One cardiologist's mission to reduce statin use for cholesterol

Dr. Elizabeth Klodas is a practicing cardiologist in Minneapolis and the creator of Step One Foods. This piece represents her views and not necessarily those of CNN.
 (CNN)High
 cholesterol?  Here's a pill.  High blood pressure?  Here's two pills. 
High blood sugar?  Here's two pills and an injection.  This is what many doctors routinely do without ever addressing why the cholesterol, blood pressure or blood sugar is abnormal in the first place.
I
 used to practice this way until I realized that all I was doing was 
covering up the downstream effects of poor diet with a bunch of drugs, 
instead of changing the food.
I
 am a practicing cardiologist. I trained at some of the finest medical 
institutions in the world, including Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins, and 
have been repeatedly recognized for great patient care.  But what I 
really want to achieve professionally is to put myself out of work.
Unfortunately,
 cardiologists have endless job security.  And that's because we're 
treating the wrong thing. My waiting room was full of patients whose 
numbers I had made perfect but who still looked sick and felt terrible. 
Some even felt worse with all the drugs I had put them on.  No cures, 
just a neverending revolving door of follow-up visits.  This is not why I
 went to medical school.
Yet
 no one seemed to be doing anything about this or even acknowledging it.
 So I became obsessed with finding a better solution and founded a 
company that formulates foods to help lower cholesterol, backed by 
pharmaceutical-level science.
There
 may be 30,000 food items in the average grocery store, but none of them
 has been subjected to any real scientific scrutiny. They bear all sorts
 of checkmarks and heart symbols, but that tells only part of the story.
  For example, a cereal might contain fiber -- and boldly tout the 
ability of this nutrient to lower cholesterol -- but the fine print 
reveals that a serving of the cereal also delivers the added sugar 
equivalent of three cookies. Any positive health effect of the fiber is 
completely negated. But how is the average consumer supposed to know 
this?  They're not. They're just supposed to like the taste and feel 
good about buying that cereal.  My patients may have been trying to "eat
 better," but they were getting duped.
Two decades ago, the National Institutes of Health cholesterol guidelines
 mandated that changing diet should be tried for three months as the 
first step in treating high cholesterol, before putting anyone on drugs.
 But today, many of my peers expressed skepticism that a food-based 
solution could work. 
It took more 
than 80,000 hours of training for me to become a cardiologist.  How much
 of that time was spent on nutrition?  Zero. 
Treatment guidelines, representing the 
standard of care, only pay lip service to nutrition.  For example, the 
American Heart Association's latest cholesterol management guideline is 120 pages long.
  How much of that is devoted to diet?  One paragraph. The guideline 
mostly instructs providers on which patient to put on which drug and at 
what dose. Children as young as 10, according to the guidelines, can be 
started on statin medications such as Lipitor and Crestor.
In
 addition, physicians know only the prescription model. They are taught 
that the only truly valid proof of efficacy is a clinical trial and that
 everything else is conjecture. That's why pharma rules, even though the
 literature is full of data about the health benefits of various foods. 
Food does not have "dosing data."
Did
 you know that doctors are monitored according to whether they prescribe
 medications? If I don't follow the cholesterol guidelines by 
prescribing statins, insurers will send letters scolding me. If I don't 
talk to you about the cholesterol-lowering effects of walnuts and oat 
bran, nobody cares.
Physicians even get paid more when a drug is prescribed. A medical encounter that generates a prescription is considered more complex, which qualifies for higher reimbursement. In contrast, if a physician uses some of the very limited time with patients to talk about antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids, they get nothing more.
Physicians even get paid more when a drug is prescribed. A medical encounter that generates a prescription is considered more complex, which qualifies for higher reimbursement. In contrast, if a physician uses some of the very limited time with patients to talk about antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids, they get nothing more.
My solution is to 
give physicians, insurers and especially patients an alternative 
food-based option for cholesterol lowering that could compete with drugs
 on every level.  These foods taste great and are formulated using only 
health-promoting ingredients.  They are dosed and measured and as easy 
to prescribe and use as medications.  Most important, they yield 
clinically meaningful cholesterol reductions as confirmed by a clinical 
trial.
Given that 70 million 
Americans have high cholesterol, I approached big food companies and 
investors, naively thinking they would love my idea and want to help. 
They did not. Food manufacturers thought our ingredients (such as real 
almonds, walnuts, pecans and blueberries) were too expensive. They 
wanted to replace them with flavorings, artificial sweeteners and "fruit
 bits." Investors thought the clinical trial we proposed doing to 
confirm efficacy was too uncertain.  They told us we needed to have 
patents so we could charge prices like the pharmaceutical companies. No 
wonder this had never been done before.  There was simply not enough 
profit in it.  Patient health, it seems, is not very valuable.
Undeterred,
 my supporters and I pushed forward and, supported by grant funding, 
conducted a trial in two countries testing our foods in statin 
intolerant individuals. These were people who are candidates for statin 
drugs but either can't or won't take the medications due to side 
effects, such as muscle aches. The only instruction to the study 
participants was: "Eat these foods twice per day instead of something 
you're eating already," without making any other lifestyle changes.  
Literally as simple as "take this pill twice per day."
The result was that 20%, 30%, even close to 40% cholesterol reductions were found in many individuals
 in just 30 days. This data was submitted at an American Heart 
Association meeting and will be submitted for publication. These 
medication-level cholesterol responses were obtained with food, without 
the need for dietary overhauls or exercise routines. They don't just 
represent an option for the estimated 20 million Americans who are 
statin intolerant and have no other solutions but for millions more who 
need to lower their cholesterol but don't need stains.
Get CNN Health's weekly newsletter 
Sign up here to get The Results Are In with Dr. Sanjay Gupta every Tuesday from the CNN Health team.
As
 with medications, not everyone's cholesterol will respond equally to a 
food intervention. Some people should be on statins even if their 
cholesterol is perfect.  But given that it takes only a month of dietary
 change to determine whether you're a food responder, doesn't it make 
sense to give people the chance to at least try a validated food 
intervention before assigning them to a lifetime of pills?
Especially since food doesn't have any side effects, just side benefits such as lower blood pressure, better blood sugar control, weight loss and feeling better.
Especially since food doesn't have any side effects, just side benefits such as lower blood pressure, better blood sugar control, weight loss and feeling better.
Food is the 
comprehensive solution to a complex problem.  And it just might put me 
-- and pharmaceutical companies -- out of business.


No comments:
Post a Comment