New Worries About Statin Drugs

[+ Lucky]

High cholesterol has been my unwelcome buddy for many years now. I hate the drug Lipitor since it caused severe pain in my calves. But, I had to take it. So, I took 10mg a day even thought that is a low dose. When the leg pain would have me screaming, I would stop for a week. Then, earlier this year, the doc switched me to Crestor, but only two days a week at 20mg. My cholesterol numbers plummeted and I have little calf pain. For the first time in years, I had a normal level.

 

All of this is to preface new warnings today from the FDA on statin drugs, whether Crestor or Lipitor or a generic. It seems that they can cause memory loss and confusion. Given that older folks tend to be the ones taking them, this is no small matter since we don't need any more help to forget things. And I am always confused! besides muscle pain, it is thought that these drugs can increase the likelihood of getting diabetes.

 

Yet Big Pharma seems not ready to rest until we are all on statin drugs. So, start with your diet, and then exercise, and see if you can avoid these drugs altogether. Reading this article may encourage you in that direction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/health/fda-warns-of-cholesterol-drugs-side-effects.html?hp

 

Another medical study in the news yesterday was on the dangers of long term use of sleeping pills. (You die earlier.) Don't get me started on how dangerous Ambien is. I have stopped it altogether.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9111217/Are-sleeping-pills-really-that-bad-for-your-health.html

[down_to_business]

I thought today's warning was that it can elevate blood sugar. Oh well... I remeber reading how some Dr's think popping statins are so good for you that they prescribe them and take them, themselves. Well I am convinced they can make an argument that anything is both good or bad for you period.

[+ Lucky]

Elevating blood sugar is in there too.

[+ Travis69]

I have heard that drinking tonic water relieves muscle cramps/pain in the calves.

[Guest]

High cholesterol has been my unwelcome buddy for many years now. I hate the drug Lipitor since it caused severe pain in my calves. But, I had to take it. So, I took 10mg a day even thought that is a low dose. When the leg pain would have me screaming, I would stop for a week. Then, earlier this year, the doc switched me to Crestor, but only two days a week at 20mg. My cholesterol numbers plummeted and I have little calf pain. For the first time in years, I had a normal level.

 

All of this is to preface new warnings today from the FDA on statin drugs, whether Crestor or Lipitor or a generic. It seems that they can cause memory loss and confusion. Given that older folks tend to be the ones taking them, this is no small matter since we don't need any more help to forget things. And I am always confused! besides muscle pain, it is thought that these drugs can increase the likelihood of getting diabetes.

 

Yet Big Pharma seems not ready to rest until we are all on statin drugs. So, start with your diet, and then exercise, and see if you can avoid these drugs altogether. Reading this article may encourage you in that direction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/health/fda-warns-of-cholesterol-drugs-side-effects.html?hp

 

Another medical study in the news yesterday was on the dangers of long term use of sleeping pills. (You die earlier.) Don't get me started on how dangerous Ambien is. I have stopped it altogether.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9111217/Are-sleeping-pills-really-that-bad-for-your-health.html

 

The NY Times article you referenced quotes even Dr. Steven Nissen, one of the most rabidly anti-pharmaceutical industry physicians on the planet, as saying

 

“These are not major issues, and they really do not alter the decision-making process with regard to statins,” Dr. Nissen said.

 

With respect to memory loss, the article further states that there is NO hard evidence that the medication causes any deleterious effects on cognitive function:

""Dozens of well-controlled trials of statins have offered few hints that the drugs cause any kind of cognitive impairment, Dr. Egan said. Still, the F.D.A. has received many reports over the years that some patients felt unfocused or “fuzzy” in their thinking after taking the medicines.

 

Officials in the F.D.A. debated whether such reports were truly worrisome, Dr. Egan said. But in recent years, the F.D.A. — criticized for waiting too long to issue some safety alerts — has become more willing to be public about possible drug risks, even when the evidence is uncertain.""

 

In fact, there had been some studies to suggest that those taking statins have a slightly lower rate of Alzheimer's, although the studies didn't really pan out when subjected to randomized clinical trials. As with ALL medications, especially those taken for prolonged periods of time, the decision to take the medication has to involve weighing risks and benefits, which all medications have. Statins have been around for decades, and their risks and benefits are better known that of most other medications. There is really little if any question that, when prescribed for appropriate patients, those who take them live longer and have fewer cardiovascular events than those who don't. It is really a dis-service to the public and frankly potentially life-threatening to misrepresent risks, especially when some of these risks are little more than rumors. Even the lay article you referred to is clear on this point.

