Ezetimibe Monotherapy in Nutritional Ketosis
LDL particles, LDL-C, ApoB, particle size, LDL-receptor biology and cardiovascular risk
Core conclusion: Ezetimibe monotherapy would be expected to lower this terrain’s LDL-C and ApoB particle burden, but not enough to convert it into a low-residual-risk secondary-prevention profile. The metabolic advantages of nutritional ketosis reduce triglyceride-rich remnant and insulin-resistance pathways; they do not erase the risk created by prolonged exposure to ApoB-containing particles in a person with established coronary disease. |
|---|
Executive Summary
This paper evaluates ezetimibe 10 mg daily as monotherapy when applied to a lean, insulin-low nutritional-ketosis terrain with LDL-C 180 mg/dL, non-HDL-C 200 mg/dL, HDL-C 85 mg/dL, triglycerides 48 mg/dL, lipoprotein(a) 16 mg/dL, fasting glucose 86 mg/dL, fasting insulin 2.0 µU/mL, HbA1c 5.9% and hsCRP 0.6 mg/L. The clinical history of prior myocardial infarction and coronary stenting makes this a secondary-prevention analysis, not a primary-prevention debate. Ezetimibe blocks intestinal NPC1L1-mediated uptake of dietary and biliary cholesterol. Human studies show about a 54% reduction in fractional cholesterol absorption, accompanied by compensatory cholesterol synthesis. Across randomized monotherapy trials, LDL-C falls by about 18-20% and ApoB by about 14-16%. The drug reduces cholesterol carried within LDL subclasses but produces no consistent beneficial shift in LDL particle size. Its clinically relevant action is a reduction in circulating ApoB-containing particles through increased receptor-mediated clearance, not conversion of small particles into harmless large particles. Applied to this baseline, the central estimate is LDL-C near 148 mg/dL, with a plausible 137-155 mg/dL response range. A recent contextual ApoB of 113 mg/dL would be expected to fall to approximately 95-97 mg/dL. These are meaningful changes, yet they remain far above contemporary secondary-prevention thresholds. Therefore, ezetimibe monotherapy is biologically active but likely insufficient as the sole particle-lowering strategy for this terrain.
Clinical question and evidence boundary
The question is not whether nutritional ketosis improves metabolic health. In this report, it clearly aligns with very low triglycerides, high HDL-C, low fasting insulin and low inflammatory signalling. The question is whether ezetimibe alone lowers the remaining atherogenic particle burden enough to materially change recurrent cardiovascular risk. No randomized trial has tested ezetimibe monotherapy specifically in lean ketogenic hyper-responders with established coronary disease. Therefore, this paper integrates four evidence streams: ezetimibe monotherapy trials, ApoB and LDL-receptor biology, ketogenic-diet lipid studies, and cardiovascular-outcome evidence from LDL lowering. Where direct evidence is absent, the inference is stated rather than presented as proof.
1. Baseline terrain before ezetimibe
| Domain | Functional Baseline | Functional meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Established disease | Prior myocardial infarction and two coronary stents, supplied clinical history | This is secondary prevention. Existing plaque changes the risk threshold: favourable metabolic markers cannot reset risk to that of a person without coronary disease. |
| LDL cholesterol | 182 mg/dL (4.71 mmol/L) | High cholesterol mass carried inside LDL particles. This is the main modifiable risk signal in the report. |
| Non-HDL cholesterol | 203 mg/dL (5.26 mmol/L) | Captures cholesterol in all ApoB-containing particles, including LDL, IDL, VLDL remnants and Lp(a). |
| ApoB | Not measured in the attached panel; recent separate value reported as 113 mg/dL | ApoB is the best practical count of circulating atherogenic particles because each hepatic LDL/VLDL/IDL particle carries one ApoB molecule. |
| Triglycerides and HDL-C | Triglycerides 48 mg/dL; HDL-C 85 mg/dL; TG/HDL ratio 0.56 | Strong insulin-sensitive, low-remnant pattern. It suggests fewer triglyceride-rich particles and often larger cholesterol-rich LDL, but does not prove a low LDL particle count. |
| Remnant cholesterol | Approximately 21 mg/dL (total cholesterol minus HDL-C minus direct LDL-C) | Not markedly elevated. The dominant lipid problem is LDL-related particle exposure rather than triglyceride-rich remnant excess. |
| Lipoprotein(a) | 16 mg/dL; 40 nmol/L | Not elevated by common thresholds. This removes one major inherited amplifier but does not neutralize LDL/ApoB risk. |
