• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Statins Are Safe and Do What Their Makers Claim


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 doug123

  • Guest
  • 2,424 posts
  • -1
  • Location:Nowhere

Posted 07 June 2007 - 11:32 PM


MedPage Today: News Source

Posted Image

Statins Are Safe and Do What Their Makers Claim

By Neil Osterweil, Senior Associate Editor, MedPage Today

Reviewed by Zalman S. Agus, MD; Emeritus Professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
June 07, 2007

MedPage Today Action Points

o Explain to patients that this review of major studies concludes that statins do control total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol levels and are safe when used at standard doses.

o Explain that statins are contraindicated during pregnancy and breastfeeding.

Review

OXFORD, England, June 7 -- Statin drugs, with their proven impact on cardiovascular disease risk, are generally safe when used as indicated, a literature review confirmed.

At commonly prescribed doses, adverse events such as rhabdomyolysis and myopathy are rare, and elevated liver function tests are uncommon, wrote Jane Armitage, M.D., of the Clinical Trial Service Unit at the University of Oxford, online in The Lancet.


She conducted a review of published studies of statins, primarily large randomized studies, but also smaller ones, observational studies, and other reviews. Her review focused on the six agents that are available in most parts of the world, listed in order of their introduction:

o Lovastatin (Mevacor)
o Simvastatin (Zocor)
o Pravastatin (Pravachol)
o Fluvastatin (Lescol)
o Atorvastatin (Lipitor)
o Rosuvastatin (Crestor)

A seventh statin, cerivastatin (Baycol) was withdrawn from the market in 2001 because of the high risk of rhabdomyolysis associated with its use.

Dr. Armitage looked at whether each agent can safely achieve and maintain low levels of both total cholesterol and LDL and at the safety of each agent at different doses.

She noted that concerns about the effect of long-term statin use come from observational cohort studies, which have consistently shown that people with low total cholesterol levels are at a higher risk of subsequent death from cancers, respiratory disease, hemorrhagic stroke, and non-medical causes than people with higher cholesterol.

But, she noted, in populations where the diet is low in saturated fat, both cholesterol levels and coronary heart disease levels are low, and there is no evidence of excess deaths from other causes.

"Collective results from large randomized controlled trials of statin treatment have now provided confirmation that reducing cholesterol and maintaining low cholesterol levels for at least five years is not only safe but beneficial," Dr. Armitage wrote. "Neither overall, nor in individual trials that lowered LDL cholesterol to well below average levels, was there any increased risk of the types of non-vascular death suggested by the observational data."

In her analysis of adverse effects, Dr. Armitage noted that myopathy, defined as muscle pain or weakness accompanied by blood creatine kinase greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal, occurs in fewer than one in 10,000 patients on statins at higher doses.

However, she noted, the risk varies among the different statins, and may increase when the drugs are used at higher doses or in combinations with other agents.

"The risk of myopathy with all statins seems to be particularly affected by drug interactions that are sometimes related to the metabolism of particular statins via the cytochrome P450 system, but other mechanisms might also be involved," she wrote.

A rarer and more serious complication is rhabdomyolysis, a severe myopathy marked by myoglobin release into the circulation and risk of renal failure.

"If myopathy or rhabdomyolysis is detected, statin treatment should immediately be stopped," Dr. Armitage wrote.

"If creatine kinase is substantially raised (e.g. >10,000 IU/L), a high fluid intake should be recommended to minimize the risk of renal impairment, and supportive management might be necessary, she noted. After this, creatine kinase levels should fall and muscle pain and function improve over the course of a few days; full recovery usually occurs within a few weeks."

She also noted that while asymptomatic elevations of liver transaminases occurs with all statins, it's not clear whether elevated liver enzymes are associated with increased risk of liver disease. The drugs are contraindicated in patients with active liver disease, she added.

Discussing statin use in special populations, Dr. Armitage said that there is no clear evidence, as some have suggested, that indicates that alcohol abusers who are on statins have a greater risk of myopathy compared with patients who have a normal alcohol intake.

Statins are contraindicated during pregnancy and breastfeeding, and patients taking warfarin (Coumadin) for anticoagulation should have extra monitoring to see whether statins are having an effect on INR, Dr. Armitage said.

She noted, however, that statins do appear to be safe in patients with compromised renal function.

"There is now a considerable body of evidence that most statins are safe to prescribe in the presence of moderate renal impairment, and might even preserve glomerular filtration," she wrote.

Older patients do not usually require dose adjustment, although extremely elderly patients may be at increased risk for myopathy, said Dr. Armitage. At the other end of the spectrum, the drugs are not recommended for use in children, except in cases of severe familial hyperlipidemias, and then only under a specialist's care.

Noting that muscle pain is common in middle-aged patients, Dr. Armitage concluded that it is unlikely to be caused by statin treatment. "Measurement of creatine kinase in such patients can exclude myopathy and allow safe continuation of treatment," she wrote. "Importantly, any risks of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis can be kept to a minimum by knowledge of potential drug interactions and the vulnerability of particular groups of patients."

