Statins

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
FactualFrank
Posts: 25445
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
Been Liked: 6930 times
Has Liked: 11660 times
Location: Leeds

Re: Statins

Post by FactualFrank » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:04 pm

I think we've collectively gathered that one size doesn't fit all. For some it might be the best option. For others it isn't.

If you have any doubts then see more than one doctor. I have seen doctors who have almost written out a prescription for me, before I reminded them that it interacts with something I'm already on. They never bothered to look at the possible interactions. A facility that GPs have on their screen. That alone should speak volumes.

Some doctors are absolutely superb and you walk out feeling better than when you walked in. There is absolutely no harm in seeing more than one doctor. Get the opinions of 2-3 and then make a decision.

Spijed
Posts: 17932
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2016 12:33 pm
Been Liked: 3028 times
Has Liked: 1324 times

Re: Statins

Post by Spijed » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:16 pm

It's simply not true that newer, wonder drugs that are pushed by the big companies are always given out.

I need lifelong anticoagulants and the cheap and cheerful one available is Warfarin. It works very well in the vast majority of cases, although for anyone who knows about it, it can be a pain in the rear due to its instability, thus requiring regular blood checks to make sure the INR level is right.

I've recently been on Clexane (injectable) but need to go back on Warfarin. However, I want to go on Rivaroxaban which is a far more stable, but more expensive version of Warfarin. Unfortunately my consultant said 'NO' so I'm stuck with the rat poison that's worked for years!

She obviously isn't at the behest of the big pharmaceutical companies who would rather push the newer anticoagulants.

joey13
Posts: 7507
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:39 pm
Been Liked: 1772 times
Has Liked: 1231 times

Re: Statins

Post by joey13 » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:17 pm

I had a ct scan my arteries are fine so don’t need statins unfortunately the rest of my heart is knackered:(

turfytopper
Posts: 1366
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:19 am
Been Liked: 435 times
Has Liked: 3585 times
Location: Crawley West Sussex

Re: Statins

Post by turfytopper » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:22 pm

Cirrus_Minor wrote:Just been told by the nurse at the docs that my cholesterol levels are a bit high. Bit surprised because I do a fair bit of cycling. Anyway they have suggested that I go on statins.

There has been some negative feedback on statins i seem to remember, has anyone on here had problems with statins?
I had similar advice....I didn't want to go on statins. So decided to just adjust my diet a bit... eg porridge every day for breakfast, it came down in 6 months.... About to have another blood test 12 months after the advice to use statins.

ClaretAL
Posts: 2870
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 7:39 pm
Been Liked: 1144 times
Has Liked: 966 times

Re: Statins

Post by ClaretAL » Sat Oct 13, 2018 8:26 pm

Spijed wrote:It's simply not true that newer, wonder drugs that are pushed by the big companies are always given out.

I need lifelong anticoagulants and the cheap and cheerful one available is Warfarin. It works very well in the vast majority of cases, although for anyone who knows about it, it can be a pain in the rear due to its instability, thus requiring regular blood checks to make sure the INR level is right.

I've recently been on Clexane (injectable) but need to go back on Warfarin. However, I want to go on Rivaroxaban which is a far more stable, but more expensive version of Warfarin. Unfortunately my consultant said 'NO' so I'm stuck with the rat poison that's worked for years!

She obviously isn't at the behest of the big pharmaceutical companies who would rather push the newer anticoagulants.
Hi mate, totally feel your pain on this 1. The MRS had a double heart valve replacement and so also needs anticoagulants, Warfaring was too volatile and they have finally got her on Synthrome which is a Tinzaparin is perfect, then why cant they give that permanently, orally or injected.

Quicknick
Posts: 6713
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:25 pm
Been Liked: 1434 times
Has Liked: 9462 times
Location: Chiang Rai, Thailand.

Re: Statins

Post by Quicknick » Sun Oct 14, 2018 4:00 am

I don't know what my cholesterol level is, but my blood pressure was a bit high. I had not exercised in quite a while, so I went back to fast-walking for just short of an hour 3 times a week, and my blood pressure is normal now. I have recently moved from Chiang Rai to Chiang Mai and am fast-walking round the moat 3 times a week now. It takes 68 minutes.

Claretto
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:10 am
Been Liked: 34 times
Has Liked: 20 times

Re: Statins

Post by Claretto » Tue Oct 16, 2018 8:02 am

mdd2 wrote:About the only country where there was an outlier in the relationship between incidence of heart disease and total cholesterol was France.
The lowering of total cholesterol levels results in a reduction of heart disease and the best example of those benefits comes from those with genetic high cholesterol (familial hypercholesterolaemia) where untreated about 75% of men will be dead or had a coronary by 65 years of age and before statins this was a bitch to manage.
That said giving statins out like smarties is not sensible and as before it is the person who hneeds assessing not the cholesterol.
Also as I think this Claretto has posted in later life it maybe the Trigs:HDL ratio and insulin resistance (central obesity) that matters more than total or LDL cholesterol and unless you have a bad family history or are known to have heart disease there is no rush to start taking tablets until you have looked at all the factors posted above.
However those on here condemning statins across the board are really in the flat earth league
Flat earth league, really?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A meta-analysis of over 65,000 patients (including data from 11 randomised trials) concluded that the use of statins was not associated with a reduction in the risk of all cause mortality.

Statins have well documented side effects and yet don't help you not die. Why on earth would you take them?

mdd2
Posts: 6916
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 8:47 pm
Been Liked: 1827 times
Has Liked: 751 times

Re: Statins

Post by mdd2 » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:13 am

Claretto wrote:Flat earth league, really?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20585067" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A meta-analysis of over 65,000 patients (including data from 11 randomised trials) concluded that the use of statins was not associated with a reduction in the risk of all cause mortality.

Statins have well documented side effects and yet don't help you not die. Why on earth would you take them?
Why? If you have ischaemic heart disease, and particularly if you have had an MI or have FH or diabetes.
The evidence for primary prevention apart from FH is more debatable and your paper showed no difference in mortality after 4 years use and much like vaccination any benefit to the individual in primary prevention is minimal. There was not quite a reduction in all cause mortality at 4 years with a risk ratio of 0.91 (CI 0.83-1.01). More prolonged study may have seen benefit or could have seen a more convincing overlap of risk ratio.
So please do not knock the benefits of statins in treating diabetics, (whose risk of heart attack is as great as those without diabetes who have already had an attack) those with FH and people who have established ischaemic heart disease.
Oh and be careful on your travels lest you fall off the earth. :lol: :lol:
This user liked this post: Ashingtonclaret46

Post Reply