| Inflammation | hsCRP 0.6 mg/L | Low systemic inflammatory signal. Low inflammation reduces one component of plaque activation but does not prevent ApoB particles from entering and being retained in the artery wall. |
| Glucose-insulin | Glucose 86 mg/dL; fasting insulin 2.0 µU/mL; calculated HOMA-IR about 0.42 | Strong fasting insulin sensitivity and a terrain consistent with nutritional ketosis. |
| Longer-term glycaemia | HbA1c 5.9% | Discordant with fasting glucose and insulin. This warrants independent interpretation rather than assuming that low fasting insulin means uniformly low glucose exposure. |
| Liver and kidney | ALT 16 U/L; GGT 18 U/L; creatinine 1.18 mg/dL; eGFR 70 mL/min/1.73 m² | No clear biochemical liver barrier to ezetimibe. Kidney function is mildly reduced for age but not a driver of the lipid pattern. |
This pattern is close to, but does not strictly meet, the proposed “lean mass hyper-responder” definition of LDL-C at least 200 mg/dL, HDL-C at least 80 mg/dL and triglycerides at most 70 mg/dL. The label is descriptive rather than a validated risk category. In this terrain, the LDL particles are likely relatively cholesterol-rich because LDL-C is high while triglycerides are very low. However, cholesterol-rich particles remain ApoB particles. Size can modify composition and residence time; it does not remove the ability to cross the endothelium and become trapped in existing plaque-prone arteries.
The terrain is metabolically favourable but arterially high risk
Nutritional ketosis appears to have reduced insulin demand, triglyceride-rich lipoprotein traffic and systemic inflammation. These are genuine biological gains. However, the report simultaneously shows a large mass of cholesterol circulating in ApoB-containing particles. Because atherosclerosis begins when these particles enter and are retained in the arterial wall, low insulin and low hsCRP change the surrounding terrain but do not make prolonged LDL exposure biologically inert. Prior myocardial infarction and stenting prove that arterial susceptibility is no longer theoretical.
2. What ezetimibe changes
Intestinal cholesterol entry
Ezetimibe inhibits Niemann-Pick C1-like 1, or NPC1L1, at the intestinal brush border. NPC1L1 normally transfers cholesterol from the intestinal lumen into the enterocyte. Importantly, that cholesterol is not only from food. A large proportion comes from bile secreted by the liver and recycled through the intestine. Therefore, ezetimibe can work even when dietary cholesterol intake is modest. In a controlled human crossover study, ezetimibe reduced fractional cholesterol absorption by about 54%. The body compensated by increasing endogenous cholesterol synthesis by about 89%, which explains why blocking half of absorption produces an LDL-C reduction closer to one fifth rather than one half.[1]
The liver senses less incoming cholesterol
When less cholesterol returns to the liver, the hepatic cholesterol pool falls. The liver responds through sterol-sensing pathways, especially SREBP2. This increases the drive to make cholesterol and to express LDL receptors. LDL receptors are clearance ports on liver cells. They recognize ApoB-containing particles, pull them from the blood and recycle the receptor back to the cell surface. The net effect of ezetimibe is therefore a balance between two opposing responses: increased LDL-receptor-mediated clearance lowers circulating particles, while increased cholesterol synthesis limits the size of that fall.
What the receptor evidence actually proves
Direct measurement of LDL-receptor numbers in the human liver is difficult because it would require liver tissue. Therefore, the strongest human evidence is kinetic: researchers label ApoB and measure how quickly LDL particles disappear from the circulation. Human monotherapy studies show increased clearance of VLDL-, IDL- and LDL-ApoB pools. In one human study, LDL-C fell 22%, while the fractional clearance of VLDL- and IDL-ApoB increased by 31% and 21% respectively.[2] In another study, LDL-ApoB concentration fell mainly because its fractional clearance rate increased by 29%, although weight loss was also part of that protocol.[3] An animal kinetic study designed to measure liver tissue directly found that ezetimibe monotherapy reduced the LDL-ApoB pool by 20% through a 42% increase in LDL fractional catabolism.[4] The precise number of additional human hepatic receptors is therefore not known, but the functional result—faster ApoB-particle removal—is well supported.
