Tackling bad cholesterol levels with statins may reduce dementia risk
Statins are one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the UK, with around seven to eight million people taking them to cut their chance of heart attack and stroke.
Now new research suggests they may have more benefits.
Experts found that people who have low levels of 'bad' cholesterol in their blood have a reduced risk of dementia, including Alzheimer's disease.
And use of statins was found to have 'additional protective effects'.
Statins are a group of medicines that can help lower the level of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol in the blood.
LDL cholesterol (LDL- C) is often referred to as 'bad cholesterol' and can cause plaque to build in arteries, leading to cardiovascular disease, which can increase the chance of strokes, heart attacks and death.
Are you aged over 40 and haven't had a cholesterol test in the past 5 years?
High cholesterol often doesn't have symptoms, but it can increase your risk of heart problems or stroke.
Take control of your health and get your cholesterol checked today! 💙#StrokePreventionDay pic.twitter.com/aEYVms6foA
— North East and North Cumbria NHS (@NENC_NHS) January 30, 2025
Researchers from South Korea said their findings 'underscore the crucial role of managing LDL- C in lowering dementia risk'.
Experts examined health data on more than 570,000 people in South Korea.
The NHS says that people should aim for bad cholesterol levels in the blood to be below 4mmol/L (millimoles per litre).
Researchers found that people whose LDL cholesterol levels were below 1.8 mmol/L had a 26% reduced risk of dementia and a 28% reduced risk in Alzheimer's compared to those who have LDL cholesterol levels above 3.4 mmol/L.
Statin use appeared to have additional protection against dementia in the presence of low LDL cholesterol levels.
Among people with LDL cholesterol levels below 1.8 mmol/L, statin use was linked to a 13% reduction in dementia risk and a 12% decrease in risk of Alzheimer's disease compared with non-users.
'These findings emphasise the importance of targeted LDL- C management as part of dementia prevention strategies, with potential integration into clinical guidelines,' the authors wrote in the Journal of Neurology Neurosurgery and Psychiatry.
'The results support the use of statin therapy within specific LDL- C ranges for both cardiovascular and cognitive health benefits.'
They added: 'This insightful understanding of how statin use interacts with LDL- C levels emphasises the need for personalised statin prescriptions, focusing on achieving LDL- C levels that offer the maximum cognitive benefits.'
Commenting on the study, Dr Julia Dudley, head of research at Alzheimer's Research UK, said: 'This large study looked at patient records for levels of LDL cholesterol and the risk of dementia, it also examined those patients who were on statins.
'It found that those people with lower LDL levels had a reduced risk of dementia.
'The use of statins seemed to offer a protective effect – even in those who already had cholesterol levels within a lower range.
'However, dementia risk is complex and influenced by many factors. Without a detailed picture of what's going on in the brain we do not know if there is a direct link between lower cholesterol and reduced dementia risk. Clinical trials will be key to understand what effects statins might be having on disease processes in the brain.
'In the meantime, keeping our hearts healthy remains one of the most effective ways we can protect our brain health. If you have any concerns about your cholesterol levels, you should speak to your GP.'
Dr Richard Oakley from the Alzheimer's Society added: 'Dementia risk is complicated and determined by several factors including genetics, lifestyle, and the environment.
'This study adds to our understanding by showing the strong connection between heart and brain health. Simply put, what is good for the heart is good for the head.'
