Statin Wars - British Style!

[Nemo2]

That’s too bad that it didn’t work.

Agreed...aja and his lady have had way more than their share of adversity - they're due for a break and some good news!

 

[aja8888]

That’s too bad that it didn’t work.

Yeah, really. Would have never had the operation if we knew ahead of time. That was a $200,000 waste of taxpayer's (Medicare) money. Not to mention the hell DW went through.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Having major health issues is such a loss. My dad had 14 years of hell and then died at 73. I hate when people don’t get to enjoy any of their retirement.

 

[threegoofs]

if you're looking for information on studies for "statins for primary prevention", you can go to facebook and get whatever, or you can go to google scholar and get studies with several thousand citations.

Which one do you use?

 

[joeea]

Book burnings. We need more book burnings!

I'm sure that would help...

 

[joeea]

http://images.app.goo.gl/rZgBnxpxxYY5zcMq8

Nice!

 

[zedd]

Book burnings. We need more book burnings!

This thread is worthless without cow bell. Not enough cow bell.

 

[flintnational]

Well, we could use Doctor Google or we could see what Dr. Fiona Godlee, the Editor of the British Medical Journal, has to say about the debate and those that would try to shut it down. She apparently thinks the debate is worth having. Published in the Lancet, "Lessons from the controversy over statins".

"Questions about the evidence base for statins continue to emerge from many quarters: how strong is the evidence, how large is the benefit for individuals at lowest risk of heart disease, how well did the trials record common minor side-effects, how representative were the trials of women and the elderly, what was the effect of active run-in periods and composite endpoints, how does taking a statin affect a person's diet and exercise patterns, why is there a discrepancy between the real-life experience of muscle pain and what was reported in the trials, why have the data for harms not yet been given the same levels of scrutiny as the data for benefits, and is cholesterol a reliable surrogate endpoint to guide prevention of cardiovascular disease?"

"So despite Horton and Collins and colleagues wanting to shut down the discussion and award themselves the final word, the debate about statins in primary prevention is alive and kicking. (my emphasis added)It is a debate that needs to be resolved as thoughtfully, objectively, and openly as possible, and not by eminence-based narrative reviews, however extensive, based on meta-analysis of data that only Collins, his fellow trialists, and industry sponsors have seen. This absence of independence and transparency is not unusual in medicine—indeed it is sadly still very much the norm. "

End of article quotes -

Those that would like to stop the debate have indicated we should only take direction from experts. Since Dr. Godlee is a Cambridge trained MD and the Editor of one of the leading medical journals in the world, I think we should follow her lead and keep the debate open. (Or, at least until we get to 10,000 thread views!)

 

[Teacher Terry]

Flint, I totally agree.

 

[mamadogmamacat]

My personal experience is that the muscle damage is not reversible, and this was after only six weeks on low dose statins

Fortunately, the mental fogginess was, for me at least, reversible.
Although it did nearly cause me to have an auto accident before I stopped the statins

 

[Oz investor]

My personal experience is that the muscle damage is not reversible, and this was after only six weeks on low dose statins

Fortunately, the mental fogginess was, for me at least, reversible.
Although it did nearly cause me to have an auto accident before I stopped the statins

my current medications strongly indicate i do NOT operate any machinery , whether the Crestor is a major or minor contributor to this is untested ( sadly Crestor is not the only suspect .. in fact wasn't currently on my list of suspects ,, [ sigh ] )

the muscle damage should be reversible ( with extra exercise and therapy ) however my current progress towards a general recovery is negligible or sliding downwards

i hope your scenario is different ( in a positive way )

( i joke with the GP about improving up to using a rollator or wheel-chair )

 

[bmcgonig]

View attachment 31075

Funny.... But dumb.

 

[JoeWras]

Well, we could use Doctor Google or we could see what Dr. Fiona Godlee, the Editor of the British Medical Journal, has to say about the debate and those that would try to shut it down. She apparently thinks the debate is worth having. Published in the Lancet, "Lessons from the controversy over statins".

Agree. More study and discussion is needed.

Science is always about peers reproducing and verifying (or not) others' work. This process takes time.

There's been a trend lately, with the loud internet, to try to win and shut down the other side. This is dangerous. My other favorite issue is basically science issue #1, very intertwined (unfortunately) with politics. It is the home of the word "denier." The current trend there is to actually make it illegal to discuss. Sad. (I don't want to bring on Porky, let's stick to statins. This has been a good, spirited debate from both sides.)

 

[mpeirce]

There's been a trend lately, with the loud internet, to try to win and shut down the other side. This is dangerous.

+1!

 

[Chuckanut]

Agree. More study and discussion is needed.

Science is always about peers reproducing and verifying (or not) others' work. This process takes time.

There's been a trend lately, with the loud internet, to try to win and shut down the other side. This is dangerous. My other favorite issue is basically science issue #1, very intertwined (unfortunately) with politics. It is the home of the word "denier." The current trend there is to actually make it illegal to discuss. Sad. (I don't want to bring on Porky, let's stick to statins. This has been a good, spirited debate from both sides.)

Sad but true in all to many cases. And this is a good discussion, worthy of a person's consideration if statins may be a part of one's life.

One of my favorite quotes from A Man for All Seasons.

Oh, and when the last law was down, and the devil turned on you, where would you hide, Roper, all the laws being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast, man's laws not God's, and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think that you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake.

 

[sengsational]

My personal experience is that the muscle damage is not reversible, and this was after only six weeks on low dose statins

Fortunately, the mental fogginess was, for me at least, reversible.
Although it did nearly cause me to have an auto accident before I stopped the statins

In my FIL's case, also not reversed completely. I find it astounding that the statistic 1 in 20000 had muscle issues was published anywhere with a straight face. How absurd!

 

[JoeWras]

In my FIL's case, also not reversed completely. I find it astounding that the statistic 1 in 20000 had muscle issues was published anywhere with a straight face. How absurd!

So you are saying the studies faked the results?

With all these negative effects, why isn't there a big class action lawsuit? Or is there?

 

[MichaelB]

My personal experience is that the muscle damage is not reversible, and this was after only six weeks on low dose statins

Fortunately, the mental fogginess was, for me at least, reversible.
Although it did nearly cause me to have an auto accident before I stopped the statins

In my FIL's case, also not reversed completely. I find it astounding that the statistic 1 in 20000 had muscle issues was published anywhere with a straight face. How absurd!

My brother was a marathon runner and triathlete until he was sidelined with a heart attack. He reports severe muscle issues from statins and wants to get off, but his health insurance won’t agree to cover any of the options suggested by his cardiologist. When using statins he also has weight issues. The assurance of “no side effects” does not cover his situation at all.

 

[youbet]

My brother was a marathon runner and triathlete until he was sidelined with a heart attack. He reports severe muscle issues from statins and wants to get off, but his health insurance won’t agree to cover any of the options suggested by his cardiologist. When using statins he also has weight issues. The assurance of “no side effects” does not cover his situation at all.

Sorry to hear about your brother's med problems. My son and DIL are "Ironmen" and compete in Ironman, triathlon and marathon events regularly. I'm always worrying they are "over-using" their bodies or at least "over-doing" something or the other.

To what extent is your brother sure that the severe muscle issues and weight gain are caused by the statins as opposed to the abrupt change in activity level and excessive calorie consumption? It sounds like he started the statins post heart attack and wasn't on them before, correct?

Is your brother giving serious consideration to going off the statins since it seems the negative side effects exceed any possible benefit? It's his choice, no? I know if I had serious side effects (things I see or feel myself or are detected from blood work), I'd be off my very low dose (5mg) statin immediately. And even without any observed side effects, I worry that there might be some long term impact that exceeds the positive value of the statin that will show up years from now.

 

[MichaelB]

Sorry to hear about your brother's med problems.

To what extent is he sure that the severe muscle issues and weight gain are caused by the statins as opposed to the change in activity level and excessive calorie consumption?

Is your brother giving serious consideration to going off the statins since it seems the negative side effects exceed any benefit? It's his choice, no?

He’s certain of the two side effects, has discussed them with his cardiologist multiple times. They’ve tried other options. I’m not sure why they revert to statins, but the carb cravings and muscle issues are direct and immediate. In his words, like a light switch. When he stops the statins he quickly recovers his ability to run, and when he resumes them, he no longer can.

He’s told me what the alternatives are but I don’t recall. The therapy he’s most interested in is apparently quite costly, and the insurer said no. He has a strong scientific background, researched on his own, understands the research, discussed in depth with his MD, and follows the MD guidance.

While I don’t feel one person’s experience is representative, the thought that the side effects are negligible is codswollop.

 

[JoeWras]

While I don’t feel one person’s experience is representative, the thought that the side effects are negligible is codswollop.

They are potentially life threatening for some. Rhabdo is no joke. Sounds like your brother is on the edge of it.

For me, I don't notice anything. I gave them up for 4 months (in consult with my doctor) with no noticed difference. I also didn't notice anything when I started.

That said, my muscles do ache more than when I was 25.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

He’s told me what the alternatives are but I don’t recall. The therapy he’s most interested in is apparently quite costly, and the insurer said no.

The newer class of cholesterol lowering drugs - the PCSK9 inhibitors, would fit this description.

As an athlete, I can commiserate with his dilemma.

Placebo- as well as ezetimibe-controlled trials in patients with statin intolerance showed no excess in adverse events such as insulin resistance, glucose intolerance or myopathy. Common adverse effects (seen in ≥ 5 percent of treated patients) included upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, influenza and injection site reactions. For evolocumab, back pain was additionally described.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/medical-...hanger-in-cholesterol-management/mac-20430713

 

[youbet]

He has a strong scientific background, researched on his own, understands the research, discussed in depth with his MD, and follows the MD guidance.

Well, it sure sounds like he is fully capable of and is making an informed decision. It sounds like I misinterpreted your comments when I formed the impression that the negatives of the side effects outweighed the positives of the treatment. Apparently, the MD and your brother agree that "it's worth it," so to speak.

This discussion is so interesting to me because I've been on a low dose statin for over ten years. Never any side effects that I've noticed or that have shown up in blood work. I started with lipid readings at the high end of the OK range and they have improved considerably from there. I don't detect any muscle issues and I've intentionally lost 65 lbs over the past two years so no weight gain issues either.

When the "anti-statin" discussions became common, I started questioning my family doc (I don't see the cardiologist who put me on atorvastatin anymore). Doc is in favor of staying on the statin but said it is strictly up to me. We decided on a compromise of reducing my dosage from a low 10mg to a very low 5mg and watching the blood work for results. Then, very recently, I developed A-Fib making the decision much more interesting! With the OK of the cardiophysiologist I'm now seeing for the A-Fib, we're going ahead with the 10mg to 5mg reduction and we'll see what happens with the current excellent lipid numbers.

BTW, a similar discussion could be had about blood thinners. I've been put on Xarelto since the A-Fib was discovered to reduce my risk of stroke and heart attack. This is a very common move that I'm researching. But, like statins, the benefit is small and some people do wind up with issues (or traumas) related to the blood thinner. So, I'm noodling that one too.

Best of luck to your brother. And, BTW, I don't doubt for an instant that his side effects are real and bothersome. It's just that since anecdotal examples seem to pop up so commonly in discussions vs broader based statistics, it makes it all the more difficult to keep things in perspective when trying to figure things out.........

 

[youbet]

That said, my muscles do ache more than when I was 25.

Yep! When I first started questioning doc about the possible muscle related side effects of atorvastatin, he did poo-poo me a bit. (Same doc for the past 30 years and we have a relationship that allows some back-and-forth.) Instead of taking me off the statin, he prescribed physical therapy aimed at my core strength and relieving some bothersome sciatica pain. The sessions were really more like having a tough personal trainer than a physical therapist, but they worked. After that, I felt good enough exercising to keep it up at the health club and also lost 65 lbs. No more "my muscles ache" complaints from me although, at 71 and never a very athletic guy, it isn't hard to overdo it and ache from time to time.

Of course, I understand that others do have very real muscle-related side effects from taking statins that only stopping the statins will help. If even stopping will help if perhaps permanent damage has been done.

 

[sengsational]

So you are saying the studies faked the results?

With all these negative effects, why isn't there a big class action lawsuit? Or is there?

I'm saying that the system is broken if a drug that negatively affects "a whole lot of people" gets reported as 1 in 20 thousand. I'm sure there's a logical explanation for that statistic. But we all know the quote about statistics. I don't want to speculate about how this statistic was generated because I'm not that interested in researching it and defending what I find. Life's too short to spend time on solid research only to have 3goofs put a one-line snarky reply to it, hehe!



Maybe you know, I sure don't...if a drug says "here's a side effect that you might have by using this drug", right there in black and white....can you then turn around and sue the manufacturer if it happens to you? Doesn't sound logical, but maybe there's case law. Seems like if any corporations were capable of keeping themselves from getting sued, it would be the pharma companies.