As for "sleeping pills," they are rarely if ever indicated for long-term use. I don't even know of any studies which go beyond 6 months, and usually use should be for only a few weeks at most. Ambien (zolpidem) is marginally safer than most other hypnotics, but, as with any hypnotic, they do increase the risk that someone will die in his sleep (especially when mixed with other sedatives, as fans of a number of celebrities have found out), and, of course, they increase the risk that the person taking it will injure himself on his way to the bathroom at night. Of course, when used short-term, a hypnotic might decrease the risk of a car crash the next day, if it helps the person get a restful night's sleep.

My point is that I would discourage people from making medical decisions on the basis of message board rumors, brief lay press reports, or late-night plaintiff attorney ads for "1-800-BAD-DRUG." I would certainly encourage, however, people to discuss all drugs, especially chronic medications, with their physicians or other health care professional (NP or PA-C) regarding potential risks and benefits.

[Guest]

I have heard that drinking tonic water relieves muscle cramps/pain in the calves.

 

There has been some evidence that taking CoEnzyme Q10 before the statin dose lessens the chance of muscle pain. It hasn't been proven however. From Wikipedia:

Coenzyme Q10 shares a biosynthetic pathway with cholesterol. The synthesis of an intermediary precursor of coenzyme Q10, mevalonate, is inhibited by some beta blockers, blood pressure-lowering medication,[23] and statins, a class of cholesterol-lowering drugs.[24] Statins can reduce serum levels of coenzyme Q10 by up to 40%.[25] Some research suggests the logical option of supplementation with coenzyme Q10 as a routine adjunct to any treatment that may reduce endogenous production of coenzyme Q10, based on a balance of likely benefit against very small risk.[26][27] However, there are still no conclusive data that support the role of CoQ10 deficiency in the pathogenesis of statin-related myopathy.

[+ deej]

I have heard that drinking tonic water relieves muscle cramps/pain in the calves.

 

Put a little vodka and lime in that tonic and it'll help too.

[+ FreshFluff]

On the other hand,one study shows that statins reduce plaque inflammation, which is linked to various diseases.

 

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Cardiology/Dyslipidemia/13982

[+ Lucky]

Statins have not been shown to reduce heart disease, which is the main reason you want to take them, I would think. Unicorn and I agree that one should not get his medical advice from a message board. If anything, this or other medical posts are merely invitations to talk with your doctor for more information. However, in my experience, not all doctors are up to date.

[Guest]

Statins have not been shown to reduce heart disease, which is the main reason you want to take them, I would think. Unicorn and I agree that one should not get his medical advice from a message board. If anything, this or other medical posts are merely invitations to talk with your doctor for more information. However, in my experience, not all doctors are up to date.

 

With the exception of the oldest statin on the market (lovastatin, which probably has little place now that all statins but Crestor/rosuvastatin are now generic), I believe all statins have been proven to reduced cardiovascular death and/or hardening of the arteries. These have been done internationally in randomized trials involving hundreds of thousands of patients in multiple universities across the globe, starting with the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study which was published 25 years ago:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9860376

 

While it cannot, of course, be proven that the mechanism of the increased survival is the lowering of cholesterol, all studies comparing stronger with weaker statins have shown that the lower the "bad" (LDL) cholesterol, the less atherosclerosis and the lower the cardiovascular mortality is. In fact, less than 20 years ago, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, which manufactured then-patented pravastatin, made a wild bet and went head-to-head against more potent atorvastatin (Lipitor). The study code was broken early when it was discovered that pravastatin-randomized patients were dying more quickly than atorvastatin-randomized patients. To BMS's credit, they published the study (in the NEJM, if I recall correctly).

[Guest]

I found the reference to the references to the pravastatin vs. atorvastatin trial"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15330739

[instudiocity]

I lost weight by diet, began a regular light exercise routine. The result was I eliminated statins (Lipitor) and diabetes drugs entirely from my prescription load. It's not just what you eat, it's whether or not you burn the calories you're consuming. High Cholesterol and High Blood Sugar in most people is a sign of eating more than your body burns in a day.

