Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Statins - should otherwise healthy people take them?
25 Answers
OH is agitated as the practice nurse at the GPs wants him to go onto statins. He is overweight but losing weight, bp consequently on the high side but dropping as the weight goes, very fit and active, no heart disease or family history thereof.
He questioned the advice and was told that 'research is' that all people over 50 should take statins whether they have problems or not.
What's the view from the AB community on this issue?
He questioned the advice and was told that 'research is' that all people over 50 should take statins whether they have problems or not.
What's the view from the AB community on this issue?
Answers
This is my opinion from a post earlier this afternoon.
Sqad
It changes almost daily now ;-)
If one has had a heart attack or a stroke or a family history of heart attack or stroke, then one should take statins. If one had a high cholesterol or high LDL (low density lipoprotien , then one should take statins.
The "rub" comes as to if the large group of...
Sqad
It changes almost daily now ;-)
If one has had a heart attack or a stroke or a family history of heart attack or stroke, then one should take statins. If one had a high cholesterol or high LDL (low density lipoprotien , then one should take statins.
The "rub" comes as to if the large group of...
17:52 Thu 30th Aug 2012
This is my opinion from a post earlier this afternoon.
Sqad
It changes almost daily now ;-)
If one has had a heart attack or a stroke or a family history of heart attack or stroke, then one should take statins. If one had a high cholesterol or high LDL (low density lipoprotien , then one should take statins.
The "rub" comes as to if the large group of over 50's, with no past history of cardiovascular disease should take statins as "preventative measure."
Two eminent professors of cardiology agree that ALL over 50's should take statins and that many American Cardiologists have already come to that conclusion
It would seem that the evidence produced by recent studies is compelling for the male over 50's but much less so for the female over 50's.
Studies are ongoing, so watch this space.
I have changed my mind about side effects of statins and i now feel that they have been exaggerated.
Sqad
It changes almost daily now ;-)
If one has had a heart attack or a stroke or a family history of heart attack or stroke, then one should take statins. If one had a high cholesterol or high LDL (low density lipoprotien , then one should take statins.
The "rub" comes as to if the large group of over 50's, with no past history of cardiovascular disease should take statins as "preventative measure."
Two eminent professors of cardiology agree that ALL over 50's should take statins and that many American Cardiologists have already come to that conclusion
It would seem that the evidence produced by recent studies is compelling for the male over 50's but much less so for the female over 50's.
Studies are ongoing, so watch this space.
I have changed my mind about side effects of statins and i now feel that they have been exaggerated.
"I have changed my mind about side effects of statins and i now feel that they have been exaggerated."
I tend to think that they are under-reported. I know (directly or indirectly) many people who've suffered pretty severe side-effects of varying kinds. The common factor in most of these cases is that the GP has been unwilling to record them.
Just as one example, my MIL was prescribed statins, and suffered limb pain and night terrors. She told her doctor, who prescribed a different one, with essentially the same side-effects. The GP refused to listen to her complaints, so she simply stopped taking them, researched other methods of improving her cholesterol, and managed to improve it by diet and exercise. The doctor still prescribes the statins, which are delivered automatically to her.
The winners are:
My MIL, who has lowered her own cholesterol
The drug companies, who (thanks to the stubbornness of her GP) are selling the drugs.
The losers are:
The NHS, who are paying for drugs that are not needed or used
The Truth: She's given up trying to convince the GP that she doesn't need or want them. He's convinced that she is taking them, and that her improved cholesterol is a as a result of this.
I tend to think that they are under-reported. I know (directly or indirectly) many people who've suffered pretty severe side-effects of varying kinds. The common factor in most of these cases is that the GP has been unwilling to record them.
Just as one example, my MIL was prescribed statins, and suffered limb pain and night terrors. She told her doctor, who prescribed a different one, with essentially the same side-effects. The GP refused to listen to her complaints, so she simply stopped taking them, researched other methods of improving her cholesterol, and managed to improve it by diet and exercise. The doctor still prescribes the statins, which are delivered automatically to her.
The winners are:
My MIL, who has lowered her own cholesterol
The drug companies, who (thanks to the stubbornness of her GP) are selling the drugs.
The losers are:
The NHS, who are paying for drugs that are not needed or used
The Truth: She's given up trying to convince the GP that she doesn't need or want them. He's convinced that she is taking them, and that her improved cholesterol is a as a result of this.
The side-effects I had from taking statins were very painful. The GP's move the goal posts for the statin level. At one time it was too high at 5.5 I had to get my cholesterol level to 3.5 that was a struggle. I take Ezetrol now with no discernable side effects. For the last two years my cholesterol is in the region of 6.0 and I'm told that's OK.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.