Hi All,
I am trying to do a bit of research behind why is it difficult to keep patients on a prescription of a statin drug.
I am aware of all the side-effects caused by the statins, but i would like to know the reasoning behind the choice to come off your prescribed statin or to try and change drug;
Is this because you feel your quality of life is lowered on a statin.
Is it lack of evidence behind the efficacy of a statin to lower cholesterol etc?
I am trying to find out if there is anything that could be done to convince patients to continue on their prescription of statins, or whether they would prefer to be offered an alternative medication.
Any views or comments would be greatly appreciated, thank you.
If as you say "I am aware of all the side-effects caused by the statins" why on earth would you want to try and "convince patients to continue on their prescription of statins".
It is probably difficult to convince patients to take a preventative medication for something that may or may not happen in the distant future when they are feeling well at the moment. Rather like trying to convice people to pay into a pension scheme for their future prosperity.
How much does the geographic location of the patient and local diet play in cholesterol levels. As some countries or religons do not eat meat do they get bad fats in other ways. We get very mixed reports on coconut fat and oil.
One of my neighbours from a family decimated by heart disease says that he has to live with the side effects of statins and warfarin or die.
i personally am not trying to convince patients to stay on their statins. I worded that badly.
I am trying to find out if there would be anything that would convince a patient who is experiencing negative side effects (which seems to be the majority of patients who are on statins) that the drug is worthwhile taking.
There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not statins are helpful to most patients. I was wondering why some patients persist with taking their medication? Is this due to the information given to them by their doctor as to the protection these drugs give over cardiovascular risk?
i personally am not trying to convince patients to stay on their statins. I worded that badly.
I am trying to find out if there would be anything that would convince a patient who is experiencing negative side effects (which seems to be the majority of patients who are on statins) that the drug is worthwhile taking.
There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not statins are helpful to most patients. I was wondering why some patients persist with taking their medication? Is this due to the information given to them by their doctor as to the protection these drugs give over cardiovascular risk?
As my cholesterol reading was off the Richter scale (often at 9) I would have loved to have been able to stay on statins to reduce my risk of stroke etc. However, all forms of statins started to compromise my joints and muscles and had I continued to take them, I faced permanent severe damage, even death. A difficult decision but quality of life was my deciding factor so I refused to continue. These issues weren't just 'side effects' a term which indicates minor irritations, these were life threatening issues relating to muscle and liver damage from continuing to take statins. For example - Myositis, inflammation of the muscles. The risk of muscle injury increases when certain other medications are taken with statins. For example, if you take a combination of a statin and a fibrate -- another cholesterol-reducing drug -- the risk of muscle damage increases greatly compared to someone who takes a statin alone.
Elevated levels of CPK, or creatine kinase, a muscle enzyme that when elevated, can cause muscle pain, mild inflammation, and muscle weakness. This condition, though uncommon, can take a long time to resolve.
Rhabdomyolysis, extreme muscle inflammation and damage. With this condition, muscles all over the body become painful and weak. The severely damaged muscles release proteins into the blood that collect in the kidneys. The kidneys can become damaged trying to eliminate a large amount of muscle breakdown caused by statin use. This can ultimately lead to kidney failure or even death. Fairly obvious I would have thought why some people just CANNOT continue to take statins, regardless of their heart risks.
Firstly, there is no real evidence that lowering cholesterols does prevent heart attacks/strokes, it may, but there are various schools of thought on the subject.
Secondly, I think it is very irresponsible to try to get reasonably healthy people to take a potent drug like statins as a preventative medicine. It is just not the same as taking an aspirin on a daily basis.
Thirdly, I think that the side effects of statins use are underreported, as the side effects build up gradually. I know, I have been there.
I further think that there should be more media cover regarding the side effects of statins, so that more people who have been duped into thinking that statins are the elixior of life are made aware of them.
I am not saying, that those with truly abnormal cholesterol levels and existing heart conditions should not take them.
Yes I agree. I am currently looking at this from a doctors point of view – looking at the protective values of staying on the drug as opposed to coming off a statin.
What I think you are right about it that the adverse effects of statins are being largely overlooked by the medical profession. Muscle wastage and damage is not so much a side effect as a damaging effect to the patient – which in some cases is irreversible.
Despite the fact that statins can potentially cause damage, and ARE causing damage to some patients, I am trying to figure out why a patient would be prescribed a statin which may or may not prevent a cardiovascular event in the future – again which is not a definite occurrence.
spot on Usch. Unfortunately what is also not made more public to the general population is that massively funded lobbying from pharmaceutical companies with vast amounts of money at stake influences bodies like NICE, who in turn set the standards by which doctors' prescribing habits are then in turn influenced. The level at which LDL now warrants pharmaceutical intervention has been drastically reduced. Thus many 'healthy' people now fall within a category where their cholesterol level previously thought to be within a healthy range, now has them with a lifelong statin usage, without much thought to whether they present with any contributory factors relating to heart disease etc. High LDL alone has not been proven to elevate the risk of heart attacks in an individual with otherwise good vascular health. I am vegetarian, am not overweight, do not have high blood sugar or blood pressure and exercise regularly. I do however have familial (hereditary) abnormally high cholesterol. I am most probably at risk of a stroke but I am in an even higher risk category of severe disability, even fatality, from taking toxic statins. Catch 22 or what.
