# Statins review says benefits 'underestimated'



## Northerner (Sep 9, 2016)

The benefits of the cholesterol-reducing drug statins are underestimated and the harms exaggerated, a major review suggests.

Published in the Lancet and backed by a number of major health organisations, it says statins lower heart attack and stroke risk.

The review also suggests side effects such as muscle pain do occur, although in relatively few people.

But critics say healthy people are unnecessarily taking medication.

*Dummy drug effect*
Statins reduce the build-up of fatty plaques that lead to blockages in blood vessels. According to the report authors:


About six million people are currently taking statins in the UK
Of those, two million are on them because they have already had a heart attack, stroke or other cardiovascular event
The remaining four million take statins because of risk factors such as age, blood pressure or diabetes
Up to two million more should possibly take statins
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-37306736

They still can't agree amongst themselves - how are we supposed to decide?


----------



## grovesy (Sep 9, 2016)

Still wont get me to take them!


----------



## bilbie (Sep 9, 2016)

LCHF does a better job of reducing blood trigs and sdLDL than statins. I take a statin for what they were originally intended for, microvascular cell wall health.

This study looked at the history of  60,000 Diabetics.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70173-1/fulltext

retinopathy HR=0.6 [decrease of risk]

neuropathy HR=0.66

gangrene of the foot HR=0.88

diabetic nephropathy HR=0.97

[neutral..........HR=1.0 ]

diabetes HR=1·17 [increase of risk]

The way I look at it ..if nothing else take a low-dose statin for neuropathy, retinopathy and gangrene of the foot


----------



## grovesy (Sep 9, 2016)

I have never had them sold to me for prevention  in those problems , they are sold as a cardic and stroke prevention!


----------



## Austin Mini (Sep 9, 2016)

I have been on Statins (40mg) for twelve years now and I wish I wasnt. I am suffering from easily bruising and tissue paper skin which is mentioned on the box but only affecting a very small minority. I was put on Statins because of high colesterol plus diabetic but now I am retired I do ten times as much activity. Hoping to persuade Doc to take me off em or cut dosage. Bl**dy pills.


----------



## Northerner (Sep 9, 2016)

Austin Mini said:


> I have been on Statins (40mg) for twelve years now and I wish I wasnt. I am suffering from easily bruising and tissue paper skin which is mentioned on the box but only affecting a very small minority. I was put on Statins because of high colesterol plus diabetic but now I am retired I do ten times as much activity. Hoping to persuade Doc to take me off em or cut dosage. Bl**dy pills.


What are your cholesterol levels like now @Austin Mini ? Sorry to hear about the problems, hope the GP can find the cause - may be statins, but maybe after 12 years of them it's unlikely side-effects would emerge now? Or perhaps the rare side-effects take time to materialise in some people?


----------



## Vicsetter (Sep 9, 2016)

I note in the article it says: 





> And London cardiologist Dr Assem Malhotra said: "There are serious question marks about the reliability of industry-sponsored studies on the side effects of statins, and essentially that's what this review is.
> 
> "And a lot of the scientists involved in the original studies were involved in this review. It is not an independent review."


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 9, 2016)

Vicsetter said:


> I note in the article it says:


You just got in before me with that post!


----------



## Vicsetter (Sep 9, 2016)

Austin Mini said:


> I have been on Statins (40mg) for twelve years now and I wish I wasnt. I am suffering from easily bruising and tissue paper skin which is mentioned on the box but only affecting a very small minority. I was put on Statins because of high colesterol plus diabetic but now I am retired I do ten times as much activity. Hoping to persuade Doc to take me off em or cut dosage. Bl**dy pills.


If you don't want to take them then don't.  I just told my GP that I wasn't going to take them and that was that.  You just have to weigh up the risks/benefits. THe people supposed to be most at risk of heart/stroke problems are those with an existing cardio problem (like my heart attack), if you don't have a problem then the risk isn't that big.


----------



## Diabeticliberty (Sep 9, 2016)

I have taken them for some years on the advice of my doctor who felt that it might be prudent to take them given the fact that I have been type 1 diabetic for 32 years. I must add that he didn't leap across his desk and pinch my nose and start forcing them down my throat. He is however my doctor and if I don't feel that I can trust his advice then I think maybe I should have a different doctor.


