AstraZeneca's pill cuts cholesterol, offers convenient treatment
AstraZenca is testing a once-daily PCSK9 inhibitor, currently known as AZD0780. After 12 weeks of use alongside standard statin therapy, the pill reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or what is known as 'bad' cholesterol, by 50.7%, according to data presented at the American College of Cardiology's Annual Scientific Session in Chicago.
Notably, 84% of patients who took the pill achieved the recommended cholesterol level, compared to just 13% of those on statins alone.
MAHA: Are Americans paying attention to RFK Jr.'s push to ban food dyes?
The pill was well-tolerated by patients in the clinical trial, with side effects comparable to those who took a placebo.
High levels of LDL cholesterol are a key risk factor in strokes and heart attacks.
AstraZeneca is competing with a similar drug from Merck, which targets the same PCSK9 protein. However, Merck's pill requires fasting for at least eight hours before use, Bloomberg reports, while AstraZeneca's doesn't.
AstraZeneca believes its drug is better suited in 'combination' with other medications.
AstraZeneca's pill could offer a more convenient and affordable alternative to PCSK9 injections like Amgen's Repatha and Regeneron's Praluent.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
24 minutes ago
- Forbes
More Than 60% Of Americans Worry About Healthcare Costs—Here's How To Prepare
Editorial Note: We earn a commission from partner links on Forbes Advisor. Commissions do not affect our editors' opinions or evaluations. For many Americans, the rising cost of healthcare isn't just a budgeting concern—it's a source of stress. According to KFF, a prominent health policy group, approximately six in ten U.S. adults say they're very or somewhat worried about affording medical care, including filling needed prescriptions and the cost of long-term care. These financial fears aren't unfounded. The cost of medical care continues to climb, insurance premiums are far from cheap and, even with coverage, you can still face high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. For some, the financial burden is so overwhelming that it affects their decision even to seek care in the first place. Imagine needing treatment for something as common as a sinus infection—or facing a serious procedure—and feeling overwhelmed not by the diagnosis, but by the potential cost of getting care. The same KFF data from July 2025 revealed that approximately one-third of adults (36%) put off seeking care in the past year because of the cost. And, when medical bills pile up, the consequences can be long-lasting. About 17% of adults with healthcare debt say they've been contacted by a collection agency. Some have cut back on food, utilities or other necessities to stay afloat, while others have racked up credit card debt or taken out loans to keep up with medical payments. With a healthcare system so costly and complex, many Americans are asking the same question: How can I prepare for these expenses before they hit? Healthcare in America isn't guaranteed—for some, it can feel more like a luxury. If your employer doesn't offer health benefits, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allows you to buy insurance on your own—but premiums can run several hundred dollars every month. In 2024, the average monthly premium for an ACA health plan without subsidies was approximately $477. While you may qualify for tax credits that can lower the cost, if you don't, it can make basic coverage feel out of reach. A straightforward way to prepare for healthcare costs is to set aside money for potential expenses in a separate savings account . It won't fix all the problems with healthcare costs, but having that cushion can help take the sting out of large bills, which can include deductibles, copays and other out-of-pocket costs. It might even help you avoid debt if something unexpected comes up. For example, Synchrony Bank High Yield Savings offers 3.80% APY and requires no minimum deposit. Let's say you start with $1,000 and add $200 a month for a year—you'd end up with about $3,400 in savings, thanks to interest. A savings account doesn't just grow your money a little over time; it also helps you build a habit. It's a simple way to set money aside each month instead of spending it, and before you know it, you've built a little safety net with minimal effort. Another option is CIT Bank Platinum Savings , which offers a whopping 4.00% APY if you maintain balances of $5,000 or more and deposit an initial $100. If you've got some extra money set aside, this could be a great way to grow your savings a little faster. Healthcare costs in America remain a major concern for millions, and the financial impact of getting sick can be just as daunting as the illness itself. With more than 60% of people worried about affording care, proactive financial planning is no longer optional—it's essential. Building a dedicated savings account for medical expenses won't solve every problem, but it can ease the pressure, offer peace of mind and give you options when you need them most. As healthcare costs continue to rise, the best thing you can do today might just be setting a little aside for tomorrow.
