I agree it's very important to be able to see your own results, it's so frustrating not being able to see them as I fret not knowing the numbers and the receptionists will never tell me either!
So after speaking to a second gp this morning she said it's perfectly fine for me to try diet and exercise first as she understands at 34 I don't want to start medication that I could potentially be on for life when I could bring the levels down on my own.Hi everyone,
So after speaking to the nurse today my hba1c has gone from 85 to 64 currently on 500mg metfomin twice a day. My cholesterol is 5.4 and she has told me I need to start statins because I'm diabetic and my cholesterol is high. Is anyone else on statins with that sort of level? I'm a bit scared to take them, she has also upped my metformin to 1g twice a day. Diagnosed with diabetes last November and this is the first time I have spoken to her. Feeling very anxious and down
In my cynical opinion they are mainly a money maker for drug companies and should only be used where a medical professional makes a good case with reasons for their use.
I might be wrong about this still being current policy, but is it not the case that GP's are incentivised (financially) under NICE guidelines to prescribe statins to what are defined as "at risk groups" - which is essentially those people who are considered to be at a 10% greater risk of having a cardiac incident. Those with Diabetes fall into that group.
Hi everyone,
So after speaking to the nurse today my hba1c has gone from 85 to 64 currently on 500mg metfomin twice a day. My cholesterol is 5.4 and she has told me I need to start statins because I'm diabetic and my cholesterol is high. Is anyone else on statins with that sort of level? I'm a bit scared to take them, she has also upped my metformin to 1g twice a day. Diagnosed with diabetes last November and this is the first time I have spoken to her. Feeling very anxious and down
Hi Amy,Hi everyone,
If you are in the UK, ask for a printout of the full set of your most recent test results. As someone on here has already said, I'm pretty sure that access to your own test results is a right and they cannot refuse to give them to you. After all, it is your data about your health - not a state secret! The whole rational about Diabetes care in the NHS is that YOU are responsible for your care - your GP and the nurse are meant to be there to advise and help you but, at the end of the day, your day-to-day care is meant to be your responsibility. You can't do that if you don't have the data you need.
I've never had a problem getting my surgery to give me results but you don't need to speak to the GP or Nurse to get them either. The last time I had a set of Bloods done I simply went into the surgery (admittedly harder these days with Covid-19) and asked the receptionist to print them out for me.
Just a few weeks ago during a telephone conversation with the GP where my blood pressure was "perfect" and my cholesterol "within normal range", she said "So we dont need to give you statins...yet" !!!!
There is such a presumption that diabetes is down hill and on medications from here on.
There was a revolt against taking statins in France, and it was predicted that the death rate would increase with xxxx extra deaths expected - some time later, and rather red faced it was admitted that the death rate had actually decreased by about that number.
Whatever the arguments for taking statins, the total death rate is not something you can argue with.
I'd eaten at 6pm the previous evening and had my bloods done at 9. Is that a level to be really concerned over then?
Are you not taking statins then? The gp said given my age its well worth trying to bring the numbers down myself so I'm more than happy to do that as it definitely gives me the extra push to be as healthy S possible without needing extra medication.I just did a bunch of research (I'm getting the same push from my doctor). The big risk for heart attacks come from sdLDL (small dense bits of cholesterol). Because these are hard to read directly, they use triglycerides as one of many stand-ins to estimate the likihood of elevated sdLDL. My triglycerides are .8. Three UK studies suggest that if they are below 1-1.2 there is very little risk of an elevated sdLDL. The study that addressed ranges beyond the little risk range suggests >2.3 is cause for concern
Other measures include the ratio of triglycerides to HDL and of total cholesterol to HDL.
I found a lovely little article this morning (arming for battle with my doc on Monday) on use of statins as a primary prevention tool: USPSTF statins as primary prevention. Sorry - it's from the US and uses US measurements - there are good converters online.
But, as others have said - you really need the entire set of cholesterol numbers to do a good evaluation. Some are quirky (triglycerides among them), so if your doc has prior tests those would be helpful as well.
Are you not taking statins then? The gp said given my age its well worth trying to bring the numbers down myself so I'm more than happy to do that as it definitely gives me the extra push to be as healthy S possible without needing extra medication.
She said my levels are on the high side but nothing to worry about too much, would be nice if people who work in the same practice were all working on the same page. I've spoke to 2 gps and a practice nurse and they've all said different things.Why do they think you need to 'bring the numbers down" in the first place?
Changing the ratios would help but if they think the absolute number is meaningful then they obviously know little about cholesterol.
Are you not taking statins then? The gp said given my age its well worth trying to bring the numbers down myself so I'm more than happy to do that as it definitely gives me the extra push to be as healthy S possible without needing extra medication.
Thanks for your replyNot at the moment. After the wonderful numbers in my signature line, I was diagnosed with cancer, work exploded, and I stopped eating the way I should. My numbers were bad in November, but my risk for a cardiovascular event based on those number is still about 6.2% over the next 10 years. Entities that aren't pushing statins for every diabetic suggest there is little benefit as a primarly prevention tool unless your risk of a cardiovascular event is above 10% and you have one or more risk factors. Even at my worst, it was only 7.7%.
But - someone put a bee in my doctor's bonnet about statins and he is pushing hard. We had agreed to meet again in 3 months and look at my cholesterol. He forgot to order cholesterol - still tried to push me into statins. I reminded him of our agreement. I had bloodwork on Mondy (and see him this coming Monday). At that time, I'll be back down 27 lbs, I expect my A1C to be around 6.3 (higher than I like, but my dawn phenomenon has returned), and my cholesterol levels to be on the healthy end of the spectrum.
Really glad you asked your initial question, by the way. I came to the site for information on statins (after being absent for quite a while), and your post was one of the top two - which led me to the motherlode of research (bulkbiker's thread). It made my research very easy - lots of good info & some terms I wasn't using in my research that allowed me to find articles that distinguished between primary prevention, and treatment post CVD.
At your age, mine would be 1% - but being 63 bumps it up quite a bit!Thanks for your replymy qrisk score is 3%. I'm definitely I came on here to ask questions that's for sure.
I will get where I need to be, its been a shock to the system! Doesn't help I've been stuck in for nearly 3 months so I'm looking forward to getting out and about again.At your age, mine would be 1% - but being 63 bumps it up quite a bit!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?