PDA

View Full Version : Study raises questions over wider use of statins



Islander
06-30-10, 09:34 AM
Mon Jun 28, 2010

(Reuters) - There is no evidence that prescribing cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins to patients at risk of heart disease reduces their chances of premature death in the short term, scientists said on Monday.

The results of a study by British researchers call into question the expanded use of statins such as Pfizer's Lipitor and AstraZeneca's Crestor in patients who do not have heart disease but may develop it.
Statins are one of the most widely used drugs for the treatment and prevention of heart disease, both among people who already have it and among high-risk but healthy people. They are among the most successful drugs of all time and have been credited with preventing millions of heart attacks and strokes.
But in a meta-analysis -- a study which reviews all previous published scientific evidence on a specific area -- Professor Kausik Ray and colleagues from the University of Cambridge and Addenbrooke's Hospital found scant evidence that statins saved lives in the short term in groups without heart disease.
"There is little evidence that statins reduce the risk of dying from any cause in individuals without heart disease," they wrote in the study in Archives of Internal Medicine journal.
"This, along with harms caused by statins in some subgroups, have called into question the benefit of statins in primary prevention (prevention of the development of heart disease)."
Heart disease is the biggest killer of men and women in the rich world and is also a growing problem in developing nations.

SIDE EFFECTS
Although statins are widely seen as safe and effective drugs, a study published last month found that people taking them may have higher risks of liver dysfunction, kidney failure, muscle weakness and cataracts. Scientists have warned such side effects should be closely monitored.
In their analysis, the Cambridge team combined data from 11 studies involving 65,229 people. A total of 32,623 individuals were assigned to take statins and 32,606 individuals were assigned to take placebo.
Over an average of 3.7 years of follow-up, 2,793 participants died, including 1,447 on placebo and 1,346 on statins. The scientists said the small reduction in the statin group was not statistically significant.
While low-density lipoprotein (LDL), or "bad" cholesterol levels, were higher among those taking placebo than those taking statins (134 milligrams per deciliter versus 94 milligrams per deciliter), this had no effect on the risk of premature death.
The scientists said their results showed "the need for caution when extending the potential benefits of statins to a wider population."
Professor Peter Weissberg of the British Heart Foundation noted the findings but said they were only short-term.
"The people in these studies were followed for less than four years on average. Since heart and circulatory disease develops over many decades, it's reasonable to assume that we would see a significant improvement in mortality after a longer period of follow-up," he said in a statement.
He also said premature death was not the only consideration when seeking to prevent heart disease.
"Many studies have shown that statins prevent non-fatal heart attacks and strokes," he said. "Preventing serious ill health, such as heart failure resulting from a heart attack, or disability due to a stroke, is every bit as important as lengthening lives."
(Editing by David Holmes (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=david.holmes&))

http://tinyurl.com/39ehjqk

Islander
06-30-10, 09:49 AM
Regular readers here know that statins play no part in preventing heart disease; that they cause muscle wasting (rhabdomyolysis); that they address a fictitious problem (hyperlipidemia); and that they are the pharmaceutical companys' biggest cash cow. Now they want to treat healthy people with a drug to prevent disease? Has the world gone mad? Do we have collective Alzheimer's? Have we forgotten that prevention is about lifestyles?

:: fans herself vigorously ::

mellowsong
07-03-10, 11:30 PM
When I was recently in the hospital with chest pain, I was advised by the cardiologist that I needed to be taking statins and blood pressure medication. Now, I wont' go into all the numbers, but my cholesterol is 157!!!! My blood pressure was running around 112/60 except when I was coughing. I just looked at him and asked him if he was aware of my blood pressure and my lipid profile. Of course, because I'm obese, it was immediately "assumed" that I had high blood pressure, high cholesterol etc etc. I want my cholesterol higher, lol.....it's definitely too low. I was discharged with strict orders to stick to a low fat diet and avoid salt...geeshhhhhh...and I'm supposed to trust these guys if I do have a heart problem?