I think that the members of NICE need to have their egos reduced.
It is them that instruct - basically order - GP's to offer statins to everybody who seems to be at risk of heart decease and have a serum cholesterol above 4, according to some Qrisk assessment tool.
The average unsuspecting patient generally will not question the GP's recommendations, hence they start taking the drug.
NICE have been criticised heavily by numerous medical and other professionals, but they seem to be in denial. 'There are hardly any side effects'.
The problem is, that N ICE do heavily rely on research carried out by the pharmaceutical companies, who do not disclose their results with any transparency. Whether the members of NICE are 'in bed with the drug companies' may or may not be true; it is worrying though.
You hit the nail on the head usch with your phrase 'average unsuspecting patient' - I was told that whilst the leaflet within the packaging of my statins listed untold possible 'side effects' most were rare or minor and I shouldnt let that override the benefits. What I wasn't told is that I should have regular liver enzyme tests, or report back immediately if certain muscular problems occurred. Thankfully I had the wherewithal and resources available to me to do my own research but there are those that cant or dont and realistically it's a blatant untruth that these so called side effects are 'rare'. From my experience and interraction, particularly on this forum, the incidence of damage from statin usage is all too common and unfortunately mostly ignored.
I think law suits are taking place in the US regarding prescriptions of statins.
NICE were created some years ago to balance out thye inequalities of treatments people received due to different standards being applied by different doctors nation wide.
They now have moved in the opposite directions by allowing those at GP level very little scope to apply their own judgment; they are basically deskilling the primary care medical professionals.
It may be necessary for law suits to make NICE wake up.
Is this a wind up? Your posts are full of contradictions. You say 'you're looking at this from the doctors point of view'. Then go on to say that 'I am trying to figure out why a patient would be prescribed a statin which may or may not prevent a cardiovascular event in the future – again which is not a definite occurrence'. You should be asking doctors not patients.
In my case and in the case of many of the other seniors in my community . . . I demanded to be taken off simvistatin because of the crippling joint and tendon pain and the paralysis of my upper legs which made it really hard to move my legs and walk which is my form of exercise to ward off serious illnesses.
It became more and more insane for me to continue putting something in my mouth that was causing such a massive and excruciating reaction.
Anyone with half a brain would not go near such a dangerous drug and I personally resent your desire to find ways of convincing people to take it.
I'm just trying to look at it both ways. Like what would make a patient stay on or go off a statin. And why would they even be prescribed in the first place if they can cause patients damage. Do benefits out weigh the risks in some cases and not others? I'm just looking for opinions on the matter.
I'm studying and researching lipids that's all and what I'm finding on some health pages doesn't really cover the real life case from patients.
I'm not looking to convince anyone to stay on it. I'm just looking at what would make someone stay on the drug if for instance they were told it was helping lower their cardiovascular risk significantly. There is so much conflicting evidence on statins and I'm studying this at the moment so just looking for answers from all sides.
From what I can gauge, the Info from online pages and the NHS is greatly understating the effects statins can have, and those who suffer the effects appear to do so very badly, whereas a luck few appear to experience very few issues at all.
Read articles from Malcolm Kendrick
With so much uncertainty around the side effects of statins, I think it borders onto criminality for organisations such as NICE to basically MAKE GP's convince patients to take a very potent drug that may help them or not help them.
Statins Provide No Benefit:- Study of 4 Million People.
Published June 11th 2013 in Biomed Central's Journal of Negative Results in Medicine.
A population-based study in Sweden shows that the massive deployment of statins has provided no benefit. Three times as many statins were being taken by Swedish people in the year 2000 than in 1998. Yet, the numbers of people suffering or dying from heart attacks were unchanged by the increase!
Not only does this demonstrate that the massive push to press people into taking statins has been based on flawed science, it also turns the claim that randomized double blinded placebo controlled (RDBPC) drug trials are the gold standard upside down. Obviously, it means that they're worthless—at least in the way that they're currently applied in pharmaceutical drug trials. Clearly, they are easily and routinely subverted.
The effects of a drug when the entire populace is examined are obviously more important than carefully designed trials, especially when they're done by or for the people who stand to profit from them.
Disease is not caused by a lack of drugs!
I do not believe for a moment that there is "so much conflicting evidence on statins" - there is simply the overwhelming mountain of evidence that people are being crippled by this drug and that the pharmaceuticals are desperately trying to protect their profits and not just keep people on a medication that they KNOW is harming them but actually trying to INCREASE the sales of this toxic substance.
I am highly suspicious of your motives and do not see you as a wholesome influence OR an honest inquirer.