3. Expected monotherapy effect on lipid particles
| Marker or mechanism | Best estimate with ezetimibe 10 mg monotherapy | Interpretation for this terrain |
|---|---|---|
| LDL-C | Average reduction about 18.6%; common clinical range about 15-25% | Expected fall from 182 mg/dL to about 145-155 mg/dL, with roughly 148 mg/dL as the meta-analytic central estimate.[5,6] |
| ApoB | Average reduction about 14-16% | A contextual ApoB of 113 mg/dL would be expected to fall to about 95-97 mg/dL. This is a real fall in particle burden, but smaller than required for low residual risk after myocardial infarction.[6] |
| Non-HDL-C | Usually falls broadly in parallel with ApoB and LDL-C, commonly about 15-18% | Expected fall from 203 mg/dL to roughly 166-173 mg/dL. |
| LDL particle number | Falls because ApoB particle pools fall and receptor-mediated clearance rises | Direct NMR data for pure monotherapy are limited. ApoB is the more practical treatment marker in this setting. |
| LDL particle size | No consistent favourable change | Ezetimibe reduces cholesterol mass across LDL subclasses but generally does not shift the distribution toward larger particles.[7] A small 14-day study reported a relative increase in very small LDL subfractions, so size should not be used as the expected therapeutic benefit.[8] |
| Triglycerides | Small average reduction, often about 5-8% | With triglycerides already 48 mg/dL, there is little room or clinical need for further reduction. |
| HDL-C | Minimal change, usually about 1-3% upward | HDL-C is already high. Raising it further is not the mechanism by which ezetimibe reduces risk. |
| Lipoprotein(a) | No reliable clinically meaningful reduction | The baseline Lp(a) is already low; ezetimibe should not be selected to change it.[9] |
| hsCRP and inflammation | Small or inconsistent monotherapy effect | The baseline hsCRP is already low. The main benefit is lower particle exposure, not a large anti-inflammatory effect. |
LDL-C and ApoB do not fall by exactly the same percentage
LDL-C measures cholesterol cargo. ApoB measures particle concentration. Ezetimibe usually lowers LDL-C slightly more than ApoB, which means the remaining particles may carry somewhat less cholesterol per particle. That is useful, but it also means that LDL-C alone can overstate the fall in particle burden. In a ketogenic pattern with cholesterol-rich LDL, measuring ApoB before and after treatment is essential. The treatment question is not simply how much cholesterol was removed from each particle; it is how many artery-entering particles remain in circulation.
Particle size is secondary to particle exposure
Low triglycerides often produce a larger average LDL size because there is less triglyceride exchange and less hepatic-lipase remodelling into small dense LDL. This explains why carbohydrate restriction can reduce small LDL while raising large LDL. However, each large LDL still carries one ApoB molecule. Large particles may carry more cholesterol, so LDL-C can rise sharply without a proportionate rise in ApoB, but a particle remains capable of entering the artery wall. Therefore, a change from small to large LDL is metabolically informative, not a licence to ignore ApoB exposure.
4. Ezetimibe inside a nutritional-ketosis system
Why ketosis can create this pattern
When carbohydrate and insulin are low, adipose tissue releases more fatty acids and the liver packages more fat for transport. In lean active people, rapid VLDL export, lipoprotein-lipase processing and return of cholesterol-rich remnants to the liver can increase LDL production and LDL-C. Saturated fat can add a second mechanism by reducing LDL-receptor activity and increasing the cholesterol content of circulating LDL. The final phenotype depends on genetics, leanness, energy balance, fat type, dietary cholesterol, bile-cholesterol recycling and receptor function. Therefore, “keto LDL” is not one uniform biology.