[+ glutes]

History repeats itself:

 

http://www.companyofmen.org/showthread.php?63654-Lipitor-Study-Fraud

[+ purplekow]

ELevated cholesterol is a risk factor for coronary artery disease but it is not in and of itself a disease state. Each of us has a risk of cardiovascular disease based on many factors including genetic predisposition, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, fitness level, gout, cholesterol level and distribution of cholesterol types. When considering the decision to utilize cholesterol lowering drugs, one should bear in mind the cost of the medication, the side effects of the medication and the potential benefit of lowering risk. Do you want to take a potentially toxic and expensive medication to lower your risk of coronary artery disease from 10% to 8% over the next 7 years? Might that money be better spent of a better diet? A utlitized gym membership? A smoking cessation class?

 

A non-smoking premenopausal woman without any family history of premature coronary artery disease and without underlying diseases of risk and a cholesterol of 240 with an HDL of 90 is at completely different risk than a man the same age who is a smoker and who also has a family history of premature coronary artery disease. His cholesterol of 240 with an HDL of 38 should likely be addressed, her cholesterol levels are not likely to need active intervention. Unfortunately, it seems that while most people in the US are concerned about their cholesterol level, few have the insight to judge relative risk and benefit.

 

Some doctors are poorly prepared to consider the extent to which lowering cholesterol lowers risk. Additionally some doctors would rather throw medication at a non-problem rather than spend the time educating a patient as to the data supporting non-use of the lipid lowering agents. Having patients on drugs keeps them coming back for blood tests and periodic checks and so there is a financial incentive for doctors to use medications.

Statins have a definite place in the armamentarium of the well qualified and insightful medical practitioner. Finding the qualified and insightful practitioner is the key.

[+ Lucky]

I think it is great that we are discussing these things, but no one would take these drugs unless a doctor supervised their use, would they?

[RexAll]

ELevated cholesterol is a risk factor for coronary artery disease but it is not in and of itself a disease state. Each of us has a risk of cardiovascular disease based on many factors including genetic predisposition, smoking, hypertension, diabetes, fitness level, gout, cholesterol level and distribution of cholesterol types. When considering the decision to utilize cholesterol lowering drugs, one should bear in mind the cost of the medication, the side effects of the medication and the potential benefit of lowering risk. Do you want to take a potentially toxic and expensive medication to lower your risk of coronary artery disease from 10% to 8% over the next 7 years? Might that money be better spent of a better diet? A utlitized gym membership? A smoking cessation class?

 

A non-smoking premenopausal woman without any family history of premature coronary artery disease and without underlying diseases of risk and a cholesterol of 240 with an HDL of 90 is at completely different risk than a man the same age who is a smoker and who also has a family history of premature coronary artery disease. His cholesterol of 240 with an HDL of 38 should likely be addressed, her cholesterol levels are not likely to need active intervention. Unfortunately, it seems that while most people in the US are concerned about their cholesterol level, few have the insight to judge relative risk and benefit.

 

Some doctors are poorly prepared to consider the extent to which lowering cholesterol lowers risk. Additionally some doctors would rather throw medication at a non-problem rather than spend the time educating a patient as to the data supporting non-use of the lipid lowering agents. Having patients on drugs keeps them coming back for blood tests and periodic checks and so there is a financial incentive for doctors to use medications.

Statins have a definite place in the armamentarium of the well qualified and insightful medical practitioner. Finding the qualified and insightful practitioner is the key.

 

There are people- I don't know the numbers who do everything right and still have high cholesterol. For them I would think statins would be a definite yes.

 

Rex

[shadowcatzxxx]

There are people- I don't know the numbers who do everything right and still have high cholesterol. For them I would think statins would be a definite yes.

 

Rex

 

I am one of those. There are genetic conditions that cause high cholesterol (and bad ratios, and sometimes high triglycerides) regardless of diet. Without those drugs, I would have been dead long ago. With them, I was developing muscular side effects (mental ones too? I forget ...) until we fiddles with a few meds & cut the statin dose in half. Cholesterol still under reasonable control & muscular side effects gone.

 

The important hting to remeber is that medications are medications -- not Harry Potter potions. Most of them have side effects ... some minor, some nasty ... and both effectiveness of meds and the intensity of side effects vary extensively among individuals. I wouldn't want to take any of 'em if I didn't have to. So if you CAN eliminate the need for them through exercise & diet, DO IT!!