nurseexpert
07-30-10, 12:31 AM
that is such a serious issue of blood pressure,i agree with mellowsong, blood pressure is such a serious problem regarding health,we can't do anything when we are alone in this situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Get more useful information regarding health:
Health Care Professionals (http://www.americancollegeofnursing.com)

This poster has been warned.
- Islander

Samurai
07-30-10, 07:53 AM
that is such a serious issue of blood pressure,i agree with mellowsong, blood pressure is such a serious problem regarding health,we can't do anything when we are alone in this situation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Get more useful information regarding health:
Health Care Professionals (http://www.americancollegeofnursing.com)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d5/Spam_with_cans.jpeg/250px-Spam_with_cans.jpeg (http://www.hawkeshealth.net/wiki/File:Spam_with_cans.jpeg)

mellowsong
07-30-10, 07:48 PM
Miss SpamExpert...you did NOT read what I wrote. I most certainly was NOT advocating treating normal (even low) blood pressure at ALL!!! This site is all about being reasonable and using common sense and using natural protocols whenever possible. So please, do not mis-quote me nor misinterpret what I write!

I was pointing out the asininity of what the doctor said! The current definition of what constitutes high blood pressure is one of the biggest industrial scams foisted on an unsuspecting public and even doctors who truly believe they are doing what is good for their patients.

Please do a search of this site on high blood pressure if you truly want to be educated.

Samurai
07-30-10, 11:35 PM
You are doing better than I, Mellow.
My Tot Chol is still a pathetic 147, and my D3 is 21.
banghead

Islander
07-31-10, 09:25 AM
You are doing better than I, Mellow.
My Tot Chol is still a pathetic 147, and my D3 is 21.
banghead

Cholesterol looks good to me. Where do you want it to be?

EmmaPeel
07-31-10, 11:27 AM
Samaria, Islander had posted an excellent article on LDL and HDL, explaining the whole 'ratio' and 'total' levels, as well as the issue of how to address your cholesterol readings.

Here's the link to the article. I think it does a good job of explaining the whole business of cholesterol and 'damaged' fats as being the harmful thing.

http://www.drbenkim.com/articles-cholesterol.html

Samurai
07-31-10, 01:38 PM
Cholesterol looks good to me. Where do you want it to be?
Well, according to my GP who is a conventional med doc, she applauds me for my "accomplishment". But for the naturpathic community, it is well known that lower isn't better.
I have an online pharmacist friend that wrote this:
"Dangers Of Low Cholesterol
If we do not take cholesterol-lowering drugs, most of us don’t have to worry about cholesterol. However, there are people whose bodies, for whatever reason, are unable to produce enough cholesterol. These people are prone to emotional instability and behavioral problems. Low blood cholesterol has been routinely recorded in criminals who have committed murder and other violent crimes, people with aggressive and violent personalities, people prone to suicide and people with aggressive social behavior and low self-control.

I would like to repeat what the late Oxford professor David Horrobin warned us about: "Reducing cholesterol in the population on a large scale could lead to a general shift to more violent patterns of behavior. Most of this increased violence would not result in death but in more aggression at work and in the family, more child abuse, more wife-beating and generally more unhappiness."

People whose bodies are unable to produce enough cholesterol do need to have plenty of foods rich in cholesterol in order to provide their organs with this essential-to-life substance."


Last year, my cholesterol was 130. To answer your question, a healthy number is around Tot. 200. You see, I have HIGH cortisol levels; and, as a result it uses up all the cholesterol at an alarming rate. Nobody eats more Alaskan King Crab and butter than I do, and I cannot seem to raise it. UGH. This month, I am getting 3 more test results back: my vitamin panel (tells me what vitamins I am low on), my adrenal fatigue test, and my 24-hr oxalate test. Wish me luck! I am still "fluffy" however. banghead

Islander
07-31-10, 03:27 PM
I didn't know where you stood on that issue but I see you have it under control!