Replies to post #246205 on Biotech Values

[rfj1862]

Re: LDL-C. So many people - cardiologists included - continue to focus on the quantity of “bad” cholesterol when it seems that the number of atherogenic particles is a more relevant measure, as measured by, for example, apo B or LDL-P.

It has been many years since Lipitor went off patent and I stopped working on it. The focus there was definitely on LDL-C, but I think you are right that ApoB is really the measure that we should be looking at. If I recall correctly <100 mg/dL is the target opinion leaders seem to think we should be aiming for.

I actually had my ApoB measured using Inside Tracker; not sure if it is something that people can just ask their doctor to include in a panel. I'm also not sure that an average GP would have any idea of how to interpret that number or what it means.

Anyone else here get an ApoB value?

Oh the other thing to note is that the LDL-C is calculated and the Friedewald equation breaks down in people with low TGs. So the 121 mg/dL value for my LDL-C is probably an overestimate.

[dewophile]

Thx Mouton. I may look into this
My cardiologist did give me a requisition for a CT calcium score but I never went. I kind of know I am already high risk based on family history and need to be aggressive about lifestyle and therapy so I am not sure what difference this will make frankly. I'm also lazy ;)
From an investment standpoint I see merck has an oral PCSK9 inhibitor in midstage development. That may be one to watch, especially for ESPR longs