[+ Lucky]

Sorry to bring this back up just when it had quieted down, but I seem to have totally missed the fact that statin use leads to a higher risk of getting diabetes: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/opinion/the-diabetes-dilemma-for-statin-users.html?_r=1&src=rechp

[healthguy]

It's good that you brought it back up. First of all, take a look at the author of the article, and the title of his book. Any type of personal agenda going on? Now, this fluff about a correlation between the statins and the development of diabetes and memory difficulties. Do you think people that are prescribed these drugs pay much attention to the counseling about their lifestyles??? Cut down on saturated fats, drop 50 to 100 labs or more, cut out the chips and soda!!! Get more exercises, and eat more fruits and veggies. No they do not. So when someone picks out info, writes an article, they need to be responsible to look at ALL the factors that play into the results. The majority of people I am guessing, use their new prescription for statins as a continued license to continue to eat, and continue on with their lifestyles as before. Time I believe will play out in the next few years about these issues. I also firmly believe that lowering the levels, and raising others in the cholesterol file and rank will save lives. And lest we not forget. When we are always seeming to focus in on heart disease, we should be referring to this as vascular disease is general. Thus, I would rather be a little "fuzzy." then when I'm 80 from my Crestor, then being tube fed in a nursing home from a stroke. So, I will continue to advise me clients/family, friends/acquaintances about health lifestyles. But, I also believe we are what we eat, and it's all about choices. AND, I've been on Crestor for over two years, and would not miss a day without my little pink pill. Or was it three years, oh I forget now.

[+ glutes]

NYTimes article reinforces 'new' worries:

 

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/help-for-the-heart-comes-with-a-price-for-the-brain/

[RexAll]

It Just Occurred To Me-Food Is Bad

 

I don't know why I never thought if it before. But food must be a drug. Look at all the side effects it can cause- weight gain, diabetes, high cholesterol. It's just as bad as any of those medications people have been mentioning in this thread. I think I'm swearing off all food from now on.

 

Rex

[Guest]

NYTimes article reinforces 'new' worries:

 

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/05/help-for-the-heart-comes-with-a-price-for-the-brain/

 

This is yet another example of the importance of actually reading an article, not just the headline, and/or just whatever sections one believes reinforce one's pre-conceived beliefs. The article clearly states:

**Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic noted that cognitive side effects have not been detected in randomized controlled trials of statin therapy. And even the warnings about muscle aches and diabetes need to be weighed against the fact that the drugs are proven to lower risk for heart attack and stroke, he said.

 

“For most physicians, and certainly for me, these warnings haven’t changed the decision-making process about who gets a statin and who doesn’t,” Dr. Nissen said.**

 

I should note that Dr. Nissen is one of the most anti-pharmaceutical industry physicians in the U.S.. He actually filed motions with the FDA to try to get Crestor withdrawn from the market. Fortunately, he was unsuccessful, since later data proved that not only is Crestor the most efficacious statin on the market (both in terms of reducing numbers and in terms of reducing mortality), but it's also the safest (primarily since a very small dose goes a long way).

In addition to needing to read an article completely, this post also demonstrates the dangers of relying on the lay press, rather than medical or scientific sources, when trying to understand medical facts. The article also shows why case reports are nearly useless when attempting to show causality between a medication and purported side-effects. For example, the statement:

**Against his doctor’s advice, Mr. Moseley in 2006 stopped all of the drugs and began focusing on healthful eating and exercise, meeting regularly with a personal trainer and lifting weights. Four months later, the cognitive problems disappeared. Today, he is 69, his cholesterol has dropped from 225 to about 125, and his blood pressure and blood sugar are under control.**

only shows what a screwball this patient is. I do not believe for half a second that his physician advised the patient NOT to focus on healthy eating and exercise. What's quite clear from the change in numbers is that it wasn't until the patient finally decided that it fit his "agenda" that he got his ass off the couch, and began a sensible diet.

As this article suggests, statins and cognitive function have actually been studied in randomized, placebo-controlled studies. The reason they have is that case-control studies from the earliest part of this century had demonstrated that people who take statins have LOWER rates of Alzheimer's than those who don't. The randomized clinical trials (RCT's), however, showed no effect from statins on cognitive function. This is one of many examples of why only RCT's can show causality. Case-control studies can only show associations, not causality. Case reports don't even show associations, much less causality.

[KMEM]

Please don't accuse gloats of actually reading or understanding what he reads.

 

Thanks for your post.

 

Best regards,

KMEM

[+ Lucky]

As I mentioned earlier, I have had great success with Crestor in lowering my cholesterol levels. Lipitor did not work as well and caused more side effects. Those prescription fish oil pills have also worked wonders on my trigylcerides.