He added: 'This is an ever-evolving topic, and more targeted research and trials are needed to understand whether statins can help protect the brain. However, it is crucial to talk to your GP before making any changes to your medication'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Senate panel rejects Trump cuts to NIH, other health agencies
The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected the Trump administration's massive proposed funding cut to the National Institutes of Health, advancing a measure that would increase the agency's budget by $400 million. The White House budget called for slashing NIH by $18 billion, a decrease of 40 percent. Instead, the committee advanced the bill on a 26-3 vote, delivering a bipartisan rebuke of the administration's efforts to defund medical research. 'This committee has had multiple hearings over the last several months and heard from patients, families and researchers about the importance of NIH funding,' said Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.). 'This committee has, in a bipartisan manner, prioritized NIH and the research it supports to develop life-saving treatments and cures for devastating diseases.' The committee rejected the administration's plan to revamp the way NIH pays universities, medical schools, and other research centers for overhead costs, as well as a proposal to restructure the agency and consolidate all 27 NIH institutes into eight new entities. The bill includes a $100 million increase for Alzheimer's disease research, a $150 million increase for cancer research, and a $30 million increase for the Office of Research on Women's Health. 'To the scientists wondering if there will even be an NIH by the end of this administration: this committee's resounding message is yes,' said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee's vice chair. 'Congress has your back — we're not going to give up the fight against cancer, Alzheimer's, or rare diseases,' Murray said. Democratic committee members also expressed frustration at the White House Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) repeated encroachments into the appropriations process and attempts to halt spending of money that was already approved by Congress. Since President Trump took office, NIH has terminated or frozen nearly 5,000 awards totaling $4 billion, while another approximately $15 billion has not yet been obligated. 'Right now, they are illegally hiding apportionments data that would let us know whether funds we passed are being spent as intended and help us strengthen the bills we are in the middle of writing on. It is absurd we have to mark up bills, while being kept in the dark,' Murray said. Murray and other members repeatedly mentioned an OMB memo from earlier this week that, through a footnote, abruptly prevented NIH from issuing grants. While the decision was reversed, Democrats said it showed the administration's disdain for congressional spending authority. 'One footnote, from an unelected bureaucrat — overruling Congress and even NIH, to block $15 billion in funding for things like cancer research,' Murray said. Outside of NIH, the bill maintains flat funding for other health agencies and programs, including the Title X family planning program and domestic HIV prevention. The bill also rejected the nearly $4 billion — or 50 percent — cut and consolidation to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention programs included in the White House budget request. But looming over the process is the possibility of another rescissions package from the administration. 'Should the administration put forward a new rescissions package, in many cases, in our bill, we have rejected proposals that the President has made to make drastic cuts. That's Congress speaking up and saying we have a different position on that, and so I expect my Republican colleagues will stand by the decisions we've made,' Baldwin told reporters ahead of the hearing. Still, the HHS budget is far from being final. The House has so far only passed two of its annual funding bills, and has not held an Appropriations Committee markup on its version of the HHS bill.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Former nurse loses legal challenge over private gender clinic
A former nurse has lost her High Court challenge against the registration of England's first private gender clinic for teenagers. Susan Evans, and a mother who asked not to be named, had argued that the health regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had "acted irrationally" in registering the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic. On Thursday, Mrs Justice Eady said she was satisfied the steps taken by the CQC were "rationally focused" and it had "patient safety foremost in mind" when it assessed the clinic. The clinic, which is rated "outstanding", said the ruling "demonstrates the diligence and integrity" of its work. Ms Evans said she was "extremely disappointed". The Gender Plus Hormone Clinic is believed to be the only private organisation in England which is registered to treat 16- and 17-year-olds with hormones for gender incongruence, defined as a mismatch between their biological sex and their gender identity. Cross-sex hormones, such as oestrogen or testosterone, are given to people who identify as a different gender to their biological sex. The medication helps someone who is transitioning to develop characteristics associated with their preferred gender. For instance, it would help a trans man, a biological female who identifies as a