You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
okey dokey so im over 50 my cholesterol is 5 my docs pushed me into trying statins since 2007 my cholesterol has been between 4.9 5.1 (im checked twice a year ) only reason for statins im high risk of blood presure stroke whats your views ??
Can you clarify?
So basically you've been on statins for the best part of a decade with no appreciable decrease in LDL cholesterol levels? Or have I misunderstood?
The correct answer is of course, that it's worth having a chat with your GP as to why he/she thinks statins are appropriate in those circumstances. It could be that there is still some advantage in your particular case, but of course that needs to be balanced against any side-effects.
58 years old classed as high risk by my doctor, have twice yearly full checks only thing keeps comming back is cholesterol around 5 on the scale have to take blood presure tablets (2) hypertensive active job cycle loads always busy doing active things doc says im prime for stroke / heart attack put me on 40mg statins highest dose !
They'll probably make you live longer
no new to statins from today always avoided due to side effects
They'll probably make some people live longer. There's a decent chance it won't be you though.
came off mine horrible side effects sore joints always feeling tired prescribed as I have a furred up artery in my left leg. Prescribed different ones will give them ago 🙁
In all likelihood they will make you live longer, the is the option of investing in genetic screening to look at your risk factors , is still a numbers game , just give better info on whether they will help you.
Side effects can vary hugely from none at all to extremely unpleasant, there are many different types of statin so any side effects shouldn't write them off straight away, just like their efficacy its all down to your genetics
I had horrible side effects on Simvastatin and Rosuvastatin, and another I can't remember the name of, (Joint, muscle pain, walking like a zombie) but I got on fine with a low doseage of Atorvastatin. Other people may have a different favourite.
I've stopped taking them now but my levels haven't got worse...
It took a while for me to find one without the side effects, partly because I didn't recognise them as side effects. Thought I was getting older, etc. We're all different, no point mentioning what they were.
Recently I asked my Doc about something, she said it's a thing that can start up after a year or two on whichever statin, put me on another.
You need to take a look at this website of an NHS GP who says it like it is and he's got plenty to say about statins:
Edit: he's also got plenty to say about cholesterol too.
Strokes are pretty nasty, anything that will lower your chances of getting one can only be a great of thing
You need to do some reading up before taking these. Seriously, they are not the "life saving" wonder drug they are touted as. Cholesterol is not the evil it is made out to be. A cholesterol of 5 and your gp wants you on statins?! You must have other risk factors? Taking statins has virtually no benefit for the primary prevention of cvd/stroke, they do not lengthen your life by any significant amount and cholesterol has actually been shown to be protective in older populations for stroke mortality.
Read Dr kendricks blog posts and books to get a better idea of whether you really are at risk before deciding whether to take them.
Well, as he says......Read Dr kendricks blog posts and books to get a better idea of whether you really are at risk before deciding whether to take them.
As readers of this blog will know well, I do not believe that cholesterol levels have anything to do with heart disease, which would more accurately called coronary artery disease (CAD) or coronary heart disease (CHD). This is not a view that is widely accepted in the medical community, nor in society as a whole. In fact, this view places me very firmly in the ‘nut job’ category. I have been told that my views mean that I feature on several quack watch sites. Hoorah, fame – of a kind – at last.
Dr K's book 'Doctoring Data' is a very good read.
Yes also a practising and well respected NHS GP, and if you could be arsed to read his work, you'd find it is very well written, researched and scientifically sound. But don't worry, you just dismiss it as quackery as it's much easier.
But even the NHS don't claim huge benefits for statins.
A review of scientific studies into the effectiveness of statins found that around one in every 50 people who take the medication for five years will avoid a serious event, such as a heart attack or stroke, as a result.
Or as Dr K says they will delay a serious event, not avoid. We are all going to die.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/cholesterol-lowering-medicines-statins/pages/introduction.aspx
So 49 people take drugs for 5 years, many having side effects, for little or no benefit?
Patients are cash cows.
A number of people at work are on them and for some all it means is they eat what they want and it doesn't get any higher but for others the side effects are debilitating. There are also a couple guys in there 20s with much higher levels than you who were both at the gym all the time so ended up changing their diets. I think they said they had to avoid rice for some reason.