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
Healthy Returns: Medicare, Medicaid will reportedly pilot covering obesity drugs – a potential win for drugmakers
For once, the Trump administration may be giving some drugmakers a reason to celebrate. The Trump administration is planning to experiment with covering costly weight loss drugs under Medicare and Medicaid, the Washington Post reported on Friday. That plan could expand access to millions of Americans with obesity who can't currently afford Novo Nordisk's Wegovy and Eli Lilly's Zepbound, blockbuster GLP-1 drugs that cost around $1,000 per month before insurance. In a statement to CNBC about the plan, the Department of Health and Human Services said all drug coverages undergo a "cost-benefit review." The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services "does not comment on potential models or coverage," the department added. The reported plan – if it ultimately takes effect – would be a huge win for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and many Americans. Spotty insurance coverage of obesity drugs remains the biggest barrier to access for patients – and it's choking broader uptake and revenue growth for the two pharmaceutical giants. Many health plans, including Medicare, cover GLP-1s for treatment of diabetes, but not obesity. Medicaid coverage of obesity drugs is limited and varies by state, according to health policy research organization KFF. But it's important to remember that this plan isn't exactly new. In November, the Biden administration proposed having Medicare and Medicaid cover obesity treatments, which would have extended access to roughly 3.4 million Medicare beneficiaries and about 4 million Medicaid recipients. The proposal was controversial at the time, as it would cost taxpayers as much as $35 billion over the next decade, a congressional analysis found. The Trump administration dropped that proposal in April, but said it could reconsider coverage of those drugs in the future. Let's get into what the newest reported iteration of the plan looks like. Under the Trump administration's reported pilot plan, state Medicaid programs and Medicare Part D plans would be able to voluntarily choose to cover Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound for patients for "weight management" purposes. That's according to several Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services documents obtained by the Post. The plan is expected to start in April 2026 for Medicaid and January 2027 for Medicare plans, the Post reported. It's unclear how exactly the plan will play out, Jared Holz, Mizuho health care equity strategist, said in a note to clients on Friday. Holz said he expects the government to put some coverage parameters in place related to factors like age, body weight, body mass index and other comorbidities, or coexisting chronic health conditions. He also said the pricing of the drugs will be a "major consideration." Holz said he expects the government to pay less than the current list prices of drugs. But having that coverage would expand access and could help drive higher sales volumes, he noted. Another factor to consider is how much the government is willing to crack down on so-called compounding pharmacies, which are allowed in rare cases to sell cheaper, unapproved versions of GLP-1s. The pharmaceutical industry fiercely opposes those knock-off GLP-1s, as their safety and efficacy aren't vetted by regulators and they are, in some cases, illegally sold at scale. Holz said the industry's complaints to the government about compounded GLP-1s have so far "not been met with a widespread shut-down." But overall, Holz said the Trump administration's reported willingness to consider covering obesity drugs is "a slight positive as far as industry sentiment." It's definitely a breath of fresh air for Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk and other drugmakers – including Amgen, Roche, AstraZeneca and Pfizer – that are hoping to bring their own obesity drugs to market. The last six months have been anything but smooth for the broader industry: The Trump administration has ratcheted up calls for drugmakers to lower U.S. drug prices, overhauled federal health agencies and could impose sweeping tariffs on pharmaceuticals imported into the country any day now. We'll keep watching to see whether this plan gets implemented, so stay tuned for our coverage! Feel free to send any tips, suggestions, story ideas and data to Annika at After reporting its second straight earnings miss and guidance cut, UnitedHealth Group completed its executive sweep by replacing CFO John Rex. Executives on the earnings call admitted to mis-execution in Medicare Advantage and pledged to get back to profitability and win back investor trust. Nearly two years ago it was CVS Health under pressure, after profits in the company's Aetna health insurance division were torpedoed by low Medicare Advantage Star quality ratings. This week, CVS beat and raised its outlook on the strength of its MA program. CEO David Joyner, now one year into the job, told me he feels good about the turnaround at Aetna and its Medicare business. On top of that, the company saw market share gains in its stores, thanks in part to winning over Rite Aid customers. Humana, similarly, has seen progress on its turnaround, but CFO Celeste Mellet told me that all insurers are grappling with pricing plans for next year amid high medical costs. One big cost driver right now, Mellet told CNBC, is oncology drugs, as some expensive therapies are now being used in combination. The next moment of truth for the Medicare Advantage