The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
there are other adjunctive diagnostics now you earlier we briefly alluded to coronary calcium scoring lp little a they would be things that current guidelines says use if you're hammond or horn should i give a statin should i not or the patient i don't want to take it at least do a cac at least do an lp little a
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
but they do allow more room now for the borderline intermediate risk to consider these risk enhancing factors of which apob and light particle a are some of them but I also was really pleased that they've acknowledged these female specific factors that we'll talk more about early menopause and adverse pregnancy outcomes like preeclampsia and so the presence of these risk enhancers and those of borderline intermediate risk would favor the initiation of statins