Type 2 Any advice on whether or not to take statins?

[pleinster]

Hi. I was very surprised and satisfied after a visit to a diabetes specialist I had waited 3 months or so to see. he was very up to date regarding LCHF dieting as a way forward, and was encouraging about my own approach and happy with my progress. My cholesterol was 5.3...which doesn't seem high, nor does it worry me, but he did recommend a statin. He felt that the risk of side effect was minimal and that while only a small percentage might actually benefit from statins in terms of the heart and the arterial system, strokes etc...I stood to lose nothing from trying them. I have, however, seen some horror stories relating to muscle pain and aching joints etc. so I am a bit hesitant. Any advice welcome.

 

[Squire Fulwood]

There is a difficulty with this decision. Some patients have incurred the wrath of their doctor by refusing to take statins and then been considered unco-operative. A famous surgeon wrote an article for the BMA saying that 20% of people taking statins had adverse side effects and he got into a lot of trouble for that. A poll of statin takers on this site returned a figure of 64% who had trouble but the poll size was only of about 225 people.

In my case I took the statins and was ill (four times on four different statins) until I was finally classed as "Intolerant of Statins" with which I am happy.

There has been an assumption that statins are harmless because a certain professor involved in their testing keeps saying so. He has now admitted on a Radio 4 program that he never tested them for adverse side effects. He only tested them for cancer and heart disease. He still keeps saying they are harmless though.

I hope all of this helps you to make a decision. It is your decision and no-one else's.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...patient-records-discover-suffered-issues.html

 

[dawnmc]

There was also a recent newspaper headline rating statins contributed to diabetes!!

 

[Pinkorchid]

We are not in a position here to advise about any medication as we are not medically trained to do that the decision to take them or not has to be yours

 

[Dillinger]

Hi,

It's your choice of course but if you do want to live forever and you're taking statins then you are out of luck I'm afraid.

The average extension to your life is between 3 days for primary (no previous heart attack) and 4 days for secondary prevention (previous heart attack) with statins. That's a whopping 72 to 96 hour reprieve versus placebo.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/9/e007118.long

We know at least (at the very least)18-20% of people will have side effects (some of which are very serious), we know that statins will only reduce your absolute risk of CVD by about 1% (which going from 4% to 3% is a 33% relative risk reduction - the figure you will be given), and now we know they won't get you to the end of next week in real terms before you shuffle from this mortal coil if your numbers are up.

What is the point of statins again? They lead to exceptional shareholder value that's for sure, but frankly that seems about it.

Best

Dillinger

 

[Mike d]

You've read the stories @pleinster

Wished I had before I started taking them but luckily, I knew (sensed) what was happening. Good luck mate, but as others have said, up to you.

 

[Bluetit1802]

.
Only you can make that decision. We can't make it for you. The risk of increased blood sugar is included in the list of side effects on the statin labelling (in the leaflet that comes with them) so there is little point in anyone disputing that. You may be lucky and have none of the other ill effects initially, but wait 3 or 4 years and the story may be quite different.

 

[SamJB]

This is a contentious subject on this site!

I'm going two answer to posts above, from two people I have huge amounts of respect for, @Dillinger and @Squire Fulwood .

I work in clinical trial analysis, mostly looking at patient safety; not for diabetes (yet), mostly oncology and respiratory. I don't know the ins-and-outs of it, but regarding the doctor that was on Radio 4 discussing the safety of statins. The safety analysis of all drugs is the same, regardless of the therapy area that they are studying. So if the safety analysis for statins was done for an oncology study (as suggested), you can be surethat statins are safe generally because the safety signals would be the same.

A lot of people on here tend to think that evil big pharma are pulling the wool over peoples' eyes when it comes to statins. Clinical trials tend to go on for around 5 years (give or take), the early phases are focussed on safety, but safety is a key focus throughout the trial, including when analyzing efficacy results. Everyone, from analysts, to physicians, even to receptionists, must take Adverse Event reporting training. Throughout the trial, the data will be unblinded and an external company will come in to assess the safety. They will then report to the FDA (or whomever is the authority in the area). Finally, once a trial is complete, the third party and the FDA will do their own independent analysis of the safety.

Everything and everyone that I work with is focussed on safety first and foremost - safety trumps efficacy. Yes, big pharma is shareholder driven (too much in my opinion), but just think of the effect an unsafe drug would have on share price.

It's therefore very difficult to get an unsafe drug to market. In my opinion, statins are one of the safest drugs out there - you should see the oncology ones. Could there be some long-term problems with them? Sure, but you can't blame big pharma for not conducting decades-long clinical trials, you wouldn't see ANY drugs - in fact, very few members of this forum would be alive if that was a requirement.

Finally, the report that @Dillinger posted. Unfortunately, that is not a study of diabetic patients. Something like 10% of diabetics have had a CVD event in the past two years. There's much exaggerated risk there and, unfortunately, we cannot rely on a study of non-diabetics to asses diabetics' CVD risk.

That being said, I'm not saying statins are efficacious. I don't know the answer, but I'd argue that by-and-large they are very safe.