players will come over the next six weeks – when they'll learn the fate of their Star ratings for 2026 plans. Long-time health-care executive Dr. Marc Harrison has stepped down as CEO of General Catalyst's Health Assurance Transformation Company, or HATCo, and has moved into a strategic advisor role, CNBC has confirmed. The venture capital firm brought in Harrison and announced the formation of HATCo in 2023. In a release at the time, General Catalyst said the company would work closely with health system partners, and that it would eventually acquire and operate its own health system. Months later, HATCo announced its plans to buy Summa Health, a nonprofit integrated health system in northeast Ohio. Under its new structure, Summa would become a for-profit organization, and General Catalyst said it would introduce new tech-enabled solutions that aim to make care more accessible and affordable. Buying a health system is an unprecedented move in the venture industry, and the deal wasn't well received by some members of the Ohio community. Hundreds signed a petition urging Summa to remain a nonprofit and to halt negotiations with HATCo. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost conditionally approved the deal in June, though he outlined a number of "enforceable commitments" as part of the agreement. HATCo will have to notify the Attorney General of transactions that could trigger antitrust concerns for 10 years after the deal closes, for instance. Harrison went to medical school in the late 1980s and has spent most of his career within health systems, most recently as CEO of Intermountain Healthcare. General Catalyst told CNBC that Harrison will continue to provide the firm's CEO, Hemant Taneja, with clinical insights and will remain connected to its ecosystem in his new role. "It became increasingly clear to both Marc and to us that Marc's role would best be accomplished as a strategic advisor to Hemant Taneja as we bring that ambition and vision to life," a General Catalyst spokesperson said. Daryl Tol, the head of General Catalyst's Health Assurance Ecosystem, was promoted to president of HATCo, the spokesperson said. He will spearhead the firm's day-to-day- work with Summa Health leadership. General Catalyst has also appointed Kate Walsh, the former Massachusetts Secretary of Health and Human Services, to HATCo's board. In addition, she will serve as the chair of the board at Summa Health once the transaction closes. "We are grateful for Marc's leadership and collaboration as co-founder and CEO to help get us to this point in the evolution of HATCo, and we look forward to leveraging his invaluable perspective as we continue to progress," the spokesperson said.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
This One Test Will Tell You More About Your Heart Attack Risk
A long list of Lynda Hollander's paternal relatives had heart disease, and several had undergone major surgeries. So when she hit her mid-50s and saw her cholesterol levels creeping up after menopause, she said, 'I didn't want to take a chance.' A cardiologist told Hollander that based on factors like age, sex, cholesterol, and blood pressure, she faced a moderate risk of a major cardiac event, like a heart attack, within the next 10 years. Doctors typically counsel such patients about the importance of diet and exercise, but Hollander, now 64, a social worker in West Orange, New Jersey, didn't have much room for improvement. She was already a serious runner, and although 'I fall off the wagon once in a while,' her diet was basically healthy. Attempts to lose weight didn't lower her cholesterol. Her doctor explained that a coronary artery calcium test, something Hollander had never heard of, could provide a more precise estimate of her risk of atherosclerotic heart disease. A brief and painless CT scan, it would indicate whether calcifications and plaque were developing in the arteries leading to her heart. When plaque ruptures, it can cause clots that block blood flow and trigger heart attacks. The scan would help determine whether Hollander would benefit from taking a statin, which could reduce plaque and prevent more from forming. 'The test is used by more people every year,' said Michael Blaha, co-director of the preventive cardiology program at Johns Hopkins University. Calcium scans quadrupled from 2006 to 2017, his research team reported, and Google searches for related terms have risen even more sharply. Yet 'it's still being underused compared to its value,' he said. One reason is that although the test is comparatively inexpensive — sometimes up to $300, but often $100 or less — patients usually must pay for it out-of-pocket. Medicare rarely covers it, though some doctors argue that it should. Patients with a CAC score of zero — no calcification — have lower risk than their initial assessments indicate and aren't candidates for cholesterol-lowering drugs. But Hollander's score was in the 50s — not high but not negligible. 'It was the first indication of what was going on inside my arteries,' she said. Though guidelines vary, cardiologists generally offer statins to patients with calcium scores over zero, and suggest higher intensity statins when scores exceed 100. At over 300, patients' risks approach those of people who've already had heart attacks; they may need still more aggressive treatment. Hollander has taken a low dose of rosuvastatin (brand name: Crestor) ever since, supplemented by a non-statin drug, a shot called evolocumab (Repatha). This is the way calcium testing is supposed to work. It's not a screening test for everyone. It's intended only for selected asymptomatic patients, ages 40 to 75, who have never had a heart attack or a stroke and are not already on cholesterol drugs. The test helps answer a pointed question: to statin, or not to statin. If a doctor calculates the 10-year risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease at 5 percent or lower, drugs are unnecessary for now. Over 20 percent, 'there's no doubt the risk is sufficiently high to justify medication,' said Philip Greenland, a preventive cardiologist at Northwestern University and co-author of a recent review in JAMA. 