What ketogenic studies show
Controlled ketogenic studies show heterogeneous lipid responses. In a randomized controlled feeding trial in healthy normal-weight women, a ketogenic low-carbohydrate high-fat diet increased LDL-C in every participant and increased ApoB, small dense LDL cholesterol and large buoyant LDL cholesterol.[10] In a two-year nutritional-ketosis intervention in people with type 2 diabetes, small LDL subclasses fell and large LDL increased, while total LDL particle concentration and ApoB did not change significantly.[11] In a 12-week randomized trial in adults without diabetes, ketogenic restriction transiently increased ApoB at four weeks and changed lipid metabolism despite lower fasting glucose.[12] Together, these studies show that ketosis may improve triglycerides and insulin while producing anything from stable ApoB to a substantial ApoB rise. The actual ApoB response, not the diet label, determines particle burden.
What the current keto-plaque studies can and cannot say
A 2024 cross-sectional coronary CT study compared metabolically healthy ketogenic hyper-responders with matched controls and found no greater baseline plaque burden despite much higher LDL-C.[13] This is hypothesis-generating, not proof of safety. The study was small, non-randomized, selected people healthy enough to enter the cohort, and measured plaque at one point in time. A later longitudinal report from the same programme was retracted and should not be used to guide risk decisions.[20] Most importantly, the present terrain already includes a prior myocardial infarction and stents, so evidence from selected people without known clinical coronary events cannot be used to downgrade established secondary-prevention risk.
Will ketosis make ezetimibe work better or worse?
The answer depends on whether the high LDL terrain is driven mainly by cholesterol absorption or by endogenous production and particle turnover. Ezetimibe tends to work better in people with higher baseline cholesterol-absorption markers such as campesterol and sitosterol, and less strongly when synthesis markers such as lathosterol are dominant.[14] Nutritional ketosis does not automatically define either phenotype. If the LDL rise is driven heavily by biliary and dietary cholesterol absorption, ezetimibe may produce an above-average response. If it is driven mainly by high hepatic synthesis, saturated-fat-mediated receptor suppression or rapid VLDL-to-LDL flux, monotherapy may deliver only the average 15-20% fall. Measuring campesterol, sitosterol, cholestanol, lathosterol and desmosterol can clarify the mechanism, although treatment response at six to eight weeks is often the most practical test.
5. Personalized projection from the June 2026 baseline
| Measure | Baseline | Typical projected result | Residual interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| LDL-C | 182 mg/dL | Approximately 148 mg/dL; plausible range about 137-155 mg/dL | Meaningful lowering, but still more than double a 70 mg/dL secondary-prevention threshold and almost three times 55 mg/dL. |
| Non-HDL-C | 203 mg/dL | Approximately 166-173 mg/dL | Still far above secondary-prevention thresholds of 85-100 mg/dL, depending on risk category. |
| ApoB | 113 mg/dL in a recent separate test | Approximately 95-97 mg/dL | Likely still above the less-than-65 mg/dL secondary goal commonly used for very-high-risk ASCVD. |
| Triglycerides | 48 mg/dL | Approximately 44-48 mg/dL | No material change needed; remnant burden is already low. |
| HDL-C | 85 mg/dL | Approximately 85-88 mg/dL | Not a treatment target and does not offset remaining ApoB exposure. |
| Estimated LDL-C fall | — | About 34 mg/dL, or 0.88 mmol/L | Across LDL-receptor-mediated therapies, this degree of LDL lowering corresponds biologically to roughly an 18-20% relative reduction in major vascular events over time. This is an extrapolation, not a direct monotherapy estimate for this individual.[15] |
The expected response is therefore clinically meaningful but incomplete. Ezetimibe monotherapy would reduce the number of atherogenic particles entering the artery wall each day. However, it would leave a large residual particle burden acting on arteries that have already demonstrated plaque rupture or flow-limiting disease. The correct comparison is not “better than baseline”; it is “how close does the therapy move this high-risk terrain toward the particle exposure associated with fewer recurrent events?”