Sorry for the verbosity.

 

[downhamskips]

I take 40 mg of pravastatin sodium .My cholesterol is 2.5 -3.5 i have had no side effects and have been on them 12 years.I am 70years old in september . lamp as this is very grease ,Cut out grease foods and fast food when buying foods look at carbohydrate and kls. Bread 17.5 carbs a slice ,semi-skimmed milk is 4.8g carbs fat 1.8g per 100g. use crackerbread or low carb and cals . just doing this will help. In 6 months i have lost 1st 9 MY waist has gone down from 42 inch to37 inch and my insulin has gone down from 100 units a day to 30-48 units and my HbA1c was 8.0 % or new mmol/mol 64 now 6.8 % or 51. hope this will help.

 

[Daibell]

Hi. There is loads of info on the web for statins both before and against. For some there are serious side effects. Ask my wife about her serious liver pain a few days after starting them. What is true for the older folk is that very low cholesterol can cause harm to the heart etc as the body needs cholesterol for repair. So, I take a small dose to keep my DN happy (!) and it has no side effects other than possibly increasing my blood sugar a bit. As and when my LDL, HDL and Trig numbers come into line without the statins I will stop taking them.

 

[Dillinger]

Finally, the report that @Dillinger posted. Unfortunately, that is not a study of diabetic patients. Something like 10% of diabetics have had a CVD event in the past two years. There's much exaggerated risk there and, unfortunately, we cannot rely on a study of non-diabetics to asses diabetics' CVD risk.

Thanks @SamJB - a very interesting post.

I'd just say that there seems to be hardly any studies on diabetic and statin use because as far as I can see diabetics have elevated CVD risk, statins lower that risk, therefore it is 'unethical' to do a study on diabetics with a control of unstatinated diabetics. So we'll never know.

That study though looked not at CVD risk, which we know is greater in diabetics, but mortality and it doesn't seem illogical to me to be able to transpose those figures over to diabetics from non-diabetics.

If anyone has any specific diabetic statin studies I'd love to see them even more so if a distinction is made between Type 1s and Type 2s.

Best

Dillinger

 

[trevoroq]

I was on Simvastatin for a number of years before I was diagnosed as type 2, I stopped taking the statins and my BG reduced, I also changed my diet to LCHF and exersized more which reduced my weight by 20kilos and my Hba1C came down from 64 to 38. I then moved to a new town and doctor, had the usual blood tests , he said my cholesterol was high, I asked what my HDL/LDL were and they were in normal range my triglycerides were elevated but the blood test hadn't been fasting so this could have been because of something eaten that morning, he suggested a statin and put me on Lipitor, my BG shot up and I got serious neck ache and muscle ache in the arms, I came off the Lipitor and things returned to normal, if the medical profession could give you a tablet that guaranteed another 5 years but gave you side effects you might consider it but surely you have to balance quality of life with length of life, I would rather be happy and loose a few weeks.

 

[Liam1955]

Hi @pleinster - I was finally diagnosed with Type 2 in 2000. It was in 2002 that I began taking Atorvastatin and I am still taking it - I have never suffered any side effects on this drug at all and my cholesterol is 3.2 (as of November 2015).

 

[pleinster]

We are not in a position here to advise about any medication as we are not medically trained to do that the decision to take them or not has to be yours

I am, obviously, aware of that, and was simply looking for feedback from experienced people. That would appear to be one of main functions of the site, no?

 

[pleinster]

This is a contentious subject on this site!

I'm going two answer to posts above, from two people I have huge amounts of respect for, @Dillinger and @Squire Fulwood .

I work in clinical trial analysis, mostly looking at patient safety; not for diabetes (yet), mostly oncology and respiratory. I don't know the ins-and-outs of it, but regarding the doctor that was on Radio 4 discussing the safety of statins. The safety analysis of all drugs is the same, regardless of the therapy area that they are studying. So if the safety analysis for statins was done for an oncology study (as suggested), you can be surethat statins are safe generally because the safety signals would be the same.

A lot of people on here tend to think that evil big pharma are pulling the wool over peoples' eyes when it comes to statins. Clinical trials tend to go on for around 5 years (give or take), the early phases are focussed on safety, but safety is a key focus throughout the trial, including when analyzing efficacy results. Everyone, from analysts, to physicians, even to receptionists, must take Adverse Event reporting training. Throughout the trial, the data will be unblinded and an external company will come in to assess the safety. They will then report to the FDA (or whomever is the authority in the area). Finally, once a trial is complete, the third party and the FDA will do their own independent analysis of the safety.

Everything and everyone that I work with is focussed on safety first and foremost - safety trumps efficacy. Yes, big pharma is shareholder driven (too much in my opinion), but just think of the effect an unsafe drug would have on share price.

It's therefore very difficult to get an unsafe drug to market. In my opinion, statins are one of the safest drugs out there - you should see the oncology ones. Could there be some long-term problems with them? Sure, but you can't blame big pharma for not conducting decades-long clinical trials, you wouldn't see ANY drugs - in fact, very few members of this forum would be alive if that was a requirement.

