Personally speaking: I won't touch statins with the proverbial sterilised barge pole! I was persuaded, much against my will, to take a statin just over 2 years ago when I had had back problems and then reacted to iv valium by developing atrial fibrillation. The medical consultants decided my cholesterol was "extremely high", it wasn't, I reserve that for cholesterol values in double figures, but it was raised. They promised to monitor me carefully (they didn't) and didn't give me simvastatin, they gave me atorvastatin (Lipitor). After my escapades in hospital I was walking fine albeit on crutches (an achilles problem), the back was not right but far better than it had been, and I went home. Within days I couldn't walk mosre than 50 yards on the flat, the slightest slope was the end and as for steps - I could forget them!
After a week I decided to stop taking the statin and told the pain clinic anaesthetist what I was doing - she felt it was fair enough in the short term, I could discuss it with the cardiologist. A few weeks later I told her - and she was fine about it. I offered to try another, she said I needn't. It took me a year to get back to where I had been pre-statin.
There is evidence to suggest that for all men and women who have already had a cardiovascular event (heart attack or stroke) taking a statin may protect them from having a second one. That is not the case for women who have not yet had a cardiac event. A/f doesn't count as a "cardiac event" so it doesn't apply so I am perfectly happy not to take them.
I don't mind too much the concept of them being used in an attempt to stop a second "event". I have absolutely no problem when they are used for patients with "familial hypercholesteraemia" - very high cholesterol, readings in double figures. But the idea of using them for otherwise healthy people is appaling!
The problem is that when patients develop side effects that are bad enough to make a change or discontinuation necessary, it isn't reported using the yellow card system. Too many doctors say "it's a known side effect, no need to report it". That isn't true. The true rate of side effects only becomes known once drugs are out of clinical trials with limited numbers of people, many healthy, and approved and released for use in the general population - and thousands of patients with real illnesses. But to know that - any side effects must be reported.
The real rate of side effects with statins is far closer to the high rates that some doctors are claiming than the low rates the statin supporters re claiming. If you can take a statin without any problems and you are at a high risk of a heart attack, fair enough. But the rate of confusion and dementia in the elderly is increasing dramatically - how much is actually due to statins? That is one of the commonest side-effects in elderly frail patients. And if you have muscle problems already - why take a medication that is already suspected to possibly trigger such illnesses?
If a statin or any other drug makes you feel ill - a very realistic appraisal of the risk/benefit relationship should be undertaken. Since 200-239 is perceived as "borderline high" by the Mayo I really wouldn't class 240 as high (you can't measure it that accurately!) and if your HDL is high that makes your LDL only a bit into borderline. I wouldn't consider taking a statin in that situation. But that is me. We already take a load of medication - we don't need another unless essential. And the cholesterol is slightly high because we're older and on pred - don't panic yet is my mantra.