• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Statins?

Alexandra100

Alexandra100

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,794
Location
West Yorkshire
Type of diabetes
Prediabetes
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Statin Use Tied to Increased Diabetes Risk in Already At-Risk Patients — Physician’s First Watch
MEDICAL NEWS |
PHYSICIAN'S FIRST WATCH

October 24, 2017

Statin Use Tied to Increased Diabetes Risk in Already At-Risk Patients


By Kelly Young

Edited by David G. Fairchild, MD, MPH, and Jaye Elizabeth Hefner, MD

Statin use seems to further increase the risk for diabetes in patients already at high risk, according to a secondary analysis in BMJ Open Diabetes Research & Care.

Briefly, 3200 high-risk patients (elevated BMI, impaired glucose tolerance) were randomized to metformin, intensive lifestyle intervention, or placebo. Patients could be prescribed statins at their physician's discretion. At 10 years, roughly 35% were taking statins.

Regardless of randomized assignment, statin users had a roughly 30% increased risk for incident diabetes relative to nonusers, even after adjustment for potential confounders. Among patients randomized to the lifestyle intervention, statin use was associated with a drop in insulin secretion.

The authors conclude: "For individual patients, a potential modest increase in diabetes risk clearly needs to be balanced against the consistent and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death associated with statin treatment. Nonetheless, glucose status should be monitored and healthy lifestyle behaviors reinforced in high-risk patients who are prescribed statins."
 
"....consistant and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarctions, stroke and cardiovascular death...."

I would love to see the stats on this as my reading into statins has brought me to the conclusion that there are few, if any, benefits from taking them. What this paragraph is saying is that the risk of Diabetes related heart health and its associated risks are less of a problem than the risks of high cholesterol. How does that make any sense at all?
 
Guzzler said:
"....consistant and highly significant reductions in myocardial infarctions, stroke and cardiovascular death...."

I would love to see the stats on this as my reading into statins has brought me to the conclusion that there are few, if any, benefits from taking them. What this paragraph is saying is that the risk of Diabetes related heart health and its associated risks are less of a problem than the risks of high cholesterol. How does that make any sense at all?
Click to expand...

Ummm. I'm not sure we're reading the same paragraph. The meaning I get from the article is that if you were at risk of getting diabetes and you start taking statins, you are now at a higher risk of getting diabetes. So people who might get diabetes need to balance the increased risk of diabetes versus decreased risk of stroke and heart problems.

If you asked an average, non-diabetic person off the street if they'd rather have diabetes or a heart attack what would they say? (I would have wanted to know the exact numbers and statistics, but that's just me.)

Not terribly relevant for most of us, we've already got diabetes. The article says nothing about risks/benefits for diabetics.

Edited
Oops, I got the discrepancy. The author uses diabetes risk to mean risk of getting diabetes, not risks associated with having diabetes.
 
Seacrow said:
Ummm. I'm not sure we're reading the same paragraph. The meaning I get from the article is that if you were at risk of getting diabetes and you start taking statins, you are now at a higher risk of getting diabetes. So people who might get diabetes need to balance the increased risk of diabetes versus decreased risk of stroke and heart problems.

If you asked an average, non-diabetic person off the street if they'd rather have diabetes or a heart attack what would they say? (I would have wanted to know the exact numbers and statistics, but that's just me.)

Not terribly relevant for most of us, we've already got diabetes. The article says nothing about risks/benefits for diabetics.
Click to expand...
My point is that the benefits of statins for all those at risk is highly questionable and even for those who have already suffered incidents of stroke or heart attacks the benefits are now thought to be very small.
So, for me, the weighing up of risk is skewed because the benefit of statins (in this particular article) is skewed.
 
It is already known that statins can increase BS levels. There are warnings about it on the information leaflets.
It doesn't seem to matter if we are non-diabetic, at risk of diabetes, or diabetic. The effect will be the same - increased BS levels.
 
Oh yeah, I agree the statins are probably pretty useless for most people, and now this paper shows they increase the chance of getting diabetes too (by 30%!!!). I'm fairly sure doctors are prescribing them for diabetics on the basis that they're unlikely to harm and there's a slight possibility they might help. Can't increase a diabetic's risk of getting diabetes. And if you're on insulin you can just inject a little more.

P.S. Not my opinion, before I get flamed.
 
I am pretty sure that GPs are prescribing statins because the Gov are incentivising them to do so. This is clearly what Dr. David Unwin has said.

Malcom Kendrick and Aseem Malhotra have a great deal to say on statins, worth buying the books or viewing their youtube videos. Ivor Cummins also has a great video which I can highly recommend, I think it is called 'The cholesterol Conundrum'.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
It is already known that statins can increase BS levels. There are warnings about it on the information leaflets.
It doesn't seem to matter if we are non-diabetic, at risk of diabetes, or diabetic. The effect will be the same - increased BS levels.
Click to expand...
Yes, you have gone to the heart of the matter. A person who has already had eg 2 heart attacks or strokes might prefer to try to lower their risk of the 3rd in the immediate future by taking a statin, never mind the longer term effects of raised bs, which they might never live to experience.
 
Seacrow said:
Oh yeah, I agree the statins are probably pretty useless for most people, and now this paper shows they increase the chance of getting diabetes too (by 30%!!!). I'm fairly sure doctors are prescribing them for diabetics on the basis that they're unlikely to harm and there's a slight possibility they might help. Can't increase a diabetic's risk of getting diabetes. And if you're on insulin you can just inject a little more.

P.S. Not my opinion, before I get flamed.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree with you there. I’m T2 diet controlled and was diagnosed with an Hba1c of 48 which, after starting to tak3 statins, increased to 54. Since coming off them for other side effects my Hba1c has reduced to 36.
 
