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

Cholesterol and statins

H

HpprKM

Well-Known Member
Messages
837
Dislikes
Self absorbed and rude people! Motorists who are oblivious to the rest of the world, and really don't give a ****!
Good morning, I hope you are feeling well on this bright, sunny last day of November! As is my habit, when I have a diabetes related query I am putting my latest to my fellow forum members - this time it is on cholesterol. This is a subject that just wont go away - coming up time and again with GP who is almost begging me to consider statins. I am so loathe to take them as I have read and heard of so many bad reviews about side effects, some of which are really quite horrendous. Her argument was that 'in former times when little was known about diabetes that many diabetics expected to peg it in their 60s - her words not mine! I think that she was being polite and saying that if I do not take the statins that could be my destiny. I have no idea why my cholesterol will not go down, I have never eaten lots of fatty and unhealthy food, and when she first wanted me to take statins I pleaded for more time to try alternative methods, I started taking Benecol each day and using low fat spread and continuing with my 1% milk, only cooking with light, virgin olive oil and the new flora oil, at first my cholesterol dropped slightly. Because Benecol is very expensive I stopped taking them, but wondering if that was a mistake as GP said cholesterol is still at 5.7 - and has made a deal with me - that having just started taking SR metformin changing from the regular metformin, when I get my next prescription I get the statins and try until February when she will see me for a review.

Now some of you may have experience of statins and be able to convince me that you have had no problems, or you may be able to advise how else I might lower my cholesterol, but I am really very loathe to take them and feel somewhat stuck between a rock and hard place, potential side effects if I take them, huge health risks if I don't - some of you may think this is much ado about nothing - but I have never liked taking medication and only take the Metformin having been through the diet and food only route. Opinions most welcome - please :) Should add that she was quite happy with my glucose levels.
 
I was prescribed statins when dx db I had chol level 6.5 I never took them but started to take Lestrin which is a plant sterol this lowered my chol to 4.9 they are not cheap but Boots do them in their 3 for 2 offer .They have no side effects and I am on a high fat diet to help me gain weight.
CAROL
 
HpprKM, Not sure if you are just seeking views from type 2's being in the Type 2 Diabetes section or just interested in everyone's views so I'll contribute just the same if you don't mind.

I spent 5 days in hospital earlier this year with suspected angina, turned out my heart was fine and no signs of blockages once I had the angiogram. My cholesterol was 4 with all lipids in range, despite this the coronary team advised me strongly to start taking statins to protect from heart disease as diabetics are at a heightened risk of heart attacks and strokes, previously gp was against taking statins but not seen him since to discuss so presently not taking any.

I'm a bit like yourself and don't believe in popping pills unnecessary, however at the same time I would like to protect myself from future complications or death so still sitting on the fence for the time-being, my brother takes statins and he lowered his cholesterol from 8+ to below 4 and now takes a low-dose together with a few dietary changes, he tolerates them well but know for a fact that there are those that don't tolerate them.

It's really your call, your sure to get conflicting advice on the rights and wrongs of statins but only you can decide to take them in the end.

Best wishes

Nigel
 
I take Pravastatin, twice the dose that my endo prescribed :crazy: (which I am not recommending to you to do) and my last test was 5.1 which she was very pleased with. I have had no side effects at all which shows that it can vary from person to person. So you'll just have to try it and see. We are all different, as we say so often on this forum :wink:
 
Hi there,

I take a high dose Statin (Atorvastatin - 80mg daily) which was prescribed as a result of angina and coronary artery disease.

I am fully aware of the possible side effects (friend is now almost in a wheelchair) :( , however i personally have not had any side effects.

They've brought my levels down to 3.6 from over 8. :)

I had a meds review with the Dr yesterday and we've agreed to experiment by bringing down the dosage for a couple of months and check if there is any movement on levels. If no movement we reduce dosage further etc.

I can only confer with most other comments on here.......try them, and if you get any reactions speak to your GP immediately.