----------



## Austin Mini (Sep 9, 2016)

Northerner said:


> What are your cholesterol levels like now @Austin Mini ? Sorry to hear about the problems, hope the GP can find the cause - may be statins, but maybe after 12 years of them it's unlikely side-effects would emerge now? Or perhaps the rare side-effects take time to materialise in some people?


Me cholesterol are now ok but this could be to the stations. I walk six miles everyday and am much more active than when put on them sitting at a computer all day.


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 9, 2016)

I still take Simvastatin, have done for years, with no ill effects. Anyway, I once read a medical paper which suggested that because Simvastatin crosses the blood brain barrier it could help prevent Alzheimer's, but I can't remember where I read it.


----------



## Mark Parrott (Sep 9, 2016)

Despite my cholesterol (at the time of D diagnosis) was 7.3, I was not offered statins.  DSN reckoned I could lower it through diet, which I did.  Hopefully it will be even lower come next blood test.


----------



## Austin Mini (Sep 9, 2016)

Statins was featured on The Jeremy Vine show today. After listening I think they are the cause of my bruising/easily torn skin. My cholesterol is now 5.9 but we do a lot of walking etc every day (six or seven miles) so Im having a chat with Dr in two weeks (3 week wait for an appointment) here in darkest Lincolnshire.


----------



## Andy HB (Sep 11, 2016)

I have no doubt that the stats underlying the use of statins are probably correct (see what I did there?!). However, when applied to an individual, things become even less clear. It is then down to that person to determine whether or not to take what is a very powerful drug. For me, I say no thank-you. My family does not have a history of heart disease and no-one has died of a heart attack (in recent history).

Andy


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 12, 2016)

That's what life is all about, Andy. Weighing up the gains and the losses, playing the odds, looking at the bigger picture. Mind you, you could always be the first to start a trend in the family - but the odds, of course, are against that.
Nobody ever said this was easy


----------



## Amigo (Sep 12, 2016)

I'm due my diabetic review and absolutely know the subject of statins will be raised again. I find myself conflicted about them but having seen the effect they had on my husband's shoulder, I'm very inclined against them. My GP would never insist however.


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 12, 2016)

Actually, only  a small proportion of people taking statins get significant side effects, but the people who do shout the loudest. You just don't hear from people who take them without any problem (apart from me, of course).There are several thousand members who could post on this forum, a good proportion of whom will be on statins. It should be fairly obvious that if a high proportion of people got major side effects, statins would be withdrawn from use.


----------



## Amigo (Sep 12, 2016)

mikeyB said:


> Actually, only  a small proportion of people taking statins get significant side effects, but the people who do shout the loudest. You just don't hear from people who take them without any problem (apart from me, of course).There are several thousand members who could post on this forum, a good proportion of whom will be on statins. It should be fairly obvious that if a high proportion of people got major side effects, statins would be withdrawn from use.



Trouble is Mikey, quite often people are unaware that it's the statins that are causing the problems. Both my sister in law and my husband developed excruciating pains in their shoulders after starting on them and it's acknowledged that statins do cause muscle pain in a number of people. At the time my husband was unaware and continued with them. He barely had a good night's sleep until they were out of his system. This is my concern though I accept that they help many many people. They're also a massive money spinner for the pharmaceutical industry. 

http://www.healthline.com/health/statins-why-do-they-cause-muscle-pain#Overview1


----------



## mikeyB (Sep 12, 2016)

It's perhaps not surprising a brother and sister reacting in the same way. Doesn't negate my main point though, simply because of the yellow card reporting of side effects, which requires doctors to report any condition that arises while taking a drug.


----------



## Amigo (Sep 12, 2016)

mikeyB said:


> It's perhaps not surprising a brother and sister reacting in the same way. Doesn't negate my main point though, simply because of the yellow card reporting of side effects, which requires doctors to report any condition that arises while taking a drug.



They're not actually related Mikey...my sis in law is married to his brother. This is something I'll discuss with my GP but I'm having such a bad time with my busted shoulder at the moment with a full rotator cuff tear, the idea that something could further aggravate it concerns me a lot and I've heard of these side effects too many times.


----------

