New medical guidelines aim to head off damage early with lifestyle changes, screening tests and medication.
3 min
Adults should be screened and treated for high cholesterol starting at age 30, if not sooner, according to new clinical guidelines, lowering the age by at least a decade at a time when heart attacks are becoming more common in younger adults.
The goal is to shift to a more proactive approach to head off problems in younger years, rather than starting lifestyle changes and medical treatment in middle age when a patient may already have damage in their arteries, said Dr Roger Blumenthal, chair of the committee of cardiologists that wrote the new guidelines.
Growing research shows how much damage can be done when levels of LDL, or “bad,” cholesterol stay high in the blood for years, he said.
At the same time, more medicines have become available to lower cholesterol, along with screening tests and a new online tool that allows people 30 and older to calculate their risk of cardiovascular disease.
“We need to pay attention much earlier,” said Blumenthal, director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine.
The guidelines, published Friday in two leading cardiology journals, were issued by 11 medical associations, including the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.
These organisations set standards for medical professionals from family doctors to cardiologists.
Approximately 25% of U.S. adults—and 20% of adolescents—have high LDL cholesterol.
For adults, especially, that increases their risk of heart attacks and strokes because it causes plaque-forming particles to build up in their arteries over time, hardening and narrowing them.
Doctors are being urged to counsel children and adolescents on diet and exercise, avoiding tobacco and other healthy lifestyle habits.
More young people are being diagnosed with diabetes and other conditions that put them at higher risk of cardiovascular events.
“If we want to talk about eliminating heart disease and heart attacks, treating cholesterol is one of the most important things,” said Dr Sadiya Khan, professor of cardiovascular epidemiology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. She wasn’t involved in writing the recommendations.
The new guidelines offer a number of different ways doctors can determine whether a person’s at risk.
Everyone should get a blood test once to measure their levels of lipoprotein(a), another type of “bad” cholesterol linked to heart disease.
Researchers say Lp(a), which is genetic, significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, and a test can identify risks for people who are otherwise healthy.
Testing for another protein, apolipoprotein B, can also be performed for those with high triglycerides, diabetes or other conditions, the guidelines say.
Research suggests it is a better predictor of heart disease risk than LDL cholesterol. undefined undefined Men aged 40 and older and women aged 45 and older with a borderline risk of heart attack or stroke may also get a coronary artery calcium scan to check for plaque buildup in arterial walls.
Children should be screened for cholesterol and other lipids once between ages 9 and 11, backing an existing recommendation by the American Academy of Pediatrics.
As part of the new guidelines, young adults should be screened beginning at age 19 and every five years after that.
People should be screened for their risk of cardiovascular disease starting at age 30, using an AHA online calculator called
Prevent that measures risk based on a person’s cholesterol, blood pressure, and other indicators. Screening was previously recommended beginning at age 40, using a different tool.
Young adults should be offered cholesterol-lowering medications if their LDL cholesterol is 160 milligrams per deciliter, according to the guidelines.
The same is true if they have a family history of atherosclerotic disease at an early age or a high risk of developing it over the next three decades as measured by the Prevent calculator.
Adults with genetically high cholesterol should also be put on medication. undefined undefined
While the end result of additional screening may mean more people end up on cholesterol-lowering drugs, younger people may be able to avoid high doses.
“If you identify someone at risk earlier in life, you may not need to treat them with as intensive a statin regimen because you have time on your side,” said Dr Steven Nissen, a preventive cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, who wasn’t involved in writing the new guidelines.
Copyright 2020, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved Worldwide. LEARN MORE
The Australian leather house has opened an immersive four-day pop-up in Manhattan, unveiling its Bloom Collection and redefining what a product launch can look like.
Following the successful launch of its Palais Collection, MAISON de SABRÉ has unveiled a new modular handbag system offering more than 720 styling combinations.
AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.
4 min
A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.
For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.
There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.
When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.
That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.
Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.
By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.
In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.
Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.
Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”
Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”
Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.
AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.