No funding source for the review was listed. Dr. Armitage disclosed that she does not receive honoraria or speaker's fees from the pharmaceutical industry, but has been reimbursed for travel and accommodation for speaking at national and international meetings. She is an investigator in studies of simvastatin (funded by Merck) and provides advice to researchers on studies of atorvastatin and cerivastatin. She is an unpaid consultant for Merck, Schering Plough, Astra Zeneca, and Pfizer.

Primary source: The Lancet
Source reference:
Armitage J. "The safety of statins in clinical practice." Lancet 2007; 369.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer

The information presented in this activity is that of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, MedPage Today, and the commercial supporter. Specific medicines discussed in this activity may not yet be approved by the FDA for the use as indicated by the writer or reviewer. Before prescribing any medication, we advise you to review the complete prescribing information, including indications, contraindications, warnings, precautions, and adverse effects. Specific patient care decisions are the responsibility of the healthcare professional caring for the patient. Please review our Terms of Use.

© 2004-2007 MedPage Today, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
  • Agree x 1

#2

  • Lurker
  • -0

Posted 08 June 2007 - 01:29 AM

Statins are very dangerous...........



Cholesterol Drugs Actually Cause Heart Disease


Statin drugs for "hypercholesterolemia," which some doctors call a non-illness, have become more potent and are being prescribed in higher doses to increasing numbers of people--even those with "normal" cholesterol levels. What is often overlooked by physicians is that patients taking statins become depleted in Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which leads to fatigue, muscle weakness, soreness and heart failure.

A petition to label statin packages with a warning about statin-induced CoQ10 depletion has been issued to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), along with a review of animal and human studies supporting the issue. However, experts fear that the warning will not gain the attention it deserves.

Red Flags Daily July 10, 2003


Statin drugs are being prescribed like candy for millions of people. If you believe the experts when they issued their recommendations two years ago, nearly 40 million Americans should be on them.

What these experts don't realize is that statins kill people--lots of people--and they wound many, many more. All patients taking statins become depleted in Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) eventually--those patients who start with relatively low CoQ10 levels (the elderly and patients with heart failure) begin to manifest signs/symptoms of CoQ10 deficiency relatively rapidly--in six to 12 months. Younger patients can tolerate the statins for several years before they begin developing symptoms.

The bottom line here is that when you treat the symptoms of high cholesterol with a drug you are in no way, shape or form treating the cause. It should come as no surprise that the artificial drugs cause serious side effects.

Why risk your health by taking drugs when there are some simple things you can do to normalize cholesterol levels?

CardioEssentials: Heart-Healthy and Natural

For those showing signs of heart disease, or for those already diagnosed, I often recommend CardioEssentials.

It contains a truly revolutionary powerful enzyme called nattokinase -- derived from the food natto -- that has been used successfully for circulatory problems.

Find out more about CardioEssentials now!

The first is to normalize your insulin levels by eliminating sugar and grains. This works for most people unless they have a genetic defect called familial hypercholsterolemia. On a side note, eliminating sugar and grains will inevitably cause beneficial side effects, such as normalizing your weight, increasing your energy and lowering your blood pressure and triglycerides. You can find out more about this in my new book, Total Health Program.

Secondly, you can take a high-quality fish oil that is chock full of beneficial omega-3 fatty acids. It is important to find a fish oil that is independently tested by a lab and found to conform to purity guidelines. This will ensure that the oil is free of mercury and other toxins. One such brand, which I have found to be of superior quality, is Carlson's fish and cod liver oil, and I now offer this exceptional fish oil/cod liver oil to you in my "Recommended Products" section.

Additionally, if you are a man, or a woman who is in menopause, you should check your iron levels as elevated levels of iron can raise cholesterol levels and cause major oxidative damage in the blood vessels, heart and other organs. Excess iron is also one of the major contributing factors of cancer risk.

Regular exercise is another important tool that may reduce your risk of heart disease. You can also consider a truly revolutionary powerful enzyme called nattokinase, derived from the food natto. It has been used successfully for circulatory problems for decades, and it's found in CardioEssentials, a supplement I often recommend to those who have been diagnosed with heart disease.

Related Articles:

The Truth About Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs (Statins), Cholesterol, and Health

Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs are Less Effective in Reality than in Trials

Cholesterol Drugs May Increase Cancer Risk

Cholesterol Drugs Don't Benefit Bones

The Baycol Recall: How Safe Is Your Statin?

Test May Miss Cholesterol Drug-Linked Muscle Damage

Return to Table of Contents #450




©Copyright 2007 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 08 June 2007 - 02:01 AM

Hey, don't diss on statins! They make people other that you and me mucho mucho dinero.

#4

  • Lurker
  • -0

Posted 08 June 2007 - 02:22 AM

Hey, don't diss on statins!  They make people other that you and me mucho mucho dinero.

;)

#5 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 08 June 2007 - 03:27 AM

luv2increase,

Are you saying that you don't believe the reviewed published article above? Better we should all go with Natto because someone recommends it???

