To statin or not?

[Tophat1900]

All I can suggest is to do the research and learn what you can, don't feel pressured into rushing a decision. Consider medical advice, consider advice on here. Researching a subject is how you gain knowledge, the more you know, the easier the decision will be when you are ready to make it.

 

[mr_cat]

Just to clarify, you have a total Cholesterol count of 2.5?

Indeed , if so it seems erm

 

[Guzzler]

Indeed , if so it seems erm

I think that is the lowest count I have ever seen. I am not sure if there is cause for concern or not but I would certainly want to speak to someone qualified to assess that figure.

 

[mr_cat]

I think that is the lowest count I have ever seen. I am not sure if there is cause for concern or not but I would certainly want to speak to someone qualified to assess that figure.

Did a quick shuffle on the net and 2.5 is not considered good.
would need to spend more time researching though.

 

[Mr_Pot]

All I can suggest is to do the research and learn what you can, don't feel pressured into rushing a decision. Consider medical advice, consider advice on here. Researching a subject is how you gain knowledge, the more you know, the easier the decision will be when you are ready to make it.

I agree with that apart from the last bit. It is often much easier to make a decision about things you don't understand, the referendum was a good example. Of course easy decisions are not always the right ones. None of which helps the OP who will just have to go with her best guess.

 

[Guzzler]

Did a quick shuffle on the net and 2.5 is not considered good.
would need to spend more time researching though.

To be frank, if it is not a lab error, I'm surprised you're still upright.

Appointment with Doctor ASAP.

 

[Listlad]

2.5 what? Which of these does that figure of 2.5 relate to:

• Serum cholesterol
• Serum triglycerides
• Serum HDL cholesterol level
• Serum LDL cholesterol level
• Serum cholesterol/HDL radio
• Se non HDL cholesterol level

Is it the first i.e. Serum cholesterol? In mmol/L?

 

[Listlad]

2.5 what? Which of these does that figure of 2.5 relate to:

• Serum cholesterol
• Serum triglycerides
• Serum HDL cholesterol level
• Serum LDL cholesterol level
• Serum cholesterol/HDL radio
• Se non HDL cholesterol level

Is it the first i.e. Serum cholesterol? In mmol/L?

All this wealth of knowledge on cholesterol and nobody knows.

 

[mr_cat]

To be frank, if it is not a lab error, I'm surprised you're still upright.

Appointment with Doctor ASAP.

My Own total levels are around 6 last time i checked.

 

[Guzzler]

My Own total levels are around 6 last time i checked.

Sorry, perhaps I have misundersotod. I thought you said your total cholestrol was 2.5. What exactly is the 2.5 count of? Is that LDL or HDL or total?

 

[mr_cat]

Sorry, perhaps I have misundersotod. I thought you said your total cholestrol was 2.5. What exactly is the 2.5 count of? Is that LDL or HDL or total?

it was this member : micktodd53, who said their reading was 2.5 so no idea.

 

[micktodd53]

Just to clarify, you have a total Cholesterol count of 2.5?

yes my last test was 2.5 i was not told if it was LDL or HDL although there is talk of increased risk of some complications with a low cholesterol risk i will take these over the risks involved with a high level .

 

[FIGARO5]

I was diagnosed with Type 2 in 2011, my cholesterol then was 4, GP said I had to take statins because I was Diabetic and prone to heart disease. My Dad died of a heart attack when he was 65 but he smoked roll your own cigarettes and stopped taking his statins so that's a no brainer. My mother took statins as her cholesterol was high and died of a catastrophic brain bleed in June aged 75. I did as I was told and cholesterol went down to 3.8 and still is. I think being lactose intolerant and not eating red meat because I don't like it helps. Why does my GP still insist I take the things as they cause me muscle pain. Any thoughts?? My last HBAC1 was 55

 

[FIGARO5]

yes my last test was 2.5

That's wonderful I think? Go you

 

[NicoleC1971]

I think the gp insists because your dad had a heart attack albeit with a risk factor which you don't have.
However you do have type 2 and are insulin dependant so I imagine you've had it for a few years? Higher blood sugars and insulin levels cause damage to the lining of the arteries. We know that diabetics treated with insulin (like you and I ) still get damaged arteries regardless of our sugar levels.
The statin theory of things is that the cholesterol (ldld) that gets sent to repair the damage is like a sticking plaster in that if you stick to many plasters on the wound eventually the whole lot will break away and block your artery to your heart or head causing a heart attack or stroke.
The only thing I would suggest is that you check your ldl/hdl levels (good/bad cholesterol) but act as if you do have heart disease. The only way to check is to get a calcium scan to see the inside of your arteries but this is unlikely on the NHS. As there is some evidence that statins do benefit those with existing disease although possibly not because they lower ldl cholesterol but reduce inflammation, you should have a chat about the risks (your muscle ache symptoms that might make you uncomfortable and/or prevent you exercising ) versus the benefit (how many patients would he or she need to treat who have arterial disease before a stroke or heart attack was prevented might help you frame the benefit). The 'number needed to treat' should be known by your GP.
That might be a 10 minute appointment though.....