Seacrow said:
I'm fairly sure doctors are prescribing them for diabetics on the basis that they're unlikely to harm
Click to expand...

Disagree 100% A straw poll in one of the medical journals (BMJ or Lancet, can't remember but as they sit on either side of the fence, it's only one of them) found that 60% of GPs who answered the poll (skews results already I admit) would not prescribe statins for themselves or a family member.

It seems impossible to get proper empirical evidence because the bloke who has custody of most of the data in the UK (Prof Rory Collins, I think) won't let anyone look at it. I wonder why? Obviously nothing to do with his funding, or is it?

Anecdotally all I can say is that I had a lot of muscle pain which didn't disappear when I stopped taking them, in my view, that's harmful. My father, when 85 was prescribed statins and he could no longer walk round the block ever day because of muscle pain. Worried about cholesterol at 85? I think it was better he went for a walk, he got to 85 without any problems.

I think the prescribing of statins is down to NICE guidelines and a lot of GPs overlook the fact that it's not compulsory. I actually know somebody whose GP said "you can take them, or you could die". I would have reported any doctor try that old chestnut, we put a lot of faith in our GPs, we don't have too much choice, they need to be able to use their loaf a bit.
 
Regarding the research that Prof. Rory Collins keeps hidden, there was some alarming news some time ago.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/558249/statins-expert-heart-drug-rory-collins

Some quotes from that article.

"Head researcher Prof Collins admitted he had not seen the full data on side effects.

In an email to this paper he stated that his team had assessed the effects of statins on heart disease and cancer but not other side effects such as muscle pain."

"Prof Rory Collins, whose research helped rubber stamp statins as safe, said his team will carry out a “challenging” reassessment of the evidence which will include studying all reported side effects.

Although the original research looked at the effect of statins on the heart and considered cancer risks it did not examine other side effects."

" Dr Collins, who championed the controversial drug, said the additional work was needed to convince the public that statins were safe."

The problem I have with this is that if he keeps on saying that statins are safe and yet admits he never tested them for side effects then how sound is the main research which he says he did carry out but won't let anyone see.
 
Squire Fulwood said:
"Prof Rory Collins, whose research helped rubber stamp statins as safe, said his team will carry out a “challenging” reassessment of the evidence which will include studying all reported side effects.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is, how many people report side effects, and how many think the side effects are caused by something else, so never associate them with statins, and also some of the side effects don't materialise until after years of use.
 
Also, I remember reading somewhere that as few as 5% of GPs report the side effects to the relevant body.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
The problem with this is, how many people report side effects, and how many think the side effects are caused by something else, so never associate them with statins, and also some of the side effects don't materialise until after years of use.
Click to expand...
That's only one of the problems. There was a radio interview conducted by Nicky Campell where, among other things, Dr. Malhotra said that Prof. Collins had cherry picked his subjects. This was put to Prof. Collins who said that he found that picking his subjects was very useful. Surely there must be some doubt about the validity of his research.

I don't seem to able to find a link to the program now but I shall try again.
 
Squire Fulwood said:
"Prof Rory Collins, whose research helped rubber stamp statins as safe, said his team will carry out a “challenging” reassessment of the evidence which will include studying all reported side effects.
Click to expand...

The government put up £1 million to do further trials. The job was given to Professor Jane Armitage . . . . . surprise, surprise, one of his colleagues in the Clinical Trial Assessment Unit at the Nuffield Department of Population Health in Oxford.

This lady is quoted as saying that she is confident that statins do not increase the risk of muscle pain in most patients and believes side-effects of the drugs are rare. Personally I was under the impression that you don't start any sort of trial by predicting the outcome. They are supposed to be looking at the what actually happens and not proving either way whether statins do or don't cause muscle pain and damage. That was established by Merck Pharmaceutical, a pharmaceutical company manufacturing statins, as far back as 1990.

It just stinks of a huge fudge to make the drug forced on millions who don't need it. There are undoubtedly those who will benefit, but it's not for everyone.
 
Squire Fulwood said:
That's only one of the problems. There was a radio interview conducted by Nicky Campell where, among other things, Dr. Malhotra said that Prof. Collins had cherry picked his subjects. This was put to Prof. Collins who said that he found that picking his subjects was very useful. Surely there must be some doubt about the validity of his research.

I don't seem to able to find a link to the program now but I shall try again.
Click to expand...
I had also read somewhere that people who reported side effects when on the trial were removed from it hence leading to Prof Collins very few side effects claims. I think the whole thing is a huge fraud that has cost UK taxpayers billions with few if any benefits.
 
A lesser known side effect is sleep issues. This happened to Mr. Blue when he took statins a few years ago. He didn't experience any muscle pains. He reported this to his GP who advised him to take them in the morning rather than bedtime. (Bedtime is the time advised on the package) He did this, but saw no improvement, so he just stopped taking them without informing anyone. The sleep issues improved. There must be thousands that do this - assuming they relate the problem to statins in the first place.
 
A bloke down the road has recently (over the past year) put on a lot of weight. It started when he started statins. I wonder if it could be increasing his IR? He says he is doing the same as he always did but the weight keeps creeping up. He is 3 stones heavier than last year.
 
bulkbiker said:
I had also read somewhere that people who reported side effects when on the trial were removed from it hence leading to Prof Collins very few side effects claims. I think the whole thing is a huge fraud that has cost UK taxpayers billions with few if any benefits.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that there was a pre trial after which unsuitable candidates were removed. Prof. Collins said that people who didn't actually take the pill were removed. I suppose that could include people who had a good reason not to take the pill but that is not what he said.
 
Found the radio programme. It's been mildly edited. A bit on the end is missing.

 
Last edited:
Back
Top