Good luck

Tony
 
A level of 5.7 isn't too bad for cholesterol and doesn't imply that statins are really necessary. You could try a very low start prescription and see if you get any adverse effects. Genetics probably defines most peoples' cholesterol level and statins don't necessarily reduce risk of heart problems; they may do in some people? I had lunch with a friend today in his 60s who had a coronary many years ago with a level of 2.1! He has a family history of coronaries. Would statins have helped him; I doubt it.
 
Mine has been in the 7's all my life,
Diet never appeared to change it.
I've been on simvastatin for two months, plus a low carb and maybe a higher fat diet since being diagnosed, I'm down to 4.1 today.
No side effects, apart from my eosinophil count being low, which may be related to the statin.
 
Well, as expected, you have not let me down and I appreciate your comments enormously, however, the overall message I am receiving is that statins can most definitely have bad side effects. Not sure if I am quite ready to try them, some people have suggested trying alternative solutions to see how I fare, so I think I will do that - and have to explain to GP, yet again, that I have not started statins, just a coward I guess - not wishing to get side effects by trying them :oops: :oops: Will try to get back later with outcomes, one way of the other! Also, appreciate that no one can tell me what to do, but just wondering what experiences other may have had.
 
I think it is more important to have high HDL and low trigs, than worry as much about high LDL. In fact, some Drs are now saying that having a highish LDl is actually better than a too low LDL, as the high LDL lipids or whatever they are, are thicker and dont clog the arteries as much as the smaller lipids. Im on statins for 6 years, and have had no side effects, but I would like to see if I could start reducing them. My last lipid reading was 5.5, and my trigs where 1.47
 
the east man said:
I think it is more important to have high HDL and low trigs, than worry as much about high LDL. In fact, some Drs are now saying that having a highish LDl is actually better than a too low LDL, as the high LDL lipids or whatever they are, are thicker and dont clog the arteries as much as the smaller lipids. Im on statins for 6 years, and have had no side effects, but I would like to see if I could start reducing them. My last lipid reading was 5.5, and my trigs where 1.47
Click to expand...

So, no disrespect meant to your stats, but you are on statins and your lipids read at 5.5, mine are 5.7 and my GP insists they should be below 3 and wants me take statins, and now I am going to profess complete ignorance on the subject of trigs, not ever been mentioned by GP, and I do not know what mine are and not sure that I understand the highish need for LDI as I thought that the higher they were the more likely they are to clog. Perhaps you could enlighten me :?:
 
LDL comes in 2 types - large, soft and fluffy, which aren't a problem, and small and hard, which are dangerous. This is one of the reasons why a single figure for LDL can be confusing - if you have a high LDL reading but it's all the soft and fluffy kind, you're better off than with a low LDL reading which is all the small hard particles, which are the ones that do stick :shock:

Triglycerides are pretty dangerous, for a number of reasons which I cannot now remember, and should be as low as possible - certainly below 1.7, and preferably below 1.0. My best-ever reading was 0.65.

Sorry to be so unscientific :roll: - if anyone can explain it better, please help!

Viv 8)
 
As already stated, genetics can mess up your cholesterol whatever your diet.

Statins can have side effects (I had a very bad experience with Symvastatin) but most people I have seen posting here have found that changing to a different statin has worked.

I am now on 40Mg Pravastatin and have been fine for a couple of years.

If you can get your cholesterol down without statins, then go for it.

If you can't then IMHO the benefits probably outweigh the risks, especially if you are aware that there can be side effects and you watch out for them.

HTH

LGC
 
Have been on Simvastatin for 10 years. At diabetic diagnosis my cholesterol was (I think) 8 or thereabouts.
Put on Simvastatin. Had no side-effects at all and my levels have been as low as 2.6 (I don't know but I think that that is LOW). Last one was 3.6 which is still under the recommended (diabetic) levels.
For what its worth, my opinion is that whilst I don't particularly like taking meds, I already take metformin, gliclazide and a BP med so one more tablet isn't going to make that much difference to my life and may ultimately (by keeping my cholesterol down) save my life.
 