6. Cardiovascular-risk interpretation
What outcome evidence exists for monotherapy
The strongest direct monotherapy outcome evidence comes from EWTOPIA 75, an open-label randomized trial in Japanese adults aged at least 75 years without prior coronary disease. Ezetimibe reduced the composite cardiovascular outcome with a hazard ratio of 0.66, but did not reduce all-cause mortality.[16] The result supports the principle that ezetimibe-mediated LDL lowering can prevent events. However, the population was older, Japanese and primary prevention; the design was open label; and protocol exclusions affected the analysis. It does not directly prove the size of benefit from ezetimibe alone after myocardial infarction.
What evidence is stronger in secondary prevention
Secondary-prevention outcome evidence is strongest when ezetimibe is added to statin therapy, particularly after acute coronary syndrome. Those trials show that additional LDL lowering produces additional event reduction, but they do not isolate ezetimibe monotherapy. Broader meta-analysis across statin and non-statin therapies found that interventions acting mainly through LDL-receptor pathways reduce major vascular events by about 23% for each 1 mmol/L, or 38.7 mg/dL, fall in LDL-C.[15] This supports mechanism-based extrapolation: lowering LDL-C by ezetimibe should reduce risk in proportion to the achieved fall, but monotherapy leaves more residual risk because the absolute LDL reduction is modest.
Why low inflammation does not cancel particle risk
Atherosclerosis requires more than one pathway. Endothelial permeability, blood pressure, smoking, glucose exposure, inflammation, clotting and genetics influence whether retained particles become active plaque. In this terrain, low hsCRP, low insulin, low triglycerides and low Lp(a) reduce several amplifiers. Yet ApoB particles remain the material that delivers cholesterol into the artery wall. Once retained, they can be modified, trigger immune signalling and feed plaque growth. Low inflammation is therefore protective context, not proof that high particle exposure is safe.
Guideline context
Contemporary guidance treats established ASCVD as a high or very-high-risk state. The 2026 ACC/AHA multisociety guideline recommends LDL-C below 70 mg/dL for clinical ASCVD that is not very high risk and below 55 mg/dL with non-HDL-C below 85 mg/dL for very-high-risk secondary prevention.[17] European guidance retains an LDL-C target below 55 mg/dL with at least a 50% reduction for very-high-risk ASCVD and uses ApoB below 65 mg/dL as a secondary goal.[18] A projected LDL-C near 148 mg/dL and ApoB near 96 mg/dL would therefore represent partial treatment, not risk-goal treatment.
7. Functional strategy: make the treatment measurable
The functional approach is to define the mechanism, measure the response and close the remaining gap. Before treatment, the essential lipid baseline is LDL-C, non-HDL-C and ApoB, with Lp(a) already documented. The attached report does not contain ApoB, so a same-laboratory baseline immediately before treatment would strengthen interpretation. After six to eight weeks of stable ezetimibe use and a stable ketogenic diet, the same markers should be repeated. A fall in LDL-C near 18-20% and ApoB near 14-16% would confirm expected pharmacological response. A much larger fall would suggest a strong absorption phenotype. A weak fall should trigger review of adherence, dietary saturated fat, weight loss or energy deficit, thyroid function, genetic hypercholesterolaemia and absorption-versus-synthesis markers.
