Put on statins, have questions

copey399 said:

So how do I stand then, having been on them for 12 years and now in my 70s do you think? Beginning to wonder if they contributed to my T2 diagnosis recently It's funny I've noticed better BS since I halved the dose.

Click to expand...

I am soooo sorry.
You will never know, but if the facts fit...?
Worth reading up, and discussing with your health team whether giving them a rest for a while might be a good idea.

This is what bothers me most about statins. There must be thousands and 10s of thousands of people even millions, all over the world, experiencing side effects without a clue that the statins are causing them.

I mean, we all get older, don't we? All get random aches and pains. All get decreasing muscle strength. Glucose intolerance, pre diabetes and T2 are more prevalent, the older we get...

But all of those could be statin side effects. And sometimes they develop so slowly, and so insidiously, that it is impossible to link their onset to starting statins.

Prescription meds are such a minefield There's no doubt that some of them can be life-saving but there are so many being dished out where the side effects are worse than the condition they are meant to help.

I had side affects from statins and came off them. During the time that I was taking them my hba1c rose significantly from 48 to 54 - within 6 months of coming off them it had dropped back to 42 and it is now 36. Although I have the 'statins discussions' every time I have a check-up ( currently 6 monthly) I am determined not to go back onto them as I feel that, for me, they pose a risk to my health.

Brunneria said:

@Pinkorchid

You state that you have experienced no side effects from statins.
But i don't think you can confidently make that claim.

Statins are known to raise blood glucose levels and increase the risk of diabetes (it is listed as a contraindication on the leaflets inside every box).

You have mentioned elsewhere that you have been prediabetic for several years, and have just been diagnosed as type 2. So it is perfectly possible that taking statins has accelerated or even caused your development of type 2.

Of course, you will never know, but your doc should have discussed this with you, and made you aware of the risks when he prescribed the statins. The fact that you don't already know this, suggests that he/she did not give you important information when prescribing.

If your development of type 2 is in any way a side effect of long term statin use, then you have my deepest sympathy.

There is also mounting evidence that prescribing statins to anyone over 70 years old does significantly more harm than good:
http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-News/statins-elderly-lipitor-zocor/2013/10/24/id/532854/

Click to expand...

I had a glucose intolerance for a few years before I took statins but I will never know if they have caused the T2 but no point in stressing about it I look on the bright side and am lucky that at 76 I don't have any other medical problems to cope with

Pinkorchid said:

I had a glucose intolerance for a few years before I took statins but I will never know if they have caused the T2 but no point in stressing about it I look on the bright side and am lucky that at 76 I don't have any other medical problems to cope with

Click to expand...

I think to get to 76 and your only medical problem is T2 diabetes is actually not bad going. Many would be happy with that

stillo said:

Hi

it is very apparent that i need statins but unfortunately they cause me a great deal of back and thigh pain to the point that i become immobile, Dr as agreed to monitor me but my Cholesterol is alays high, i will never take a statin again

Stillo

Click to expand...

it may be worth asking if you can change statin, I was on artvostatin (or something like this) & i had horrendous muscle pain I changed to simvastatin & have had no side effects at all

I personally would never take statins for a start one thing they do cause is type 2 diabetes that has been proven
secondly disregardless of what's wrong with you they dont increase your lifespan

you would do better to find ways to increase your good cholesterol
the body needs cholesterol for one the nervous system cannot function correctly without it

do your own research google is your friend search truth about statins

I too have just been put on statins. I've been type 1 for 28 years. I have excellent cholesterol results and no complications. When I was 40 I was told 'NICE guidelines recommend everyone over 40 with a long history of type 1 diabetes should have statins to be used as a preventative measure'. I refused - I have no family history of cholesterol problems or heart attacks. I've put it off 6 years - my cholesterol readings are still excellent - but at my last review, aged 46, I have succumbed to the pressure. I have yet to take my first one!

Amchad said:

I too have just been put on statins. I've been type 1 for 28 years. I have excellent cholesterol results and no complications. When I was 40 I was told 'NICE guidelines recommend everyone over 40 with a long history of type 1 diabetes should have statins to be used as a preventative measure'. I refused - I have no family history of cholesterol problems or heart attacks. I've put it off 6 years - my cholesterol readings are still excellent - but at my last review, aged 46, I have succumbed to the pressure. I have yet to take my first one!