I am on simvastatin with no side effects. I was part of a large study that looked at coronary outcomes in relation to blood pressure medications and statins (the Anglo Scandinavian Coronary Outcomes Trial - ASCOT). The arm of the study looking at lipids and statin treatment was closed early because of the clear benefits of statins. The following might be of interest: http://www.ukmicentral.nhs.uk/headline/ ... ewsID=6740

Regards

Doug
 
Osidge said:
I am on simvastatin with no side effects. I was part of a large study that looked at coronary outcomes in relation to blood pressure medications and statins (the Anglo Scandinavian Coronary Outcomes Trial - ASCOT). The arm of the study looking at lipids and statin treatment was closed early because of the clear benefits of statins. The following might be of interest: http://www.ukmicentral.nhs.uk/headline/ ... ewsID=6740

Regards

Doug
Click to expand...

Hi Doug

Do you think that the 1.02% absolute risk reduction in cardiovascular events displayed, in this manufacturer-sponsored study (http://www.ukmicentral.nhs.uk/headline/ ... ewsID=6740), may be due to the 'accidental' inflamation lowering effects that statins have been shown to have? According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_needed_to_treat, an average of 99.7 people would have to be treated with statins for 3.3 years, with all the reported side effects, to prevent 1 cardiovascular event .

Regards

Peter

p.s. An interesting read: http://www.scribd.com/doc/45250148/Elli ... -2006-pdf#
 
Hi Peter

I have never been a great fan of conspiracy theories nor the infallibleness of Wikipaedia! All I can repeat is that statins work for me and I'd like to have a chance of being that one person whose life may be prolonged.

Regards

Doug
 
Hi Doug

Conspiracy theory - :shh: . You say that statins have worked for you (although you are now taken a different statin than the one in the study), could you elaborate please? The Wiki article used, the data from 'your' study. Are you suggesting that 'your' data was somehow flawed in the first place??

Example: statins for primary preventionFor example, the ASCOT-LLA manufacturer-sponsored study addressed the benefit of atorvastatin 10 mg (a cholesterol-lowering drug) in patients with hypertension (high blood pressure) but no previous cardiovascular disease (primary prevention). The trial ran for 3.3 years, and during this period the relative risk of a "primary event" (heart attack) was reduced by 36% (relative risk reduction, RRR). The absolute risk reduction (ARR), however, was much smaller, because the study group did not have a very high rate of cardiovascular events over the study period: 2.67% in the control group, compared to 1.65% in the treatment group.[9] Taking atorvastatin for 3.3 years, therefore, would lead to an ARR of only 1.02% (2.67% minus 1.65%). The number needed to treat to prevent one cardiovascular event would then be 99.7 for 3.3 years.[10][11]

Regards

Peter
 
People with diabetes are at relatively high risk so numbers needed to treat for people with diabetes are lower than for the general population
This site shows the results very visually.
Group HPSC. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol-lowering with simvastatin in 5963 people with diabetes: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361:2005-16
(scroll down)
http://www.nntonline.net/ebm/newsletter ... tatins.asp
 
Sorry to disappoint you, Peter but atorvastatin worked well for me too. I was changed to simvastatin by my GP as it is cheaper. As to Wiki, I am in no way doubting the actual results of the trial I was part of. Perhaps a longer study (watch this space as ASCOT is still keeping in touch with us all) or more people might have convinced you, although what figures would do that I am not sure. All I can reiterate is that I am doung well with statins and even if I have only reduced my coronary risk by a small amount, that's fine by me. Perhaps this is a good time to encourage people to get involved with studies. I am now on the ASCEND study involving over 15,000 people (see http://www.ctsu.ox.ac.uk/ascend/ ). A good place to get involved with diabetes research is through the UK Diabetes Research Networks ( http://www.ukdrn.org/index.html )

Regards

Doug
 
Back
Top