Cholesterol Drugs for Kids
According to the new guidelines from the American Academy of Pediatrics, children as young as 8 may be given cholesterol drugs. According to the Star Tribune, "It is the strongest guidance ever given on the issue [future heart problems]" by the Academy. The New York Times states that their previous suggestion was that "cholesterol drugs should be considered in children older than 10 if they fail to lose weight after a 6- to 12-month effort." The new guidelines recommend "cholesterol screening of children and adolescents, starting as early as the age of 2 and no later than the age of 10, if they come from families with a history of high cholesterol or heart attacks before 55 for men and 65 for women." They also recommend "screening...for children when family history is unknown, or if they have other risk factors, like being at or above the 85th percentile for weight, or have diabetes." I wonder how much this testing and drug administration is going to cost for families?
Throughout both of these articles, the language used and sly sentences inserted raise serious doubts in my mind about the effectiveness or safety of these new guidelines. For instance, Dr. Jatinder Bhatia said that "although there was not 'a whole lot' of data on pediatric use of cholesterol-lowering drugs, recent research showed that the drugs were generally safe for children. [emphasis mine]" The suggestion that there is not a whole lot of data supporting the use of these drugs on kids is a little scary, but not nearly as scary as the assertion that they are generally safe for children. Not only is there not a lot of data supporting the usage, but they're not sure if they are actually safe, just generally safe. That could mean almost anything. The New York Times continues, "The guidelines give no guidance on how long a child should stay on drug treatment." Isn't that piece of information rather important? There is also "no evidence to show whether giving statins to a child will lower the risk for heart attack in middle age." Okay, so the drugs that are generally safe aren't even proven to be effective in preventing heart attack? The Star Tribune's 'expert,' Dr. Stephen Daniels, "says the new advice is based on mounting evidence showing that damage leading to heart disease, the nation's leading killer, begins early in life." He states that, "If we are more aggressive about this in childhood, I think we can have an impact on what happens later in life...and avoid some of these heart attacks and strokes in adulthood." He has not, however, worked on matters involving cholesterol drugs, he is in the academy's nutrition committee.
Among the Academy's suggestions, they are also recommending that "low-fat milk is appropriate for children as young as 1 year old 'for whom overweight or obesity is a concern.'" I have a sincere problem with this suggestion. When I was 1, I was a very big baby, perhaps considered 'overweight,' however, by the time I was 3, I was actually quite small for my age. Our expert, Daniels, "agreed that could include virtually all children. But he said doctors may choose to offer the new milk adviace for 1-year-olds who are already overweight or have a family history of heart problems." Don't forget, however, that the "academy has long opposed reduced-fat milk for children up to age 2 because saturated fats are needed for brain development." I don't see the issue with waiting an extra year before giving babies reduced-fat milk. I find brain development way more important than a little extra weight that might just go away in time. Dr. Frank Greer disagrees stating, "But now we have the obesity epidemic and people are thinking maybe this isn't such a good idea." Greer is the co-author of the guidelines report. This seems to be such nonsense to me. Why are we more worried about overweight babies than we are about their brain development? Even the academy admits that its not so good for children under the age of 2 to have reduced-fat milk, but now that they might be a little chubby, their brain development takes a back seat.
I might be off in my analysis. Thoughts?