man, develop a deeper voice and facial hair. NHS guidance on the prescription of the hormones to young people was updated following the publication of the Cass Review last year. The review stressed the need for "extreme caution" when using hormones in the treatment of 16- to 17-year-olds. What does trans mean and what is the Cass review? The two women alleged that when the CQC inspected and registered the Gender Plus clinic it did not take this into account NHS guidance says all young people, who are recommended for hormone interventions, must have the decision reviewed and endorsed by a national multi-disciplinary team that can consider all aspects of their care. Gender Plus Hormone Clinic, which was set up by Dr Aidan Kelly and is led by nurse consultant Paul Carruthers, had told the court it follows the NHS guidance and had set up its own multi-disciplinary team. Its procedures were reviewed by the CQC inspectors. In the ruling, Mrs Justice Eady said: "I am satisfied the steps taken by the CQC were rationally focused on scrutinising the actual process by which the clinic provided the service in issue. I duly reject this objection. "What is, moreover, clearly apparent from the CQC's evidence is the detailed scrutiny that was undertaken in order to be able to assess clinic's compliance with the regulatory requirements. "It is apparent that this was an assessment that drilled down to the detail of the service provided... with patient safety foremost in mind." She said the question whether the CQC had adequately considered "the particular, and changing, approach adopted by the NHS", was important. But she concluded the criticisms of the clinic were about the internal structure of the organisation and "focused on issues of form rather than substance". Speaking after the judgment, Ms Evans said: "I am extremely disappointed at the outcome of this judicial review." The unnamed mother added: "To say I am disappointed is an understatement." The NHS has opened three specialist children's gender clinics and has plans for a further five, covering the seven NHS regions in England, by the end of 2026. It is understood the NHS multi-disciplinary team has not yet received any recommendations for hormone treatment for 16- and 17-year-olds since the Cass Review. The ruling means Gender Plus can continue to deliver services from its clinics in London, Birmingham and Leeds. Responding to the court ruling, Gender Plus Hormone Clinic said: "This Judicial Review further demonstrates the diligence and integrity of our work. "We operate according to the highest standards, always putting patient safety and wellbeing at the heart of every decision. We couldn't have hoped for a better outcome." A Care Quality Commission spokesperson said: "We are pleased that today's ruling recognises CQC's regulatory expertise. "It also supports the systems and processes at CQC that put the needs of people using services at their heart and help to ensure that people receive care and treatment in a safe way." Private youth gender clinic approved by regulator Watchdog 'acted irrationally' over gender clinic, court told
Medscape
10 hours ago
- Medscape
Doctor's Prizewinning Book Finds Meaning in Life and Death
Dr Rachel Clarke has one of the most unusual CVs in British medicine. Before retraining as a doctor at the age of 29, she worked as a television journalist and documentary maker, reporting from war zones including the Gulf and Congo. Since qualifying as a doctor in 2009, she has specialised in palliative care and become one of the UK's most acclaimed nonfiction authors. Dr Rachel Clarke Clarke's writing draws deeply on both her clinical and personal experiences. Her first book, Your Life in My Hands (2017), recounted life on the NHS front line as a junior doctor. In Dear Life , she explored her work in palliative care and the death of her GP father from cancer. Breathtaking , written during the pandemic, laid bare the grim realities inside COVID wards. Her latest, The Story of a Heart , tells the true story of a heart transplant from 9-year-old Keira, who died in a car crash, to 9-year-old Max, who received her heart. The account has won Clarke the 2025 Women's Prize for Non-Fiction, for what the judges described as 'a clear-sighted and vital exploration into the human experience behind organ donation.' Medscape UK asked Clarke about the process of writing The Story of a Heart : Clarke: Access was amazingly straightforward. Both Max and Keira's families were very keen to participate in something that might end up increasing awareness of donation and getting people having a conversation with their families about donation. I was really conscious of the fact I'd be asking them to relive what was obviously an incredibly traumatic time. And I would be entrusted with one of the most personal and poignant stories that anybody has the misfortune to go through in their lives — the death of their child. Rachel Clarke's book won the Women's Prize for Non-Fiction 2025 I approached them with the same moral standards as I try to apply in my work as a doctor. I explained they could absolutely trust me and if at any point they changed their minds — right up to publication — they could do so, and I'd throw it away. I couldn't write the book unless they felt I had done their story justice. One of the main reasons I wanted to write the book was that I could see the value of what could come out of it. You've written four bestsellers. Do you write to inform the public about medicine or to highlight NHS issues? I very strongly regard my writing as a natural