'It's the in-between range where it's more uncertain,' he said, including 'borderline' risk of 5 percent to 7.5 percent and 'intermediate' risk of 7.5 percent to 20 percent. Why add another measurement to these assessments, which already incorporate risk factors like smoking and diabetes? 'A risk score is derived from a large population, with mathematical modeling,' Blaha explained. 'We can say that this score describes the risk of heart disease among thousands of people. But there are lots of limitations in applying them to one individual.' A calcium scan, however, produces an image of one individual's arteries. Alexander Zheutlin, a cardiology fellow and researcher at Northwestern University, shows patients their images, so that they can see the lighter-colored calcifications. Cardiologists tend to be fans of calcium testing, because they so regularly encounter patients who are reluctant to take statins. People who feel fine may hesitate to start drugs they'll take for the rest of their lives, despite statins' proven history of reducing heart attacks, strokes, and cardiac deaths. In 2019, a survey of almost 5,700 adults for whom statin therapy was recommended found that a quarter were not in treatment. Of those, 10 percent had declined a statin and 30 percent had started and then discontinued, primarily citing fear of side effects. An American College of Cardiology expert consensus report recently put the rate of muscle pain, statin users' most common complaint, at 5 percent to 20 percent. Researchers consider the fear of side effects overblown, citing studies showing that reports of muscle pain were comparable whether patients took statins or placebos. 'The actual risk is much, much lower than the perceived risk,' Zheutlin said. That may be little comfort to people who are in pain, but cardiologists argue that reducing doses or switching to different statins usually solves the problem. Some patients will do better on a non-statin cholesterol drug. Hollander, for example, suffered 'muscle cramps that would wake me up at night.' Her doctor advised fewer doses, so Hollander now takes Crestor three days a week and self-injects Repatha twice monthly. (Statins also carry a very low risk of a dangerous condition, rhabdomyolysis, that causes muscle breakdown, and they slightly increase the chance of diabetes.) Some caveats: No one has undertaken a randomized clinical trial to show whether calcium testing eventually reduces heart attacks and cardiac deaths. That's why, although several professional associations endorse calcium scans to help determine treatment, the independent U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has called the current evidence 'insufficient' to recommend widespread use. Such a trial would be expensive and difficult to mount, with many confounding variables. And pharmaceutical companies aren't eager to underwrite one, since a successful result could mean that patients with zero scores avoid cholesterol drugs altogether. But a recent Australian study of asymptomatic patients with family histories of coronary artery disease found that, after three years, those who had undergone calcium scans had a sustained reduction in cholesterol and a significantly lower risk of heart disease than those who had not been tested. The test 'leads to more statin prescriptions, better adherence to statins, less progression of atherosclerosis, and less plaque growth,' Greenland said of the study, in which he was not involved. Another concern: people age 75 and older. Most will have arterial plaque, making a scan's benefit 'less clear-cut,' said Zheutlin, lead author of a recent JAMA Cardiology article pointing out that CAC testing can be both overused and underused. Because older adults face more chronic diseases and medical issues, cholesterol-lowering may become a lower priority. A study now enrolling participants over 75 should answer some questions about statins, calcium scans, and dementia in a few years. Meanwhile, cardiologists see calcium scans as a persuasive tool. 'It's incredibly frustrating,' Zheutlin said. With statins, 'we have cheap, safe, effective drugs available at any pharmacy' that help prevent heart attacks. If CAC test results prove more influential than traditional risk assessments alone, he said, more patients might agree to take them. A calcium scan helped Stephen Patrick, 70, a retired tech executive in San Francisco, reach that point. 'For years, I was borderline on cholesterol, and I managed to beat it back with less cheese toast' and lots of exercise, he said. 'I was on no meds, and I took pride in that.' Last fall, with both his total and his LDL cholesterol higher than recommended, his doctor suggested a calcium scan. His score: 176. He's taking atorvastatin (Lipitor) daily, and his cholesterol levels have dropped dramatically. 'I might have tried it anyway,' he said. 'But the calcium score meant I had to pay more attention.' The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF. The post This One Test Will Tell You More About Your Heart Attack Risk appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