 

[KK123]

I think the gp insists because your dad had a heart attack albeit with a risk factor which you don't have.
However you do have type 2 and are insulin dependant so I imagine you've had it for a few years? Higher blood sugars and insulin levels cause damage to the lining of the arteries. We know that diabetics treated with insulin (like you and I ) still get damaged arteries regardless of our sugar levels.
The statin theory of things is that the cholesterol (ldld) that gets sent to repair the damage is like a sticking plaster in that if you stick to many plasters on the wound eventually the whole lot will break away and block your artery to your heart or head causing a heart attack or stroke.
The only thing I would suggest is that you check your ldl/hdl levels (good/bad cholesterol) but act as if you do have heart disease. The only way to check is to get a calcium scan to see the inside of your arteries but this is unlikely on the NHS. As there is some evidence that statins do benefit those with existing disease although possibly not because they lower ldl cholesterol but reduce inflammation, you should have a chat about the risks (your muscle ache symptoms that might make you uncomfortable and/or prevent you exercising ) versus the benefit (how many patients would he or she need to treat who have arterial disease before a stroke or heart attack was prevented might help you frame the benefit). The 'number needed to treat' should be known by your GP.
That might be a 10 minute appointment though.....

Hi Nicole, you mean the LDL is being produced because it needs to 'repair' damage? I never thought of it like that, my LDL is in the 4s but my HDL is 2.4 and my trigs are 0.5 so the ratio is good. I know that my HDL must be sorting out the LDL but is it always the case that there MUST be damage done in order for the LDL to get producing in the first place? All of my blood tests come back normal and I am fit & healthy in every other way (as far as one knows for definite) but I am thinking about paying privately for that Calcium scan because I guess there must be something there that is causing high LDL. x

 

[NicoleC1971]

Hi Nicole, you mean the LDL is being produced because it needs to 'repair' damage? I never thought of it like that, my LDL is in the 4s but my HDL is 2.4 and my trigs are 0.5 so the ratio is good. I know that my HDL must be sorting out the LDL but is it always the case that there MUST be damage done in order for the LDL to get producing in the first place? All of my blood tests come back normal and I am fit & healthy in every other way (as far as one knows for definite) but I am thinking about paying privately for that Calcium scan because I guess there must be something there that is causing high LDL. x

Didn't mean to worry you and your ratios are good. As I understand it cholesterol (rather than just ldl) has many functions in our bodies including repair and everybody has LDL so we might think it exists for a good reason? The LDL particles are there to deliver cholesterol (as if they are boats dropping off supplies) to cells.
The controversy seems to be around whether high LDL is a maker of the problem or a marker of CVD.
Current advice is that its a maker and therefore needs to be reduced particuarly in those with CV risk due to diabetes.
I do not know if your numbers are high and from what I've read high LDL may matter a lot less than keeping blood sugars optimal (impossible in a type 1 imo) with good hdl/trig ratio then doing all you can to look after your heart e.g. not smoking or drinking too much, not getting exposed to poisons and exercising).

 

[FIGARO5]

I think the gp insists because your dad had a heart attack albeit with a risk factor which you don't have.
However you do have type 2 and are insulin dependant so I imagine you've had it for a few years? Higher blood sugars and insulin levels cause damage to the lining of the arteries. We know that diabetics treated with insulin (like you and I ) still get damaged arteries regardless of our sugar levels.
The statin theory of things is that the cholesterol (ldld) that gets sent to repair the damage is like a sticking plaster in that if you stick to many plasters on the wound eventually the whole lot will break away and block your artery to your heart or head causing a heart attack or stroke.
The only thing I would suggest is that you check your ldl/hdl levels (good/bad cholesterol) but act as if you do have heart disease. The only way to check is to get a calcium scan to see the inside of your arteries but this is unlikely on the NHS. As there is some evidence that statins do benefit those with existing disease although possibly not because they lower ldl cholesterol but reduce inflammation, you should have a chat about the risks (your muscle ache symptoms that might make you uncomfortable and/or prevent you exercising ) versus the benefit (how many patients would he or she need to treat who have arterial disease before a stroke or heart attack was prevented might help you frame the benefit). The 'number needed to treat' should be known by your GP.
That might be a 10 minute appointment though.....

 

[FIGARO5]

Thank you for your reply. I forgot to mention that I take Metformin not insulin dependent and never have been. Dont know if that makes a difference

 

[NicoleC1971]

Thank you for your reply. I forgot to mention that I take Metformin not insulin dependent and never have been. Dont know if that makes a difference

Yep in that I'd infer that you are less insulin resistant with bettter bgs and for a shorter duration than someone needing insulin therefore less damage may have been incurred. No way to tell though as you could be running high bgs for all I know, so I can only suggest you chat it through with your doc!