Indecision over Atorvastatin

Personally, I took simvastatin for for about 9 months, then ended up with awful muscle pain in my calves, switch to atorvastatin, same thing after 9 months again, so stopped taking all together. My Dad has familial hypercholesterolemia, and has been on statins for over 30 years, my Mum who is borderline pre-diabetic and terrified of dementia (her Mum maternal aunts all had various forms) went on a low dose for a while, immediately had a raise of Ac1 into true pre-diabetic levels, stopped taking them, straight back into the pre-pre level. You pays your money, you takes your choice

I was taking statins for years prior to my T2 diagnosis, and believe in retrospect they contributed to its cause. I was able to persuade my (temporary!) diabetes support GP to stop my prescription and my glucose levels definitely dropped a couple of points. I don't see the point of taking them unless there's actually a genuine medical reason to need to do so.

I have been on Atorvastatin for many years and touch wood never had any side effects with them.

I was put on Atorvastatin 4½ years ago ..after a chain of events led me to have an ECG ..for me it is 'just another tablet' to take ..in the ✻Venn diagram✻ of Statin takers and diabetics ..there is a high degree of overlap.

I have been on Atorvastatin for 5 years without any problems. They have kept my cholesterol levels down. I was diagnosed with T2 last May.

Dave with T2 said:

I have been on Atorvastatin for 5 years without any problems. They have kept my cholesterol levels down. I was diagnosed with T2 last May.

Click to expand...

I mean I can't prove it but there could be a connection..
There are certainly studies that have shown that statins can raise blood glucose levels.

I refused them for years after reading various things and watching youtube videos, then I had a mini stroke lol, did I have the stroke because I wasn’t taking the statins? Hard to say but I take them now. It’s a tough one.

(My supposed mini stroke dx was based on symptons, they could not find any damage)

I’ve been on statins for years no known side effects for me ( except the pants on the head and pencils up the nose lol) but seriously , I’ve just received a letter for an Oxford university study with regard a six monthly injection , to lower cholesterol, I must say if I read every side effect with regarding all the drugs I take I’d take none , and then where would I be .?.

I've been on Atorvastatin for many years with no issues, but many do have problems and it's best then to stop them. Never take a dose higher than you need to keep your levels just into the right region. The GP needs to provide a full 'lipids panel' every year to show what your levels are. If these aren't provided refuse the statins. A dose that is too high is just as damaging as one that is too low

I think if you were to ask people in A&E for suspected stroke, you will find most of them are on statins. So the med is indeed associated with CVE. I had two such visits to A&E with stroke like symptoms, only to have them disappear like magic on stopping the med. I am now marked up as Allergic to statins on my medical record, and I have to wear a special alert bracelet when in hospital care.

I go by the long term meta study that found that the actual life time saved by these meds is measured in hours, even when taking maximum dose, (and especially for women who do not seem to benefit at all) from this drug. As for lowering cholesterol, the drug only lowers LDL and does nothing to boost HDL. However, there is no evidence that hypercholestemial patients have a high risk of CVE due to high choleserol, and there are many studies on that group of patients. Actually, post mortem studies of that group generally show low athersclerosis /plaque in their arteries. I am pretty sure a PM of statin guzzlers would not show similar protection. Like a central heating system, once scale is presenr. it is difficult to remove,

Note that the benefits of these meds are expressed by the Risk Ratio, rather than the more usual Odds Ratio which is generallly a more realistic expression of your chances.

The Risk Ratio is usually expressed as Relative Risk, which is the risk ratio multiplied by 100 to make it seem more important or frightening than it really is. So if the RR is 44% then it is seen by most people to say that 44 in 100 will suffer an effect, What is means is that compared to a group where 100% of the group suffered the effect, then only 44 of the group you are in will also get it.

My GP practice loves to push statins, at every opportunity. My answer is always 'no' Even when they do the calculation.

My practice does this also. I have declined, but it's an individual decision. Plenty of proper research out there to investigate, which supports my decision for me, but obviously different for everybody.

This may be of interest here from a respectable academic archive (Wiley)

Very well worth reading. Thank you.

Oldvatr said:

This may be of interest here from a respectable academic archive (Wiley)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01767.x

Click to expand...

Very interesting reading. Thank you for posting this link.

I have been taking atoravastin for years and never had any problems with it

i've been a type 1 diabetic for 35 years and have been on statins for 25 years, never had a problem and i'm as fit as a fiddle. It's a personal choice so don't go by others. Every medication has a potential side effect, even paracetamol. You have to weigh up the risks of taking the medication, against the risk of doing nothing. Some will have side effects others will experience nothing, we're all different. Eat as healthy as possible, but also don't beat yourself up if you have something naughty or a couple of pints of beer. Do some moderate daily exercise such as walking, but most important enjoy life

cinders43 said:

I have been taking atoravastin for years and never had any problems with it

Click to expand...

You are one of the lucky ones. I have been drinking whisky for decades, but that does not prove it is of either nutritional or healthy benefit for me.

I am minded that the Atorvastin trials were funded by the manufacturer, and were conducted entirely by their staff and researchers, The reports were published by the manufacturer without (apparently) being peer reviewed. The data resulting from the trials has never been made public and has never been available for review. Even during court cases the data remained Confidential and not discussed. The change to use Relative Risk instead of Odds Ratio makes grossly over emphasises even small benefits and is considered to be misleading. RR gives no indication of time and is a single point value but is used to imply coverage over time and progression towards a beneficial outcome.