, a strategy they considered unlikely to work. To their surprise, in both groups, serum cholesterol levels dropped 40% from their previous levels within 2 weeks. And by 10 weeks, the number of artery-clogging lesions had been reduced by half.

It remains to be seen if this effect will persist when tried by humans.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by pnkwarhall on Friday October 17 2014, @05:12PM

    by pnkwarhall (4558) on Friday October 17 2014, @05:12PM (#107082)

    Cholesterol [wikipedia.org] is a chemical naturally produced by **all cells in the body**, because it's necessary for modulating basic cell function. In other words, it's a fundamental part of the body system's homeostasis function. This means that cholesterol-modulating drugs are (functionally) dependence-forming. It's no wonder so much research (and marketing) is invested -- like insulin and nicotine, there's potential for plenty of long-term profits.

    Like Khallow pointed out [soylentnews.org], healthcare costs (as a share of total GDP) have shown an average trend of continual growth (nonwithstanding US-based factors like profit-corrupted insurance coverage and aging-Boomer ratios) in many developed parts of the world. A simple explanation would be that a lot of that money is being spent on a proliferation of maintenance-treatment-based drugs to treat **the symptoms** of aging (or a life-time of poor body maintenance), in order to prolong life and quality of life.

    To me, this seems like a corruption. Instead of educating ourselves, and continually applying ourselves to learning how to expand our lifespans based on natural, non-chemical-dependence-inducing means, we just pay out the ass for the "privilege" to live however we want and fix the problems those lifestyles* cause by spending the latter part of our lives addicted to Life-extension drugs.

    In this context, "who's gonna pay for it?" becomes a very meaningful question.
    --
    *I do think genetics also play a heavy role here.

    --
    Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
    • (Score: 2) by skullz on Friday October 17 2014, @05:33PM

      by skullz (2532) on Friday October 17 2014, @05:33PM (#107093)

      So, you would be willing to pay for much better public health services and public health education and not need the drug altogether?

      • (Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Friday October 17 2014, @05:52PM

        by pnkwarhall (4558) on Friday October 17 2014, @05:52PM (#107099)

        I think a great use of tax revenue would be for __basic__ health services and public health education, yes -- theoretically. Unfortunately, human nature, the current cultural context, and high degree of influence from profit-seeking entities would, in reality, undermine both the:

        a) specific definition of those services, especially w/r/t accepting and embracing the natural life-span (quantitative and qualitative) of individuals
        b) efficient, value-driven use of the funds

        --
        Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
        • (Score: 2) by carguy on Friday October 17 2014, @06:16PM

          by carguy (568) on Friday October 17 2014, @06:16PM (#107111)

          On a slightly less pessimistic tone, I seem to meet more and more people who are controlling cholesterol with sensible diet and lifestyle. I don't have a very good sample of the population as a whole, but it does seem like trend. Along the same lines, local supermarkets are increasing the size of their produce and organic sections, which must be reacting to some demand from the customers.

          • (Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Friday October 17 2014, @11:26PM

            by pnkwarhall (4558) on Friday October 17 2014, @11:26PM (#107191)

            I appreciate the optimistic input! It makes me interested to know: What is the motivating factor for the trend? (your personal opinion is welcome, no citation needed :) )

            --
            Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
            • (Score: 2) by carguy on Saturday October 18 2014, @01:03AM

              by carguy (568) on Saturday October 18 2014, @01:03AM (#107224)

              Here are a few factors that could support a trend toward avoiding cholesterol drugs (could also extend to many types of prescription drugs) -- but all very anecdotal --
                * increasing distrust of big pharma products; becoming aware of the influence drug sales reps have on doctors
                * word of mouth (still the best kind of "advertizing") from someone that has been successful with diet and lifestyle
                * strong reactions/side effects from the drug

    • (Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Friday October 17 2014, @06:21PM

      by Adamsjas (4507) on Friday October 17 2014, @06:21PM (#107113)

      Quote: cholesterol-modulating drugs are (functionally) dependence-forming.

      I googled, but I couldn't find any sourcce for that.
      Do you have a citation?

      Is this like the life long dependency that comes about from supplying amputees with artificial legs?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @08:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 17 2014, @08:03PM (#107133)

        Google has the answer; so it must be true. Vice-versa. Poor poor netfreek; no answers for you. Use your brain for a change.

        Oh and to all those do gooders out there. NO YOU CAN"T PUT IT IN OUR DRINKING WATER!

      • (Score: 1) by pnkwarhall on Friday October 17 2014, @11:22PM

        by pnkwarhall (4558) on Friday October 17 2014, @11:22PM (#107188)

        As AC noted in a snarkier way -- It's a logical conclusion. It is rooted in two assumptions:

        1) that long-term unhealthy diet'n'exercise choices were the primary contributor to the "bad" cholesterol levels*
        2) that "bad" cholesterol levels are a symptom, not the root problem itself

        Your LDL and HDL levels are a metric-based feedback signal, for you and your doctor, and a previous poster noted a trend of successfully "controlling cholesterol" with diet'n'exercise ("sensible lifestyle") choices. People are motive-driven, problem-solving creatures.

        Draw your own conclusions about why cholesterol-altering drugs would be **functionally** dependence-forming.
        --
        *Again, not saying that genetics don't play a role here, especially in how quickly your cholesterol levels (i.e. major 'body's homeostasis factor') get out of wack due to age and environment.

        --
        Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
        • (Score: 2) by Adamsjas on Monday October 20 2014, @06:08PM

          by Adamsjas (4507) on Monday October 20 2014, @06:08PM (#107900)
          feedback signals to your doctor.....? Wow, how does something like that even evolve? Imagine the prescience of developing something that will kill millions until the species comes up with doctors. Amazing. Yours is a young mans opinion. You will change it. It will just take time.
          • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Monday October 20 2014, @11:03PM

            by pnkwarhall (4558) on Monday October 20 2014, @11:03PM (#108013)

            You may be right about my "young man's opinion" about the societal value of drugs like this. However, it's also likely that our difference of opinion is rooted in you wanting to live in a different type of society than me.

            --
            Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven