# statins have halved death from heart attack in decade



## mcdonagh47 (Dec 27, 2012)

THE use of statins has halved the number of deaths from heart attacks.



The cheap and widely available cholesterol-busting drugs have saved millions of lives over the past decade.

Between 2002 and 2010 the death rate in men fell dramatically from 78.7 per 100,000 to 39.2, new figures from the British Heart Foundation show. The death rate among women fell from 37.3 to 17.7.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/367197/Proof-statins-save-millions-from-heart-attacks


----------



## Northerner (Dec 27, 2012)

Interesting last line, unexplained and seemingly at odds with the rest of the article 



> But Dr Ian Campbell, a GP from Nottingham, said: ?I believe the side-effects of statins have been grossly understated.?


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Dec 27, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Interesting last line, unexplained and seemingly at odds with the rest of the article



Its not at odds with the report at all. In fact the issue of side effects are clearly dealt with in the article  ...
?Until statins came along we didn?t have drugs that were effective and safe. Despite what a lot of people say about side-effects they are very well tolerated by patients."


----------



## Vicsetter (Dec 28, 2012)

I take Dr Ian Campbell statement ?I believe the side-effects of statins have been grossly understated.?  to mean that the side-effects are worse than people make out, so it is at odds.


----------



## trophywench (Dec 28, 2012)

I thought muscular probs was one of the most common side effects, how come that doesn't even get mentioned?


----------



## Carina1962 (Dec 28, 2012)

I used to take Simvastatin but got muscle pain with this sort so the GP changed me to Atorvastatin which is a much better statin and more expensive, that is why GP's prescribe Simvastatin first but my GP told me that all GP's he knows that are on statins are on Atorvastatin so they're not daft are they?  i am quite OK about taking statins, i think i'd rather take them knowing the benefits than not.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Dec 28, 2012)

Vicsetter said:


> I take Dr Ian Campbell statement “I believe the side-effects of statins have been grossly understated.”  to mean that the side-effects are worse than people make out, so it is at odds.



That's an opinion/belief of the Doc. Even if it is true that the side effects have been "grossly understated" that is not at odds with "the rest of the article" as was claimed nor does it contradict the statement that statins have reduced death by heart attack by 50% in the last decade.

Wow ! Statins played a major role in halving death  by heart attack in the last decade. What an achievement - lets celebrate 
Its especially important news for diabetics.


----------



## ypauly (Dec 28, 2012)

I didn't like statins, they made me ache so I stopped taking them. How long before I have a heart attack?


----------



## Andy HB (Dec 28, 2012)

Statins have a beneficial effect, I am willing to accept that.

However, to imply that they are solely responsible for the drop in heart attacks is overstating things.

"statins have halved death from heart attack in decade"

As the article says, change in lifestyle and reduction in smoking has also had an effect (maybe greater .... who knows?!).

Andy


----------



## trophywench (Dec 28, 2012)

Well Andy it will probably come as no surprise to you from things I've said before that I too burst out laughing (is 'ironic' laughter the right description?) when I read that particular bit.

My GP now reckons my memory loss was down to stress, not statins.  Very convenient he has summat else to blame it on, yet seems a tad odd that I still had all the stress (work and family-related) after I stopped taking the statin, yet the memory improved virtually immediately, innit?  And the work part involved me not remembering things, forgetting complete whole meetings sometimes and that had been happening for about 18 months and I'd been in constant trouble - yet it was only when deep memories became affected eg my own sister's name in the middle of a conversation; the name of a river flowing through London beginning with a T and ending with an S, 7 letters - those sorts of things - that I thought 'I wonder .....'

Weird.  I've never been allergic to ANYTHING, and don't GET side effects ........


----------



## Pumper_Sue (Dec 28, 2012)

Look on the bright side it wont be long before they bring out a tablet or two to counter act the side effects of the statins 
Interestingly I had an ecg a couple of months ago and it came out perfectly ok no problems at all shown and I do not and will not take statins (on insulin for almost 48 years).
So my attitude is if you want to take em do so. If you don't want to don't, it's your choice and no one should put pressure you to their opinion.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Dec 28, 2012)

ypauly said:


> I didn't like statins, they made me ache so I stopped taking them. How long before I have a heart attack?



try one of the standard risk assessments ...

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/cardiovascular-risk-calculator


----------



## Northerner (Dec 28, 2012)

mcdonagh47 said:


> try one of the standard risk assessments ...
> 
> http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/cardiovascular-risk-calculator



Not much use to most of us as it says not to use if you have diabetes. I remember this from the 'Flora Heart Age' calculator - basically if you admitted you had diabetes you were screwed  Basically classes all diabetics in the same way regardless of levels of control, length of diagnosis etc.


----------



## mcdonagh47 (Dec 28, 2012)

Northerner said:


> Not much use to most of us as it says not to use if you have diabetes. I remember this from the 'Flora Heart Age' calculator - basically if you admitted you had diabetes you were screwed  Basically classes all diabetics in the same way regardless of levels of control, length of diagnosis etc.



And yet the statement not to use if you have diabetes seems to be contradicted in the calculator itself because it gives "diabetes" as one of the choices in the "Glucose" section.


----------



## Northerner (Dec 28, 2012)

mcdonagh47 said:


> And yet the statement not to use if you have diabetes seems to be contradicted in the calculator itself because it gives "diabetes" as one of the choices in the "Glucose" section.



Indeed!  Tut! It would never have got through quality control on my watch!


----------



## trophywench (Dec 28, 2012)

Ah well, NICE are actually revising the Cholesterol Guideline at the moment, so we'll see what they come up with, won't we?

It's my understanding that the 'Chol for T1 Diabetics' Guideline will follow whatever the new Chol only one says, because at least for T1 anyway, it is sinking in that almost everyone's control is likely to be hugely better now than it might have been leading up to the last pronouncement.


----------

