Episode
When to treat (or not treat) a high cholesterol
- Podcast
- Sensible Medicine
- Published
- Jan 18, 2026
- Duration seconds
- 2391
- Processing state
not_requested- Canonical source
- https://www.sensible-med.com/p/when-to-treat-or-not-treat-a-high
Actions
POST https://stenobird.com/v1/public/podcasts/sensible-medicine-5998897/episodes/when-to-treat-or-not-treat-a-high-cholesterol/transcription-requests
Idempotently request low-priority transcript generation for this episode.GET https://stenobird.com/podcast/sensible-medicine-5998897/when-to-treat-or-not-treat-a-high-cholesterol.md
Read the agent-friendly Markdown representation of this episode resource.
Summary
I was shocked at the comments on this post . Many people, some of them I know to be smart, thought I was nuts for suggesting two middle-aged women who had isolated high LDL-C needn’t take meds because their calculated 10-year risk was less than 3% What shocked me is that our guidelines suggest treatment with statins when 10-year risk is ≥ 7.5%. You may not know this but clinicians are supposed to consider cholesterol (and BP) based on overall risk, which include things like age, blood pressure, smoking status as well as HDL. Here is a link to the PCE. It drives me bananas that clinicians don’t go over this with patients. They just look at LDL-c in isolation. Content like this comes free of industry support. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Experts chose this a 7.5% threshold because they felt it was the point where the absolute risk reduction from statins (about 20-25% relative risk reduction) for nonfatal cardiac events outweighed any potential downsides of statins. It is an arbitrary threshold. The thinking: We know from many RCTs that statins reduce future risk by about 20-25% over 5 years. So .25 x the estimated risk outputs the absolute risk reduction. Let’s say a person has a calculated risk of 10%. They can expect a 2.5% risk reduction (.25 x 10% = 2.5%) over 10 years. But .25 x 3% = .75, so a person with an estimated risk of 3% who takes a daily pill for 10 years goes to 2.25%. That’s not much. Here are some pics of the pushback I recieved: My colleagues rightly point out that atherosclerosis of the coronary arteries is a slow process and longer exposure to lower LDL-c is beneficial. They feel that the 10-year horizon is too short. They cite something called Mendelian randomization studies which find that people who were born with genetic pro…