High cholesterol problem

[Buckeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever Is memory loss a side effect of statins?

The bolded area describes what happened to my MIL (found with a quick google search of Lipitor and memory loss). Started after she started taking a statin, stopped when she quit. She took a generic and that was about 5 years ago so it couldn't have been Lipitor.

The link between Lipitor and memory loss

Of the approximately eighteen million people using Lipitor in the United States, about two percent have reported side effects that involve memory loss. Reported memory loss can range from short-term memory loss, feelings of disorientation, and mild confusion, to profound loss of memory that has a strongly detrimental effect on everyday life.

While researchers are hesitant to attribute this kind of memory loss solely to use of Lipitor, many patients report a reduction in symptoms if they switch to a different cholesterol medication. (Note: Never stop or change your medications, or reduce your dosages, without consulting with your physician.)

Whether or not memory loss is caused directly by Lipitor, or by other factors, there are other measures you can take to help reduce any symptoms of memory loss and generally keep your brain functioning at its best.

Lipitor and Memory Loss | Does Lipitor Cause Memory Loss?

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye I'm really surprised you are taking Lipitor with a total cholesterol of 205 and the other good numbers with no other risk factors. You found what caused your cholesterol to be high which was the weight and the carbs. Your doc is really aggressive about pushing the meds. I would be finding myself a new doc.

Well, I think your comments are "really aggressive." I actually really, really like my doctor. He is very thoughtful and we discuss pros and cons of various approaches. I didn't get into all the numbers but for example 12 years ago my total cholesterol 2as 248 and LDLs were 175. My doctor first had me attack it through diet and -- at the time -- I had very little success. It was only after several months of no results from diet that he had me try 10 mg of Lipitor which had a dramatic effect. Even then, after a couple of years he had me again try without Lipitor and again, the LDLs in particular skyrocketed.

More recently with losing weight and low carb eating he was fine with me trying to not take Lipitor again and I stopped for 6 months but the increasing LDLs did cause him to recommend the Lipitor again.

FWIW, he is not what I would call aggressive in pushing medication. However, he does believe in preventative action. I realize that many here do not believe that high LDLs mean anything or that high total cholesterol means anything. I have done a lot of reading on this subject and I am, frankly, undecided. It is possible that the US medical establishment is entirely wrong, but I'm not ready to rest my entire well-being on that assumption. I feel that 10mg of Lipitor a day is a safe medication that I feel comfortable taking in case the medical establishment is right with the conventional wisdom.

At the same time, I also think that cutting out refined carbs and losing weight also bring benefits and I intend to keep going in that direction as well. It really isn't an either/or thing.

[Buckeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsmeow Well, I think your comments are "really aggressive." I actually really, really like my doctor. He is very thoughtful and we discuss pros and cons of various approaches. I didn't get into all the numbers but for example 12 years ago my total cholesterol 2as 248 and LDLs were 175. My doctor first had me attack it through diet and -- at the time -- I had very little success. It was only after several months of no results from diet that he had me try 10 mg of Lipitor which had a dramatic effect. Even then, after a couple of years he had me again try without Lipitor and again, the LDLs in particular skyrocketed. More recently with losing weight and low carb eating he was fine with me trying to not take Lipitor again and I stopped for 6 months but the increasing LDLs did cause him to recommend the Lipitor again. FWIW, he is not what I would call aggressive in pushing medication. However, he does believe in preventative action. I realize that many here do not believe that high LDLs mean anything or that high total cholesterol means anything. I have done a lot of reading on this subject and I am, frankly, undecided. It is possible that the US medical establishment is entirely wrong, but I'm not ready to rest my entire well-being on that assumption. I feel that 10mg of Lipitor a day is a safe medication that I feel comfortable taking in case the medical establishment is right with the conventional wisdom. At the same time, I also think that cutting out refined carbs and losing weight also bring benefits and I intend to keep going in that direction as well. It really isn't an either/or thing.

I guess I need to add "compared to my doc."

[Helen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProGolferWannabe So, your are correct---not taking statins is one way to assure that you will avoid possible side effects, but you will subject yourself to the near certainty of having coronary heart disease.

Could you post a link to a medical article that backs up that statement? I don't believe your statement has scientific proof behind it. There are plenty of links posted in this thread of articles that say otherwise.

In regards to statins, plenty of people have had permenant muscle damage and that does not show up on a blood test.

[landover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I can't quite understand what his meaning was. From my reading, the only protection offered by statins is for younger and middle aged men-exactly the group you are saying there is not much protection for.

I read some speculation that statin benefit is not because of lowering of colestrol but due to its anti-inflammatory properties.