5 doesn't seem so high that a massive dose would be for that only but strokes can mess you up big time so it may be worth talking to you doctor and see if there is a specialist you can see to address the concerns (even if you pay yourself to get it done).
Research has shown that for every year that you take a statin you could delay (not prevent) death from a stroke or MI by roughly a day. So taking statins for 30 years delays death by between 1 to 3 months. Is it worth it given some of the side effects? And that's in secondary prevention where statins are said to be MOST effective.
OP I have high cholesterol and blood pressure (hereditary), never been high enough to be recommended meds (now 52), you can help yourself with diet and excersize. Seems to me you just get out and enjoy your life. Don't take the meds if you don't want to.
Did they say anything about triglycerides? My cholesterol is above 4 but the triglyceride (I think) figure is so good that my practice's magic app gives me a 0.8% chance of cardiovascular disease in the next 10 years. The nurse then chased me out with a broom.
well respected NHS GP, and if you could be arsed to read his work, you'd find it is very well written, researched and scientifically sound. But don't worry, you just dismiss it as quackery as it's much easier.
But the point is that his work has been read by his peers, who are also presumably well practised & well respected and they don't agree with him. My wife is a doctor. There are quite a large number of medics who have their little pet theories which they tenaciously cling to. One or two of them are complete charlatans like Wakefield, but most are well intentioned, but just a little obsessed with what they believe they have discovered. Being doctors they are able to put forward a case that a non-medic is liable to find convincing, especially if they want to. Once in a while one of these mavericks will come up with something which defies established medical thinking (the helicobactar/ulcer thing comes to mind) but these are rare.. I will maintain an attitude of healthy scepticism about this bloke if you don't mind. Feel free to believe if it fits in with your world view.
By all means, nothing wrong with healthy scepticism. It's what science is based on. It's just that anyone who is a sceptic or questioning of anything mainstream it seems is labelled as a "quack" and quickly dismissed despite reasoned debate and robust scientific research. Personally I think that is a form of censorship and I like people to make their own minds up given all the available information.
If statins would stop me turning into the confused old doddery fool my dad is since his stroke I would start now
statins didnt stop my stroke.. no stroke is good but not all strokes are disabling. statins can make you feel like pants.. muscle aches lethargic weary.. even on a type you dont have many side effect with.. dont enjoy them at all.. but on balance even though my stroke was over in a couple of minutes enjoyed it much less..
I think we need to differentiate between the use of statins in people with high cholesterol and an established significant risk of heart disease/stroke (the OP may fall into this category), and their use for 'primary prevention' in apparently healthy people in middle age and beyond. It is the second of these where the real controversy lies, and the evidence of genuine benefit is slightly less clear.
Although the 'official' Cochrane review from 2013 recommends wider statin use, this is a fairly accessible argument from the slightly more reasonable end of the sceptical camp:
took the qualification in his argument and used it to denigrate the whole research. Anyone doing that is a charlatan as rarely do all humans respond to drugs in a similar fashion.But the point is that his work has been read by his peers, who are also presumably well practised & well respected and they [s]don't agree with him[/s].
If you had bothered to read and assimilate more of the top blog post you would have read a reasoned argument using a well regarded data set that seems to point to:
[i]"A raised cholesterol level is not a cause of CHD/CVD"[/i] Which run contrary to conventional thinking but instead of researching why this appears to be so, the messenger gets attacked and debunked.
(CHD = Cardiac Heart Disease, CVD = Cardio Vascular Disease).
Which run contrary to conventional thinking but instead of researching why this appears to be so, the messenger gets attacked and debunked.
Buy that is absolutely not the case there have been a huge number of recent studies looking at the association between coronary heart/ vascular disease and cholesterol, and that as shown that it's not as clear cut as thought, but the majority still show there is association and that statins are beneficial, much more so of the OP has other risk factors such as family history of CVD/CHD,
[url= http://www.storegene.com/ ]These guys[/url] are a UCL/UCH spinoff that analyse known genetic risk factors and can recommend immediate lifestyle/ medical intervention if necessary, it's the kind of test that should be available (for many other diseases too) on the NHS but of course expensive, it would make it much clearer whether statins etc might be beneficial
5.2 isn't high necessarily - mines been 5.2-5.3 since I was 22 and now I am 52.