extension of being a doctor. When you specialise in palliative medicine, as I do, you are incredibly conscious of the harm and the suffering that can stem from fear and taboos around dying and conversations that don't happen because people are afraid to have them. Writing about that is a way to benefit patients. All the books I've written have tried to shed light on aspects of medicine and being a doctor that are poorly understood or misrepresented. That includes death and dying, what it was like in the COVID wards, or what it's like to choose to donate your child's organs. In my first book, I also explored what it's really like to be a professional who has to balance all their feelings and emotions, and the desire to do good, with the essential requirements of objectivity and dispassionate detachment that we need to do our job as doctors. How do you manage your time as an author and a palliative care doctor? With some difficulty! I split my time — 50% as a clinical doctor and 50% as a writer — which means I always juggle the two. It's an incredibly privileged position to be in, to have two jobs that I love so much. Genuinely, I feel being a doctor helps my writing and being a writer helps my medicine. Fundamentally, the core of both professions is very similar: It's about caring about people, listening very attentively to their stories, and trying to communicate them to other people clearly. You were a TV journalist after university and didn't go to medical school until you were 29. Are you glad you didn't go straight into medicine? I think it's helped me incredibly. I'm not even sure I would have survived medical school if I'd gone aged 18, as I was a sheltered teenager who'd experienced nothing in life. However, with 10 years' experience in the big wide world under my belt, I just had more understanding of what human beings go through in their lives. Why did you specialise in palliative care? I'm naturally somebody who hates bullying in all its forms. I hate people being marginalised or silenced — and I think, historically to some extent, palliative care patients fit that description. I once heard a consultant tell a patient they had cancer, and in an aside to us juniors, said to 'put them in the palliative dustbin.' That disgusted me so much. I felt it was incredibly problematic that patients could be treated with such derision because they no longer warranted a surgery, and I wanted to do something about that. I love my work and think palliative medicine is the very opposite of depressing. I meet patients who so often are showing the best of human nature: They are courageous, dignified, and loving, and I feel privileged to do the job I do. With that in mind, where do you stand on the assisted dying debate? I've been relatively active in the public debate about this. If assisted dying is going to be legalised in the UK, which I think it almost certainly will be, I know there's a real danger that people are going to choose the path of assisted dying when actually they have been denied the path of proper, decent palliative care. I say that with a lot of experience. I'm afraid that as palliative care is so badly funded, we are going to enter a new world in which the NHS doesn't provide adequate palliative care for a patient, but will fund their death — which seems an absolutely dystopian direction the UK is about to travel in. What else concerns you about the NHS at the moment? The mismatch between the care that we are capable of providing patients versus the care they need is gaping. We have the 10-Year Plan and strategies to address that, but it's not clear to me how on earth that gap is going to be met in the absence of increased funding. We've heard an awful lot from Wes Streeting about his three main priorities: analogue to digital, treatment to prevention, hospital to community. Fine in theory, but it's just a sound bite unless it's backed with funding. It's an ambitious plan, but at the same time we are laying staff off — and that's madness. So, would you encourage young people to go into medicine as a career? I very sadly know of very few doctors who'd want their children to follow them into medicine, and I think that is tragic. I am endlessly lucky, and I love my job. These days, you are coming out £100,000 in debt through paying for your medical degree; you are earning a salary that is, in real terms, much lower than it used to be, and you have no job security. All of that is atrocious. It's also the case that valuing the expertise that a medical education provides you with is being really denigrated in the NHS at the moment. Doctors are being substituted, for example, by physician associates and other groups as well. Is it really the case that somebody who isn't a doctor at all can do the same job of diagnosis and management? I'd argue most definitely not, but that seems to be the direction of travel. What's next for you? Have you ever thought of going into politics? One-hundred percent not, as I like to say what I believe, and I like to be able to express myself with integrity and honesty and not tow a party line. I'm not constitutionally built like that. Clinically, I will carry on doing my palliative care, doing lots of teaching and training, and I hope to carry on writing as well. Medicine is such a fascinating form of human activity. In a hospital, all of human life is there, but it's even more concentrated and dramatic. Hospitals are more full of huge feelings and life-changing events than any other arena of human life. And so it's endlessly fascinating to explore them in print.
