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

QRisk Calculator from bbc article on statins

Well I've just done it and my heart age is 61 (I am 48) with a 6.5% score.
I have had elevated bgs for 38 years and feel as if I will never achieve a normal for human, hba1c and that's what is causing the damage to my blood vessels. Lots of mitigating factors though in my favour so I'd be interested to get a calcium scan done to see what the actual disease looks like (see Ivor Cummins and film The Widowmaker for more on the inadequacy of risk 'bingo' like this).
As to the OPs original post re scoring for diabetes control, I'd add the duration of the disease which must be a factor independent of age especially for type 1s though less so for type 2s who probably have metabolic disease for a longer duration than their actual diagnosis.
 
DCUKMod said:
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.
Click to expand...
The downside of that is insurance. My annual holiday insurance specifically asks (in relation to diabetes) have I been told to take stains rather than do I take statins. Extremely limited thinking but legal should I have a claim.

I need to find out exactly what my notes say. I had lipids done at diagnosis which were high but pretty sure my qrisk then was low enough it wasn’t pushed when I declined statins. I’ve refused to be tested for cholesterol whilst losing weight and not sure how that’s been documented! Now I’m stable I’m willing to see what’s what.
 
HSSS said:
The downside of that is insurance. My annual holiday insurance specifically asks (in relation to diabetes) have I been told to take stains rather than do I take statins. Extremely limited thinking but legal should I have a claim.

I need to find out exactly what my notes say. I had lipids done at diagnosis which were high but pretty sure my qrisk then was low enough it wasn’t pushed when I declined statins. I’ve refused to be tested for cholesterol whilst losing weight and not sure how that’s been documented! Now I’m stable I’m willing to see what’s what.
Click to expand...

I am not told to take them. I have never been prescribed statins. I am offered them. I decline that offer.
 
DCUKMod said:
I am not told to take them. I have never been prescribed statins. I am offered them. I decline that offer.
Click to expand...
Personally I agree with you entirely. Not sure what an insurance claim would make of the notes that say “offered” as opposed to “told” to take them though.
 
HSSS said:
Personally I agree with you entirely. Not sure what an insurance claim would make of the notes that say “offered” as opposed to “told” to take them though.
Click to expand...
My records show no recommendation. Her comments are that the line is she should offer all T2s statins. My records show no prescriptions and my T 2 resolved.

All insurance interactions involve full disclosure.
 
My Doctors QRISK2 in January was 2.1, down from 4.4 due to blood pressure, HDL and Trig figures. I found a QRISK3 calculator which was 1.9, interesting that LDL was not required.
 
I learned just a few minutes ago that what they would be better measuring is HDL eflux capacity. Ivor Cummins mentions it in his latest podcast with guest Gabor Edosi, a forty five minute chat that is pure gold for anyone interested in lipids.
 
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...
Gulp, @DCUKMod The newer version means that is less tested !!
My daughter used to think GP was short for guinea pig, but nowadays I thinks it might be
GPT, guinea pig tester !!
 
kitedoc said:
Gulp, @DCUKMod The newer version means that is less tested !!
My daughter used to think GP was short for guinea pig, but nowadays I thinks it might be
GPT, guinea pig tester !!
Click to expand...

Kitedoc, let's face it when it comes to any risk assessment, the value derived can be informative, but it is after all a best guess, based on certain scored critera. The definitions of those criteria may, or may not be a decent match to the subject of the risk assessment.

I can't be certain how typical my own T2 profile is to that used by the QRisk system, but my guess would be it's not a great match

Diagnosed, October 13: 73 or 8.8% (How did that happen?)
February 14: 37 or 5.5%
May 14: 34 or 5.3%
August 14: 32 or 5.1%
November 14: 33 or 5.1%
May 15: 31 or 5.0%
October 15: 33 or 5.1%
September 16: 31 or 5.0%
November 17: 33 or 5.1%
March 18: A "bonus", unexpected test due to other bloods - 30 or 4.9%. I joined the 4s club! I hadn't expected a reduction, having got used to toggling 33<>31<>33<>31 for the last 3 years, literally.
March 19: 27 or 4.6% Another surprising reduction.

Labels and blunt measuring instruments can be unhelpful in many aspects of life as well as healthcare.

If I am assessed as 3, 13 or 33% risk of any given event, it means I am equally at 97, 87 or 67% of the same event not occuring. Provided I make my own risk assessment and am willing to live (or die) with the consequences of my actions, that's good for me.

One day, I may get in very wrong indeed, but I'm as likely to trust my own learning and judgement as something that classifies hundreds of thousands of people in one score.
 
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...

Which shows how daft it is of course. Uncontrolled diabetes (ie, at its absolute worst) probably is as damaging as smoking...when my diabetic Mum was in a hospital ward at the end of her life with a stroke the entire ward was filled with smokers and people with diabetes, all seemingly suffering from the same type of problems associated with circulation, and most of them missing limbs). However, controlled diabetes is surely an entirely different story so why is it all lumped together?
 
KK123 said:
Which shows how daft it is of course. Uncontrolled diabetes (ie, at its absolute worst) probably is as damaging as smoking...when my diabetic Mum was in a hospital ward at the end of her life with a stroke the entire ward was filled with smokers and people with diabetes, all seemingly suffering from the same type of problems associated with circulation, and most of them missing limbs). However, controlled diabetes is surely an entirely different story so why is it all lumped together?
Click to expand...

The only thing I can think of, as someone above mentioned, is the damage may already be significant even if not outwardly obvious, before full control was achieved. The smoking question includes an option for ex-smokers.
 
Back
Top