Big question - statins or not

What was your cholesterol, if you don't mind me asking?

Congratulations on the HbA1c result!

Personally, I wouldn't accept statins (unless I had hereditary high cholesterol) because I am a woman, middle aged, and am not convinced that I will increase my health and life expectancy by taking that drug. Nor am I convinced that high cholesterol is a satisfactory predictor of heart disease and early mortality.

My opinions are based on reading the bloodsugar101 website (see link in my sig) and a couple of books discussing the new evidence on the importance of fat in the diet, and the de-demonising of saturated fat.

I realise that other people find this information much less compelling, so I encourage you to read as widely as you can, and make up your own mind.

I do LCHF for BG, weight and cholesterol
I take low dose statins for vascular health, very good for micro vascular, eye retinopathy etc

I took statins as prescribed but had terrible problems with them such that I am now registered as intolerant of statins. It's not up to me to tell other people not to take them because I did take them. Whereas I now know the bad side of statins I suggest you try them and see if you can take them without problems. A number of people on the forum manage quite well.

A poll on this forum asking if anybody had had trouble with them resulted in a 62% yes but the number of people that voted was not high, about 150 or so.

http://www.diabetes.co.uk/forum/threads/poll-side-effects-from-statins.58409/

Never taken them myself but did have two family members take Simvastatin without any problems.

If your cholesterol is high then you could try taking them and see how you get on, some get side-effects and others don't, but your more likely to hear about the ones that do than the ones that don't, much with any other medication.

From my own research and reading forums such as this, the one that seems to have the least side-effects and is said to be as effective in a lower dose as some are in a higher dose is Artovastatin, up until last year gp's were reluctant to prescribe it due to cost (it was still under licence) but this is not the case now as prices have dropped.

Personally I would never take statins even though my own level is now 'normal', but 'too high for a diabetic'. Cholesterol is perfectly natural and it is important it doesn't get too low. Low cholesterol is worse than high. This is of course only my personal opinion and I have no medical training at all. I have been offered statins 5 or 6 times and refused them. My cholesterol level has gone down slightly whilst following a low carb diet. I am happy with that.

I started a thread - probably early/mid August this year, outlining my discussions with my GP on Cholesterol/Statins. Personally, as a women of a certain age, with healthy BMI, BP and no history of CVD either myself or familiarly, I can't justify it to myself. My GP could not offer me any scientific reason, based on research, using a credible number of women (most research focuses on men), but based her initial recommendation on my diabetic diagnosis, plus a higher than desired total cholesterol, irrespective of my broken down elements.

I would suggest some reading.

(I can't find the thread I started, or I would have posted a link.)

I have been on statins (Atorvastatin 20mg) since June and have had no problems at all. It has dropped my cholesterol from 5.2 to 4.4 as measured last week, so they are quite effective for me. Everyone is different, so perhaps try them and see how you do on them? Obviously they do not suit some people, but I think probably more are fine on them but don't bother posting good experiences, so much of what you read are cautionary tales or worse.

Maxwell

I have been on Atorvastatin 40mg for several years now as the Simvastatin wasn't working as well as hoped. I'm lucky I don't seem to have any problems with them and they have reduced my cholesterol from in the low 7 down to 5.6, which although is still high, the doctor has agreed that while the dose could be increased further the benefit gained would not be worth the possible side effects. I guess the benefit gained per mg reduces the more you take and the chance of side effects increases. Both my parents have had high cholesterol so the herreditory aspect has come through, and my Father has already suffered one heart attack.

In the end it is up to you, if you think your cholesterol is too high, or if it is in the family then you might want to try a low dose and see how you get on. If you are happy with things as they are then refuse the tablets.

Hi , just sharing, I do take statins , I am ok with them numbers from 7 to now 3 I am fine with that ...but I think the dose may need reducing at my next review .......strokes known in my family ...for me I want to prevent ...and I feel they have helped me ...
The decision must be yours and yours alone ...don't be influenced by anyone else ...but sharing our experiences just gives you something to think about ...best wishes ...Kat

grats on the on the HbA1c :¬):¬):¬)

I took statins 20mg Simvastatin for 6 months and I had walking problems - I seem to be perfectly ok on atorvastatin (wieird) but... I just realise I probably should be on 10 mg or atorvastatin not 20mg - doctor error?

everyone have to make their own minds up, but the bad science nutters you will find on the net making up silly numbers, have to be discounted

http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/21/4/464.full.pdf
Results: Among 14 primary prevention trials (46,262 participants),
statin therapy increased diabetes by absolute risk of 0.5% (95% CI 0.1–1%, p¼0.012),
meanwhile reducing death by a similar extent: 0.5% (0.9 to 0.2%, p¼0.003).
In the 15 secondary prevention RCTs (37,618 participants), statins decreased death by 1.4% (2.1 to 0.7%, p<0.001).
There were no other statin-attributable symptoms,
although asymptomatic liver transaminase elevation was 0.4% more frequent with statins across all trials. Serious adverse events and withdrawals were similar in both arms.

Conclusions:
Only a small minority of symptoms reported on statins are genuinely due to the statins:

almost all would occur just as frequently on placebo.

