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

QRisk Calculator from bbc article on statins

EllieM

Master
Retired Moderator
Messages
10,388
Location
New Zealand
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Pump
Dislikes
hypos and forum bugs
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47933345

Cholesterol-lowering "statin" drugs taken by millions of Britons may not work well enough in about half of those prescribed them, research suggests. (taken from above article)

So I then clicked on the "are statins the right choice for me" to get to the NICE page here
http://indepth.nice.org.uk/are-statins-the-best-choice-for-me/index.html
where they recommend it for anyone with a 10% or greater risk of having a cardiovascular event in the next ten years (used to be 20% and it reduces your risk by about a third?)

Then they link to the Qrisk calculator
https://qrisk.org/2017/

Looks like my score is increased by 10% just by through being T1 diabetic, (about the same increase of risk as a heavy smoker).
But, there's no way of putting in an hbA1c into the mix, which is what I'd really like to see. (Seems pretty obvious to me that there will be completely different results for a diabetic with an hba1c of 5, 7 or 10...... Personally, if I kept my hba1c at prediabetic levels I'd reckon to ignore the diabetic factor. ) Also, I'd want to put in my age at diagnosis, which you'd also think would be super relevant.

So, anyone know of a better qrisk calculator, or statistics on hba1c and risk, length of diagnosis and risk?

It's frustrating that there's no way to input how well controlled I am into the system so as to quantify the risk. If you're a smoker you can change the yes/no in the smoker field to drastically improve your health stats, I want to see what an hba1c of 6 rather than 7 or 8 does for me.
 
Did you know that if you do not know your lipid values then the Qrisk will calculate your risk including your postcode?
 
This has always been my argument with my GP, well one of them!
 
Guzzler said:
Did you know that if you do not know your lipid values then the Qrisk will calculate your risk including your postcode?
Click to expand...

Wow, so tempted to go back and play with postcodes. (I no longer live in the UK so omitted that.) I wonder what the postcode for Buckingham Palace is?
It was interesting that being 10kg overweight made almost no difference to my risk, whereas being T1 or smoking (I don't smoke) added a massive 10%.
My risk went from 4% to 9% to 16% when I put in all my information and went from non-diabetic to T2 to T1.

And even with my cholesterol levels in, postcodes make a massive difference !
 
My points precisely.

Control of or any other factors relating diabetes is irrelevant. It’s perfectly willing to guess your lipids. If I move house my risk goes up or down depending on where I go. Ex smoker, how many how long ago might be relevant. Did I smoke 1 a day 30 yrs ago or 60 a day last week? The new qrisk 3 includes migraine too but not how often, 1 a year or 3 a week?

A crazy blunt tool to see if I need questionable medication with questionable results for a questionable problem.
 
EllieM said:
Wow, so tempted to go back and play with postcodes. (I no longer live in the UK so omitted that.) I wonder what the postcode for Buckingham Palace is?.....
Click to expand...

SW1A 1AA!
 
Rachox said:
SW1A 1AA!
Click to expand...

And no, it doesn't get you a better rating. I think I'd better move back in with my dad (rural hampshire), that would massively reduce my cardio risk.
 
If you goggle "Jennifer Elliott vs DAA' there is a link to an article on the Lipid Hypothesis written by Jennifer.
In this article Jenifer discusses the antics of Ancel Keys - whose bad research led to the idea that saturated fat
is bad, back in the 1950's. (Mind you he advocated the Mediterranean diet as being good to prevent heart disease
despite the fact that, according to Zoe Harcombe, there is more saturated fat, weight for weight, in olive oil than pork !!
Jennifer also discusses the Framingham study, the one from which the various 'risk factors' for heart disease were
supposedly derived.
In that study cholesterol was confirmed as a risk factor for heart disease even though the study group of
men and women (which was not large statistically) did not have known factors for heart disease and high cholesterol
ruled out such as frank diabetes," metabolic syndrome" or raised BSLs not in diabetic range and thyroid disease.
Essentially the Framingham study was a sham as far is establishing cholesterol as any sort of risk factor for heart
disease.
Years later we see the effect of such mischief and alleged misrepresentation in the form of statins being forced onto
people by Big Pharma in league with a gullible medical profession.
 