Wonders post sounds a lot more like an ad to me.

#6 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,952 posts
  • 1,626
  • Location:New York

Posted 08 June 2007 - 04:02 AM

I'd believe a peer-reviewed article in the Lancet over Dr. Mercola, nine times out of ten.
  • like x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#7 shifter

  • Guest
  • 716 posts
  • 5

Posted 08 June 2007 - 05:07 AM

I'm sure my auntie will be pleased with the above article. The doctor has kept doubling her dose (eg she is on 80mg and my mum on 5mg per day). Maybe the numbness in her hands and feet and other areas isn't related to the many years of statin drugs....
  • dislike x 1

#8 PWAIN

  • Guest
  • 1,288 posts
  • 241
  • Location:Melbourne

Posted 08 June 2007 - 05:59 AM

Shifter,

I would trade numbness in my hands and feet and other areas for my life any day. I would prefer not to have to make the choice, but if it came to it, I know I would be looking at statins. I wouldn't risk dying with unproven Natto to avoid the numbness - my life is too precious.
  • Agree x 1

#9 ironchet

  • Guest
  • 66 posts
  • -0
  • Location:Las Vegas

Posted 08 June 2007 - 05:18 PM

Here's a good article on statins on the Weston A Price Foundation site.

http://www.westonapr...ses/statin.html

this one caught my attention..

In every study with rodents to date, statins have caused cancer.25

25. Newman TB, Hulley SB. JAMA 1996;27:55-60



Posted Image

"Lipitor has not been shown to prevent heart disease or heart attacts."

Why is this in the fine prints?
  • dislike x 1

#10 health_nutty

  • Guest
  • 2,410 posts
  • 94
  • Location:California

Posted 08 June 2007 - 05:41 PM

I'd believe a peer-reviewed article in the Lancet over Dr. Mercola, nine times out of ten.


You are being very generous to Dr. Mercola!
  • like x 1

#11 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,373 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted Today, 01:53 PM

More recent studies (since 2007) have shown statins to be mostly useless. Most of the pro-statin research is carefully managed by the pharma industry. In regards to The Lancet referenced above - they have shown themselves to NOT be trustworthy during the COVID debacle. I trust Dr. Mercola over The Lancet every day of the week.

 

Here is a recent review of why statins are probably not a good idea.

 

For whatever reason, perhaps someone told me early on in the statin era, that they were useless and probably harmful...I never fell for the statin scam. It has been embarrassing to watch some longevity advocates through the years - advocate for putting statins IN THE PUBLIC DRINKING WATER!!

 

Recently, a friend of mine was put on high dose statins and developed widespread chronic pain throughout his body - similar to millions of other people over the last couple of decades.



#12 kurt9

  • Guest
  • 270 posts
  • 28

Posted Today, 02:57 PM

How can a drug that suppresses ones own body's production of CoQ-10 be a useful drug? People touting statins are idiots.



#13 maxwatt

  • Member, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,952 posts
  • 1,626
  • Location:New York

Posted Today, 05:28 PM

Statins do improve lipid profile in most people.  Not just absolute numbers, but ratios.

Whether improved lipid profile from statins is beneficial for health and survival is still an open question.

 

 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for SUPPLEMENTS (in thread) to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#14 pamojja

  • Guest
  • 2,922 posts
  • 729
  • Location:Austria

Posted Today, 06:20 PM

Whether improved lipid profile from statins is beneficial for health and survival is still an open question.

 

Funny that you say so. Statins are probably one of the medications very well studied in RCTs since many years.
 

Statins Given for 5 Years for Heart Disease Prevention (With Known Heart Disease)

 

83 for mortality

 

In Summary, for those who took the statin for 5 years:

 

Benefits in NNT

  • 1 in 83 were helped (life saved)
  • 1 in 39 were helped (preventing non-fatal heart attack)
  • 1 in 125 were helped (preventing stroke)

Harms in NNH

  • 1 in 100 were harmed (develop diabetes*)
  • 1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage)

*The development of diabetes is one such unanticipated harm found in a recent large study and it seems likely therefore that this applies to the data above, although this is a best guess.

 

This quote is a version of 5 years ago from that site. The open question is rather, how would be the outcome after the usual 5 years of an RCT?

 

Because statins are usually prescribed for many decades, and many observative studies point to a protective effect of higher cholesterol at older age. Like my father at 82 just got such a candy prescribed for the first time - with no known heart disease, therefore my father could reckon:

 

Benefits in NNT

 

None were helped (life saved)
104
1 in 104 were helped (preventing heart attack)
154
1 in 154 were helped (preventing stroke)
 
Harms in NNT
50
1 in 50 were harmed (develop diabetes)
10
1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage)

 

Luckily, my father, in the few months of statin use, only developed a very pronounced aphasia until now. But makes it impossible for him to understand, that religiously taken statins could only prevent death a few hours in his case, at the most. With the high cost of almost certain dementia.


Edited by pamojja, Today, 06:25 PM.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users