Only development of new-onset diabetes mellitus was significantly higher on statins than placebo; nevertheless only 1 in 5 of new cases were actually caused by statins. Higher statin doses produce a detectable effect, but even still the proportion attributable to statins is variable: for asymptomatic liver enzyme elevation, the majority are attributable to the higher dose; in contrast for muscle aches, the majority are not.

this study looked at the history of 60,000 Diabetics after av. 2.7
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(14)70173-1/abstract
retinopathy HR=0.6 [decrease of risk]
neuropathy HR=0.66
gangrene of the foot HR=0.88
diabetic nephropathy HR=0.97
[neutral..........HR=0.0 ]
diabetes HR=1·17 [increase of risk]


the way I look at it ..if nothing else take statin for neuropathy, retinopathy and gangrene of the foot

I had a heart attack [25 years ago ] and bypass surgery 12 years ago and have been taking statins for a couple of decades. At present I am on 10 mg simvastatin/day and my lipid results are excellent.The big difference came from the LCHF diet however.In your place I would definitely try them out and at least see how you tolerate them and what results you get with your next lipid profile.

I would ask for a breakdown of the full lipids before making any decisions. The total cholesterol figure is pretty meaningless, it is the elements that make it up that are important. You need to know your HDL, LDL, Triglycerides, and various ratios. (you can work the ratios out yourself when you know all the figures).

My hubby has been on statins for 4 years (40mg Simvastatin) with no problems at all. He was put on them, not because of raised cholesterol, but because he had other factors that increased his CVD risk. He is not diabetic.

I was put on the same dose of Simvastatin in February after I was diagnosed diabetic. I came off them in May (personal choice) at which time I had a lipid test. I have recently had another lipid test. My latest results show a significant improvement in Triglycerides and HDL from when I was on statins. However, we are all different, and the choice must be yours.

I was on Statins for about 4 months but, although they worked and bought my cholestorol levels down from 4.5 to 3.0, I found that they made me dizzy for a lot of the time. I also found that my BG levels went up from 5.8 to 7.2 in that time. I came off them and my last BG figures in August were back down to 5.8 or 41 although my Cholesterol had risen to 5.0 which my DN was not too happy with. However if it was suggested that I go back on them it's something that I will need to think carefully about before making a decision.

Daphne917 said:

I was on Statins for about 4 months but, although they worked and bought my cholestorol levels down from 4.5 to 3.0, I found that they made me dizzy for a lot of the time. I also found that my BG levels went up from 5.8 to 7.2 in that time. I came off them and my last BG figures in August were back down to 5.8 or 41 although my Cholesterol had risen to 5.0 which my DN was not too happy with. However if it was suggested that I go back on them it's something that I will need to think carefully about before making a decision.

Click to expand...

Do you think you may have been on statins for CVD stroke and vascular? Normally a Dr would say diet before putting someone on statins just for cholesterol 4.5 when <4 is the recommendation,

@Daphne917 3.0 is too low for your cholesterol level. I'm a statin refuser. Women need cholesterol. I'm convinced that the only thing that statins do is to make drug companies rich. Do you blame ambulances for accidents? Cholesterol is the innocent party.

The thing that causes inflammation is starchy carbs and processed marg, cut these and your cholesterol level will be at the right level for you. People with higher cholesterol live longer and don't loose their marbles.

Ruth B said:

I have been on Atorvastatin 40mg for several years now as the Simvastatin wasn't working as well as hoped. I'm lucky I don't seem to have any problems with them and they have reduced my cholesterol from in the low 7 down to 5.6, which although is still high, the doctor has agreed that while the dose could be increased further the benefit gained would not be worth the possible side effects. I guess the benefit gained per mg reduces the more you take and the chance of side effects increases. Both my parents have had high cholesterol so the herreditory aspect has come through, and my Father has already suffered one heart attack.

In the end it is up to you, if you think your cholesterol is too high, or if it is in the family then you might want to try a low dose and see how you get on. If you are happy with things as they are then refuse the tablets.

Click to expand...

I was on 80mg simvastatin, which only got cholesterol down to average 4.7 from 7. Following heart attack and stent, the consultant immediately switched me to 80mg atorvastatin which he said was the optimum dose.. As I am now participating in the odyssey double blind trial - look it up, my cholesterol has come down significantly. The trial is for the next big thing which should replace stations. Atorvastatin has been excellent for me, but everyone is different. The price has recently come down so GPS in UK are more likely to prescribe it.

A good new year to all!

I have fought statins for as long as I can remember, getting severe pains with each and every one! This appeared to be resolved during a particularly rough recovery from an anaesthetic!! ( Don't know how) BUT came back even more severely with breast cancer treatment . By this time neuropathy was being accepted as not being all in the mind, and I have received helpful masking medication.
This year Peripheral vascular Disease had come to the fore! I was immediately prescribed STATINS !! I stalled, took 2 weeks of Q 10 enzymes and VERY slowly took the dreaded drug. Started at ONE a WEEK, When I tried 2 the pain started. So just took one a week and the cholesterol levels have almost met the target! Folk are being recognise as super sensitive at last!!

Also on the lines of Peripheral Vascular Disease the only 'treatment' of worth appears to be Statins and ante platelets - ?hence the global prescriptions

I had a chiropody check a couple of years ago for my neuropathy when I had sever pain - and probably PVD signs and symptoms. These were never recognised by the chiropodist!! This year I had hope to get a Doppler test, but was deferred for 4 months until I started ante platelets !!! 2015 looks as if it could be interesting!