Discussion wavers but the point of the thread was the way the Dr’s assistant framed the choice and the relative risk verses absolute risk. You’re quite right that I don’t need validation. Thankfully, that’s one of the things that does get better with age - not needing to look outside oneself for validation.
My impression of my doctor was "he's getting paid by prescribing." My numbers were on a bit high side so I took the pills. One after another, I had side effects and eventually decided to go without a med. My cholesterol is still on the high side but my new doctor wasn't concerned. I suspect even some doctors know the bad/good cholesterol threshold isn't set to reality.
Doctors don't get paid for those generic $5 for 100 pills of statin. It's the quackery websites that propagate such misinformation. Statins do save lives. Are there people with side effects? Some but not the majority. I am on low dose Atorvastatin 10mg for the past 7 years and it has brought my LDL down from 140-150 range to 50-60 range now. I have zero side effects from taking statins. My total cholesterol has gone down from about 230 to 150 since going on statin. My husband is on 40mg Lovastatin for the past 2 decades and he does not have any side effects either. His cholesterol, both total and LDL are even lower than mine. He did have a stent put in place about 25 years ago and hence his doctors wanted him to be on statins. He has not had progression of heart disease at all.
tools.acc.org
Exercise does not always do the trick, I road bike 4k miles a year and when I can't ride I walk 5-6 miles. My HDL has never been over 41 and averages in the high 30s.
Excellent comment! I think OP's lab numbers look just fine, but it is becoming more and more clear that the importance of most cholesterol numbers have been vastly overestimated. The suggested calcium scan will provide a far better picture of heart disease risk/extent.
They might have charged or "approved" the $200 charge but if you look at your Medicare Summary Notice, (MSN), they only pay the negotiated rate which, in most cases, is a fraction of what Medicare shows as approved.
Very well stated and this is the point that is overlooked in anything we do. Not a huge fan of statins but for the long haul for saving lives isn't arguable. They do more good than hurt.Statins aren’t going to have a big impact in the short run who are only a moderate risk - because statins work progressively, by reducing or eliminating plaque buildup, and/or causing unstable plaque to calcify and stabilize. So it isn’t shocking that over 5 years you won’t see big differences. If you look over 30 years the differences can be very big.
Looking at these two calculators - the first a 10 year risk. I put my before statin numbers in and then after statin, including that I am taking statin, and my 10 year risk went from 9.1% to 6%, and 5% is the optimum number.
ASCVD Risk Estimator +
tools.acc.org
Now looking at a lifetime calculator, that 9% 10 year risk becomes a 46% lifetime risk.
The 6% with statin becomes a 36% lifetime risk
ASCVD Risk Estimator
So a 36% chance of heart attack in a lifetime materially better than 46%? I would think so.
The argument against using 10 year risk is somewhat of a self defeating argument. Since the 10 year improvement seems modest, then some say it isn’t worth it. Since statins work best over long term, using 10 year risks will never seem worth it.
If someone only changed their oil every 15,000 miles, vs 5000, chances are in 5 years you wouldn’t notice a difference, at least in terms of your car failing. But over 10 years or longer I suspect the chances increase materially. I’ve never heard anybody make the argument don’t change your oil often because you likely won’t notice a difference in 5 years.
I refused the statin for years and then finally relented. I took her advice last year and went for the calcium ct scan which showed some minor calcification. she upped my dosage a little.
Same here. But I've come to think that discussions about certain things like statin usage and food choices tend to be closer to religious differences. So I avoid them as much as I can. If a person holds strong views, I'm not likely to change their mind.
You probably have your 10 year statin use to thank for your zero, given your family history. If you want a peek at what your calcium score might be in the future, you can do a carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) test. Some doctors don't like those because the results can vary depending on the technician.