| Measurement | Why it matters | Decision signal |
|---|---|---|
| ApoB | Directly tracks the concentration of atherogenic particles. | The central measure of whether ezetimibe has reduced particle traffic, not only cholesterol cargo. |
| LDL-C and non-HDL-C | Show cholesterol mass in LDL and all ApoB particles. | Confirm magnitude of response and residual distance from secondary-prevention thresholds. |
| Campesterol, sitosterol and cholestanol | Surrogate markers of cholesterol absorption. | High baseline levels support an absorption-driven terrain and may predict a stronger ezetimibe response. |
| Lathosterol and desmosterol | Surrogate markers of endogenous cholesterol synthesis. | A dominant synthesis pattern can explain a smaller monotherapy response and the need for a complementary mechanism. |
| Dietary fat composition | Saturated fat can reduce LDL-receptor activity; unsaturated fats generally improve LDL clearance. | Maintaining ketosis while replacing butter, coconut fat, cream, fatty processed meat and excess cheese with olive oil, nuts, seeds and oily fish may lower LDL without raising carbohydrate materially. |
| HbA1c with CGM or fructosamine context | HbA1c 5.9% conflicts with low fasting glucose and insulin. | Confirms whether the metabolic terrain is truly low-glucose across the day rather than only in the fasting state. |
| Blood pressure, exercise capacity and smoking status | Particle exposure acts together with endothelial stress. | These determine absolute recurrent risk and therefore the absolute benefit of lowering ApoB. |
A ketogenic diet can be retained while the lipid terrain is changed
Ketosis is a metabolic state, not a requirement to obtain most calories from saturated fat. LDL-C can often be reduced while preserving nutritional ketosis by shifting fat quality toward extra-virgin olive oil, nuts, seeds, fish and other unsaturated sources; increasing low-carbohydrate soluble fibre; avoiding chronic energy deficit; and moderating dietary cholesterol only when testing shows hyper-absorption. These actions may improve receptor clearance and reduce cholesterol delivery without reversing the low-insulin terrain. They should be tested with ApoB rather than assumed to work.
8. Safety, limitations and clinical boundary
Ezetimibe is generally well tolerated and has few drug interactions. Monotherapy does not usually require dose adjustment for mild renal impairment, and the June 2026 liver enzymes are normal. However, medication choice after myocardial infarction is a medical decision because the objective is prevention of another event, not only improvement of a laboratory number. This paper does not establish that ezetimibe monotherapy is equivalent to statin therapy, PCSK9 inhibition, bempedoic acid or combination treatment. It also does not establish that ketogenic hypercholesterolaemia is harmless. The major evidence gap is the absence of randomized cardiovascular-outcome trials of ezetimibe monotherapy in ketogenic secondary-prevention patients.
Conclusion
The June 2026 terrain shows strong metabolic function alongside high residual artery-particle exposure. Nutritional ketosis is associated with low fasting insulin, low triglycerides, high HDL-C, low hsCRP and low Lp(a). Those features reduce insulin-resistant remnant, inflammatory and inherited Lp(a) pathways. However, LDL-C 182 mg/dL, non-HDL-C 203 mg/dL and a contextual ApoB of 113 mg/dL remain important because the person already has coronary disease.
Ezetimibe monotherapy addresses one clear mechanism: intestinal recycling of dietary and biliary cholesterol. It lowers hepatic cholesterol delivery, increases functional LDL-receptor clearance and typically reduces LDL-C by about 18-20% and ApoB by about 14-16%. It does not reliably improve LDL particle size, and size is not the main therapeutic target. Applied to this terrain, the most likely result is LDL-C near 148 mg/dL and ApoB near 96 mg/dL. That would reduce cardiovascular risk, but it would leave substantial residual risk and remain well above secondary-prevention thresholds.
Therefore, the correct role of ezetimibe monotherapy in this terrain is measurable partial particle reduction. Its success should be judged by the achieved ApoB, LDL-C and non-HDL-C response, not by preserved ketosis, high HDL-C, low triglycerides or a shift toward larger LDL. The strategic endpoint is fewer ApoB particles circulating for fewer years, while preserving the metabolic gains of nutritional ketosis and coordinating the final treatment plan with the cardiologist.
References
[1] Sudhop T, Lütjohann D, Kodal A, et al. Inhibition of intestinal cholesterol absorption by ezetimibe in humans. Circulation. 2002;106:1943-1948. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000034044.95911.DC.
[2] Tremblay AJ, Lamarche B, Cohn JS, Hogue JC, Couture P. Effect of ezetimibe on the in vivo kinetics of ApoB-48 and ApoB-100 in men with primary hypercholesterolemia. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2006;26:1101-1106. doi:10.1161/01.ATV.0000216750.09611.ec.
[3] Chan DC, Watts GF, Gan S, Ooi EMM, Barrett PHR. Effect of ezetimibe on hepatic fat, inflammatory markers, and apolipoprotein B-100 kinetics in insulin-resistant obese subjects on a weight-loss diet. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:1134-1139. doi:10.2337/dc09-1765.