Read Dr Kendricks book - there's loads of possible side effects and the large amount of trials data that Kendricks considers shows very little correlation to the effectiveness of the drugs. Maybe also read Bad Pharma to see why so many people were in favour of statins...
If you really want to get your blood pressure up and get an idea of how little regard the pharma companies hold for people over profits and their influence in clinical trials and education, try reading "Deadly medicine and organised crime" by Peter Gotzche (one of the founders of the Cochrane collaboration).
It's undoubtedly true that pharma companies can put profit before patients, but fortunately there are thousands of doctors and researchers who don't.
The fact that life expectancies have shot up in the western world is testament to the efforts of medical research, private and state funded.
The best solution would be for governments not corp.s to be funding research but we'd rather the money was spent on nukes and stuff
Treat the cause, not the symptoms. I'd change diet/lifestyle before I started popping pills... just saying
There's precious little profit in statins now that most are out of patent, they cost pennies to manufacture and cost a few pounds per month at most. So don't blame big pharma.
Yes, there are side effects for some people, but by no means most. Statins are usually safe and are potentially life-saving.
(Personally, I'm on ACE inhibitors for similar symptoms)
We don't have enough info here to make a judgement.
We need your total cholesterol, your HDL, your triglycerides and, if you already have CVD, your LDL. We also need to know your family history and whether you have diabetes, atrial fibrillation or rheumatoid fever.
Look on the JBS 3 website for the calculator.
Statins except Rosuvaststin are so cheap now that pharma has little to gain by promoting them.
There is a huge volume of good quality research work linking lipid levels to risk, and showing positive outcomes for statins. Any Dr who claims differently is right up there with the Sunday times denial for many years that HIV causes AIDS... The degree of benefit and at what risk you should consider taking them is worth discussing. It isn't censorship to call someone a plonker. There are as many in medicine as in any other field.
It's the ratio of HDLs to LDLs that's more important to cardiovascular risk than total cholesterol. Exercise can raise your HDLs and improve the ratio.
Read up on the Lyon version of the Mediterranean diet. That and a sensible exercise programme are seen as an alternative to statins in France for those willing to radically change their eating habits and moderately change their lifestyle.
Am on atorvastatin (and lisinopril for bp) and it has reduced my cholesterol level from 8.1 to 4.7 at last check. I don't think I have any side effects. Family has history of high BP and heart disease.
My LDL:HDL levels were wonky too but can't remember the ratio.
I would talk to my doctor if I were you.
Sorry wrong link in the post above will get the correct one later
This is a good listen as well as the stuff by professor Tim Noakes which is also available on the BJSM pod cast and youtube which talks about the poor quality of research on cholesterol and statins use.
I'm 52 haven't a clue what my cholesterol is, just seems the worried well are trying to sink the NHS.
There's precious little profit in statins now that most are out of patent, they cost pennies to manufacture and cost a few pounds per month at most. So don't blame big pharma.
Statins except Rosuvaststin are so cheap now that pharma has little to gain by promoting them.
Not if everyone over 50 was told to take them, as some people want.
Were all the large trials that Kendricks has access to flawed then, how come they showed virtually no benefit to mortality rates from statins ?
Were all the large trials that Kendricks has access to flawed then, how come they showed virtually no benefit to mortality rates from statins ?
Just as flawed as the large trials that did show a benefit....
Less that a quid a month for generic statins....
Less that a quid a month for generic statins....
Give it a few years, the latest wonder drug for lowering cholesterol will be touted instead. In fact, it's already begun in some instances - look up PCSK9 inhibitors.
Mulv, NICE will decide whether they are beneficial enough to be prescribed on the NHS and under what circumstances. And if the decision is in the "give it a few years" timescale, they'll be off patent too, so relatively cheap. (Although because PCSK9 inhibitors are biologicals, bioequivalence will be harder to prove)
Drugs do come off-patent fairly quickly. Viagra, for instance, has much cheaper competitors with the same active ingredient now that Pfizer's patent has expired.