Finally, the report that @Dillinger posted. Unfortunately, that is not a study of diabetic patients. Something like 10% of diabetics have had a CVD event in the past two years. There's much exaggerated risk there and, unfortunately, we cannot rely on a study of non-diabetics to asses diabetics' CVD risk.

That being said, I'm not saying statins are efficacious. I don't know the answer, but I'd argue that by-and-large they are very safe.

Sorry for the verbosity.

Thanks for that Sam. Very helpful.

 

[pleinster]

Hi @pleinster - I was finally diagnosed with Type 2 in 2000. It was in 2002 that I began taking Atorvastatin and I am still taking it - I have never suffered any side effects on this drug at all and my cholesterol is 3.2 (as of November 2015).

Thanks, Liam.

 

[Daibell]

This is a contentious subject on this site!

I'm going two answer to posts above, from two people I have huge amounts of respect for, @Dillinger and @Squire Fulwood .

I work in clinical trial analysis, mostly looking at patient safety; not for diabetes (yet), mostly oncology and respiratory. I don't know the ins-and-outs of it, but regarding the doctor that was on Radio 4 discussing the safety of statins. The safety analysis of all drugs is the same, regardless of the therapy area that they are studying. So if the safety analysis for statins was done for an oncology study (as suggested), you can be surethat statins are safe generally because the safety signals would be the same.

A lot of people on here tend to think that evil big pharma are pulling the wool over peoples' eyes when it comes to statins. Clinical trials tend to go on for around 5 years (give or take), the early phases are focussed on safety, but safety is a key focus throughout the trial, including when analyzing efficacy results. Everyone, from analysts, to physicians, even to receptionists, must take Adverse Event reporting training. Throughout the trial, the data will be unblinded and an external company will come in to assess the safety. They will then report to the FDA (or whomever is the authority in the area). Finally, once a trial is complete, the third party and the FDA will do their own independent analysis of the safety.

Everything and everyone that I work with is focussed on safety first and foremost - safety trumps efficacy. Yes, big pharma is shareholder driven (too much in my opinion), but just think of the effect an unsafe drug would have on share price.

It's therefore very difficult to get an unsafe drug to market. In my opinion, statins are one of the safest drugs out there - you should see the oncology ones. Could there be some long-term problems with them? Sure, but you can't blame big pharma for not conducting decades-long clinical trials, you wouldn't see ANY drugs - in fact, very few members of this forum would be alive if that was a requirement.

Finally, the report that @Dillinger posted. Unfortunately, that is not a study of diabetic patients. Something like 10% of diabetics have had a CVD event in the past two years. There's much exaggerated risk there and, unfortunately, we cannot rely on a study of non-diabetics to asses diabetics' CVD risk.

That being said, I'm not saying statins are efficacious. I don't know the answer, but I'd argue that by-and-large they are very safe.

Sorry for the verbosity.

If you believe some of the stuff on the web, the research reports were fiddled by removing data that gave the 'wrong' results. When that data is put back you get a different result. Are you also saying that the contents of Dr Kendrick's books are fantasy? I'm sure you believe what you say but perhaps you haven't taken account of the fact that many GPs don't use the Yellow Card system for drug problems after drug release and my wife's GP didn't when she had a serious reaction.

 

[Pinkorchid]

I am, obviously, aware of that, and was simply looking for feedback from experienced people. That would appear to be one of main functions of the site, no?

Yes it is but medication is a bit of a no go area here as none of us can know how different medications will suit or affect people what suits one may not suit another
I have taken Simvastatin for about 8 years because I had raised cholesterol and the statins did lower it and I never had any side effects from them At my last blood test my cholesterol had risen and that is only since I have started to eat more fat and a few here have found the same. My doctor has now changed me to Atorvastatin . That is just my experience with statins which may be totally different to someone else so as you see here some are happy to take them and some are not

 

[SamJB]

If you believe some of the stuff on the web, the research reports were fiddled by removing data that gave the 'wrong' results. When that data is put back you get a different result. Are you also saying that the contents of Dr Kendrick's books are fantasy? I'm sure you believe what you say but perhaps you haven't taken account of the fact that many GPs don't use the Yellow Card system for drug problems after drug release and my wife's GP didn't when she had a serious reaction.

There can be lots of reasons why patients are removed from studies. If they haven't followed protocol, if the hospital hasn't followed protocol, if they died, if the study wasn't meeting its end points, if there were other ethical reasons, if the adverse events were caused by conmeds, if the adverse events were too severe, if their illness had progressed, or regressed.

I can't comment on the reasons for the studies you are quoting, because I don't know anything about them. I'm also not commenting on the efficacy of statins. All I'm saying is that the clinical trial process is so tightly regulated that it's almost impossible for a drug to get to market that has severe short term adverse events. Maybe long term problems could occur, who knows, but as I said, it's not reasonable for pharma companies to conduct studies over decades because no drugs would ever get to market otherwise. In that case, as you said, the responsibility lies in the yellow card system.

 

[five2one]

I wouldn't take statins