Statins
-
- Posts: 25445
- Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 12:46 am
- Been Liked: 6930 times
- Has Liked: 11660 times
- Location: Leeds
Re: Statins
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.
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.
Re: Statins
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.
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.
Re: Statins
I had a ct scan my arteries are fine so don’t need statins unfortunately the rest of my heart is knackered:(
-
- Posts: 1366
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:19 am
- Been Liked: 435 times
- Has Liked: 3585 times
- Location: Crawley West Sussex
Re: 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.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?
Re: Statins
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.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.
-
- Posts: 6713
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:25 pm
- Been Liked: 1434 times
- Has Liked: 9462 times
- Location: Chiang Rai, Thailand.
Re: Statins
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.
Re: Statins
Flat earth league, really?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
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?
Re: Statins
Why? If you have ischaemic heart disease, and particularly if you have had an MI or have FH or diabetes.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?
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.


This user liked this post: Ashingtonclaret46