Click to expand...

Please do read all the links on this and various other statin threads so you can make an informed decision before you take the first one. You''re being given (offered is the term they use but they seem to be pretty forceful with it - perhaps because the practice gets money for each person it can put on statins....) a medicine for something you haven't got. They claim its preventative but 6 out of a 100 people who take statins will still suffer a heart attack or stroke. Potentially it may save 4 out of that 100 from a non-fatal heart attack or stroke as the other 90 percent would never suffer a heart attack or stroke anyway.
It has been shown that it does not increase your lifespan and recent research points to the fact that a higher cholesterol is protective in females and as you get older. Cholesterol litself has been shown not to be a cause of heart disease so do ask what exactly a statin is doing to protect you and what studies show they offer any protection to women.
They claim side effects are rare but it should be remembered that in trials those who suffer immediate ill effects are excluded from the trial anyway (it would be unethical to make someone continue in a trial if they are suffering from it). Anecdotal evidence suggests side effects are pretty common and one of those is to raise blood glucose levels as well as muscle pain (due to the fact ti disrupts the mechanism by which cells obtain their energy). I have read that side effects are more common in females and those who are active.
It's your call but be aware that the GPs follow NICE guidelines which are set by a panel, many of whom have strong links to pharmaceutical companies. GPs are busy people and often unaware of the latest research and rely on info supplied by drug company reps.or that circulated by NICE etc.

Hi. I am Type 2 on Insulin and Diabetic Tablets as well. I have been taking stations for almost 12 years and never had any side effects or problems. At my last diabetic review (few weeks ago) my cholesterol was 3.1. Here's the breakdown: HDL 1.1, LDL: 1.8, Trigs: 2.2. The Diabetic Consultant is pleased with these figures and my HBA1C 62.

I was put on a low dose statin last year cholesterol as it should be. When I asked why I was told it was a preventative measure. Type 1 for 48 years. Prevent rather than cure.

As long as people are aware that statins prevent at best 4 out of 100 people who take them for 5 years, from having a non-fatal heart attack or stroke. 6 out of the 100 will have a heart attack or stroke even taking a statin for 5 years and 90 out of 100 will have taken statins for 5 years but would never have had a heart attack or stroke anyway. Improving diet and lifestyle is much more effective than taking a statin in preventing heart disease. There is no evidence that statins are effective for women or older people. For me a 4% efficacy rate at best is not worth it when I can improve my chances of not having any of these events to a much greater degree by improving my diet and taking more exercise which have no side effects and help overall health.

I am seriously thinking about stopping my statins because although my cholesterol level is in range I am getting terrible pains every so often in my legs and think it could be the cause of it although the dr thinks it is gout I don't think it is

I am the same. My cholesterol hasn't moved in over 3 years and now they are threatening me with statins also. My nurse wants me under 2.5 - the margins are getting tighter for us in the UK.

Emma1980 said:

I am the same. My cholesterol hasn't moved in over 3 years and now they are threatening me with statins also. My nurse wants me under 2.5 - the margins are getting tighter for us in the UK.

Click to expand...

Total cholesterol of 2.5 seems very low to me. Has your nurse explained why? The recommended standard is 3 to 4 for diabetics. Low cholesterol is just as bad for us as high cholesterol - our bodies need it.

Cholesterol is as vital to the body as oxygen and too much oxygen can kill as well as too little but they don't fret over oxygen levels on a daily basis. Taking statins would seem akin to deciding that because oxygen is poisonous in large amounts everyone should live halfway up a mountain where the air is thinner (less oxygen) so we aren't killed by it's poisonous effects.

That would seem to be about as daft as giving everyone statins to the point they appear to be trying to eliminate cholesterol when it is actually vital and not a direct case of heart disease. Just as living around sea level would seem to allow the body to function at optimal levels of oxygen so it used to be stated that cholesterol around 5 or 5.5 was optimal for good health and that for most people the body's normal range was the right one for that body.

And sure you can live halfway up the mountain - you might get a few side effects (headaches, altitude sickness) but as the body adjusts to it's reduced oxygen supply they tend to wear off and you can get by though it wouldn't be the best thing for your body. Same with cholesterol - this mania for ever lower levels of cholesterol may not kill you but your body wont be functioning at it's best.