I played around with the qrisk a while back, absolutely absurd tool. About as good as using a spinning prize wheel, give it a spin and see what you get.
 
What do you expect with these calculators... https://qrisk.org/2017/

I once messed with a "biorythm""program on a an early 1980s Acorn computor bought for my sister that she couldn't get her head round? It suggested (nay calculated) I would flatline by the time I was 32. Spooky!

One thing is for sure. I'm still here. & my younger sister still has no patience with technology....
 
It's interesting they have chosen to link to an old version of the QRisk calc. The 2018 version is also avalable, here: https://qrisk.org/three/
 
I know they have to calculate 'risk' somehow but this qwirky thing is a load of rubbish, I doubt whether it effectively gives a relative risk, never mind an absolute one. As Ellie says, being 'diabetic' adds 10% so you're statin material no matter what. Take that out and the risk drops to around 3 to 4%. I refuse to believe that my diabetes requires me to have statins automatically when I know (and they know) that it is currently well under control. If nothing else matters then why do they go on so much about weight/lifestyle/food/exercise/smoking/drinking and all the rest? Clearly none of that affects your risk as proven by the qwirky formula! I've just done it again and it gives me a heart age of 71 (I'm 58). I run miles every day, don't drink or smoke, resting heart rate of 55, slim, active, eat well...blah blah but no, I'm '71' apparently.
 
Last edited:
I wonder how much this piece of software cost NHS/PHE? And the cost of putting comparatively healthy people on a preventative drug with (very) little proven benefit if one has not already been diagnosed with a heart condition or had a cardiac event?
This was one of my arguments with my GP. I asked him when was the last time anyone even had a stethoscope to my chest let alone put me through in depth testing. He was most aggrieved that I stuck to my guns and kept repeating that statins prevent cardiac events. I almost said that he should put patients on antibiotics for the rest of their lives.... just in case.
 
DCUKMod said:
It's interesting they have chosen to link to an old version of the QRisk calc. The 2018 version is also avalable, here: https://qrisk.org/three/
Click to expand...

NICE still tells GPs to use the 2017 version. It hasn't been updated. Or it hadn't the last time I looked. My surgery still uses the 2017 one.

The smoking v diabetes thing is interesting. Scrub diabetes and add smoking, and the risk lowers.
 
Rachox said:
My surgery still use QRisk 2 2017! My score is better on the 2018 version!
Click to expand...
Bluetit1802 said:
NICE still tells GPs to use the 2017 version. It hasn't been updated. Or it hadn't the last time I looked. My surgery still uses the 2017 one.

The smoking v diabetes thing is interesting. Scrub diabetes and add smoking, and the risk lowers.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I had the "statins for special folks" (i.e. those with diabetes) a week ago, and my GP was at pains to point out she had used the new version.
 
DCUKMod said:
Interestingly, I had the "statins for special folks" (i.e. those with diabetes) a week ago, and my GP was at pains to point out she had used the new version.
Click to expand...

I still haven't managed to persuade my doctor that they are having it both ways - they are treating me as diabetic for the Q-risk but have coded me diabetes resolved. I will be bringing this up at my next nurse review.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
I still haven't managed to persuade my doctor that they are having it both ways - they are treating me as diabetic for the Q-risk but have coded me diabetes resolved. I will be bringing this up at my next nurse review.
Click to expand...

I hadn't thought of it from that angle. You are quite right!
 
I can't get too worked up about it.

I have done my research. My components and ratios are excellent, even if they add up to an QRisk inconveniently large number.

My informed decision, for me, is that I will not be taking statins, so whether the GP offers them to me, and ticks the T2 box or not is a passing white noise.

My records also show Diabetes Resolved.

MY GP's notes read that I have been offered a statin, which I declined. She added that I am very informed on health matters and have made my own risk assessment and informed decision.

I'm fine with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…