[obgyn65]

It's not a mess as long as your provider follows the right protocols and recommendations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl It's a mess.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obgyn65 It's not a mess as long as your provider follows the right protocols and recommendations.

Which ones are those, and how do we know that the 'right protocols and recommendations' are really what is best?

Can you provide the back up that tells us this? It sure seems like a mess to me, I'm just not seeing the studies that make it clear that taking statins is beneficial to ones health (not just that they change some numbers, I want to see health results).

Let's not forget that not too long ago, the 'right protocols and recommendations' for treatment of ulcers were thrown out the window.


-ERD50

[Buckeye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProGolferWannabe So, your are correct---not taking statins is one way to assure that you will avoid possible side effects, but you will subject yourself to the near certainty of having coronary heart disease.

So how do we explain my MIL who had high cholesterol (around 300) and lived to nearly 95 with no indication of heart disease? There is much more going on that we understand when it comes to heart disease and cholesterol.

This article pretty much sums up my and my doc's opinion on cholesterol numbers and there relevance to heart attack risk.

What your cholesterol number really says - CNN.com

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Which ones are those, and how do we know that the 'right protocols and recommendations' are really what is best? -ERD50

Of course because if these protocols and recommendations are not the ones that are best, they are not the right ones.

Like, if your stocks go down, you didn't buy the right stocks. Just do right, and buy only stocks that go up.

Ha

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Of course because if these protocols and recommendations are not the ones that are best, they are not the right ones. Like, if your stocks go down, you didn't buy the right stocks. Just do right, and buy only stocks that go up. Ha

And yes, that bit of circular logic did cross my mind as I typed!

-ERD50

[TromboneAl]

How many of you spent more time choosing a doctor than choosing a car?

[Bluemoon]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye So how do we explain my MIL who had high cholesterol (around 300) and lived to nearly 95 with no indication of heart disease? There is much more going on that we understand when it comes to heart disease and cholesterol. This article pretty much sums up my and my doc's opinion on cholesterol numbers and there relevance to heart attack risk. What your cholesterol number really says - CNN.com

The article also states "A class of drugs called statins lowers LDL cholesterol."

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye So how do we explain my MIL who had high cholesterol (around 300) and lived to nearly 95 with no indication of heart disease? There is much more going on that we understand when it comes to heart disease and cholesterol. This article pretty much sums up my and my doc's opinion on cholesterol numbers and there relevance to heart attack risk. What your cholesterol number really says - CNN.com

There was another link inside the article that said what ED says about your heart. I was hoping to find if you dont have ED your heart is great. But unfortunately the link didnt even mention ED in it! Still it was interesting reading and mentioned a few rather inexpensive tests. It does seem to keep appearing more often in articles that " the numbers alone" do not tell the whole story.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl How many of you spent more time choosing a doctor than choosing a car?

It's easy to find comparative info on automobiles, both subjective and objective. Not so with doctors.

So yes, for me the answer is more time choosing a car.

I wonder which choice has more influence on your health? A safer car and safer driving habits might be more important than anything else you do regarding exercise and diet ? I don't know, just wondering aloud.

-ERD50

[HawkeyeNFO]

It seems to me that we all need to eat healthy and get some exercise. And it also seems that doctors are quick to prescrbe drugs for every little thing that could be a problem, partially because the drug companies have a very good sales force who persuade them to push their products. And statins are the best example of this that I can think of.

In contrast: The Cholesterol Myths

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkeyeNFO It seems to me that we all need to eat healthy and get some exercise. And it also seems that doctors are quick to prescrbe drugs for every little thing that could be a problem, partially because the drug companies have a very good sales force who persuade them to push their products. And statins are the best example of this that I can think of. In contrast: The Cholesterol Myths

The problem that I see with this list at the above link is simply that it is a list of assertions that I have no reason to believe or not believe. I think that at times we can be eager to go against the "conventional wisdom" and just assume that contrarian positions are correct.

You can certainly go on the Internet and find plenty of stuff that says that statins are unnecessary and that high cholesterol, etc. doesn't matter. The problem is that you can certainly find plenty of stuff to the contrary.

For example some studies talking about the benefits of statins for some people:

Statins: Are these cholesterol-lowering drugs right for you? - MayoClinic.com

Medical News:Both Sexes Enjoy Statin Benefits - in Cardiovascular, Dyslipidemia from MedPage TodayStatin Benefits Patients With Low LDL Cholesterol

The benefits of statins in people without established ca... [BMJ. 2009] - PubMed - NCBI

[obgyn65]

Hi ERD50

Clinical guidelines, protocols, and recommendations can be found at AAFP, Epocrates, or at the National Guideline Clearinghouse. For example try National Guideline Clearinghouse | Home and search "diabetes" to find Screening and Management details. You can also find guidelines and protocols at associations' websites, i.e.
https://www.aace.com/publications/guidelines

I also use sometimes emedicine or 5 minute consult to find additional information re: latest treatment protocols. I am sorry that the situation looks like a mess to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Which ones are those, and how do we know that the 'right protocols and recommendations' are really what is best?

