Colesterol and statins

[mjr]

[...] Plenty of people on this forum that take them with no side effects and have a lowering of bad cholesterol. They work.

They work for some people. Maybe most people. But please don't over-egg it and claim they work for everyone.

They also seem to be amazingly badly prescribed, often in ways that ignore the NICE guidance. When that causes problems, does that mean they don't work, or that they've been misused? I don't know.

 

[mjr]

Anyone know of any studies that suggest an increase in dementure as that does seem to run in my Mum's family and scare me
but I am not willing to do anything about it unless I can see a study that shows in
after all - loosing my mind to dementure and loosing it due to another stroke is a bad choice!!

Not that I'm aware of but others seem to know more.

However, headaches and nausea are listed as common (> 1 in 10) side effects in the leaflet that comes with atorvastatin (Lipitor), with anorexia, insomnia, nightmares, loss of sensation, loss of memory, tinnitus and fatigue listed as "may affect up to 1 in 100 people". Not dementia, but all mind-affecting problems IMO. I had loss of memory... and of course, that means I probably don't remember all other problems I had.

So it happens. Probably for a minority and, as far as I can tell, it does usually reverse when you stop or change medication.

 

[Punkawallah]

Rather than that being true "in a very real sense" it's true "in no sense whatsoever".

It's also not true in any sense that everyone has a 50/50 chance of being eaten alive by shrews: Although it is true that it will either happen to you or it won't.

View attachment 788059
Be very afraid. They will either eat you or they won't.

Hyperbole is not your friend.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Not that I'm aware of but others seem to know more.

However, headaches and nausea are listed as common (> 1 in 10) side effects in the leaflet that comes with atorvastatin (Lipitor), with anorexia, insomnia, nightmares, loss of sensation, loss of memory, tinnitus and fatigue listed as "may affect up to 1 in 100 people". Not dementia, but all mind-affecting problems IMO. I had loss of memory... and of course, that means I probably don't remember all other problems I had.

So it happens. Probably for a minority and, as far as I can tell, it does usually reverse when you stop or change medication.

If you get these problems then there are other statins available
I would imagine that you could just talk to your GP and they would change you to another

different versions of the same basic drug have different effects of people - sometimes it is just a case of experimenting

 

[Dogtrousers]

Hyperbole is not your friend.

Phew. Good job I didn't use hyperbole then.

 

[mjr]

Phew. Good job I didn't use hyperbole then.

You've absolutely never ever used hyperbole. 😉

 

[mjr]

If you get these problems then there are other statins available
I would imagine that you could just talk to your GP and they would change you to another

different versions of the same basic drug have different effects of people - sometimes it is just a case of experimenting

More or less, but sometimes none of them will work. However, all statins list headaches among their potential side effects on the patient information leaflet, and all except rosuvastatin also list memory loss and other things I'd class as mind-bending which could easily be confused for dementia symptoms. Most of the concern with statins has been around the muscular problems, which are easier to see and often show up in detailed blood tests.

Yes, if you talk to your GP, they should change you to another statin, and if you can't take any, they should refer you to specialists, but one problem is that people who suffer memory loss might not remember that they're having problems! And then there's people who will write off the problems as the dementia that they've feared, especially if they have family history with it.

I feel GPs really ought to conduct a memory impairment test alongside the blood tests before and after starting statins, but until they do, the more people who can be aware and watching for this problem among the statin-takers they know and love, the better.

 

[Mr.B-Campag]

Quite a few years back I had a blood test done that came back with high LDL. The doc wanted me to take statins but I said I'd change my diet and he asked me to get another test two or three weeks later. I stopped eating cheese (a big ask for me!) and most other stuff and primarily subsisted on a diet of rye bread, (home made) humous and rocket. I went back after my second test and the doctor refused to believe I hadn't taken statins given how much lower it came back

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Quite a few years back I had a blood test done that came back with high LDL. The doc wanted me to take statins but I said I'd change my diet and he asked me to get another test two or three weeks later. I stopped eating cheese (a big ask for me!) and most other stuff and primarily subsisted on a diet of rye bread, (home made) humous and rocket. I went back after my second test and the doctor refused to believe I hadn't taken statins given how much lower it came back

Great if it works

but the grand kids "other gran" has been trying that for several years and it has had no effect
but she insists on keeping trying

which is a problem
especially for her husband who often gets nagged into doing the same tries the same thing

 

[simongt]

After reading the various good / bad reports on the effects of statins, I stopped taking mine about three weeks ago, but haven't told my GP.
I feel much better for not having them in several ways, so this appears to work for me.
However, in a letter from my consultant to my GP. she's let the cat out of the bag and suggested I have a cholesterol test and then my GP can '...guide him ( me ) regarding the need for therapy.'
I had a cholesterol test recently on the suggestion of my GP anyway and the results were good and as the GLW is an analytical chemist, I trust her interpretation of the results.
Be interesting to see what my GP says on the subject - !

 

[rualexander]

Stats also show that more people that die of heart attacks actually have normal cholesterol than those who have high.

Because there are signficantly more people in the normal range than there are in the high range presumably?

 

[roubaixtuesday]

Because there are signficantly more people in the normal range than there are in the high range presumably?

Yes. Or it could just be made up nonsense as no source for this assertion is offered.

 

[Punkawallah]

Because there are signficantly more people in the normal range than there are in the high range presumably?

Apparently 75% of heart attacks occur in people with ‘safe’ cholesterol levels, so ‘safe’ levels should be lowered.
https://www.uclahealth.org/news/rel...lesterol-levels-did-not-indicate-cardiac-risk
Cholesterol levels have dropped in the UK from over 60% in 1999 to over 40% in 2019.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-inf...-england/2021-part-2/adult-health-cholesterol

While ‘low’ cholesterol levels increase risk of stroke and heart disease.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21160131/

 

[yello]

Apparently 75% of heart attacks occur in people with ‘safe’ cholesterol levels, so ‘safe’ levels should be lowered.

Other interpretations are available. Genuine question though, should I being reading irony into that? Because I don't think the good doc was intending that...

"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator."

That seems like a definitive statement to me. Which kinda surprises me. Me, I can kinda see a 'maybe cholesterol has sod all to do with it' line too. I might even ponder who funded that particular piece of research.

Moving on.... revisiting this thread has given me cause for reflection.

I'm no longer on statins. Indeed, my stay on them was actually pretty brief. Once it had been ascertained that the prescribing cardiologist had got his numbers wrong somewhere/somehow, I came off them. And no doc has mentioned them since, despite my cholesterol levels flitting around, as ever, the borderline (my latest test nudged over at 5.95 mmoL/L ) Indeed, I notice that my blood test results no longer emphasise any incursion. Maybe current medical thinking has eased up? Dunno. I actually asked my doc specifically about the result and they said there wasn't a problem. So, if they're ok with it then so am I. Or then maybe the French state wants all us old gits to cark it because we're costing too much. I could see the sense in that too.

 

[mjr]

That seems like a definitive statement to me. Which kinda surprises me. Me, I can kinda see a 'maybe cholesterol has sod all to do with it' line too.

Or maybe it makes some difference, but isn't the sole risk factor. Maybe not even the determining one. But still a higher risk that you might be able to avoid fairly easily.

People are generally very bad at assessing probabilities and risk. Even some doctors are. People prefer absolutes, it either is this or isn't, but sadly heart attacks seem to be a multifactor risk calculation.