[4] Telford DE, Sutherland BG, Edwards JY, Andrews JD, Barrett PHR, Huff MW. The molecular mechanisms underlying the reduction of LDL ApoB-100 by ezetimibe plus simvastatin. J Lipid Res. 2007;48:699-708. doi:10.1194/jlr.M600439-JLR200.
[5] Pandor A, Ara RM, Tumur I, et al. Ezetimibe monotherapy for cholesterol lowering in 2,722 people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Intern Med. 2009;265:568-580. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2008.02062.x.
[6] Dujovne CA, Ettinger MP, McNeer JF, et al. Efficacy and safety of a potent new selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor, ezetimibe, in patients with primary hypercholesterolemia. Am J Cardiol. 2002;90:1092-1097. doi:10.1016/S0002-9149(02)02798-4.
[7] Tribble DL, Farnier M, Macdonell G, et al. Effects of fenofibrate and ezetimibe, both as monotherapy and in coadministration, on cholesterol mass within lipoprotein subfractions and LDL peak particle size in patients with mixed hyperlipidemia. Metabolism. 2008;57:796-801.
[8] Berneis K, Rizzo M, Berthold HK, et al. Ezetimibe alone or in combination with simvastatin increases small dense low-density lipoproteins in healthy men: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2010;31:1633-1639. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehq181.
[9] Sahebkar A, Simental-Mendía LE, Pirro M, et al. Impact of ezetimibe on plasma lipoprotein(a) concentrations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Sci Rep. 2018;8:17887. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-36204-7.
[10] Burén J, Ericsson M, Damasceno NRT, Sjödin A. A ketogenic low-carbohydrate high-fat diet increases LDL cholesterol in healthy, young, normal-weight women: a randomized controlled feeding trial. Nutrients. 2021;13:814. doi:10.3390/nu13030814.
[11] Athinarayanan SJ, Hallberg SJ, McKenzie AL, et al. Impact of a 2-year trial of nutritional ketosis on indices of cardiovascular disease risk in patients with type 2 diabetes. Cardiovasc Diabetol. 2020;19:208. doi:10.1186/s12933-020-01178-2.
[12] Hengist A, Davies RG, Walhin JP, et al. Ketogenic diet but not free-sugar restriction alters glucose tolerance, lipid metabolism, peripheral tissue phenotype, and gut microbiome: randomized controlled trial. Cell Rep Med. 2024;5:101667. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2024.101667.
[13] Budoff M, Manubolu VS, Kinninger A, et al. Carbohydrate restriction-induced elevations in LDL-cholesterol and atherosclerosis: the KETO trial. JACC Adv. 2024;3:101109. doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101109.
[14] Ohta A, Sato Y, Nakamura M, et al. Effect of ezetimibe monotherapy on LDL cholesterol and on markers of cholesterol synthesis and absorption in Japanese patients with hypercholesterolemia. J Clin Med Res. 2017;9:19-25.
[15] Silverman MG, Ference BA, Im K, et al. Association between lowering LDL-C and cardiovascular risk reduction among different therapeutic interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2016;316:1289-1297. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.13985.
[16] Ouchi Y, Sasaki J, Arai H, et al. Ezetimibe lipid-lowering trial on prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in 75 or older: a randomized controlled trial. Circulation. 2019;140:992-1003. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.039415.
[17] American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and partner societies. 2026 Guideline for the Management of Dyslipidemia. Circulation. 2026. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000001423.
[18] Mach F, Koskinas KC, Roeters van Lennep JE, et al. 2025 focused update of the 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias. Eur Heart J. 2025;46:4359-4378. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf190.
[19] Ference BA, Ginsberg HN, Graham I, et al. Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: evidence from genetic, epidemiologic and clinical studies. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:2459-2472. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx144.
[20] Retraction notice: Longitudinal Data From the KETO-CTA Study: Plaque Predicts Plaque. JACC Adv. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2025.101686.
[21] PathLab Medical Laboratories Ltd. Blood test report for Mathew Gomes, specimen collected 12 June 2026.
Clinical note: This paper is an evidence synthesis for discussion with the treating cardiologist. It does not replace medical diagnosis, prescribing or secondary-prevention care.