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obgyn65 Hi ERD50 Clinical guidelines, protocols, and recommendations can be found at AAFP, Epocrates, or at the National Guideline Clearinghouse. For example try National Guideline Clearinghouse | Home and search "diabetes" to find Screening and Management details. You can also find guidelines and protocols at associations' websites, i.e. https://www.aace.com/publications/guidelines I also use sometimes emedicine or 5 minute consult to find additional information re: latest treatment protocols. I am sorry that the situation looks like a mess to you.

These are documents hammered out by committees, which may have members who just like congressmen have their constituencies. The protocols are not the original journal papers, and they may not very faithfully reflect all the evidence, including the unpopular evidence.

The studies are usually easy enough to find, although it takes an excellent medical library to carry paper copies of even all the main journals, and sometimes various journals restrict electronic access to subscribers.

At any rate, the large, randomized clinical studies mostly show some improvement in both all cause mortality, and specifically cardiovascular mortality. But it is small, and given the various side effects and occasional disasters it seems like a rational decision to at least consider sitting out this game.

OTOH, statins are very good at treating LDL numbers, and doctors are very good at focusing on LDL numbers. So it's kind of a marriage made in heaven from that point of view. But to me, this is an example of confusing a variably useful metric with the outcome the patient is interested in-a meaningfully longer, more pleasant life.

Ha

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by obgyn65 Hi ERD50 Clinical guidelines, protocols, and recommendations can be found at ...

Thanks for the reply, but it leaves me hungry. Haha's post echoes my sentiments.

And specifically:

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha OTOH, statins are very good at treating numbers, and doctors are very good at focusing on numbers. So it's kind of a marriage made in heaven, from that point of view. But to me, this is an example of confusing a variably useful metric with the outcome the patient is interested in-a meaningfully longer, more pleasant life. Ha

Yes, exactly! And I have a lot of empathy for the Doctors on this. Let's be real - they have a job to do, and are pressed for time, and with all these variables and the inability to really control the environment of the patient, it's tough to really know what is best. But if a number is considered 'bad', and prescribing a drug makes that number 'better', it makes the Doctor look good (and he/she may well be doing good). Who wouldn't want to do something that makes them appear to be doing good? So I suspect there is some built in bias on the Doctor's part to prescribe these statins. The numbers come down (they almost always do), so it all looks good, everyone (Doctor & patient) appears to be happy. As haha says 'a marriage made in heaven'.

But, did fixing the 'number' really improve the patients (on average) quality of life? That's not so clear to me. My doctor has me on statins, but he did give me 6 months to try exercise/diet, so I'll give him some credit there, it wasn't a totally automatic reaction. But I also know it means coming back every six months for Lab work, and that means regular $ in his pocket. That's fine if it is needed, but does it cloud his judgement? A little? A lot? Not at all? Who knows?

My son is in his third year of Pharmacy school, I guess I should challenge him on this, see what he's got.

-ERD50

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Thanks for the reply, but it leaves me hungry. Haha's post echoes my sentiments. And specifically: Yes, exactly! And I have a lot of empathy for the Doctors on this. Let's be real - they have a job to do,and are pressed for time, and with all these variables and the inability to really control the environment of the patient, it's tough to really know what is best. But if a number is considered 'bad', and prescribing a drug makes that number 'better', it makes the Doctor look good (and he/she may well be doing good). Who wouldn't want to do something that makes them appear to be doing good? So I suspect there is some built in bias on the Doctor's part to prescribe these statins. The numbers come down (they almost always do), so it all looks good, everyone (Doctor & patient) appears to be happy. As haha says 'a marriage made in heaven'. But, did fixing the 'number' really improve the patients (on average) quality of life? That's not so clear to me. My doctor has me on statins, but he did give me 6 months to try exercise/diet, so I'll give him some credit there, it wasn't a totally automatic reaction. But I also know it means coming back every six months for Lab work, and that means regular $ in his pocket. That's fine if it is needed, but does it cloud his judgement? A little? A lot? Not at all? Who knows? My son is in his third year of Pharmacy school, I guess I should challenge him on this, see what he's got. -ERD50

I wonder how many doctors maybe actually would like to have their patients try diet and exercise first, but think its inevitable they wont change and follow through, so they figure better just start the statin since they wont change their lifestyle in any appreciable manner. I do have a few friends on statins and they gladly state they would just rather take a pill "to fix the problem" than change their lifestyle.